While researching some university history departments, I observed that some institutions of higher learning catalog their history department under humanities whilst others lump history with social sciences. Soon my observation became a question: why the heck do they do that?
This launched me into an inner debate over the meaning of history and the purpose of studying it. For me to continue writing, I have to note that I'm not trained in the study of history, or at least, I haven't applied myself to the processes of history and historiography to come up with my own philosophies of history. Perhaps that's what I'm doing right now.
A class I took in undergraduate, which many of you have heard me discuss if you've talked to me more than once, included a discussion of history. We read War and Peace, discussing the questions Tolstoy asked about history. What drives human history? What moves events? Is it the action of individuals? How do the lives of individuals work within the larger framework of great rulers, wars, the rising and falling of nations? Do men make history happen? Or, maybe, do our actions make history happen? Do events, such as war, plagues, famines, etc., determine our actions?
These are the questions that put history under humanities. They involve discussion of the nature of man, his relation to nature (events, at least natural ones), his relation to humanity and history.
Do we study history to understand humanity? to attain a deeper understanding of our humanness?
* * * * * * * * * *
Today I heard the statement: To move forward, we have to come to terms with the past.
This understanding of history (which I think would fall under Henry Ford's assessment, "History is one damn thing after another.") pushes history under the social sciences. As a society, we must study our past so that [fill in the blank] "we don't repeat the past" or "we don't make the same mistakes" or etc.
This approach demands that certain other questions be answered. What is "forward"? and who determines the direction "we" want to move? What are mistakes? Who decides what a mistake is?
* * * * * * * * * *
From my current understanding, I don't see any point in studying history as a "social science." If a society does not agree on fundamental questions, primarily dealing with the "Who," no one can measure if "progress" is "made." And if someone does measure it somehow, the next generation is likely to call it a mistake.
So, you may be asking, what is the value of knowing man? Well, practically, I don't know. But it sure is a heck of a lot o' fun!
[Humanities are worthwhile studies, but I'm not articulate on my reasoning, and I'm being lazy.]
16 comments:
hil ya have some deep thoughts while yer at work, dontcha?
remember that individual views on history can be used by current political players to buttress their arguments and/or actions. for instance, the courts cite to "history" all the time to support an appellate decision. and the history professor duff links to on his page cites to history in support of his arguments that george dubya is a bad president in certain respects.
there are, to be certain, various analyses of the purpose of history and what history actually is. some believe that true history does not exist, it is nothing more than an ephermal collection of human opinions of the events they witnessed and/or heard about. therefore it cannot be studied with any degree of precision, and its use is merely as a tool for current political power.
well there's more to write but im tired of writing at the moment
are you still tired? i was learning! please tell more . . .
im still tired . . . is there such a thing as chronic fatigue
Yes, unfortunately. It's a diagnosable condition. I saw Andy out walking Roscoe the other day, and he said you were welcome to come back any time. They'd be happy to kick out the occupying tenant. Think you'd get any more rest here?
well hopefully ill be back in town in july, so you need to work on getting me a job, hil. im going to try writing a little more:
clearly the problem with the above interpretation of history, which is a decidedly modernistic interpretation, is that events in the past actually DID occur. and, importantly, when alternatives are present and it's not entirely clear what happened, we still know that only one alternative actually occurred, and the others are simply wrong and/or false. This being the case, its VERY important to know exactly what did happen.
compare it to mathematics (and im using pretty big generalizations here to prove a point, duff) . . . there is a correct outcome. if you work the problem incorrectly, the answer you get is simply WRONG. the consequences can be minor (my college algebra exam grades) or disastrous (uncle duff's nuclear power plant explodes).
The consequences of being wrong about an event in history are different, but i.m.o. they can be just as disastrous. and you can imagine the potential for abuse here . . . if you can lead people to believe that an event occurred or did not occur in the past, and the occurrence or non-occurrence of this event supports your current political platform, you can sway all interested listeners to your side. for example, the iranian president stating that the holocaust did not occur and thus the Jews have no reason to be in Israel.
The point is that, just because historical truth is difficult to discern, does not mean that it does not exist (sorry for the double negative). the approach to discerning historical truth is a little different from mathematics, however, in that historians have to deal with the human element as a sort of primary medium, and this is a very uncertain element. but again . .. just because its difficult doesnt support the belief that it doesnt exist. some of these tax problems i work on are unbelievably complicated . . . what kind of result do you think i would get on an exam if i wrote "this is too hard and thus there is no answer."
of course, this leads us headlong into the question: "what is a 'revisionist' historian?" and what is revisionist history? i will give you a hint . . . revisionist historians are similar to "activist" judges. whether that is a good or a bad thing depends on whether they are RIGHT.
for instance: this book is garnering all sorts of criticism. this guy is a self-proclaimed revisionist historian. but . . . that's not important (although it should cause you to increase your scrutiny of his work). what IS important is whether he's right.
how can a historian know if he's right? good question . . . but i will tell you that personal convictions are what typically get in the way of honest historical reporting. on the other hand, without the personal convictions, no one would ever study history. great conundrum, eh?
and the real irony of it is that all history was a present event at one time. in fact, this post is already history.
in my next installment i will discuss the romanticization of historical events and the view that "history" is really just the history of great leaders (these are kind of older issues but nevertheless interesting).
Hey Hil.
I've changed.
:-]
you rock my world.
sj
for some reason the link didn't work.
i'm trying again.
forgive me.
:-]
sara jo, lets stick to topic here . . . write something about history
Well, you're one to talk, N8.
i agree
hilary, how is that rts class coming along
Hi N8.
Were you speaking to me? I think you confused me with someone else. I don't answer to other poeple's names ;-)
Well to quote my son Duff, " Those who study history are doomed to know when it is being repeated" djdmmom
You see, all of this comes into focus when you remember how history began. With Herodotus, and he understood what history was about: "Whoah! Those [fill in people group] are crazy, they practice [fill in heigenic rite] daily! What is up with that?"
i think duff has hit the nail square on the head here. hilary, you can consider this discussion closed and do a new blog post
Post a Comment