How should the philosophy of history interact with the practice of working historians? The philosophy of history is challenged to discover and explore the most fundamental questions about historical inquiry and knowledge. How should this research be conducted? And how should the philosopher's development of the subject make use of the practice of the historian? Looking at this question from the point of view of the historian, we will find that the separation between "doing" and "reflecting upon" history is not as sharp as it might appear:
i. Developing new questions and insights
For the best historians, there is no recipe for good historical inquiry and exposition. Although, there are methods and practices of archival research, to be sure, and there are general recommendations like "be well informed on existing knowledge about your subject matter". But the great historians take on their subjects with fresh eyes and new questions. They often arrive at novel ways of framing their historical questions; they find new ways of using available historical evidence, or finding new historical evidence; they discover new ways of drawing inferences from historical data; they arrive at new ways of presenting their knowledge and narratives; and they question existing assumptions about "causation," "agency," or "historical period." As the historian grapples with the topic of research and the evidence that pertains to the topic, he or she is forced to think creatively about issues that go to the heart of historical inquiry and reasoning. In other words, the historian is forced to think as a philosopher of history, in order to achieve “new” insights into the problems she considers.
ii. Endorsing critical methods of inquiry
There is a less creative approach to historical research, of course. One can choose a familiar topic, seek out some new resources that have not yet been fully explored, adopt some familiar theoretical models, and place the findings into a standard narrative for publication. But the results of this type of approach are inherently disappointing; and it is unlikely that new historical insights will emerge. So when we consider the work of really imaginative historians, we find that the researcher is functioning as a philosopher of history at the same time as he or she is developing an innovative and critical approach to the historical question under examination. And this means that the philosopher can gain great insight by working very carefully with the writings of these great historians. The philosopher can probe questions of historical inquiry, historical reasoning, historical presentation, and historical knowledge, by thinking through these questions in conversation with the working historian.
iii. Does history possess directionality?
Philosophers have raised questions about the meaning and structure of the totality of human history. Some philosophers have sought to discover a large organizing theme, meaning, or direction in human history. This may take the form of an effort to demonstrate how history enacts a divine order, or reveals a large pattern (cyclical, teleological, progressive), or plays out an important theme (for example, Hegel's conception of history as the unfolding of human freedom). The ambition of philosophers in each case is to demonstrate that the apparent changes and complexities of historical events can be related to a more fundamental underlying purpose or order.
iv. Historical objectivity
Another issue that has provoked significant attention among philosophers of history is the issue of “objectivity.” Is it possible for historical knowledge to objectively represent the past? Or are forms of bias, omission, selection, and interpretation involved such as to make all historical representations dependent on the perspective of the individual historian? This topic of historical objectivity divides into several different problems;
Firstly, of these is that of the value-ladenness of social action. Does the fact that human actions are value-laden (i.e. based on what the majority thinks is right) make it impossible for the historian to provide a non-value-laden account of those actions?
Second, is the possibility that the historian's interpretations raise the question of the capacity for objectivity or neutrality of the historian himself. Does the intellectual have the ability to investigate the world without regard to the biases that are built into her political or ethical beliefs, her ideology, or her commitments to a class or a social group?
Thirdly, is the question of the objectivity of the historical circumstances themselves. Is there a fixed historical reality, independent from later representations of the facts? Or is history intrinsically “constructed,” with no objective reality independent from the ways in which it is constructed? For example; is there a reality corresponding to the phrase, “the French Revolution,” or is it just that there is simply an accumulation of written versions of the French Revolution?
PROBLEMS INHERENT IN OUR PRESENT PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY
In respect to the relevance of our philosophy of history, it would not be complete talking about the upsides of our philosophy of history without considering its downsides. So, we know that there is a reasonable subject matter for the discipline; but what is wrong with the philosophy of history we currently possess and how can philosophers address it?
Firstly, writings on this subject do not really add up to a coherent and reasonably comprehensive set of ideas. Certain topics have grabbed the centre stage; for example, are there laws in history? What is a narrative? Is history teleological? These and many more have refused to give the spotlight to the other characters. So we might say, we need fresh thinking by talented philosophers who can re-identify a leading set of topics for discussion.
Secondly, and more fundamentally, philosophers have engaged "history" at too great a distance from great historians. Read any really excellent piece of historical writing today like Spence, Schama, Darnton, and Bloch, and you will be struck by a raft of interesting philosophical and conceptual issues. And a new philosophy of history needs to incorporate as much of this range of working historical thinkers as possible.
Finally, why does it matter? It matters because history matters. At any point in time we are created, influenced and formed by our histories. And philosophy reasonably should shed some light on this fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment