We Laugh Because it is Funny but also Because it is True: The Weakness of the Historical Method
This amusing videoclip makes the same point that my polymathic amigo Dave Schuler likes to make about the true state of historiography about classical antiquity:
I will now let Dave speak for himself:
….Take the example of a single book, Plato’s Republic. The book was written in something like the 4th century BCE. Until the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in Egypt in the 1945 the very earliest manuscript of The Republic that was known to exist was from around 895 CE. The version of The Republic in the Nag Hammadi library dates from something like 325 CE. Assuming that the text that came down to the Founding Fathers was derived from the 895 manuscript (a very bad assumption-it wasn’t), the book had been preserved for a half millennium by Christian scribes for Christian purposes.This would be a good point for a digression-within-a-digression about the Arab copyists who preserved many works of classical antiquity but that would be too big a digression. Suffice it to say that these copyists took copies that had been preserved by Christians and preserved them themselves for their own, presumably Muslim, reasons.So The Republic has a history something like this. We don’t have a single copy of the work from Plato’s time. For six or seven hundred years it was copied by Greek and Roman scribes for reasons we can only guess at. It was then copied for between a half and a full millennium by Christian, Jewish, and Arab scribes for Christian, Jewish, and Muslim reasons.That is the history of every single work from classical antiquity that survived until the time of the founding of our republic. We have, essentially, no idea of the entire body of work produced by the ancients. What was known of classical antiquity at the time of the founding our republic consisted of the buildings that still survived that they had built (often highly modified for Christian use), works of art and other artifacts, classical writings that had been preserved by Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scribes for their own purposes and that, presumably, furthered their agenda, and accounts of classical antiquity from Christian and Jewish writers.That’s it.
History is an empirical profession based on standards of evidence – in part. It is also an art of crafting a narrative that can effectively communicate the meaning of the evidence of an event that is known to exist. Leopold von Ranke, one of the founders of the modern historical method, admonished his students that history should explain “wie es eigentlich gewesen ist” ( “Tell it how it really was” or “how it actually has been”) and eschew grand theories in seeking causation. These are difficult objectives to balance.
Historians are prisoners of their primary sources. Without them they are theorists or mere speculators. Too few, as with ancient history, and the historian is engaged in the same sort of guesswork as archaeologists and paleontologists or they are reduced to ideological theorizing, something historians are supposed to hold as suspect and as fit only for political scientists.
Too many sources, as with any modern presidential administration, and the sheer number makes it difficult to find critical evidence or draw upon a defensibly representative sample. Ronald Reagan supposedly signed one million documents in his eight years in the White House. True or not, the figure would represent a fraction of what his administration generated. Many documents of great importance are nonetheless not important enough at the time to cross the desk of the President of the United States.
The need to craft a narrative, imposes other restraints. There is no “history” unless the results of a historian’s work are disseminated and understood, challenged and defended. Narrative works require the formating of historical events as a story and while this is reasonable in most instances, some periods of crisis are products of chance or a series of small acts that while unrelated, happen to intersect. Imposing a strong narrative frame on these situations is misleading but without the “story” there is no hook attractive enough to secure the attention of the general audience.
This is not to say, as Henry Ford did, that “history is bunk” but rather we need to be aware of the practical limitations under which historians labor. While history is not sociology or philosophy, it is not to be confused with physics.
December 17th, 2009 at 8:33 am
"History is an empirical profession based on standards of evidence – in part. It is also an art of crafting a narrative that can effectively communicate the meaning of the evidence of an event that is known to exist." (Zen)
.
This is a great post, maybe one of the most important you’ve written. The "narrative" you write about is something I think about a lot. The narrative is what holds the verifiable "facts" together. Its not the facts that help build people’s understanding of history, but the narrative that accompanies it. The acceptable narrative (in mainstream history) always supports the current zeitgeist. Here’s my "Indian" example:
.
In 1492 Europeans came to North America and settled in hope of a better life. As they settled the land they had to compete with Indians for resources. Before the Europeans got there the Indians competed against each other for the same land. When the Indians fought the Europeans for this land (despite giving a good fight) they lost, but most died of disease. The Europeans understood that everyone needed a homeland and gave the Indians large pieces of land and didn’t require them to pay taxes. Today Indians are given special privileges that even the European settlers don’t enjoy.
.
OK, now compare that narrative with the current narrative:
.
The Europeans came to North America in 1492. They found a peaceful people (Indians) who tried to teach them to grow corn when they had nothing to eat. The Europeans betrayed the peaceful Indians and committed genocide against them for their land. They placed them in concentration camps called "reservations" and continue to oppress them today.
.
You see, the facts are the same in both histories but the narratives are different. Now I have several ideas for why we’re exposed to the current narrative, but for this discussion it doesn’t matter.
.
The important thing to understand is this: If the people presenting you your history use a narrative that attempts to demoralize or disrespect you, then the wrong people are teaching you your history. If your leaders are allowing these people to teach your children this history, then you have the wrong leaders.
December 17th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Ok, I can agree not to compare history to physics. But why not paleontology?
.
I am reminded of a quote from John Lewis Gaddis’s book, The Landscapes of History:
.
No geologist has ever penetrated the surface of the Earth beyond a few miles, and yet they self-confidently tell us how what happens down there causes continents to drift and earthquakes to occur up here. No paleontologist has actually ever seen a dinosaur and yet they reconstruct the livs and deaths of these creatures in ways that convince their colleagues — to say nothing of small children — that they know what they are talking about…. With the exception of a few biologists who have tracked the changing shapes of finches’ beaks in the Galapagos, no one has ever witnessed the process of natural selection beyond the microscopic level and yet the entire discipline is based upon it (43).
. I concur with Gaddis – In discussing the course of human events, history is as close as you can get to science. There are differences – particularly with ‘lab sciences’ such as physics where one can run the experiment over and over again – but I think the similarities outweigh the differences. Natural historians have the same problem social historians do. There are very few primary sources left from the Mesozoic. Just as our knowledge of the Classical world is limited by the attributes of those who preserved its writings, so too is our knowledge of the Jurassic world limited by the attributes of that which preserved its fossils. Think of the Christian monks’ worldview as a primordial bog or desert — in both cases, those that dwelt outside of their range faded away to the past.
.
Of course, this does not detract from your point. History has its limits. But then again, so do most of the sciences.
December 17th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Aaah…my site appears to be having some tech issues…fix one problem and then broken code appears. Great comments gentlemen, I will have a substantive reply after I clean up the post and T. Greer’s comment…..
December 17th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
[…] Finally, anyone inclined to take academic models too seriously should see this clip featured on Zenpundit: Beatles 3000. […]
December 17th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
That’s why the principles according to which narratives are constructed matter. As a crude example, if you try to craft a narrative of European history from 500 CE to the present which ignores Christianity, it will inevitably look like The Red Shoes, surreal because something important is absent. Similarly, if you try to superimpose the political and social attitudes of the present on the past, whatever narrative is produced will be distorted. And yet, that’s the animating principle of a lot of modern scholarship in the humanities.
December 17th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
[…] might want to take a look at my friend Mark Safranski’s post on the limits and constraints of historiography: Historians are prisoners of their primary sources. Without them they are theorists or mere […]
December 17th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Zen, that is a fantastic find. Had to link it to SWC thread CvC on Insurgency…..fits perfectly.
December 17th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Sorry, but I simply can’t resist. What does this say about "Why military history trumps buzzwords" in Armed Forces Journal by William F. Owens? His implication being that anyone trying to gain better understanding on current warfare – using different lenses -and using descriptive terms seeking clarity of expression is simply a buzzword monger who never read any history, am I wrong? You may not like "fourth generation warfare" but I’ll bet some single malt old Bill Lind has read a little history, GI Wilson and Frank Hoffman also. As an add ref Dave Schuler’s comment: How appropriate is the story of the Vietnam War without discussion of POW issue as negotiations worried there way through 1972-73? Well, last I checked, not one mention in California High School history books.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Zen-dude!
You’ve done it again! linked a excellent post from Dave, then ginned up a short essay that as Seerov notes, is one of your best and most insightful.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Nice strawman fallacy. I find the definition of hoistroy presented to be rather lacking and suggest you look at the work of R. G. Collingwood, the founder of the modern philosophy of history for a discussion of why what you have described, which he dismisses as "scissors and paste history," is not history.
History is much more than just a search through documentary evidence from primary and secondary sources to compile a likely story about how things occurred in the past. Contrary to what your posting intimates, history is not merely a laundry listing of res gestae (things done). History, properly done, tells us about ourselves because it explicates things about who and what we are, how and why we are motivated to act.
History is, following Collingwood, re-enactment. And re-enactment is much more than dressing up the part of a Colonial militiaman to camp out on the town square over July 4th as part of an Independence Day celebration, lining up with a collection of other folks clad in Civil War uniforms to exchange volleys of blanks at each other on the Sharpsburg Battlefield, or donning a hauberk, plate or chain mail and swinging a broadsword or mace around at the Renaissance fair in Busch Gardens-Williamsburg on a fine Fall afternoon. Re-enactment properly understood is what the von Ranke quotation about "telling it as it really was" alludes to although a more correct understanding is that history tells it like it really is.
I agree that studying the type of history you describe will not give us answers to current problems, but that type of history is not meant to be used to gain understanding. It is meant to be entertainment.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Hello WM,
.
Well, if I had argued that history, properly defined, was composing a laundry list chronology of events, I’d see greater merit in your strenuous objection to my post. You also seem to be using the word "re-enactment" to mean several different things. If you mean that the historian provides ( or should provide) an analysis of causation in their narrative that gives the audience a broad comprehension , I’d agree that is a fundamental task, but nothing in my post precluded it. If instead you are arguing for creative reification as the ideal, well, no I’m inclined to lean away from mythologizing as being a good professional practice for historians though a reasonable one for others, say for example, poets. 😉
.
There seems to be an idea at SWC thread that I was attacking historians per se. I was not, historians provide an invaluable body of knowledge; I’m just pointing out the limits of that methodology and that seemed to irritate a few people.
December 19th, 2009 at 3:02 am
T. Greer, Good post and I agree with you and Gaddis (got to get yet another book—the contributors here are putting ever behind in my list of "must" reading. It took a while, but I found an interesting quote from Michael Polanyi’s book, Personal Knowledge that I finished recently—I apologize in advance as I don’t know "how" to format to make the quote stand out. Here is Mr. Polanyi:" We may conclude that empiricism, like moral neutrality of science, is a principle laid down and interpreted for us by the outcome of past controversies about the scientific value of particular sets of ideas. Our appreciation of scientific value has developed historically from the outcome of such controversies, much as our sense of justice has taken shape from the outcome of judicial decisions through past centuries. Indeed, all our cultural values are the deposits of a similar historic succession of intellectual upheavals. But ultimately, all past mental strife can be interpreted today only in light of what we ourselves decide to be the true outcome and lesson of this history…The lesson of history is what we ourselves accept as such." Much as the "narrative" discussion above, we tend to cling to that history that is meaningful in our area of interest—and in history and in science there is tremendous peer pressure (there is a great WSJ article today about the pressure on scientists with respect climate journals) to comply—and the revolutionaries in science and history don’t–at least not at first.Zen, this is perhaps one of the better posts—I was determined to give Polanyi a rest for a week—my margin notes made the task of finding the above easier. Thanks!
December 19th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Mark,,
As I tried to point out in my first comment, the limits to the methodology you discuss are only limits because that "scissors and paste" approach is itself a very limited understanding of the study of history. I was not using re-enactment to mean a number of things. My examples were meant to show that the common use of historical re-enactment is not what Collingwood had in mind. I was not arguing for an analysis of agent causation in a given application of practical reasoning or some creative reification of an ideal. Neither was I describing some Hegelian move to realize the absolute idea. Historical re-enactment as I understand it is more along the lines of achieving an understanding of what it is to be human and deal with what life throws at us, It is similar to what one learns from reading good literature. When I understand, historically, Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon, for example, I don’t put myself in Roman sandals, trying to think like a 1st Century BC patrician to construct an argument whose conclusion is "I, qua Caesar, must cross the Rubicon." The concept of re-enactment is much more complex than that and encompasses the whole of human understanding.
I concur that you did not argue "that history, properly defined, was composing a laundry list chronology of events" As I previously noted by the use of the verb "intimates," you merely left it understood that this was the kind of historical exposition that you found to be a mistaken way to solve problems. Look at some of your statements, like "Historians are prisoners of their primary sources," "Too many sources, as with any modern presidential administration, and the sheer number makes it difficult to find critical evidence or draw upon a defensibly representative sample. Ronald Reagan supposedly signed one million documents in his eight years in the White House"and "Narrative works require the formating of historical events as a story " Regardless of your intent, these quoted sentences, particularly the last, convey a view of history as a chronological recounting of events (unless you have some special way of defining "narrative" and "story").
I do not see you attacking historians per se. I also do not see that tendency in other postings on SWC relative to your post on the supposed weakness of the historical method. This latter point is really a non sequitur to the issue at hand, and I find your assertion of this tendency to be akin to an argumentum ad misericordiam. Notwithstanding, I agree that the methodology you criticised is limited. What I am suggesting is that the method of history you presented in the post is rather narrow I submit it is a straw man when compared to the method used by practicing historians, rather than that used by writers who aim to entertain us with stories about past events and the people who were involved in them. One may find books by Ram Dass in a book store’s philosophy section, but that does not make those books examples of an application of a good philosophical method. Mutatis mutandis, the same logic applies to history.
December 19th, 2009 at 6:15 am
WM,
.
I am not making an argumentum ad misericordiam – I just do not agree with your characterizations of my post. Or your open-ended description of historical methodology.
.
You wrote:
.
"Historical re-enactment as I understand it is more along the lines of achieving an understanding of what it is to be human and deal with what life throws at us, It is similar to what one learns from reading good literature."
.
Good. Now I have a clearer idea of what you meant by "re-enactment" – and it seems to me more akin to describing the effects of undergoing a classical liberal education. That would be a process of intellectual inquiry that is broader than a single disciplinary methodology. Liberal eduducation is a good thing, in my view – so by whatever name you wish to use, we can say "historical re-enactment" if you like – I’d agree this is something valuable that we should strive for, but historical scholarship, in my view, is indeed "narrow" and more focused.
.
My view of historical methodology reflects the training I received where one’s analysis should actually correlate with the evidence and the preponderance of that evidence should be from primary sources. Speculation and extrapolation should be used cautiously and be clearly identified as such and we should be cognizant of the limits of what the available evidence supports. That’s not the only way to engage in scholarship but the further away one moves from that standard, the less recognizable the work will be as a piece of "historical" writing. Maybe your academic experience was vastly diferent than mine, or HistoryGuy99’s but if so, I’d like to hear it.
.
Literature is a great thing, and powerful, but Dostoyevskii, Cervantes and Shakespeare were not historians. Literature and the Arts have a different purpose and effect than that of history – not "better" or "worse" but different. Those historians who use multidisciplinary methods are producing interesting and useful work but there’s no harm in acknowledging that they are enriching their historical narrative by borrowing tools from other fields.
December 19th, 2009 at 6:41 am
Thank you gents for the kind comments!
.
Hi T. Greer,
.
I’d like to clarify that I do enjoy ancient history, which is your field rather than mine, but the paucity of source material presents a different problem than that faced by historians writing on events very close to the present day. Any new major discovery of lost texts can be a significant "game changer" on our understanding of fifth century Athens in a way our understanding of say, Nixon’s approach to nuclear arms control negotiations with the USSR might be changed by declassification. I’d also agree with you that every disdciplinary approach has it’s limits and benefits.
.
Hi Ed,
.
Wilf’s a sharp fellow but CvC is his intellectual lodestone ( not a bad one to choose either) and that’s where he is going to argue from pretty much without exception. Incidentally, Wilf has broken bread or hoisted a glass, something, with Bill Lind and if I recall, Wilf reported they got on well but I don’t think either had their mind changed by the other. Myself, I am impressed with CvC ‘s intellectual range and depth but accept that he was also, in part, a product of his own time and experiences as are we all.
.
Hi Seerov,
.
The "narratives" on issues of race, ethnicity, gender, class, sexual orientation etc. in modern academia today are heavily influenced by various shades of bastardized Marxism – you ( or Bill Lind) go farther than I would on this point because my personal observation was that many ppl are parroting whatever they think will assure them their next postgrad stipend check, a good departmental assignment, journal publication, tenure rec. etc. In other words, careerism rather than sincere belief seems to be a motivator for the non-ideologues. I’ve watched ppl recite/write things I knew they would privately admit were nonsensical because they needed to pay their tuition. Very Sovietesque and, I think, ultimately as enduring.
December 19th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
J Scott –
.
I very much recommend Gaddis’ book. It is a very easy read (<200 pages), but some of the things Gaddis says are (IMHO) quite profound. Reading it revolutionized the way I think about history. I cannot count how many times I have pulled it out in defense of the discipline. I give the book a solid A+.
.
Mark,
.
I agree with everything you have said so far. However, upon further reflection I think I see a small error in my ways – there <i>is</i> one large difference between the historian and the paleontologist. Both are constrained by their primary sources, so to speak, but only the historian is constrained by the need for a narrative. In this the historian of the Cold War and the historian of Ur are united. History is the science bound by story. (You touch upon this in your original post, of course, but I think the point is worth repeating.)
December 19th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
J. Scott –
.
I very much recommend Gaddis’ book. It is a very easy read (<200 pages), but some of the things Gaddis says are (IMHO) quite profound. Reading it revolutionized the way I think about history. I cannot count how many times I have pulled it out in defense of the discipline. I give the book a solid A+.
.
Mark,
.
I agree with everything you have said so far. However, upon further reflection I think I see a small error in my ways – there <i>is</i> one large difference between the historian and the paleontologist. Both are constrained by their primary sources, so to speak, but only the historian is constrained by the need for a narrative. In this the historian of the Cold War and the historian of Ur are united. History is the science bound by story. (You touch upon this in your original post, of course, but I think the point is worth repeating.)
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
you ( or Bill Lind) go farther than I would on this point because my personal observation was that many ppl are parroting whatever they think will assure them their next postgrad stipend check, a good departmental assignment, journal publication, tenure rec. (Zen)
.
What you point out are symptoms of a sick system and not the cause of the illness.