Towards a Political and Introspective Historiography
In modern academia, the role of the historian takes on many shades of thought and varies in philosophical perspective and practice. Whether the vast differences within the discipline is acceptable or not is to be determined by analyzing what historians define as “history” itself. While many may envisage history as a study of analyzing the past, or as a way to predict the future, it should be understood as a method aimed at keeping human consciousness of the political enduring through the past, present, and future. As Rosenzweig and Thelen have discovered in their extensive study of people’s personal histories, we are very much shaped and molded by our distinctive historical narrative. [4] These narratives are impacted by the external political environment and inform our dialectical approach to understanding the world. In order for humankind to progress organically, it is important to remain consciously introspective to our political reality so as to change when necessary and maintain what can be considered a transcendental good. This is the purpose of history.
On Impetus
Considering what motivates a historian to explore the past is a practical starting point in analyzing history. There are bountiful reasons that drive one’s interest in a particular direction. However, when examining the world on a macro level, the historian should be most concerned with the organization of people. Since the beginning of human history, humans have attempted to organize themselves into groups, as seen in the earliest primitive varieties. What occurred in these organizational systems led to numerous generations engendering people to take a political course of action in order to maintain, adjust, or transform their organizational structures; thus, changing their shape and identity based on collective deliberation. Without digressing into what should be the responsibility of cultural anthropologists, the importance of this is to understand how humankind has transformed, advanced, or kept reasonable traditions (or abandoned them) through systematic organization.
Furthermore, transformations and traditions are typically guided by the structures put in place by particular groups of people through the edifices of institutions (some that govern or symbolize culture). As civilization aimed to improve conditions and enlighten their subjects, we see early forms of government take shape to uphold said traditions and better integrate process as a measure of representation and order. Whether through democratic or autocratic forms, political development is a centerpiece in what drives history, and is what should aid historians in their quest.
Therefore, social and political change, and the institutionalization of those features, should emphasize transformations that alter the course of human existence. Thoughts surrounding state-formation or cultural change; how society reacted, or reformed; the implementation of laws, etc. are all critical for our broader understanding about societal development. These questions can’t help us predict the future (as many will say ‘history repeats itself’). Nor can they give us an originalist understanding of the past. But they can provide a basis of philosophical and social consciousness in which humankind can self-examine, thereby, maintaining awareness of history in the present. As E. H. Carr references the importance of preserving general knowledge of the French Revolution in order to recognize the enormous impact it had on the Russian Revolution points to the importance of viewing the past through our present eyes as a means to achieve a fruitful understanding of a historical instance, and the transformative effect placed on a society thereafter.[2]
Conceivably, society has become obsessed with the individualist view. Carr argues along the lines of Marxist criticism, in that, history has embraced the Thomas Paine model by separating the individual from society, and the former taking precedence. Of course, such approach provides only a narrow view of history. It turns out, the individual relies heavily on the society in which they live, and conversely, society relies on the individual to do their part. While it is important to be focused on individual instances of history — and bottom-up histories can be hinged on individuals involved in particular moments, respectively — the state of consciousness must be attuned to the affected greater society, as it was in Lenin’s view, the masses that precipitate extensive change yield either growth or decline.[2]
Bottom-up histories can also be hinged on collective movements, as seen in Christopher Hill’s “The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution.”
It can be understood that contexts surrounding political change, social phenomena, and the implications of various law, charge a historian to be perceptive to the occurrences that mold society and those within it to advance or decline, to transform or to remain stagnant. This constant reassessment is what keeps history transcendental.
On The Function of Time
John Lewis Gaddis confers with his readers on just that. While discussing the reality that historians will likely never be in full agreement on the interpretation of history through the context of the past or the present, he invokes a somewhat existential awareness that can lead to some sense of unity within the discipline: “historical consciousness.” Rather than focusing on the dichotomy of past and present in configuring a segmented view of history, he encourages the historian to be vicarious in their application of inquiry and exploration. In fact, interpretation “is itself a vicarious enlargement of experience from which you can benefit.”[3] Introspection leads to curiosity in finding things out.
For example, in the Sonnets, Shakespeare personifies [T]ime and brings meaning to its impact on the human condition. At first, he laments on Time’s misfortunes like decay, dotage, and its power of bringing death. Yet, toward the end of the Sonnets, the speaker discovers transcendentalism through his writings. In other words, he can live forever through his writing. Moreover, in refraining from overstating the passage of time — which seemed to bring only superficial value, i.e., envy and lust — he realized his mere words are what live on forever, stripping away the temporal element from the picture altogether.
Here, Shakespeare commits a resolution to his readers regarding the existential crisis in his mind. The point of this reflection is to lend insight into what historical consciousness actually is; moreover, its importance in taking the place of temporal constraints — how historians wrestle with past and present’s formidable dichotomy in formalizing a narrative. In that, historians can never alter the past since it is undeniably in the past, but they can employ a fluid narrative that brings to life what was once already a lived experience.[3]
On Practice
As discussed, human history is very much shaped by the experience of social and political movements vis-à-vis political formulations and reformulations. Much as families and individuals are shaped by their respective histories — and these histories are frequently reminisced to assess the change of preserved tradition. Society, as a whole, does the same thing. It is the job of the historian to be concerned with the causes and effects of these phenomena. Political history and the organization of peoples lend to better insight of these precise effects. The way historians frame the context of their narrative shouldn’t necessarily be committed to the past or the present but should be focused on self-examined rejuvenation of a particular event. This then brings our attention to the use of judgment and evidence. Although historians should be creative, they should also remain prudent in how they examine sources.
Historians are not scientists. But historians do have to practice a sense of pragmatism that is reminiscent of the sciences. Not necessarily with regard to issues of morality or philosophy, but with issues of observational judgment. It is important for the historian to generate a unique narrative. This narrative can stand as a hypothesis — the historian’s theory or argument on the subject at hand. Scientists embrace the method of hypothesis to then lead to “verification, modification, or refutation.” [2] The sources related to the historian’s subject should always follow analogously with verification, modification, or refutation. What is meant by “modification,” is to reinterpret the past in the present, and by “refutation,” intends to argue in support or opposition of what historians have discovered. This requires an extensive and comprehensive practice of the discipline. Unlike what was discussed earlier, that which employs a rather relativist method of inquiry, this latter step of historical methodology requires a more conservative and diligent approach.
It can be said that every piece of historical research contains some strain of suggestive interpretation. No source can truly be objective, as the essence of objectivity is something of great controversy in the field. This premise gives historians the ability to detect some bias along their investigative research. It should be the job of the historian to interrogate claims but apply methodological continuity within the context of the subject in question, so as to bring meaning to the source. The (somewhat) scientific method explained in the former can be a practical reference point.
James Banner asserts, “historians cannot claim their authority simply because they are scholars.” [1] Of course, everyone should certainly have access to understanding history and becoming well versed in it. However, his message is quite problematic. Not everyone is a historian. As stated, historians should certainly be practicing a sense of pragmatism akin to what is practiced in the sciences. Banner believes individual historians not belonging to institutions of the academy invent ways to apply historical knowledge in practical sorts. By “individual historians,” Banner is referring to individuals who display a great curiosity for learning history, like pawn shop owners, collectors, or anyone involved in dealing with the past in some fashion.
While he is correct that historians can’t just say anything they desire and claim authority just because of scholarly accolades, his assumption of who is considered a “historian” is undefined. His overarching desire to bridge the gap between the community and academia is admirable and an idea worthwhile. There certainly exists a gap, for instance, between secondary and higher education, and this needs to be fixed. And the elitist reputation of professors in the“ivory tower” doesn’t help. However, Banner insists on prudence. Therefore, long-term methodology and comprehensive practice is key. That comes with experience within the discipline itself, that how we determine the context, inform ideas in question, deliberate source material, engage the literature, and impact the field, is what brings regimentation to the practice.
But as discussed earlier, the importance of bringing historical consciousness to the forefront is what keeps us looking introspectively, preserving an enduring vision of history through the generations. This part of the historical method must always come first. Historians should be, as Gaddis says, “dispassionate chroniclers of events.” But if we don’t allow the desire to reexamine our history guide the creativity of our work, then we are missing a significant component that the field centers on, our shared humanity.
Conclusion
Today, historiography takes on many forms and approaches. However, this discussion aims for a more politically conscious historiographical approach that emphasizes social and political inquiry. This approach also lends to the crucial point to which political discourse promotes emphasis on social identity and the examination of humankind’s progress, or lack thereof. Carr states, “to enable man to understand society of the past and to increase his mastery over the society of the present is the dual function of history.” This methodology hopefully aims to help historians achieve just that. History is a living and breathing structure. Although it is undoubtedly past tense, the struggle for the historian is to be in keeping with the existentialism seen in Shakespeare’s Sonnets — attempting to achieve a locus of transcendence. Augmenting prudent judgment on the way we conduct research and sift through sources helps bring the historian to a place of greater control over their excursions into illuminating the past.
For those reasons, we can hopefully begin to understand societal and political formations in greater depth and its relationship to the struggle for defining and redefining human identity through collective action. The historian’s endeavor, therefore, is set in keeping history imminent. If this is how we understand ourselves as human beings, then this is how we should understand history.
Further Reading
[1] Banner, James M. Being a Historian: An Introduction to the Professional World of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
[2] Carr, Edward Hallett. What Is History?. New York: Vintage, 1961.
[3] Gaddis, John Lewis. The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
[4] Rosenzweig, Roy, and David P. Thelen. The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.
M. A. Iasilli, Ph.D., teaches History and Political Science at St. John’s University in Queens, NY.
