Philosophy of History Part II: Scale & Universality

[Resha Caner]

Two issues historians must deal with involve scale & universality. As an example to explain these two issues, let's consider the question: Did German immigrants to the Americas support or oppose slavery?

Scale: At what level is this question best discussed? Is it proper to speak of the major trends within the entire immigrant group, or should it be broken down by where the immigrants came from and where in the U.S. they settled? Should it be broken down by era? Should it be broken down by occupation, by religion, etc.? Can such questions ever be legitimately discussed in any terms other than the position of specific individuals?

Universality: Can we today truly understand the position they held then? Is there a "universal" human nature that allows us to understand the past, or is the past so historically conditioned that we can't ever understand them? Is there a reliable way to translate what native German speakers wrote about slavery? Was there a German concept of slavery that differed from how it was practiced in the U.S. What are we looking for when we ask the question? Slavery in the U.S. is most often discussed in a moral context. So what if Germans rejected slavery, but for economic reasons rather than moral reasons? How do we bring that thought process into our discussion?

So, any thoughts?

 

[Resha Caner]

Issues of universality have never been a big deal to me. I've always accepted that people in different times, places, and cultures view the world differently than me. Learning about those differences is a large part of what makes history interesting to me. I accept that I'll never be a German immigrant, but if the question interests me it's worth the effort to understand German immigrants.

And I think that is key. We need to be aware that historical questions are asked because they are important or interesting to us. So, there are two aspects that must always be kept separate. What does the question mean to us looking backward? And, what did the question mean to those we're studying as they looked forward?

It's when those two issues become confused (which does happen) that the trouble starts.

- - -

The issue of scale is one I've long struggled with, and I'm just now starting to get my head wrapped around it. I first became aware of it in my undergrad Chinese history class, where the professor made a big deal about what constituted the basis of Chinese culture. I recall reading a passage about Confucian scholars who were concerned that Europeans were corrupting Chinese youth. They complained that Europeans didn't share the same work ethic, etc.

I thought the "work ethic" thing was hilarious given the way people in the American Midwest used to speak of a Protestant work ethic. But then it became a problem. It seems everyone would agree Chinese culture is different from American culture, but as soon as you try to pinpoint what those differences are, you're inundated with anecdotes of people who don't fit the mold or you're accused of stereotyping. For a time I was frustrated: Fine! There aren't any differences between Chinese and American culture! We're all just people! The best I could come up with is that every culture is basically saying the same thing; they just use different symbols to express themselves. But that seemed a very unsatisfactory answer.

I think I'm getting closer to a satisfactory answer, though. And it centers around the idea of the "historical narrative" (or it could be called the "social narrative").

For German immigrants & slavery, that narrative was articulated by the abolitionist Frederick Douglass: "A German has only to be a German to be utterly opposed to slavery."

Whether or not that statement was actually true for every German (and it most certainly was not) is not the point. The point is that it became the center of the idea of what it meant to be German-American. There is an element of a "no true Scotsman" fallacy at work here, but regardless as German-Americans bought into the idea it shaped their view of who they were. So, when Gottfried Duden (a prominent German writer) stepped out of line and made a statement supportive of slavery, he was drubbed until he got back into line. When German immigrants were dragging their feet about helping blacks in Cincinnati, August Willich berated them to become more active because that's what German immigrants do.

And the flip side happened as well. As the German-American community got into a habit of chest-thumping about how much they contributed to the Union effort during the Civil War, Patricia Hemminghouse decided she needed to push back against the “lore of the quaint German settlements of, for example Texas, Pennsylvania, or the Midwest.” Even then, as Hemminghouse sought to bring more balance to the narrative, the idea set forth by Douglass remained the center of the discussion. It's the axis about which German-Americans orbit with regard to that issue.