What is history?

[Resha Caner]

I began my graduate program in history in June. I'm not sure what extra time that will leave me, but whatever it is, history related topics will be easier to absorb.

Given I noticed certain currents of historicism here, I'm curious what the various opinions on history might be.

 

[Received]

A collection of important facts strung together in a narrative.

Important here means whoever has the power, man.

 

[Resha Caner]

A collection of important facts strung together in a narrative.

Important here means whoever has the power, man.

History has been used to build a political identity, but I wouldn't say that's the only way it's been used.

 

[Received]

Power can mean groups of people, not just folks with political clout. Technically, the most powerful person is the one who has the ability and daring to publish.

 

[FireDragon76]

What's historicism?

 

[Steeno7]

It's everything that has happened right up to now......no wait, Now!......no, NOW!.........well, you get the picture. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[Paradoxum]

Study of the past? I suppose not including things like current police investigations.

What do you mean by historicism ?

 

[Resha Caner]

Study of the past?

For what purpose? FYI, the idea of studying the past really only came into vogue during the Enlightenment, but there were historians prior to that.

What's historicism?

What do you mean by historicism ?

Historicism is a type of positivism that centers around an idea that history is a hard science. History is about facts and determining "what really happened". The extreme form was promoted by Leopold Von Ranke who pioneered the field of historiography (i.e. the history of history) and he proposed a "historical method" that paralleled the scientific method. Von Ranke considered history to be the highest of the sciences - the only way to know truth.

The bad results of historicism were criticized by Karl Popper (the same guy who promoted falsification in the scientific method) in a book called The Poverty of Historicism. As he saw it, it led to Hegel/Marx, Social Darwinism, things like that.

 

[Received]

For what purpose? FYI, the idea of studying the past really only came into vogue during the Enlightenment, but there were historians prior to that.




Historicism is a type of positivism that centers around an idea that history is a hard science. History is about facts and determining "what really happened". The extreme form was promoted by Leopold Von Ranke who pioneered the field of historiography (i.e. the history of history) and he proposed a "historical method" that paralleled the scientific method. Von Ranke considered history to be the highest of the sciences - the only way to know truth.

The bad results of historicism were criticized by Karl Popper (the same guy who promoted falsification in the scientific method) in a book called The Poverty of Historicism. As he saw it, it led to Hegel/Marx, Social Darwinism, things like that.

How did the method for determining fact differ between the scientific method and the historical method?

 

[bhsmte]

I began my graduate program in history in June. I'm not sure what extra time that will leave me, but whatever it is, history related topics will be easier to absorb.

Given I noticed certain currents of historicism here, I'm curious what the various opinions on history might be.

To me, it is simply the study of events that have happened in the past.

 

[Paradoxum]

For what purpose? FYI, the idea of studying the past really only came into vogue during the Enlightenment, but there were historians prior to that.

What were the historians doing before that? Making bread? I'm not sure why you would call them historians if they didn't study the past (or document the present, perhaps).

Perhaps you can learn things from the past. Also truth for the sake of truth if worthwhile in my opinion.

Historicism is a type of positivism that centers around an idea that history is a hard science. History is about facts and determining "what really happened". The extreme form was promoted by Leopold Von Ranke who pioneered the field of historiography (i.e. the history of history) and he proposed a "historical method" that paralleled the scientific method. Von Ranke considered history to be the highest of the sciences - the only way to know truth.

The bad results of historicism were criticized by Karl Popper (the same guy who promoted falsification in the scientific method) in a book called The Poverty of Historicism. As he saw it, it led to Hegel/Marx, Social Darwinism, things like that.

I don't think it's a hard science, but I do think it's about trying to figure out what really happened... as best we can.

I don't see why that would lead to Hegel or Marx.

 

[bhsmte]

What were the historians doing before that? Making bread? I'm not sure why you would call them historians if they didn't study the past (or document the present, perhaps).

Perhaps you can learn things from the past. Also truth for the sake of truth if worthwhile in my opinion.



I don't think it's a hard science, but I do think it's about trying to figure out what really happened... as best we can.

I don't see why that would lead to Hegel or Marx.

It is more like soft science, because how each individual historian weighs evidence, can be driven by bias.

A historians job is really to assign a level of credibility to past events, and they do so by using the historical method. The more recent the history, the more certain the quality of evidence will be. The longer back you go, the more difficult the job becomes, but they still follow a method in determining the likelihood of events.

 

[Resha Caner]

What were the historians doing before that? Making bread? I'm not sure why you would call them historians if they didn't study the past (or document the present, perhaps).

You reveal a very rationalist perspective ... or maybe you're just using "study" in a much looser sense than I'm taking it. The first person to hold the position of "historian" at a University was the Von Ranke I mentioned in my last post. Much of what you consider history is most likely very recent. Are you familiar with things like Romanticism?

As I mentioned, history can be about building a political identity, about establishing personal glory/honor, about entertainment, about transmitting moral lessons, about understanding the essence of other cultures. None of those things really involve "study" in an academic sense ... and I prefer the narrower definition of words to the broader definitions. Otherwise words become vague, meaningless, and part of a semantic whirlpool.

Further, for those considered to be the first historians (Greeks like Herodotus), history was considered a form of literature (an art) told about recent memory - stories from the historians lifetime. The idea of studying past documents, authenticating them, and writing history based upon them, didn't come along until the Renaissance.

Perhaps you can learn things from the past. Also truth for the sake of truth if worthwhile in my opinion.

Questions of truth, what constitutes humanity, what ideas work and what ideas don't work - those questions can also be part of history.

I don't think it's a hard science, but I do think it's about trying to figure out what really happened... as best we can.

That's part of it, don't get me wrong. But people seem to make it a larger part than it really is. It takes on the idea of minimalism and reads like some medieval chronicle (pretty dry if you've ever read chronicles or minimalist history):
1754 - Albany Plan on Union
Feb 1763 - French and Indian War Ends
1763 - Pontiac’s Rebellion
Apr 13, 1763 - George Grenville as Lord of the Treasury
Apr 5, 1764 - Sugar Act
1764 - Currency Act
...

Pretty boring ... and IMO pretty useless.

I don't see why that would lead to Hegel or Marx.

If history is a hard science, then the patterns of the past can be used to predict the future. Therefore Marx must be right in his theory of dialectical materialism, and so his prediction that the proletariat will rise up and seize the economic reigns from the bourgeoisie must be true ... remember, I said this was part of the age of positivism. People believed Marx had stumbled onto a scientific truth. I don't think many today appreciate the impact he had on his time. The aristocrats were shaking in their boots because the science of history had just proclaimed their doom.

If history is the science of humanity, then it must be able to determine through critical analysis which human factors lead to success and which lead to failure, and that means the race in which those factors dominate is destined to lead all other races.

If Hegel is right in the idea of thesis and antithesis producing a new synthesis, then ... anyway, on and on it goes.

 

[Resha Caner]

A historians job is really to assign a level of credibility to past events, and they do so by using the historical method. The more recent the history, the more certain the quality of evidence will be. The longer back you go, the more difficult the job becomes, but they still follow a method in determining the likelihood of events.

Yes, we've talked about this before. The way you speak of "historical method" is like an artifact of the 19th century. Are you familiar with the trends in history that claim history is an art? Some contemporary historians promote that idea.

Sure, history involves analyzing primary sources. But there isn't much of a science to it. Most of the science comes from other fields: archaeology, forensics, etc.

In the end, history is so much more than confirming facts.

 

[Paradoxum]

You reveal a very rationalist perspective ... or maybe you're just using "study" in a much looser sense than I'm taking it. The first person to hold the position of "historian" at a University was the Von Ranke I mentioned in my last post. Much of what you consider history is most likely very recent. Are you familiar with things like Romanticism?

I don't know if I mean 'study' in a loose sense or not... it depends what you consider loose. I just mean, they read stuff, and trying to figure out what happened.

I don't know who Von Ranke is, so I'm not sure what that tell me about what the word 'history' used to mean.

I've heard of Romanticism, but I don't know much about it.

As I mentioned, history can be about building a political identity, about establishing personal glory/honor, about entertainment, about transmitting moral lessons, about understanding the essence of other cultures. None of those things really involve "study" in an academic sense ... and I prefer the narrower definition of words to the broader definitions. Otherwise words become vague, meaningless, and part of a semantic whirlpool.

I don't think those things are history. Perhaps they called it history, but happy people used to be called gay. The use of words changes, so when using today's language, history is about what happened in the past.

Further, for those considered to be the first historians (Greeks like Herodotus), history was considered a form of literature (an art) told about recent memory - stories from the historians lifetime. The idea of studying past documents, authenticating them, and writing history based upon them, didn't come along until the Renaissance.

So today we might call that news, or current events/ gossip in some magazines?

Just because they used a word like history, I don't think that means we have to think it has anything to do with what we call history.

Questions of truth, what constitutes humanity, what ideas work and what ideas don't work - those questions can also be part of history.

Sure.

That's part of it, don't get me wrong. But people seem to make it a larger part than it really is. It takes on the idea of minimalism and reads like some medieval chronicle (pretty dry if you've ever read chronicles or minimalist history):
1754 - Albany Plan on Union
Feb 1763 - French and Indian War Ends
1763 - Pontiac’s Rebellion
Apr 13, 1763 - George Grenville as Lord of the Treasury
Apr 5, 1764 - Sugar Act
1764 - Currency Act
...

Well I suppose it makes sense is historians also try to come to conclusions from what they study.

If history is a hard science, then the patterns of the past can be used to predict the future. Therefore Marx must be right in his theory of dialectical materialism, and so his prediction that the proletariat will rise up and seize the economic reigns from the bourgeoisie must be true ... remember, I said this was part of the age of positivism. People believed Marx had stumbled onto a scientific truth. I don't think many today appreciate the impact he had on his time. The aristocrats were shaking in their boots because the science of history had just proclaimed their doom.

Does anyone today think it's a hard science?

If history is the science of humanity, then it must be able to determine through critical analysis which human factors lead to success and which lead to failure, and that means the race in which those factors dominate is destined to lead all other races.

If Hegel is right in the idea of thesis and antithesis producing a new synthesis, then ... anyway, on and on it goes.

Well maybe they can figure out some things that tend to lead to success, and which to failure.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, we've talked about this before. The way you speak of "historical method" is like an artifact of the 19th century. Are you familiar with the trends in history that claim history is an art? Some contemporary historians promote that idea.

Sure, history involves analyzing primary sources. But there isn't much of a science to it. Most of the science comes from other fields: archaeology, forensics, etc.

In the end, history is so much more than confirming facts.

People can call history whatever they like and use it for whatever purpose they like. At the end of the day, if a historian is working to determine the credibility of past events, they have a method they follow which has been around a long time.

It is soft science, but the method is there for a reason, to determine historical credibility in the most objective way possible and to do that, you need to remove as much bias as you possibly can.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't think those things are history. Perhaps they called it history, but happy people used to be called gay. The use of words changes, so when using today's language, history is about what happened in the past.

I'm not throwing out things I've heard laymen say about history. I'm speaking of what the profession says of itself. If history had progressed to some universally accepted method, I could see saying something like this. But my point is that history today (professional historians) have a wide variety of approaches.

Still, thanks for sharing your view of history. It's interesting to me to see what people think of it.

Does anyone today think it's a hard science?

That's a good question. I'm not aware of anyone, but I haven't looked much. Now you have me curious.

Rather, the question that more often seems to come up is: Given history is not a hard science, what value does it bring?

 

[Resha Caner]

People can call history whatever they like and use it for whatever purpose they like. At the end of the day, if a historian is working to determine the credibility of past events, they have a method they follow which has been around a long time.

Not necessarily. What I see is professional grade history texts specify their method. I'm writing a review of a book for my class, and the author claims to be using a new method in order to strip away patriarchal biases ... she's studying the role of gender in the transference of community morals from generation to generation in a 19th century German-Lutheran town, but is not herself of a German or Lutheran heritage.

It is soft science, but the method is there for a reason, to determine historical credibility in the most objective way possible and to do that, you need to remove as much bias as you possibly can.

Somewhat, but I think this approach causes problems. It creates an unrealistic ideal that there is such a thing as objectivity in studying the past. One can't help but bring the biases of one's own experience to that study. In prepping for the review I mentioned, I read a book on 19th century Lutheran education by a male Lutheran history professor. It's fascinating what a stark contrast exists in the two versions of history presented by the two different authors - both professional historians.

IMO it's better to acknowledge the context (the biases) one brings to history rather than pretend one can be objective.

I would say history is the stories we tell about ourselves.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm not throwing out things I've heard laymen say about history. I'm speaking of what the profession says of itself. If history had progressed to some universally accepted method, I could see saying something like this. But my point is that history today (professional historians) have a wide variety of approaches.

Still, thanks for sharing your view of history. It's interesting to me to see what people think of it.

I don't have a problem with professional historians having different approaches, but some of the things you mentioned don't seem to be something I'd recognize as history.

That's a good question. I'm not aware of anyone, but I haven't looked much. Now you have me curious.

Rather, the question that more often seems to come up is: Given history is not a hard science, what value does it bring?

Learning from the past, and truth having value in itself?

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't have a problem with professional historians having different approaches, but some of the things you mentioned don't seem to be something I'd recognize as history.

Something to think about, then.

Learning from the past, and truth having value in itself?

I don't know what that second part means - never have. I don't see how any object can have value unless there is a subject to value it. Do you mean that seeking truth pleases you?