A Little Long Concise of History
Let me place a simplex meaning of history. History is a story about the past that is both true and significant.We might quibble about the word "story" and prefer "account" or "report". Some also might be cynical about the word "true". Here I take truth to mean closest possible correspondence to what actually happened. What is truth, after all? As we answer that question, I would caution against both facile dogmatism and stylish cynicism. The human experience of truth is complex but definite.The central meaning of the simple definition above is not in any event much affected by quibbles about the absolute meaning or possibility of truth. We historians (you and I) can leave the cynics and the dogmatists to their squabbles.History is a story about the past, and we who tell or write it, as well as we who hear or read it, accept the story if it seems true and significant. Later I will take up the question of how we can get better control over historical truth and significance. For now I just want to put in place the following thought =Making or consuming history is a constant and even repetitive process of judgment across two spectrums = truth/falsehood and significance/triviality.Here at the beginning I should highlight my peculiar meaning when I say "making history". We often say that great figures make history, but in truth historians make history. Great figures may shape events, but historians make the history of those events. I am a historian. If you think about the past, you too are a historian. We make history, for better or worse. And we also consume a lot of history made by others. We experience the very recent past, and we produce and consume histories of it and of a much longer duration of past experience.I should also highlight the distinction implied just now between "history" and "the past". History is not the past, it is a story about the past. The past, even our own recent past, is immense and unrecoverable. History is but a fraction of the past, presented as coherent story. No one wants to tell the story of the whole past, and no one could. Evidence exists for no more than a small splinter of what has gone on in the past. It is impossible to recover the whole past. All disciplines, all philosophies, all systems of thought have their limitations. "All systems leak", someone said. Physics tells us a lot, but there is no physics of kindness. History, too, has its limits. Furthermore, it is also impossible to tell more than a small part of the whole story, or to learn more than a still smaller part of the small part of the past that has been saved in documents or in histories made by historians.This will inspire a humbling appreciation of just how vast our topic "history" is, even as history captures only a little part of the "past".There are countless histories, and they deal with only a fraction of the past. We should more often use the plural "histories" rather than "history". It follows then that we should prefer to read "A history" of any topic rather than "THE history" of that topic. I should be a member of a Department of Histories rather than a Department of History.Many might be surprised to learn that the difficulty of history does not follow from the amount you have to learn. History is difficult because historians — professionals and history students alike -- must learn how to make do with the little that can be mastered. You must find your own way to discover or construct histories from the information about the past that you are able to assemble, remaining always conscious of the limitations of your effort. You cannot be given history, you must make your own histories.
REALMS OF HISTORICAL DISCOURSE
How do we come to understand history if it is such a fabulous amalgamation of subjective and objective realities? How do we approach the truth and determine the significance of human historical experience? Answers to these questions are easier if we imagine three related realms within which histories are made and consumed. Let me call them "realms of discourse" because histories are acts of communication or discourse.
(1) Subjective realm of sources = Who says?
(2) Objective realm of sources, "facts" & "judgments", primary documents [ID]= What is said?
(3) Personal realm, ourselves = Who am I to say?
The subjective realm (1) and the personal realm (3) are very similar in their mysterious fusion of both "objectivity" and "subjectivity". Those who tell us something certainly "exist", and so do we who hear it. Thus, we are all persons or personalities who are both (1) producers or sources of information, and (3) audiences or recipients of information. We make histories when we tell or write them, and we consume histories when we hear or read them. Our sources in history are nearly always persons, or the direct product of human action, for the most part humans fabricating narratives or other expressive artifacts. We who are active in realms (1) and (3) no doubt have a claim to "objective" existence, just like those facts and judgments recorded in realm (2), in primary documents.That seems elementary enough. What follows? Realms (1) and (3) are rooted in the subjective qualities of human expression while realm (2) is rooted in the objective qualities of the surviving testimony preserved in original records, what we often call "documents". We humans with all our squirming subjectivity have sandwiched the static or finished "hard facts" between us.Furthermore, the stone with ancient inscriptions is a very solid fact, but it was carved by a mortal human hand and is studied by the delicate human eye. It makes no sense to insist on the absolute objective or subjective qualities of the enterprise we call history. It is both.
The personal realm of discourse (3), and that's you right now, is in this fundamental way like the subjective realm (1). Think of me in this structure. "Me" (1) is writing this essay to you (3). Personal interests, personal slant, cultural background, all the particularities of my and your own time and place, status, position, gender, age, and all the peculiarities of the person and the groups of which the person is an example, all play a huge role in shaping expression and understanding of what can be said and what can be comprehended.Recognizing this, we sidestep the great and fascinating philosophic debate on whether truth is absolute or not. In practical, all-too-human and experiential terms, the outcome of this debate makes no difference. Historians need not wait around for that debate to be resolved. Historians need only understand = TRUTH, whatever it may be, is defined and maintained in acts of communication between humans in all their variety and with all their strengths and weaknesses.And these acts of communication leave a visible contrail of evidence, the second and central realm of discourse enumerated above.
SECONDARY AND PRIMARY SOURCES
The rule-of-thumb distinction between "secondary" and "primary" historical sources is important. Points (1) and (2) above parallel the distinction between (1) secondary and (2) primary historical sources. Secondary sources are those produced by historians, you or me, as we seek to make sense of the past. Most of the historical monographs in the library, the articles in historical journals, encyclopedias and other reference books, and also those things called textbooks, and finally this website, are secondary works.The purest meaning of "primary document" is this = No document or tangible source lies behind this document. You cannot go further back to any existing source for this source. A source may be considered primary if produced within or in immediate proximity to the past we seek to form into a history.Notice that the reliability—the truth and significance—of the document is not part of the definition of primary source. A primary source may err or lie or otherwise distort, just like the secondary sources, and for the same reason. A primary source may not correspond at all to what actually happened, and, even if it did, its testimony might be trivial. It is humbling and a bit disturbing to realize that the makers and the consumers of histories are obligated to certify the truth and significance of primary sources. In terms of above, (1) and (3) must verify and evaluate (2).
"Who says" is the initial question we should put to all sources, whether secondary or primary. The "Declaration of Independence", bank accounts, laws and decrees are primary sources, yet "who says" is still a useful question to put to these documents. The carved stone, the snapshot, the tape recording, and other "primary documents" still require the questions about who carved, who took the picture, who made the recording, etc. The "evidence" of the photo depends on the decision of the photographer as to just when and where to point the camera. I'll not even mention the possibilities of distortion given by modern video and photo technology.Distortion is in any event only an example of a larger problem = Histories are human records of human experience, and humans have their little ways. Humans err as often as they lie. They blunder as often as they deceive.Take excavations or archeological evidence as an example again. These would be primary sources in the pure sense only in the case of our personal visit to the tangible evidence or site, bringing our selves--the personal realm (3)--into direct contact with the objective realm (2). But if we are able to study excavations or archeological evidence only as described in books, we have moved into the subjective realm of "secondary" report on "primary" sources (the actual tangible site).In a less obvious way, a manuscript document transcribed for publication also represents a small step away from true primary documentary status. Certainly a translated document, say from Russian to English, no matter how well translated, moves yet a step further from primary status.When our sources might better be called "evidence" (e.g., excavations, archeology in general, photos, recordings, bills of sale, statistics, government documents, even diaries and other eye-witness accounts) then the distinction between the subjective realm and the objective realm blurs. The distinction between secondary and primary is not complex, but it is elusive. It is not fixed and eternal. It requires judgment on our part. Active judgment is the central skill of the historian.The habit that the distinction between secondary and primary should promote is this = Seek the closest and most immediate original expression of what actually happened.
VERISIMILITUDE
First we ask about ourselves "who am I to say". Then, of all informants we ask "who says". Finally, we get down to the business of making judgments about "what is said" in the second of our three realms of historical discourse. Immediate human testimony tends toward the objective when in our judgment the evidence is an immediate reflection of what plausibly took place. This quality may be described as verisimilitude.The historian James M. McPherson (1998 March 26) praised the historian who worked systematically to define a set of criteria for evaluating the truth ("accuracy") and significance ("value") of historical testimony. These criteria are more like the criteria of criminal investigation than they are like laboratory experimentation."They include ascertaining the preponderance of evidence with respect to a given claim, and addressing the specificity of the testimony, the likelihood of its truth as measured by comparison with other evidence, the reputation and known prejudices of the informant, and whether the testimony is firsthand or hearsay."
They include also some of the criteria of the courtroom. Cross examination is not always possible, but cross checking is. I would also note the importance to historians of concepts like "to the best of my knowledge" when trying to nail down human truth.I would caution that historians must remember a most profound difference between historical and criminal investigation or court proceedings. Historians must play the triple role of detective, prosecutor and defense attorney. Perhaps consumers of histories are asked to perform the role of jury, but there is a way in which the historian making the histories does that as well.The biggest difference between historical and criminal investigation is this = The trial of history does not take place against the backdrop of any widely recognized laws. It takes place in the arena of factional human interrelationships, just like the events of the past themselves. We've got to work this out together.Documentation produced by the past event or directly in connection with the past event, while not incontrovertible, may still be presumed to be the best. In the final analysis, we can controvert our sources only by reference to other more primary sources, or to standards of common sense. And common sense is a slippery slope.As historians we should cultivate an inclination or taste for primary documentation. The taste for secondary sources can best be justified as an exercise in reference (to get someone else's help—expert testimony—in understanding the record left by primary sources) or in that realm of intellectual history called "historiography" (the study of varieties of historical imagination).Remember, however, that when we bring ourselves into contact with a primary source, we are ourselves introducing the subjective realm into the pattern, even if from the bottom side of the three-part realms of discourse outlined above. We cannot forget our own "personal distance" from our sources and their content. We have to think about our own chronological, physical, and personal distance. When, for example, you read the "Declaration of Independence", the question still is "who am I to say" [what this means]. This is nothing other than the personal version of the question "who says". Question Jefferson, question yourself. And drive out of your mind the thought that the verb "to question" means "to reject".Again we see that the difficulty of history lies less in the bulk that must be learned but in the discretion that we must bring to the evidence. These habits are as important a result of studying history as are the dates, places, and names that may or may not stick in our minds.
AN ASIDE ON TEXTBOOKS
We cannot evade the practical issues embodied in all this theoretical discussion. For one thing, almost all the teaching of history is done with what are called "textbooks", but just about no one bothers to explain what these ubiquitous artifacts are. For most purposes, textbooks are secondary sources and take their place somewhere toward the back of the room in the subjective realm of discourse (1). Textbooks are to historical narrative as hearsay is to the courtroom. That is a bit harsh since the best textbooks do serve a useful purpose not unlike expert testimony at court. But without immediate eyewitness testimony, expert witnesses seldom connect with the heartbeat of actual events.There are fine history textbooks, but they do not have the possibility of achieving the sort of verisimilitude that we might grant to an account written by an actual participant in events during or shortly after the events. (Before I complete this paragraph, let me complicate things just a bit. If we were to seek to understand a history of textbooks, then textbooks would become primary sources. Think about that.Most books and articles on history in libraries are secondary sources, even when they are more focused on topics more limited than those of the ubiquitous textbooks. Still, they are narratives written by someone seeking to explain the meaning of the past, interpreting and citing primary documents (if they are serious historians). All teachers, as they address students, are secondary sources. For this reason, I would have to be the first to plea, in self defense, that we not get rid of all secondary sources.
I would also add that if we had to rely only on true primary sources very little history would get done. So, we have to make judgments and be practical. Again, a main difficulty of the topic history is making do with what we can master. Even as the distinction between primary and secondary sources seems to flip back and forth in our minds, we can take this universal and solid bit of wisdom from all this = Always consider the chronological, physical, and personal distance of the historical source from the actual past event Remember that closeness and distance each have advantages and dangers. And approach the past at first with the humility and caution of a stranger in a strange land. You must work to acclimate yourself to your topic, to discipline your subjectivity to the contours of your topic, its time and place. Deal consciously with your "personal distance" from your topic.
"BIAS" AND INTERESTS
I seem to be saying not only that bias is inevitable but that it can be appropriate, even good. This flies so directly in the face of a cultural prejudice, a light-minded colloquial negativity surrounding the word "bias", that I feel the need to add a word or two of explanation. First, we have to work to undo a colloquial confusion. The word "bias" has merged in colloquial usage with the word "deception". These are two familiar dangers common to the making and consumption of history. Yet the two are not necessarily related at all. Bias in a narrative is a direct expression of the natural interests of the author. And the narrative may be read or heard ("consumed") by individuals of similar or different interests and thus different biases. Deceit in a narrative is purposeful evasion of direct expression. Bias and deceit can be found together, sometimes in the form of deception designed to hide bias. They resemble one another at some casual level, and the two together resemble the final of the three great subjective weaknesses of historical narrative = "blunder". No matter how similar these three dangers seem -- bias, deception and blunder -- they are different. A point of view or "perception" of events does not have to be "deceit" or "error". Bias and blunder are inevitable. However, even if we cannot or should not try to eradicate bias, we can discipline it when we make or consume history. Dealing with bias enriches our appreciation of human historical experience. With attentive care, we can detect and correct blunder. Deceit is not inescapable, and we can work to expose as well as condemn it with vigor. Always, we must distinguish among these three dangers -- bias, deceit and blunder -- when we meet them, and we do meet them at nearly every turn, in historical narrative and in our daily public lives.However much the historian borrows the technologies of the laboratory or social sciences, history is therefore not a science, it is the core discipline within that broader endeavor we properly call the humanities, the human study of humans.In this way, the study of history is an Operation Bootstrap. We are asked intellectually to lift ourselves by our own bootstraps. Neither Archimedes nor any historian has ever found the solid place to stand and from which to lever the world. But we feel the need to do just that.
MORE ABOUT HISTORY AND SCIENCE
Accent on this sort of subjectivism would threaten disaster for physics or even for the social sciences. There cannot be a Chinese or African or Sweet Home physics, even if there are Chinese, African, and Sweet Home physicists. Authentic physics aspires to be universal and strives to eliminate all traces of subjectivism and cultural bias. There cannot be a different physics for Bashkir nomads and for Sweet Home co-eds.Consider this difference between physics and history = It is reasonable to assume that the stars exist even if there are no astronomers. Stars are in this sense "objective". Stars do not depend on astronomers for their existence. But there would be no history without historians. This observation allows us to make another distinction between the past and history. The past is in this way like the stars. The past might be said to have existed, even without historians. But history is the creation of historians. Histories, unlike the heavens, exist only because humans make them and consume them. Histories exist only because humans tell and write them, hear and read them. There may be no higher, celestial realm for histories.History from this point of view is thus, in essence, subjective. You might correctly think that physics too is a creation of physicists. But the distinction is still profound. History is the human study of past human experience. No matter how remote in time or space, history is self-reflexive. Stars do not study themselves, but humans do. Therefore, while physicists strive in all regards to prevent personalistic or subjective considerations from shaping their work, I would caution against the systematic effort to remove the subjective element from history. The pretense to objectivity in history is as often false or misleading as it is noble.We do not have to become someone else or strive to denature ourselves in order to do history. For one thing, that's impossible, for another, it is frequently a serious deception, and finally it denies the essence of history itself. On the contrary, we must strive to recognize the subjective element in our sources and acknowledge it openly in ourselves. Who says? Who am I to say?
OPERATION BOOTSTRAP
Histories are human records of human experience, and humans have their little ways. Yet no instrument other that the human intellect has been given for the task of understanding what humanity is. On God's green earth, no other instrument has been given for the task of understanding anything. And you've got one.For most students who are in their early adulthood, the challenge is first to discover who you are before you can give any serious thought to acknowledging your own biases and interests or those of others. We all hear a lot of talk these days about "overcoming provincialism". We have created courses on race, gender, non-European peoples, multi-culturalism, global studies, and international awareness. Our curricula have been made richer as a result. But as with many positive things, there is a negative side to this story. We may have prematurely diverted attention from the time-honored individual search for personal and group identity. What sense is there in the study of remote and foreign cultures before one has any real sense of one's own?The irony here is that one must know one's self in order to understand others, must be able to answer somehow "who am I to say", must be to some degree at home in the present in order to understand history. Yet at the same time an understanding of others and their histories is an essential component of self knowledge and an understanding of one's own time. For this reason the study of history for the young is an especially tense version of Operation Bootstrap. The renowned moral philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt, in his little book On Bullshit, wrote, "As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them".
Comments
Post a Comment