On Journalism and History
Grrrrrrr.
Friends, I did not know about the 3pm deadline!!!! I wrote down on my foolscap that the deadline was 22nd Nov! Okay, nevermind. L
I’ve decided to post this anyway because I think you guys would find it interesting. I’m sure you guys remember how I raised the question about Journalism and History close to the beginning of the semester right? The one where Dr. Mark made stabbing actions at himself after I asked it? Yup, that one.
I know I was shot down for asking the question, but I still believe that while Journalism and History are not the same, I think it is worthwhile to consider how the occupational sphere of Journalism does overlap with the academic sphere of History.
From a Rankean historian’s perspective, the similarities that can be drawn between Journalism and History are: (in terms of approaches and methodology) the need to find evidence that would lead one towards an “objective” conclusion, to be empirical, and to infer from the evidence the course of events or the situation. Also, just as History requires the Historian to select facts for usage, the Journalist too has to select appropriate information to suit the manner or the focus of the reporting.
But besides similarities based on Rankean reconstructionist viewpoints, there are similarities in approaches and methodology when we consider post-modernist, deconstructionist historians too. Post modernists seek to push the boundaries, to challenge the pre-existing assumptions of what History is. Similarly, Journalists also have to continually keep up with the times. Because more and more Singaporeans are opting to read news online instead of buying print media, Journalists have to look for different ways to present their information.
And this is where things get interesting, because I see a parallel between the developments in Journalism and the developments in History. With the pushing of boundaries and accepted notions of what History is, there are changing ideas towards what a historical source can be as well. Upon attending the recent ARI symposium on the “Makers and Keepers” of History, I realized that Historians are looking into a broader scope of information mediums to scout for information. At the symposium, Stephanie Ho discussed the validity of blogs and personal memoirs as historical sources, Loh Kah Seng used interviews he did with Bukit Ho Swee fire witnesses to craft and explanation for the fire, and Lim Cheng Tju discussed the possibility of how art can be used as a historical source.
Personally, it was very thought provoking to consider these as “sources”. With regards to the usage of blogs, Journalists too are increasingly using these as information sources; they attain their “scoops” from interesting blog posts of events etc. As for Loh’s usage of eyewitness accounts and setting up interviews, and his discussion on how interviews “must be done at the right place, at the right time, with the right mood” so as to get the best responses needed, are these not aspects that journalists are concerned with, and do as a daily part of their occupation too?
As such, just as journalists are constantly looking to keep abreast with issues and events in Singapore via usage of new media, Historians too (especially post modernists) appear to be seeking to keep History “alive” by challenging not just what History is, but also what can constitute a historical source. Perhaps these similarities can be attributed to one strong commonality between the academic discipline and the occupation: Humanity.
History is concerned about studying the human past, whilst Journalism, in my opinion, has very much to do with not only the human past, but recording daily the human experience, human events and situations. Just as Loh could not get his story on the fire if he failed to get good answers from his interviewees, a journalist without someone giving him/her “quotes” too has no evidence or basis for his or her report of an event. So without the human factor, History, and Journalism, cannot persist. History needs humans to carry on living so that there would be a past to write about; Journalism requires humans to keep talking about their lives or journalists would have no story to publish.
I hope I have shown how History and Journalism do have strong links between them, especially in this age of postmodernism. Both the “evolution” of History and Journalism seem to be moving towards the same direction, especially where sources are concerned. Of course, there are differences, and the similarities are inexhaustive too. But I guess what I sought to have us think about was also the larger question of: Will History end? Is History dead? I think it’s still very much alive and kicking, especially since historians are constantly seeking to explore new possibilities, and attempting to stay relevant with their readers through their approaches and methodology. The day it ends will probably be the time that there are no more humans left to write about. The same goes for Journalism.
Alrighty, thanks for reading (i hope you did) friends. J Any comments?
“What Went Wrong”: The Language of Success and Failure in History ?
Our education since secondary school has gotten us to think about wars, why it happened and how it happened. Recently, reading works on the German and Japanese road to war, it struck me deeply how historiography centering on this period has largely been couched in terms of “what went wrong”. For instance, authors have come up with various theories and frameworks to analyse the development of ideologies and events in Japanese imperialism and elaborated writings have been penned with regard to why Germany became fascist in the 1930s. What unites these historiographies is the implicit question: what went wrong? That scholars chose to deal with this historical period using the language of failure is thought-provoking. Ultimately, is it wrong to write history in terms of “what went wrong”? Is ethical and responsible historiography?
To examine “what went wrong” in historiography is perhaps attempting to frame history in terms of causality. Accounting history using the language of ‘cause’ and ‘effect’, preferably by linking one element of one specific event to another, is argued by Lemon as being an incomplete approach, which I fully agree with. However, since it is impossible for any historical account to cover all aspects of an event, and that the selection of facts and information is fundamental to the practice of a historian, and it is in the building of an analysis directed towards explaining a historical phenomenon, condition or development that the facts and information are made significant. Causes and effects is thereforean important mechanism of narrating ‘what went wrong’ histories.
Yet, I do not think historians attempted to project mono-causal explanations. Instead, they have sought to explore multiple reasons in explaining “what went wrong”. To take for example, Peter Duus, when accounting for the Japanese turn to imperialism, said that “in an environment of conflicting impulse, fleeting opportunities and historical accident, all that can be said with certainty is that the Meiji leaders, by responding to the intrusion of Western imperialism by reconstructing Japan as a modern nation-state and by undertaking the industrialization of the economy, set Japan on the road to imperialist expansion.” When confronted with historical formidable complexity, historians hold true to the integrity of their discipline and concede their limited ability in fully explaining the ‘causes’ and ‘effects’ of events. Therefore, a history centering on explaining “what went wrong” can continue to uphold the integrity of the discipline like much other forms of historiography.
In a sense, it is understandable that historians, who are ultimately products of their society, to handle the certain historiography by employing the language of failure. Humans seek to document and understand history in order to better position themselves in the world in which they exist. Dr mark pointed out that as meaning-seeking creatures, humans have throughout the centuries sought to explain why the world they live in came to be a particular way. The undeniable fact that the world in which we (including historians) live has been shaped by the Second World War, the largest battle of the twentieth century, encourages historians to analyse and explain the factors which led the participants to war. To write a history accounting for why the participants went to war is part of the ongoing negotiation inherent to mankind’s quest to understand its own existence. History, as a discipline, is fundamentally meditative; what historians write is intimately connected to their concern with their sense of being in this world.
In the final analysis, what we may consider is whether writing history in the language of successes and failures allows for the construction of dispassionate history. One might very well argue that there is inherent bias in a question such as “what went wrong with Germany in the interwar years” as it presupposes that Germany in that period was inherently flawed. This bias may then influence the historian’s selection of evidence and the account he will write. While I concede that such historiography runs the risk of imposing a pre-determined judgment, I do not believe that it is an unavoidable problem. The writing of dispassionate history is still possible as long as the historian is conscious of and prepared to amend or discard his initial assumptions and committed to a full examination of his sources, so as to arrive at the best possible analysis on the circumstances and conditions of the period. We might also bear in mind that the colossal responsibility of producing historiography for any period is that of a body of historians, not merely one individual scholar. The onus is on the academic community to continue producing work that will paint a fuller and more holistic picture. The approach in question cannot be considered guilty of writing ‘partial’ history, because history will always comprise of a body of narratives which examine different aspects of particular events; in other words, individual historiographies will never be considered as the full account of any historical event.
— Tan Shi Hui
(Sorry for being late, I was trying my darn best to grapple with the technology of wordpress..)
Some more reflections on HY4101
Hey folks,
Last minute, as usual, just trying to rush it in before the 3pm deadline.
Throughout this course (and I guess throughout the whole time that I’ve been studying History – with the capital ‘H’ referring to the discipline and not the past), one thing that I have been intrigued in all along was this fascination with why people study history (the past) and History (the discipline) in the first place. This course has dealt with that fascination, to a large extent. I think Lemon, by splitting his discourse into SPH and APH.
SPH, as we all know now, involves looking at history (the content of the past) and attempting to construct a coherent explanation (‘universal history’) of why things happen on a metanarrative scale. I share Huanyan’s thoughts that it would be difficult (and virtually impossible) to come up with a definitive SPH that everyone would buy into and accept. Human perceptions and their ideas of how the world works vary too wide and too deep for that to happen. Yet, it would seem that everyone HAS an idea of how things work out and that is how we orientate ourselves. We all make basic assumptions (in faith) and accept very readily the things that make sense to us, for example, things which involve the linear or cyclical progression of time even though there is no concrete rational prove of it. Basically, everyone will have his or her own SPH, except perhaps the extreme skeptic or relativist. Post-modernism challenges these accepted notions and causes us to look deeper into some of these assumptions and “shake our foundation,” bringing questions about epistemology and the nature of knowledge. The Linguistic Turn further bolsters that attack on the established truths. That in itself is neither a good nor bad thing, as we have seen the positive impact that post-modernism can have. Yet, at the end of the day, as Dr. Mark pointed, these attacks largely exists on the academic level, while mere mortals like us continue to orientate our lives and our actions based on these same truths that post-modernism attacks.
Some of the positives of post-modernism lie especially in how we approach the academic discipline of History, i.e. the APH. It brings up questions of intention (in the sense of Why we study History?), of objectivity and methodology (How we study History?) and of course the very nature of the discipline itself (What is History?). With regards to intention, Lemon posits the view that the best form of History is History “for its own sake”, for the “pure” intention of interest in the past. Personally, I think it is possible for someone to be attracted to History out of “pure” interest, so on that “grand” scale, History is possible. However, even if we accept that somewhat dubious assertion, “pure” interest alone would not explain what topics and periods of the past that someone would be interested in and would be drawn towards. Interest alone would therefore necessarily involve an element of subjectivity, of the character of the historian, thereby affecting the methodology and the perceptions of History.
Perhaps one of the more interesting contributions of post-modernism is the space it creates for a search to discover more “reference points” in past human experience. So far, we have had the examination and analyses into language and how that affects our understanding of knowledge. Another interesting bit was the point that Melvin brought up in his presentation, about space and history and Thongchai’s assertion about maps and how they have affected and shaped history. Perhaps one aspect of What History is, is the study of our reference points and of how human beings orientate themselves. These studies (and those in microhistory as mentioned by Nick) are areas in history that would probably not even have warranted a glance if not for the challenges that post-modernism brought to the discipline. In short, it opens the window to a whole host of possibilities.
Museum Narratives
There has been much discussion on practically motivated history and the state endorsed national narrative in Singapore. After the group’s presentation on Uses of History in Singapore, Ms Cheryl-Ann Low’s guest appearance in our histo class and the entries posted by different ones on museum narratives, I’ve thought much about museum narratives and I’ll like to share some thoughts on them, in particular to the gallery museum, Reflections at Bukit Chandu, and the formation of an individual’s historical consciousness.
Some of us seem to have a problem with the idea that history is practically motivated, especially in Singapore when many people may perceive the state narrative as propaganda and corrupting the purity of history as a discipline. Instead of discussing mainly the work of a historian in the context of a practically motivated history, I’ll like to shift the attention to the recipients of these historical narratives and consider the individual’s historical consciousness.
In Eisen’s post on historical narratives and museums, he mentions that museums usually do not depart from the mainstream narrative but yet museums “cannot force you to take a particular stand or interpretation of events”. Indeed, the idea put forth by Plato and Derrida stands: “the power of the author to infuse meaning into the words he writes leaves him the moment he lifts his pen off the page”. Similarly, regardless of the agenda and motivations of the curators, the museum narrative can lead to multiple interpretations due to the individual’s historical consciousness, showing the limitation of the curator’s control on varied interpretations. In Mingxian’s presentation, she pointed out that “there may be active sites of contestation where memories and heritage may pose as forms of resistance to state control” and “the use and transmission of history in Singapore is not monolithic, but one that is open to the notion of human agencies driving it” with actors including the visitors of the museum. Building on what has been mentioned, two human agencies, namely, museum tour guides and visitors to the museum, deserve our attention.
Having conducted tours in both gallery museums, Reflections at Bukit Chandu (RBC) and Memories at Old Fort Factory (MOFF), I’ll like to point out that the tour guide’s narrative to the visitors can shape the historical consciousness of the visitors, with impacts possibly greater than the intended narrative of the curator. Although the exhibits dictate certain parts of the tour guide’s narrative, the tour guide can practice what historians do: the selectivity of facts to form his narrative to the visitors.
RBC is meant to commemorate the “gallantry and sacrifice” (RBC website) of the Malay Regiment in the defence of Singapore during WWII. The RBS website and the information brochure deliberately leaves out two exhibits of the gallery museum, Chai Chew Soo’s paintings and William Haxworth’s experience of a POW, to avoid too much emphasis on the violence of the Japanese soldiers. However, in conducting tours, the tour guide can choose to emphasize on these sections. The paintings of Mr Chia, I was told by a senior tour guide during my training, are the most important part of the exhibit section they belong to (the Bukit Chandu Learning Room). Yet this “most important part” of the Learning Room does not even have a picture on the RBC website in the section about the Learning Room. I was also rather amused by my observations of different tours conducted by different tour guides; the narratives had different emphasis and the tour guides, in their own interaction with the exhibits, had gone through a selection process, putting emphasis on the parts of the museum they wish to draw attention to. The museum narrative is definitely not monolithic and human agencies that contribute to the multiple interpretations should not be underestimated. The influence of the intended museum narrative should not be overestimated.
Visitors of the museum also have varied experiences. In her article, “Memory, Distortion, and History in The Museum”, Susan Crane has elaborated on the historical consciousness of an individual, which is built on personal experiences and knowledge, and it can shape the kind of experience one gets from his visit to the museum. She also states that “a museum is a cultural institution where individual expectations and institutional, academic intentions interact, and the result is far from a one-way street. A range of personal memories is produced, not limited to the subject matter of exhibits, as well as a range of collective memories shared among museum visitors.” A look at the guest books of museums can tell us briefly what visitors experienced in the museums. I have seen school children writing “I hate the Japanese” in the RBC guest book, but there are also others, like an old lady who used to live in the kampong at Bukit Chandu, mentioning the memories of war. Others also praised that bravery of the Malay Regiment. The experiences of visitors of the museum, therefore, are unique and the intended museum narrative may not always be the most impactful.
With more gallery museums in Singapore today and the multiple interpretations of museum exhibits and narratives, I think it is important that we do not overestimate the influence of the museum narratives or undervalue the individual historical consciousness. Although history is never a politically neutral terrain, human agencies beyond the state should be considered before we conclude on the influence of the higher authorities in history.
Biblio
Crane, Susan. “Memory, Distortion, and History in The Museum”, History and Theory, 36 (Dec 1997): 44-63.
National Archives Website. www.s1942.org.sg
Periodization in History
Periodization in History
Hi peeps, a lot of topics and identifications (NOT identifiers) had already been taken up so I was thinking maybe I will look at a slightly peripheral but nonetheless relevant issue in the way in which we, as historians, write and conceive history.
In Chapter 5 of our ‘BELOVED’ textbook, Lemon explored the continuing relevance of ‘the Renaissance’, and went on to explore the issue of the periodization of history, and how it contributes to the way in which people ‘understand’ the course of history. He had also said that “today we are prone to overestimate the pace of some change in earlier history as well as perhaps exaggerate it in our own times” (Lemon, p. 87). Indeed, history has long been delineated into different periods and historiographical boundaries. For instance, we have, as seen in M.C. Lemon’s Philosophy of History (Lemon, pp 87-90), the categorization of period in history into the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the Scientific Revolution et cetera. But have you ever wonder why this is so? We have studied so many years of history and has most of the time taken these periodizations for granted. Why did Lemon or other historians actually delineate history in such ways? Is periodization still useful to us? Or should they be condemned and kicked out of historical writing? This has set me thinking about why and how is periodization important to us. I will be using examples especially with regard to Southeast Asia history to illustrate my points (sorry for those who are averse to SEA historyJ)
Why periodize?
Why do historians periodize? One of the reasons could be due to the distinct changes in the nature and quantity of historical sources that are available to the historians. For instance, the Portuguese conquest of the Sultanate of Melaka in 1511 has often been taken as the division point between two different eras of Southeast Asian history. Historical sources available on Southeast Asia history prior to 1511 consists largely of architectural remains, inscriptions, epigraphy, foreign annals and chronicles. Comparatively, after 1511, with the arrival of the Europeans, more detailed and comprehensive historical sources are now available. Jesuit missionaries wrote more comprehensible accounts of the societies as compared to inscriptions and annals, and contain less elements of the supernatural. Hence historians could periodize history based on the sources they could gather.
Periodization is also useful when we try to understand the development of historical consciousness. As mentioned in the textbook, the application of the concepts of ‘the Middle Ages’, ‘the Renaissance’ and ‘the Enlightenment’ is useful in helping us, students of the Speculative Philosophy of History, view the changes in the speculative assumptions about ‘the meaning of history’ (Lemon, p. 88).
More importantly, periodization is useful as it helps to facilitate our study and understanding of history. Imagine study a history without periodizations. How would your textbook look like? History books without short chapters? Books without catchy chapter headings that will make it easier for you to remember and absorb the facts? Without the delineation of history, the past would be no more than sand in a sandbox, hard to quantify and account for.
Problems of periodization
Next, let us look at some of the problems of periodizing history. One of the main problems of periodization is to explain when and why a certain period arise and end. Most of the time, the starting and ending points of a historical period are highly debatable and open to discussion. Did the ‘new period’ really mark a rapid and sharp change in lives of the people living in those times? Did the people living then really saw themselves belonging to a new era that future historians may later assign to them? Did it changed their historical consciousness as and then? For instance, going back to the example of 1511 as the dividing point in Southeast Asia history, did all the locals really saw the arrival of the Portuguese as marking a new epoch in history? Were they really affected that drastically by it?
Also, by periodizing history, are we overstating change and ignoring the possibilities in the continuing trends in history? As such, did the arrival of the Portuguese in 1511 affect the whole of Southeast Asia to validate it being used as the watershed in the history of the region? For a long time after 1511, the Europeans were only able to effect changes mainly in island Southeast Asia. Life went on as usual in the mainland Southeast Asians society. The forms of indigenous political rule and traditional forms of religion practiced still remained the same as before the arrival of the Europeans. As such, did historians overstate the importance of the arrival of the Europeans in 1511 in that it made a sea-change in the history of the entire region? Are we oversimplifying the complexities in history, such as the presence of both continuity and change in between different historical periods?
Whither periodization?
To quote Lemon, “underlying [periodization of history] is an ‘understanding’ or ‘intuition’ of the meaning and significance of history which, in its turn, is a crucial component in forming their sense of the ‘meaning of life’.” Indeed, despite the presence of problems within the use of periodization in history, I feel that it is still useful and much needed in our understanding of history. Rather than rejecting or attempting to revise the periodization of history, we should instead understand its shortcomings and appreciate its worth in our reading and understanding of history.
— Seok, 21-11-2008.
Bibliography
M.C. Lemon. Philosophy of History: A Guide for Students. New York: Routledge, 2003.
George Coedes. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Singapore: University of Malaya Press, 1968.
The Development of Historical Consciousness from Pre-Classical times to the Judeo-Christian era
In arguing for the relevance of speculative philosophies of history before the sixteenth or seventeenth century A.D., Lemon asserts that even the philosophers of the later period invariably incorporated their own ideas and explanations of how those earlier cultures understood it (Lemon, p. 15). Indeed, it is valuable to see how the more definite ‘tradition’ that the philosophy of history matured into has a lineage, with its roots in even the earliest conceptions (or lack thereof) of time and history. Through the course of the semester, I believe we’ve all benefited from the charting of the development of historical consciousness, from pre-classical times up to the present. This entry is an attempt to consolidate what we’ve learnt in the first part of our course and examine these earlier conceptions of time.
Pre-Classical
The Pre-Classical period, also known as the mythical period, refers to the time prior to the emergence of Greek civilization (pre-1200 BC), in the early civilizations of ancient Egypt, Greece and other Near and Middle East regions. In this period, there was hardly any historical consciousness, and this was largely tied to their views of the past.
To begin with, they had a mythical view of space and time. Envisioning their experience as part of a totally animated world, in which the supernatural and the natural were not artificial separations, they explained their world in creation myths and stories. They also believed in eternal occurrences of ‘cycles’ of events, understanding time as “identical recurrences of an original event”, mythologised as re-enactments of origin stories. (Lemon p. 20) In light of this, they looked back to their archetypal distant past as a ‘golden age’. However, the cyclical concept of time meant that the immediate past had no value to them, and they were more concerned with the present, in which they sought to play their part in their animated world and cooperate with the gods for purposes of survival. Therefore, the notion of progress was also non-existent in their general consciousness.
Classical Period
The shift from the mythical period to the classical period saw the emergence of philosophy in the Grecian world, which had a great impact on historical thought. This era saw the birth of the first historians such as Herodotus and Thucydides, who introduced techniques to obtain rational explanations for the past and history; therein lay the platform for the future discipline of history. For the Greco-Romans, the purpose of history was to educate people for all aspects of life.
The Greco-Roman historical consciousness, though moving away from a mythical view of time, was still rooted in the notion of cyclical time, a broad-scale movement taking centuries to complete one cycle. This cyclical view of history was tied to the notion of recurrent catastrophe, whereby humans would perpetually be brought back to the beginning. This was encapsulated in Aristotle’s biological analogy, whereby birth, growth and decay were part of the natural processes in life, thus reflecting the promise of both development and decline. It was with this cyclical notion of time that the Greco-Romans accounted for developments in history, such as political cycles and the rise and fall of empires.
However, it is essential to note that the historical consciousness of the Greco-Romans was not a congruent, cohesive one, for even the Greco-Roman philosophers had different conceptions of time and history. It is also difficult to discern a clear system of thought with Greco-Roman concepts of fate and the gods, alongside ideas of development and the reaching of a zenith. Thus, as Lemon asserts, it is a “mixed, even contradictory bag” (p. 44). This is, of course, rather unsatisfactory, but I suppose it does show how historical consciousness was evolving and undergoing a dynamic process of change.
Judeo-Christianity
Early Christianity presented yet another dimension to the historical consciousness of the times. It sought to establish its legitimacy and authority by appealing to historicity, thus drawing links to its Hebrew tradition. With the notion of a universal God who created the earth came the establishment of universal history, originating with the point of Creation.
Most significantly, it challenged the Greco-Roman conception of cyclical time. Christians believed that time was linear, and that it had a beginning and an end. Augustine’s “The City of God” emphasized the rejection of cosmic and historical cycles endlessly recurring. According to the Biblical view, the beginning of historical events lay in the will of God which was revealed in history. God’s sovereignty enabled him to execute his decrees towards the future, when Christ would return.
As such, the early Christians were forward-looking in their perspective, as they awaited the unfolding of God’s plans. In this vein, the notion of progress was articulated in an unprecedented way, for Christianity’s teleological view of life placed emphasis on Christ’s return and the need to work towards that reality. Therefore there was a critical shift in historical consciousness, whereby the emphasis on the linearity of time marked a decreasing focus on the cyclical notion of time.
**
In examining the key features of each period of time and its implications on the historical consciousness, it is essential to note that they are not static, and it is difficult to articulate a distinctive, coherent SPH in each case. For one, the introduction of new perspectives did not mean that there was an erasure of previous conceptions of time and history. For example, the dawn of Judeo-Christianity’s linear view of history did not eliminate the cyclical view of time from the historical consciousness. From another angle, notions of progress, though gaining prominence in the Christian era, could also be seen in Classical times.
As abovementioned, I suppose this is to be expected, for historical consciousness is dynamic and constantly evolving, especially in the early stages where there was no definite methodology in approaching the discipline of History. However, one cannot deny these early notions of time are still present in the historical consciousness today, such as the cyclical and linear conceptions of time, as well as the idea of a “golden age”. Tracing the lineage of historical consciousness thus makes for a better appreciation of the discipline.
**
Bibliography
Butterfield, Herbert. The Origins of History. Basic Books. London. 1981
Lemon, M.C Philosophy of History: A Guide for Students. Routledge. New York. 2003.
Boer, W.Den. “Graeco-Roman Historiography in Its Relation to Biblical and Modern Thinking” in History and Theory, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1968)
Momigliano, Arnaldo. “Time in Ancient Historiography” History and Theory, Vol. 6, Beiheft 6: History and the Concept of Time (1966): 1-23.
Rusen, Jorn. “Some Theoretical Approaches to Intercultural Comparative Historiography”, History and Theory Vol. 35, No. 4, Theme Issue 35: Chinese Historiography in Comparative Perspective (Dec., 1996): 5-22.
(sorry grace i just realised that you posted something quite similar!)
Reflections on HY4101
Reflecting upon what I have gotten out of this course…
Firstly, in this course, I have been constantly troubled by the problem of postmodernism and the concept of multiple truths. Coming from a very religious background (I have to admit that my religion sometimes set my agenda), I would like to see history as having a definitive Truth to it. Perhaps, I will buy more into the JC SPH, which I would probably find more sense. Nonetheless, intrinsically, I also realise that there is no way of us, as human beings, to establish definitive accounts of history such that the ‘truth’ can be known once and for all. This is being widely talked about in our class on Malaysian History. Topics such as pre-colonial Malay society, the reality of the Malaccan Sultanate, the merger and separation, all are still constantly being debated today. I will continue to be troubled by this personal dichotomy of mine. Perhaps what I understood most from this course as a result is from Lemon, who says in his book that people of different times hold different assumptions on how their world works and therefore, based on these different assumptions, had different viewpoints on how our world has come to be.
Also out of the course, it caused me to think if any SPHs can be definitive. The group on Marx and Hegel argued that maybe Marx’s SPH has not been achieved yet. I realise that all SPHs are being perceived by man, and find it amusing that people are actually buying into the SPHs. Not that I don’t buy into any, as I have explained. However, can any SPH written by human be even taken into account? Other than offering insights on people then view history and find meaning in history, do we buy into these SPHs? For me, the conclusion after taking this course, is a skeptical no. Looking at Francis Fukuyama, for example, his SPH has been challenged by Samuel Huntington and subsequently discredited by 911. So what does this mean to me as a historian? As again, how I perceive the world to function will affect how I write my history. I’m aware that even if I don’t buy into any of the SPHs we learn in class, I will still see certain meanings in universal history. This is a paradox that I suffer from as a historian, but it’s a paradox that I will have to live with.
Lastly, it will be about my previous post on practically motivated history. It remains my conviction that historians writting history has to be accountable on what they are writting, while understanding what Dr Mark said about historians will always perceive themselves as writing responsible history. This I have elaborated much in my previous post, so I shall leave it as such.
Overall, I have learned much from this course. As I am doing my readings and prepraing for exam and thinking about HT in the meantime, I am learning to appreciate on the methodology of the various historians in their historiographical debates. It is now quite fun to learn to appreciate these arguments and questioning the arguments.
Well, this is just some thoughts of mine.
The Changing Historical Consciousness through the Ages
As mentioned by Dr Mark, one of the main themes of the course is to grasp the changing historical consciousness as human history moves through the different stages till present day. I will attempt to summarize the movement and changes (see how much i remember after revising)
Starting with the pre-classical conceptions of history, we have seen that during this period the conception of history is on the opposite end of the spectrum with the modern day conception in almost all aspects. The idea of time an illuminating example. Cyclical notions of time, particularly entrenched in their perceptions that everyday is the re-enactment of the archetypal events concerning their origins, meant that the idea of time is merely the recurrence of that special origin story. As such, the implication here is that progress is not possible; an endlessly repeating recurrence of the same events precluded any form of progress and improvement. Of course, this renders history as unimportant, since the immediate concern with survival and also the unchanging nature of the archetypal re-enactment meant history is meaningless except for that very special history of origins. For me personally then, agency thus rest with the supernatural in the mythpoeic world, but such agency is only relevant to re-enact the archetypal story, or rather relevant in that archetypal story, and not for any movement or development of history. Thus, a summary statement of the pre-classical historical consciousness is a fatalistic attitude, human not able to effect any change but rather to expect the unchangeable enveloping of events to occur to them.
The classical period presents to us a different picture, in that certain elements had changed. Notably, the very conception of the mythpoeic world is now less obvious. Rather, the first historians now displayed the ability to detach themselves from the study of the world. As such, happenings in the world to them were the effects of the gods and supernatural acting, and not the gods themselves acting. This clearly demonstrated the notion of agency lying with the gods and the supernatural. Human events are not subjected to the “Fate” and “Gods” that decide the events. Key concepts like the eventual decline of the state through the body/biological analogy suggests to us that time is still cyclical, a continuation from the previous period. As such, progress is necessarily not possible, since events will occur again, just like how political states will rise and fall. The classical world’s historical consciousness is thus highly similarly to the previous era, retaining a continuation of various key ideas from the pre-classical period. History at this period is intelligible, though not necessarily meaningful.
The Judaeo-Christian turn in history marks a different historical consciousness in that now history has the possibility to be seen as progressive. This is only possible with the conception of the City of God, since conceivably the idea is to reach the City of God where the true salvation and happiness lies for human. With this in mind, it can then be said that human are now the participants of the pre-set plan of God, living through his Creation and reaching the eventual goal for those who can achieve it. Notably, history’s meaning is not debatable; unlike the outright verdict of history’s irrelevancy of the previous periods, now history can be interpreted as meaningful in that one can see the progress and achievement of the goal to be in City of God, but on the other hand it could also be meaningless since the teleological aim eventually was the City of God rendering whatever happening in the earthly life as irrelevant to this eventual aim. Understandably, regardless the meaning of history, agency now resides with The God with the rise of Christianity. Hence the historical consciousness is now highly religious, in that the focus is on the heavenly and the religious while less on the earthly life, an attitude that would be challenged by latter enlightenment period with its rationality and empiricism focus.
With the dawning of the science and the rationality of the Scientific revolution and the Enlightenment, the rise of the modern historical consciousness now marks the clear break with the past. Inevitably the striking difference with the previous periods is in the secularization of world view and history, with increasing focus on human affairs and non-religious explanations for history and happenings. This was the humanist contributions, shifting the focus onto the earthly life and away from the scholasticism that dominate thinking of previous eras. With the emergence of geographical and scientific discoveries the very thinking and conception of the world and its past began to turn towards non-secular outlook. This provides for the rise of empiricism and rationalism, based on observation and sensible deductions to arrive at facts and explanations. It is also with this background that our important philosophers increasingly came up with non-secular philosophy of history. Now agency shifts slowly to human beings, though they might still be governed by certain covering laws that govern the enveloping of the world’s events (think the impersonal spirit of Hegel). Progress is now not only possible, but definitely achievable which is in stark contrast to the previous eras. Summarizing this period, it is also the historical consciousness that arguably governs the thinking right up till today, less so in the philosophising and content but the very principles of theorizing of history – less religious, more scientific, progress possible, human agency, linear time etc.
This is a short post to talk in general about the various periods, and the element that contribute to the changing historical consciousness. Hopefully…
Vico, Hegel and Marx (again) – On Human Agency and Progress
Hi everybody. I’m going to bravely attempt to compare Vico, Hegel and Marx on two main themes that run through their SPHs, namely that of the notions human agency versus divine agency and progress.
Human Agency vs. Divine Agency
The progression from Vico to Marx in terms of this trend is clear: God and the divine are increasingly and eventually completely removed from the picture. In his SPH, Vico reconciled the secular and religious by choosing to focus solely on the civil history of the Gentiles, leaving both natural history and the Jews (as God’s chosen people) out. Thus, although he limited his scope, he still managed to incorporate God in explaining human history by attributing the full knowledge of the natural world to him rather than humans, and also explained miraculous occurrences as God’s intervention, an exception to the rule of human agency.
Hegel, on the other hand, does not attribute anything to God per se but still subscribes to a higher “essence” as explained by his concept of “Mind” and “Spirit”. He argued that this realm of the “Mind” superseded the normal realm of human material experience and it was in this realm that Absolute Reality could be found. Also, there was his concept of “Spirit” which he sees as the driving force and overriding principle in explaining universal history. Both these concepts are actualized in the material world and move human history along. Hence, while God was removed from the explanation of human history, some sense of the divine was still present.
Moving on to Marx, he argued in his SPH that man is simply man and that there is no higher “essence” or God in human history, hence the only thing that moves history along is man and his involvement in productive activity. Everything boils down to material reality and the tangible human experience and interaction to be able to understand history and society.
Progress
With regards to the idea of progress, it is clearly present in the speculative philosophies of history of all three thinkers. The ways in which they address this issue shares common ground with regards to the notion of human agency being the driving force behind progress, however, the main divergence in their ideas, particularly between Vico versus Hegel and Marx is the idea of dialectics that is introduced by Hegel and further built on by Marx in their rationalization of human progress.
Vico clearly sees progress as a result of human agency rather than predetermined by divine forces, a divorce from the ideas about progress that preceded his own, and this is seen in the notion of recourse that he advocates. He first explained universal history in terms of three stages, namely the Age of Gods, the Age of Heroes and the Age of Men. Human agency acts as the driving force in the progression from one historical age to the next, as man’s mind grew in wisdom and maturity towards higher planes of rationality and knowledge of the truth. Human agency was also a crucial determinant in the prevention of the potential demise of man back to primitivism – there were three paths to choose from once a stage of corruption and power struggle was reached in the Age of Men: (1) Transit into monarchy; (2) Be conquered by better nations and (3) Outbreak of Civil Wars and the Return to Primitivism. As long as man remained rational and strove for the good of mankind, the course of history could be steered from a return to primitivism. Hence, it is clear that human agency becomes the main determinant in bringing about historical progress.
Hegel and Marx also rationalize progress in terms of human agency and stages, but in a different manner by incorporating a dialectical method of logical contradictions to explain how progress can be attained. Hegel argues that constantly producing and resolving contradictions would lead to synthesis and the production of a better stage that can be progressed. This can be seen in his rationalization of the development of the Germanic realm where thesis and antithesis produced new and better historical periods, from the birth of Christianity to the Holy Roman Empire to the Renaissance to the French Revolution. Marx makes use of a similar dialectical approach but limits the contradiction to productive forces and the relations of production, thus bringing about a linear progression that would eventually lead to the logical conclusion of communism.
Conclusion
Vico, Hegel and Marx may have different ideas as to how to go about explaining and rationalizing history, and in fact, for us to have considered them major contributors to our current understanding of history means that they HAD to be different. However, the main tenets of explaining human history are still present in each of their SPHs, hence there is still a basis for comparison.
As a short response to JX’s post early about how Vico, Hegel and Marx can’t be compared based on the grounds of different contexts from which the thinkers came – surely that by itself can’t be the only reason why they cannot be compared. We can’t compare them as thinkers, but we can compare their ideas as I have attempted to here.
Wikipedia and Objective History
Hi everyone I’ve been reading through some of the stuff we’ve been saying about writing objective history and some thoughts came to mind.
I’m sure most of us are familiar with Wikipedia’s policy that all its articles should be written from a ‘neutral point of view’ (NPOV). Indeed if we’re talking about objectivity, then Wikipedia offers, in my opinion, just about the closest one can get to history that is ‘unbiased’. Yes, Wikipedia contributors rarely achieve what one might call ‘true neutrality’ (if there actually is such a thing) but one might say that they offset that shortcoming by providing a space where anyone and everyone can express his or her views. No one argument dominates the eventual article and even if it does happen, Wikipedians are quick to raise the red flag in the form of a warning box at the top of the page warning that its neutrality is disputed. And what a dispute it usually is, the “Discussion” pages that accompany each Wikipedia article are often inundated with lengthy debates about whether said article adheres to the NPOV. The question, however, is not so much whether we can write a truly objective and neutral historical account, but simply, what is the point of it?
Wikipedia prides itself on being able to “describe disputes rather than to take sides in them, to characterize differing positions fairly.” Yet what does this do other than create a giant online repository of fence sitting? Articles have almost no interpretive or analytical value. Arguments are made, certainly, but side by side with dozens of others, whether corroborative or contradictory and end up with absolutely no conclusions drawn. What then is the point of this exercise? One learns that so-and-so was, simultaneously, righteous and villainous, tall and short, good and bad. Or in the context of poor Elmer Fudd, it is duck, rabbit, dirty skunk and baseball season all at once. One either gets utterly confused and has no idea what to think, or goes bonkers and gives up altogether. It seems therefore that the peril of attempting to write objective history, or seeking to take every viewpoint into account, is that it invariably turns into nothing more than a descriptive exercise. Don’t get me wrong, I still believe that historians should aspire towards the ‘founding myth’ of objective history, but just as we have learnt that truly objective history cannot be achieved, we should perhaps also realize that it should not be achieved because truly objective historical writing is, quite simply, pointless. A quote from Huanyuan’s post goes “How are history books any more definitive than Wikipedia?” Precisely because they are less than objective.
Isaac
HY4101 