What is History?
History is understanding the past, fundamental to collective memory, personal identity and simply “how the present has come to be”. Society relies on historians to ‘accurately’ record, interpret and explain ‘our history’. In general, most people expect university qualified historians to properly analyse the available evidence and objectively describe the past. Within the history discipline you would expect a central question such as ‘what is history?’ to be debated, but when Edward Carr dismisses the importance of the evidence then one wonders whether historical knowledge is possible. If documents and facts are not relevant then does history become no more than a study of personal reflection, literature and ideology? Carr was confronting the established practice of blind confidence in the evidence held in archival repositories when he declared that “no document can tell us more than what the author of the document thought”. The notion that testimonial proof could be compromised influences how an historian understands their role in giving meaning to the past, on whether they regard themselves as ‘creator’ or ‘discoverer’. In turn, this will influence their research methodology and whether they rely on the available facts or prefer such skills as imagination, inference and critical analysis. At the core of this argument is whether, or at least to what extent the available evidence is trustworthy. Are there other ways to discover understandings of the past? This essay is concerned with the criteria for truth and philosophies of history, of whether we can believe historians statements about the past.
If we accept that the recording of past events is compromised then how should historians interpret ‘facts’? Debate is not with the past as an object, but in the actual mechanics of- or lack thereof- recording the past and subsequent interpretations. Partiality of the original recorder, the historian, collection bodies, digitisation and the socio-political commitment to a particular collective memory all contribute to compromising the efficacy of the evidence. To overcome these problems historians have to first decide as to what extent they ‘trust’ the evidence. To some historians, the evidence is available and satisfactory for a dedicated and meticulous research methodology. However, given the impossibility of actually witnessing first-hand the actions of the past, some historians question this simple reliance on traditional forms of evidence discovery. Instead they use imagination, critical reflection, intuition, an open mind and interpretation to uncover the past.
To believe an historian requires confidence, not just in their skills, but in their personal philosophy of history. Even the historian’s language is not a transparent passive medium, instead it is the very vantage point from which historians’ see the past. So how does an historian’s viewpoint, their perceived audience, and past life experiences affect their version of ‘history’? Edward Carr was a career diplomat and editorial writer for The Times whose audience was a generalised intelligent reader who shared his socially progressive views. It is little wonder that he questions the exclusivity of university education and the problems of ‘hidden history’. Whereas Geoffrey Elton was a professional historian, an elitist who believed that only ‘serious’ historical practice and “strict attention to the facts” created unbiased historical knowledge . Keith Jenkins, on the other hand, is a post-modernist historian who considers all history an ideological reflection of prevailing societal norms or reaction against them. In other words, politics. Ironically, it is ‘the other view’, or minority interpretation, that is regarded as exclusively socio-political when, according to Jenkins, predominant versions are just as ideological but less confronting. Further, by re-arranging the question of “what is history?” to “who is history for?” Jenkins is connecting ideology with audience influence in the creation of a particular version of the past. This dilemma is only to be overcome with a multi-discipline approach and serious studies of historiography that can generate better understanding of epistemological presumptions. In direct opposition is Keith Windschuttle, a controversial journalist, historian and supporter of meticulous empiricist research. His contemptuous dismissal of history’s incorporation into ‘cultural studies’, of its emasculation and capture by those who espouse theoretical pretensions and political correctness reflect a hankering for times past, of archive and European centred historical knowledge . However, no analysis of historical philosophy would be complete without input from the Oxford scholar Robin Collingwood who addressed criteria for truth, of gaps in the evidence by advocating historical re-enactment and imagination.
A historian’s dilemma is to be constrained by the availability and reliability of historical evidence and yet be expected to objectively and comprehensively explain the past. What is the role of the historian in the creation of historical knowledge? Elton considers the historian to be the ‘discoverer’, the establisher of fact, an impartial interpreter to whom there remains an objective distance with the evidence. Alternatively, Carr believes historical knowledge to be what is known; he does not equate this with the past. In this sense the historian is the ‘creator’ of history: what they choose to examine and publish becomes the known history; it becomes historical knowledge. Jenkins concurs that not all the past can be known, that the past can only be bought back by historians. Yet to Jenkins, the historian is neither the creator nor discoverer, merely one voice amongst many social science scholars who give meaning to the past. This form of investigation is more nuanced and less certain, questioning the origin of the sources and willing to search for the obscure and the ordinary. This equates with Collingwood’s re-enactment theory that states that the main purpose of a historian is to understand past actions by rethinking the thoughts of the individuals who performed them. Keith Windschuttle disagrees vehemently with Jenkins post-modernist views, that encompassing history as part of interdisciplinary cultural studies undermines and corrupts traditional practices of historical scholarship. By incorporating these new courses the historian becomes little more than a commentator, a far removal from one whom seeks objective historical truth.
Edward Carr’s dismissal of historical empiricism is based on his belief that facts and documents are tarnished by personal, collective and selective bias. Because historical empiricism relies on archival sources to establish basic axioms then it is particularly vulnerable to inadequate evidence; of relying on basic facts as completely impartial. However, archival resources are problematic because they are an individual’s recollection of, or response to, a specific event. Given the past no longer exists, it is this testimony, and not direct knowledge that a historian must rely upon. Every individual will have personal motives as to what they record. Historical thought is based on perception where, as Collingwood explains “each has for its proper object something individual”.
Archival institutions reflect prevailing political, cultural and socioeconomic mores. Blind faith in the completeness of these records and the inability to both access and fully comprehend all available evidence overemphasise a particular narrative at the expense of other perspectives. Geoffrey Elton and Keith Windschuttle have confidence in the archives as a comprehensive data receptacle, reminiscent of Lord Acton’s declaration that “all information is within reach and every problem become capable of a solution”. This entails an assumed premise that everything past has been recorded. This is, of course, an impossibility. Not all past events have been witnessed, let alone recorded, and even if it was possible then the sheer volume of archival data would make comprehension impossible. Digitisation of archives only further magnifies ‘the opportunity’ to find all the evidence. The enormous volume of information on the internet and its characteristically ephemeral nature both provide new opportunities for research but also threaten to overwhelm. Even with the best of intentions, priority for digital projects is usually only for rare and unique historical materials. Increased access to existing archives, and an emphasis on ‘prized’ artefacts, only enhance prevailing biases and in-turn influence the research of historians and their explanations.
Whilst historians may differ in their personal philosophy of historical knowledge, all recognise that to some extent there needs to be both a recognition, and subsequent form of adequate research practice, to overcome gaps and biases in historical testimony. Further, if we accept that the historian is essential to explaining historical knowledge then it is in the undertaking of their professional skills such as imagination, inference, rigorous methodology and critical analysis that a historian can create a comprehensive understanding of the past.
In overcome gaps in the evidence created by a lack of direct and independent witnessing of past events, Collingwood suggested that a judicious use of imagination and inference would enhance both understanding and the narrative of historical discourse. This opened him to the charge of constructed history as merely a form of literature; of primary concern to Windschuttle. However like Jenkins and Carr, Collingwood was searching for ways to overcome deficiency in the historical evidence. In fact, he believed that without the use of imagination there could not be sufficient critical engagement with the sources, that to understand the past one must imagine how an individual would act and think in particular circumstances- read between the lines. Consequently the historian must endure “a struggle between imagination and evidence”. Fundamentally, a structure of verifiable fixed ‘facts’ are filled in by empathetic imagination that comprehensively understands the purpose of an individual’s actions. Collingwood insists, in this sense, that imagination is not fictitious and “there is little risk of losing touch with the reality it represents”. According to Sam Wineburg, a historian needs to understand the purpose of a document and “cannot engage with that fragment unless you know who is speaking” . There is no point in judging past actions with present day values; systems of belief change over time and to decipher past actions requires an understanding of the context in which actors were making their decisions.
Like all philosophers of history, Elton struggled with the lack of direct unbiased historical testimony. However, he did not believe imagination and creative understanding was the answer and instead stood by the practice of rigorous methodology and critical analysis. He acknowledged both the enormous amount of available data and the lack of all historical facts, but felt that it was in the ambition for complete historical knowledge that real understanding could be found. Elton also recognised that a danger existed of bias at the selection stage only overcome with complete immersion in the “total of historical material relevant to the enquiry”. According to Elton there are historical methods of enquiry that can decipher true facts and meanings. Key amongst these methods is a critical engagement with the source materials. Direct knowledge comes from tested testimony, ‘historical facts’ are only discovered from answers to questions and, fundamentally, in order to overcome selection bias the “questions will come from the evidence”. Again this aligns with Elton’s belief that the historian is the ‘discoverer’ of the past. He was adamant that personal bias could be overcome by using “rules of scholarship” to overcome this problem”. Whilst acknowledging the worthiness of methodology, Jenkins pointed out that given the variety of methods on offer, which one is Elton talking about? Pointedly, he felt that because of a lack of agreed standards then a historian could use whichever method best suited their purpose- surely a form of self-referencing and bias. The battle for predominant methodology only further underlines Jenkins belief that “history is a theory and theory is ideological”. The divergent views of Elton and Jenkins reflects their personal philosophy of history. To some extent they agree with Carr in so much that there are limitations to the efficacy of facts and documents. It is in their interpretation of how best to use the available testament in their role as historians, as creators or discoverers that debate persists as to the best way to explain historical knowledge.
The discovery and explanation of what actually happened in the past will always be a contested interpretation. When an event is recorded it reflects bias. What is recorded reflects bias. What is regarded as sufficiently worthy of storing, and subsequently researched, reflects bias. The personal philosophy of history as discoverer or creator reveal an historian’s approach to overcoming these problems. Significantly, even those historians such as Elton and Windschuttle who advocate rigorous empirical research, also acknowledge that potential bias exists in the explanations of the past. What appears to be most important is to empathetically and critically interpret all available evidence. Therefore whilst empiricist research does rely on ‘tainted’ available testimony, Elton believes the professional and well regarded historian will use all available skill and methodology to overcome these problems. Whereas others such as Carr, Jenkins and Collingwood consider the missing pieces of historical knowledge a major handicap only overcome with the skills of imagination and contextual critical reflection.
Regardless of personal philosophy, an historian must ensure meticulous study of the historical actors, of their purpose at the time, to completely understand how people lived their lives. Given the limitations of available evidence, historical knowledge can only ever be the best available interpretation of what happened in the past; a historian must critically sift, analyse and understand in context to be fair in judgement.
Bibliography
Ankersmit, FR, ‘The Dilemma of Contemporary Anglo-Saxon Philosophy of History’, History and Theory, vol. 25, no. 4, 1986, pp. 1–27, retrieved 1st of April 2017, Jstor.
Burton, A, ‘Introduction: archive fever, archive stories’, in A Burton (ed.), Archive stories: facts, fictions, and the writing of history, Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, 2005, pp. 1–24, retrieved 26th of March 2017, AIH497 Reader.
Cannadine, D, ‘Making history; the discipline in perspective’, Making History, Institute of Historical Research, London, 24 July 2008, University of London, retrieved 26 March 2017, < http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/interviews/Cannadine_David.html>.
Carr, EH, What is history? : the George Macaulay Trevelyan lectures delivered in the University of Cambridge, January-March 1961, Macmillan, London, 1961.
Collingwood, RG & WJ van der Dussen, The idea of history: with lectures 1926–1928, Oxford University Press, Oxford UK, 1994.
Elton, GR, The Practice of History, Sydney University Press, London, 1967.
Jenkins, K, Re-thinking History, Routledge, London, 1991.
Johnson, P, Collingwood’s the idea of history: a reader’s guide, Bloomsbury, London, 2013.
Kent, C, ‘In Defence of History,’ Canadian Journal of History, vol. 34, no. 3 (1999), pp. 385–415, retrieved 26 March 2017, EBSCOhost.
Lucas, JS, ‘Historical Thinking is Unnatural, and Immensely Important: An Interview with Sam Wineburg,’ Historically Speaking, vol. 7, no. 3 (January 4, 2006), pp. 39–42, retrieved 26 March 2017, EBSCOhost.
McCalman, J, Translating social inquiry into the art of history, Tasmanian Historical Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, 1995–6, pp. 4–15, retrieved 26 March 2017, Informit.
Sinn, D, ‘Impact of digital archival collections on historical research’, Journal Of The American Society For Information Science & Technology, 2012, vol. 63, no. 8, pp. 1521–1537, retrieved 26 March 2017, EBSCOhost.
Windschuttle, K, The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists are Murdering Our Past, Encounter Books, San Francisco, 2000.
