[lit-ideas] On studying history
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:26:23 -0700
Judy a few days ago made a reference to "People who don't know much about
the discipline of history. . . ." And since this is a subject that
interested me prior to 9/11 and since I used certain guiding principles in
studying Islamism et al after 9/11, perhaps it is worthwhile to discuss the
subject a bit.
Several years ago I was especially enamored of R. G. Collingwood. Robert
Paul will remember that. He referred me to Alan Donagan as someone I might
want to add to my small library on Collingwood. Collingwood's magnum opus,
of course is The Idea of History. In this work Collingwood examines how the
idea of history has evolved from the time of Herodotus to the twentieth
century. He then provides his own idea of the nature of history. In
earlier times there was always an interfering paradigm through which the
historian viewed his subject matter. That approach tells us more about the
prejudices of the historian than about the matters he sought to describe to
us. The historian, Collingwood wrote, should seek as much as possible to
dispense with such paradigms as well as his own preconceptions and attempt
to develop the historical narrative as though he were present while the
events he was describing were occurring. Unless one seeks to present the
points of view of the actors in the history; then one as an historian has
not done his job.
It was as a result of having studied Collingwood that I was especially
critical of the Leftists who wrote about the Islamists and terrorists. They
advanced the idea that these people were engaged in just another
Marxist-type revolutionary activity. Did these Leftist historians truly
immerse themselves in the actors' milieu, or did they view them through the
paradigm of Marxist ideology? The two most notable individuals referred to
here are Edward Said and John Esposito.
I sought out historians who attempted to employ Collingwood's principle. We
know what Marx and Marxists say, but what do the Islamists say? And if the
Marxist historians disagree with what the Islamists say, why are they in a
better position to know the mind of the Islamists than the Islamists
themselves? Were these Marxist historians not doing what historians of an
earlier era did? Had we not now a superior approach with which to collect
and categorize historical events?
The last period that I had studied with intensity was "the Middle Ages." At
that time I used Norman Cantor as a guide, especially his Inventing the
Middle Ages. In that work he describes how medieval history came into its
own. Don't trust anything written before 1900, he advised the student of
Medieval history, but after that time some truly great works were written;
so I acquired the works he described and over a couple of years read a fair
number of them. In his bibliography of Civilization of the Middle Ages, he
provides "A Short List (14 titles)" and says about them "Here is a short
reading program in medieval history that, if mastered, will make you well
informed on the subject . . . " His long list contained 143 titles. He
called it the "core bibliography in medieval studies." I highlighted the
books I purchased and then put a little "R" by the books read.
After 9/11 I looked for an Islamic-History Norman Cantor to use as a guide,
but the world of Islamic history seemed to be in much worse shape than the
Medieval-History world. I did find a few who wrote on earlier periods that
seemed trustworthy, that is, historians that they attempted to produce
histories from the points of view of the actors and not allow themselves to
any noticeable degree to influence the histories with their own
preconceptions. Wilfred Cantwell Smith and G. E. Von Grunebaum are
examples. But what of current events, who can one trust in this modern
arena? I felt I could do no better than seek out the best authorities I
could find and used reviews of their books as guides. I also used the
articles from journals, especially Foreign Affairs as guides. I mistrusted
those who failed Collingwood's test by viewing current events through a
Marxist paradigm, and instead sought out not just historians but experts and
journalists who were out there amongst the people I was interested in.
There are those here on Lit-Ideas who view me through a Marxist paradigm.
It does me no good to say that Kenneth Pollack was a Democrat and a Clinton
appointee, or that Sandra Mackey was a Democrat, or that Robin Wright is a
Democrat and an admirer of John Esposito or Thomas P. M. Barnett is a
Democrat. If I find anything worthwhile in these writers then they become
instant Conservatives and, therefore, anathema. That obviously is making
the same mistake that the aforementioned Edward Said and John Esposito made.
They are engaging in the creation of poor history, if only in their own
minds.
Much of what we must contend with in regard to the Middle East and Islamism
is the reports of witnesses and reporters. Are these witnesses reporting
events accurately or are they reporting them through the filter of a
paradigm? For example, did Hizbollah initiate the recent war with Israel or
(inserting the overlay of a paradigm) was Israel at fault because they were
evil and the root cause of all evil in the region?
Another assumption in modern history is to avoid the supernatural. People
are just people and not supernatural beings. They are neither gods nor
demons. The predilection of certain individuals to demonize modern
political figures may satisfy them in some way, but they are creating poor
history in their minds. It is true that virtually every major political
figure throughout the history of the US has been demonized by someone or
some group, but historians who looked back at those periods restored these
demonized presidents, cabinet members and legislators to human status. They
were mere humans after all. They typically did some things that the
historian will want to praise but also some things the historian will
criticize. Subsequent events are available to the historian so he can
demonstrate that his judgments are not mere opinion.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
