Why study history?
Randal Mindell
Hello,
My name is randal mindell, and I live in vancouver bc. I am currently
writing an essay, "Why do we study history?". I would appreciate any
comments on this subject. In this I could approach the essay differantly,
somewhere between my opinion and the library.
Joshua Heuman
: My name is randal mindell, and I live in vancouver bc. I am currently
: writing an essay, "Why do we study history?". I would appreciate any
: comments on this subject. In this I could approach the essay differantly,
: somewhere between my opinion and the library.
The standard reply by the "classical" historian would be: History is a
series of cyclical activities. Wars, famines, disease epidemics, etc.
occur time and time again. Humans should study the past to better under-
stand the present, and possibly gain an understanding of the future.
For me, this seems too simple, clear-cut. People do have wars, suffer
from famines and disease epidemics, etc. however, we have different reasons
each time.
For me, the arguement for the study of history is as follows:
Things happen. We know (usually) the when, the how, the what and the who.
History is the development of the WHY. The dates form only a chronology
which can only be interpreted after the fact...many people try to interpret
the chronology, however, resulting in many histories. This is the key:
There is no One history of anything. And history changes with each new
generation as historians grow up with different standards, being one more
generation farther away in time from the actual event.
Hope this makes sense...quite philosophical.
--
Joshua Heuman
yu10...@yorku.ca
Art History Undergraduate
Mounce Robert D.
certain acts where the recipient of the action would have thought it was
anything but fun. Of course, these weren't historians, they merely
appropriated the historian's craft to an end. Or was there an historian
or two involved? I can't recall, Machiavelli, perhaps, but I liked him.
Doug
GORDON FISHER
1. One of the several reasons I like studying history is that it makes
me feel like I'm memorializing the past. Sometimes this means
honoring the past, and sometimes dishonoring it. Jacob Burckhardt
wrote somewhere a statement to the effect that history (in the
sense of talking or writing about happenings) is concerned with
people struggling (I forget the exact words -- does anyone know
them?) And I like to contemplate the incredible variety and
convolutions of these struggles, giving honor where it's due,
being horrified when appropriate (Lest we forget!), and occasionally
learning a lesson or two which I can try to apply in my own daily
struggles.
2. Here's an inversion of the question: "Why *not* study history?"
This can be taken two ways: (1) if it pleases you, why not
study history? (2) what are some reasons which have been
given for NOT studying history? Answers to (2) can be very
revealing in connection with the original question, "why study
history?" "History is bunk," is a statement often attributed
to Henry Ford, although I seem to recall he didn't really say
this, just something somewhat somewhat similar and not so
neatly put. If history were indeed full of bunk (not the
happenings, perhaps, but what certain people say about them),
this presumably would be a reason for *not* studying history.
Again, in what were once called the Balkans (former Yugoslavia, etc),
and many other places and times, historical knowledge plays a role in
initiating and perpetuating conflic. This is another reason, maybe, for not
studying history. Some one might argue, though, that if the combatants
didn't have the historical knowledge they do, they'd find some other
reason to fight with each other. Someone (NOT ME) might even argue
that warfare of this kind is a good or at least necessary activity,
e.g. because it may help to solve problems brought on by overpopulation
relative to resources in a region.
3. In a way, "why study history?" is a tacitly biased question. It
suggests that we can make a choice whether or not to study history.
But how is that possible? Everyone studies some history, whether
they want to or not. Probably some more precise ways to state the
questions being discussed in this thread would be "Why study written
history?" (as contrasted with what we pick up from casual conversation,
TV shows and movies, newspapers, etc., etc.); or "Why study history
as it's presented in schools?"; or maybe even, "Why study history
critically?"
Gordon Fisher fac_f...@vax1.acs.jmu
Professor Emeritus, Mathematics & Computer Science
Gary Pickrell
In article <gt2782a-1702...@stemmons25.onramp.net>,
Richard Ladd Kirkham <gt2...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>Salvatore J. Babones writes:
>
>>Ontogenically speaking, my guess is that nearly all people who study history
>>study history because it is interesting. No--because it is FUN!
>
>I'll go even further (and probably stir up a hornet's nest) by asserting
>my belief that the main PURPOSE of the study of history is entertainment,
>for both the readers and the writers of it. History is thus more akin
>to movies, novels, and TV (and board games) than to other academic dis-
>ciplines. Although the practioners of those other disciplines have fun
>doing what they are doing, those other disciplines can rightly claim to
>serve purposes that transcend their entertainment value. But the study
>of history I think cannot. All justifications I've seen for the study
>of history (except Babones "because it is FUN") make it sound as if his-
>tory's goals were indistinguishable from the goals of social science.
There are many reasons for studing history, it being fun in only one of
them. One reason is to understand the world around us. How can we
understand why there are so many cathedrals in Europe, or why there are
US military bases in Cuba without knowing history?
History enables people to understand the present. If you want to make a
prediction about how people are going to respond in the future, the best
way to do it is to find a historical example that has the same major
elements and see how the people responded then. If you want to
understand human behavoir you have to understand history.
If you want to understand the brillant minds of the past, you need to
understand the world they live in. If you read Plato's Republic, you
have to understand he is talking about small city states and not modern
countries. If you don't understand that it was the norm in his age, you
don't understand why he says somet of the things he does.
-Gary
Todd Michel McComb
>I'll go even further (and probably stir up a hornet's nest) by asserting
>my belief that the main PURPOSE of the study of history is entertainment,
>for both the readers and the writers of it. History is thus more akin
>to movies, novels, and TV (and board games) than to other academic dis-
>ciplines.
Obviously, I strongly disagree.
First, I'd like to hear how other academic disciplines -- like, say,
literature and music -- transcend mere entertainment in ways that
history does not.
And, since I'm assuming you are thinking about the sciences in
particular when you make this statment, I'd like to hear how the study
of quarks in particle physics transcends mere entertainment. I'd put
all three of the disciplines above (history, literature, music) at an
easily more active level of social utility.
>Although the practioners of those other disciplines have fun doing
>what they are doing, those other disciplines can rightly claim to
>serve purposes that transcend their entertainment value. But the
>study of history I think cannot. All justifications I've seen for the
>study of history (except Babones "because it is FUN") make it sound as
>if history's goals were indistinguishable from the goals of social
>science. Moreover, social science achieves these goals better than
>history can, because social science can reach justified
>generalizations.
And what is uniquely valuable about a justified generalization?
Moreover (sic), it is history which is queen of the "social sciences"
precisely because the study of history frequently incorporates other
social sciences -- politics, economics, psychology, etc. -- all come
into play when attempting to analyze a historical scenario. Moreover
(non-sic), scientific techniques are used in history, in order to
authenticate sources.
>But knowing what this causal chain is is not particularly valuable
>knowledge. It will not tell us for example whether such programs are
>morally justified.
And other disciplines have some way to measure moral justifiability?
If that were true, history would happily incorporate such methods.
Knowing a causal chain affects policy decisions in more ways than you
want to let on. Such knowledge is often crucial to international
relations. It certainly helps someone from making a fool of themselves
in an unfamiliar setting.
>History really doesn't, in other words, help us understand our present
>in the ways that we want to understand it. It can tell us how we got
>here, which is fun to know, but not much more than fun.
Ah, well... you should change "us/we" to "me/I" and then your statement
would make sense.
History sharpens the mind. By studying the vast entanglement of human
affairs, with their various contingencies intact, one is forced to
acknowledge the complexity of the present -- without the contrived and
sterile conditions of a laboratory. In other words, studying history
allows us to learn about ourselves in ways beyond merely accounting for
the conditions of the present. In many ways, this is a personal
journey.
Now, if that is "entertainment," then fine -- I am willing to classify
everything that does not produce food/clothing/shelter in the realm of
entertainment, if you like.
Todd Michel McComb
mcco...@netcom.com ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/mc/mccombtm/home.html
Support the Arts & Humanities news hierarchy! Web or email for details.
Nick Mieuli
yu10...@afep.yorku.ca (Joshua Heuman) writes:
>Randal Mindell (ran...@wimsey.com) wrote:
>: My name is randal mindell, and I live in vancouver bc. I am currently
>: writing an essay, "Why do we study history?". I would appreciate any
>: comments on this subject. In this I could approach the essay differantly,
>: somewhere between my opinion and the library.
I like Christopher Lasch's comments about history:
"The political culture of modern societies consists largely of an implicit
argument about the past, and it is the job of historical criticism to make
that argument explicit and to point out the political consequences that
follow from any given reading of the past."
I like this view because it makes the study of history very meaningful to
political discussions in the present about where we're going in the future,
if that makes any sense.
One of my professors gave me this quote. I hope it helps your essay.
Judith Eubank
If you go to see a doctor for the first time, what will the doctor do
before he/she does anything else? "Take a history" of you, the new patient.
Why? Because without that history, no doctor can hope to understand your
present state of health (or disease) as well as with that history.
As in medicine, so in most fields. To understand the current state of
most things requires knowing how that state came into being--knowing its
history.
Judith
Andreas Koerber
: Randal Mindell (ran...@wimsey.com) wrote:
: : My name is randal mindell, and I live in vancouver bc. I am currently
: : writing an essay, "Why do we study history?". I would appreciate any
: : comments on this subject. In this I could approach the essay differantly,
: : somewhere between my opinion and the library.
: The standard reply by the "classical" historian would be: History is a
: series of cyclical activities. Wars, famines, disease epidemics, etc.
: occur time and time again. Humans should study the past to better under-
: stand the present, and possibly gain an understanding of the future.
This is a clear example of what Joern RUESEN in Germany calls the
"exemplaric" way of making sense out of history, dominant in th
western culture since about Thukydides. It means deriving *rules*
from past events with which to understand what happened and what can
happen again.
It is one of four main types of historical thinking Ruesen has
deciphered. In modern age, this sense is not appropriate to
the exeperience of people anymore. History is no longer "magistra vitae"
in the sense of deriving rules from it which are applicable fairly unchanged.
The modern experience is the ever increasing change of things in time,
quite exponentially. Therefore modern historical thought has developed another
type of historical sense which has not exstinguished the fromer ones
(traditiona ald exemplaric), but which is an addition, becoming more and more
perdominant: the genetic style, of which we do have some kind of example
in the following portion of the article I'm answering here:
: For me, this seems too simple, clear-cut. People do have wars, suffer
: from famines and disease epidemics, etc. however, we have different reasons
: each time.
This does not necessarily mean acknowledgement of a *linear*, i.e. here *di-
rectional* change of time which is the main signature of genetic
historical thought, but it shows some distance from exemplarity, and there-
for may well serve as an example. Genetic historical thought has developedin early modern times (beginning with CHLEADENIUS' thought of the historical
vewpoint).
On this see
- Reinhart KOSELLECK: _"Vergangene Zukunft_
On the four modes of historical thought see
- Joern RUESEN: "Die vier Typen des historischen Erzaehlens".
In: Joern Ruesen: Zeit und Sinn. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer TB, 1990
r (a reprint, but the best accessible one).
There should be an English translation somewhere, but I don't know where.
ISBN 3-596-27435-4, pp. 153-230
: For me, the arguement for the study of history is as follows:
: Things happen. We know (usually) the when, the how, the what and the who.
: History is the development of the WHY. The dates form only a chronology
: which can only be interpreted after the fact...many people try to interpret
: the chronology, however, resulting in many histories. This is the key:
: There is no One history of anything. And history changes with each new
: generation as historians grow up with different standards, being one more
: generation farther away in time from the actual event.
This now is true genetic thought.
Andreas Koerber
Univ. Hamburg
: Hope this makes sense...quite philosophical.
Gerard Foley
: Salvatore J. Babones writes:
: >Ontogenically speaking, my guess is that nearly all people who study
history
: >study history because it is interesting. No--because it is FUN!
I'll go with that.
: I'll go even further (and probably stir up a hornet's nest) by asserting
: my belief that the main PURPOSE of the study of history is entertainment,
<snip>
: All justifications I've seen for the study
: of history (except Babones "because it is FUN") make it sound as if his-
: tory's goals were indistinguishable from the goals of social science.
If I were sure I knew the goals of social science, I might comment
further than to say that historians usually write in english, or some
other widely understood language.
: Moreover, social science achieves these goals better than history can,
: because social science can reach justified generalizations.
I wish they would justify them better and more often.
I think that history provides the data for social science and a good
many more disciplines.
<snip>
: But knowing what
: this causal chain is is not particularly valuable knowledge.
Sounds like the writing of a social scientist.
: It will not tell us for example whether such programs are morally justified.
I think many moral judgments are formed, justified or reinforced on the
basis of historical data, accurate or inaccurate.
<snip>
I hope this isn't a flame!
Gerry
Judith Eubank
Gerard Foley <gfo...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>Richard Ladd Kirkham (gt2...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
>I think that history provides the data for social science and a good
>many more disciplines.
>
>: But knowing what
>: this causal chain is is not particularly valuable knowledge.
>
>Sounds like the writing of a social scientist.
>
>: It will not tell us for example whether such programs are morally justified.
No, that's because history is history, not theology, ethics, or
philosophy. But it's hard to have an intelligent moral assessment of
many behaviors or plans unless you understand something of their
history. In fact, without remembering your own personal history -
however fragmentary the memories may be - you hardly have a self at all
from which to make moral judgments about anything.
Reading Oliver Sacks is helpful, and humbling. I almost think that after
reading the case of the lost mariner, no one would ever again doubt the
value of being able to recall the past. History is a large word for
studying many individual recordings of witnessed events. Sifting,
sorting, trying to understand. How would you feel about a judge who said
to you the defendant, "Did you shoot Joe Smith?" "Yes, sir, I did."
"Fine. Then I'm ready to sentence you." "Wait! Don't you want to know
what led up to the shooting?" "I don't need a lot of history. You shot
him. I'm capable of making a moral judgment about that act."
Judith
Arbin Sherchan
amused by it, and was little enlightened by it. I don't want to summarize
the points made earlier, but I will like point out some dissatifactory
comments. [BTW I am not a history major, just a history enthusiast]
* people study history because it is interesting not because it is fun...
I don't see the difference. I study history books because I find them
interesting. The interesting thing about it is that I learn what, how and
why (although it is schewed, I will deal it later). While reading I get
tons of fun. I prefer history books to fiction.
* history tells you how things came to being...
Not necessarily. It depends on whose history books you read about. I
once read a great article written by the British historian Carr (forgot
his first name) where he tells a "car accident" story. In that story, a
man comes back home totally drunk from the party, takes a sharp turn and
hits a woman coming out of a bakery. (BTW, I am not exactly sure of the
theme). Now how do you intrepets this event as a historian. It depends on
your point of view. Who is guilty in this case. The driver: if he were not
that drunk he could have reacted faster; woman: she shouldn't have gone to
the bakery; the sharp turn: well if it was not there it couldn't have
happened; the man's wife: for calling her husband back home; the woman's
children etc. etc. etc.. The bottom line is the woman got hit by a drunken
driver, and the reasons why it happens is not clear cut. In such
situation, well your belief in history depends on where you stand. [as
Graham Allision says, "where you stand depends on where you sit"]
* history will enable you to predict the future....
Well, I am not so sure about that thing. It is true that history is
moved by forces beyond human control. However, human do play a small part
which magnifies with time. It's like a game theory. Even a minute change
creates actions and reactions which enlarges his influence in the course
of history. This true because history as any other social science is not
a linear discipline. Imagine if Hitler had died in WWI, or Churchill was
not able escape from POW camp in the S. Africa, or Lenins's brother had
not been executed by the Czar, or Gandhi was not expelled from the First
Class seat in S. Afrrca, or Kennedy was not able to make it from his
debacle in his PT-109, or Bush was not rescued by a submarine during WWII
or... or ... or... As I say in awe, "You never know."
Just my $0.02
Arbin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Arbin Sherchan * <ashe...@cc.swarthmore.edu>
(610) 690-5554 * <http://www.engin.swarthmore.edu/~sherchan>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Love your enemies, it'll make them wonder what you are upto...