Historians and open-endedness

[Louis XXIV]

OK, this is more random thoughts that anything else. I've been busy lately and haven't had a chance to visit as much as I used to. This is a little different than most discussions in here, which is about history. This one is more about being a historian. I was talking to my history professor the other day and an interesting thought occured to me. Basically, we were discussing the Bayeux Tapestry and he mentioned that one of the things he loves so much about the Tapestry is how open ended it is. Everything can be interpretted in a number of ways.

It occurred to me that historians love that idea. One would figure that the best thing in the world would be a definite source. Some historical document that was contemporary and without bias who could say unequivocally that this is how it happened and why. But I figure historians don't want that. In many ways, history to a historian is about taking a historical document and reevaluating it in a different way to support a different argument. I sometimes think that historians would hate the idea of a time machine, since it means they no longer get to make an argument about what things were. Does anyone think that's true of historians? That the excercise of figuring something out is more important than what they figured out?

 

[cybrxkhan]

Unlike many of the other social sceinces, history is sometimes kept kind of separate. Why?

Because in a way, its kind of like art, or literature - the humanities, in other words. It is a story, and stories can be interpreted as necessary.

Because humans are naturally biased, no matter what, even the prime source is biased, so add that with our modern bias of today, and you got just a story, not truth. History is not necessarily a series of true events - it is a series of event in the perspective of someone.

 

[Verbose]

History-writing is interpretative.

There is no such thing as a totally univocal and transparent source. Everything needs to be interpreted and put in relation to other things.

From time to time attempts have been made to write history based only on facts (the 1950's for instance). What happened was that a generation of historians became so acutely aware of their inability to guarantee a form of non-interpretative certanity about the past, they turned out works which were often little less than straight up chronicles of quotes and sources.

It's not a complete waste of time to make lists like that, but as works of history they are almost unreadable, dry as dust, and in fact puts the onus on the reader to provide the interpretation. In a sense it's a form of cop out.

 

[1889]

I think Verbose has it right, there is no way any document can be completely clear and unbiased. Just for fun why don't you try and produce one. A time machine wouldn't clear anything up and it isn't historians who hate the idea of time travel but physicists.

 

[The Yankee]

The long and short of it is that much of history, as we consider it, deals with people. Merely an account of what went down and who was involved cannot always acknowledge what was in the hearts of men, their true reasons, their private actions, and the misunderstandings that sometimes develop into brutal conflicts that change the course of a land, a region, or the whole world.

Until we can become completely unbiased and without emotion, ambition, or a variety of means of communication, history will remain open-ended, even as new history is written daily.

There's something romantic in that notion.

 

[Tee Kay]

History-writing is interpretative.

There is no such thing as a totally univocal and transparent source. Everything needs to be interpreted and put in relation to other things.

From time to time attempts have been made to write history based only on facts (the 1950's for instance). What happened was that a generation of historians became so acutely aware of their inability to guarantee a form of non-interpretative certanity about the past, they turned out works which were often little less than straight up chronicles of quotes and sources.

It's not a complete waste of time to make lists like that, but as works of history they are almost unreadable, dry as dust, and in fact puts the onus on the reader to provide the interpretation. In a sense it's a form of cop out.

Quoted for truth.

Anyway discussion is very important in history imho, since it helps to clear the layer of bias that exist to some degree in every sources and build a more balanced view of history.

 

[Lord Chambers]

Basically, we were discussing the Bayeux Tapestry and he mentioned that one of the things he loves so much about the Tapestry is how open ended it is. Everything can be interpretted in a number of ways.

I'm wary about assuming too much about your professor's view of history, but based on this snippet I question whether he's completely disillusioned and manic or a very poor historian.

I think that to dedicate your career to the study of history, you must believe there is value in recording it. The interpretation of these records must, if you are to dedicate your career to it, have validity, meaning one interpretation is not as good as the next. Taken as a whole, these interpretations have to progress human understanding and knowledge. They have to be more than just an open-ended take. There has to be a point.

And there might not be, but if you're a historian, you sure as hell better hope there is one, otherwise what the hell are you doing? Moving blocks around on a table. Playing a game.

A historian of any worth, I think, would love for a definitive source. A historian of any worth, I think, understands that the inherent obstacles to objective historical interpretation, and should hope and dream of materials which give a solid foundation on which interpretation can be placed. This doesn’t mean he or she must loathe materials which fall short of being this foundation, that just comes with the territory, but the chance for a time-machine should thrill the historian.

There are many people who believe the historical method is ultimately flawed and won't bring anything of value to human society in the big picture. There are many reasons to think so. However, those people cannot also be history professors; unless they're disillusioned and manic or so bad at their job they have no concept of the historical method.

 

[Verbose]

I think that to dedicate your career to the study of history, you must believe there is value in recording it. The interpretation of these records must, if you are to dedicate your career to it, have validity, meaning one interpretation is not as good as the next. Taken as a whole, these interpretations have to progress human understanding and knowledge. They have to be more than just an open-ended take. There has to be a point.

Oh sure!

Said with reference to the impossibility of total certanity in historical matters:

"Just because you can't make an operating theatre 100% sterile, it doesn't mean you might as well operate in a sewer" — Robert Darnton (who probably nicked it somewhere).

The thing is rather that the incompleteness of records, bias etc. is such that all historians must be aware that there never is any such thing as complete access/transparency/the final word.

Otoh, any historian can challenge his own convictions about the possibility of writing it by reading theorists of history like Hayden White, "Metahistory", and despair. Michel Foucault is also good for a feeling of having walked into a trap.

 

[Gudinsdiv]

History is always partially subjective.
Some historians are compelled to present alternative ideas on the past in order to complete a thesis paper--a new idea. Granted, there will always be new ideas, but like scientist, historians want ot dig and dig more, to get as close as possible to the reality of that which they are studying. Naturally an open-ended approach is preferred, an open-mindedness, because once one stops questioning the past, they are no longer a historian.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

A historian of any worth, I think, would love for a definitive source. A historian of any worth, I think, understands that the inherent obstacles to objective historical interpretation, and should hope and dream of materials which give a solid foundation on which interpretation can be placed. This doesn’t mean he or she must loathe materials which fall short of being this foundation, that just comes with the territory, but the chance for a time-machine should thrill the historian.

Absolutely!

Back in the '90s, I took a classical history course at my local college, and at one point ended up having to agree to disagree with the instructor on the merits of speculating on possible alternate histories. His take was that "it happened, so why waste time talking about what didn't happen?"

This instructor presented a really interesting, fun class, but I get the impression that if he were given the chance to hop aboard a time machine and go back to Imperial Rome and find out if Livia Augusta were really as terrible a person as portrayed by Suetonius and Tacitus, or what the Twelve Labors of Hercules really referred to, he'd run in the opposite direction, lest what he found out contradict the class notes and curriculum he'd set up.

The thing about working with original sources is that unless it's a financial ledger or census records, it's probable that the material will be at least partly somebody's opinion. And that right there leaves it open to interpretation by the original author's contemporaries and everybody who comes after that. For example, when Augustus wrote his "I did ____ and _____ and _____ for Rome" (something about when he 'arrived' in the beginning of his reign Rome was a city of brick and when he 'left' toward the end of his reign it was a city of marble) -- was he stating facts, or was it a spectacular bit of propaganda? Well, obviously it was at least an exaggeration, as we know from archaeology that Augustus had not transformed the city that much!

Yes, historians should want to jump into a time machine and go back to see what really happened. However, some wouldn't actually do it because they lack the imagination for such a venture. Others may have the cynical view that if (for example) they went back and found that some significant historical event really didn't happen the way we've been taught to believe, or that it never happened at all -- if some historian happens to specialize in writing about that event, lecturing about it, etc., the truth might mean he would be out of a job ('cause every few years comes a new batch of students to hear the speculations all over again).

My college major was anthropology/archaeology, and I also took a number of history courses. My lifelong interests include science fiction and astronomy. So I have no problem whatsoever with the notion that although many interpretation of the facts are possible, does that make any specific interpretation the "correct" one? One writing project I want to tackle some day (perhaps for a future NaNoWriMo competition) is that of the flip side of the Star Trek episode "City on the Edge of Forever." That's the one where Kirk has to choose between allowing the woman he loves to die in order for the history he knows to be preserved. It all hinges on whether or not one seemingly-insignificant social worker dies in a street accident. I've been thinking about the flip side of that episode -- and speculating about a German starship captain who has to go back in time to make sure the woman survives so HIS version of history will be preserved. That's not to say I have any Nazi sympathies whatsoever. It's just an intriguing possibility to explore.

 

[Verbose]

Yes, historians should want to jump into a time machine and go back to see what really happened.

Sure. But that doesn't mean they would want Students to hop into one.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Sure. But that doesn't mean they would want Students to hop into one.

Why -- because they're afraid the student would make sure the historian himself was never born? Or maybe the student is failing the course and goes back to change history to match his test answers?

 

[Verbose]

Why -- because they're afraid the student would make sure the historian himself was never born? Or maybe the student is failing the course and goes back to change history to match his test answers?

No, I mean you hunch above is very likely correct. When teaching you do not really want to give students a free rein on their imagination about a lot of what-if? scenarios.

As a teacher you have a limited amount of time to try to pass on a bunch of things in the hope enough of it sticks. With any luck you as a teacher even have a Grand Strategy for this, focusing on things you think are necessary for the students, at this point depending on how advanced they are, to get a handle on the material and problems associated with it. The students don't, yet. If you let them run wild, it will be a waste of time for everyone, even if the students are entertained.

The what-if-stuff tends to crop up later. The normal progression is to teach students a Basic Version, where most things are presented as pretty much unproblematic, to give them a basic historical frame-work.

Next step tends to be to sit them down and say: "OK. You know all the stuff you've been taught so far? Well, most of it is probably wrong in any number of subtle ways, and now we start telling you why and how." It differs a bit between historical disciplines and departments exactly when you have this Talk with the students though.

 

[Lord Chambers]

Next step tends to be to sit them down and say: "OK. You know all the stuff you've been taught so far? Well, most of it is probably wrong in any number of subtle ways, and now we start telling you why and how." It differs a bit between historical disciplines and departments exactly when you have this Talk with the students though.

This is what college did for me. Gave me the gift of doubt. Now instead of thinking how I can apply what I know to create a better world I struggle with determining what I know to be true. Post Modernism FTW?

In theory I have a more accurate understanding of the world now, but in practice I think it constrains a lot of idealism and thus actual action.

 

[EdwardTking]

I think that to properly understand history, it is necessary
to try to get inside the minds of the people.

To a historical character (wherther emperor or peasant), their future
(our present) was uncertain and speculative. They often acted out
of hopes or fears of what they envisaged as their alternatives possible
futures (which a dry historian or teacher determined to keep to syllabus
to get their pupils through exams, might not want discussedl)

In understanding how people thought, we need to consider their
circumstances and knowledge and the limitations and strengths
that their own cultures and language provided them with.
This can be very difficult if we simply don't understand them.

I suspect that the history I was taught up to 16 about battles,
rulers and laws tended to over emphasis their importance.

 

[Verbose]

I think that to properly understand history, it is necessary
to try to get inside the minds of the people.

To a historical character (wherther emperor or peasant), their future
(our present) was uncertain and speculative. They often acted out
of hopes or fears of what they envisaged as their alternatives possible
futures (which a dry historian or teacher determined to keep to syllabus
to get their pupils through exams, might not want discussedl).

I agree that's not a bad sentiment.

Only... it tends to be complicated by this weird experience historians tend to have. Basically for the last 150 years or so we feel we understand how people think. We may feel they are getting it wrong, have the wrong priorities etc., but all in all the actual process of figuring things out looks pretty transparent (which might be a fallacy in itself, but nevertheless).

But beginning around 1850 or so, and increasing in frequency as you move backwards in time, people back there will suddenly pull something on you which is just utterly alien and weird to modern sentiments. And it's not even as if we can figure how their thoughts ran to end up at a certain conclusion. That's when intellectual historian REALLY get down to business, working out how these people in history argued things out, attempting to reconstruct and translate what was going on.

Getting inside the minds of people of bygone ages would be really neat. It's just that historians tend to be extremely wary of such claims. Odds are very good what you are getting is in fact glimpses into the mind of the historian making them, which isn't quite the same thing.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is what college did for me. Gave me the gift of doubt. Now instead of thinking how I can apply what I know to create a better world I struggle with determining what I know to be true. Post Modernism FTW?

Lucky you... In Architecture, Post-Modernism just means "modernism, only stupider".