August 25, 2002

Sami Saeed is a civil servant who is at present secretary, excise and taxation, Punjab. He has studied at Cambridge University UK, Harvard University USA, and the IMF Institute Washington.

WE are living through an age that has relegated the liberal arts in general, and the study of history in particular, to the backburner. Dominated by science and technology, obsessed with increasing power over the physical universe and his own destiny, and lost in a frantic pursuit of material gains, modern man has become a dangerous robot and lost the spark of humanity.

This indeed is a perilous situation that threatens the very existence of mankind. Unless we infuse, not as occasional reflection but as a habit of mind, a profound sense of history, see our present in a long historical perspective, and avoid the pitfalls that punctuated past civilizations with chaotic interludes of decay, there is every danger that we will slip deeper into the morass.

History tells us that those who fail to rise above the din of current events and refuse to learn from past experience are condemned to commit mistakes that afflicted previous generations. To move ahead with dignity and a sense of purpose, it is essential to blaze the trail and also to keep looking into the rear view mirror.

The Greek historian Polybius (200-118 BC) brought out the normative value of self-analysis, of reflecting on the past, of searching one’s soul in the light of what has gone by: “The most instructive, indeed the only method, of learning to bear with dignity the misfortunes of life is to recall the catastrophes faced by others.”

History is an account of reality as it evolves through time. The vast expanse of time, which extends from antiquity to an unknown future, has haunted human imagination for ages. This discipline seeks to reconstruct the past and highlight the fabric of each passing age. It is not merely a corpus of facts, nor is it a dusty record of eras gone by. It brings into focus the patterns and principles which underpin the movement of events.

Bendetto Croce distinguishes between chronicle as simple narrative and history as significant narrative. According to him, history is the interpretation of significance that the past has for us. The historian seeks to understand life by relating the past, present and future to find out what happened and why.

Each age defines history in its own way. From Herodotus onwards, the concept has changed from time to time. When monarchy reigned supreme, history was a chronicle of kings and princes. As democratic awareness arose and people emerged as a force to reckon with, history was no longer confined to royal chronicles. The lives of ordinary folks came into the limelight; ‘the dirty people of no name’ as they were contemptuously called became an entity worth reporting.

There were three important and interrelated developments, which made history the most instructive and comprehensive of the social sciences.

Firstly, traditional history, as expounded by the English historian Edward Freeman, was confined to an account of past politics. The explosion of knowledge around the middle of the nineteenth century enriched the field of history, which now sought to portray civilization as a whole — the sum of human activities. History thus became the broadest of social sciences, overflowing into many branches of knowledge; a treasure-trove of learning, offering a total perspective on life.

The Dutch scholar Johan Huizinga (1872-1945) expounded the modern view of how history should be written. A detailed exposition of this view is given in his books: Men and ideas, The waning of the Middle Ages, In the shadow of tomorrow. History, Johan Huizinga argued, should present the complete portrait of an age, encompassing politics, society, culture, economy, the arts and crafts. His books are not merely theoretical but are also illustrative of the modern view.

Secondly, as the scope of history widened and its amplitude unfolded, the need for specialized study came to the fore. History was split into many branches — social history, economic history, cultural history. The study of history itself became an independent discipline. It was called historiology. The processes and patterns of historical change also developed into a full-fledged science. The monumental work by Arnold Toynbee, The study of history, unravelled an encyclopaedic range and infinite riches of knowledge.

Of all the branches, social history is perhaps the most representative and over-arching. Social history was popularized by G.M. Trevelyan. His remarkable work, English social history, broke new ground. The social scene, he argues, is embedded in economic conditions, as politics is a superstructure built on the bedrock of social realities. Without social history, economic history is barren and political history unintelligible.

But social history, Trevelyan states, does not merely provide a link between economics and politics. It has its own positive value and peculiar concern. It seeks to highlight the daily life of people: the character of family and household life, the conditions of labour and leisure, the attitude of man to physical environment, the religious beliefs and cultural heritage, literature and architecture, learning and thought.

Lastly, another major development in the evolution of history gave it a dimension of creativity. According to the traditional view, history was regarded as a corpus of ascertained facts. Ranke epitomized this view: “To show how it really was.” C P Scott was even more blunt: “Facts are sacred, opinion is free.” This concept of history drew on the empirical tradition of British philosophy, which considered mind as a passive recorder of external reality.” It also took its cue from the Positivists who popularized the cult of facts.

Granted that history is a compilation of facts. But who is to say how things were? Facts of history do not exist in a pure form but come to us as a result of interpretative choices exercised by historians, influenced by the standards of their age. This is how Bendetto Croce by the turn of the century countered the scientific view of history prevalent in the Victorian age. “All history,” he observed, “is contemporary history — the interpretation of the past through the criterion of the present.”

The truth, in fact, lies in between: history is neither a purely objective rendering of facts, nor a flight of fancy. It is an interactive process between the historian in the present and the facts of the past. The scientific motive of ascertaining facts and the artistic motive of selecting and presenting them cannot be separated in the writing of history. It is in this sense that history has the characteristics of both science and art.

The study of history - reflecting on the past - has immense moral and practical value for man. Firstly, it has a basic value to the individual in that it teaches personal philosophy, enriches individual personality, and provides for mental cultivation. Secondly, by chronicling the trials and tribulations faced by people in the past, history strengthens the individual with courage and fortitude. “A long historical view”, remarks Liddell Hart, “not only helps us to keep calm in a time of trouble but also reminds us that there is an end to the longest tunnel.”

Thirdly, as history records failures of men in the past and analyzes the mistakes made and opportunities lost, it holds out many valuable lessons for us. As the oft-repeated clichi goes, those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. History presents universal experience which is wider, deeper and richer than individual life. “Fools,” said Bismark, “say they learn by experience. I learn by other peoples’ experience.”

Finally, and most importantly, the study of history sharpens awareness of the perpetual movement of life and the unending vista of change. It demonstrates, more unambiguously than any other branch of knowledge, that there is no finality in human affairs, no ultimate truths, and no unassailable certainties. As such, history is a corrective to all forms of bigotry and dogmatism — states of mind which have germinated incessant strife and unrest in human history.

It infuses a sense of humility and pragmatism. It keeps down the arrogance of power, which is the greatest source of evil in human society. Observed Henry Adams in one of his lucid moments: “I have written too much history to believe in it. So if anyone wants to differ from it, I am prepared to agree with him”.

Let me wrap up my reflections on history by two quotes, one from a philosopher and the other from a historian. “History,” observed Bertrand Russell, “gives essential wisdom in regard to human destiny.” Liddell Hart reiterated the same point more graphically: “History is the record of men’s steps and slips. It shows us that the steps have been slow and slight; the slips, quick and abounding. It provides us with the opportunity to profit by the stumbles and tumbles of our forerunners. Awareness of our limitations should make us chary of condemning those who made mistakes but we condemn ourselves if we fail to recognize mistakes.”

Writer’s E-mail: samisaeed7@hotmail.com
 

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)