Most students are usually introduced to the study of history by way of a fat textbook and become quickly immersed in a vast sea of names, dates,events and statistics. The students' skills are then tested by examinations that require them to show how much of the data they remember; the more they remember, the higher their grades. From this experience a number of conclusions seem obvious: the study of history is the study of "facts" about the past; the more "facts"you know,the better you are as a student of history. The professional historian is simply one who brings together a very large number of "facts". Therefore students often become confused upon discovering that historians often disagree sharply even when they are dealing withe the same event.
Their common-sense reaction to this state of affairs is to conclude that one historian is right while the other is wrong. And presumably, historians who are wrong will have their "facts" wrong. This is seldom the case, however. Historians usually all argue reasonably and persuasively. And, the "facts"---the names,dates, events, statistics--ussally turn out to be correct. Moreover, they often find that contending historians more or less agree on the facts; that is , they use much the same data. They come to different conclusions because they view the past form a different perspective. History, which seemed to be a cut-and -dried matter of memorizing "facts," now becomes a matter of choosing one good interpretation form among many. Historical truth becomes a matter of personal preference.
This position is hardly satisfying. They cannot help but feel that two diametrically opposedpoints of view about an event cannot both be right; yet they lack the ability to decide between them.
To understand why historians disagree, students must consider a problem they have more or less taken for granted. They must ask themselves what history really is .
In its broadest sense, history denotes the whole of the human past. More restricted is the notion that history is the recorded past, that is , that part of human life which has left some sort of record such as folk tales, artifacts, or written documents. Finally, history may be defined as that which historians write about the past. Of course the three meanings are related. Historians must base their accounts on the remains of the past, left by people. Obviously they cannot know everything for the simple reason that not every event, every happening, was fully and completely recorded. Therefore the historian can only approximate history at best. No one can ever claim to have concluded the quest.
But this does not say enough. If historians cannot know everything because not everything was recorded, neither do they use all the records that are available to them. Rather, they select only those records they deem most significant. Moreover, they also re-create parts of the past. Like detectives, they piece together evidence to fill in the gaps in the available records.
Historians are able to select and create evidence by using some theory of human motivations and behavior Sometimes this appears to be easy, requiring very little sopistication and subtlety. Thus, for example, historians investigating America's evtry into World War I would probably find that the sinking of american merchant ships on the high seas by German submarines was relevant to their discussion. At the same time, they would most likely not use evidence that President Woodrow Wilson was dissatisfied withe a new hat he bought during the first months of 1917. The choice as to which fact to use is based on a theory--admittedly, in this case a rather crude theory, but a theory nonetheless. It would go something like this: National leaders contemplating war are more likely to be influenced by belligerent acts against their countries than by their unhappiness with their haberdashers.
If the choices were as simple as this ,the problem would be easily resoved. but the choices were not so easy to make. Historians investigating the United States' entry into World Was I will find in addition to German submarine warfare a whole series of other facts that could be relevant to the event under study. For instance, they will find that the British government had a propaganda machine at work in the United States that did its best to win public support for the British cause. They will discover that American bankers had made large loans to the British, loans that would not be repaid in the event of a British defeat. They will read of the interception of the "zimmerman Note," in which the German Foreign Secretary ordered the German minister in Mexico, in the event of war, to suggest an alliance between Germany and Mexico whereby Mexcio, with German support, could win back territory taken form Mexico by the United States in the Mexican War. Tey will also find among many American political leaders a deep concern over the balance of power in Europe, a balance that would be destroyed --to America's disadvantage--if the Germans were able to defeat the French and the British and thereby emerge as the sole major power in Europe.
What the are historians to make of these facts? One group could simply list them .By dong so, they would be making two important assumptions: (1)those facts they put on their list are the main reasons, while those they do not list are not important; and (2)those things they put on their list are of equal importantance in explaining the U.S. role.But another group of historians might argue that the list is incomplete in that it does not take into account the generally pro-British views of Woodrow Wilson, views that disagreement among the historians. Moreover, because the second group raise the question of Wilson's views, they will find a number of relevantfacts that the first group his teachers, the books he read, and the books he wrote. In short, although bothgroups of historians are dealing with the same subject they will come to different conclusions and use different facts to support their points of view. The facts selected, and those ignored, will depend not on the problem studied but on the points of view of the historians.
Similarly a third group of historians might maintain that the various items on the list should not be given euqal weight, that one of the reasons listed, say, bankers' loans,was most important. The theory here would be that economic matters are the key to human motivation, and that a small number of wealthy bankers have a disproportionate ability to influence government.
In the examples given, historians disagree because they begin from different premises. But there is still another realm of disagreement which stems form something rather different. Historians sometimes disagree because they are not really dicussing the same thing. Often they are merely considering different levels of cause and eeffect, Suppose the teacher asked you "Why were you late for class this morning?" "I was late for class," you explained, "because I overslept." Or to use a historical example, "The Civil War began because South Carolina shore batteries opened fire on the federal garrison at Fort Sumter on April 12,1861." Neither statement can be faulted on the grounds that it its inaccurate; at the same time, however, neither is sufficient as an explanation of the event being considered. The next question is obvious.Why did you oversleep, or why did relations between one state and the Fedeal government reach the point where differences had to be settled by war? In other words, we have to go beyond the proximate cause and probe further and further. but as we dig more deeply into the problem, the answer becomes more difficult and comples. In the end, you might argue that the ultimate cause of your being late was the fact that you were born, but obviously this goes too far back to be meaningful. Taht you were born is of course a necessary foctor, but it iis not a sufficient factor; it does not really tell enough to explain your behavior today. Similarly you could trace the cause of the Civil War back to the discovery of America, but again, that is a necessary but not a sufficient cause. The point at which causes are both necessary and sufficient is not self-evident. Therefore historians may again disagree about where to begin the analysis. By now students should see that the well-used phrase "let the facts speak for themselves" has no real meaning. The facts do not speak for themselves; historians use the facts in a particular way and therefore they, and not the facts, are doing the speaking.
Historians not only often disagree with others. They often disagree with themselves. Indeed they are often revising their ideas. They have to do so because they are constantly discovering new information, gaining new insights form other social scientists and mastering and using new techniques. Historians also learn form each other and benefit form international comparisons of similar events and institutions.
Can we eliminate all disagreement? If the state of our knowledge were such that it provided us with a model of unquestioned validity that completely explained human behavior, we can. But since we do nto hve such a complete and foolproof explanation, disagreements are destined to remain. when students realize that there is no one easy answer to the problems historians raise and that "truth" is but an elusive yet intriguing goal in a never ending quest, they will find the study of history to be a significant, exhilarating, and useful part of their education. |