Yesterday's train reading post, Train Reading - introducing Richard Hakluyt's Voyage and Discoveries 1, introduced the writings of this Elizabethan geographer. In reading the book, I found my knowledge of current historiography and political attitudes actually interfering with my reading. Of course, the way we approach the past in terms of the questions we ask is always strongly influenced by the present. In this case the process was quite annoying, standing as a barrier that I found was twisting my interpretation.
Hakyurt was a man of his time recording documents of that time. The writers of the documents were recording current events within the frame set by their times and their purpose in writing. The views expressed are neither right nor wrong, they just were.
This leads me to my opening questions for this forum:
- How do we avoid being biased by current perceptions? Can we? Is it important? Obviously I think it is.
- Can you really interpret the past if you have no idea of the context? More broadly, can you interpret the past if you have no personal experience relevant to that context? For example, people writing about politics and political or administrative structures who have had no experience in or real understanding of the type of dynamics involved.
- I agree that history does have lessons for policy. However, much of the policy related history that I have read attempt to integrate the history and the policy. This strikes me as quite dangerous. Do you think history can or should be used to inform policy?
11 comments:
I'll start. We can't avoid being biased, it's the human condition. We can mitigate being biased by the present by looking at the past and seeing how we got to the present. (We may come to wrong conclusions here of course.)
In examining past and present we can sometimes learn what has or has not worked before. Note that Santayana's original quote referred to remembering the past. But you have to have some idea of what is going on. An economics lecturer of mine loved to hold forth about how the public service actually worked. One day, a grumpy 40-something student finally interrupted "Have you ever worked in the Public Circus?""No but I...""Then perhaps I should give the rest of this lecture and you should stick to economics."
So history can inform policy, but it shouldn't determine it. The conditions won't be the same, there'll be other subtle differences. But if you don't use history and evidence to base policy on, then you are willfully donning a blindfold.
OTOH if you use policy to interpret history then perhaps you should don a blindfold. And ask for a last cigarette. :)
Hi 2t. Just a quick response at this stage. If we look at the past as a way of seeing how we got to the present, don't we run the same risk of twisting our interpretation?
Loved your example of the economics lecturer.
I did concede that. The further back we look, the more likely that poetry has tangled with fact and that our understanding of motivation leads us to entirely invalid assumptions. Even in modern history that happens.
Nelson Mandela was a Nobel Peace Laureate who would have been released from earlier from gaol by the authorities on one condition. He nobly refused. The condition was to forswear social change by violence. I told that to a 30 year old. He was stunned.
I was thinking, yesterday, that when you talk of 'history' it is assumed you are referring to the far-distant past - but these days the past seems not so very far away. Back in the '60's to adhere to social mores was a conservative trait - with the 'left' or 'radical' view being that of one who deliberately set out to be non-conformist.
But these days, there seems to be a complete change in direction; it seems there is a push for conformity, a push to be PC, to fit in, and to deride, even attack, that which is not 'acceptable' to group think. It's like 'the Left' has become what was 'the Right' of just a few decades ago?
Not particularly related to your topic, but I just find it interesting how quickly this social change has come about.
kvd
Not so far from the topic, kvd. I will come back to that.
Looking at the original post and 2t's comments, my mind was especially focused on history as a discipline or craft and what we might call the use and abuse of history. I was also concerned at the difficulties that the present can create in our understanding of the past.
2t wrote: "We can't avoid being biased, it's the human condition. We can mitigate being biased by the present by looking at the past and seeing how we got to the present. (We may come to wrong conclusions here of course.)" I agree.
The concern that I expressed related to intent. It is perfectly legitimate to seek to know how we got to where we are now, what created the current position. Indeed, it's necessary. If you don't have some understanding here, you risk old and new mistakes. If the intent of the study is to understand the present or an aspect of that present then the questions you ask and the evidence you select is determined by that intent. If your intent is to understand an aspect of the past in its own right, as it was at the time, then you will likely ask different questions and use a somewhat different set of evidence.
There are timing and scope issues here.
kvd's point about history being interpreted in terms of the distant past is well taken. When I was at school and university, there was a school of thought that said that the word history should not be applied to analysis of more recent events because problems of perception and bias precluded what was seen as "real" history, analysis by an objective observer. Of course, as writers such as E H Carr pointed out, total objectivity is in any event impossible. When I looked at this question in an earlier post, I distinguished between selection of topic and initial questions asked and the subsequent analysis. Bias may be inevitable in the first and indeed not necessarily a bad thing, However, in analysis the canons of the discipline provided a check to both perception and bias.
I digress. In posing the questions in the way I did, I ignored time (the period under study) and scope (the purpose of the study. I also conflated what we did with the way we did it.
Santayana is right, I think, that not remembering the past can condemn us to repeat it. But it is equally true that remembering the past can condemn us to repeat it. There are just to many past and current examples here to ignore. This is where history (or perhaps more accurately historiography) comes in as a weapon, a weapon in what is selected for remembering, a weapon in the way things are presented for remembering. As a weapon, history is truly a weapon of mass destruction.
That is why I think that the study of history is so important. We have to rely on that study to correct the distortions that history itself creates.
I am out of time on this comment. I will follow kvd up in a separate comment.
Santayana is right, I think, that not remembering the past can condemn us to repeat it. But it is equally true that remembering the past can condemn us to repeat it. There are just to many past and current examples here to ignore. This is where history (or perhaps more accurately historiography) comes in as a weapon, a weapon in what is selected for remembering, a weapon in the way things are presented for remembering. As a weapon, history is truly a weapon of mass destruction."
I agree. Another writer who followed this line said
“The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.”
I am not comparing you to him, of course.
Good morning, 2t. I'm glad that you are not comparing me to Goebbels! Totalitarian states try to control the presentation of their history so that its consistent with the propoganda. But so also (if to reduced degree) do non-totalitarian states!
Just some of the many complex issues Kate raised were: recognise that all projects are potentially problematic and embedded in contemporary politics; in an oral culture the past is always present and structure of stories will be place- rather than time-based; importance of recognising key families, who has authority, community meetings and maintaining relationships after the completion of the project; consent and moral ownership are probably the biggest issues.
and:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/34086915?q&versionId=41960912
I had the pleasure this afternoon of having a bit of chat with Kate and Korey as they were the last clients to see before 'shut the doors for Christmas'. Just thought I'd mention that they both knew of, and greatly respected, your work in the New England area regards aboriginal history, and apparently read your blog of NE - unlike me :)
They left with a promise to send me their research on nearby Coolangatta Mountain and its cultural significance, and were very familiar with the other (quite dense but widespread) areas of heritage close to me. A lovely couple, but my main thought was just how small a world it is!
Best to you Jim, this Eve.
kvd
I guess my point with that first quote is that what is regarded as 'history' can be very different depending upon one's own heritage. For me, 'history' is the book-learnt stuff of Egypt, Greece, Rome, France and England and the good ol' USA - and in there was 1770. Time is very significant in that recitation; the concept of a 'past always present' is a very foreign country to me.
kvd
That's a real morale booster, kvd! As you say, a small world!
Its not always true that stories in oral culture are place rather than time based. Think of some of the Norse material with long genealogies. But its a very good description of the Aboriginal perspective. I am not sure that you can think of history in a traditional Aboriginal social context, although there clearly was one that can be discovered.
Your broad point about varying perceptions of what history is depending upon one's heritage is an interesting one. Will think about that.
Oh, and the most important thing of all, best to you to this Christmas Eve!
Post a Comment