E.H. Carr, scientific historian

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I have been captivated by this most powerful of philosophical mantras ever since I first read it. It is predicated on the notion that history repeats itself. Actions repeat themselves, as do words and phrases; festivals and national days and birthdays are repeated, but history? Never.

That is the error that commentators make when discussing the use of history in politics. History is not static or stuck in the past. Investigation of current political issues would wither and contort if it was not renewed by the documents and cries of actors from decades and centuries ago. Nevertheless, due to the recent spate of dodgy historical analogies made by statesmen and demagogues alike, I think the time has come to re-state more fervently the separation between history as art and history as science.

Take E.H. Carr, a believer in the progressive nature of certain political ideologies and history as a social science, where overly judgmental writing focusing on personalities clouds our perception of events; a historian who would not concede that pure facts would emerge from the study of history, as all knowledge had to be funneled through a being that would twist them in some form or other. All then, is relative.

It is tempting to go along the route of Marx, Carr’s great influencer, and decide on stages of history, believing that thinkers are so bright that they can make predictive analyses which will come to pass as does a well-planned scientific experiment, repeated over and over again with the same result.

History it seems is so scientific as to fool entire generations of politology schools and thinkers into believing that they are behaving not as useful idiots putting in place one man’s vision and making it the reality but rather being part of an unstoppable historical process that their chosen master predicted.

History as art is a kinder form of the profession. Historians debate and dissect, uncover and paper over, offering crucial insights while cautioning against definite conclusions. Broad brushstrokes, varied hues, ambiguous personages in the background… As in art, there is space for error. When history is science, there is no such space, often with disastrous consequences.

An illuminating article by Dr. Richard Toye recently linked Cameron and Brown’s view of the past (see the History & Policy website). They are both proponents — in my view — of a generalist approach to history that plays well in point-scoring against each other. Of course, politicians are more concerned with present expediency than ensuring they have used ‘historically-correct’ terms; with the result that debate based on this adds up to little more than clichés about the Blitz. Gordon Brown recently invoked the Spirit of Blitz to encourage Britons to sit tight during the looming financial storm. As a purist I do not view such imagery as particularly useful in political debate: it only makes me think that the age and circumstances are different, despite the tendency of the UK media to romanticize by linking the past and the present,

It is fine for historians to draw broad parallels between different historical events, for instance, the causes and events of the French and Russian Revolutions, or Niall Ferguson’s recent comparison of Britain’s current problems with those facing it in the years following the Napoleonic Wars, but going much further than general observations can be quite dangerous. Not just because it is propagandist which in itself is not necessarily a flaw: but because it risks shaping societal discourse in such a way that we are so enamored of victories and outcomes in the past that we will not know what to do if this rosiness is not repeated after all, despite the speeches of politicians.

Both theories — of history as art or science — approached from the wrong angle lead to a stultification of academic discourse. Currently historians are delving once more into theories of Nations and Nationalism, following a spate of Right-leaning recent election results. In fact the current discourse on nationalism has become so polarized as to be effectively at a standstill until a new generation fills the gaps in the debate. This debate is for now centred on the extremes of those propagating the view of nationalism with a small ‘n’, based on ethnicity and language and the school of Nationalism, promoting nations as political constructs of the Industrial Age. It’s about time more fluidity appeared in this debate, as clearly nations evolve over time and the concepts mentioned above can interweave in innumerable ways.

Current political debate is suffering from the lack of nuances introduced, the desire for a sound bite and a quick fix, the laxity of believing that now is not a good time to debate, even amongst friends. Every point has to be debated in detail instead of an over-reliance on shady historical metaphors. Sometimes it seems we hear and read the same things over and again. Debate is all we have to move forward.

History is dead. Long live history!

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.