Ask Ecthy - about history

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Has the new history from Marc Bloc on contributed to historical understanding, or detracted from it? Has recent emphasis on "multicultural" approaches to history, gender approaches, etc been a fulfillment of the approach of the new historians, or a departure from their path?

I'm not very familiar with Bloch and the Annales, but generally speaking adding a economically and socially based approach to old school source based event history widens the scope of possible findings. I couldn't see any detraction from historical understanding, especially since some old school variations of history produce absolutely no "understanding" at all, just a description of past events and persons.

Not sure what multicultural approaches that would be, but I'm not enough into the Annales school to know if the two currents of historiography you mentioned fulfill their approach or not. The feminist one does appear a child of it, the multicultural one of a totally different kind though. But as I said, I don't know enough of it to comment.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ecthy

Human history considers human societies over the time, and human societies change. With the possiblity of technical improvement, and the constant competition between groups and sub-groups of human society, technical advance, and economic expansion, are almost inevitable. What is judged as "progress" is however defined by humans, culturally mostly, but also in different ways. Do you consider an ideologically motivated definition of progress as cultural or as scientific? Our western way of thinking (call it culturally or ideologically directed) embraces economic and technical advance, so we tend to say there's always progress in history. This doesn't exclude the possibility of isolated societies in hierarchical order that do deny certain developments; think hunter-gatherers in New Guinea that repulse certain developments, or Imperial China when it banned certain ideas or technical concepts.

It sounds like you dont see an "objective" notion of progress. Thats why I jumped to 'directional', which could imply that things always move in the same direction (once youve got iron, you never go back to bronze, once you have literacy you dont go back, etc, etc) without placing a value judgement on the direction.

China, of course, was in a position from the Tang to about 1800 or so, where it was not really in direct competition with other states. The farther it fell "behind" the more precarious that position became.

New Guinea? Are you sure youre not thinking of Australia? New Guinea tribes adapted the sweet potato very quickly, per Diamond, and were driven precisely by intertribe competition to adopt any innovations that they were socially capable of maintaining.

directional? History as you see it depends on the prism through which you watch it. Since, as I explained in an earlier post, humans tend to see history in a biased manner, they also focus on certain processes more than on others. Therefore, history appears as "directional" to many, because A) they focus on certain phenomena more than on others, for reasons cultural, ideological, class-wise etc. and B) because they pretend their own temporal POV to be the end of history. Whig history is a good example for this. If you live in late 19th century Britain and look at the past of your country, it might appear that history always leads to the increase of freedom and representative government. If however you look at 20th century Europe from 1920 until 1980, isolatedly because you live in 1980 and are talking to your grandpa, you might find the opposite to be true.

Yes, and thats presumably one reason why these kinds of Hegelian notions went out of fashion 1920 to 1980, except for keepers of the flame like Kojeve, who insisted that "reason" would win out. OTOH even the totalitarian developments were not simply reversions to the past, but incorporated mass mobilization, which was clearly a "modern" concept, and so indicated a direction, though not necessarily a liberal one.

But we are looking from a different vantage point, now in 2007. From 1989 to 2001 it looked pretty clearly like Kojeve was right, and that 1920-1989 was the anomaly, the antithesis to be overcome, not 1789-1914. In 2007, amidst demoralization on this side of the pond with events in La Proche Orient, Latin America, Russia and elsewhere, its starting to feel like 1989 to 2001 was the anomaly. I think that too is shortsighted, but I was looking for your thoughts.


But thanks for your responses so far.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Its a translation, I believe of a term from Hegel, that you may know in German. The notion that competition among states forces reason to the fore, via dialectic, IIUC

So it is related to what BeBro asked. As I said, I put matter over spirit in history.

[lord of the mark]

one language note

My impression is that any English speaker who is familiar with 19th c middle european history is likely to know the terms "kleindeutsch" and "grossdeutsch". Anyone who doesnt will likely be scratching their heads at a phrase like "grand German". In general English language historians dont translate those terms (though my limited reading may be misleading me)

[lord of the mark]

but what about the notion, not so much that material conditions generate ideas, but that certain ideas are required for certain types of material conditions to obtain, and that those societies that fail to adopt new cultural-political-ideological-organizational ideas, cannot succesfully move ahead materially, and so will disappear?

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
New Guinea? Are you sure youre not thinking of Australia? New Guinea tribes adapted the sweet potato very quickly, per Diamond, and were driven precisely by intertribe competition to adopt any innovations that they were socially capable of maintaining.

I'm not going to bull**** you, we're using the same source. I thought I remembered from GGS that some tribes occasionally would abolish certain achievements for whatever reasons. Not sure now if it was NG or Australia so you may be right.

Yes, and thats presumably one reason why these kinds of Hegelian notions went out of fashion 1920 to 1980, except for keepers of the flame like Kojeve, who insisted that "reason" would win out. OTOH even the totalitarian developments were not simply reversions to the past, but incorporated mass mobilization, which was clearly a "modern" concept, and so indicated a direction, though not necessarily a liberal one.

But we are looking from a different vantage point, now in 2007. From 1989 to 2001 it looked pretty clearly like Kojeve was right, and that 1920-1989 was the anomaly, the antithesis to be overcome, not 1789-1914. In 2007, amidst demoralization on this side of the pond with events in La Proche Orient, Latin America, Russia and elsewhere, its starting to feel like 1989 to 2001 was the anomaly. I think that too is shortsighted, but I was looking for your thoughts.

Somehow I have a general problem with these static approaches. Why look at it from the freedom point of view at all? We already see that it goes back and forth, it might just be the wrong concept. Freedom sounds nice, but is not the ultimate value some people in the west want to make believe it is.

As far as 2007 is concerned, this is what I was saying earlier. It's a mistake IMHO to look at the past from the current perspective. You should either try and find a very distant and objective approach, or see it solely from the contemporary perspective which excludes all generalization.

As far as objective stance goes - I reject an objective notion of progress, but I do see the necessity to view a past process with a certain key in mind. I just think that "freedom" isn't one that produces too much finding, nor that 1789 be a decent point to begin. Why not 1648? Just because it worked from 1789-1914 means nothing. The French revolution was not a magical event.

But thanks for your responses so far.

You're welcome.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
but what about the notion, not so much that material conditions generate ideas, but that certain ideas are required for certain types of material conditions to obtain, and that those societies that fail to adopt new cultural-political-ideological-organizational ideas, cannot succesfully move ahead materially, and so will disappear?

Two associations I have here: "chicken-or-egg" and "social darwinism".

I think it's futile to argue if a material condition generates ideas or vice versa, obviously the ideas have to be generated parallely so that humans act according to the material process. Does this sound Stalinist? It's just a simple way of putting it. There's a process where two phenomena develop dependently. The really interesting question is, what are the exterior factors making this two-sided development speed into one or the other direction?

As far as survival goes, societies/states do only die out because they lack the relevant ideas. The other option is they adopt ideas they see are successful in other places and adopt them. The same for inidiviuals. A person might be a loser and therefore not reproduce or die, but they might also open their eyes and learn from others and so on, though this opens the next category, who learns faster than others etc. In the end, I see both possibilities, and among countries, those who are open to change of course are more likely to survive than dogmatic ones. So it's not just the social darwnisim, it's also a darwinism of ideas, because the system is of a material nature in its foundations

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthy

Yes, and thats presumably one reason why these kinds of Hegelian notions went out of fashion 1920 to 1980, except for keepers of the flame like Kojeve, who insisted that "reason" would win out. OTOH even the totalitarian developments were not simply reversions to the past, but incorporated mass mobilization, which was clearly a "modern" concept, and so indicated a direction, though not necessarily a liberal one.

But we are looking from a different vantage point, now in 2007. From 1989 to 2001 it looked pretty clearly like Kojeve was right, and that 1920-1989 was the anomaly, the antithesis to be overcome, not 1789-1914. In 2007, amidst demoralization on this side of the pond with events in La Proche Orient, Latin America, Russia and elsewhere, its starting to feel like 1989 to 2001 was the anomaly. I think that too is shortsighted, but I was looking for your thoughts.

Somehow I have a general problem with these static approaches. Why look at it from the freedom point of view at all? We already see that it goes back and forth, it might just be the wrong concept. Freedom sounds nice, but is not the ultimate value some people in the west want to make believe it is.

You have to start hypothesizing somewhere. IIUC (and my view of Hegel, I will admit, though ive read some, is mainly derived from Fackenheim and Fukayama) Hegel way back in 1804, looking at the history of the West, from the Greeks on, saw a steady expansion of Freedom, and posited a theory of human nature/psychology to explain it.

Now the question of whether that is human nature, or something essentially confined to one civilization, and thus whether its truely a universal explicator or not, seems to me an open question, and the history of the last 200 years a decent experiment. Certainly looking at the history of the world from 1945 on, but especially since about 1975 or so, there seems signifcant evidence that the spread of freedom is not as confined to the West as someone in say, 1965, would have held. Now is that coincidence, certain influences on east asia and parts of Lat Am that happened to accompany other changes, or is that reason in history has finally overcome the contradictions that led to 1914-1945?

Oh, and of course Hegel himself showed us that history can appear to oscillate, and need not move in an obviously linear fashion, which IIUC, sets him apart from standard whig historiagraphy.

Again, why arbitrarily (apart from my own countrys ideological obsessions) fixate on Hegels notions? Well, one can, I think, make a non-arbitrary case for the supreme role of politics in world history, and of its greater susceptibilty to directionality than any other "ideal" subject matter. And if one looks at politics, can one come up with a better alternative than the drive of freedom and reason? Class conflict has many merits in understanding specific micro historical situations, but has it really explained macrohistory?

[Ecthy]

Do you believe in the drive of freedom and reason? Do you think these are ultimate values of mankind? Do you believe that societies which deem themselves further advanced in these values have the right to bring them to other societies?

More to come later, it's me to answer after all

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ecthy

Do you believe in the drive of freedom and reason?

I think there is much evidence that there is a basic human drive for dignity and recognition, above and beyond our material and our other cultural needs. Im willing to entertain evidence that this is NOT a universal aspect of human nature, however.

[q] Do you think these are ultimate values of mankind? [q/]
Im undecided. On the one hand the Maslovian notion of a hierarchy of needs is appealing, but on the other many individuals aspire to dignity and recognition even at the cost of more basic needs, but obviously many do not. Let me say that they are among the ultimate values, and that they fully come into their own when people move beyond subsistence. And that even when people accept submission, they need to maintain a facade of dignity (see the anecdote about the shop window sign in Prague in Fukuyamas book, for an example) I think purely material analyses, whether Marxist or Anglo-saxon liberal, tend to miss this.

Do you believe that societies which deem themselves further advanced in these values have the right to bring them to other societies?

If what I posit is right, they wouldnt be bringing those values there, they would be changing social and political conditions that prevent the full expression of that aspect of human nature. Is THAT a good idea? Depends. In many instances, its not. Especially when its done by force. Especially when that force is exerted without adequate diplomatic support from fellow "advanced" societies, and even more so when done with inadequate material preparations.

[lord of the mark]

what field of history, period, and region do you specialize in?

[Wycoff]

Ecthy (or LoTM, or anyone else),

What books / articles would you recommend to one who is interested in learning about historiography and the philosophy of history?

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Again, why arbitrarily (apart from my own countrys ideological obsessions) fixate on Hegels notions? Well, one can, I think, make a non-arbitrary case for the supreme role of politics in world history, and of its greater susceptibilty to directionality than any other "ideal" subject matter. And if one looks at politics, can one come up with a better alternative than the drive of freedom and reason? Class conflict has many merits in understanding specific micro historical situations, but has it really explained macrohistory?

The indivdual-rational school of thoughts, summarizing political realism and standard assumptions of economic action, would answer that politics result from pursuit of hard interest, thus trying to apply ANY "ideal" basis would be unnecessary. So why Hegel at all and not Feuerbach?

In support of that Hegelian approach of yours, I might say that humanity as it evolved never was free. Humans always lived in groups that were probably strictly hierarchical, and that advance on the technical, economic and communicative scale allow humans to overcome this basic notion, hence freedom and dignity. Never thought of this before. What exactly is that Prague shop window example, I've never really read Fukuyama I get the idea of the Maslovian approach, but then it's also western-inspired and therefore not culturally independent, is it?

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
what field of history, period, and region do you specialize in?

I study history as a major without specialization, which comes only in the final thesis. I'm quite close to that one though so I think I could make an estimate what the field will be. I can't really say it though because I have no real idea. It would be quite supra-regional, supra-periodical though, as I'm quite into big pictures. The strong cultural divergence only makes it more fascinating

Originally posted by Wycoff
What books / articles would you recommend to one who is interested in learning about historiography and the philosophy of history?

Wycoff, shamefully I haven't been able to read only half the pieces I'd like to. Partly because I only just discovered my interest in this.

E.H. Carr - What is History and Marc Bloch - The Historian's Craft are classics. Plus, some pieces by Keith Jenkins, Georg Iggers, John Tosh, Richard Evans, and most recently Aviezer Tucker are said to be generally recomendable though I'm still to look into all of them.

To get some outsider's perspective, there's always Diamond's Guns, Germs & Steel, which isn't particularly historiography, but his final chapter on "The future of human history as a science" is a must read. Then there's the Cliometrics review as well as the "cliodynamical" approach of Peter Turchin. If you're into big statistics read his "Historical Dynamics", to get a start read his more popularised book "War and Peace and War".

These last two books, from Diamond and Turchin, might be most interesting to get into some non-conformist POV.

[Wycoff]

Thanks, Ecthy.