On Synthesis in History: A Series of Blogs (1/5)
Blog 1: The Assignment
As a student of the act of synthesizing, I have been particularly interested In fields where synthesis is valued, even required. The discipline of history leaps to mind. It’s hard to think of historians in the absence of a regular, skilled use of the synthesizing muscle. Historians identify an issue (or event or personality or era) of interest, pursue this interest wherever material seems relevant, then put together the material that has been identified in ways that make sense to the historian and, ultimately, to relevant other audiences.
So, with this general remit, I decided to read about historians and historiography. I also consulted with historians whom I know to see what I could learn from texts and conversations about how historians go about synthesizing materials. In many ways I enjoyed and profited from this experience. And yet, despite reading through more than a dozen source books, conducting several conversations, and consulting many articles, I received surprisingly little insight about how historical synthesis actually comes about. As far as I can determines, historians do not write about their processes—they do not stand back and describe how they synthesize. Of course, this is very difficult to do—the mind does not easily observe itself.
Indeed, that’s one justification for my own field of psychology—thanks to cognitive scholars like Daniel Kahneman, Steven Pinker, or Philip Tetlock, we do know something about the processes of good thinking. Just like, thanks to excellent authors, like William Strunk and E. B, White, or Tracy Kidder and Richard Todd, we do know something about the processes of good writing.
To be sure, with respect to my unsuccessful survey, I may be to blame. I could be formulating the problem wrong. Or synthesizing in history may be either self-evident or so complex that it does not allow study, paring apart, illumination. For example, one might contend that good historians may just be exhibiting good thinking, good researching, and good writing—read Kahneman and Pinker and White, not Edward Gibbon or John Hope Franklin or Mary Beard . At any rate, at least for me, the mysteries of history linger.
Forging ahead nonetheless, I believe I have made some progress in illuminating the role of synthesizing in the practice of history—and perhaps insights gained there may even be portable to other disciplines and activities.
In the next four postings, I trace my wanderings and seek to convey my progress and my possible insights:
Here’s a preview:
What I learned about history and historiography—some of the issues about which historians have reflected over the years;
The nuts and bolts of being a competent historian—what I call the ‘prose’ of history;
A mystery and some solutions—what I’ve dubbed the ‘poetry’ of history;
Summary and Takeaway—what I’ve learned about synthesizing in history—and possible lessons for other disciplines and other sectors
Stay tuned!
References
Kahneman, D. Thinking fast, thinking slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2011.
Kidder, T and Todd, R. Good prose. New York: Random House, 2013.
Pinker, S. Rationality. New York: Viking, 2021.
Strunk, W. and White, E. B. The elements of style New York: Penguin, 2017
Tetlock, P. Expert political judgment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.