Historians Reflect on History: Broad Strokes (A Series: 2/5)
In the initial blog in this series (link here), I made a strong assertion: Within the scholarly world, the study of history provides a paradigmatic—if not the paradigmatic—example of synthesizing. Accordingly, as part of my effort to understand better the processes of synthesizing, I decided to focus on synthesizing in the discipline of history.
Historians are a thoughtful lot—they are also wordy (which is meant to be descriptive, not to label them as verbose). Many historians write about their own field—often, this is called historiography. Even to state all of the topics covered, and the ways that they have been approached, would take many pages….and such length violates the spirit of a blog
It’s therefore surprising to me that, in my quite extensive survey of historiography, I have found so little that directly describes how historians synthesize information. What I’ve learned about historical synthesis constitutes the focus of the forthcoming blogs.
Meanwhile, however, I believe it’s informative to provide a brief sketch of the kinds of issues that have engendered thoughtful reflection and writing on the part of practicing historians.
I have identified the following concerns:
The scope and limits of history: Where does history end and other subjects begin—for example, political science, economics, psychology, geography, archaeology, literary studies, avowedly interdisciplinary work like “American Civilization” or “Western Classics”?
On which subjects does history properly build: Obvious examples: Archeology, geography, anthropology, astronomical and calendrical information, the study of language. The list goes on. Are there any limits? Any favorites? Any taboos?
The writing of history: Only by trained historians? How trained? Can journalists do history? Can amateurs? Who authorizes (or bars the gate), who is accountable? What causes one person to be admitted to the gallery of historians, another to be barred?
The focus of history: Should it be primarily political, primarily national? Should it focus on leaders or, alternatively, on ordinary persons? Or should it cover all spheres, all sectors of life? Should it focus on a single nation, and a single time, or should it transcend these limits, indeed are there any limits?
The materials of history: Should it be occupied primarily with written documents (and their presumed or verified validity) or should it contain photos, videos, clothing, furniture, toys music, ruins, et al? Indeed, are any elements or paraphernalia off limits?
The philosophy of history: What are the assumptions and presuppositions of historical studies? What is the epistemological status of historical work? What is the truth value of history? Are historical statements factual? Can histories be proved to be correct or incorrect? What are historical inferences and how are they made?
(Relatedly) The epistemology of history: Is history a branch of science? A branch of the arts and humanities? Is history more like physics or like poetry or psychology? How are historical inferences made, justified, tested, refuted?
The conclusiveness of history: Can there be an authoritative historical account? Or should/must history always be rewritten in terms of present concerns and preoccupations? Who makes such judgments?
There are also broader arguments among historians. As one example, those (broadly speaking) in the Marxist tradition (e.g. E. H. Carr) see history as following a master script, going forward. On this account, historical accounts should be framed in terms of issues such as the rise of the working class, the planning and launching of revolutions, and the toppling and reorganization of societies. Those skeptical about such ‘meta-narratives’ or ‘unseen hands,’ such as Isaiah Berlin, prefer to envision history as an open canvas, in which individuals and groups are free to make choices, which have (often unpredictable) short and long-term consequences. Or, following Oscar Handlin, they underscore the salience of chance in history. As another long standing tension, some think that a well-done history can stand the test of time; while others believe, with equal fervor, that each new generation must and should rewrite history in terms of its present knowledge, concerns, aspirations.
I realize that what I’ve written to this point will be all too familiar to those who traffic in historiographic writings (for instance, doctoral students in history and those who teach them (and interested others) about their chosen discipline). Alas, at the same time, it may well be hopelessly abstract and obtuse to those of us who stand outside the historian’s workshop.
Allow me to attempt to make this current and concrete:
In November 2021, The New York Times Magazine ran an important update on the June 1619 Project. As readers may know, this Project was launched a few years ago as a response to the prevailing historical account of the colonization of America. In place of the ‘origins’ story of the English Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock in 1620, the 1619 Project dates the start of American history at the time of the arrival of the first slave transport ship in Virginia in Virginia four centuries ago. The 1619 Project has been controversial—within both political and historian circles—but it has already become a major landmark in how this country conceptualizes itself. Indeed, a mere two years after it was launched, there have already been several books and innumerable articles on this bold set of claims. And at the present moment, it has generated considerable controversy among those concerned with public education and with education of the public.
Without purporting to undertake a historiographical examination of the June 1619 Project, I think it can help to concretize some of the issues that preoccupy historians with a historiographic bent.
To wit:
Who writes history? And for whom? While drawing on the work of other historians, Nikole Hannah-Jones, the principal architect of the June 1619 project, is primarily a long-form journalist. And her important lead article appeared in a newspaper, rather than in an historical journal. As if to emphasize this point, most of the ‘peer review’ occurred after publication, rather than before.
And now, there are supporting materials drawing on artists, poets, cartoonists, videographers, and other non-historians. What should be the status of these materials? Do they count, and if so, do they have the same weight as documentation (letters, ship logs, news sources) from the 17th century?
The objectivity, neutrality, nonpartisanship of history History has long presented itself as objective, nonpartisan, dis-interested, above the fray. In the words of the pioneering German historian of the 19th century, Leopold von Ranke history describes the past “as it actually was.” Yet, intentionally or not, rightly or not, the June 1619 project has been seen as a movement on the part of liberals, young persons, persons of color, even ‘fake journalists” to put forth their own favored narrative—indeed to replace the dominant narrative of previous centuries.
The decisiveness of history Perhaps the canonical account of the founding of the nation—an account that has endured for centuries and dominated textbooks for decades—should become a permanent account. Or perhaps it needs to be re-conceived periodically, perhaps even by every generation and each sector of the population!
The reliability of 1619 history While few claim that historical accounts stand completely outside time, it is generally agreed that historical accounts can be disproved or discredited., For example, some historians question whether the 1619 arrivals were enslaved, while others point out that the first enslaved Africans had arrived in America almost a century earlier! And many historians question the claim that a major—perhaps the major—impetus for the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was the desire to ensure the status and longevity of slavery in the just formed United States.
The relationship between history and nationalism In much of the world, over the centuries, historical studies have been closely related, intertwined, with the story of the formation of the nation. The 1619 Project puts itself forward as provider of a new and different national identity story. But can a nation have more than one identity story? Should it? Will we next have ‘founding mothers’ as well as ‘founding fathers?” Or will claims be made for 1593 or 1774 or 1865? And, importantly, who decides on the pervasive national narrative(s).
One more question Might it be contended that such a struggle among historians only exists because of the unique American case? Far from it. Essentially the same kind of controversies surround the French Revolution, which occurred less than two decades after the American Revolution. Historians differ on what happened, when it happened, why it happened, and especially whether the Revolution was, overall, a good or a bad thing. And indeed, we see the same struggles around revolutions in the 20th century—Chinese, Cuban, Russian—just to name a few.
I have to give the (temporary) last word to Chinese Premier Zhou En La (1898-1976). Asked whether the French Revolution had been a good thing or bad thing, he allegedly paused and then quipped “it’s too soon to tell.”
Underlining many of the issues raised in this blog, is the nature, provenance, and processes of historical synthesis. I hope that my reading and reflection has provided some insights into the nature of historical synthesizing. In Blog #3, I will suggest a prosaic characterization of historical synthesis; in Blog #4, I will propose a more poetic characterization, one to which I am personally attracted.
Selected References
Banner, J. and Gillis, J (Eds) Becoming Historians. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2009
Berlin, I. The sense of reality: Studies in ideas and their histories. London: Chatto and Windus, 1996.
Carr, E. H What is history? London : Penguin 1987 (Original Publication, 1961)
Cheng, Eileen Ka-May Historiography: An introductory guide London Continuum 2012
Collingwood, R. G . The Idea of History. New York: Oxford, 1957.
Handlin, O. Chance or Destiny: Turning points in American History Boston: Little brown, 1954.
Hannah-Jones, Nikole New York Times Magazine August 2019,
Hochschild, Adam A Nation’s Legacy Review of The 1619 Project New York Times Book Review, November 21 2021.
McCullagh, C. Behan Justifying Historical Description Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1984
Novick, Peter That Noble Dream New York: Cambridge University Press 1988
Silverstein, Jake A Nation of Argument New York Times Magazine November 13 2021,
Stern, Fritz (ed) The varieties of history. From Voltaire to the Present New York: Vintage, 1973.