Historians are not merely retellers of the past. Their work demands an intellectual struggle. After discerning what occurred from various, often contradictory, sources, historians must then place these events in the context of one another. There are various methods of performing the latter; these methods are known as philosophies of history. Philosophies of history attempt to make sense of the thousands of years of recorded human existence by asking a few key questions. Is there an overarching meaning to the events of human history? Is there a direction to history? If so, what is history's direction? Is the direction linear? If it is linear, does this mean circumstances are improving?
In politics, ideologies are the vehicles of policy. But where do ideologies come from? All ideologies are the offspring of philosophies of history. If you believe material conditions to be the vehicle of historical change, you are a Marxist. If you believe history to be a constant ascendancy towards liberal democracy, you are a liberal. If you reject the idea that history is linear and prefer cyclical models, you are likely a reactionary.
Since the Age of Enlightenment, the cyclical model has been discarded; the fall of the Soviet Union saw the "material conditions" hypothesis fall too. Now, orthodox historiography posits that history is both linear and ascendant. The primary method of discussing history is to view the past as a continuous expedition to the "glorious present" (Butterfield 1931). All history, it is believed, is a constant improvement upon the previous state. This thinking postulates that all history thus far has is taking us to (or has brought us to) a utopia on earth. Such ideas are ubiquitous and have been accepted as standard; the divide is as to what the utopia looks like. How did progressive history (or "whig historiography") rise to prominence? What are the ramifications of this linear model of history?
There are two explanations for the dominance of whig historiography. When combined, they explain why alternative historiographies are so often disregarded. The first is the fact that whig historiography requires the least conceptual digestion. Progressive history is so simple that even primary school children deal with it daily. Stories of the Battle of Hastings are not taught to children via the lens of religious tension and national rivalry, but rather as simple, historical events that unfolded in a comprehensible, coherent order. Moreover, progressive history surfaces no moral challenge to individuals - if society is constantly getting better, I can follow the crowd without pausing for ethical deliberation. Any social change that arises is the result of reason - humans are supposedly breaking the chains the bound them, after all. The idea that we are constantly ascending is easy to understand and is morally permissive to social change; thus, it is widely accepted.
The second reason for the prominence of whig historiography is the global dominance of the United States. American history appears to be the best item of evidence for whig historiography. The nation begins as a group of a few hundred Puritans on the Atlantic seaboard and in the centuries following, the Americans win independence, expand westwards and become the world superpower. That which was once a few farms in Virginia is now a country of more than 9 million square kilometres, 21 trillion dollars and 300 million people. Now, at the top of the mountain, Americans look back and see a steep mountainside, with just a brief blip in the middle for the four-year Civil War. For most Americans, their country is either at The Peak or will reach The Peak soon. This idea is cemented by the doctrine of American exceptionalism: other empires rose and fall, but America, born unique, will evade this fate.
Superpower status, however, requires more than a large economy or lots of people. Attaining superpower status requires control of the global narrative - control of mass media, popular culture and academia. According to Times Higher Education's World University Rankings, eight of the world's ten best universities are American; Oxford and Cambridge complete the list. The extent of American academia means that America produces much of what the world views as common knowledge. In hard sciences, this is no problem; experiments hold in Los Angeles and Lahore, but in fields like history, where personal experiences drive the entire discipline, Americacentrism has propagated the falsehood of progressive history worldwide.
The most obvious fault with progressive history is its undue material emphasis. One can only consider society to be in constant improvement if we look exclusively at materialist metrics. While material progress pleases the flesh, its relentless pursuit has caused the loss of community, environmental degradation and a rejection of the value of humanity itself. Society has sacrificed its soul for faster cars and thought itself superior for it. Whig historiography blinds us to our pitfalls.
But more importantly, whig historiography's blunder is its oblivion to morality. The whiggish obsession with novelty is that which kills them. Proponents of whig historiography must excuse themselves from all moral debates precisely because their philosophy of history does. If someone proposes something new, it must be thought to be right. Standards are abandoned and we whimsically move on. We do not pause to consider proposals, but in search of imaginary diamonds, we lose gold. On the same note, whig historiographers are unable to make moral judgements about the past, as they view all that is past to have served a purpose. Making a moral judgement about what has happened means making moral judgements about what will happen; but if what if not all goes to plan? When society does not change as they expect it to, whig historiographers have no choice but to accept the new norm and discard previous convictions. Whig historiography absolves us of moral duty and makes for immoral men.
In the democratic age, whig historiography's rule is inevitable. Politicians' promises are rooted in the idea of material improvement - this is easily demonstrated to constituents. I urge you to pause. Do not simply accept the social tide, do not accept the myth of eternal progress. Pause and reflect - will you give up gold for fictitious diamonds?
Comments
Post a Comment