Lebanese Democracy

One of my songs of the moment

A quality song by a quality band. But the less said about their more recent music the better.

History: An art or a science?

Originally, I thought that this was a debate that was unanswerable in terms of a black-and-white dichotomy. This was because the study and practice of History engendered key elements from both the Arts and Science, in effect blurring the lines between the two in its craft. I shall present my thoughts, both arguing for each on commonly agreed ground, first. Then I shall elaborate into my own personal theory of history generally – in which it is engaged in ‘revolutions of re-invention’, and as such, can be pushed into the category of ‘Arts’ subject.

There are compelling reasons to believe that it is an ‘Art’. It is a subject of interpretation, of which a ‘picture’ of the past is created through the thoughts and feelings of another. This is not only in the reading of history, but also of the crafting of it: for a historian, usually alone, creates a history or historical argument, according to their own creative and logical reasoning. Thus, history is not set; it is subjective. It is not ‘objective’ – and therefore not a science. This is a common thought amongst many, particularly from those of the ‘Science’ camp – and often a common derision. There are other reasons as to why History is an ‘Art’. It has to be written in a narrative; it has to say a story (at least, according to this author’s opinion. If it is a mere collection of facts, it is a chronicle alone). While this in itself can further aggravate subjectivity, it suggests that at least a semblance of literary prowess is required to craft a History. It is conveyed primarily through the medium of the written word after all. And would not the best pieces of History be considered ‘literature’? Finally, it has been stated that History can entertain (and according to Trevelyan, this is its only purpose). However, I believe that to categorise it only according to that reason is disingenuous – can’t Science entertain as well? Academia cannot be split organisationally based upon the interest that a subject can evoke alone – it would isolate Media Studies for starters. These reasons, together however, present a strong case for History as an Art.

However, there are equally strong reasons as to why History could be a ‘Science’. It requires investigation into an actual subject, using empirical evidence primarily. This is revealed by the etymology of the word alone – it is from the Greek ἱστορία - historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation”. To this end, it requires source work, both primary and secondary. This reliance on ‘facts’ is a cornerstone of the ‘Science’ argument. It also, particularly in our modern era, requires a methodology to work from – it must aim to be purged of prejudice, improper opinions, and to be as comprehensive as the subject matter requires. In that case, History sounds very much like a ‘Science’; though of course the problem of subjectivity remains. Academic history is peer-reviewed too, further solidifying its stringent methodology. Then again, these points are not without their faults. Arts subjects can work from stringent methodologies too, and it is only since the solidification of History as an academic subject, with Von Ranke 200 years ago, that historians have tried to consistently base their work on ‘fact’.

Both these viewpoints contain some validity, and it is hard to extricate History from either. At best, it can be said that History is both; in a way, a ‘literary science’. However, I believe that History can be tipped ever so slightly into the domain of ‘Art’. Here are my thoughts why.

History is both a product and producer of culture; much like it is said that it can only be judged by the context in which it was written in. For example, an ethnically diverse culture would produce a history concerned with ethnic majorities and minorities. Conversely, a history of great significance could change culture – an example being how socialist and Marxist histories have encouraged the development of social democracy, and the redefining of concepts like ‘social justice’ for instance. This is compounded by the fact that History, even (and especially) in a common and simple view, affects public discourse. It is all around us; it is referred to on a daily basis – in news, politics, science and sports amongst other things. As it primarily deals with human culture, it further draws it to under the humanities, and not to the social sciences – embracing the category of being an ‘Arts’ subject.

However, this point can be further developed. History is constantly under re-interpretation, or ‘revolutions of re-invention’. This is the crux of the development of the subject, and thus it forces ‘interpretation’ from a major position to an essential position in its character. The cycle can be illustrated thus:

1. Past histories are indicative of the past culture of the historian – thus the context of the historian itself is affected
2. Their histories educate future generations (from the unversed to the academic)
3. The inclusion of these histories as education combine with the present cultural knowledge of those being taught – in effect, a new interpretation, or even school of historiography can be created. This is besides the emergence of new evidence, or the better elocution of past historians. A new configuration of historical reasoning is created.
4. The past history is assimilated or rewritten
5. This cycle continues to the next generation

The effects of this is that it can generate new historiographical debates (changing academic culture), and new views considering History as a whole or a specific topic. It leaves an objective view of History unresolved, but it justifies History based on its view in culture or society – the affirmation of revolving interpretations.

The question of ‘What is History’ is a revolving category in itself. If it is an ‘Art’ or a ‘Science’ is a clash of academic cultural thinking, between different eras. For example, History was regarded as a series of stories, accounts and myths, often intertwined, before the modern era. It then met the ‘re-invention’ of 19^th century ‘objectivity’, when history was professionalised into an academic subject. This further went through the definition-wrenching era of Postmodernism. The question of History as an art or science, or the closely related question of whether it is objective or subjective, was chewed and spat out during those centuries.

Thus, history seems more like a subject of expression of the human condition and contemporary understanding. Of course, it is usually accepted as such – but it is only truly revealed when analysed through time, and through social and theoretical interaction. When analysing it, of course the above arguments for it being an ‘Art’ or a ‘Science’ also have to be considered. The points for human interpretation and subjectivity are bolstered however, and with cultural and educative purposes, it is thus more an ‘Art’. However, it is an exact ‘Art’. This is not just because of its professionalisation, but because it has always been so – the etymology confirms this. As I have stated, its doubts seem more confined to academic culture.  Furthermore, the ‘revolutions of re-interpretation’ cycle discount any teleology to history. A set understanding of History, with its extrapolation into the future, like Marxism, is shredded by the constant reconfigurations of the cycle. With different understandings, different future predictions emerge. This reaffirms History as a constant expression of the present, and in a way discounts it as a provider of universal laws. While this does not make it especially an ‘Art’, I think that this distances it from being a possible ‘Science’, which does indeed seek to prove laws and observations that will always be or happen. To conclude then, I will say that History is an ‘Art’ – but one ever evolving, and still in need of empirical precision to carry out successfully.

'Benton in London'

The video of Benton the deer chasing dog is going viral as we speak, proving once again how angry toffs and animals hold a special place in the webgoer's heart. I'll admit, I did find the original amusing, but I preferred the various spoofs that have spiralled from it - particularly this one. The screeching dulcet tones of Benton's owner have been laid over a scene from American Werewolf in London (a damn fine film actually). Quite Genius in my opinion.

Libya: The emergence of a new democracy

With the triumph over Gaddafi, and the universal legitimation – both nationally and internationally – of the National Transitional Council (NTC), the road seems clear for a new, democratic Libya to emerge. However, a popular revolution may be one thing; nation-building is another thing entirely. An issue that can even err the most advanced Western nations, Libya’s tentative first steps into political maturity will be uncertain indeed. This is not only explained by recent turmoil, but by the fact that Libya has only matured as a country recently, let alone as an embryonic democracy.

The concept of ‘Libya’ is a modern one. Split into various tribe-lands, coastal strongholds and inhospitable deserts, this land passed into ownership, piecemeal, to the Romans, Greeks, Arabs and Turks. Only in 1934 was this divided land amalgamated into the borders of modern Libya, following its conquest by the Italians in 1912. Politics was primitive; power usually residing in a foreign ruler, or in a local clique of military cadres or tribal elites. Intervention against any popular uprising could be brutal, as when the Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini crushed the nationalist insurrection of Omar Mukhtar, and in the process - directly and indirectly - killed half of the native Bedouin population.

An independent Libya emerged in 1951. Finally, Libya became a democracy, albeit one heavily constrained by the power of the monarchy. The King, Idris, controlled the armed forces, the cabinet and the legislative veto for instance.

But in 1969, one young officer, disgusted by the corruption and malfeasance he perceived in the King’s government, led a coup d’etat, establishing his own dictatorship. This young officer was to rule Libya for the next 42 years: Colonel Gaddafi. Stripping aside all previous representative institutions, he established his own system of ‘Jamahirya’; the mendaciously named ‘State of the Masses’. However, the people had no say in politics, with dissidents often publically executed, some on state television.

In 2011, his government was torn down. In a vein of continuity, rebels waved the old tricolour of the Kingdom of Libya, hoping to establish Libya’s first true democracy. Despite the clear unsavouriness of Gaddafi’s death by the hands of the mob, it was also fitting to an extent – Libya’s last dictator, Mussolini, died in a similar way.

The NTC still have much to do in order to create a new Libya however; one truly modern and united. The remnants of Gaddafi’s loyalists will be quickly swept away, but the issues of reducing inter-tribal tensions, the creation of a state based on the rule of law, reconstruction and the establishment of an elected parliament remain.

Reconstruction should be fairly straight forward; not only are there Libya’s vast oil reserves to draw on, but many nations have pledged foreign aid. While there was be short term socioeconomic suffering, the long term is likely to see a recovery in Libya – both in its economy, and its rebuilding from the costs of war. Of course, this is assuming the spiralling cost of oil (almost a given, despite the global economic downturn) and assuming the good word of the West (less so).

The creation of a modern, constitutional state seems near-certain as well. The National Transitional Council published its Constitutional Declaration on August 3, setting out its rules clearly. Elections are expected next year, in April, with the official Constitution to be promulgated the following year.

Reducing inter-tribal tensions, and indeed inter-group tensions generally, seems to be a problem less likely to be sorted quickly, and possibly needing a more subtle and long term approach. Inter-tribal tension has always been an issue in Libya; after all, it was only united as a coherent whole recently. In the recent upheaval, it is inevitable that such tensions are flared. There are 140 tribes in Libya, but only 30 openly and ubiquitously fought against Gaddafi during his rule. While it is a fact that hundreds of thousands of Libyans welcome the end of all things Gaddafi, some do not. Regional differences, such as between Tripolitanians and Benghazians, are particularly strong. These differences may flare from smouldering embers into an inferno of civil war, if political and social tumults take a drastic turn for the worse. 

However, such feelings are countered somewhat by the buoyant hope for a new, prosperous era. This is especially felt by the urban and educated young. The use of the Internet and social networking to promote the cause of a unified, democratic Libya is indicative of this, and not only can it serve to channel and organise domestic support, but it channels explicit support internationally. Libya’s uprising was a story played on an international scale, and so the political will for success was both varied and unyielding. Its longevity is another debate altogether.

These issues are problematic for any country, particularly for Libya’s fledgling democracy. It will have to learn fast, and learn from the trials and tribulations of the past, to mature. It may not have an exact blueprint for Libyan democracy, but it has a chance to set historical wrongs right. The NTC is taking the right route, with a cautious, moderate mix of Sharia Law and Secular Democracy – a compound likely to be the correct compromise. It must be both subtle and striking, considerate and cutting – only with decisiveness, intelligence and luck, will Libya be transformed into the state it could so patently be.

Well, then

This is not the first blog I have started, but I sure intend for it to be the most compelling. It only has a general purpose – to catalogue my musings of the world, and to collate my thoughts into some useful whole – or so I hope. I think that writing a blog will be a good thing – something to hone my creativity and something to inspire me to pursue lines of thought.

My main focus (if there is one) will be academic, as I need to keep my intellectual edge keen during my gap year. However, I will be reviewing music albums, games, books and nights out, along with general points of interest.

I’m sharing this blog with my good friend Mike, as I feel his output will be a valuable addition: clever and witty. And maybe just a bit out there. Like he’s under the influence of Crystal Meth. In any case, it allows us the option of conceiving and creating shared projects. Or it maybe that this merry partnership breaks down into a panoply of Xbox Live, 7% Beer and the Youtube videos that time forgot – not that this is a necessarily bad thing! Only time will tell.