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:
- Past histories are indicative of the past culture of the historian – thus the context of the historian itself is affected
- Their histories educate future generations (from the unversed to the academic)
- 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.
- The past history is assimilated or rewritten
- 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 19th 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment