Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FREDERICK A. OLAFSON
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
266 FREDERICK A. OLAFSON
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
NARRATIVE HISTORY AND THE CONCEPT OF ACTION 267
through the application of general laws, according to Danto, who says that
"it seems to me beyond argument that any decision one makes about what is
to constitute the crucial middle in a narrative, the event H (that which hap-
pens to x and causes x to change) must be selected in the light of some general
concept, expressible, perhaps, as a general law."3 In other words, the event
to be explained must be redescribed until a description of the change in terms
of general concepts is reached which is also an instance of a general law. In
the Duke of Buckingham example, we have accordingly to ask what the event
H is that happens to the Duke of Buckingham between time t1 and time t2;
and in order to do this we have to redescribe the Duke variously as a proud
man, a politician, and so forth, so that we can assess the effect upon him of
such events as his treatment at the Spanish court. In this case, Danto un-
fortunately does not tell us what the relevant law is; but it is clear that in
his view every narrative is based upon a deductive explanation and that to
every deductive explanation in history there corresponds a narrative sequence
of some kind. Finally, Danto concedes that no such sequence or change is
exhaustively explainable, since the concepts that are used to bring a particular
event under general laws are always of an order of generality which admits
of other quite different instances, and we are unable to say why just this kind
of change took place instead of the other changes that would equally well
instantiate the general law we are using.4
Now it must be pointed out that Danto's way of analyzing such historical
events as the change of attitude on the part of the Duke of Buckingham is in
certain respects highly tendentious. He tells us that that event forms a tempo-
ral whole with a beginning, a middle, and an end. The beginning is the state
of affairs in which the Duke is favorably disposed toward the marriage and
the end is the state in which he has become opposed. The middle or inter-
mediate term which is the cause of the change is said to be "something hap-
pening to [the Duke] at t2."5 This manner of speaking is plainly akin to
that of a previous example which Danto uses and which does not concern
human beings but rather the way in which a dent in a car's fender is to be
explained. The something that "happened" to the Duke proves to be his
treatment at the Spanish court which, Danto tells us, affected his pride in
such a way as "to cause this disposition to actualize in a change of attitude."6
The significant feature of this way of schematizing the event in question is
that it avoids any reference to the Duke's purpose or intention in taking the
action he did and indeed avoids even describing the change as an action. In
3. Danto, 238.
4. Ibid., 229-231.
5. Ibid., 236.
6. Ibid., 240.
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
268 FREDERICK A. OLAFSON
this analysis we thus find references to states of affairs, to causes that impinge
upon human beings, and to dispositions (pride) in those human beings which
are actualized by what happens to them with the result that new attitudes are
formed. But, by contrast with the preliminary and naive account in which it
is after all the Duke who "declares himself unwilling to participate further
in the unholy alliance," no one does anything at all in the corrected version
that Danto supplies.7 The avoidance of any reference to action as such would
seem in fact to be one principal function of Danto's schema of initial and
terminal states with intervening causal influences.
It is very questionable whether this schema of explanation is universally
applicable and whether in fact it has very much to recommend it over the
historian's initial way of describing the event which is typically cast in the
language of action. Suppose, for example, an historian were seeking to explain
why Hitler attacked Russia in 1941 instead of the Near East. According to
Danto we would have to conceptualize this event as a change in the course
of which Hitler (and through him Germany) passed from an initial state of
not being at war with Russia to a terminal state of being at war with Russia.
Then we would have to ask what "happened to" Hitler (or Germany) be-
tween time t, at which he was not at war with Russia and time t2 at which he
was at war. Now this question is likely to prove very puzzling because it is
not clear that anything relevant happened to Hitler or Germany that would
explain (causally) this transition. What happened of course was that Hitler
decided to attack Russia and gave the order to do so in December, 1940; and
that decision was surely not something that "happened to" Hitler. If we cast
our questions in Danto's form and ask what "happened to" Hitler between
the Russo-German non-aggression pact in 1939 and the order for Operation
Barbarossa in December, 1940, then we will find that there just does not ap-
pear to have been any incident comparable to Buckingham's visit to Madrid
to which a decisive influence upon Hitler's "dispositions" could be attributed.
Perhaps a relevant "disposition" can be identified in the form of Hitler's long-
standing hostility toward the Soviet Union and communism generally; and no
doubt the outcome of Hitler's campaigns in Western Europe during 1940
made it appear expedient to him to turn eastward at that time. But why should
any one of the events of 1940 have actualized just this disposition at that
time instead of leading Hitler to actualize another long-standing disposition
and conquer the Near East? The vocabulary of dispositions does not give any
answer to this question; and to answer it we would have to enter into Hitler's
practical calculations as best we can reconstruct them. In this way, we might
be able to understand why, in the light of his situation at that time and his
7. Quoted by Danto (p. 240) from C. V. Wedgwood, The Thirty Years' War
(Harmondsworth, Eng., 1957), 167.
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
NARRATIVE HISTORY AND THE CONCEPT OF ACTION 269
8. Danto, 236.
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
270 FREDERICK A. OLAFSON
laws. But if he were to do so, he would face another and more general kind
of difficulty. If historians give causal explanations and if causal explanations
imply the existence of general laws, then the historian is under an obligation
to seek that description of the events with which he deals under which they
will be instances of a general law. The question I wish to raise about this is
simply whether there are any limits set to this movement away from the
preliminary descriptions of historical events under which they may not be
instances of general laws, in search of descriptions under which they are? No
such limits are set by Danto, nor does he suggest that there might be a need
for them; although he recognizes, of course, that, as the level of generality at
which historical events are described rises, there will be more and more
features of those events that cannot be accounted for by reference to the
general concepts and laws that the historian uses. In the examples he gives,
there is indeed some loss of specificity of this kind; but in general the new
explananda he proposes as substitutes for the preliminary descriptions are not
very remote from the latter and are rather clearly extractable from them with
the aid of certain auxiliary bits of information of the kind that an historical
text itself is very likely to supply. Thus, in his explanation of why flags were
put out in Monaco on a given day, Danto substitutes for the statement, "The
Monegasques put out American flags side by side with Monegasque flags,"
the statement, "The members of one nation were honoring a sovereign of
different national origin than they." These statements are then both brought
under a law which Danto tentatively formulates as follows: "Whenever a
nation has a sovereign of a different national origin than its citizens, those
citizens will on appropriate occasions honor that sovereign in some acceptable
manner."9 Here all the general concepts used in the substitute explanandum
and in the law are such as to be almost certainly available to anyone who un-
derstood the first description. They are, furthermore, descriptions which the
Monegasques themselves would recognize as accurately describing what they
were doing. The plausibility of the example is thus largely due to the fact that it
does not raise serious doubts as to whether the concepts used in the substitute
explanandum are too remote from those in the original description to be ap-
propriate replacements.
A very different kind of case can be proposed, however, in which such
doubts might well arise because the concepts used in the substitute explanan-
dum are logically unrelated to those in the original, so that no easy transitions
such as the one from "the Monegasques" to "the members of one nation"
would be possible. At the limit, these might be concepts drawn from neuro-
physiology or some other branch of behavioral science which formulates its
laws in terms of concepts that are logically unrelated to the vocabulary of
9. Ibid., 221.
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
NARRATIVE HISTORY AND THE CONCEPT OF ACTION 271
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
272 FREDERICK A. OLAFSON
of the policies that govern the conduct of the agents in question, Danto's
thesis of the convertibility of the narrative account of that event into a law-
based causal explanation becomes very difficult to maintain. The reason for
this is simply the fact that in the kind of case we are considering the law-
based explanation would contain terms which are not known to the agent or
logically derivable from the descriptions he gives of his own actions. In such
a case, the correspondence of the narrative and the causal explanation could
be restored only if the technical terms that occur in the latter could be intro-
duced into the narrative itself; but this would give incongruous results, since
it would mean that in many cases the original description of an agent's action
would be given in language in which he could not recognize that action as his
own. On the other hand, if Danto were to disallow the use of explanations
that move so far from the agent's original description of what he does, then
the causal character of the explanation would be called into question. This
becomes clear in the examples he gives - especially the Monegasque one -
which, as I have noted, stay very close to the descriptions the agents might
themselves give, with the result that these approximate much more closely to
the model of rational explanation than to that of causal explanation. Once
the convention discussed above and the laws are recast as statements about
the way the Monegasques treat sovereigns (as they clearly must be in light
of the obvious counter-instances to the claims they make about all nations),
the explanation Danto presents emerges as an explanation by reference to
the policies of the Monegasque people and the means they adopt to carry
out these policies.12 There is, in short, a choice to be made here between
maintaining the integrity of the primary vocabulary of narrative description
and insuring the subsumability of one's narrative sentences under universal
causal laws.
It would seem, then, that Danto has not provided a satisfactory example of
an explanation in which a law as distinct from a principle of action figures as
the major premise. It is also apparent that in the Monegasque example he has
not, in moving beyond a preliminary description to a description that in-
stantiates a general premise, moved beyond the sphere of characterizations of
the situation in question that would be recognizable and acceptable to the
agents themselves. As I have already argued, these are at bottom character-
izations of certain policies of actions; and my point has been that there are
limits on the degree to which the description of an action can deviate from
the one that would be provided by or be intelligible to the agent if that action
is to be imputed to him as it typically is in an historical narrative. There are,
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
NARRATIVE HISTORY AND THE CONCEPT OF ACTION 273
to be sure, difficult questions that arise in connection with the use of various
technical vocabularies drawn from disciplines like economics and psychology
for the purpose of describing action. But it is surely clear that a recognition
of some such limits could be avoided only if the action character of the
explananda could be ignored; and if the events to be explained could be
broken up into initial and terminal states and intervening influences in
accordance with Danto's schema. In fact, however, Danto has not attempted
to carry out such an analysis in the Monegasque case and has produced only
a general "law" which is visibly parasitic upon the policies of action of his
protagonists and which, if treated as a statement of a causal law, is easily
falsifiable.13 At one point, Danto himself seems to come close to a recognition
of this independence of the explanations he is giving from any laws of
universal scope. In speaking of the Duke of Buckingham and his change of
attitude, he remarks that it is not at all easy "to enumerate in advance the
sorts of things that might make a man like the Duke of Buckingham change
his mind about the marriage of a Prince." Then he adds that "once we know
what turned the trick, we can bring it under a general principle readily
enough."14 This seems to imply quite clearly that the historian's explanation
is worked out in the first instance without benefit of any law-based insight
into events of the type under study. Since that explanation is initially given in
action terms, how can the "general principle" it suggests be more than a kind
of blow-up into fully universal terms of the particularized maxim that is
extracted from the facts available about the Duke and his action? At the same
time, of course, Danto speaks of the relationship between the two as one of
mutual confirmation - as when he says that "a law . . . both licenses and
is licensed by the redescriptions."'15 But if it is clear that the redescribed
event could be a confirmatory instance of the general premise considered as a
"law," it is quite unclear how the latter can be both easy to derive from the
redescription and license the latter - which presumably means that it pro-
vides supporting evidence for the explanation it offers. Such a law is "easy to
furnish" only if the only operations required to produce it are logical opera-
tions of universalization; but the generalization so produced will be no better
confirmed than the particular statement from which it is derived. If the law
is to license the redescription, then surely it must be independently confirmed
in other instances, and, if so, it must be in some sense "on hand" already
and available for guiding the process of redescription. In fact, however,
13. In his important article "The Popper-Hempel Theory Reconsidered," Histoty and
Theory 4 (1964), 3-26, Alan Donagan has commented on the tendency of defenders of
the regularity theory to put forward as "laws" generalizations that are in fact rather
easily shown to be false.
14. Danto, 244.
15. Ibid., 220-221.
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
274 FREDERICK A. OLAFSON
Danto never asks whether his major premises are true when considered as
laws, and this suggests to me that he is employing them mainly as statements
of action-policies and not as laws.
One is tempted to suggest not only that Danto is somewhat inconsistent in
his way of using the law-based schema of historical explanation he proposes,
but also that his allegiance to this schema distorts some of his most important
insights into the whole topic of historical understanding. I have in mind here
the salutary emphasis he places on what he calls "temporal wholes" in
history, i.e., the organization of successive events in such a way that they
form a unified sequence of change in which there is a beginning, a middle,
and an end. As I have already pointed out, he believes that such unities are
organized by means of what he calls "narrative sentences" which describe some
past event in a way that implies that another event took place at a point in
time subsequent to the first event; and he also argues that this is a mode of
description that is peculiar to history as the record of the past and one that
is of necessity inapplicable to events that lie in the historian's future. The
historian is thus typically the man who sees farther than the persons he
writes about and can describe their actions in the light of their consequences
as these persons could not. At the same time, this organization of events
in the form of temporal structures serves an explanatory function since the
causal episodes which are recounted are those which are adequate to explain
the change that occurs in some underlying continuous subject according to
some general law of which this change thus is shown to be an instance.
There is an indefinitely large number of such temporal structures within
which any given event E can be situated by the historian; and while the basic
conditions of underlying continuity and relevance must be observed which-
ever structure is used, the choice of a particular structure will also be dictated
by the historian's special interest in a certain set of terminal states with
which the events he is describing are connected. Temporal structures in
narrative history are thus subject only to the two fundamental conditions that
they deal with some continuous subject - which may, of course, be an
institution like the Roman Catholic Church or an event like the French
Revolution and that they explain a change by reference to causal episodes
that are subsumable under general laws.
What is most conspicuously lacking in this treatment of temporal wholes
in history is any effort to show that such unities are implicit in the historical
events themselves in any sense that is prior to and independent of the his-
torian's being able to hit on a description of the events that will bring them
under a causal law. More specifically, the unity established through the
organization of these temporal wholes does not seem to stand in any definable
relationship to the kind of unity among events that is set up by human action
itself. It is true that Danto makes such remarks as that "one chief task of
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
NARRATIVE HISTORY AND THE CONCEPT OF ACTION 275
narration is to set the stage for the action that leads to the end, the descrip-
fion of which is the explanation of the change of which beginning and end
are the termini."16 But this reference to the role of action in narrative
sentences is not developed; and Danto's only sustained treatment of the topic
of action is an argument intended to show that narrative sentences and what
Danto calls "action sentences" are logically distinct in a way that precludes
the assimilation of the former to the latter. An action sentence is a sentence,
like "John is planting roses," in which what a person is doing in this case
digging a hole or preparing the soil is described by reference to its in-
tended outcome. The "project verb" in an action sentence thus describes an
earlier event in the light of a later one; and in this respect action sentences are
like narrative sentences. The difference between the two, according to Danto,
is that in the case of the action sentence "it is not logically required that the
later event take place for the sentence to be true," while in the case of the
narrative sentence the sentence would be falsified if the later event did not
take place.'7 If one says "Aristarchus anticipated Copernicus," then this
sentence would be false if Copernicus had not worked out the heliocentric
theory. But if it turns out that the roots John planted were, unknown to him,
lilacs rather than roses, that does not falsify the statement that he was planting
roses as long as he was doing the kinds of things that are appropriate when
one is planting roses. Quite evidently, then, action sentences have something
to do with the agent's intention and his understanding of what he was about;
and these are not altered by some subsequent failure due to the agent's
ignorance. Narrative sentences, by contrast, are falsifiable by subsequent
events quite apart from any consideration of the agent's intention or
knowledge, and it is evident that narrative sentences do not, as Danto
interprets them, have any necessary or close connection with action or
intention as such. As a result, the unities which narrative sentences establish
among events are independent of the relationships implicit in intentional
action; and this difference between narrative and action sentences is distinct
from the one based on the different temporal perspectives of the agent and
the historian.
In offering this characterization of narrative sentences and assigning them
a central place in his account of historical understanding, Danto did not, of
course, intend to claim that all sentences in history books are of this logical
type, but rather that among all the different types of sentences that an
historian may have occasion to use, these are the ones which are from a
logical point of view peculiar to and distinctive of his enterprise. What is a
little surprising, however, is the fact that Danto nowhere takes note of the
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
276 FREDERICK A. OLAFSON
fact that there are some legitimate grounds for objections to the use of
sentences of this type in history- objections, that is, to the description
of the action of historical personages in a temporal perspective that was
unavailable to them. Thus, one of the strongest objections to "the Whig
interpretation of history" is that it permitted such statements as "Martin
Luther was a pioneer of religious liberty in the modern world." Critics like
Herbert Butterfield point out that while Luther's break with the church was
certainly one of the events that were eventually to lead to an acceptance of
religious liberty as the only alternative to perennial religious strife, that out-
come was wholly alien to Luther's own intention.'8 Assuming this to be a
legitimate criticism of a certain way of writing history from the standpoint
of the events that were subsequent in the time order to the actions being
described but causally connected with them, one must ask whether Danto's
schema of explanatory narrative would permit him to censure such forms of
temporal organization as this and to say in what the error consists. After all,
the conditions of continuity and law-instantiation could presumably be met.
Wherein, then, might the error consist? No doubt, Luther would have hotly
repudiated this description of what he did; but it is not clear that from
Danto's standpoint that fact would constitute a defect in a narrative sentence
about Luther or anyone else. At least, there is no stipulation among the
"logico-aesthetic points" that Danto makes with respect to narrative sentences
to the effect that the description of actions they give must stand in any
particular relationship to the description of those actions that might have been
given or accepted by the agents themselves.'9
It seems to me that if Danto wants to find grounds for objecting to nar-
rative sentences such as I have described, he could do so only by introducing
a further requirement into his canon for narrative sentences. This would be
a requirement to the effect that an historian must not describe an action
by means of narrative sentences alone, but that these must be supplemented,
as necessary, by a description in terms of "action sentences" which reflect the
agent's understanding of what he is about as narrative sentences do not
necessarily do. The rhetorical devices by which this pairing might be
effected are various; but in all cases they would serve the purpose of makin
it clear that the temporal and causal perspective implicit in the narrative
sentence is that of the historian and not necessarily that of the agent. In this
way, misunderstandings of narrative statements as action statements that
attribute a certain intention to the agent would be prevented. But this require-
ment that action sentences be included in an historical narrative has more
extensive implications, since such sentences introduce a new form of temporal
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
NARRATIVE HISTORY AND THE CONCEPT OF ACTION 277
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
278 FREDERICK A. OLAFSON
agent's action than the agent often is, the above examples suggest strongly
that it is not wholly independent of the temporal organization effected by the
agent but instead reflects the historian's way of following that action and
determining what effects - intended and unintended - it really has. It is by
no means necessary that the historian should always make use of "narrative
sentences" for the purpose of conveying the fact that the real results of an
action were different from what they were intended to be and perhaps from
what the agent could have reasonably expected them to be. That device
can be very effective if the historian's intention is ironic; but he can perfectly
well state what actually came of a given undertaking without redescribing it
in terms that imply that it had these later and unexpected consequences, as is
often the case when narrative sentences are used.
It is one of the unsatisfactory features of Danto's account of narrative
sentences that he does not give many examples in context of the way in
which they might be used in an historical account. The examples that are
given tend to be fragmentary phrases or sentences which make the point
about the historian's special temporal perspective and superior knowledge,
but do not really show why or how this special mode of description for
historical events would be appropriate or required. That the latter constitutes
an optional rhetorical device at the disposal of the historian is clear; but it is
much less clear that it provides a key to the continuity of historical narrative.
The point is an important one, for Danto lays down a general requirement
of relevance for historical narratives according to which "it is a flaw in a
narrative if it contains episodes that fail to contribute to the action."20 Now
this seems to me to imply a further limitation on the freedom of the historian
to pick out any consequence of an action that happens to interest him,
as distinct from the consequences that either realized or betrayed the
intention of the agent. The consequences of that action must after all be
described in terms that will permit them to serve as the premises of the next
episode in the story that is being told; and this will typically be another
action, performed either by the same agent or by someone else. Clearly the
original agent will react to those consequences primarily as they constitute
a failure or a success of his original action. So may another agent; but he
may also identify those consequences in terms of his own purposes and in a
way that is quite irrelevant to the intentions of the first agent and therefore
employs a quite different description from that used by the agent himself.
It will, moreover, be important for the historian to know what this new
description of the consequences of the first action is so that he may set about
trying to explain what these various agents then proceed to do. Once again,
then, the historian is compelled to draw his description of this terminal
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
NARRATIVE HISTORY AND THE CONCEPT OF ACTION 279
state that has become the initial state for a new sequence of action, not from
his own independent interest in some causal consequence of the original
action, but from the way in which it is described in the context of another
and perhaps quite different set of purposes and intentions. It is here, surely,
in the way successive agents identify and react to the consequences of their
own and others' actions, that we find the effective enchalnement and con-
tinuity of historical events. No doubt it is the historian's privilege to leap
over some of the episodes which he will later recount, and startle his readers
by a description of some personality or event in terms that imply the occur-
rence of subsequent events that have not yet been related. I think, however,
that this rhetorical trick will be accepted by most readers only if they believe
that this sudden anachronism anticipates some later episode in the story that
is being told and that it could be reached step by step by a sequence such as I
have described above. If that understanding were violated and the reader
were continually treated to descriptions of human actions in terms of conse-
quences that proved irrelevant to the characterization of subsequent actions,
they would be likely to feel that such a narrative "contained episodes which
fail to contribute to the action" and thus violated Danto's own rule of
narrative relevance. Since that action consists of successive linked episodes,
as Danto's own diagram indicates, the descriptions of its initial and terminal
states must be such that other actions can "latch on" to the latter and so
maintain a continuity of multi-agent intentionality that could not be guaran-
teed if the historian's interest in one set of consequences rather than another
were the decisive criterion for inclusion in an historical narrative.
II
While Morton White devotes less attention than does Danto to the analysis
of historical narrative and more to a reformulation of the regularity theory of
explanation as applied to history, his book includes a substantial chapter
devoted to historical narration.2' Unlike Danto, White is not concerned with
the kind of temporal perspective that typically underlies "narrative sentences";
but in other respects his treatment of narrative has many points of similarity
with Danto's. Thus, a narrative is concerned with the states in which some
continuing entity like "a nation, a society, or a person" finds itself at different
points in a time sequence; and the task of the narrative historian, as distinct
from the chronicler, is to "colligate" these facts in such a way that we under-
stand why they followed upon one another in the way they did.22 These
colligations, in White's view, depend upon the existence of appropriate causal
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
280 FREDERICK A. OLAFSON
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
NARRATIVE HISTORY AND THE CONCEPT OF ACTION 281
General Court of Massachusetts, are said to have included the war with the
Pequot Indians that was going on at the time.25 In another example, the
fact that Harvard came to be situated at Cambridge rather than at Salem in
spite of some clear advantages possessed by the latter site is shown to have
been explained by S. E. Morison, not by reference to what someone thought,
but by reference to reasons that include "a desire, a personality and possibly
a river."26 But this form of counter-argument really modifies the original
thesis by interpreting it as a restriction on the linguistic usage of historians,
i.e., as requiring that nothing shall be cited as a decisive cause in an historical
explanation that is not referred to there as a thought. In fact, however,
"thought," as this term is used by philosophers like Collingwood who defend
this thesis, is not a lexical classification or a restriction on the kinds of words
that can be used to name decisive causes in an historical explanation. It is,
moreover, quite obvious from White's own account that the "causes" of both
the delay in founding the College and the siting of it at Cambridge were
reasons; and these were, to judge from the context, the reasons of some
person or persons for acting or not acting in a certain way at a certain time.
Thus, it would make no sense to say that the Charles River caused the
College to be situated at Cambridge unless what were meant was that it had
swept the buildings away from some other site and deposited them on its
Cambridge banks. What was actually intended by the historian was the quite
different claim that the fact that Cambridge was situated on a river not
unlike the Cam of its English counterpart may have been the reason why
the responsible persons situated Harvard College in Cambridge. But this is to
say that we are dealing with a certain fact which was known to the persons
in question and may have been a premise of a kind of practical deliberation
they performed; and it is in this sense that these reasons or causes were
someone's "thoughts." Similarly, a war is not a thought; but the fact that a
war with the Pequot Indians was going on in 1636 explains the delay in
founding Harvard College only if this fact was known to the governing group
in the colony and was a decisive consideration in favor of delaying the
projected undertaking. Perhaps Collingwood could have expressed the restric-
tion on historical explanation that he was really proposing in some better
way; but even the formulation he gave is not so strange if we remember that
thought is thought about something - some state of affairs - and that, as
known by human beings and as an element in their practical deliberations,
external states of affairs may without excessive impropriety be referred to as
thoughts.
White's treatment of the claim that decisive causes are always human
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
282 FREDERICK A. OLAFSON
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
NARRATIVE HISTORY AND THE CONCEPT OF ACTION 283
facts that need relating. The point I am making is simply that it is doubtful
whether any historian has ever believed that a voluntary action might some-
how by itself and in abstraction from its background be the cause of an event.
But what is puzzling in White's account is precisely his way of speaking as
though explanations that pass through voluntary actions were somehow an
alternative to those that pay primary attention to them. For example, the
suggestion that the historians of the future will pass through Oswald's action
and his motives to the psychological atmosphere is hard to understand if it
means more than that some of those historians may think that these back-
ground conditions have been inadequately explored and devote most or all
of their attention to them. That may well happen; but it does not follow that
it is just as reasonable to regard the psychological atmosphere in Dallas as the
cause of the President's death as it would be, from another point of view
and with a different interest, to regard Oswald's act as the cause. If the Pres-
ident was killed as the result of a deliberate human act and not by natural
causes, then any exploration of the background conditions is an exploration
of the background of that action; and while the historian certainly leaves the
action aside temporarily in order to talk about a variety of things that are
distinct from it and may very well not be actions at all, he must also return
to that action and show what the relationship of the background factors that
have been isolated was to the act itself. It seems almost unnecessary to say
that a psychological atmosphere is quite as incapable of killing a President as
the Charles River is of causing Harvard College to be situated in Cambridge.
But if the background conditions must be placed in relation to the action,
will they not have to be presented as states of affairs of which the assassin
had some degree of awareness and to which he responded in the way he
did, i.e., by killing the President? In this case, it is unlikely that the response,
if there was one, would have been in the nature of a cool practical inference.
It is much more likely that the response would have been strongly affective
in nature; and it is at least possible that an assassin might not have committed
his act if he had not been in a certain emotional state just as a parent might
not strike his child if he had not come home from the office in an angry state
of mind. But other quite different responses to the psychological atmosphere
in Dallas are imaginable. An assassin might think that it would lead the
public, if not the police, to look for a right-wing conspiracy and thus make
it possible for the real assassins to escape detection. Certainly this might give
some potential assassin a motive to commit the crime under these circum-
stances rather than wait for another opportunity. There are many other
possible ways in which background conditions can be related to an action
and thus help to explain a certain event; but the point of interest here is
simply that no historian can neglect entirely this question of the meaning
that is given to background conditions by the agent. Moreover, to talk about
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
284 FREDERICK A. OLAFSON
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
NARRATIVE HISTORY AND THE CONCEPT OF ACTION 285
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
286 FREDERICK A. OLAFSON
condition for the outcome in question. White's comment on this is that one
is rarely in a position to assert that there is only one set of sufficient condi-
tions for a particular effect and that this is what we are in fact assuming
when we pick out a contingently necessary condition. At any rate, in White's
view, we are certainly not in a position to make this assumption on many
occasions when historians designate a contributory cause as the decisive
cause, so it cannot be correct to analyze the historian's use of the latter
concept in terms of the former.
There is, however, a point of view from which the making of these
assumptions is not so arbitrary as it may appear when considered in abstrac-
tion from concrete contexts of historical explanation. If we consider the
situation of a person who seeks to achieve a certain result by the application
of certain means, then it is quite likely that in the situation in which he finds
himself there will be only one way of acting which in his view promises to
realize his goal. In other words, the agent sees certain conditions as given and
at the same time wishes to achieve a certain result; but can do so under these
circumstances only if he acts in manner a. In schematized form, this yields
"If c (circumstances), then r (result) if and only if a (action)." The desig-
nation as a necessary condition of one member of a set of jointly sufficient
conditions thus models the contrast that the agent makes between the
elements in his situation which will affect one way or another the achieve-
ment he projects, and the action itself that is to be taken by him in that
situation - the action which will complete the set of conditions that is
sufficient to produce the desired result. While it would be quite arbitrary, as
White says, to assert that a particular set of sufficient conditions is the only
such set and therefore necessary, it is not so arbitrary if we use as our model
the case of an agent who knows that all but one of the members of one
set of jointly sufficient conditions are present and has no reason to think that
any members of any other set are present or even that there is any other set.
He will typically and justifiably assume that his goal will be achieved only if
some action is taken by him; and he will quite naturally describe the action
which, taken together with the conditions that are already in existence, he
believes to be sufficient for that purpose, as necessary, i.e., as the action that
he must take. If there is more than one action which in these circumstances
might realize the end result, then it is a disjunction of actions that will be the
contingently necessary condition, and his choice between them will have to be
based on some effects that one or the other might have on concurrent goals.
But the point of the qualifier "contingently" consists just in this distinction
between all possible sets of sufficient conditions and the set to which belong
the features which the agent knows to be present in the situation in which he
finds himself and which point to a given action as the missing member of this
set of sufficient conditions for the end in view.
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
NARRATIVE HISTORY AND THE CONCEPT OF ACTION 287
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
288 FREDERICK A. OLAFSON
be cited as the reason why he was killed, and we would then be citing as the
cause an action that the person in question might have avoided. To be sure,
there need not be this context of an avoidable action for every such intrusion
of natural causes into human affairs. There are after all events - deaths are
probably the best example - that simply occur without its having been in
anyone's power even to try to prevent them. Nevertheless, it can be argued,
I think, that it is in a special sense the historian's job to provide that context
of manipulability if it exists at all, and that these cases cited by White in
which it seems to be lacking are in some sense marginal to his central interest.
Thus one may agree with White when he says that "an earthquake, a storm, a
hurricane, a crop failure or a flood is often cited as the cause of a historical
event" and yet wonder under what description of their effects these events are
said to be causes.35 Certainly, they produce what I have elsewhere called
"natural consequences" of which they may be said to be the causes, as, for
example, when a storm wrecks a fleet of ships or an earthquake blocks
a canal. But surely the earthquake would not be the cause of the reorientation
of trade, or the storm of a policy of military retrenchment, in the same way
in which they are causes of the wreck and the blockage, respectively. There
could be no story of trade or of military policy that did not involve human
undertakings that are exposed to the operation of natural causes along the
lines of these examples; but the point is that these natural causes and their
natural effects come into a story in which human purposes and actions
provide the element of continuity, however often it may be broken by the
deaths and accidents that are inseparable from our natural condition. The
technological thesis properly interpreted does not require that the operation
of natural causes never be mentioned in a history book, but rather that the
larger story in which they find their place be told in terms of what human
beings did and might have done, and that pride of place among explanations
of human events belongs to those that are given in these terms.
III
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
NARRATIVE HISTORY AND THE CONCEPT OF ACTION 289
Harvard University
This content downloaded from 129.133.6.95 on Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:45:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms