Audra Brock 1 12/9/11 Historiography Dr.

Todd Berryman

Prompt 1 The Movement of History

Since the 18th century, there have been debates on whether history is making a Hegelian progression. After the Enlightenment where the religious-based historical method was shattered by the heroic model, there has been debates on whether history and society is marching towards perfection or wallowing in stagnant historical water. This essay will address the progression of the study of history is found in the Hegelian model and in social history. This will be done through analyzing the Helegian model, social history and objectivity vs. subjectivity. In Hegels Introduction to the Philosophy of History, the author talks of the Spirit that is guides the study of history to a final destination sometime in the future, a time current historians cannot predict1. The Hegelian point of view on the march of history would be, what is the point of history is there is no perfection at the end of history? There will always be a progression of the study because there will always be a progression of history. This point of view harks to the religious history of the Middle Ages. In Christianity, time is moving in a way that progresses to when Jesus, who is perfect, will return. In Hegel, history is progressing to a time of perfection very similar to the second coming of Christ. In a Protestant West, this model of the progression of history is preferred because it coincides with Christian values that is involved in Western life. Most historical writing is done by western authors, and though they may not explicitly be writing under a Christian context, they cannot help but be influenced by Christian morals. While Hegel is not explicitly Christian, there are enough similarities to suggest that historians writing in the
1 George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Introduction to the Philosophy of History (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1988) pg. 19

Audra Brock 2 12/9/11 Historiography Dr. Todd Berryman

western world are writing about a history that has a perfect end. The Hegelian model is older and not so popular anymore, but still relevant when it comes to the study of history. The march of history is not central to historians arguments anymore. Like Hegel suggests, everyone is progressing on, especially in the study of history. Once the Rankian model was used and is now obsolete. There are not many historians writing solely under Marxist or Annalist methodology. Historical writing, like history itself, is a conglomeration of many methods. Because there are so many factors that come into play with history, one method or ideology is not sufficient. Historians of the later part of the 20th century and now the 21st century are working under the post-modernist method and eschewing all that is simply old. In social history, historians look for how a social construct has progressed throughout history2. Womens historians look for social ideals and expectations of women and how they have changed throughout history and how these gender expectancies were affected by the world. To study the history of oppressed peoples, historians will always have to look at how things have changed with those peoples. What has happened in the past to oppressed peoples dictates their developments in the future. Because of the advent of social history, history has progressed to a point where the white, male, Protestant view is not the only accepted one. With social history, the study of history as a whole has progressed to be more inclusive. To quote Green and Troup, knowledge of history is knowledge that things have changed and do change. 3 This translates to the changing of historical studies. History is always changing and so must the study. The study must progress with the history. History is becoming more global and all-encompassing force that does not operate under a single mindset. In recent decades, a historian no longer has to belong to
2 Anna Green and Kathleen Troup, eds. The Houses of History (New York: Manchester University Press, 1999) pg. 253 3 Anna Green and Kathleen Troup, eds. The Houses of History (New York: Manchester University Press, 1999) pg. 253

Audra Brock 3 12/9/11 Historiography Dr. Todd Berryman

a house or only one philosophy. The new idea is that since history is complicated, so is historical writing. Since the advent of social history, the definition of what is history has changed. That history now includes ignored peoples and the under served. Just by including African-American history, womens history and anything else not white-male-Protestant shows the progress that history has made. What was once unimportant and ignored is now the most prolific part of historical scholarship. If one believes that progress equals including everyone and everything, then the study of history has progressed. With the enthusiasm found in social history it is hard not to agree with the notion that the study of history has progressed. If progression is good and social history is good, then the march must be good, too. With the case of objectivity vs. subjectivity, progression can get a little foggy. When reading about objectivity vs. subjectivity there is a sinking feeling that historians havent progressed at all. The admittance of the power of subjectivity and the trashing of objectivity shows, in some way, a type of progress. It shows that a lot of historians have progressed into being completely subjective. This is not what progress in the study of history really means. Progress means to become better at something, and choosing one side or another on the objectivity vs. subjectivity debate does not show progress, The understanding of both sides shows that a historian understands that there is a goal to history but there are also inevitable factors like bias and personal history. In recent historical debates, there is more of an

understanding of both sides proving that in that sector of history, there is some progress. When it comes to objectivity vs. subjectivity, it often boils down to the language game. Without meaning in history, then history doesnt exist. If something doesnt have meaning and means nothing to anyone, then it technically does not exist since no one notices it. Historians in the centuries before the 20th sought to escape the philosophical part of history and simplify the study by

Audra Brock 4 12/9/11 Historiography Dr. Todd Berryman

submerging themselves in facts4. The 20th century ushered in the dominance of philosophy in history, bringing a more emotional aspect to history instead of the bland, stating of facts that was history under the Empiricist model. Whether or not a historian values subjectivity or not, this new era of historical philosophy can be viewed as progress toward a greater emotional understanding of the past. While there are things that will always be absolute, like George Washington was the first American president, what is often debated is the emotional side to the stated fact. The question of whether or not George Washington was a good president is what is debated by historians. Because that question is relevant shows that the study of history has progressed from the merely Empirical study of the past to a study of personal histories. To understand the history you have to understand the historian. Now that this is an integral part to learning about history, one could say that the study of history has progressed, at least to a point where history is not only about the past but also about the historian. To say whether an academic study has progressed or not is difficult, especially as a beginner historian. Looking at an academic study as a success or failure could make or break a students hope for history. But, when a student of history really looks at how the study of history has changed, they will find that it has changed for the better, in most respects. Not only are women and races other than caucasian now relevant, but oppressed peoples are a main part of the study of history. The study of history is continually progressing, like the Hegelian model, and one can only hope that the study does not regress. In a world that is getting smaller through technology yet bigger through education, the study of history will continue to progress. Historians will have to keep up with a changing world because history does not stand still.

4 Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, Margaret Jacob, Telling the Truth About History (New York and London: Norton books, 1994) pg. 243