Edward Hallett Carr, What is History? (1961).
E. H. Carr’s What is History? is arguably more relevant now than when it was first published in 1961.[1] The bulk of Carr’s What is History? is a critique of how historians, from the nineteenth century and through the best part of the twentieth, thought about the function of history (or not, as was sometimes the case) and the role of the historian. As a historical record, if nothing else, it is an important book. The themes raised will be familiar to students today, even though the context has changed utterly. But the book, which began life as a lecture series, is so much more than historical record. Its approach to the subject is such that it enlivens the subject today. At its core, What is History? is a demonstration of the need for a ‘philosophy of history’, how we might understand both its utility and its contested nature. A manifesto of sorts. A foundational document for an optimistic approach to history.
In his lifetime, Carr was a celebrated and formidable thinker who reached beyond the academy. What is History? was republished 11 times in as many years in the sixties and seventies. But in the decades that followed his death, Carr’s reputation has taken something of a beating.[2]
To paraphrase Carr, there is an ocean of facts in history, but some facts are more equal than others. The historian will be judged not by how many or what facts he brings to the fore, but on his expertise in interpreting which facts have historical purchase, which facts shaped our world.
A similarly insightful observation is Carr’s warning against too much emphasis on the ‘individual actor’ in historical enquiry, saying instead, ‘What the historian is called on to investigate is what lies behind the act; and to this the conscious thought or motive of the individual actor may be quite irrelevant.’ (p. 52).
But it is the emphasis that Carr places on knowing who you are reading that is most worthy of attention in this short review. He highlights that the work of historians reveals as much about the present concerns of historians as the time they are writing about. This is an important and key theme in What is History? To know the ‘politics’ or ‘political leanings’ or ‘interests’ of the historian gives the student an insight into the approach and concerns he might take to a particular historical rupture. So, a ‘conservative’ historian might place more emphasis on the dynamics of new market forces and the impact of economic schools of thought, whereas the more ‘leftfield’ historian might highlight the primacy of labour or labour organisations in determining a new set of social relations in a given period.
Carr’s theme was not a justification for consigning one or the other (depending on one’s own political leanings) to the dustbin of history, but to equip the student with the means with which to test the ideas towards a more comprehensive view of events. Knowing the political persuasion of the historian is not relevant so that it can be cast aside, but so we can better understand his perspective and measure the competence of the proposition. We miss the point if we think of history as merely the subjective account of politically partisan historians. We risk history becoming seen as a battleground between ideologues rather than a rich vein of contested accounts of epoch-making forces that shape the present.
And certainly, this insight was never meant as a ‘presentist’ charter. The presentist approach treats history as if we are ‘dooking’ for apples. It is a philistine and ahistorical contempt for the past, by using it as fodder for contemporary ideological concerns. As author Frank Furedi warns, ‘This is a history that gives voice to a powerful cultural trend that condemns the past for failing to live up to the causes and values of the contemporary woke establishment. Through projecting its values into as far back as ancient times, presentism erases the temporal distinction between the present and the past.’[3]
Teaching students about the transatlantic slave trade – as has been done for decades in the UK – is important because it was a significant world event that marked a structural shift in national and international relations, trade, economics and social dynamics. It was an event that changed the course of history – as did its abolition. The importance of this historical moment is diminished when it is weaponised to provide a ‘moral framework’ with which to advance the new ideology of decolonisation.[4]
Similarly, those who attempt to ‘reclaim’ historic figures from a presentist perspective to suit their ideological concerns are ‘flatlining’ history by elevating ‘facts’ over impact. That Joan of Arc is now touted as a ‘trans man’ or ‘non-binary’ is historical deep-mining in the extreme.[5] Whether Joan of Arc was or wasn’t a trans man is surely besides the point when considering the historic conditions that gave rise to her/‘him’. It is seen by these historical gravediggers as ‘fact’, but even if it were true, what does it add to our knowledge of the period? How does this ‘fact’ deepen our historical understanding of Catholic France in the fifteenth century and its victory at Orleans in its Hundred Years’ War with England? How does this ‘fact’ help us understand how France – and indeed England – changed in this period and its aftermath? The answer is, no more than discovering what Joan ate before she was burned at the stake by the English. No, these ‘facts’ are not about understanding the dynamics of history – they are about politics today. They are about advancing the cause of gender ideology rather than advancing our knowledge of human history.
Carr warns against a view of history that, ‘...has no meaning, or a multiplicity of equally valid or invalid meanings, or the meaning which we arbitrarily choose to give to it.’ (p. 109). His approach to history remains important today as a scholarly ‘how to’ guide to approaching historical enquiry or history books, while at the same time it provides a defence against history grifters intent only on serving their ideological needs in the present.
It should be uncontroversial to say that teaching history must be more than the promotion of a new moral framework or a new elitist ideology. To do so robs history of its epoch-defining moments. It subverts history as a critical enquiry. Teaching a pluralistic approach to history is the only antidote to the mining of history to fit contemporary ideological interests.
References
Alex Cameron (January 2024)
Originally published by scottishunionforeducation.substack.com
. . . . . . . . . .
Ask
Comments