Samenvatting Pursuit of History // Tosh
H1
Difference between memory and disciplined approach towards the past (both collective and
individual)
- People rely on experience/memory/a sense of the past and (partially) base their choices on
it.
- Historical awareness is NOT social memory
-> memory is highly selective , subjective and faulty
-> ex. Germans in the second World War collectively believed the Jews were at fault (= social
memory) but they didn´t question it (historical awareness)
¨For any social grouping to have a collective identity there has to be a shared interpretation of the
events and experiences that have formed the group over time.¨
Ex. Origin of a state (in the case of nations)
- molly houses
- Edwardian suffrage movement
Social memory
- social groupings need a record of prior experience, but they also require a picture of the past that
serves to explain or justify the present, often are the cost of historical accuracy¨
- operation of social memory is clearest in societies were little to no appeal can be made to the
documentary record
-> ex.: precolonial Africa or the peasantries of pre-modern Europe
-> historical knowledge was handed down as a narrative, often accompanied by particular or
rituals/ceremonies or bound to a certain place
Social memory is not only a pre-literate, small-scale society thing
-> individual cannot exist without memory, neither can society
-> all societies look to their collective memory for consolation/inspiration/etc.
-> literate society as well, except that instead of narrative, written accounts are important
Foundation myth: a story about the foundation of a group (not entirely false, but simplified and rosy)
Social memory = essential means of sustaining a politically active identity
Social memory of past oppression
Social memory can serve to sustain a sense of oppression , exclusion or adversity
-> some of the most powerful expressions of social memory
Ex.: Malcolm X, says blacks are oppressed because white America cut them off from their past
Ex.: British labour history -> sharpen awareness of workers
Ex.: feminists -> usable past to emphasize exploitation and subordinated position of women
¨For socially deprived or ´invisible´ groups – whether in a majority such as workers and women, or in
a minority such as blacks in America and Britain – effective political mobilization depends on a
consciousness of the past¨
, Without consciousness of collective identity -> vulnerable for stereotypes,
implemented values, etc.
Historicism = liberating the past from the present
-> the autonomy of the past must be respected
-> each age is a unique manifestation of the human spirit, with its own culture and values
-> for one age to understand one another, there must be a recognition that time has altered both the
conditions of life and mentality of people
-> historians do not guard universal values or deliver ´the verdict of history´
-> history held the key to understanding the world
IN OTHER WORDS
Historians must strive to understand each age on its own values and priorities, not their own
Historicism represented the academic wing of the Romantic obsession with the past
-> new about the historicist approach:
the realization that the atmosphere and mentality of the past was essential for the past events to
have any meaning
-> historians needed to ´become´ people from the past to understand the past
¨All history is a negotiation between familiarity and strangeness¨
-> periodization = means to measure our distance from the past
First component is difference (between two ages)
Context is the second component of historical awareness.
Third fundamental aspect of historical awareness = recognition of historical process
-> relations between events over time
Professional historians -> lengthy immersion in primary sources, deliberate shedding of present-day
assumptions, etc.
Popular historical knowledge -> highly selective interest, present-day assumptions only incidentally
concerned with understanding the past on its own terms
Three recurrent features of social memory have particularly significant distorting effects
1. Tradition -> assumption that what was done in the past is an authorative guide to what should be
done in the present
- There is little historical about tradition -> society has changed and following tradition is
counterproductive. There may be sentimental appeal, but using the past as a guide will turn out
unfortunate
- Tradition does away with the central notion of development over time
Consequences of respect for tradition are particularly disturbing in the case of nationalism
-> essentialism (relating to the basic nature of people/nations) and immemoralism makes for a
powerful exclusive identity -> not historical -> everything in the past that contradicts the self-image is
suppressed
Process of tradition-making is strongly present in newly autonomous nations -> need for legitimizing
past, while there is little material for a national past
,2. Nostalgia
-> looking back-ward, but it interprets historical change in one direction only -> for the worst
-> typical for societies undergoing rapid change (as a reaction to a certain loss)
-> past is reconstructed in the most attractive light (not most realistic)
Problem:
- very lopsided view of the past
- past is designed as a comfortable refuge, all negative features must be removed
Same problem with present-day nostalgia
Ex.: romanticizing ´family values´ of the past and willfully dismissing the loveless
marriages that came with it
- Both an unreliable guide to the past and a basis for pessimism in the present
- Nostalgia provides the past as an alternative to the present, which it is not
3. Progress
-> believe that all change in the past has been for the better, improvement will continue in the future
-> during current hardships finding strength in not living the ´bad old days´
Present is seen as superior over the past -> the far more back in time, the more ´primitive´
-> result: condescension and incomprehension
If the past exists strictly to validate the present´s achievement, there can be no room to appreciate
its cultural riches.
Tradition, nostalgia and progress provide the basic constituents of social memory.
-> answers to a need for security
-> cannot view the past without presentism
-> problematic: about belief, not enquiry
Starting point of historicism is the aspiration to re-enter or recreate the past
-> contrary to starting point popular historical knowledge -> most popular forms of knowledge of the
past is requirements for the future
Important task historians: challenge socially motivated misrepresentations of the past
-> difficult when society is deeply attached to their faulty vision of the past
Postmodernism: there is no difference between history or social memory
-> aspiration to recreate the past is an illusion, presentism is unavoidable
Overlap between history and social memory
History and social memory feed of each other
OVERLAP
-> some amateurs strive for extreme accuracy in their work
-> some fields of history have their origin in a explicit political need (ex.: black´s/women´s history)
, -> social memory itself is an important topic of historical enquiry
-> comprehensive social history cannot ignore social memory
Distinction between history and social memory remains important
Because: no matter in what context, the values and prospects of survival of social memory are fully
dependent on its functional effectiveness -> content of memory will change according to context and
priority
Side note: historians cannot detach themselves completely from their own time
Historians: historical awareness should prevail over social need
(Social memory keepers -> the other way around)
H2
Metahistory = using history as a means of predicting the future and explaining the present
-> destiny is disclosed in the grand trajectory of human history
-> requests a highly schematic interpretation of the course of human development
Up until 17th century in Western Europe -> metahistory in the form of Divine Providence
-> events in the past will reveal Gods plan for the future
-> this image of history disappeared during the process of securalization
New forms of metahistory developped after Divine Providence became a less prominent view. These
new views more attributed to history of human rather than divine action
-> ex. Enlightenment belief in moral progress = exercise of human reason would liberate people
from the mental and political oppression of organized religion and superstition. By aiming for greater
human liberty and happiness, reason was thereby equated with moral progress
Most influencial metahistory of modern times = Marx
-> Marx interpreted human history as a progression from lower to higher forms of production
-> progress continues during history until socialism is reached, then, everyone would be satisfied
equitably and abundantly
Rejection = viewing history as useless for the present -> nothing can be learned from history
-> history is beyond our reach and offers no guidance
-> rejection of history takes two forms
1. Totalitarianism
-> for many intellectuals during the Cold War, the practical consequences of invoking the
past to legitimize communist ideology had been so appalling that using the past to explain
the present or guide mankind in present times was unacceptable
-> some historians even claimed that everything that happened in history was mere blunder
and coincidence
2. Commitment to modernity
-> when committed to the ´new´, the present, why bother with the past?
-> this view has existed since the French Revolution of 1789-1793 (past was willfully
exterminated (killing the king, etc.), so why use the past as guidance?)
H1
Difference between memory and disciplined approach towards the past (both collective and
individual)
- People rely on experience/memory/a sense of the past and (partially) base their choices on
it.
- Historical awareness is NOT social memory
-> memory is highly selective , subjective and faulty
-> ex. Germans in the second World War collectively believed the Jews were at fault (= social
memory) but they didn´t question it (historical awareness)
¨For any social grouping to have a collective identity there has to be a shared interpretation of the
events and experiences that have formed the group over time.¨
Ex. Origin of a state (in the case of nations)
- molly houses
- Edwardian suffrage movement
Social memory
- social groupings need a record of prior experience, but they also require a picture of the past that
serves to explain or justify the present, often are the cost of historical accuracy¨
- operation of social memory is clearest in societies were little to no appeal can be made to the
documentary record
-> ex.: precolonial Africa or the peasantries of pre-modern Europe
-> historical knowledge was handed down as a narrative, often accompanied by particular or
rituals/ceremonies or bound to a certain place
Social memory is not only a pre-literate, small-scale society thing
-> individual cannot exist without memory, neither can society
-> all societies look to their collective memory for consolation/inspiration/etc.
-> literate society as well, except that instead of narrative, written accounts are important
Foundation myth: a story about the foundation of a group (not entirely false, but simplified and rosy)
Social memory = essential means of sustaining a politically active identity
Social memory of past oppression
Social memory can serve to sustain a sense of oppression , exclusion or adversity
-> some of the most powerful expressions of social memory
Ex.: Malcolm X, says blacks are oppressed because white America cut them off from their past
Ex.: British labour history -> sharpen awareness of workers
Ex.: feminists -> usable past to emphasize exploitation and subordinated position of women
¨For socially deprived or ´invisible´ groups – whether in a majority such as workers and women, or in
a minority such as blacks in America and Britain – effective political mobilization depends on a
consciousness of the past¨
, Without consciousness of collective identity -> vulnerable for stereotypes,
implemented values, etc.
Historicism = liberating the past from the present
-> the autonomy of the past must be respected
-> each age is a unique manifestation of the human spirit, with its own culture and values
-> for one age to understand one another, there must be a recognition that time has altered both the
conditions of life and mentality of people
-> historians do not guard universal values or deliver ´the verdict of history´
-> history held the key to understanding the world
IN OTHER WORDS
Historians must strive to understand each age on its own values and priorities, not their own
Historicism represented the academic wing of the Romantic obsession with the past
-> new about the historicist approach:
the realization that the atmosphere and mentality of the past was essential for the past events to
have any meaning
-> historians needed to ´become´ people from the past to understand the past
¨All history is a negotiation between familiarity and strangeness¨
-> periodization = means to measure our distance from the past
First component is difference (between two ages)
Context is the second component of historical awareness.
Third fundamental aspect of historical awareness = recognition of historical process
-> relations between events over time
Professional historians -> lengthy immersion in primary sources, deliberate shedding of present-day
assumptions, etc.
Popular historical knowledge -> highly selective interest, present-day assumptions only incidentally
concerned with understanding the past on its own terms
Three recurrent features of social memory have particularly significant distorting effects
1. Tradition -> assumption that what was done in the past is an authorative guide to what should be
done in the present
- There is little historical about tradition -> society has changed and following tradition is
counterproductive. There may be sentimental appeal, but using the past as a guide will turn out
unfortunate
- Tradition does away with the central notion of development over time
Consequences of respect for tradition are particularly disturbing in the case of nationalism
-> essentialism (relating to the basic nature of people/nations) and immemoralism makes for a
powerful exclusive identity -> not historical -> everything in the past that contradicts the self-image is
suppressed
Process of tradition-making is strongly present in newly autonomous nations -> need for legitimizing
past, while there is little material for a national past
,2. Nostalgia
-> looking back-ward, but it interprets historical change in one direction only -> for the worst
-> typical for societies undergoing rapid change (as a reaction to a certain loss)
-> past is reconstructed in the most attractive light (not most realistic)
Problem:
- very lopsided view of the past
- past is designed as a comfortable refuge, all negative features must be removed
Same problem with present-day nostalgia
Ex.: romanticizing ´family values´ of the past and willfully dismissing the loveless
marriages that came with it
- Both an unreliable guide to the past and a basis for pessimism in the present
- Nostalgia provides the past as an alternative to the present, which it is not
3. Progress
-> believe that all change in the past has been for the better, improvement will continue in the future
-> during current hardships finding strength in not living the ´bad old days´
Present is seen as superior over the past -> the far more back in time, the more ´primitive´
-> result: condescension and incomprehension
If the past exists strictly to validate the present´s achievement, there can be no room to appreciate
its cultural riches.
Tradition, nostalgia and progress provide the basic constituents of social memory.
-> answers to a need for security
-> cannot view the past without presentism
-> problematic: about belief, not enquiry
Starting point of historicism is the aspiration to re-enter or recreate the past
-> contrary to starting point popular historical knowledge -> most popular forms of knowledge of the
past is requirements for the future
Important task historians: challenge socially motivated misrepresentations of the past
-> difficult when society is deeply attached to their faulty vision of the past
Postmodernism: there is no difference between history or social memory
-> aspiration to recreate the past is an illusion, presentism is unavoidable
Overlap between history and social memory
History and social memory feed of each other
OVERLAP
-> some amateurs strive for extreme accuracy in their work
-> some fields of history have their origin in a explicit political need (ex.: black´s/women´s history)
, -> social memory itself is an important topic of historical enquiry
-> comprehensive social history cannot ignore social memory
Distinction between history and social memory remains important
Because: no matter in what context, the values and prospects of survival of social memory are fully
dependent on its functional effectiveness -> content of memory will change according to context and
priority
Side note: historians cannot detach themselves completely from their own time
Historians: historical awareness should prevail over social need
(Social memory keepers -> the other way around)
H2
Metahistory = using history as a means of predicting the future and explaining the present
-> destiny is disclosed in the grand trajectory of human history
-> requests a highly schematic interpretation of the course of human development
Up until 17th century in Western Europe -> metahistory in the form of Divine Providence
-> events in the past will reveal Gods plan for the future
-> this image of history disappeared during the process of securalization
New forms of metahistory developped after Divine Providence became a less prominent view. These
new views more attributed to history of human rather than divine action
-> ex. Enlightenment belief in moral progress = exercise of human reason would liberate people
from the mental and political oppression of organized religion and superstition. By aiming for greater
human liberty and happiness, reason was thereby equated with moral progress
Most influencial metahistory of modern times = Marx
-> Marx interpreted human history as a progression from lower to higher forms of production
-> progress continues during history until socialism is reached, then, everyone would be satisfied
equitably and abundantly
Rejection = viewing history as useless for the present -> nothing can be learned from history
-> history is beyond our reach and offers no guidance
-> rejection of history takes two forms
1. Totalitarianism
-> for many intellectuals during the Cold War, the practical consequences of invoking the
past to legitimize communist ideology had been so appalling that using the past to explain
the present or guide mankind in present times was unacceptable
-> some historians even claimed that everything that happened in history was mere blunder
and coincidence
2. Commitment to modernity
-> when committed to the ´new´, the present, why bother with the past?
-> this view has existed since the French Revolution of 1789-1793 (past was willfully
exterminated (killing the king, etc.), so why use the past as guidance?)
