Question 5. “The historian’s task is to understand
the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is
looking to change the future.” To what extent is
this true in these areas of knowledge?
Word Count:
1444
Although it is not necessary to do so, it may be beneficial to attempt to assign a
specific purpose to each Area of Knowledge. The quote, “The historian’s task is to
understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the
future”, attempts to do just this. This essay addresses to what extent is this
statement true in the History, and Human Sciences areas of knowledge.
It can be claimed that it is true, to a large extent, that the historian’s task is to
understand the past. In other words, the primary purpose of gathering historical
knowledge is to create a better understanding of past events or ‘the past’. In
support of this argument, it can be found that key ‘histories’ of world events are
written purely with the goal of better understanding the past. John Lewis Gaddis’
We Now Know 1997 presents his new history of the Cold War that utilises
resources that were made available as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union
in 1991. In this book, Gaddis, as a knowledge authority, makes knowledge claims
about the causes, course and results of the Cold War that had previously been
unsupported. Gaddis does so with the intention of shedding new light on
historical events and perhaps provoking further academic discussion on the
subject. As a result of his investigation, Gaddis comes to several conclusions
about the nature of the cold war, one of the most renowned being that so long as
Stalin was leader of the USSR, a Cold War was inevitable (Gaddis 10). These, and
other conclusions may alter the reader’s perception of past events but will
probably not influence their actions in the future in any major way. If the
motivation for a historian’s work is exploration of an area that is personally
interesting to them then this also supports the statement. Another example
would be of historians who write about more distant periods of history such as
Classical or Ancient civilisations. Any conclusion drawn about Ancient Roman
history today is primarily for the aim of better understanding the past, rather
than influencing the future actions of someone. A knowledge issue that may arise
is: Is the relative importance of a knowledge claim diminished if it is of little or
no relevance to one’s current or future life? In other words: Is there value in the
pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge? I, myself find great value in the
pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. However I do also believe that
the relative importance of a knowledge claim does diminish; the less relevant it
is to my own life; and the less practical impact accepting it, as truth, would have
upon myself.
The statement is also supported by the claim that the human scientist’s task is to
change the future, or in other words, knowledge within the human sciences is
created to influence people’s actions and therefore ‘change the future’. The
creation of knowledge in the human sciences can be carried out with the intention
of influencing
future events and thus changing the future. One such example
would be the social, economic, and political philosopher Karl Marx whose
writings about the inevitability of ‘class struggle’ (based on his interpretation of
past events) in The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, were intended to
influence and change the course of the future by ‘educating’ the proletariat and
inspiring them to revolt against the bourgeoisie, with the call to arms, “Proletarier
aller Länder vereinigt Euch!” or the English translation, “Workers of the world,
unite!” (Marx 10). In a similar vein, Economists study and analyse the past to
attempt to model, forecast, and therefore advise accordingly. Demographers aim
to model population trends to predict what likely problems
may arise consequentially and how these problems can best be managed or
mitigated in the future. As such, it is clear that the primary purpose of
investigation and knowledge creation in the human sciences is ultimately to
provoke societal change that the knowledge authority deems to be beneficial.
However, such a claim may give rise to knowledge issues such as does accepting
that the aim of the human scientist is to change the future devalue them as
knowledge authorities due to the greater possibility of them falling victim to
such tendencies as confirmation bias?
It can however be counterclaimed that the task of the historian is not simply to
understand the past, but to also carry out other functions. Historical study is
carried out very often with the purpose of influencing present or future events
rather than purely to gain a greater understanding of the past. Niall Ferguson’s
The Ascent of Money provides the reader with a financial history of the world, the
purpose of which is to draw conclusions about what circumstances led to the
recent financial crisis and if and how we may be able to avoid such a crisis in
future by learning from our mistakes. In another work, The War of the World,
Ferguson comes to the poignant conclusion that, “We shall avoid another century
of conflict only if we understand the forces that caused the last one” (Ferguson,
2007). It is clear from this statement that Ferguson hopes that through the
gaining of historical knowledge and understanding the past, historians can, and in
this instance should, use their position as knowledge authorities to influence the
future. This of course reveals a more sinister side to the revision of historical
knowledge. Historians may be working with political motives, or using history as
a “political weapon” as Russian President Vladimir Putin has been accused of
doing in relation to a new Russian History textbook that will become the
foundation of the nation’s history curriculum (Baczynska). The new textbook
appears to twist previously accepted historical knowledge claims for the purpose
of ‘justifying the ruling authorities’, a similar method to that of previous Russian
leaders such as Josef Stalin (Baczynska). With this concern in mind, we must
consider potential knowledge issues that arise as a result. Are knowledge
authorities obliged to refrain from making knowledge claims that if widely
accepted by knowers would be primarily self serving and beneficial to the
authority.
Likewise, it can be counterclaimed that human scientists are not uniquely
attempting to change the future. The creation of knowledge in the human
sciences can often be done without any intention of influencing future events.
The ‘tasks’ of some human scientists may perhaps be more focused on simply
rationalising why aspects of humanity are the way they are. For example, the
infamous Milgram experiment of the 1960s came about as a result of the
atrocities committed by Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler. Milgram was
attempting to understand and explain how Hitler and his supporters were able to
carry out such heinous crimes on an industrial scale, all the while maintaining
the apathetic indifference of the populace (McLeod). Other human scientists may
simply want to explain human behaviour and what causes human phenomena to
occur. This claim however raises the knowledge issue of whether it is possible
for a knower to maintain exactly the same outlook on life upon learning of any
given knowledge claim? That is to say, is it possible for a human scientist’s
knowledge claim to have absolutely no effect on the future?
The statement “The historian’s task is to understand the past; the human
scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future”, can be claimed to be a fair
assessment of the purposes of both areas of knowledge. Historians do conduct
their study within the confines of seeking to better understand the past as shown
in Gaddis’ We Now Know and also in many other histories such as Max Hastings’
definitive history of the Second World War, All Hell Let Loose. Human Scientists
also do oftentimes seek to affect change through their work which could be
described as attempting to ‘change the future’. However it is the historian’s
prerogative to choose whether or not they wish to imbue their work with
significance beyond purely better understanding the past. In the case of Niall
Ferguson for example, his task appears to be to affect a positive change in the
attitude of his readers, through a better understanding of the past. Also, human
scientists may also choose to break away from their assigned ‘task’ of changing
the future. A psychologist may simply wish to better understand a pattern of
human behaviour and they should not be constrained from investigating this.
Despite the quote, I believe that as stated in the introduction, it is not necessary
to assign each area of knowledge a singular ‘task’ as it is superfluous and, as in
the above cases, not always accurate.
Works Cited
Baczynska, Gabriela. "Putin accused of Soviet tactics in drafting new history book."
Reuters. N.p., 18 Nov. 2013. Web. 22 Jan. 2014.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/18/us-russia-historyidUSBRE9AH0JK20131118>.
Ferguson, Niall. The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World. London:
Penguin, 2009. Print.
Ferguson, Niall. The War of the World: History's Age of Hatred. London: Penguin,
2007. Print.
Gaddis, John Lewis. We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History. Paperback ed.
Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998. Print.
Hastings, Max. All Hell Let Loose: The World at War 1939-45. London: HarperPress,
2012. Print.
Marx, Karl. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Ed. Frederick Engels. N.p., 1848.
Print.
McLeod, Saul. "The Milgram Experiment." SimplyPsychology. N.p., 2007. Web. 22
Jan. 2014. <http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html>.