What is the
role of the historian, how does he fit within the study of society? One view is
that the historian’s role is purely that of an antiquarian whose task it is to
pursue historical truth for its own sake. He must make sure that we have a
correct picture of historical events and the cultures and institutions of
historical civilizations because knowledge is good for its own sake and the
truth must be searched for in all areas, regardless of its ‘practicality’.
Another view
gives the work of the historian far more importance. In this view, the
historian is likened to the experimental physicist, the one whose work provides
the empirical data for the theoretical social sciences. The historian
ascertains facts about past civilizations, and through a study of these facts,
sociological, political, and economic theories can be formulated.
The truth is
though, that the true role of the historian is both a combination of these two
and neither of these two. As per the antiquarian view, it is true that, first
and foremost, the historian’s task is to ensure that we have an accurate
picture of the past. But it is not true that this is just knowledge for its own
sake, as the views we have of what happened in the past will shape what we
think should be done in the present, ie. our social views and theories. An
inaccurate understanding of history can lead to the seeming plausibility of
faulty social theories.
For example, a key intellectual
foundation of modern Keynesian economics is a particular account of the period
of American economic history from 1929 to 1945. According to this account
(which traditionally begins with the crash of 1929, ignoring the events leading
up to it), when the stock market crash came and the depression ensued, a
‘liquidationist’, laissez-faire free-marketeer named Herbert Hoover was
unfortunately the president of the United States at the time. In accordance
with his laissez-faire philosophy, Hoover took no political action in the face
of the depression, dooming the American economy to stagnation. Happily, this
was reversed when Franklin Roosevelt was elected president and instituted the
New Deal, a policy which gradually turned the depression around through
monetary inflation and public works spending. Finally, World War II dealt the
finishing blow to the depression, ending stagnation and unemployment and
ensuring a prosperous, Keynesian-dominated American economic future in the
post-war.
Unfortunately
for the Keynesian position, almost every component of this account is a
historical myth. Firstly, American economic history did not start in 1929. Financial
crises had plagued the US economy throughout the 19th century but
they had never turned into a severe, drawn-out depression as in 1929, and the
presidents at the time intervened relatively little in these crises. In
addition, a look at the money supply as it grew from 1926-1929 reveals a
large-scale money printing operation, suggesting some kind of causal relation
between that and the economic bubble of the late 20s that turned into a bust in
1929. Secondly, Herbert Hoover, when one compares him to the presidents of the
past, was not a laissez-faire ‘liquidationist’ but one of the most economically
interventionist presidents in American history up to that point. Before 1929,
he was a big proponent of organizing businesses into compulsory,
government-linked cartels to restrain ‘excessive competition’. In the wake of
the crash, he intervened with large-scale public works spending (for instance,
the Hoover Dam) and called on businesses not to reduce the wages of their
employees (wage reductions which, according to free-market economists, are a
vital step in a recovery from a depression). When Roosevelt came in, he
expanded and formalized Hoover’s interventionist measures, and added some
destructive ones of his own, perhaps partly explaining why the Great Depression
lasted for over ten years while previous downturns generally lasted only a year
at most. Finally, World War II certainly did not end the Great Depression in
any real sense of the term. Yes, according to economic statistics that are
questionable even in peacetime (GDP, unemployment rate, etc…), there was a
recovery in wartime. But having a ‘recovered’ GDP consisting of government
expenditures on weapons and destruction, alongside rationing of most consumers
goods, and having ‘full employment’ through mass conscription and death, is
hardly what most people have in mind when they talk about economic recovery.
Sounder accounts of the end of the depression date it to just after the war,
because the political climate was moving in the direction of restoring some
lost economic freedoms, because the war, due to rationing, had jacked up
Americans’ pool of savings, and because with most of the rest of the world
devastated by war, America was in a temporarily dominant position industrially
(and having the US dollar as the official reserve currency of the rest of the
world didn’t hurt either).
A large part
of which account is adopted depends on historical facts. Was Hoover a
laissez-faire president or was he not? Was it true that historically, no
recovery had been possible from previous economic downturns without significant
economic interventions from the government or was it not? Did World War II, by
itself, restore economic prosperity or did it not? The historian, as a pure
fact finder, has an important role to play in controversies such as these.
However, the
historian’s role extends beyond pure fact finding. Sometimes (and even in the
aforementioned example this is partially true), two sides of a historical
controversy agree on the facts, but differ on the interpretation. A good
example of this is the history of industrialism in the 19th century
and its effect on the wages of industrial workers. Every respectable historian
agrees that real wages were going up over the course of the 19th
century, but, according to their views of economic theory, they disagree over
the causal relation involved in this event. A socialist-leaning or labour
union-sympathizing historian will tend to argue that it was the rise of the
power of labour unions (a fact that is not denied by anyone) that led to the
increase in the wages of industrial workers. Without this, according to the
Marxist view of how wage rates are determined, the employers would have left
the employees with the same real wage rates (enough so that they survive and
procreate) and would have pocketed the surplus created by the growth of industry
for themselves. By contrast, historians sympathetic to the free-market will
tend to argue that it was through the significant accumulation of capital and
through technological improvements over this period (another fact that is not
denied by anyone) that the real wages of industrial workers rose. This is
because, according to free-market economic theory, wage rates are determined
just like any other factor of production, and when one class of factors of
production (capital goods) become more abundant, labour, a complementary factor
of production to capital goods, without which capital goods are useless,
becomes relatively scarcer and hence more valuable, thus securing higher real wage
rates for those willing to expend labour in this more productive structure of
production.
Thus, in
this case, we see that the historian’s role is not just to establish facts, but
to interpret facts with the help of correct economic, social, and political,
theories. This shows how the second view of the historian, as the experimental
physicist of the social sciences, is also incorrect, for in cases such as these
(and there are many), one cannot construct social theories on the basis of
historical facts, but must adhere to social theories before one can even
interpret those facts.
Because of this, the responsible
historian must never cloister himself off from the theoretical disciplines of
the social sciences, it is critical that he adheres to the most correct
economic, social, and political theories available if he wishes to give an
accurate historical account. In addition, as we saw in the first example
though, the historian’s work can also have an effect on the formulation of
social theories, even though historical data, by itself, cannot provide a
sufficient basis for justifying one social theory and discarding another. The
mind of the social theorist who adheres to the Keynesian historical myth of the
Great Depression period will be pushed in the direction of false social
theories by his inaccurate understanding of history. Similarly, the historian
who adheres to false social theories will be led towards false accounts of
history due to his faulty understanding of the causal relations involved. Thus,
both historians and social theorists (and there is no reason one cannot be both),
must work together in order to help understand the complexities of human
societies.
Even though it is the correct
epistemological base for the purely theoretical social sciences, people are
uncomfortable with pure deductive, logical reasoning as a foundation for social
theories. For this reason, they seek to have a theory that is ‘backed up’ by
the historical record. This can take the form either of theorists giving a
tortuous, implausible account of history that fits their faulty theories, or of
theorists crafting their social theorists based on their received (whatever
that may be) understanding of history. Thus, though technically, sound basic social
theories could be deduced by logic alone without reference to history, in
reality, correct history and correct social theories support one another, as do
faulty history and faulty social theories. The historian who ascertains the
correct historical facts and interprets them using a correct social theory,
established by rigorous logical reasoning, is doing a great service to the
social sciences, as he makes correct social theories more plausible and doesn’t
let false history lead thinkers towards false theories.
Finally, the question arises, why
study the social sciences at all, isn’t this just a truth for its own sake
indulgence as well? It is not, because the social theories that we hold, and
how we understand the history of past societies, will directly influence what
we think should be done in the present. As citizens in a democracy, it falls to
all of us to ensure that we are not supporting harmful political programs
because of our ignorance of correct social theory and history. It is the role
of the historian and the social theorist to work together to develop correct
social theories and accounts of history. Once developed though, and this is the
final and most important role of the historian and social theorist, this
understanding must be disseminated widely
to the broader public in order for it to effect the real world. If this
knowledge is kept within a narrow group of academics, then and only then does
history and social theory become an ivory tower intellectual indulgence.
No comments:
Post a Comment