The Narrative of History
Ξ December 18th, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Intellectual |
I’ve frequently mentioned what I call the Narrative of History, and thought I’d try to define exactly what I mean by that here before someone asks me in a conversation and I get tongue-tied. The short and dirty metaphor is to say it’s akin to the forest one is suppose to see through the trees. I think a better way to think of it, however, is of a rope. A rope is made up of many individual threads – all rather minor in their own right but when taken as a whole make up something distinct and identifiable in it’s own right.
The traditional way of learning history is to learn all sorts of (seemingly) disparate facts – names, places and dates. To someone with no grounding in the larger picture, it’s hard to keep all these facts together – much like random threads are not cohesive. Just as one grabs ahold of one fact, they drop another. It’s only when you begin to combine these facts into a comprehensive narrative do you begin to grasp the nature of human history, and are able to bring it to bear in a larger context.
As one amasses facts and figures and begins to build a narrative, an insightful observer begins to realize that there are frequently several narratives of history taking place. It is here that many people stop – they’ve developed a single narrative and stick to it as “the way it happened.” It can be hard to accept parallel or even alternate narratives, especially when they conflict with a long-held narrative. I know it’s hard for me to accept contradictory narratives – anyone who says it’s not obviously either never has been challenged or never really developed any narratives in the first place. But once the hurdle is overcome, just as several smaller strands of rope make a stronger, larger rope, these multiple narratives help to build a larger, more comprehensive (and therefore more enlightening) understanding of human history – where we’ve been and where we’re going.
The best example I have on hand of this is the transformation of British history from the grandiose Churchillian history, to the subversive Marxist view, to the modern synthesis most serious historians now have. With the Churchillian narrative, we have a Britain formed through momentous events, with great wars and battles fought by famous kings and princes – all inevitably heading towards the modern world we know. With the Marxist view, we see grand, often slow undercurrents inexorably dragging society forward, often against the will of those in charge, who lash out at the under classes.
In the end, we have what appear to be two mutually exclusive views of history – one where great men take hold of the course of human events and steer humanity in a direction of their choosing, and the other where history is the result of the slow movement of cultural, social and geopolitical trends in which a privilege class maintain their position only at the expense of others, but are unable to effect any meaningful shifts in these larger trends (the roles played by members of these classes are little more than being in the right spot at the right time to take credit for what was inevitable anyways).
Simon Schama, author of The History of Britain, explained in that in his youth, he was a card-carrying member of the latter position – scoffing at the juvenile nature of the former position – it was just so . . . outdated. But, he went on to say, one day he sat down and read Churchill’s History of the English Speaking Peoples again, and to his surprise, discovered it was not nearly as unserious as he had thought it, but filled with beautiful, even powerful narratives. Schama, along with many historians, were beginning to turn Hegel right side up.
What historians have largely begun to discover that there are large, powerful trends at work that frequently direct the course of history. Large population booms in turn lead to expansion, or if taking place in a confined area, a competition for a fixed set of resources, which usually leads to war. In that case, there significance of any individual leader is frequently subsumed into the role that person plays in the underlying narrative of these larger trends.
But, occasionally, there can be an event, person or group of people that have such an impact as to shape the course of history independent of any identifiable larger trends. The Battle of Hastings in 1066 destroyed the Saxon world, and replaced with it a Norman one. The rise of Muhammad gave unity and strength to a backwater part of the world that would eventually swallow two of the oldest, most powerful empires on Earth. The Founding Fathers were able to come together to lay the foundations for one of the most powerful nations the world has ever seen. If Henry VIII had a son to Catherine of Aragon, England would not have become Protestant.
I’ve never been one for playing “What If” games with history, but that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize that certain events (or lack there of in the case of Henry VIII) have fundamentally shifted the course of human events – that the natural progression of events as dictated by larger trends were arrested by a smaller but much more energetic force.
And it is this melding of narratives – the synthesis of Hegel, that results in a much broader understanding of history. It’s not just about facts and figures, as the novice thinks. It’s not just about epic events and personalities, as the layman thinks. It’s not just about larger trends as the radical thinks. It’s all these, when put together and one steps back, that form up the Narrative of History.
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
