Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY November 10, 1962
Historian's Philosophy of History Mohit Sen
What Is History? by Edward Hallett Carr, Macmillan and Co, London, 1962. Pp 155; price 21s.
T H I S s l i m volume w i l l i n t ime assume the dimensions of a clas-
sical w o r k on h i s tor iography . T h e author is no mere theoret ic ian of his tory. The many-volumed splend-our of his def ini t ive work on Soviet history entitles h i m , along w i t h Needham, to the status of the most seminal h i s to r ian w r i t i n g i n Engl ish . W h e n such a man examines the ap-proach that needs to be adopted if one is to be a f ru i t f u l h is tor ian , there is need for at tention by all and even a certain at t i tude of reverence on the par t of a l l who would aspire to he historians — or makers of h is tory .
M e n t i o n i n g the fact that his major work does not suffer f rom a pauci ty of documentat ion or footnotes, the author immedia te ly launches a de-vastat ing and yet subtle offensive on w h a t he calls, very appropr ia te ly , the fetishism of facts and of documents. " T h e bel ief in a hard core of histo-r ica l facts exis t ing object ively and independent ly of the in terpre ta t ion of the h i s to r ian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to eradicate" (p 6 ) .
Clearly stating that 'history means interpretat ions ' , he analyses the social background to the Gradg r in -d ian fondness for "facts" wh ich suddenly seized the academic w o r l d in Eng land , A social s i tuat ion had arisen when the class f rom whom most of the historians came felt un-comfortable when they thought of his torv as a causal process and as a m o v i n g whole.
D r a w i n g f rom his own experience he wr i t e s : "The h is tor ian and the facts of h is tory are necessary to one another. The his tor ian w i thou t his facts is rootless and f u t i l e ; the facts wi thout their h i s tor ian are dead and meaningless. My first answer. there-fore, to the question, 'What is His-t o r y ? ' is that i t is a continuous i n -teract ion between the h is tor ian and his facts, an unending dialogue bet-ween the present and the past" (p 2 4 ) .
Not only is select ivi ty essential f o r the h is tor ian , i t is also i n -evitable. " T h e h i s to r ian , before he
begins to wr i t e h is tory , is the prod-uct of h i s to ry" (p 3 4 ) . A n d he jus-tifies this aphor ism w i t h a b r i l l i a n t analysis, more pa r t i cu la r ly , of the w o r k of Grote and Lewis Namie r . The approach to the past is condi-t ioned by the historian's place in and a t t i tude to the present and, there-fore, as Croce said, a l l h is tory is contemporary .
But this need not mean an in -escapable personal and total re la t i -v i sm. Carr says "the h is tor ian who is most conscious of h i s own situa-t i o n is also more capable of trans-cending i t , and more capable of apprec ia t ing the essential nature of the differences between his o w n society and out look and those of other periods and other countries, than the his tor ian who loud ly pro-tests that he is an i n d i v i d u a l and not a social phenomenon" (p 3 8 ) .
Role of the Individual He adopts the same approach to
the subject matter of h is tory — w h i c h is the act ion of massive social change ("numbers count in histo-r y " ) . In this connection, he makes an i l l u m i n a t i n g examinat ion of the favour i te p rob lem of the role of the ind iv idua l in his tory. I t i s significant that the two greatest heroes in his-tory that attract his at tent ion are Cromwel l and Len in , than whom none was more conscious of the determined and destined nature of thei r actions.
W i t h these basic tenets firmly en-unciated Carr takes up a sustained polemic against the two most dis-t inguished representatives of the so-called ant i -his tor ic is t school — Ish iah Be r l i n and K a r l Popper. The i rony and the subtlety of the pole-mic , no less than its range, are ad-mirab le . The his tor ian as a stylist and not a mere pedestrian fact fac-t o ry comes th rough on every page.
As far as causation in his tory goos he warns against acceptance ei ther of the nineteenth century of causality ( ' " i ron laws") and also of the now fashionable p lay ing up of " the unique na ture" of each h is tor i -cal e v e n t and of its "essential acci-d e n t a l l y " .
H o l d i n g that the role of accident is "seriously exaggerated by those who are interested to stress its im-por tance" — among w h o m he i n -cludes Trotsky (p 9 6 ) — h e stresses the po in t that accidents themselves have a cause and the need to draw up a h ie ra rchy of causes.
" W e dis t inguish between rat ion-al and accidental causes. The former , since they are potent ia l ly appl icable to other countries, other periods and other condit ions, lead, to f r u i t f u l generalisations and lessons can be learned f r o m t h e m ; they serve the end of broad-en ing and deepening our under-standing. Accidental causes can-not be generalised and, since they are in the fullest sense unique , they teach no lessons and lead to no conclusions. But here I must make another point . I t is pre-clsely this no t ion of an end in view which provides the key to our treatment of causation in his-t o r y ; and this necessarily involves value judgments . In te rpre ta t ion in his tory i s . . . . always bound up w i t h value judgments, and causa-lity is bound up w i t h interpreta-t i o n " ( p 1 0 1 ) .
This leads on to a view of His to ry as progress, which is defined as the " t ransmission of acquired s k i l l f r o m one generation to another" (p 1 0 8 ) . A n d prepress is in f in i t e and i r re -versib'e ( though there may be seri-ous temporary reverses and also "delayed achievement") . As far as the content of progress is coneerned, he says " M a r x treats human labour as the foundat ion of the whole edi-fice; and this formula seems accept-able if a sufficiently broad sense is attached to l a b o u r ' " (p 1 1 2 ) .
Thus we have the dialectical rela-t ionship between a progressive science wh ich , in its t u r n , has pro-gress as its centre of study. All his-torians need a sense of d i rect ion since "h i s to r iography is a progres-sive science in the sense that it seeks to provide constantly expand-i n g and deepening insights into a course of event- wh ich is itself pro-gressive" (p 118) ,
1719
Book Review
November 10, 1962 T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y
1720
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY November 10, 1962
A n d w i t h a robust op t im i sm Carr concludes his study w i t h a depic t ion of the expansion of reason (where Freud i s mentioned a long w i t h M a r x ) , the emergence of submerged classes and areas on to the arena of h is tor ica l significance. W e l c o m i n g the contemporary per iod as the great-est era of r evo lu t ionary progress, he draws pointed a t tent ion to the insu-l a r i ty and the regress of the lead-i n g academic circles in West Europe.
I t i s not surpr i s ing , therefore, that the academicians in England have been outraged by this book. Trevor-Rope, appropr ia te ly enough in Encounter, has come out w i t h a screaming d ia t r ibe against wha t he calls "Carr ' s success s tory" . W h a t is equally relevant, however, is that our academic historians, over- fami l i -a r w i t h Popper, B e r l i n , Tay lo r and Fisher, have chosen to ignore this u t te r ly outs tanding book. I t i s not only in West Europe that the histo-rians in the mass suffer f r o m miasma and a lack of a sense of d i rec t ion .
W h e n so m u c h has been given and w i t h such fe l ic i ty of expression, i t m i g h t seem c a r p i n g to cr i t ic ise . Ye t two tentat ive c r i t i ca l suggestions seem to be in order.
Firs t , the concept of law in his-t o ry . Carr does d raw up a h ierarchy of causes but the o n l y d is t inc t ion he seems to make is between ' 'accident-a l " and " r a t i o n a l " causes. I t wou ld appear, however, that there is a hie-rarchy of ra t ional causes (or neces-s i ty) as w e l l . There are laws in his-t o ry wide enough to cover its ent i re range — the p roduc t ive forces-pro-duct ion relations confronta t ion . There are other laws specific fo r stages in his tory — e g , the d i f fe r ing modes of m o t i o n of specific socio-economic formations — w h i c h are less w ide in range. A n d w i t h i n these socio-econo-mic format ions there are laws s t i l l fur ther restricted — e g, the d i f f e r ing paths of development of Ch ina and o f I n d i a i n our o w n epoch. I t i s on ly w h e n the h i s to r i an has attempt-ed a study of these levels of laws that he can come to examine "acci-denta l causes". In other words, one would l i ke to emphasise more the range and impac t of laws than Carr has done, perhaps, out of an un-necessarily unc r i t i c a l adopt ion of what passes for the scientific theory of p r o b a b i l i t y .
T h e second po in t of difference is w i t h regard to the standards of pro-
gress and of significance in h is tory . A careful read ing of " W h a t Is His -t o r y ? " leaves this reviewer, at any rate, w i t h the uneasy feeling that Carr has come, in places, per i lous ly close to what can be called the existentialist approach to h is tory . T h e reference is to the concept of evolv ing ends to evaluate an evolv-i n g process. This is t rue enough bu t there is a pattern and a definite d i r ec t ion to this evolut ion wh ich can also be made to y i e l d significance in terms of definite standards.
Carr mentions M a r x ' s concept of labour but he does not go fur ther and tell us of the d i f fe r ing socio-economic formations bu i l t up on different patterns of organisa t ion of labour w i t h d i f fe r ing scales of p ro-duc t iv i ty , understood in the widest sense. A n d yet M a r x ' s mode of pro-
1 7 2 1
duc t ion w i t h i ts corresponding super-structure gives us a c r i t e r i o n suffi-cientry r igorous and flexible w i t h wh ich to evolve both his tory and historians.
To pu t i t ra ther exaggeratedly, the essence of h is tory does not de-pend o n l y on its manifested exist-ence but its existence is also impel led by its essence. A n d the task of the his tor ian is not to rest t i l l he penet-rates to this essence. M a r x d i d this for capital is t society.
A n d it is the best t r ibute one can t h i n k of to say that Carr w i l l be among the foremost of those who help us to do this for socialism. He be-longs to the great t r ad i t i on of those creative historians w h o heighten human self-consciousness, w h i c h is h is tory .