On_History

History is a “collective endeavour” . The extract from Eric Hobsbawms’s On History raises the very salient points that history has a definite beginning and end and that in contemporary times it has become fashionable amongst the post modern community to propose that “the past we study is only a construct of our minds” , that objective reality is not accessible. These two contrasting ideas form the basis of Hobsbawn article, the first determines history in a progressive teleological manner reminiscent of Von Ranke, Bede or Hegel while the later which has been espoused by thinkers such as Nietzsche, Foucault and most notably Derrida dismisses any teleological sense to history characterizing history as a collection of discontinuities and ruptures that result in many differing interpretation non of which can be dismissed as wrong. The issue of recording history is also raised in by Eric Hobsbawn citing that the Marxist, teleological conception of history is the best guide to recording history. The debate over what is the best way to record history is one that has been raging since history first came into practice and Hobsbawm’s suggestion of a collective endeavour in order to seek the absolute truth draws sharp criticism from Foucault who examination of historical discourse dismisses the Marxist guide to history as an essentialist notion of history. Hobsbawm makes his stance apparent relatively early in the article stating that “what historians investigate is real”, that there must be a “distinction between fact and fiction.” Historians all start at the same point, investigating or recording evidence but it is the processes of interpreting the evidence that causes confusion as to what is real and what is not. Hobsbawn believes “that without the distinction between what is and what is not so, there can be no history” , that first facts must be presented. Hobsbawm argues that there needs to a distinction between fact and fiction yet so often historians interpretations make the distinction hazy. This ontological way of thinking and defining history can be best seen in the teleological works of Hegel and Marx who give history a linear quality with a specific beginning and end. However works the work of E.H Carr state that objectivity does exist, but is unattainable by historians “it is passible to maintain that objective truth exists, but that no historians can hope to achieve a faint/partial approximation to it” . Historians are always constantly creating the past. Von Ranke made a point of establishing To many Postmodernism is simply a juvenile tantrum about how uncooperative reality is with socialist thought and to simply “deny that objective reality is accessible “is just an excuse for the problematic nature of history. It is a fairly modern concept propagated by non linear thinkers of the 20th century such as Foucault and Derrida. It argues that we cannot achieve “objective reality” or absolute truth because, firstly to the relativist of the world we are influenced by our context and environment and as such our interpretation of events is biased and secondly because according to positivist like Auguste Comte all authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge and since historical empiricism is not possible we cannot really achieve objective and absolute truth. However teleological thinkers like George Wilhelm Hegel a German philosopher, challenge this by saying that absolute knowledge is achievable. Hegel formulated the elaborate idea that through a comprehensive and systematic ontology from a logical starting point one could achieve absolute truth. In other words by gathering works of contradictions, tensions and different context one can achieve a more accurate picture of what happens. Hobsbawm makes the very significant point that “one construct is in principle as valid as the other” that nothing can be dismissed because there is no scientific way to disprove an account because we cannot directly experience the past for ourselves. The example giving about how there “is no principle for deciding that the biblical account of creation of the earth is inferior to the one proposed by the natural sciences there are just different.” is a valid one which fits well into Derrida’s theory of deconstruction that by bringing together two composed concepts rather then dismissing one we can get a balanced concept. So is Marxism the best guide to recording history' Hobsbawm states that “Marx’s ‘materialist conception of history’ “is the best guide to recording history especially for those “whose field has been the rise of modern capitalism and transformations of the world since the end of the middle ages.” . Marxism provides a guide to the changes that take place in nature of society; revolutions and uprisings create new kingdoms and states and it encumbrances the different occupations of people and roles they play in that society. However Michel Foucault claims that all Marx accomplished was transforming the essentialist notion of “race into the historical notion of class struggle”. How can all the major developments in history be put down to economy, Marxism fails to take into account the influence of personalities and diminishes the roll of individuals by dividing society into classes. Communist like Stalin use their political dominance to suppress their defeated adversaries versions in favour for there own propaganda, and so how can Marxism really be the best guide to history if all it is really doing is discriminating on a social and materialistic level. Victors will make their history and perspective the national narrative, Marxism sees history through the eyes of victors as so is anything but objective. By not allowing individuality Hobsbawm feels that history should be a “collective endeavor”, that to achieve a coherent understanding of the past one must take significant contributions from variety historians. It is wrong to simply say as Hobsbawm did that Marxism is the best guide to history because for history to be successful one must allow for criticism and interpretation. Post Modernist like Foucault argue that history would not exist if not for people questioning and criticism since it is criticism that stimulates historical debate. Historians all start at the same place by investigating the fact it is during the process of investigation that we allow for interpretation and thus arrive at a different end. But do not mistake this as a bad thing, interpretation allows for multiple points of view and as Hegel said “history is a constant process of dialectic clash, where one idea or event will form the thesis, an opposing idea or event will be its antithesis, and the clash of the two will result in a synthesis. In synthesis, neither thesis or antithesis is destroyed, but the prevailing moment will reflect a conjunction of the two.” In simpler words by formulation one interpretation and subjecting it to another interpretation historian get a new interpretation. Hobsbawm remarks that the recent Post Modern perspective is to “deny that objective reality is accessible” , that because we as historians are influenced by social context which results in biased and inaccurate interpretations of history while the empiricist of the world argue that we cannot study the past correctly because we cannot directly experience the past, “authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge” and since there is no scientific way to study the past directly we must study it through other peoples interpretations and poststructuralist like Derrida say the “language is power” so we are in fact study histriograpgyhy not history and those whose work we study are free to shape the past as they wish and influence those who read their work. If you look at it that way Absolute truth and objectivity seen unreachable, historians like Bede and Von Ranke attempt to reach objectivity by just recording facts but they too were influenced by context, Bede by Christianity and Von Ranke by the rise of Prussia and even when they did just record facts Von Ranke was critised for being colourless. The personal view is that history does have a definite beginging but not end that Marxism is not the mostlegitamate way to record history and that objectivity is unatainanble but the “collective endevour” that Hobsbawm makes reference to is the closest historians can get to true objectivity without actually reaching it.