A few things worth knowing about HISTORY

According to one ToK guide… “When people first start learning history at school, it is often taught to them as a collection of objective facts about the past -- such as that World War I broke out in Europe in 1914. And if history did consist of nothing other than statements about what events happened when in the past, then there would be few questions to be asked concerning historical knowledge; but then history would also not be very interesting and hardly worth doing. Ask students: What is the difference between ‘history’ and ‘the past’?

There is of course another side to history -- concerned for instance with the causes of World War I, or the reasons for which the US entered that war. Thus historians, as well as trying to discover what events happened when in the past, also try to explain or understand the events, and it is this that makes history interesting and worth doing; but it also gives rise to questions concerning the nature of historical explanation and understanding”. We also refer to the difference between ‘history’ and the ‘past’ as ‘historiography’ and ‘history’. What is confusing from a ToK perspective about history being used objectively in the latter and subjectively in the former?

Covering Laws or Understanding? History would not be of interest, and would hardly be worth doing, if all that it consisted of was collecting facts: ''A mere collector of supposed facts is as useful as a collector of matchboxes'' (Febvre.) So the other thing historians do, apart from gathering factual information about past events, is to try and explain these events.

Carl Hempel, ''The Function of General Laws in History'', 1942. Consider, for example, the statement that Dust Bowl farmers migrate to California 'because' continual drought and sandstorms render their existence increasingly precarious and because California seems to them to offer so much better living conditions. This explanation rests on a type of universal hypothesis that populations will tend to migrate to regions which offer better living conditions … Carl Hempel, ''The Function of General Laws in History'', 1942. According to the extreme version of this view, the laws of history are quite independent of the actions of individuals or other particular influences.

These great changes seem to have come about with a certain inevitableness;... Examined closely, the casual, the individual influences in history sink into insignificance and the great cyclical forces loom up. Events come so consistently and unavoidably as to rule out as causes not only physical phenomena but voluntary human action. So arises the conception of law in history. History, the great course of human affairs, has not been the result of voluntary efforts on the parts of individuals or groups of individuals, much less chance; but has been subject to law. Edward P. Cheney, 1927. This kind of extreme view was taken by Karl Marx (1818 - 93.) What is essential about particular historical situations, according to Marx, are the socio-economic conditions, and the development of these follows a necessary course, which he believed to have plotted, towards a particular kind of society. What does the class think?

Particular Facts and General Statements In the natural sciences we have both statements of immediate observations, reporting for instance the outcome of an experiment, and general laws from which we can derive predictions. These two kinds of statements are justified in quite different ways: observational statements by perception; and general laws.

While historical evidence is quite different from scientific observations, and historical understanding is not the same as scientific explanation, it is worth bearing in mind the distinctions in science as we consider the realm of historical knowledge. Does the class agree?

Consider the following seven statements about China's examination system It was fortunate for the Chinese that the Confucian tradition became the chief intellectual force among the educated classes (p. 69.) The capital schools were primarily for the aristocracy, and candidates recommended by local governments were likely to be from the privileged classes (p. 104.) The T'ang system was the true start of the civil service merit system that is one of the greatest achievements of Chinese civilization (p. 104.) One is reminded of the classical education that produced a successful ruling class for the British Empire in modern times (p. 104.) After 1065 the examinations were held regularly every three years (p. 126.) The actual preparation of scholars began in the family and sometimes in the clan school (p. 190.) A Ministry of Education was created in 1906 to supervise them [new schools] (p. 393.) John K. Fairbank, Edwin O. Reischauer, China. Tradition and Transformation, 1979.

Put the statements in order, or group them, according to how far they are from 'historical evidence'. For each of the statements, discuss how we have gained, or could justify, our knowledge of it. Discuss on what grounds the different propositions might have to be rejected. Which ones are most liable to bias?

A note on sources The evidence, not necessarily written, which historical research is based on are the 'sources'. Sources need not be items that go back to the time in history which is being studied, but can be texts written since then about that time the former are called primary, and the latter secondary sources.