The essay was written in response to prescribed title no. 5 in May 2014 examinations:
“The historian’s task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future.” To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge?
The essay was written in response to prescribed title no. 5 in May 2014 examinations:
“The historian’s task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future.” To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge?
The essay was written in response to prescribed title no. 5 in May 2014 examinations:
“The historian’s task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future.” To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge?
The historians task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future. To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge?
January 19 th 2014 Momina Amjad Candidate Number: 0022233-0028 Word Count: 1598
Candidate Name: Momina Amjad Candidate Number: 0022233-0028 5. The historians task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future. To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge??
1
The quotation in the essay title presents the historian as someone concerned only with humanitys past and, contrastingly, describes the human scientist as the torch bearer of change for the future. This is an exaggeration of the assumptions in the title, nevertheless I have used it to start building my main argument for the essay: these two disciplines are not quite antithetical, and actually contain many similarities. To what extent is the historian only responsible for understanding the past and the human scientist concerned with changing the future? Is there an overlap between the two areas of knowledge and is it necessary to have the knowledge of one to complete the other? These are the two knowledge issues that will be analyzed in depth in my essay by comparing and contrasting the methodologies and aims of history and the human sciences. Firstly, we have to consider what history is. History is an area of knowledge that relies on a combination of fact and interpretation. Every historian is a product of their cultural paradigm and their method involves the selection of facts based on their perception which becomes inherently subjective and reflective of said paradigm 1 . Interpretation is retrospective and biased because it arises based on the intent of the historian, and if it is a part of the dominant narrative, it will be synchronized with the prevailing values of his or her society. The era of the historian espouses different norms than the era of the events, and furthermore, the audience may belong in a yet another era. Histories have traditionally been associated with the people in power, the victors and the conquerors; however many histories now re-examine and re-evaluate events from the perspective of the marginalized class. Postcolonial studies and gender studies have examples of such histories that aim to deconstruct and revise traditional
1 Bastian, Sue, Vivek R Bammi and Craig C Howard. Theory of knowledge. Harlow, Essex: Pearson, 2008. p216. Print Candidate Name: Momina Amjad Candidate Number: 0022233-0028 5. The historians task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future. To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge??
2
history by challenging the starting point and context of the facts. This dynamic and fluid nature of history, and imposition of the historians hierarchies of significance on events 2 was what British historian E. H. Carr was referring to when he said My first answerto the question What is history? is that it is a continuous interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past. 3
To illustrate these points further, I will use the example of the 1971 war between East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan, which led to the creation of the independent state of Bangladesh. The war resulted in the deaths of about 500,000 people 4 . There was also genocidal rape by the Pakistani military. However, this matter is completely whitewashed in Pakistani textbooks. I am a Pakistani and I remember my middle school history textbook devoting only a page to this war, calling it a great loss for Pakistan and citing Indian conspiracies and the role of Hindu teachers as causes; not the fact that the East Pakistanis had been marginalized consistently and had their cultural identity ignored 5 . There is a mention of the Pakistani soldiers that died, but no mention whatsoever of the genocide. This concealment of facts for nationalistic purposes is a recurring aspect of a lot of history textbooks. It demonstrates the impact of historians deliberate selection or deselection of facts based on their paradigm. Surprisingly, the Bengali textbooks have also been vague about the death toll,
2 Munslow, Alan. "What is History? | Reviews in History." History.ac.uk, 1997. Web. 14 Jan 2014. http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/41a 3 Carr, Edward Hallett. What is history? New York: Vintage, 1961. Print 4 Dummett, Mark. "Bangladesh war: The article that changed history." Published 16th Dec 2011. Web. 14 Jan 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16207201 5 "Library of Congress Country Studies." Memory.loc.gov, 1988. Web. 14 Jan 2014. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+bd0139)
Candidate Name: Momina Amjad Candidate Number: 0022233-0028 5. The historians task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future. To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge??
3
but for a different set of nationalistic reasons 6 . There is now an academic movement in Pakistan that strives to change the curricula in school textbooks in order for them to be more representative of the historical truth- which demonstrates how the changing values of a society can influence historical narratives. The counter argument to the aforementioned points about history arises when one only considers the facts themselves, without any interpretation. If in the example above, the Pakistani textbooks honestly mentioned the Bengali genocide, and spoke only of the dates and the timeline of the war, it would be considered to be more objective, and indeed, true. But what is a historical fact without context? In my opinion, reducing human loss to a statistic trivializes the very tragedy that took place. Interpretation can allow for a condemnation of the injustices committed and a sense of regret, and can act as a learning exercise for the society to not repeat these mistakes. Therefore, history is not merely an understanding of the past but a constant work in progress; a discourse between the past, the present, and possibly even the future. The human sciences study individuals as a component of their societies. There is a plurality of disciplines within the human sciences and each have their distinctive methods which can be hard to summarize. Even within one discipline such as sociology, there are a number of different approaches and schools of thought. On one hand, there are positivist sociologists that prefer a more objective and quantitative data based research and on the
6 "What do school books in Bangladesh and Pakistan say about 1971 war? - South Asia Citizens Web." Sacw.net, 2010. Web. 11 Dec 2013. http://www.sacw.net/article1767.html .
Candidate Name: Momina Amjad Candidate Number: 0022233-0028 5. The historians task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future. To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge??
4
other, the interpretivist school of thought believes that this kind of objectivity is neither possible nor desirable because the most relevant feature of a social action is that it is purposeful and it is of utmost importance to analyze its cause 7 . The latter is more similar to the historical method with the exception that the focus is not on the event but on the human being that caused it. The methodology is sometimes problematic because many assumptions in the human sciences cannot be sustained outside the theory. For instance, it is impossible to generalize and categorize human beings and assumptions such as Human beings are rational creatures are untrue because emotions have been shown to wield an enormous impact on behavior. So far we have discussed only some of the methods in human sciences that are based on empirical research. The human scientist makes predictions about the future according to the patterns observed, but he or she does not necessarily aim to change it. This is where this links into the Knowledge Issue. I am going to use mile Durkheims 8 investigation of suicide as an example here. Durkheim looked for common elements in suicide cases such as unemployment, age, gender, post-traumatic stress, etc. He gathered extensive data and found many explanations as to what led to high suicide rates in one region and lower rates in another. He did not look at the cause from the individuals perspective, and offered no explicit steps for changing the suicide rate of a society in the future. Although change may have been implied in his research, he was not
7 Bastian, Sue, Vivek R Bammi and Craig C Howard. Theory of knowledge. Harlow, Essex: Pearson, 2008. p198-201. Print 8 mile Durkheim(1858-1917) French sociologist widely regarded as one of the founding fathers of modern sociology, specifically of the naturalist or objectivist approach. Candidate Name: Momina Amjad Candidate Number: 0022233-0028 5. The historians task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future. To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge??
5
motivated by changing the future itself, which is contrary to the assumption in the title of this essay. However this does not mean that no human scientist ever was concerned with changing the future. In my study of Karl Marx 9 , I noted how as an economist, he identified many crises of capitalism in his works such as Das Kapital and Grundrisse. He talked of the exploitation of labor, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the inevitable class struggle, and along with Friedrich Engels developed an alternative based in a classless society- an alternative that is intrinsically grounded in change and revolution. Marx has been one of the most influential people in history who has caused change not only in theoretical thought but also inspired events like the 1917 revolution in Russia. This counterclaim indeed fits the human scientist is looking to change the future claim in the title. At this point, I believe it is important to link this example with the second knowledge issue that was concerned with the degree of overlap between history and the human sciences. Although Marx was primarily a human scientist and a philosopher, much of the theory he created was established due to an analysis of history. The Marxist dialectics divided history into five periods; primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and the final communism of the future 10 . This historical interpretation formed the basis of Marxist thought, without which there is not much of a justification or rationale for the economic or political Marxist theories. Likewise, in the example of war between East Pakistan and West Pakistan, sociological analysis is imperative in understanding the causes of war. East Pakistanis were disenfranchised and had
9 Karl Marx (1818-1883) German revolutionary, sociologist, historian, and economist 10 Bober, Mandell Morton. Karl Marx's interpretation of history. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1948. Print. Candidate Name: Momina Amjad Candidate Number: 0022233-0028 5. The historians task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future. To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge??
6
very little opportunities; their cultural and linguistic identity was ignored and their resources were exploited. Only with this understanding is it possible to comprehend the Bengali calls for self-determination. Thus it is clear that history and human sciences overlap not only in their methodologies (use of sense perception, selection, degrees of objectivity and interpretation of data) but also in their outcomes. Historical knowledge and human sciences complement each other and can even be considered as component parts of one area of knowledge. The implications of this are far-reaching. If history and the human sciences are taught in an integrated curriculum, it might be easier for people to understand not only that a war resulting in enormous loss of life happened, but also why the war had started. Reflecting critically on history and the human sciences may allow a society to prevent future conflicts. It also leads to an improved comprehension of human behavior and edges closer to the truth. In conclusion, a historian is not limited to the understanding of the past and a human scientist is not required to change the future, although there have been instances where human scientists have attempted change. In effect, both of these areas of knowledge work across all verb tenses- the past, the present and the future- and are greatly enhanced when they are utilized in unison; allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of knowledge in their disciplines. Word Count: 1598 words Bibliography Bastian, Sue, Vivek R Bammi and Craig C Howard. Theory of knowledge. Harlow, Essex: Pearson, 2008. Print. Bober, Mandell Morton. Karl Marx's interpretation of history. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1948. Print. Carr, Edward Hallett. What is history? New York: Vintage, 1961. Print. Dummett, Mark. "Bangladesh war: The article that changed history." 16th December. 2011. Web. 14 Jan 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16207201 Durkheim, mile. "Emile Durkheim (French social scientist)." Encyclopedia Britannica, 2013. Web. 12 Dec 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/174299/Emile-Durkheim Hussain, Misha and Huma Imtiaz. "What do school books in Bangladesh and Pakistan say about 1971 war?" 18 December. 2010. Web. 12 Dec 2013. http://www.sacw.net/article1767.html Marx, Karl. "Karl Marx (German philosopher)." Encyclopedia Britannica, 2013. Web. 12 Dec 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/367265/Karl-Marx Munslow, Alan. "What is History? | Reviews in History." History.ac.uk, 1997. Web. 14 Jan 2014. http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/41a Unknown. "Library of Congress Country Studies." Memory.loc.gov, 1988. Web. 14 Jan 2014. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+bd0139)
(Perspectives in Social Psychology) Arie W. Kruglanski (Auth.) - Lay Epistemics and Human Knowledge - Cognitive and Motivational Bases-Springer US (1989)