Recorded history...What's a good way to approach studying it?
November 30, 2013 10:41 AM Subscribe
My local news can barely report stories accurately when they happen on the same day, in the same town. How can I trust the validity of information that's been whispered-down-the-lane for decades, centuries or millenia? And if history isn't intended to be entirely factual, then what are we supposed to be gaining by studying it?
I get that history is supposed to be subjective, but I'm still confused about what I'm supposed to be taking away from it in light of this.
1. I thought it might be easier to weigh the validity of the account if I could understand the author, but it can be hard to know where an author is coming from. Political or ideological motivations are not always readily divulged or apparent (especially when you're new to a topic and don't have much context), and even when strong biases are present that doesn't equate to the account being false-- or truthful when there aren't strong biases.
2. Citation processes seem to be overly lenient. I keep seeing things like, "We know things happened like this because this one guy said so."
3. There are lots of conflicting accounts.
4. There are lots of gaps.
5. Things previously believed to be true have also been revised.
4. Since histories have real-world implications regardless of their factuality, I've also worried that it might be unethical to get too wrapped up in them. What if popular accounts are, unbeknownst to me, inaccurately biased in concern to a particular group or event, as they have been in the past? It's a lot like gossip on a much larger scale and with more serious repercussions...But if the objective of history is to take everything with a grain of salt and to not necessarily believe what is told, then what is useful about the information I'm gathering and what am I supposed to do with it? Treat everything like potential fiction instead...? I don't think that's what's supposed to happen.
I'm just so skeptical and really stressed out. I don't think ALL of history ever is a lie, but when it comes down to less general events, or soft as opposed to hard events, I'm left scratching my head 75% of the time. Can anyone help me wrap my head around this?
I get that history is supposed to be subjective, but I'm still confused about what I'm supposed to be taking away from it in light of this.
1. I thought it might be easier to weigh the validity of the account if I could understand the author, but it can be hard to know where an author is coming from. Political or ideological motivations are not always readily divulged or apparent (especially when you're new to a topic and don't have much context), and even when strong biases are present that doesn't equate to the account being false-- or truthful when there aren't strong biases.
2. Citation processes seem to be overly lenient. I keep seeing things like, "We know things happened like this because this one guy said so."
3. There are lots of conflicting accounts.
4. There are lots of gaps.
5. Things previously believed to be true have also been revised.
4. Since histories have real-world implications regardless of their factuality, I've also worried that it might be unethical to get too wrapped up in them. What if popular accounts are, unbeknownst to me, inaccurately biased in concern to a particular group or event, as they have been in the past? It's a lot like gossip on a much larger scale and with more serious repercussions...But if the objective of history is to take everything with a grain of salt and to not necessarily believe what is told, then what is useful about the information I'm gathering and what am I supposed to do with it? Treat everything like potential fiction instead...? I don't think that's what's supposed to happen.
I'm just so skeptical and really stressed out. I don't think ALL of history ever is a lie, but when it comes down to less general events, or soft as opposed to hard events, I'm left scratching my head 75% of the time. Can anyone help me wrap my head around this?
Historians and most students of history are aware of the shortcomings of history and its study (items 1-5 on your list). These flaws in the system aren't reason to abandon our study of history, but to improve it, so we can get better information, analyze and interpret it more accurately, close gaps, etc.
As for the ethical issue: those real-world implications that happen regardless of factuality are the reason why studying history is so important, IMO. We can and should take lessons learned from history, even if our version of history isn't perfectly accurate. (Think of it like fiction: we can learn a lot about humanity, ethics, and responses to complicated situations by reading about entirely made-up situations. Factuality isn't necessary for lesson learning.)
posted by schroedingersgirl at 10:54 AM on November 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
As for the ethical issue: those real-world implications that happen regardless of factuality are the reason why studying history is so important, IMO. We can and should take lessons learned from history, even if our version of history isn't perfectly accurate. (Think of it like fiction: we can learn a lot about humanity, ethics, and responses to complicated situations by reading about entirely made-up situations. Factuality isn't necessary for lesson learning.)
posted by schroedingersgirl at 10:54 AM on November 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think you're running up against the disconnect between a narrow view of history as reportage, and human experience, which is always messy and inexact. What you describe is NOT NECESSARILY a bad thing: it's something that good historians try to take into account when understanding events, but it doesn't keep us from building a useful understanding of the past or drawing conclusions that are meaningful, regardless of how incomplete they might be.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 10:58 AM on November 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by StrikeTheViol at 10:58 AM on November 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Take Historiography when it's next offered in your department.
posted by CheeseLouise at 10:59 AM on November 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by CheeseLouise at 10:59 AM on November 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
You could address these concerns by reading about how history gets written — how historians address these concerns in practice. The fancy word for this is historiography. There are many good books written by historians for popular audiences on the topic: here are a few leads to get you started.
Three books on historiography recommended by historians
A History of Histories
Historiography for beginners (how to get started on a specific historical topic you're interested in)
Companion to Historiography (review of a big book on the subject)
posted by RogerB at 10:59 AM on November 30, 2013 [4 favorites]
Three books on historiography recommended by historians
A History of Histories
Historiography for beginners (how to get started on a specific historical topic you're interested in)
Companion to Historiography (review of a big book on the subject)
posted by RogerB at 10:59 AM on November 30, 2013 [4 favorites]
Best answer: What kinds of history books are you reading? Some of what you mention is a characteristic of broad surveys, textbooks, or works for a general reader; these are analogous to popular science writing, which is based on research but doesn't meticulously cite its evidence. Similarly, a work of popular history might cite one source (if its publisher wants citations at all), but if it's good, it's based on much more carefully researched historical monographs.
As for #3-5, this is true of all forms of systematic knowledge. There were competing views of the nature of chemical interactions and elements in the 18th and 19th centuries. There were gaps or anomalies in late 19th- and early 20th-century physics, such as the puzzling absence of an effect of the Earth's motion through the luminiferous ether on the measurement of the speed of light. It used to be believed that time and space were absolute; now we know that their measurement depends on the frame of reference used.
Similarly, historians offer competing interpretations of the past, based on different theories of human motivation and the balance between individual will and social forces. There are some things we just don't know because the sources don't exist; the best we can do is conjecture. Sometimes we know that the only sources are biased; again, in those cases our knowledge is conjectural, depending on what we can figure out about the sources' biases and how they are likely to have shaped their reports. We revise our understanding of the past as we discover new things about it, due in part to new sources but also to new ways of reading sources (e.g., the new interest in women's history that followed second-wave feminism).
In their graduate studies, professional historians are taught to read sources critically and "against the grain," to beware of anachronism, and to find and compare as many sources as possible. They're also taught to read other historians' works critically, to look for problems with evidence and interpretation, and to point out those problems in book reviews or in their own work. That competitive element can turn vicious, but at its best it serves to ensure that the historical community advances knowledge even if individual contributions turn out to be problematic.
The links that RogerB provides offer some useful further reading. I also like Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob, Telling the Truth about History, and Richard Evans, In Defense of History.
(Note: I was trained in intellectual history and the history of science at the University of Chicago and have been a professional historian since 1997.)
posted by brianogilvie at 11:07 AM on November 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
As for #3-5, this is true of all forms of systematic knowledge. There were competing views of the nature of chemical interactions and elements in the 18th and 19th centuries. There were gaps or anomalies in late 19th- and early 20th-century physics, such as the puzzling absence of an effect of the Earth's motion through the luminiferous ether on the measurement of the speed of light. It used to be believed that time and space were absolute; now we know that their measurement depends on the frame of reference used.
Similarly, historians offer competing interpretations of the past, based on different theories of human motivation and the balance between individual will and social forces. There are some things we just don't know because the sources don't exist; the best we can do is conjecture. Sometimes we know that the only sources are biased; again, in those cases our knowledge is conjectural, depending on what we can figure out about the sources' biases and how they are likely to have shaped their reports. We revise our understanding of the past as we discover new things about it, due in part to new sources but also to new ways of reading sources (e.g., the new interest in women's history that followed second-wave feminism).
In their graduate studies, professional historians are taught to read sources critically and "against the grain," to beware of anachronism, and to find and compare as many sources as possible. They're also taught to read other historians' works critically, to look for problems with evidence and interpretation, and to point out those problems in book reviews or in their own work. That competitive element can turn vicious, but at its best it serves to ensure that the historical community advances knowledge even if individual contributions turn out to be problematic.
The links that RogerB provides offer some useful further reading. I also like Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob, Telling the Truth about History, and Richard Evans, In Defense of History.
(Note: I was trained in intellectual history and the history of science at the University of Chicago and have been a professional historian since 1997.)
posted by brianogilvie at 11:07 AM on November 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
I minored in history with a focus on antiquity, and we spent quite a lot of time discussing this. There is no getting around the inaccuracies in history. We are deeply impoverished in terms of sources from the ancient world, but we can draw partial pictures. Archaeology helps when it can, but we tend to have limited views and a lot of accounts from the elites rather than of the masses.
History is hard. Good historians are trying to create a synthesis of difficult primary sources, using the physical artifacts we have left to sift through certain claims, weighing competing sources, trying to extract as clear a picture as they can. If you are serious about studying a period, then you need to read primary sources (professional historians learn the languages) and spend a lot of time on historiography and specialized accounts rather than popular histories.
You learn as much about the historian as the subject in any history book. It's important to read a rich variety of sources and learn to draw conclusions. Histories are partial reconstructions, no matter how good the historian. What you will get is a series of pictures that help you to understand a piece of the past. They will never be satisfactory, never give you certainty. But in keeping a skeptical eye to history, you will learn about people - both the subjects of history and its writers. In doing history a person is trying to craft new and improved pictures of the past.
Please never lose the skepticism that you show here. It's what drives good historians.
posted by graymouser at 11:17 AM on November 30, 2013
History is hard. Good historians are trying to create a synthesis of difficult primary sources, using the physical artifacts we have left to sift through certain claims, weighing competing sources, trying to extract as clear a picture as they can. If you are serious about studying a period, then you need to read primary sources (professional historians learn the languages) and spend a lot of time on historiography and specialized accounts rather than popular histories.
You learn as much about the historian as the subject in any history book. It's important to read a rich variety of sources and learn to draw conclusions. Histories are partial reconstructions, no matter how good the historian. What you will get is a series of pictures that help you to understand a piece of the past. They will never be satisfactory, never give you certainty. But in keeping a skeptical eye to history, you will learn about people - both the subjects of history and its writers. In doing history a person is trying to craft new and improved pictures of the past.
Please never lose the skepticism that you show here. It's what drives good historians.
posted by graymouser at 11:17 AM on November 30, 2013
I'm just so skeptical and really stressed out.
The skepticism is fine - but what's with the really stressed out? (Unless you're being hyperbolic?) I was a history major in college, and these are all normal questions to tangle with. You do your best to get the best information and interpretation possible, but you can't control the fact that some things are just going to remain unknowable. When we visited the Chaco Culture historic park last year, we went on a couple of ranger-led walk-and-talks and the rangers were very upfront about what we're pretty sure we *know*, what we have okay evidence to speculate about in a reasonable way, and what we're just never going to know, because the people who lived there a thousand years ago left no written records (and even if they had, those are never going to tell the whole story). There may come a point in the future when more evidence comes to light about who they were and what they were doing there and what happened to them, but we can't know when or if that point will come either.
Your askme history (ha!) indicates that you've had troubles with anxiety. If you are actually really stressed out about history in general and not just because you've got a paper due, I hope you're seeking help for that as well.
posted by rtha at 11:31 AM on November 30, 2013
The skepticism is fine - but what's with the really stressed out? (Unless you're being hyperbolic?) I was a history major in college, and these are all normal questions to tangle with. You do your best to get the best information and interpretation possible, but you can't control the fact that some things are just going to remain unknowable. When we visited the Chaco Culture historic park last year, we went on a couple of ranger-led walk-and-talks and the rangers were very upfront about what we're pretty sure we *know*, what we have okay evidence to speculate about in a reasonable way, and what we're just never going to know, because the people who lived there a thousand years ago left no written records (and even if they had, those are never going to tell the whole story). There may come a point in the future when more evidence comes to light about who they were and what they were doing there and what happened to them, but we can't know when or if that point will come either.
Your askme history (ha!) indicates that you've had troubles with anxiety. If you are actually really stressed out about history in general and not just because you've got a paper due, I hope you're seeking help for that as well.
posted by rtha at 11:31 AM on November 30, 2013
Best answer: I think the frequent shallowness/unreliability/incompleteness of local news reporting is a red herring, and may be adding to your sense of stress or confusion. Reporters present stories on very quick deadlines, usually relying on only a few sources (or even only one source) and distilled into very short narratives. This process is, as others have indicated, extremely different from the months and even years of extensive research, critical thinking, feedback, and revision that is at the heart of good historiography. So even though a news report and a history book are both presenting a narrative of "what happened," in many significant ways this is only a surface similarity.
posted by scody at 12:11 PM on November 30, 2013
posted by scody at 12:11 PM on November 30, 2013
Since histories have real-world implications regardless of their factuality, I've also worried that it might be unethical to get too wrapped up in them. What if popular accounts are, unbeknownst to me, inaccurately biased in concern to a particular group or event, as they have been in the past? It's a lot like gossip on a much larger scale and with more serious repercussions...But if the objective of history is to take everything with a grain of salt and to not necessarily believe what is told, then what is useful about the information I'm gathering and what am I supposed to do with it? Treat everything like potential fiction instead...?
Well, yeah, you're onto the right thing. It's always good to consider who is telling the story, and examine the story from that perspective.
The most common historical story in North America is "Columbus discovered America."
Try to unpack that one! Try to examine that statement from as many perspectives as possible. Who would say what, and why?
posted by KokuRyu at 12:26 PM on November 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, yeah, you're onto the right thing. It's always good to consider who is telling the story, and examine the story from that perspective.
The most common historical story in North America is "Columbus discovered America."
Try to unpack that one! Try to examine that statement from as many perspectives as possible. Who would say what, and why?
posted by KokuRyu at 12:26 PM on November 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
When I was in school, history seemed to boil down to memorizing names and dates of important political figures and key battles. I found it boring and irrellevent.
Then I learned that women transitioned from long dresses with hoop skirts and many petticoats to the mini dresses of the flapper era practically overnight due to WWI. The government asked women to donate their petticoats, excess length of skirts, and metal hoops to have material for war supplies. I like fashion. I wear clothes every day. Finding out how war and other historical events basically impacted how I dress today was something I found fascinating, relatable, and relevent to my life. I was also interested in how WWII impacted money, housing and other cultural things, a legacy we still live with.
So I would say a good approach to studying history is to research the history of something you are interested in. My ex was career military and a history buff. Learning about the history of war is actually also interesting when it isn't just memorizing names and dates of "important" battles without context. Wars, new technologies, resource shortages, natural disasters -- they all impact the history and development of anything you can name.
Some random examples I find interesting: IIRC, Bank of America became big because they were in San Francisco for the 1906 quake and, unlike all other banks in town, they lacked a proper vault. So they smuggled the money out under oranges or something before fire swept through town. The bank vaults were left extremely hot to the touch and could not be opened for weeks lest the paper money catch fire. Thus Bank of America became the only local source of ready cash after the quake and finances a lot of the rebuilding of San Francisco and this was a major turning point in its status.
The Great Fire of London occured because of thatched roofs. After the fire, it was ade illegal to have thatched roofs itn city limits in England. They can now only be found in rural areas. The Great Fire is why London was a major world power for a long time: Being mostly rebuilt in a short period made it the most modern city in the world and that made it an important, influential city.
In WWII, savings rates in the U.S. were as high as 50% for part of the war. Most men were in the military overseas. The women filled the factory jobs left vacant by the absence of nearly all able bodied (young) men. People were encouraged to grow Victory Gardens so farm-raised food could feed our troops. Sugar, tobacco and other things were rationed. Thus, you had a lot of two income couples who were not having kids and who could not blow money on luxury items. This is a big part of what fueled the post war boom.
History created the world we have today. Understanding how and why can go a long way towards finding a path forward when things no longer work. Successes and failures of prior generations can help us make more informed choices. Learning about and from their mistakes is a good way to try to avoid repeating them.
posted by Michele in California at 12:57 PM on November 30, 2013 [4 favorites]
Then I learned that women transitioned from long dresses with hoop skirts and many petticoats to the mini dresses of the flapper era practically overnight due to WWI. The government asked women to donate their petticoats, excess length of skirts, and metal hoops to have material for war supplies. I like fashion. I wear clothes every day. Finding out how war and other historical events basically impacted how I dress today was something I found fascinating, relatable, and relevent to my life. I was also interested in how WWII impacted money, housing and other cultural things, a legacy we still live with.
So I would say a good approach to studying history is to research the history of something you are interested in. My ex was career military and a history buff. Learning about the history of war is actually also interesting when it isn't just memorizing names and dates of "important" battles without context. Wars, new technologies, resource shortages, natural disasters -- they all impact the history and development of anything you can name.
Some random examples I find interesting: IIRC, Bank of America became big because they were in San Francisco for the 1906 quake and, unlike all other banks in town, they lacked a proper vault. So they smuggled the money out under oranges or something before fire swept through town. The bank vaults were left extremely hot to the touch and could not be opened for weeks lest the paper money catch fire. Thus Bank of America became the only local source of ready cash after the quake and finances a lot of the rebuilding of San Francisco and this was a major turning point in its status.
The Great Fire of London occured because of thatched roofs. After the fire, it was ade illegal to have thatched roofs itn city limits in England. They can now only be found in rural areas. The Great Fire is why London was a major world power for a long time: Being mostly rebuilt in a short period made it the most modern city in the world and that made it an important, influential city.
In WWII, savings rates in the U.S. were as high as 50% for part of the war. Most men were in the military overseas. The women filled the factory jobs left vacant by the absence of nearly all able bodied (young) men. People were encouraged to grow Victory Gardens so farm-raised food could feed our troops. Sugar, tobacco and other things were rationed. Thus, you had a lot of two income couples who were not having kids and who could not blow money on luxury items. This is a big part of what fueled the post war boom.
History created the world we have today. Understanding how and why can go a long way towards finding a path forward when things no longer work. Successes and failures of prior generations can help us make more informed choices. Learning about and from their mistakes is a good way to try to avoid repeating them.
posted by Michele in California at 12:57 PM on November 30, 2013 [4 favorites]
Although I can't find anything at the tip of my fingers, the issues you point out are addressed by feminist approaches to history. Hopefully someone can come along and correct me if I am too off track, but very generally speaking feminism focuses on "histories", acknowledging that we all, on an individual level, have a story to tell that is equally valid, and that the metanarrative is not necessarily more valid than individual voice.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:03 PM on November 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by KokuRyu at 3:03 PM on November 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
I recently read 1066 by David Howarth. I really enjoyed the whole book (and I'm not usually terribly interested in military history), but I especially liked this bit from the introduction, which set me up right from the start to find a good balance between skepticism and trust in the author:
As others have said above, we do the best we can, and we fill in gaps as we go.
* To say nothing of reporting a century ago, when some newspaper publishers actively encouraged their reporters to just make stuff up.
posted by kristi at 8:09 PM on November 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
"Strictly speaking, every sentence in a story nine centures old should include the word perhaps: nothing is perfectly certain. But that would be boring, and I have left out the qualification whenever things seem reasonably certain, either from the early sources or from deduction and inference. After all, factual truth is not the only thing that matters. It can be just as illuminating to know what people thought or pretended was true, if one can discover why they thought it, or why they had to pretend it. I do not despise a plausible legend, or totally disbelieve a miracle that everyone believed in. Sometimes I have made guesses, but not without saying so."That last sentence highlights one of the important differences between historians and modern news reporters*: historians are more likely to watch for their own tendency to jump to conclusions and to acknowledge when they're guessing, because a reputation for careful scholarship is important for their careers, and because they know other researchers will pick apart their publications - both sources and conclusions - as part of their own work.
As others have said above, we do the best we can, and we fill in gaps as we go.
* To say nothing of reporting a century ago, when some newspaper publishers actively encouraged their reporters to just make stuff up.
posted by kristi at 8:09 PM on November 30, 2013 [1 favorite]
You can always find lots of reasons not to trust what other people say, but there are also reasons in favor of trusting written history (to a point, of course), all of which mainly boil down to the fact that you are not the only reader out there, not the only skeptic, not the only person insisting on hard evidence.
1. "...it can be hard to know where an author is coming from." -- But many people are focused on that author and will happily let you know if they see a large bias that is messing up the account.
2. "Citation processes seem to be overly lenient." -- I suppose they can, but you can read histories by recognized experts working with (and citing!) primary sources.
3. "There are lots of conflicting accounts." -- As can be expected. History is not simple. You need to examine the sources and consider motives and likelihoods.
4. "There are lots of gaps." -- Yes. Become an historian and fill some of them in. In the meantime, it's better to have gaps than to make stuff up.
5. "Things previously believed to be true have also been revised." -- Which is good. It's history, not religion. When new or better evidence comes along, it changes the story.
Avoid broad, oversimplified histories written as potboilers -- anything about "the [one damned thing] that changed the world" and the like -- and look for focused works by specialists who are cited by many other specialists.
posted by pracowity at 4:57 AM on December 1, 2013
1. "...it can be hard to know where an author is coming from." -- But many people are focused on that author and will happily let you know if they see a large bias that is messing up the account.
2. "Citation processes seem to be overly lenient." -- I suppose they can, but you can read histories by recognized experts working with (and citing!) primary sources.
3. "There are lots of conflicting accounts." -- As can be expected. History is not simple. You need to examine the sources and consider motives and likelihoods.
4. "There are lots of gaps." -- Yes. Become an historian and fill some of them in. In the meantime, it's better to have gaps than to make stuff up.
5. "Things previously believed to be true have also been revised." -- Which is good. It's history, not religion. When new or better evidence comes along, it changes the story.
Avoid broad, oversimplified histories written as potboilers -- anything about "the [one damned thing] that changed the world" and the like -- and look for focused works by specialists who are cited by many other specialists.
posted by pracowity at 4:57 AM on December 1, 2013
My local news can barely report stories accurately when they happen on the same day, in the same town.
Reporting something as it's just happened, or currently happening, seems "intuitively" like it should be easy as falling off a bike. After all, it's just happening, it's not like people already forgot what happened. If I watched someone stab someone else in the street I'd obviously know exactly what happened and not miss any details, right?
Wrong.
Of-the-moment journalism is actually incredibly difficult to do well. It requires training and dedication and a particular skill set, and none of these three things exists at your local news because they are not profitable.
Where they do exist, or versions of them anyway, is in the history departments of universities and so on. People trained to research, fact-check, apply multiple perspectives, obtain details which may only seem relevant in long retrospect.
FWIW pretty much every single one of your objections also applies to science; do you automatically reject the validity of science as well?
Humans don't get to have perfect truth. Ever. In any discipline. Ever. Moreover, we've made it this far without it--it's okay. The sooner you understand this the easier your life will be.
posted by like_a_friend at 6:37 PM on June 28, 2014
Reporting something as it's just happened, or currently happening, seems "intuitively" like it should be easy as falling off a bike. After all, it's just happening, it's not like people already forgot what happened. If I watched someone stab someone else in the street I'd obviously know exactly what happened and not miss any details, right?
Wrong.
Of-the-moment journalism is actually incredibly difficult to do well. It requires training and dedication and a particular skill set, and none of these three things exists at your local news because they are not profitable.
Where they do exist, or versions of them anyway, is in the history departments of universities and so on. People trained to research, fact-check, apply multiple perspectives, obtain details which may only seem relevant in long retrospect.
FWIW pretty much every single one of your objections also applies to science; do you automatically reject the validity of science as well?
Humans don't get to have perfect truth. Ever. In any discipline. Ever. Moreover, we've made it this far without it--it's okay. The sooner you understand this the easier your life will be.
posted by like_a_friend at 6:37 PM on June 28, 2014
This thread is closed to new comments.
If you are in school, you might bring this up with your professors during office hours. Historians know better than anybody how limited and biased our sources are, and they have given a lot of thought to how we can best construct a picture of the past, given the restrictions we're working with.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:50 AM on November 30, 2013