What makes a good Historian?

[bailey_187]

Is it purely someone who uses facts to formulate his theory? Is such a Historian even possible, with the amount of facts out there? - like EH Carr said being a historian is like being a fisherman, with facts being fish. Where you stand and what bait (theory?) you use determines what fish you catch.

im asking this because i got an interview to do history at Uni and apparently this is one of the questions they ask, so if anyones had an interview at UCL SSEES for History please PM me

[manic expression]

Sometimes good historians find evidence and documents that no one else had found before. Sometimes they formulate a way of looking at an event or period in a new context. Sometimes they make a cogent argument about why something happened, and what sort of relevance it has to our world today. In some cases, a good historian is a good narrator of events that everyone knew about before.

It's kind of like asking what makes a good artist, there are a lot of different ways to do it IMO. I would like to hear the thoughts of Comrade Om or Invader Zim, they both have solid understandings of academic historiography from what I can tell.

[BobKKKindle$]

Is it purely someone who uses facts to formulate his theory? Is such a Historian even possible, with the amount of facts out there? - like EH Carr said being a historian is like being a fisherman, with facts being fish. Where you stand and what bait (theory?) you use determines what fish you catch.

im asking this because i got an interview to do history at Uni and apparently this is one of the questions they ask, so if anyones had an interview at UCL SSEES for History please PM me

haha, you do realize that if you end up going to UCL SSEES you'll probably be taught by Alex Callinicos, one of the leaders of the SWP?

Anyway, this is not my area of expertise, but a good place to start any discussion on objectivity is by pointing out that the assumption that a historian should seek to be objective is in fact fairly modern and associated with the erudits of the Enlightenment and their descendants, of whom Gibbon is the most obvious example, as if you look back to ancient historians like Tacitus you find that whilst these historians (the word "historian" in this context is also worth thinking about - to what extent is it right to regard people like Tacitus as historians when they had no professional training in history, did not regard history as their primary area of activity, and when history was often closely associated with drama and story telling, to the extent that it was sometimes read aloud as a form of entertainment?) claimed to not be biased, they understood bias as having a personal connection with the events they were covering, such that having a intention or stance would not have been seen as inconsistent with the value of objectivity.

[bailey_187]

haha, you do realize that if you end up going to UCL SSEES you'll probably be taught by Alex Callinicos, one of the leaders of the SWP?

LOL, i thought he taught at Kings? Or do they change lecturers?

Even so, I don't mind Callinicos. I'm even going the book launch of his at Bookmarks. I would rather be taught by a Trot than a complete anti-communist lol.

[BobKKKindle$]

LOL, i thought he taught at Kings? Or do they change lecturers?

Even so, I don't mind Callinicos. I'm even going the book launch of his at Bookmarks. I would rather be taught by a Trot that a complete anti-communist lol.

Ah, you're completely right, he is at KCL. I'm pretty sure there is some other leader of the SWP at UCL though, or maybe it's just because there's a big SWSS group there.

On the issue at hand though, and if you're going along to Bookmarks soon, there's an essay in a book entitled 'Essays on Historical Materialism' that discusses the linguistic turn in some detail, which is basically the postmodernist notion that the only way to understand history is through the discourse of those who directly participated in it, in order to avoid imposing modern ideas on their experiences, and that discourse is not only the means by which people give expression to their experiences but is in fact an integral part of experience itself. It might be relevant to your discussion as the central argument of that essay if I remember correctly is that it is not enough just to treat discourse at face value - in order to understand the meaning of the language that was used by historical actors and the things they said or wrote, you have to dig below the surface of language and think about their position in society in relation to other actors, and the ways in which a discourse could be manipulated to suit the interests of specific groups even whilst the same discourse was being used by a different group with interests that were oppossed to those of the first, which means class analysis.

[Tower of Bebel]

A problem with history as an academic current or subject is this tendency to isolate itself. Historians have their own congresses and magazines which nobody hears about, even though it concerns human society as it once was and what it will become. Instead of real historians semi-historians, entrepeneurs and politicians try to (re-)write history, while social movements make it.

So in my opinion, a good historian takes part in society. Why are we to have silly academics who lock themselves up between the suposedly inpenitrable walls of their own intellectual circle?

[bailey_187]

A problem with history as an academic current or subject is this tendency to isolate itself. Historians have their own congresses and magazines which nobody hears about, even though it concerns human society as it once was and what it will become. Instead of real historians semi-historians, entrepeneurs and politicians try to (re-)write history, while social movements make it.

So in my opinion, a good historian takes part in society. Why are we to have silly academics who lock themselves up between the suposedly inpenitrable walls of their own intellectual circle?

Very true.

However, how will a university lecturer respond to a response like this lol?

[bailey_187]

Ah, you're completely right, he is at KCL. I'm pretty sure there is some other leader of the SWP at UCL though, or maybe it's just because there's a big SWSS group there.

On the issue at hand though, and if you're going along to Bookmarks soon, there's an essay in a book entitled 'Essays on Historical Materialism' that discusses the linguistic turn in some detail, which is basically the postmodernist notion that the only way to understand history is through the discourse of those who directly participated in it, in order to avoid imposing modern ideas on their experiences, and that discourse is not only the means by which people give expression to their experiences but is in fact an integral part of experience itself. It might be relevant to your discussion as the central argument of that essay if I remember correctly is that it is not enough just to treat discourse at face value - in order to understand the meaning of the language that was used by historical actors and the things they said or wrote, you have to dig below the surface of language and think about their position in society in relation to other actors, and the ways in which a discourse could be manipulated to suit the interests of specific groups even whilst the same discourse was being used by a different group with interests that were oppossed to those of the first, which means class analysis.

Ok thanks.

Is that book the Red one with a clock on it?

[BobKKKindle$]

Ok thanks.

Is that book the Red one with a clock on it?

Yes. The book also has an essay by Rees on the differences between revolutionary and academic Marxism, and, like Rakunin, he argues that revolutionary Marxism grew out of the movements of the 1960s, and a Marxist approach to history will only retain its vitality as long as it has an organic connection to struggles outside the confines of a university environment.

[which doctor]

I think what makes a good historian is the practice of looking at history critically, which is something most Revleft pseudo-historians don't seem to be capable of. History is not about deciding which side of the barricades you would have been on or arguing who was in the right and who was in the wrong or justifying the actions of historical figures. A historian needs to be aware that all history is mishistory and all historical narratives are ideologically guided. With that in mind, a historian can begin to look critically at the past to learn how we have arrived at the present and what historical lessons we can apply to the future.

Unfortunately, much of the Left is content with engaging in historical apologism, arguing whether or not Lenin/Stalin/Hohxa/etc. were really as bad as we've been told. By doing this, they are creating their own mishistory without really contributing anything of value to the present.

[Shin Honyong]

The question is one of many frequent debates within the field and something that many students who major in History have to deal with. In the end, it generally becomes an issue if someone can truly become objective or not and whether or not we are capable of knowing the "truth."

[ComradeOm]

It's kind of like asking what makes a good artist, there are a lot of different ways to do it IMO. I would like to hear the thoughts of Comrade Om or Invader Zim, they both have solid understandings of academic historiography from what I can tell.Actually I've never sat through a history lecture in my life and I have little time for academic discussions on historiography. Strictly amateur here ;)

That said, I do very much value actual academic works of history. We can talk for hours as to whether history is the product of historians, society, politicians, etc, etc, but the reality is that if you want a good in-depth understanding of a historical period then you are going to have to rely on a specialist. That often means reading through dense academic works in which political/social positions have been put to one side. Its a matter of taking research (either unique or second hand) and placing it in the correct context. An overarching theory/thesis is not necessary (and often gets in the way) but then I do have a fondness for fairly specialist works

Which is why I favour a degree of isolation in history. When 'history' is what's accepted by society (and thus full of myths) you need someone to do the proper research and lay down the facts, plus their interpretation. It may be a specialist book, it may linger on in obscurity, but its there and in its own limited way provides an antidote to the myths that comprise 'popular history'

As an aside, I very much agree with which doctor. This is a particular pitfall when you study an event like the Russian Revolution and its exactly why I prefer professional historians. Personally I don't read works that have been explicitly motivated by political ends (I was recently discussing Brinton's hack job in another thread) because they're undermined by the sort of political assumptions that have no place in serious works of history

[Tower of Bebel]

Which is why I favour a degree of isolation in history. When 'history' is what's accepted by society (and thus full of myths) you need someone to do the proper research and lay down the facts, plus their interpretation. It may be a specialist book, it may linger on in obscurity, but its there and in its own limited way provides an antidote to the myths that comprise 'popular history'I can agree with that, but we see things from a different perspective here. What you probably mean is that a certain 'distance' makes it easier to actually research the subject (instead of producing ideologically motivated crap). What I mean is that a certain involvement with society makes it easier for historians to actually stimulate research that doesn't shy away from public debate.

Instead most academic research is devoted to the academic, not the public. It makes qualitative history that really matters as inaccessible for common people as do the ideologically inspired crusades of politicians and other amateur-historians who deceive the reader.

[blake 3:17]

I think it requires a lot of hard work and patience. Opinions are easy.

[Axle]

Being a good historian means not being one-sided or opinionated. History is multi-faceted. For instance "American" history is not simply an American ordeal. It's also British, French, Mexican, German, Japanese, Russian, Israeli...so on and so forth.

[blake 3:17]

I'm not against opinions being expressed. All historians do express them explicitly or implicitly. What facts are important? Why would anyone care about a particular subject? I'm wary of intellectual work being forced to be topical.

[Pavlov's House Party]

I would say that a good historian studies historical events as if they don't know the outcome. Knowing how history turns out is one of the biggest sources of bias, because we make judgements based on the outcomes.

[bailey_187]

I would say that a good historian studies historical events as if they don't know the outcome. Knowing how history turns out is one of the biggest sources of bias, because we make judgements based on the outcomes.

interesting.

did any historian in particular say this? Or just your own view?

[hugsandmarxism]

Here's a relevant lecture by Michael Parenti:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itIBY3J4Ues

[which doctor]

I would say that a good historian studies historical events as if they don't know the outcome. Knowing how history turns out is one of the biggest sources of bias, because we make judgements based on the outcomes.
How exactly does one study history while "pretending" not to know the outcome? It's really hard (maybe even impossible) to pretend to not know something, when in reality you know that something very well. Even if you try to counter that bias, you end up creating a new one which skews your results just as much as the other. Bias will never be eliminated in history, and the critic who comments, "that's so biased!" is actually just saying "I don't like that" or "That's not how I see things."

Personally, I don't see how that makes a better historian. In fact, I don't even see how a historian could do that, as the role of the historian is to make sense of the the past in the light of the present. Remember that there is no single outcome of a historical events. History is not a series of isolated causes and effects, it's a continuum of human development, therefore it must be studied as a whole.

[Invader Zim]

A problem with history as an academic current or subject is this tendency to isolate itself. Historians have their own congresses and magazines which nobody hears about, even though it concerns human society as it once was and what it will become. Instead of real historians semi-historians, entrepeneurs and politicians try to (re-)write history, while social movements make it.

So in my opinion, a good historian takes part in society. Why are we to have silly academics who lock themselves up between the suposedly inpenitrable walls of their own intellectual circle?

Well I think there is an element of both truth in what you say, but also an element of misunderstanding.

Certainly academic historians do produce material that has a readership only among other academics. But there is a reason for that, academic history necessarily is produced with an attention to detail that makes the work seemingly impenetrable. That said, unless you are going to pay attention to those details, what is the point in writing history at all? But you are certainly correct that historians should try to make their work more accessable. But I wonder whether most historians actually can. These people are typically not trained writers with a flare for writing. I suspect that, for the most part, they are actually incapable of writing in a style that would invite a popular audience.

And is it really impenetrable? It isn't as if academic work isn't available to be read by the general public. Academic books are easily available, especially in the age of the internet, when you can get a history on just about any topic sent to you in a matter of days. The exact same can be said of the plethora of scholarly journals. As for conferences, they exist so that other experts on the same or similar topic can debate and discuss their ideas and hopefully improve them. Again nothing is stopping you, or anyone else, looking up when these conferences are held and attending. The fact is every single conference I have been to has had people outside of the academic community turn up, just because they were interested in the topic.

[Invader Zim]

In answer to the main question, what makes a 'good' historian is a difficult set of criteria to pin down. It is the question often put to first year undergraduate historians by their departments as a formal assessed piece of work, and I think it is rather cruel. People have dedicated a massive amount of writing to this question, grappling with issues such as the human capacity (or lack of) for objectivity.

On the one hand a historian should strive to be as objective as possible. As von Ranke, said a historian should attempt to tell the past "how it really was". Not tell it how they would like it to have happened. But is Ranke's objective actually possible? A historian of the medieval period, for example, grapples with the problem that their is an unavoidable pausity of sources, while the modernist is faced with the precise opposite problem; their are just too many. To paraphrase (no doubt inaccurately) the famous historian Richard J. Evans, the problem is like trying to solve a massive jigsaw puzzle, but with most of the pieces missing. At best we can only hope to produce a murky, superficial and incomplete model of the past. Which simply doesn't live upto the lofty and naive expectation von Ranke set.

Matters are then complicated by the problems of the sources themselves. Are they accurate? What was the motive of the person who produced the source? What didn't they include? Can we really take what the source says for granted? Does the author not have their own inherent biases and fallability? The only answer to that is, unfortunately, a positive.

Then we must wrestle with the historian's ability to remain objective. As Marx noted the consciesness of a person is dictated by the world in which they live. Naturally this also applies to the historian. The way that they analyse and examine the events of the past is at least in part dictated by their own outlooks, which are in turn dictated by the society in which they live. If we then bring in politics, religion, and various other factors that make each of our outlooks on the world unique to us we muddy these already murky waters further.

These issues lie at the heart of the postmodernist critique of history. Naturally they vastly over inflate the problem. Their position is locked in a paradox, they proclaim that the past, and indeed knowledge generally, is inherently unknowable yet if that is the case how do they actually form this conclusion? Surely the conclusion itself is based on the observations of the postmodernist. If so why do they not reject their own conlusion on the basis that they cannot trust their own judgement? So that firm rejection in place, historians have still taken a great deal of what postmodernists argued on board. While the postmodernists may contradict themselves they are right on one level; historians need to be warey and accept their they aren't going to achieve von Ranke's expectation.

So ultimately we must accept that it is probably impossible to produce a model of the past that does it actual justice. But that isn't a reason not to try to produce the best, and most accurate, model of the past that that they are capable of.

[bailey_187]

Thanks Invador Zim

Would it be a good idea to memorise what some of these Historians said so i can quote when giving my answer in the interview?

[Invader Zim]

You could do, but I would say that just having the measure of the ideas of the main participants of the debate. If you want to do some reading on the topic before you have your interview, which I would suggest, then take a look at the following page (http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Whatishistory/).

If you want any more material give me a shout.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Most important as a historia is criticism. One needs to have a critical view on sources to become a succesful historian.
At least, that's what I've been taught in my universitary History education...