Rewriting History

Good evening from Montreal.

I was unable to get here sooner as I had to do my Chronicle-Herald blog as well as post a letter to The Gazette – I am, of course, a veteran in both regards. This was in addition to car problems – the minutiae of everyday life – so you can see I was busy but, in any case, I crave your indulgence.

So, “The Schoolboy” (aka Hugo Phurst, Jan 13, 10:14PM) writes, in respect to my observation that every generation re-writes its History, “Very good Annie, now tell us why.” Then Kim (Jan 14, 3:13PM) writes that she wants to “see the conclusion between Montrealman and Hugo Phurst.” The question, as you might recall, concerned the nature of Historical Truth – an extrapolation of the initial question concerning the appropriateness of the “n” word in Huckleberry Finn and its suitability for school-aged children and who, the modernists or the traditionalists, would win the day. First to Kim.

Since we’re dealing with philosophy here Kim, the question is misconceived. I believe that you might be operating out of a scientific – or worse, a mathematical paradigm – in which the type of certainty you seek is not available.
As I said, Historical Truth is a matter of interpretation, not of calculation. Now to The Schoolboy.

My first point concerns his deplorable questioning technique, a central feature of any adequate philosophical discourse the test of which “Now tell us why” fails. You must provide alternatives in respect to which the interlocutor may choose and, of course, provide reasons for doing so. But let me return to my original dichotomy in respect to the question of Historical Truth – the “Modernists” vs. the “Traditionalists.”

The Schoolboy cites the my reference to the “Modernist” view, that every generation re-writes History from its own perspective. The “why” is, as I stated previously, obvious – there is no “God’s Eye” view since we are all products of our culture. From the “Modernist” perspective, to speak of an “acultural” perspective is incoherent. However, and this is my main difficulty here, to reject the “God’s Eye” view entails the very transcending of one’s cultural context which the Modernists reject. How did they know this? In philosophy, this is called a “performative contradiction.”

The “Traditionalists,” on the other hand, fail for another reason. While they may claim that Historical Truth is objective and trancends its cultural context they are not able to specify precisely of just what it might consist. As I said, Historical Truth is not a matter of conformity to the “facts” of the case but rather is a matter of interpretation in terms of which any adequacy to those “facts” might be assessed.

In any case, The Schoolboy must refine his question(s).

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

Good evening again from Montreal!

Just a few words by way of answer to The Schoolboy who, unsuprisingly, has missed the entire meaning of my previous comments. He offers a couple of old clichés relating to the re-writing or editing of historical events and seems to assume that this is what I was talking about. But this was never my point which was – I hope the Schoolboy is sitting down – philosophical and not narrowly historical! (In any case, in any adequate historical account, the two cannot be separated.)

I divided the schools of historical interpretation into the “Modernists” and the “Traditionalists” and attempted to give a general picture of the distinction between the two. Let’s review the Modernist position – the one who claims that there is “no God’s eye” view of the past and so it is perfectly acceptable to interpret history from the current context of the historian who writes it. (So “slave” might be a perfectly acceptable substitute for the offensive “nigger” from her point of view.) But the philosophical roots of the Modernists go deeper than that. The Modernist is a relativist, in this case meaning that history is written, not from the perspective of the victors as The Schoolboy suggests but rather from the intellectual “climate” of the age. Currently, that climate is called “constructivism,” meaning that all of us are “constructed” by our social (political, intellectual, artistic, etc.) environment. We are constructed “all the way down.” In other words, there is no pre-experiential “self” which subsists apart from those conditioning forces. However, for the constructivist to say “Everything is constructed” entails a (performative) contradiction since the assertion itself is not constructed. Rather it is a universal, applicable to all, everywhere, and at all times. So the constructivist, and by extension the Modernist” viewpoint collapses.

What I have called the “Traditionalist” rejects the relativism of the Modernist (constructivist) since it descends into an empty meaninglessness. (“You’re right if you think you are.”) The Traditionalist maintains that there IS such a thing as historical Truth (capital “T”) and consequently a correct interpretation of past events. Where the Modernist collapses into a relativistic constructionism however, the Traditionalist invokes an absolutist and unknowable “transcendentalism.” There’s historical Truth out there, but it exists independently of any particular historical account. Where Modernism collapses into an empty relativism, Traditiinalism collapses into an absolute and ulimtately mystical transcendent reality. (My God, I should be charging for this!)

Yes, of course I am familiar with E.H. Carr – in fact what I have said here about the nature of history (interpretation, not simply “facts” or events and so on) reflects a “Carrian” persprective. But please, Schoolboy, no E.H. Carr quiz!

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!