 |
| R. G. Collingwood, philosopher & historian |
As someone who became infatuated with "history" as a kid, I was often puzzled about why so many of my classmates found the subject--and history classes in particular--boring. The following quote, by one of the most profound persons to have ever written about history as a discipline and as a subject, provides a concise statement that I believe identifies the source of the problem. We (and often history teachers) don't know what history is "about" and what (rightly done) it attempts to accomplish. Professor Collingwood:
A man [sic] who was taught history badly when he was at school, and has never worked at it since, may think there is nothing in it except events and dates and places: so that wherever he can find events and dates and places, he will fancy himself in the presence of history. But anyone who has ever worked intelligently at history knows that it is never about mere events, but about actions that express the thoughts of their agents; and that the framework of dates and places is of value to the historian only because, helping to place each action in its context, it helps him to realize what the thoughts of an agent operating in that context must have been like.
R. G. Collingwood. The Principles of History: And Other Writings in Philosophy of History (pp. 61-62). Kindle Edition.
N.B. Any lawyer who prepares a case for trial engages in a quest similar to that of the historian.
3 comments:
As a fellow fan of Collingwood, I discovered this blog searching for "Man goes mad"
Thanks for those posts (and how does one get a copy of Collingwood's text?)
I thought you might like to see what I took from history as an economist which is documented here
With an application to public policy here
I sd have added to my last comment – search 'history' in the first link. (I don't expect you to be interested in my life story ;)
Nicholas Gruen: Thank you very much for your contributions. I'm terribly sorry not to have seen them earlier. I thought Blogger gave me notice of comments (and it used to), but I just discovered it hasn't been. Thus, my tardy response.
This being said, you can find "Man Goes Mad" in THE PHILOSOPHY OF ENCHANTMENT: STUDIES IN FOLKTALE, CULTURAL CRITICISM, & ANTHROPOLOGY by R.G. Collingwood, ed. by David Boucher, Wendy James, & Phillip Smallwood (2005), pp. 305-336.
Thanks also for pointing me to your post. I enjoyed reading it not only viz. you reference to Collingwood (the team & the philosopher), but also your thoughts on economics. Although I don't know of Colllingwood directing his attention to "social science" as such, or to economics as a discipline. But it seems to me that Collingwood's blunt but also cutting critique of academic psychology would apply to all social sciences, and that attempting to mix natural science methods with historical studies (as Collingwood defines them) creates real quandaries and limitations. I think you're right in that the models and "laws" of economics are "good enough," but it's presumed scientific basis and rationality are also its Achilles Heel. Well, my two-bits from the peanut gallery.
Thanks again,
Steve
Post a Comment