Historiography

Manipulating history to serve ideology creates what it seeks to avoid

At the beginning of my graduate work in history was a required class in historiography — a history of history, if you will. Its primary function was to instill the professional standards of historians, to understand the fundamental principles of the historical process and to apply the standards of determining historical truth versus historical fiction. The basics include gathering all available evidence, sorting it for relevance and discarding what isn’t, and then synthesizing conclusions from what remains. For a pragmatist, this search for historical truth is compelling.

I should note three corollaries regarding the work of historians. First is that it matters most what those who were alive at a given time believed was happening. That is, what their “truths” were in the moment. Second is that it typically requires 50 years or more before one can accurately assess the who, what, where, when, why and consequences, and the context of these. Third is that the work of subsequent historians will often result in revisionary interpretations. Throughout all of this, the use of factual information remains unchanged even if the conclusions vary in different ways.

In other words, for historians, the process can result in more than one interpretation. The facts are not changed, but the meaning and results of them are open to differing perspectives. For example, I had one fascinating textbook about the origins of the civil war in which each chapter was written by a different historian laying out his or her evidence and rationale for causation of the war. There were a dozen chapters, each of which made a compelling case. The overriding theme was not that some historians were correct and some were not, but rather how there were multiple factors resulting in this conflict and they were typically interrelated.

Unfortunately, history has also been used to manipulate and deceive, to rewrite the past and to serve agendas by those who do not want history as truth. This is not the work of historians but of others in legislatures and on school boards. Emphasis, omission and selective phrasing are common ways to manipulate what students learn about the history of their country, leaving out much in order to create a mythology that serves the ideological desires of those in authority. Current examples range from China at a national level (to preserve social order) to state legislatures and local school boards in the U.S. in which conservatives seek to emphasize their values and alter context. Objective history is traded for subjective history.

For the ideologically motivated, subjective history is justified by their goals. For the pragmatic and seekers of objective truth (and thus context as well), such goals are misguided at best. More often, they sow the seeds of distrust that will actually undermine those goals while creating the very dissension ideologists loath. Besides, with the easy availability of more objective truth in print and online, pretending it doesn’t exist is foolish and futile.

So, what is the pragmatic value of history? It’s been said that those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it, but despite the seeming wisdom in this observation, the reality is that knowing what in the past applies to here and now is not all that obvious. And it requires critical thinking because similarities may be superficial — and the differences may matter more. The lessons from the Vietnam War, for example, are many, but not directly applicable to conflicts in a different century with their own global realities. History more often repeats itself simply because the vagaries of human nature are consistent. “Wisdom” from the past may actually become a liability when misinterpreted and misapplied.

Conservatives look to the past for values and traditions, moderates-liberals seek solutions to issues with roots in the past that have meaning now. The former want to reinforce that past by tweaking the emphasis of history, whereas the latter want to broaden the scope of history to include that which conservatives prefer to minimize. Obviously these divergent approaches to history reflect fundamental differences in political viewpoints. And, yes, historians may also range along a spectrum of viewpoints, but most also want to adhere to historiographic best practices, bringing relative neutrality to their work. The true value of history can only be found in its truth (despite sometimes multiple interpretations of that truth).

Using history to instill appreciation for, say, patriotism, capitalism and American exceptionalism is a crooked path that seeks to avoid the historical dissension, negative realities and shortcomings that are also part of human history. This results in disinformed, distorted historical mythologies that lead to nationalism, denial of issues and hostility to other points of view. Selective history obviously doesn’t actually change the past, but those who participate in this behavior join the legions of dictators, tyrants, zealots and ideologues who have always depended on historical and intellectual dishonesty to maintain control and promote their ideology.

The histories of the universe, our planet and human existence all have much to tell us if we pay attention to them. Pretending they aren’t what they really are is foolish in many ways, if only because such denial makes the future appear to be something it’s not going to be. In attempting to make the world a better place, one has to know how we came to be where we are now…and why. Historical truth will serve us well, whereas selective history will do quite the opposite.