Why Historians Play a Key Role in Providing Truthful Historic Evidence

‘David Armitage [‘Horizons of History’, History Australia 12, 1 (April, 2015), 224] argues that ‘armed with both transnational and trans temporal perspectives, historians can be guardians against parochial perspectives and endemic short-termism’. Do you agree with Armitage that i) historians can have these effects and ii) that they should take on this role?’

In recent decades, the debate about whether history should be carried out and observed at the micro or macro level has been prevalent amongst historians. Some historians, such as David Armitage, argue that history should be observed on a mass, global scale in order to provide a greater perspective in politics and governance. However, other historians, such as Allan Megill, argue that observing history on a micro level through communities and individuals, captures a more specific and greater truth and understanding of the context in which we live. This essay will argue that while looking at history through transnational and transtemporal perspectives may be useful for politics and global governance, the ultimate role of the historian should be about searching for truth amongst communities and individuals within the wider context of our history. Firstly, this essay will begin by briefly outlining Armitage’s theory and the theory surrounding ‘big’ history. Secondly, this essay will discuss why writing a universal history is near impossible and why the study of history should be about searching for truth and brining communities to life. Thirdly, this essay will then discuss the role of the historian in understanding individual roles within the wider context of history, rather than creating a generalised universal history.

Firstly, David Armitage is one historian amongst many who argue that history should be observed through transnational and transtemporal lens. Writing a universal history is seeing history in a much larger scope, observing the patterns that emerge and changing how we think about the problems we study on more conventional levels. Universal history, also known as the long duree, is history spanning across hundreds, even thousands of years, of a very long duration. For centuries, history had been more or less a practical pursuit, a guide to public life for the ruler, their advisers and citizens and to provide a life philosophy teaching by example. This had been the role of the historian until the past half century, where Armitage argues it has lost its public and future orientated mission. To look at history through transnational and transtemporal perspectives is to reject the national frame that has structured so much historical writing since it became professionalised in the last 19th century, and revolts against conventional periodisations. Looking at history in a universal perspective, Christian argues, allows individuals and communities to see themselves as part of the evolving story of an entire universe with a clearer vision of humanity as a whole. The role of the historian, according to Armitage, is to puncture this myth of international politics, that we have always existed as states and the individual is subordinate to the state, by looking at the bigger picture. Longer perspectives offered by this enlarged view of history has relevance to our current situation in political decisions. By scaling our inquiries over so many decades, centuries or even millennia, we can hope to understand the context of our present situation. Armitage argues politicians and government need the wide angle and long range views only historians can provide. Ultimately, looking at history through universal lens is important in making policy decisions and providing the large context, however, this should not be the ultimate role of the historian.

However, writing a universal history is near impossible, as even these histories hold biases and leave out certain perspectives and stories. Total history cannot be captured on a large canvas, humans should be studied in microcosm to fully capture how humanity operates. Megill argues that those who have attempted to write a universal history have ultimately failed, simply as they have biased their writing and focused on only one type of universal history, such political, religious or national. While producing a universal history would be useful, these attempts to offer prescriptions for policy and future action are based on very narrow and generalised conceptions of how human beings have and do exist in the world, when history is more complex and individualistic than general themes and patterns. Methodological disillusionment and use of scientific methods in writing history, mostly quantifiable methods, leads to the loss of emotion and individuality which makes writing history so important.

One critique of micro history is the generalisation: emphasis on the individual agency prevents them from considering the wide range of historical phenomena, applying these small scale discoveries to the wider history without context. However, the ultimate role of the historian should be existential commitment to see the past as relevant to the present and future lives, not just on a governing basis, but for communities and individuals. History would not exist without existential commitment, thus, historians should be committed to the truth and a community, already present or to be brought into existence. For example, Jardins highlights the importance of gender history in providing agency and a new identity for women in the present; women were previously marginalised in historical writing, however, by making a place for women in history it has highlighted their importance and role in society, being applicable to women today. The aim of historians should be to discover the truth and contribute to progress by transcending their own biases and prejudices in behaving like scientists to help us see the world in which we live within the large context of human history, rather than creating a generalised universal history.

Thirdly, the role of historians should be to understand individual roles within the wider context of history. Whereas universal history focuses on common themes and patterns, micro history is able to connect the dots within the larger context by focusing on individual cases. Micro history has revived the genre of historical writing as an art and thereby aiding the historical education of the general public outside the walls of academia, making history more relevant and accessible. Short term and personal histories provide greater insight into the wider context of history; whereas ‘big history’ may at times provides common trends and patterns useful in guiding government policies, the study of communities and individuals allow historians to be more specific and gain a deeper understanding of the way in which societies and time periods operate. Through highlighting the autonomy of individuals throughout history, historians have returned real men and women to the centre of the historical enterprise, highlighting the personal nature of history rather than simply focusing on quantifiable themes and patterns. Thelan argues that when peeling back the large formal institutions, large culture groups, mass media audiences and student movements, historians often discover that in each case the real source of creativity and productivity lay in the myriad of primary groups and individuals whose members took responsibility for the larger whole. Ultimately, in studying individual cases at the micro level, historians have connected the primary relationships to the larger phenomena, building a historical culture around participation. One example of micro history allowing historians to connect the dots within the larger context is through Chinese-Australian history. Bagnall argues that reconnecting Chinese Australians with their past allows them to connect not only with their heritage, but as a community. Historians focusing on Chinese-Australian families and individuals have been able to contribute to larger projects, shifting our perception of 19th century race relations in Australia. Ultimately, the study of individuals and communities, rather than focusing on ‘big history’ and universal patterns, demonstrates the connections which exist between people and landscapes which are often perceived to be fundamentally different.

In conclusion, this essay has argued that the role of the historian should be about searching for truth amongst communities and individuals within the wider context of our history, rather than creating a general, universal history. While studying and discovering general themes and patterns across time may be useful in guiding public policy and creating context for the present in which we live, biases still occur and the world is too personal, individualistic and complex to be boiled down to one general history.