Epistemological Questions: No Man is an Island
"To postulate individual genius as the creative force in History is characteristic of the primitive stages of human consciousness."
-E. Carr
Imagine for a moment a person, male or female, born outside of society, completely void of any interaction with the world as we know it. Not simply is this person living on the fringes of our world, like Mowgli from The Jungle Book or Tarzan of the Apes, but rather they have lived their life completely separated from anything or anyone: alone.
Can you see this person? What does he or she look like? What clothes are they wearing? Do they have any clothes? What language do they speak? Where would they have been exposed to it? What beliefs or thoughts do they have? Where would they have learned them?
In such a predicament, which is obviously impossible in reality, this person would be unrecognizable. Void of all the things that make up what we all are, our imaginary friend would be a blank slate. They would have nothing to draw upon. They would have no language, culture, customs, or thoughts. They would be completely dumb to the world.
The reason for this rather odd illustration is to illuminate a couple of points. In our study of history, one of the major errors in our focus on biography is the fact that no man (or woman) is an island. The idea that we sometimes focus on people as if actors upon a stage is misleading to the students of history and reveals an intellectual laziness when it comes to a real understanding of the forces involved in History.
History is made up of players, but just as one's own thoughts, beliefs, and actions are a product of our own paradigm, so are those of the major figures in history. It is easier to focus on individuals in history as heroes or monsters to both simplify the causes of history and to divert attention and responsibility from the society that produced them, however it skews the focus from a person who is riding the tide of the forces around them to a person in complete control of their actions and thoughts.
Running the risk of sounding apologetic, we don't need to paint our historical figures in such positive or negative lights. We inevitably get into the question of free will vs. determinism, but one can easily agree that such historical figures shouldn't be given the credit afforded to them as single figures standing alone, outside of the society they preside in. To paint Hitler as simply a monster or Napoleon as the savior of France, or Lincoln as the Great Emancipator is to neglect the truer reality of the situation.
The logical question that follows from such a discussion is, then, why do we do this? Why do we simplify a more complex truth? And if this version of History is flawed how can we approach it in a more responsible, truthful manner?
To be sure the lot of Biography today is fully aware of such societal factors. The fact that Hitler grew up a Catholic, was taught the stories of the Bible, and that German people had a long history of antisemitism is well known, the fact that Napoleon was a product of the French Revolution, of Voltaire and Diderot, and rose through the ranks based not only on talent, but in a new ideal of individual accomplishment is clear enough, the fact that Lincoln was able to harness the political will of his day is a credit to his leadership, but the fact that he freed the slaves for political reasons, however difficult the decision may have been, lends itself to the situation of the country he oversaw. But even though historical scholarship is light years ahead of the Big Man version of history, more often than not the way we are taught history in schools neglects the whole story; the way we view historical figures is not as components of society, but rather figures outside of history. This is where education needs to catch up with scholarship.
Biography is a great tool. It allows us to delve deep into the lives of people from our past and present. It allows us to learn about their lives and the stories that make up their experience. But in using this great tool, we must first be aware and cognizant of the bigger picture, the whole story. We must be aware not only of the historical figures themselves, but also the world that shaped that persons thoughts, beliefs, and actions. To do otherwise would be putting that person on an island.
-E. Carr
Imagine for a moment a person, male or female, born outside of society, completely void of any interaction with the world as we know it. Not simply is this person living on the fringes of our world, like Mowgli from The Jungle Book or Tarzan of the Apes, but rather they have lived their life completely separated from anything or anyone: alone.
Can you see this person? What does he or she look like? What clothes are they wearing? Do they have any clothes? What language do they speak? Where would they have been exposed to it? What beliefs or thoughts do they have? Where would they have learned them?
In such a predicament, which is obviously impossible in reality, this person would be unrecognizable. Void of all the things that make up what we all are, our imaginary friend would be a blank slate. They would have nothing to draw upon. They would have no language, culture, customs, or thoughts. They would be completely dumb to the world.
The reason for this rather odd illustration is to illuminate a couple of points. In our study of history, one of the major errors in our focus on biography is the fact that no man (or woman) is an island. The idea that we sometimes focus on people as if actors upon a stage is misleading to the students of history and reveals an intellectual laziness when it comes to a real understanding of the forces involved in History.
History is made up of players, but just as one's own thoughts, beliefs, and actions are a product of our own paradigm, so are those of the major figures in history. It is easier to focus on individuals in history as heroes or monsters to both simplify the causes of history and to divert attention and responsibility from the society that produced them, however it skews the focus from a person who is riding the tide of the forces around them to a person in complete control of their actions and thoughts.
Running the risk of sounding apologetic, we don't need to paint our historical figures in such positive or negative lights. We inevitably get into the question of free will vs. determinism, but one can easily agree that such historical figures shouldn't be given the credit afforded to them as single figures standing alone, outside of the society they preside in. To paint Hitler as simply a monster or Napoleon as the savior of France, or Lincoln as the Great Emancipator is to neglect the truer reality of the situation.
The logical question that follows from such a discussion is, then, why do we do this? Why do we simplify a more complex truth? And if this version of History is flawed how can we approach it in a more responsible, truthful manner?
To be sure the lot of Biography today is fully aware of such societal factors. The fact that Hitler grew up a Catholic, was taught the stories of the Bible, and that German people had a long history of antisemitism is well known, the fact that Napoleon was a product of the French Revolution, of Voltaire and Diderot, and rose through the ranks based not only on talent, but in a new ideal of individual accomplishment is clear enough, the fact that Lincoln was able to harness the political will of his day is a credit to his leadership, but the fact that he freed the slaves for political reasons, however difficult the decision may have been, lends itself to the situation of the country he oversaw. But even though historical scholarship is light years ahead of the Big Man version of history, more often than not the way we are taught history in schools neglects the whole story; the way we view historical figures is not as components of society, but rather figures outside of history. This is where education needs to catch up with scholarship.
Biography is a great tool. It allows us to delve deep into the lives of people from our past and present. It allows us to learn about their lives and the stories that make up their experience. But in using this great tool, we must first be aware and cognizant of the bigger picture, the whole story. We must be aware not only of the historical figures themselves, but also the world that shaped that persons thoughts, beliefs, and actions. To do otherwise would be putting that person on an island.
Comments