Historisk tidskrift 125:2 • 2005
Innehåll (Contents) 2005:2
Uppsatser (Articles)
Historia som vetskap
Göran B Nilsson
Fulltext (pdf)
History as Knowledge. The Historian is not Able to Become
a Scientist but Well Capable to Produce Better Knowledge
The article develops the program for a ”partly new” theory of
history, which I outlined in my contribution ”History as an artificial
science”, for the anthology Artifacts and artificial Science.
A fundamental starting point is the seemingly trivial observation
that ”the past extends all the way to the present,” i. e. to
the interface between the past and the future. Interesting complications
arise if one connects this statement to the equally trivial claim
that ”the historian’s task is to describe the past.” For from
this follows that all people are every-day historians, unceasingly
writing what I have called ongoing history (O-history). This
in contrast to those people who call themselves historians –
amateur historians or professional historians – and who produce
what I have called conventional history (or C-history). Or is
there really a theoretical difference?
As I demonstrate in the
article the answer is no, even if the ongoing history writing
usually is of a short-term and forecast oriented nature and based
on direct observation of the so-called reality – which in fact
cannot avoid being a social – though a remarkably stable – construction.
I have not been able to discern any distinct limit in time. And
even in the ongoing history writing complete professions can
be found, whose principled situation is the same as that of the
conventional historian, i. e. they are dependent on indirect
observation of past events and processes. To this group belongs
physicians, lawyers and not least journalists, the last of whom
are especially emphasized in the article, since they are often
engaged in political history writing, which I have programmatically
emphasized as a central task for conventional history writing
too.
From the thesis that the same rules of method ought to be
normative both in ongoing history writing (O-history) and in
conventional history (C-history), the use of the concepts of
truth, common sense and source criticism are investigated in
the two genres. From this it is clear that the theoretical relativist
of knowledge is in trouble if he applies his tenets in the ongoing
history writing – incidentally a corresponding demonstration
could be conducted with regard to the presently extinct arch
positivist. Inversely, it is demonstrated how the ambitious,
conventional history writer in say 50 years would stand helpless
before the task of structuring, describing, analyzing and explaining
the entire complex reality, which is right now subjected to the
ongoing history writing of six and a half billion people.
Consequently,
the author’s advice to the conventional historian is that she
ought to reduce her high scientific ambitions and be content
primarily with improving the already existing, ongoing history
writing. There are several good opportunities here, which are
thoroughly discussed in the article. In her aspiration to give
her enterprise badly needed relevance to social and individual
practice the historian may nevertheless never refrain from using
objectifying methods. Among these source criticism assumes a
prominent place since its principles claim to be universal, i.
e. valid for all source producers in all places and times.
|
|