"What if?" can be one of the most leading and intriguing questions any historian can ask. For example what if Henry Viii's older brother hadn't died? would England still inevitably have become a protestant state and when might this have happened. Or, as another example, what if the USA had elected not to drop the atom bomb on Japan? would WW2 inevitably have dragged on claiming many many more lives than this act did as some like to claim?
The possibilities, the intrigue and the debates that can stem from such thinking are limitless. It even seems like a good exercise. it helps us to think laterally. It also helps us to fully understand that historical outcomes were never inevitable. There are always nebulous and complex possibilities before the actual events occur.
The question is though, how worthwhile, beyond being a curious intellectual exercise is all this? Surely the biggest glaring problem at the heart of counterfactualism is the absence of empiricism. how can one base an argument on data which may not represent the actual occurrences of the time. As soon as one proposes 'what if?' then we have moved away from the facts and it is difficult to apply any documentation or records from the time to potentially different situations to which they never related.
The point is the further away from the data one gets, the more reliant you become on speculation. Interesting and intellectually stimulating but not empirically accurate. this is not the kind of historiography an empiricist would want to pursue surely?
Another danger is that once historians postulate a hypothesis they will start applying the model of their ideas to the historical data retrospectively. Perhaps innocently applied this is still dangerous. Now we can see the application of a concept being pushed and an alternate time line created, all fabricated from the model the historian proposes. Yet how can this fit the data which shows another outcome?
I am far from asserting that we do not want to see imaginative applications brought to history. Simply that that imagination should be applied rigorously to creating a satisfying and stimulating narrative and opinion built on a basis of solid data.
Intriguing.
ReplyDeleteI agree, possibly the most important function of counter-factual history - aside from entertainment - is its capacity to keep us conscious of the effects of hindsight on our judgement.
Does it not also tempt us to apply modern standards to an age to which they do not belong? Any supposition we indulge in is naturally of our era, so cannot accurately reflect the thought processes - and thus progression of events - in the era in question. I suppose a quicker way of saying this would be that it thwarts historicism, to a certain extent.
Having said this, however, it occurs that, used carefully, supposition - although not actual counter-factual history - could be useful in encouraging us to 'get inside the heads' of the people of the era we are discussing.
But I digress. A most thought-provoking article!
Thanks for the comment Kate! One thing I would say though is that it is difficult not to subconsciously apply current standards whatever methodological approach we are using. This is a major pitfall that historians have to always be careful of.
ReplyDelete