History and Theory: Why do we study history?

[Duptar]

I am currently reading a book titled “Theory and History” by Ludwig von Mises, an economists know for creating the Austrian school of thought. The book can be found here:http://mises.org/books/theoryhistory.pdf.


To Mises, the two lenses to viewing history are the individual and his ideas. Every historical event traces back to the roles and actions of the individual, specifically that “man had an idea”. If we ask why Hitler invaded Poland, the furthest we can reduce (i.e. simplify) our understanding to is that “because it was Hitler”. Through their actions, the course of events is determined and the circumstances that future generations face are partly shaped. Viewing history through groups of individual would be an oversimplification because,in the end, only individuals can think and act.


Ideas are important because they have the longest lasting impact. Ideas survive because they improve the human condition.


Through these two lenses, Mises draws a few conclusions about the usefulness of historical study. First, since history is made up of multiple individuals, facts can't be established (like they are in a science).Historians borrow their inferences from modes of human action, and according to Mises economics is the field that best adduces these modes of human action. Since history can't provide facts, they must rely on theory for interpretation. The only knowledge we can derive from history is the differences between events and the effects that historical events can have.


Mises also believes history is not capable of predicting the future. In fact, history can't be used to comment on current policies. History may be used to make predictions based on the past, but conditions are always changing. Circumstances have never been constant, and if they ever have been then historians would not be able to distinguish between historical events. On the history's prediction power, Mises cites his own book, Planning for Freedom pages 163 to 169.


Mises's writings bring a few questions to mind:

1. Why do we study history?
2. Does history provide us with little knowledge as Mises insists?
3. How should we study history? Through the individual? Other methods?
4. Does history rely too much on theory? Can it develop its own analytical framework?

[hellheaven1987]

Why do we study history?

To analyze past experience for various purposes.

Does history provide us with little knowledge as Mises insists?

It provides as much knowledge as economy does, Mises would know what I mean since he is an economist.

How should we study history? Through the individual? Other methods?

Through observation.

[kentuckybandit]

I study history to find the stories of those who lived it. I feel that those who came before us did great things, and their story is worth the telling. I am a big believer in telling things as they were, what actually happened more often than not makes a better story than Hollywood. So perhaps it is out of some kind of societal respect for those who came before us? On the dispassionate side of things, yes, history does not predict the future. But it does show us trends of human nature and human capacity for good and evil. We can use that framework to then plug in to our modern sets of variables and predict outcomes.

[Condottiere 40K]

History affects culture and current policy.

The CCP bases it's legitimization and current expansion on four thousand years of recognized history.

[hellheaven1987]

The CCP bases it's legitimization and current expansion on four thousand years of recognized history.

Which is exactly why CCP has no legitimacy.

[Condottiere 40K]

And Putin on what he perceives as his historical right assimilating the Ukraine into the successor state of the Soviet Union, which was the successor state of the Russian Empire.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

To Mises, the two lenses to viewing history are the individual and his ideas. Every historical event traces back to the roles and actions of the individual, specifically that “man had an idea”.

Classic Classical Liberal analysis. This is one of the guy's who inspired Neo-Liberalism, so taking the individual as a starting point is unsuprising.

Through these two lenses, Mises draws a few conclusions about the usefulness of historical study. First, since history is made up of multiple individuals, facts can't be established (like they are in a science).Historians borrow their inferences from modes of human action, and according to Mises economics is the field that best adduces these modes of human action. Since history can't provide facts, they must rely on theory for interpretation. The only knowledge we can derive from history is the differences between events and the effects that historical events can have.

Not sure about this, I think facts can be established in history, interpretations will take a spin on these facts I admit, but we know with as much confidence as we know evolution to be a fact that the Normans invaded England in 1066. The Why? Can be left to interpretation - but the fact it happened remains.

Mises also believes history is not capable of predicting the future. In fact, history can't be used to comment on current policies. History may be used to make predictions based on the past, but conditions are always changing. Circumstances have never been constant, and if they ever have been then historians would not be able to distinguish between historical events. On the history's prediction power, Mises cites his own book, Planning for Freedom pages 163 to 169.

I think we can make broad predictions on what is likley to happen given that we know the shape of history before, the specifics are harder, but broad claims - e.g. there will be another war - can be made.

Why do we study history?

"Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it" is the standard response, I would say because we can outline trends in history - to see what should be done next.

Does history provide us with little knowledge as Mises insists?

No, if we look at society in a broader way then simply individuals, who themselves are influenced by society we can see it has changed - the Why? provides answers as to Why? things change, useful for the future. We can also seek out trends, and use these as predictive methods.

How should we study history? Through the individual? Other methods?

We should look at it through the sum of interelations within society, look at how things such as social hierachy, supply and distribution, divison of labour etc. change over time, thus we can then gain the predictive methods for the future.

Does history rely too much on theory? Can it develop its own analytical framework?

There are some pre-existing schools of history with attached analytical frameworks, the most obvious being the Marxist School, and the Annales School, there is also the Whig interpretation, but that too me seems too simplistic. The Marxist and Annales schools have been responsible for important discoveries in history - Christopher Hill's work on the English Civil War etc. was a fresh and workable interpretation, as was Lefebvre's work on the French Revolution. The Annales school provided many fresh takes on Medieval society. So theory, if based on a sound workable base, is essential to history I would say, it provides the framework and thus the appropriate way to set it out.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

So that I can control the future.

[Condottiere 40K]

Psychohistory depends on the idea that, while one cannot foresee the actions of a particular individual, the laws of statistics as applied to large groups of people could predict the general flow of future events. Asimov used the analogy of a gas: an observer has great difficulty in predicting the motion of a single molecule in a gas, but can predict the mass action of the gas to a high level of accuracy. (Physicists know this as the Kinetic theory.) Asimov applied this concept to the population of his fictional Galactic Empire, which numbered a quintillion. The character responsible for the science's creation, Hari Seldon, established two axioms:

• that the population whose behaviour was modeled should be sufficiently large
• that the population should remain in ignorance of the results of the application of psychohistorical analyses

There is a third underlying axiom of Psychohistory, which is trivial and thus not stated by Seldon in his Plan:

• that Human Beings are the only sentient intelligence in the Galaxy.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

My purpose is to reconstruct things as detailed as they possibly can be reconstructed: e.g. the Strategikon tells us that before a battle against a large army, the general should put his soldiers so they cannot see over the hill, and only move them uphill when the enemy is about a mile off, so that they will not be disheartened. As such, I can use this as part of my reconstruction of the Battle of the Catalaunian plains, as Aetius was a brilliant general and would have known to do this, as well as the fact that we know the battle started at the bottom of the ridge running between the armies.

I also like to find cause and effect in things. Like the Battle of Chalons had massive implications on the beginnings of Frankish dominated Gaul, and Aetius' death caused the next 22 years of squabbling that accelerated the empire's demise that had begun with the loss of Africa in 439.

[Duptar]

I've read a little more of Mises, particularly his chapter Meaning and Use of the Study of History and the chapter on Absolute Values. He then describes what historians do that is different from the natural sciences. Mises believes the main job of a historian should be to aim for a new perspective (which ties in with his view that ideas are a lens). Through new perspectives, they contribute to historical change and help to further distinguish between historical ages.

Mises continues to give positive and negative feedback on historians. From a positive side, history helps to understand situations but also helps to understand human nature. It also creates a willingness to learn and an assimilation of ideas (the "Barbarians" who conquered the Romans were in awe at Western Civilization's achievements and liked to use history as a guide). The negative feedback is that historians err when clinging to neomercantilist theories of economics. Historians need to know social and economic conditions since they rely on theory for interpretations. Yet, using neomercantilism is a bad theoretical approach because it sees history as a competition between nations for resources and critical geographical locations rather than as allies who help each other in order to survive.

Mises constructs his own view of historical evolution with this last point. In his opinion, the beginning of humanity was marked by Social Darwinism where humans competed for survival and reproductive opportunities. Yet, the transition from competition to friendly relations began when division of labor was created and expanded. As labor specialized, humans depended on one another and cooperated because there was plenty of resources to satisfy all needs and wants. Academicians misinterpret Darwin's theories because conflict only exists among different species (societies) and not among individuals of the same species (except when there are not enough resources to satisfy all needs, which would only happen in Mises's opinion when division of labor ceases to expand). Mises' evolution views come from Paul Barth Die Philosophie der Geschichte als Soziologie 4th edition pages 289-292.

The Marxist and Annales schools have been responsible for important discoveries in history - Christopher Hill's work on the English Civil War etc. was a fresh and workable interpretation, as was Lefebvre's work on the French Revolution.

Mises has a few chapters dedicated to the Marxist "philosophy of history" although I skipped the chapters due to lack of interest. I think his main issue with the Marxist philosophy is that it sees a final stage in history (establishment of labor class rule, world socialism) when history is not a study designed to look into the future, but only the past.

Psychohistory depends on the idea that, while one cannot foresee the actions of a particular individual, the laws of statistics as applied to large groups of people could predict the general flow of future events.

https://mises.org/th/chapter14.asp

Mises labels the use of fields that rely on math to create theory, history as "positivism" which he also discusses in the book but I skipped over due to lack of interest.

Anybody disagree with Mises on historical evolution and neomercantilism?

[hellheaven1987]

Academicians misinterpret Darwin's theories because conflict only exists among different species (societies) and not among individuals of the same species (except when there are not enough resources to satisfy all needs, which would only happen in Mises's opinion when division of labor ceases to expand).

Just when I thought Mises is an economist... May be Mises can explain how division of labor can magically stop sun burn out (oh wait he already died).

[Condottiere 40K]

Then you reach the point when it's cheaper to automate most of production.

Could be the end of history.

Or at least, our story.

[Cyclops]

I study history because I like stories, and I like to kid myself I have a clue.

History affects culture and current policy.

The CCP bases it's legitimization and current expansion on four thousand years of recognized history.

So that I can control the future.

History is an inquiry into what happened so people know. What do you want people to know?

The inquiry can be powered by butthurt (Thuycidides), a desire to gossip (Herodotus) or a desire to change the present and future with your version of the past (Caesar, Stalin).

The individual as a concept is highly over rated. I watched a TV show last night where Derren Brown influenced an audience into coming up with seemingly random answers and then showed them he'd written the answers down before hand and filmed how he influenced them during the show.

We are herd creatures and stories about great individuals usually serve to direct us in herd ways. To my eyes most of history is people who think differently to the majority being crushed.

Historical theory gives us "what next?" answers. If we recognise corruption in established bureacracies and the tendancy of republics toward Imperium in the history of Rome, then we approach the US hegemony with that in mind. If we take Gibbon's view of personal morality and political decline then we approach US elections with that in mind. A poassing acquaintance with the notion of the mandate of heaven and the moral man in Chinese history can inform our view of the Chinese leadership (and perhaps suggest continuity in Chinese policy), or we can take a Marxist view of the Chinese state and the transformative power of ideology.

You can follow any number of theoretical hares down different historical holes. All of them give you a story, and you can triangulate from them even if you don't think they are "true". It won't make much difference what we do, its a rare individual that changes history.

[Himster]

The philosophical and anthropological impulse to study history is clear. It gives us a wider, a fuller and more varied perception of the human condition that extends beyond what can be gleaned by solely studying contemporary culture(s).

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Mises has a few chapters dedicated to the Marxist "philosophy of history" although I skipped the chapters due to lack of interest. I think his main issue with the Marxist philosophy is that it sees a final stage in history (establishment of labor class rule, world socialism) when history is not a study designed to look into the future, but only the past.

I think the obvious counter would be that if we can glean information out of history it can have broad predicitve results. A Marxist historian looks at social relations; in the Feudal era, a conflict between the bourgeoisie and the feudal aristocracy - between the social systems of feudalism and capitalism - is identified as the cause of the great social upheavals of the 18th and 19th centuries, thus they conclude social antagonisms drive the broader movments of history. They use this interpretation of the past and apply it to a more modern setting - what conflict do we see? That between labour and capital; strikes, protests, trade unions etc. all show that the interests of labour are opposed to those of capital, thus they predict that the next broad transiton in history will be from capitalism to socialism. So their view of the future stems from their study of history.

Anybody disagree with Mises on historical evolution and neomercantilism?

I would lay a few critisms upon him, if friendly relations are supposed to characterise societies with a divison of labour how does he explain the numerous accounts of social upheaval within a society. The list of revolutions and revolts is endless, friendly tendencies seem to me to characterise neither the relations within states nor the relations between them. History to me still seems quite Machiavellian.

[dogukan]

I have not read Mises, but when I think of the context he takes on history, I reckon his epistemic stance tries to justify anti-historicism due to his issues with Marxists.
There is truth to the saying that human is what decides where history goes and things can therefore be random. Well, especially at an individual level.

However, it neglects a lot of things. While I identify myself as a Marxist, a lot of the historicism criticism comes due to "old" Marxists who had embraced a rather mechanical view of history. If we go down to the core of Marxism, that is the epistomology of a dialectical view of the world and ontology of a realist outlook, then historicist views can make more sense.
Nothing in history is inevitable by default, nor things are pre-destined to go through "scientific" -stages-. The deal is, each setting, each set of relations(which everything is essentially made of, objects and subjects included) creates an "inner logic". Therefore, lets say I am dealing with Turkish labor-capital relations, I should look into socio-economic relations within Ottoman Empire and what they have inherited from before. Then, I can outline "tendencies" within the inner logic of what exists.
Individuals can act COMPLETELY random, but most act according to values they were forged in. Therefore, future can only be read within what exists now. If I was to merge this with classical Marxists interpretations: Socialism, is not to be viewed as something that would come out of nowhere. Socialism is something that had its potential in capitalism. It was reading of capitalism that showed what socialism would be like. Socialism was never an "established" doctrine on paper, it was supposed to be derived of what exists in capitalism. At Marx's times, the dominant forces of capitalism showed a radical transition into "dictatorship" of the proleteriat. Th point is, future is NEVER static in dialectical view of the history, rather future is always changing due today changing. Today's reading can give glimpses of what future is ought to be. Essentially, ideas(things that can be "random") can also become "material" forces and shape the future. Religion, ideology...etc, all can be perceived as "material" things in this epistemic view.

[Duptar]

Then you reach the point when it's cheaper to automate most of production.

Could be the end of history.

Or at least, our story.

http://www.fee.org/library/detail/ec...alibre_link-31
https://www.libertariannews.org/2012...ployment-myth/

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

http://www.fee.org/library/detail/ec...alibre_link-31
https://www.libertariannews.org/2012...ployment-myth/

To be honest here, some non-libertarian/laissez-faire sources would greatly strengthen your argument. You know bias and all that. I think the political left hold that mechanisation is going to happen generally, and the right that new jobs will be created. But as I made clear in another thread there are some serious academic studies that say there is a threat to many jobs from mechanisation. I think we all need a more non-partisan study of the threat of mechanisation. Which if I'm honest the academic studies seem to provide - at least on the threat side of things - as for new jobs it's harder to predict, but I am a bit skeptical of claims that new jobs will always emerge I must say.