-->
History, although often
considered a human science outside of the IB, is, in the Theory of Knowledge curriculum,
isolated from the other human sciences due to perceived methodological
differences in the reaching of their respective conclusions. However, are the
results obtained utilizing these two Areas of Knowledge really different,
meaning that methodology is inherently representative of purpose? This
statement would say yes, that using History one can only reach conclusions that
aid understanding of the past while with the help of the human sciences (such
as Psychology, Sociology, Political Science, and Economics) one can reach
conclusions that have the potential to fundamentally alter the decisions we
continue to shape the world around us.
Even
the language used to label the two AoKs seems to be suggestive of their
credibility as tools to shape the future. While the human sciences has the word
"science" in it, History has the word "story", already
insinuating that historical findings are far more subjective than those of the
Human Scientist. Leopold Van Ranke attempted to eliminate this historical
subjectivity, claiming that the study of history should include no elaboration
or interpretation of facts. He said that people "have reckoned that
history ought to judge the past and to instruct the contemporary world as to
the future" when it should "merely tell how it really was." However
Von Ranke was not a completely objective historian, as he was biased in the
materials he had access to. He did not speak Swahili so he could not write a
history of Swaziland, and, in addition, he had to choose which facts he found
significant enough to write. In this ranking of importance there is certainly a
degree of interpretation of facts. One could even say that objectivity is
impossible in the study of history. But that does not mean history is not
useful to us today.
I
would say that history is not only focused on past events, it is a study of how
we should do things differently now because of what we have seen happen in the
past. George Orwell said: “the most effective way to destroy people is to deny and
obliterate their own understanding of their history.” History shapes the people we interact with
today. Being a product of international schooling in Moscow, Russia
and Munich, Germany, I have found this to be particularly truthful. An
understanding of history is vital in understanding and interacting with my
friends from all over the world. My German friends, for example, although born
long after the collapse of Nazi Germany, still feel as if they cannot be truly
proud of being German because of their country's past sins. It is a weight that
is always with them, and thus I attempt to avoid the subject. On the other
hand, my good Israeli friend, although she too was born long after the
Holocaust, refuses to step foot in Germany and criticizes me heavily for living
here, saying that I am receiving a "Nazi education." Knowing her
people's history, I try not to take it too personally. Around my friends from
former Soviet bloc states like the Czech Republic and Hungary, I cannot say
anything positive about my experiences in Russia without certain backlash. Thus,
personally, I turn to history to help me understand my present and determine my
future actions.
But
what about the disastrous historical events that we still have problems
understanding today? How are we supposed to use history as a tool to change our
present when the causation and correlation of certain historical events are
under debate? For instance, as an IB History student I am expected to be able
to explain what caused the First World War, a question that historians have
been arguing about for nearly a century. This haunting uncertainty makes the
topic difficult for a student like myself, but makes it even more difficult to
prevent a present situation similar to the one that that spurred such violence
in 1914. Put simply, without understanding of cause it is nearly impossible to
use history as a tool to change the present and future.
However, one could say
that although both history and the human sciences can help shape the future, it
is a much simpler process to use human sciences to do so because its results
are considered to be more certain. The human science psychology, for instance,
is used in the production of US political ads in order to sway voters in their
choice of future president. Obama's campaign even hired a team of psychologists
in order to make the language in his ads prompt certain emotions in the
viewers, particularly those of being comfortable
yet empowered. In addition, those who knocked on doors on the campaign's behalf
had very specific scripts that were designed by the psychologists to appeal to
the human desire to conform to the societal "norm." These tactics
remind me of something head of Nazi propaganda Joseph Goebbels
once said, that "it would not be
impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological
understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle." The
human sciences, according to these politicians, wield great power. One might
even say the human sciences can influence and at times completely change
people's beliefs, especially in politics, the arena in which it could be said
the most world-changing decisions are made.
But should we make such attempts to
change the world with the human sciences when, actually, many of its
conclusions are uncertain? While the so-called "hard" sciences such
as physics, chemistry, and biology are widely believed to consist of absolute
and provable facts, the conclusions of the "soft" human sciences are
often considered highly speculative. And even conclusions that are portrayed as
certain are at times disastrously wrong. For instance, in the 1950s and 60s the
so-called "refrigerator mother" theory was widely accepted by
psychologists as the cause for autism. The refrigerator mother theory claimed
that lack of love and warmth in mothers caused autism-spectrum disorders in
their children. Consequently, it became common to take autistic children away
from their mothers and put them in institutions. As one of my sisters has been
diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, this theory could have very well changed the
course of my life for the worse if the theory had not fallen out of favor. Ergo,
when simplistic and inaccurate conclusions are drawn in the human sciences that
do not suit the very complex nature of the human mind, and are used to shape
policy, the results can be catastrophic.
Thus, it appears
that the heart of the perceived divide between history and the human sciences
is methodology rather than their potential usefulness. When History was created
as a subject in schools there was debate as to whether it should be considered
an art or a science. Whiggish University of History determined that history was
an art as it was considered to be a "continual path of progress." Historians can
openly recognize and even revel in history's subjectivity. There is no one
right way to interpret history and apply it to the present. In
the human sciences, on the other hand, there is said to be a threshold of
credulity, a certain amount of people are required to answer a survey, an
experiment needs to be repeated a certain amount of times, etc. This threshold
and necessity of repeatability exists in order to make certain that the results
obtained are objective and thus applicable universally. In this manner the
human sciences attempt to mimic the natural sciences but fail because,
ultimately, both history and the human sciences are attempts to understand the
human psyche, and with humans I would say nothing is simple, certain, or
scientific in the least. I would claim that, when it comes down to it, both
subjects are subjective; the human sciences are just more reluctant to admit
it. But this subjectivity does not mean the subjects are less integral to
understanding the past, present, and future. It only means that history and the
human sciences are tools that must be used wisely and cautiously in the shaping
of our world.
Works
Cited
"George Orwell (1903-1950)." BBC News. BBC, Web. 5 Jan.
2014.
"Leopold Von Ranke." Age of the Sage. Web. 7 Jan.
2014.
Macmillan, Margaret. "The Great War's Ominous
Echoes." The New York
Times. The New York Times
Company, 13 Dec. 2013. Web. 7 Jan. 2014.
"Propaganda
in Nazi Germany." History Learning Site. Web. 05 Jan. 2014.
Riggio, Ronald E., Ph.D. "The Obama Campaign’s Secret
Weapon: Psychologists."Psychology Today. Sussex Directories, Inc., 13 Nov. 2012. Web. 7 Jan. 2014.
Simpson, David E. "History of Autism Blame." PBS. PBS, 16 July 2002. Web. 06
Jan. 2014.
"The Whig Tradition." University of Cambridge.
University of Cambridge. Web. 07 Jan. 2014.
