Objections to historical theory

A scientific theory of history

The following table shows some common objections to the idea of a theory of history, and the responses to them.

There have been theories of history, e.g. Marxism, but they have failed in their aims.

It is true that many socio-historical theories have been very disappointing. However, this is no reason to give up the endeavour. The truth is that many sociologists who have tried to develop formal theories have not been very good scientists--being intellectually unrigorous and causing more confusion than clarity. Meanwhile, when scientists have turned their hands to social theory, they have often had a superficial understanding of what needs to be explained. For example, sociobiologists are happy to speak of war as a product of human 'aggression', but historians know that this does not even begin to deal with the rich complexities of the phenomenon of war. Finding formal social theories is likely to be very difficult, and that is why so little progress has been made, but we need to keep trying.

Societies are all different; you cannot make generalisations

There are many examples of resemblances between societies, if you look at the right level of abstraction. For example, all foraging people have similar institutions. The question of whether generalisation leads to any useful results needs to be determined by the success of the endeavour and not by a priori reasoning. Historians and sociologists who object to generalisation actually generalise all the time. For example, if it is said that a ruler was deposed for oppressing the people, this assumes the general principle that ruler who oppress the people are likely to be deposed.

History is the study of special cases and does not seek to make laws like science

This is related to the preceding objection. It may well be that historians prefer to study particular cases rather than seek general laws. However, it is not the subject matter that determines this preference. It is a matter of choice. The orbits of the planets, say, are all different and might be studied each in its own right. However, natural scientists began to make progress when they sorted out the features that were common to all planetary orbits, neglecting the specific differences.

In history, you cannot do experiments as in science

There are many sciences that cannot do experiments--cosmology, geology, evolutionary biology. A science does not have to do experiments. It can check its theories against the data that the world happens to supply. The important thing is to do the check.

History is a sequence of random events and so it is impossible to make predictions as in science

Prediction in science is misunderstood. Physics is a predictive science, but the role of physicists is not to forecast real world events. Prediction in science means being able to say that given certain specific circumstances, certain consequences will follow. In the natural world, there are also random events but scientists deal with them by ignoring what is random and looking for what is constant. For example, the way that smoke rises from a cigarette is random, with eddies and whorls playing themselves out in a highly unpredictable way. Yet, at a suitable level of abstraction, all streams of smoke look essentially the same. In science, the aim is to find the invariant properties of a situation--such as the total energy--even if you cannot forecast the detailed behaviour. The same can be true in the study of human societies. We can find invariant properties--such as that strong rule is required for peace and order. Armed with these invariants we can have some knowledge of the future, even if we cannot forecast how particular societies will evolve in detail.

History is all about individual personalities who cannot be subject to abstract laws

Many arguments about the capriciousness of history say things like "If Napoleon had not been the particular man he was, the course of history would have been entirely different". The truth is that no one knows what would have happened if Napoleon had been different. Perhaps he would not have got into that position at all, and someone else would have, with 'Napoleonic' characteristics. It seems likely that the times select the individual. The phenomenon of independent simultaneous invention shows that there is no shortage of heroic individuals. Great people only have the impact they do because they capture the spirit of the age. No one person can really shape the destiny of humanity acting alone. The lesser souls, the anonymous figures of history, are no mere bystanders. They play a vital role in following one individual rather than another. When there is a great message to be communicated, there needs to be a transmitter, but if anything is to get through the receivers need to be tuned to the right channel. The trouble is that it is simply easier to remember that Columbus discovered America than to grasp the complex trends whereby Europeans were pressing out into the wider world. We should not mistake nursery tales for true accounts of historical processes.

Back

There have been theories of history, e.g. Marxism, but they have failed in their aims.	It is true that many socio-historical theories have been very disappointing. However, this is no reason to give up the endeavour. The truth is that many sociologists who have tried to develop formal theories have not been very good scientists--being intellectually unrigorous and causing more confusion than clarity. Meanwhile, when scientists have turned their hands to social theory, they have often had a superficial understanding of what needs to be explained. For example, sociobiologists are happy to speak of war as a product of human 'aggression', but historians know that this does not even begin to deal with the rich complexities of the phenomenon of war. Finding formal social theories is likely to be very difficult, and that is why so little progress has been made, but we need to keep trying.
Societies are all different; you cannot make generalisations	There are many examples of resemblances between societies, if you look at the right level of abstraction. For example, all foraging people have similar institutions. The question of whether generalisation leads to any useful results needs to be determined by the success of the endeavour and not by a priori reasoning. Historians and sociologists who object to generalisation actually generalise all the time. For example, if it is said that a ruler was deposed for oppressing the people, this assumes the general principle that ruler who oppress the people are likely to be deposed.
History is the study of special cases and does not seek to make laws like science	This is related to the preceding objection. It may well be that historians prefer to study particular cases rather than seek general laws. However, it is not the subject matter that determines this preference. It is a matter of choice. The orbits of the planets, say, are all different and might be studied each in its own right. However, natural scientists began to make progress when they sorted out the features that were common to all planetary orbits, neglecting the specific differences.
In history, you cannot do experiments as in science	There are many sciences that cannot do experiments--cosmology, geology, evolutionary biology. A science does not have to do experiments. It can check its theories against the data that the world happens to supply. The important thing is to do the check.
History is a sequence of random events and so it is impossible to make predictions as in science	Prediction in science is misunderstood. Physics is a predictive science, but the role of physicists is not to forecast real world events. Prediction in science means being able to say that given certain specific circumstances, certain consequences will follow. In the natural world, there are also random events but scientists deal with them by ignoring what is random and looking for what is constant. For example, the way that smoke rises from a cigarette is random, with eddies and whorls playing themselves out in a highly unpredictable way. Yet, at a suitable level of abstraction, all streams of smoke look essentially the same. In science, the aim is to find the invariant properties of a situation--such as the total energy--even if you cannot forecast the detailed behaviour. The same can be true in the study of human societies. We can find invariant properties--such as that strong rule is required for peace and order. Armed with these invariants we can have some knowledge of the future, even if we cannot forecast how particular societies will evolve in detail.
History is all about individual personalities who cannot be subject to abstract laws	Many arguments about the capriciousness of history say things like "If Napoleon had not been the particular man he was, the course of history would have been entirely different". The truth is that no one knows what would have happened if Napoleon had been different. Perhaps he would not have got into that position at all, and someone else would have, with 'Napoleonic' characteristics. It seems likely that the times select the individual. The phenomenon of independent simultaneous invention shows that there is no shortage of heroic individuals. Great people only have the impact they do because they capture the spirit of the age. No one person can really shape the destiny of humanity acting alone. The lesser souls, the anonymous figures of history, are no mere bystanders. They play a vital role in following one individual rather than another. When there is a great message to be communicated, there needs to be a transmitter, but if anything is to get through the receivers need to be tuned to the right channel. The trouble is that it is simply easier to remember that Columbus discovered America than to grasp the complex trends whereby Europeans were pressing out into the wider world. We should not mistake nursery tales for true accounts of historical processes.