Earlier than Hegel, individuals have questioned the destiny and doom of humankind. However, such historical inquiries had only been taken into serious debate after the voices of those, like Hegel, began to speak. Hegel himself had conceived progress to be a universal function, controlled through divine means. This principle, later defined as the principle of ‘reason’, argued that everything, ranging from the historical timeline to the formation of planets, followed pious design created by god[2]. It is not surprising that Hegel’s ideas were inspired by the times he lived in, for 19^th century Germany was a place of significant religious thought. Despite the influence of religion over his mind, Hegel’s ideas should not be so easily refuted. What in fact is so important about Hegel’s theory is not the implication of God in progress, but the idea of progress as a structured design. It is true that Hegel argued strongly against the idea of comparing ‘reason’ to ‘nature’, but this response was only the result of his devotion to the religious fact that man was separate from beast. Despite his resistance to compare the two, Hegel had already defined progress, in a way which can only be interpreted, as a naturally occurring process. As soon as religious material is removed from his formula, there is virtually no distinction between Hegel’s concept of progress and Darwin’s theory of evolution – aside from the material that each theory concerns. Taking this into consideration, Hegel’s idea of progress as a naturally occurring function holds many truths despite the criticism it receives.

Just as E.H. Carr had stated in his work on History as Progress, I do not wish to imply that progress occurs at a fixed rate[3], for there are many examples throughout history where humanity has seen regression. I only wish to establish that progress contains a natural structure, and that it is not the random collection of events that Benjamin suggests. It was once argued that all events in history can be connected in a web. To illustrate this point, one only needs to consider the current war in Iraq. Not many consider that the true cause of the war was not only the terrorist attack of September 11^th, but also the building anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. This hatred was caused by earlier US involvement in the Gulf War, which can be linked to the Cold War. The Cold War was a direct result of World War Two, which was caused by World War One. World War One erupted due to rising tensions between European nations, which many view as a result of the industrial revolution. This list of cause-and-effect need not continue any longer to illustrate its point, but it becomes clear that virtually every event, and therefore the progress related to it, depends on events which precede them. It is this idea which I feel Hegel had wished to make when illustrating his point. By identifying progress as structured, he assigned it the beauty that it rightfully disserves.

It would be foolish to assume that Hegel was the only historian holding such a positive view of human progress. Karl Marx, often seen as an opponent of Hegel, shared Hegel’s idea of human progress as a structured process. However, for Marx, progress was defined as a struggle between classes, and not a divinely inspired blueprint. Marx argued that society had been fighting against its oppressors for freedom since the establishment of early civilization, and that it is this conflict which progresses humanity towards perfection. This idea, of course, is widely disagreed upon by those who can pin-point the numerous examples of progress not involving class struggle; yet, one cannot deny the colossal influence that it has had over human history. Particularly, Marx dealt with his idea through the struggle between the bourgeois and the proletariat within industrial England. He prophesized that, in the same way the bourgeois overthrew its feudal oppressors, the proletariat would seek similar emancipation against the bourgeois[4]. Sadly, for Marx, such revolutions happened first in Russia before erupting in England. A further example of this ‘progression through class struggle’ can be seen in earlier examples. The Roman Empire has often been seen as a great nation because of the style of government it employed. Its combination of kingship, democracy and oligarchy shaped a state which lacked the extensive class struggle encountered by its Greek predecessors. As a result, the empire progressed for over a thousand years.

As mentioned before, a third historian held the same triumphalist view of progress. Immanuel Kant, an 18^th century philosopher, established his view before either Marx or Hegel had come into the historical spotlight. In Kant’s opinion, progress was most accurately defined as humanity’s struggle towards freedom. In this way, Kant is best comparable to Marx, since both had dealt with the idea of overcoming oppression. However, Kant spoke of progress on a more general basis, and rather than speaking of it in specific terms, focused on general human behavior. He argued that in order to achieve enlightenment, society and the individual must first overcome the influence of others[5]. In this sense, Kant does not speak of freedom from enslavement in a physical sense. Although there are no shackles in which society is bound, Kant stresses that the when the ‘guardians’ dominate the thoughts of others, they can control a population through thought alone. Kant stresses, that in order for society to progress towards enlightenment, guardians must never impose absolute certainties upon thought. To illustrate what Kant meant by this, an allusion to medieval Europe is appropriate. Before the events of the Christian Reformation, medieval Europe was under the mercy of the Catholic Church. This was a religious time, where anything of suspicious was considered heresy against the church. Unfortunately, such heresy also included divergent thought. One widely known example of this was seen in the case of Galileo, where he attempted to replace the geocentric model of the solar system with his heliocentric concept. Galileo was forced by the church to retract his findings. The church was fearful that if Galileo’s findings, which contradicted biblical texts, were published, its power over the people would be diminished. In response to this situation, Kant would claim that the church acted as an obstacle for progress, wrongfully imposing their views of the geocentric model on others.  Through this example, one can see that freedom, even concerning thought, is the basis of Kant’s idea of progress.

One historian concerned with the unfair representation of women throughout history is Natalie Zemon, who argues that history is flawed in the fact that it is only recorded by men. There is little point in denying this idea, since much of history has factually been in the hands of men. What is clearly responsible for this misrepresentation of women is the lack of female power in past cultures. Sadly, in the past, women had not been treated with the same respect offered to men. Although given comfortable lives, women had been limited to mediocre jobs, little education, and housekeeping tasks. As a predictable result, not many women were given the honor of recording history, leaving its fabrication to the hands of men. What Zemon was most concerned about was not the mistreatment of women, for there have factually been powerful women in the past, but the inaccurate portrayal of women in history. She argues that learning about women from the accounts of men does not only create an inaccurate picture, but also shapes long lasting stereotypes of women at later dates. Zemon claims that modern scholars base their interpretations of women on questionable materials, such as biographies, which she feels is responsible for the bulk of historical misinterpretations.  She states that in order to paint an accurate picture of a woman’s sexual, social and household life, one must examine more reliable information[6]. However, as the dangerous loop completes, one will notice that such research material is scarce, since most women were not literate, therefore disabling them from keeping journals, logs or manifestos. As a final consequence to this injustice, it is clear that Kant’s, Hegel’s and Marx’s idea of universal history is bias when creating its idea of progress. Yet, even with such a bias, the idea of progression as structured remains intact. Just as a minor flaw in a painting does not change its message, the pattern of progress also shows the same vitality. The presence of misinterpretation and misinformation indeed makes the image of progress a murky one, but to represent progress as a shattered picture is unacceptable.