Excellent work done in HIS 101

Matthew Buffett

 History has been accepted through two main traditions of documentation; original and reflective writing. Original history practices taking facts that occurred at a given time and recording the observations.[1] Reflective history is a process by which a historian studies and ‘takes the occurrence out of the category of the Past and makes it virtually Present’.[2] These uncovered events become ripe to supplement previous theories, or start a new branch of thought on the subject. What both these approaches to historical literature have in common is investigating events and exceedingly trying to unearth reasons to relate to a given period. The problem with these approaches is that it is too monotonous with what G.W.F. Hegel envisioned about history. Walter Benjamin is in sync with Hegel’s ideas of a more philosophical grasp to history, where the writer is to grasp and ideas and not just examine ‘how it really was’, but to take control of the memories and hold them open to the most critical approach to historical study.[3]

To properly understand history, one cannot just bleakly read the records, but must be able to interpret the progress of human beings. The perception of “spirit” is used by the philosophical historian to unite the interdependent concepts of freedom, reason and self-consciousness.[4] Over the course of time, these occurrences are not random, nor should any of them be considered meaningless in relation to other more important recordings. It is the idea of “spirit” that has guided and shaped the human race. Benjamin referenced Fustel de Coulanges, who stated that the historian had to remove everything he knows about the course of history from his mind in order to properly experience a certain era.[5]

The principle function that is supposed to be represented in history is that there will be progression from earlier events and ideologies. In order to progress, one has to be able to escape any conscious or subconscious beliefs that may affect how the history advances. While history will always progress, it is up to the historian to decide whether it will be positive or negative. As E.H. Carr explained, historiography is a progressive science that tries to expand its knowledge by holding a ‘constructive outlook on the past’.[6] While objectivity still is the main goal of historical accounts, it has been the overwhelming subjective dialect, combines with dominant Western beliefs that have chiefly derailed progression.

Davis’ problem with gender history was that women are subjectively portrayed in a biographical sense, leaving them without a comparison to men.[8] Although last few decades, women’s role in society has revolutionized, but writings specifying their past have not really evolved. Davis’ paper scrutinizes how other authors have failed to open up new angles of study into the more complex role of women in society. Typically, men were the centre of the household and there was little description offered to what function women’s attributes may have had in bettering the family’s social standard.[9] For instance, the study into women’s sexual activity was severely limited, especially through Jean Clark’s more moralistic approach to the feminism character, which omits notable aspects, such as prostitution.[10] It is the limit of “attitudes” towards the notion of sexual study that has made it very difficult to distinguish the difference in sexes and the patterns of society and culture.[11] The absence of sexual history in historical writings may be minor, but a better understanding of this perspective may provide a whole new approach to other aspects of feminine studies.

While outlining briefly the adversity women have faced, Mohanty's main objective was contrasting the “third world woman” lifestyle to that of the “Western” standard. Describing the “Western” woman as ‘liberal, secular and having control over their own lives’[12], implies nothing about opening up a new outlook in feminist studies. It only furthers the static understanding of women’s history and it could possibly accentuate stereotypes. For instance, Iranian women wearing veils indicating unity with other working class women is useless, because it only explains the background of the veils.[13] It is very unclear to what the veils contribute to women’s struggles, with it only visible as a comparison to other women, not towards women versus society. Mohanty and Davis’ narratives both seem to insinuate that women’s history needs a far more objective sense. Instead of women like themselves writing why there are faults in gender studies, there needs to be a better approach to having women initially providing the texts.

Women now have a larger role in society, but it is still not quite to the same extent as men. I do not believe women are inferior to men, or that they cannot execute the same duties that men are capable of, but I am merely reiterating the current values of our culture. Fully comprehending the study of women in the past requires a comparison outside their own gender instead of just issuing a biographical history. Likewise, it would be trivial to only explain the Industrial Revolution by examining the nature and efficiency of machines, rather than amplifying what advantages it boasts over the former period. Explaining why men were considered superior in certain tasks or were admired better in society provides a comparative analysis, which could lead to a more rich discussion about the adversity women have encountered.

Continuing by studying both Edward Said’s “Orientalism” and Ranajit Guha’s “The Prose of Counter-Insurgency”, it became clear how the powerful the attitudes of the West Culture have echoed through to historical analysis. Authors such as Oswald Spengler believed the “West” is not an endless, rising trend, but merely a single “phenomenon” of history.[14] Although the West has had a long grasp of power, the object of these author’s works is to regard the biased, colonial writings and try to seek out an alternative understanding. Both authors seem to try and articulate a lot of past history will be reminiscent of the aggressive, necessitated actions employed by the imperialist expansionary eras.

Orientalism was a prime example of how scholars subconsciously used a post colonial feeling to articulate historiography. Western culture has been a dominant force both in Asia and around the world, so history written quite possibly will be perceived from a misunderstood point of view. Said dubs Orientalism as a symbol of the Euro-Atlantic grasp of power over the Orient.[15] Instead of romanticizing the modern mysteries the Orient deviates, the writings have been relegated to a comparative nature between the cultures. For example, the “West” is expressed as a strong, rational, masculine culture in contrast to a ‘”weak”, feminized Orient.[16] The development and maintenance of every culture requires a competing alter-ago, so studying the Orient has become less to do with the Orient than it does with ‘our’ world.[17]

The West’s feeling of cultural and intellectual superiority allowed them to become the ‘spectator, the judge and jury of every facet of Oriental behavior’, which alienated the reality of the Orient from mainstream human development.[18] This model of the Western “discourses on the Other” has not been confined exclusively to Orientalism, but these “similar knowledge’s” are currently directed towards Islam and the Arab culture.[19]

Similar to Orientalism, the descriptions of past rebellions have also faced a comparable assault. The bias that subsisted in many historical analyses of rebel uprisings were written by authors harbouring strong commitments to colonialism.[20]  Accounts of various uprisings of earlier periods were written depicting the insurgent as one that was always in violation of the standards that have classified his subsistence within his given society.[21] Conveying a rebel’s uprising as simply “spontaneous and unprecedented” was accepted because early documents had little evidence to provide a contrary understanding.[22] Peasants of the early day though had too much at risk to impulsively initiate a revolt, so their actions would need to be carefully pondered.[23] Depictions of physical suffering, political and economic depressions are also missing from many of the accounts of rebellious periods, which may have been replaced with polished versions to render the imperialists as positive influences.[24] The oppression these rebels had faced accumulated over time, especially since there have been documented accounts of the brutalities that some colonial rulers implored upon their subjects.

The idea these articles are trying to present is that our society’s historical analyses are still submerged under colonialist principles. Whether is entails discussing the United States’ vocation to democratize nations, or the political uprisings in many nations across the world, it remains that the West’s influence diminishes one’s ability to articulate an unbiased account. The influence of West traditions has not been persistent for too long, yet have provided a significant impact upon historiography. Hopefully the cyclical nature of history that Spengler referenced will allow a different narrative of historical data to prevail, taking away some of the prevalence of West ideals.
Moving onward, the articles by Sheldon Pollock and Jan Houben elucidated the “normal” cultural and social practices dictated by Western protocols. Whether it is how one dresses, conducts their manners, or the beliefs they practice, every differing aspect of life is open to scrutiny by Western values. Although these articles offer the idea that the Indian culture is not properly understood, many of their practices are also common to Western ideals and to not acknowledge their importance would be similar to disavowing our culture.

“The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory in Indian Intellectual History” identifies the West’s view upon the problematic, Indian concept of Sastra. Sastra is a ‘verbal codification of rules, whether of divine or human provenance’[25], which has been considered a problem in understanding the Indian civilization and their intellectual history. The idea of “rules of varying strictness being accurately described by an accounting of such rules’, is nothing unexpected in any civilized society.[26] Sastra is used as a guide in everyday life and its principles are not something innate, but have to be learned. For instance, Sastra has codes on how to greet people of certain status within the Indian nation, but this is a standard practice also prevalent in Western culture. One has to be taught the values and ways of etiquette, which could refer to table manners, how to addresses women or people with a high degree of social standing.

The ideas of rituals as a means to life have also come under scrutiny by many historians. Etiquette, which is essential in order to garner respect amongst others, is a very common ritual in our culture, which is equal to any ritual celebrated in East Indian affairs. Houben’s article also addresses unfair interpretations of the relatively distinct Indian tradition, such as the unique historical writings, but more specifically towards the aspect of rituals. ‘Ritual has an excessive capacity for meaning’, which integrates many features such as conventions and social contracts.[27] Obeying traditions that have been passed down through generations in Indian culture and complying with the teachings of the Veda are highly regarded. Our lives also revolve around rituals such as partaking in violent sports, the obsession with success or material needs. It is the Indian ritual of learning that past events are irrelevant and should only be regarded as a ‘time out of time’.[28] No figures have been discussed, nor are any facts portrayed as more important. Rituals will always vary in understanding, but their persistent nature can always be extended outwards from religion and no matter which culture. Rituals can also vary in concept, which as discussed earlier, are common to our cultures. To label a certain culture as unimportant or obsolete would only relinquish the grasp through which our society formed.
It was Pollock’s article, “Mimamsa and the Problem of History in Traditional India”, which discovered the need to properly value historical beliefs. I believe that the South Asians had a great cultural understanding of history, as instead of trying to constantly compare culture based on historical study, their history was a ‘zero category’ and not being confronted ‘with any extremes’.[29] Instead of focusing on names, places and facts, concentrating on the history of the rituals and traditions practiced by these folk were far more important.

The idea of largely unique Indian culture is chiefly based on writings being absent of an Asian point of view. After reading alternative article specifying the Western dominance of the world’s cultural judgments, much of these misunderstanding can be traced back to Edward Said’s “similar assessment” of the West’s beliefs drawn from Orientalism. The development and maintenance of every culture requires the need to have a competing alter-ago, so studying the Orient, according to Said has become less to do with the Orient than it does with ‘our’ world”.[30] Sastra is easily extended beyond the Indian civilization, as our lifestyle is riddled with conventions that if properly followed will bring one closer to honour, respect and social viability. The cultural way of living in India though, really is nothing that different from the West model.

Through the beliefs of author’s such as Zemon Davis, Said and Pollock, the idea of progression in history has been unable to press forward because of the lack of cultural and societal insight from different viewpoints. History has been subjectively linked with the views of a Western culture, the apparent creator of social values. Lord Acton has stated that history is a cause of events that will lead to liberty. Liberty can only be understood once the process of historical events is also comprehended.[31] Therefore to understand the cause of historical facts, one needs to relate the subjective and objective models more closely. For instance, explaining that Hitler was the direct cause of the Holocaust, which started World War II, to many is agreeable, but leaves out several main components of the era. It is not that objectivity is the superior knowledge, but too much subjective analysis severely distorts the main articulate of the piece.

It is brought to our attention, through Benjamin’s “Angel of History”, the insinuation that the subjective and objective are not being closely related. The Angel is depicted as observing the ‘rubble’ of the past, labeling it as ‘one big catastrophe’.[32] While facing the past, the Angel is subsequently being driven ‘irresistibly into the future’ by a vicious “storm”.[33]What Benjamin is trying to pronounce is that while our society has had objective insight into the past, it is the “storm” of subjectivity that has “blown” us beyond the proper understandings of these objective facts. Being able to impartially interpret facts is not something that comes easy or quickly. Progress has to be slowly attained and has to be done so by allowing for an account that relates the subjective and objective accounts.

I believe the learning experience which I received from HIS101 contains an extremely valuable learning experience for any student at university, regardless of program. Before enrolling in HIS 101, there were a lot of critical aspects of historical readings with which I was not familiar. For example, now being able to properly and critically analyze historical articles is quite advantageous. Prior to taking HIS101, I was not be able to critically analyze an article and be able to understand that many articles are far from an objective standpoint. I now am able to realize that the name of the author, as well as many underlying features in the texts say a great deal about the nature of the argument.

Most of the students enrolled in HIS101 are first year students and for many of them, they are just fulfilling their history major requirement. These first year students have not really developed a strong foundation for writing essay or interpreting historical documents in a critical manner. HIS101 will greatly benefit their developing analytical skills and the combination of the readings and writings of the course is what helped me achieve the most out of the material. Although I am in the fourth year of my studies of a history major and have had more experience in historical analyses, there is always room for improvement. HIS101 has been a very helpful in teaching me new methods to which I can apply to the rest of my studies. The experiences I have been taught from Professor Jens Hanssen, the writing instructors, the teaching assistants and the guest lecturers shall be invaluable towards my university education.

Works Cited
Benjamin, Walter. “Theses on the Philosophy of History” in Illuminations; Essays and
Reflections. Edited and with an introduction by Hanna Arendt. New York: Schocken Books, 1988.
Carr, E.H. What is History? London: Penguin, 1990.
Davis, Natalie Zemon. “Women’s History in Transition: The European Case.” Feminist Studies 3
(1975-76).
Figgis, John Neville and Reginald Vere Laurence, eds. Lectures on Modern History. London:
Macmillan, 1906.
Guha, Ranajit. “The Prose of Counter-Insurgency.“ Selected Subaltern Studies. Edited by Ranajit
Guha and Gayatri Chakrovarty Spivak, with a foreword by Edward Said. New York: OUP, 1988.
Hegel, G.W.F. The Philosophy of History. Translated by J. Sibree. New York: Prometheus
Books, 1991.
Houben, Jan. “The Brahmin Intellectual: History, Ritual and 'Time out of Time’.” Journal of
Indian Philosophy 30 (2002).
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Chapter IX. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1962.
Mohanty, Chandra. “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses.” Third
World Women and the Politics of Feminism. Edited by Chandra Mohanty, Ann Russo,
and Lourdes Torres. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991.
Pollock, Sheldon. “The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory in Indian Intellectual
History.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 105 (1985).
Said, Edward. “Preface”: Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1979.
Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of the West. Volumes 1-2. Translated by Charles
Francis Atkinson. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1922.