===================== HES POSTING ====================
Much of the recent discussion about what economic historians
should do assumes that the readers of this forum know the meaning
of Whig history, internal history, and external history. But my
impression is that these terms have been used in different ways
by different writers, sometimes rather sloppily. As a result,
writers have talked past each other. I commend Ross Emmett for
setting out his definitions for all to read and to try to
understand. At the same time, I find the recommendations he makes
regarding what historians should do unconvincing and his
conclusion inconsistent with his definitions.
Ross defines "internal history" as "rational reconstructions
of the logic of argumentation used by historical figures." He
does not like internal history when it becomes equivalent to Whig
history. A Whig history is based on a decision by the historian
about which of several competing viewpoints of those ideas is
"victorious." (I think Ross means to say "better.") In his view,
the historian should be free to choose which standards or modes
of argumentative logic he/she will use. Whig history, in his
view, takes away that freedom. The Whig historian claims that
there is one correct standard or mode of argumentation that must
be used in making reconstructions. Ross does not call the Whig
historian "arrogant" but to do so would be consistent with his
line of argument. In any case, Ross rejects Whig history because
of its absolutism and, in so doing, is led to RELATIVISM.
Although he is led to relativism, he decides not to deal
with it. That is, he decides not to confront relativism with its
antithesis: absolutism. Instead, he ends his remarks with the
statement that "there is little or nothing INTERESTING that can
be said about Truth, but lots of INTERESTING things to say about
how and why specific economists made the arguments and claims
they did."(italics added)
Thus, in addition to defining the various histories, Ross's
letter is a plea for relativism. I think that his plea is
unconvincing. Ross seems to be well aware that if one wavers on
relativism, one would have to admit the possibility that a
particular Whig historian or a particular "internal historian"
might be CORRECT in his judgment that a particular idea, logical
argumentation, or rational reconstruction is BETTER and that it
therefore DESERVES TO WIN. And if one admits this possibility,
one would have to grant provisional credence to the historian who
claims that he/she studies these things because they are closer
to the truth than competing ideas. More concretely, one would
have to provisionally admit that some professional historians
might be wasting their time, since they are doing reconstructions
of ideas that are incorrect; while other historians are using
their time productively since they are doing reconstructions of
ideas that are correct. Finally, one would have to subscribe to
the operational principle that to do a conscientious history of
economics, one would have to try personally to judge the
correctness of ideas. Since Ross does not admit these
possibilities, he subscribes to relativism.
As I see it, the fundamental division between Ross's and my
notion of what an economic historian ought to do is this. In his
view, the historian should study ideas because they are
interesting. I believe that the historian should study ideas
because they are a window to the truth. Ross (implicitly) rejects
the view that the different human minds possesses the same
capacity for discriminating between truth and untruth in ideas,
in logical argumentation, and in judging rational
reconstructions. I accept this view. I believe that the logic
that I use is the same as the logic that every other normal human
being uses. And, because of this, I believe that I cannot only be
persuasive but LOGICALLY convincing. Beyond this -- and
anticipating the response that my position comes from arrogance -- I
claim that it is the RELATIVIST who is arrogant, since he/she
rejects what every normal human being accepts in his/her everyday
interaction with others -- namely, that through reason combined
with experience, he/she can arrive at a more true understanding of
other human beings.
If I agreed with Ross, I might as well go dancing. For
dancing is more interesting to me than the fads and fancies of
certified professional historians.
There also seems to be an inconsistency in Ross's argument,
although the matter may turn on a definition which he does not
give. Ross does not define "rational reconstruction." But I would
venture that to the typical reader, "rational" here implies
"logical." And further that logical implies standards for
discriminating between logical and illogical reconstructions. It
would seem to follow that even Ross's non-Whiggish internal
historian applies standards to judge whether a particular
reconstruction is rational. Are such standards universal? Or are
they relative? If Ross believes they are relative, he ought to
bracket the term "rational." In that case, he would seemingly be
left with the task of further clarifying his definition of Whig
history and internal history. Or perhaps he should omit the term
"rational" altogether. However, if he rejects bracketing the
term or omits it, his plea for relativism would seem unfounded at
least insofar as logic is concerned.
Of course, Ross may not want to construct logically
convincing arguments at all, either in his history or in his
letters to HES. The consummate relativist would reject the notion
that "logical" or "rational" has a specific meaning. "There are
all kinds of logic and all kinds of rationality," he/she would
argue, "and, unlike the arrogant absolutists, I am a humble
gatherer of facts and teller of stories." How does he/she choose
among which facts to study and which stories to tell? I guess it
depends on his/her interest -- i.e., it depends on what he/she
finds interesting. The consummate relativist would be unperturbed
by a comment that his/her writing is logically unconvincing.
--
Pat Gunning
http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/welcome
http://web.nchulc.edu.tw/~gunning/pat/welcome
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|