PUC History

POSITIVIST VIEW OF HISTORY

The Positivistic view of history as it is commonly known, is a combination of three traditions, namely-

a) The Positivist Philosophy,

b) The Empiricist Tradition and

c) The Rankean Tradition.

The interaction of these three traditions tried to put the practice of history on a scientific basis. This tradition claimed that the sources were all-important, that the facts existed independent of the historian, that neutrality is a desired goal, that total objectivity is possible in the writing of history and that history can be considered as science. At philosophical level, there were many contradictions among these traditions but in the sphere of history-writing, they have been used interchangeably, both by their followers and critics.

Despite their differences, what all these traditions shared became crucial for the development of historiography. Firstly, they all maintained that history (along with sociology, politics and economics) was a science and similar methods of research and investigation might be applied in both areas. Secondly, history dealt with reality and facts which existed outside and independent of the perception of the historians. Thirdly, history moved in more or less linear sequence in which events followed the earlier ones in linear chronological time.

The Positivists believed in the methods and ‘truths’ of the natural sciences. They wanted to apply these methods to the study of society as well. Hence, they designated these disciplines as social sciences. They believed that, by the use of inductive methods, it was possible to predict about the future of society as in the natural sciences. The contribution of the hard-core Positivist historians to the mainstream historical tradition has been rather limited. It is the Rankean and Empiricist traditions which have proved crucial to the development of historiography.

This view of history was criticized even during the 19th century by historians like Burckhardt and philosophers like Wilhelm Dilthey. Jacob Burckhardt, the former disciple of Ranke reacted against his method of history-writing and provided an alternative approach to that of Ranke. Augustin Thierry and Jules Michelet criticized the straightforward empiricism and stressed the points which the Rankean and Positivist schools had rejected. They also emphasized the moral side of history-writing in opposition to rational approach. The local and the particular were given more importance as against universal and general.

In the 20^th century, Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (1913) changed the very nature of research in natural sciences which also influenced the thinking about history. Thus, more serious challenge to the scientific approach of history writing came in the beginning of the 20th century.

Thinkers like Croce, Carl Becker and Collingwood questioned the very foundations of such an approach of scientificity, neutrality and objectivity. They denied the existence of facts independent of the historian and gave overwhelming importance to interpretation in history-writing. Such views of total relativism were also not helpful to most practicing historians who tried to adopt a more balanced view which accorded even importance both to the facts and the historians.

Even though there were many critics of this view, this tradition dominated the 19^th century history writing, and even in the 20th century, most of the professional history followed this trend. Most historians believe in its central premises that facts have a separate and independent existence and that most of our knowledge of the physical world ultimately derives from sense impressions.