What is History? by E.H. Carr Flashcards
What is Carr’s main argument regarding the relationship between the historian and historical facts?
Carr argues that historical facts do not exist independently but are selected and interpreted by historians. History is a dialogue between the historian and the facts, influenced by the historian’s perspective and context.
Q: How does Carr criticize the notion of objective history?
A: Carr critiques the idea of objective history by stating that facts are selected by historians based on their perspectives. He argues that complete objectivity is impossible because historians interpret facts through the lens of their own time and concerns.
Q: According to Carr, what role does society play in shaping the individual?
A: Carr emphasizes that individuals are products of their society. He argues that society shapes individuals, and individuals act within the context of societal forces. History, therefore, cannot focus solely on individuals but must consider the broader social context.
Q: What does Carr mean when he says that history is a dialogue between the past and the present?
A: Carr means that historians interpret the past based on their present context. The questions historians ask and the way they interpret events are influenced by contemporary issues, making history an ongoing interaction between past events and present concerns.
Q: How does Carr’s view differ from 19th-century positivism in historical writing?
A: Carr rejects the positivist view that history is an objective compilation of facts. He argues that history is interpretive and facts are selected and shaped by the historian’s perspective, challenging the positivist belief that facts can speak for themselves without interpretation.
Q: Why does Carr criticize the “cult of individualism” in historical analysis?
A: Carr criticizes the “cult of individualism” for overemphasizing the role of individuals in history while ignoring the broader societal forces that shape events. He argues that individuals are influenced by their society, and history should focus on collective forces, not just individual actions.
Q: What does Carr mean by saying that “facts do not speak for themselves”?
A: Carr means that facts only become meaningful when they are selected and interpreted by historians. Facts do not have inherent significance; it is the historian’s job to decide which facts are relevant and how they should be understood within a historical narrative.
Q: What is Carr’s view on progress in history?
A: Carr is skeptical of the 19th-century notion of linear progress in history. He argues that history is complex and shaped by conflicting forces, and the idea of inevitable progress is a reflection of contemporary values rather than an accurate portrayal of historical development.
Q: How does Carr describe the relationship between the historian’s present and the past they study?
A: Carr asserts that the historian’s present context shapes their interpretation of the past. The questions historians ask and the way they interpret events are influenced by the contemporary world, making historical writing a reflection of both past and present.
Q: What does Carr suggest about the role of interpretation in the writing of history?
A: Carr argues that interpretation is central to the writing of history. Historians must select which facts to emphasize and how to arrange them, making interpretation essential in turning raw data into a coherent historical narrative.
Q: Why does Carr believe that history is a process of selection?
A: Carr argues that history is a process of selection because historians must choose which facts to include in their narratives. Not all facts about the past are deemed historically significant, and the selection process is influenced by the historian’s perspective and the relevance of facts to their interpretation.
Q: What does Carr mean by the phrase “history is made by historians”?
A: Carr means that history is not just a collection of past events, but is actively created by historians through their interpretation of facts. Historians shape the narrative by selecting which facts to highlight and how to frame them within a historical context.
Q: How does Carr view the role of documents and evidence in historical writing?
A: Carr views documents and evidence as essential to history but warns against making them a “fetish.” He argues that documents do not speak for themselves; they must be interpreted by historians, who must decide what the evidence means and how to use it in constructing historical narratives.
Q: How does Carr address the notion of causation in history?
A: Carr challenges the simplistic view of causation, where one event leads directly to another. Instead, he argues that causation in history is complex and often involves multiple factors, including social, political, and economic forces, which interact in shaping historical outcomes.
Q: Why does Carr reject the idea that history can be written without interpretation?
A: Carr rejects the idea that history can be written without interpretation because he believes that the act of selecting facts itself is a form of interpretation. Every historian brings their perspective, biases, and values into the writing process, making it impossible to separate facts from interpretation.
Q: According to Carr, how does the present influence historical writing?
A: Carr argues that the present always influences historical writing because historians interpret the past through the lens of contemporary concerns and issues. The questions historians ask and the themes they explore are shaped by the context of their own time.
Q: How does Carr view the role of “great men” in history?
A: Carr is critical of the “great man” theory of history, which attributes historical change to the actions of a few prominent individuals. He argues that while individuals can influence events, they are ultimately products of their societal context, and historical change is driven by larger social forces.
Q: What does Carr say about the concept of “historical truth”?
A: Carr suggests that “historical truth” is not absolute or objective, but is shaped by the historian’s interpretation of facts. While historians aim to approach the truth, their understanding is always influenced by their context, making historical truth a matter of interpretation rather than a fixed reality.
Q: How does Carr critique historians’ reliance on “primary sources”?
A: Carr critiques the reliance on primary sources by pointing out that these documents only provide one perspective on events, often reflecting the views of their creators. Historians must interpret these sources critically, recognizing that they are not neutral accounts but products of their time.
Q: What is Carr’s view on the role of philosophy in history?
A: Carr argues that philosophy is essential to history because it helps historians understand the broader significance of events and the underlying forces that shape historical change. He criticizes historians who avoid philosophical questions, as they risk reducing history to mere fact-gathering without deeper meaning.
Q: Why does Carr emphasize the importance of understanding the historian’s context?
A: Carr emphasizes that to fully understand a historical work, one must consider the historian’s context, including their social, political, and ideological background. This helps reveal the biases and assumptions that shape their interpretation of historical events.
Q: How does Carr’s view of history challenge traditional empirical methods?
A: Carr challenges traditional empirical methods by arguing that facts alone cannot provide a full understanding of history. Instead, interpretation is necessary to give meaning to facts, and history must be seen as a dialogue between the historian and the past, rather than an objective recounting of events.
