The Landscape of History

An interesting little book by John Lewis Gaddis about 'doing history' that I got through half of at the weekend, while enjoying the hospitality of SNCF for a few hours. There are several interesting perspectives here, one or two of which I disagree with, and one or two that stopped me in my tracks to reflect on.

One of these was his look at literal and abstract represtentation, which sparked off a few thoughts about my approach to photography. Another was the statement, in his discussion of the interdependency of variables, that 'Recounting the past requires narrative - simulating what happened...'. I haven't studied history since I was 13, and so my reaction to this may well seem naive to anyone that did more than that, (or to anyone else for that matter). I found this statement quite a shock.

A rational approach to the world relies to an extent on both the concept of causality and the possibility of knowing enough about events and their relationships to be able to understand them. And of course, Heisenberg and the uncertainty principle and all that, well, it's not possible at a fundamental level. I've heard about that; but I hadn't worked it into the everyday world, where it should be even more obvious. DOH! One of those 'how could I be so stupid' moments.

Historians are no different in principle from other people. We all simulate what happened through narrative. Politicians trying to please as many people as possible (all those with a vote anyway), historians reconstructing the past, colleagues covering their backs, children trying to get away with the latest little accident. And we make it up. We create a narrative of the past to suit our purposes. Which begs the question of 'what are the purposes?'.

'Many and varied' I suppose is the short answer. Justifying/explaining to ourselves or others some current past or future behaviour. Does that cover it? And that leads me on to another thought for another future post, about 'randomness' being transformed into 'meaningful' by purpose.