People conceive of history in many different ways, which is why it is such a challenging discipline to teach. Some see it as a straightforward account of what actually happened in the past; others consider it an explanation of past events and conditions. Historians tend to favour the latter definition. In a recent survey, historians and other working professionals were asked to identify the most important aspect of their profession. The overwhelming majority of them chose ‘explanation’; only a minority opted for facts.
It is a mistake to treat history as some sort of pristine, objective, pointy-headed study of what-really-happened in the past. Rather, it is a very complicated and subjective endeavour that is very susceptible to the same human weaknesses and fallacies as all other human activities. For example, eyewitness reports are often very different from one another, which makes determining the truth about an event quite tricky. The same goes for historical research and writing.
Ultimately, the goal of historians is to distill a broad range of information about a past event into a manageable amount of material. This involves determining the essential aspects of an event and discarding superfluous data or details. Trying to figure out exactly what a person meant when they said something or the reasons why they did what they did is an essential part of understanding history. But the process of identifying and communicating this knowledge is not always straightforward and can be affected by all sorts of emotional and cognitive baggage. A single short event can take on thousands of different meanings when people impose their own standards, priorities and values on it.
In other words, there is no such thing as an absolute truth about the past – or even a coherent set of historical facts that could be agreed upon by all historians. As anyone who has ever tried to convince a colleague of a particular opinion will attest, facts are not enough on their own and the study of history is highly problematical.
Some historians try to combat this by taking a thematic approach to their work. They consider factors and forces that are often overlooked, such as economic changes, social conditions or popular unrest. They may also look at what is sometimes described as the ‘winds of change’: powerful ideas and movements that shape and influence political, economic or social life.
Others are more concerned with individual personalities and motivations. They try to uncover the thoughts, desires, beliefs and fears of individuals as they lived and acted in the past. They might focus on a particular personality, such as Cleopatra, Boethius, Joan of Arc, Thomas a Becket or Martin Luther King, and examine their impact on the world around them. This can be an important approach, but it can also overlook or downplay the influence of less ‘famous’ people who have played significant roles in history such as Tacitus, Galileo and Darwin.