Wang Di: We must take history seriously, but do not artificially fantasize about making history

Note: Mr. Wang Di, a historian, holds a Ph.D. in History from Johns Hopkins University and is currently Chair Professor and Head of the Department of History at the University of Macau. The content of this article is Wang Di's epilogue to the book "The Whispers of History", which is reprinted with abridgements and a small number of technical edits.

When we talk about studying the significance of history, we often say that we should sum up historical experience and lessons and find the law of historical development. In my career in historical research, I have often considered this issue, but according to my understanding and thinking about history, my historical outlook and methodology have constantly told me that history is irregular, and therefore the future process is also unpredictable.

History has no regularity, it lies in its unrepeatability. I think that's why history is a humanities, not a social science. Sometimes when we say "historical science", it is obviously not rigorous, because if it is science, then the study of a problem, the method is correct and the same, and the same conclusion must be obtained. That is to say, only doctrines that can be proven repeatedly can become science.

However, the study of history is impossible to verify because it is a subjective activity, and everyone understands history differently. Facts have also repeatedly proved that even if the same research objects are faced, based on the same historical data, and the same research methods are used, it is still possible to draw different conclusions. According to history as we know it, no historical event, no historical figure, no historical process can be identical. History cannot be repeated, nor will it be repeated again, in fact, as the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus said: man cannot step into the same river twice.

Recently reading Carl Popper's "Open Society and Its Enemies", I found his critique of historical determinism, which prompted me to read his "The Poverty of Historical Determinism" and found that the problems I had been thinking and wondering about over the years had actually been systematically studied by Popper long ago. Popper's ideas further helped me tease out my view that history is irregular and unpredictable.

▍ Why history has no laws

The claim that history is regular and predictable is actually the historical determinism that Popper criticized. Because of historical determinism, some people think that if we discover the laws of historical development, then history is controllable.

Some people with utopian ideas or so-called "grand talents" have the urge to make history. They may carry out a so-called great plan regardless of reality, blindly assuming that history is on their side. But their pursuit often goes beyond the reality of society, violates the evolutionary logic of society itself, and creates a model according to the so-called self-considered "great ideas", and this model is almost unverified.

Do whatever it takes to pursue this model, because they blindly believe that their path or plan is the only one that is right. It is the words of the German poet Hölderlin quoted by Hayek in the opening passage of The Road to Serfdom: "It is precisely the people who try to turn a country into paradise that always turns a country into hell on earth." "The result has been a great tragedy for the country and the nation and even countless individuals.

More than half a century ago, this British philosopher profoundly pointed out that an open society is an individual-centered society under the rule of law, while a closed society is a collectivist society, a society ruled by man, a utopian society. He also teaches us about the true role of the state, which should not be an instrument of class oppression, but rather to improve the lot of economically disadvantaged people. True democracy is the balance of power, and freedom is more important than equality.

Seeking the so-called laws of history, that is, believing that history develops according to a certain path or a certain clue, will neglect the careful analysis of the specific situation. For a country and a nation, every choice should be made with special care, and decisions can only be made after careful consideration of various factors in reality according to the actual situation of the country and society at that time.

However, if you believe in historical determinism, you will ignore or even ignore the constraints of the time, and firmly believe that you are following a path chosen by history, which may be a very dangerous way of thinking.

For Popper, the trajectory of historical development is completely changeable, so it cannot be predicted. To prove his point, Popper summarized five topics:

1) the course of human history is strongly influenced by the growth of human knowledge;

2) it is impossible to predict the growth of scientific knowledge by reasonable or scientific methods;

3) Therefore, it is impossible to predict the future course of human history;

4) the possibility that history is a social science must be rejected, and no science can be used as a tool to predict history;

5) So the basic purpose of historical determinism is wrong and untenable.

Mr. He Zhaowu has published "Commenting on Pop "The Poverty of Historicism" (Social Science Front, No. 4, 2011, different titles translated, in fact, "The Poverty of Historical Determinism"), summing up the central idea of the five theses: human beings are always acquiring knowledge, but the growth of knowledge itself is not regular, so prediction is impossible.

Commenting on Popper's logic of argument, Mr. Ho pointed out that of the five basic theses, the first is common sense, which he believes is "generally acceptable." But he argues that the second is untenable, and does not agree that the progress of human knowledge cannot be predicted or predicted. He argues that since article 2 does not hold, articles 3, 4 and 5 lose their foundation.

▍ There is no certainty about historical events

I agree with Mr. Ho's summary of the central idea of Popper's argument, but I do not agree with his comments on Popper's logic and conclusions. I think that all the facts that science has developed to this day have proved Popper's second point correct. In the development of science, there are first hypotheses and then arguments, but there are many hypotheses that are not proved or proved to be wrong.

The development of science is often not the result of logic, but an opportunity, a serendipitous discovery, and often this discovery is an unexpected coincidence, even luck. That is not an inevitable outcome. Even if there are many scientific research results, which are obtained according to the established research path, there are also many that are outside the scope of human prediction and understanding. Therefore, the assertion that it is impossible to predict the growth of scientific knowledge in a rational or scientific way is valid.

I would like to look at this conclusion from another perspective. Popper argues his point of view from the perspective of scientific research, and I want to illustrate from the logic of history itself: the reason why history is irregular and unpredictable is because any history can be affected by various factors, whether it is large or small, or even a very accidental small thing, which can change history.

We can imagine that in the special operation that hunted bin Laden in the United States on May 2, 2011, if any operational error, such as the failure of the helicopter, the error of the pilot, a gust of wind, a barking dog, a commando kicked something on the foot made a sound, or tripped over, and other endless unexpected factors, could affect the success or failure of the operation. In fact, a Black Hawk helicopter was destroyed by the air flow disturbing the tail of the vehicle and hitting the courtyard wall, but miraculously no one was injured.

We can also see a lot of weather effects in history, such as rain or snow, or too much wind and waves on the sea, or a bad thought, or oversleeping in the morning, or diarrhea to go to the toilet more... It could change his own destiny or the outcome of a major event. This is not historical pessimism, but the complexity and uncertainty of history.

In fact, I found such an example during a historical expedition in the 1980s. When Shi Dakai, the leader of the Taiping Rebellion, arrived at the Dadu River on the morning of May 14, 1862, there were no Qing troops on the opposite side, and if he had crossed the river at that time, he would have had time. However, because his concubine gave birth to a son, in order to celebrate, he decided not to cross the river that day, but what he did not expect was that the heavy rain poured that night, and the river swelled the next day, which missed the most critical time to cross the river. Later, there were pursuers, and the Qing army had reached the opposite bank, and finally he was trapped in a place called Zidadi by the Dadu River, so that in the end, the whole army was destroyed, and he was captured alive, and finally died in Ling Chi.

▍ Can history be repeated?

Popper argues that history is actually like an organism. "In biology, we are able to talk about the life history of an organism because the organism is partly conditioned by past events." And this organism, like the human body, is in constant change, "which is why the experience of repeating events is not the experience of the original event", "repeated experience" becomes new experience, "because repetition forms new habits, and thus new habitual conditions".

Therefore, repeated experiments on the same organism "cannot be very similar" and therefore not "true replicates". Even if the environmental conditions do not change, new factors or conditions appear within the organism, "because the organism learns from experience." Therefore, "true repetition in social history is impossible."

Through the analysis of history, we "may be able to discover and intuitively understand how and why any particular event occurred" and understand its "causes and effects", but we still "cannot propose universal laws" because we are faced with "social phenomena that may be unique" and that "may appear only once in this particular social situation and not again".

According to Popper's analysis, when we look at history, it is actually between the observer and the observed, between the subject and the object, which is a "full and complex interaction." Even if we are aware of some possible tendencies, "the prediction itself may affect the predicted event", which is likely to "have a counter-effect on the content of the prediction", and these reactions may "seriously impair the objectivity of the prediction". Popper noted that in extreme cases, it can even cause the events it predicts.

This view is a very good proof of the reasons for the "ten-year catastrophe" that China has experienced. At that time, China's top leaders believed that China could move towards capitalism and therefore had to be prepared, so they launched the "Cultural Revolution". In Popper's words, "if the event had not been predicted, perhaps it would have not happened at all in the first place" ...

So historical determinism is harmful, because believers will think that since there are laws, they must develop in a certain direction. Therefore, they actively participate in "helping to generate a new period of society." Therefore, in practice, it is inevitable to act recklessly for the sake of the ideals in their hearts, regardless of the actual objective conditions.

▍Is there a so-called general history?

Historians are also obsessed with writing overall history (or general history), but Popper believes that there is no real "totality", and he criticizes holism, pointing out that it is impossible to "establish and direct the whole social system and plan the whole social life", that an all-encompassing history cannot be written, and that any written history is only a history of "totality" in some aspect. He criticized "patterns" or "laws" that "can be assumed to be hidden beneath historical evolution."

Popper also addressed this issue in Open Societies and Their Enemies, where he pointed out that historical determinism is a way of exploring the social sciences, which assumes that historical predictions are the main purpose of the social sciences. He disagrees that "history" is a self-evident concept, so "'history' in the sense that most people call simply does not exist."

So, how do most people understand the word "history"? What they actually mean, Popper argues, is "the history of political power." But the history of political power is only one part of history. Political power is seen as achievement as the whole of history, but in fact it is "an affront to all decent human concepts." So historical determinism is the cult of power, and "the cult of power is the worst kind of idolatry of mankind."

Popper further pointed out in The Poverty of Historical Determinism that historical determinists believe that scientific predictions must be based on laws, so social changes can be forecasted, and this can be based on historical laws. But the problem is that we cannot think that the understanding of society can be "always valid throughout space and time", in fact, even the most accurate understanding of society is only "applicable to a certain cultural period or historical period". "Laws" are impossible and never exist.

It is precisely because the concept of overall history is deeply rooted that many Chinese and Western scholars criticize the so-called fragmentation of historical research. And this overall history is backed by a grand narrative and political agenda. For example, the French historian François Doss criticized almost all representative historians since the French Annals School, viewing their historical research as fragmented historiography. Doss expressed a very clear political idea, arguing that "our modern society lacks planning" and is therefore in crisis. But according to the liberal economist Hayek, it was the plan that led society to slavery.

In the seventies and eighties of the last century, there was a high tide of public interest in history in France, people participated in various seminars on history, watched and listened to television and radio about history. But Doss was very upset, criticizing historians for "abandoning momentous moments in favor of the daily memories of small people" and dismissing people for talking about villages, women, immigrants, marginalized people, and so on.

He believed that the French Revolution was not over and that it would continue, and that "the flame of revolution has never been completely extinguished, which is why some people are committed to completely quenching the flame of revolution from history." That is to say, in his view, this is actually a struggle between two politics, "on the one hand, those who seek to bury the revolution in order to preserve their privileges; On the other side are those who advocate a just world. So his final conclusion was that "the French Revolution is not over."

▍ Don't fantasize about making history

When I think about the so-called overall history, this picture comes to mind:

The emperor or hero stands on a high mountaintop, overlooking the whole land, and is full of excitement and pride that he is about to make history. Looking at it, in his eyes, it was a sea of people, all living beings, as small as ants. For him, in the face of such a sea of people, one more is not more, one less is not less, and the individual has lost its meaning here; The fate of the individual is irrelevant here; There is no difference between all sentient beings, and even their faces cannot be seen clearly.

They became a concept we call "group," "mass," or "people." They don't have their own stories, they don't have their own history, and they certainly don't have their own future.

These beings died for the so-called "grand cause" of the emperor or hero, silently turning into dust. In the grand historical narrative, the individual is something that the whole can completely ignore, and this is the essence of the whole history.

Historically, there have been many people who wield the power of life and death, believing that they acted according to the laws of history, and therefore could achieve any predetermined goal. Therefore, in my opinion, historical determinism is not just a question of historical philosophy, but actually a practical one. We used to say that "the trend of the times, vast", the fate of the individual often fell into this trend, and the fate was left to others to decide.

Thus, Popper argued, the holistic approach was "incompatible with a truly scientific attitude." Even more frightening, holists "also seek to control and transform our society as a whole." This line of thinking inevitably leads to the fact that power decides everything, the realization of the "utopian dream of total control", which is the source of all disasters in the world ...

For historical researchers, it is better to abandon the ambition of discovering historical laws and writing history as a whole. History is individual, complex, colorful, and unpredictable. We need to take history seriously, but don't artificially fantasize about making history.