“History is written by the winners”: on the problem of objectivity in assessing historical processes
How objectively historical knowledge? Researchers have asked this question repeatedly, and discussions on this matter do not stop, because there is no single point of view on this matter. As the researchers note:
“Any historical question is asked by a person who is in society. Even if he wants to turn his back on this society and sees the function of history in pure, impartial knowledge, he still cannot but belong to his time. Any question is asked from some position. The awareness of the historicity of the historian's point of view, conditioned by this historicity of the need to periodically rewrite history, has become one of the characteristic features of the process of constituting modern historical thought" [1].
In the context of an objective assessment of historical processes, we quite often hear the phrase - history is written by the victors; in the same context, the thesis about rewriting history is often heard. The latter is used mainly in a political context. We will discuss in this material how objective historical knowledge is.
History is written by the winners - the relevance of the aphorism
Let's start, perhaps, with the history of the phrase "history is written by the winners", as well as its mention in various sources. This is one of the most popular aphorisms related to our ideas about the past. In the book of K. Dushenko "The History of Famous Quotes" it is noted that this thesis appeared in France in the middle of the 1842th century. Thus, Alexis de Saint-Priest wrote in "History of monarchical power ..." (XNUMX): “History may be impartial, but we should not forget that it was written by the victors” [4].
The socialist historian Louis Blanc has repeatedly reminded of the same. About Robespierre he said: "The Defeated One Whose History Was Written by the Victors" (“History of ten years”, 1845). Of the Jacobins, in the fifth volume of the History of the French Revolution, he remarked: "The history of the vanquished, written by the victors". Subsequently, this formula was most often applied to military history. In 1916, at the height of the First World War, the famous American historian William Eliot Griffis wrote: "The generally accepted history of almost all wars is written by the victors" [4].
This phrase, in one form or another, was repeated several times by the famous British writer George Orwell. That history is written by the victors was recorded in his essay "As I Please" in 1944, as well as in his popular novel "1984". There it sounded much more radical, but the meaning was approximately the same: “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.".
It should be noted that in all the above cases, not just history was meant, but, first of all, the official historical policy. Politics really seriously affects the assessment of historical processes, since the past is a means for legitimizing the present. If, say, a revolution or a coup d'etat took place in a certain country, then quite often views on the historical past begin to transform, and in some cases quite radically. Let's take a concrete example.
In one of the materials of the international scientific-practical conference in Ryazan, concerning the problems of studying world history, the article "Royalists during the Civil War in England" states the following:
“They say history is written by the winners. This fully applies to the history of the English Revolution of the 5th century. The main attention, both in domestic and British historiography, was given to the revolutionary camp, while the Cavaliers as a party were on the periphery of research. In foreign historiography, this is connected with the dominance of the liberal Whig school of S. Gardiner, which took shape at the end of the XNUMXth century. The traits of royalism were touched upon, as a rule, through the prism of the personality of King Charles I, who was almost always evaluated negatively. The “glorification” of the revolution as the locomotive of history dominated in Soviet Marxist historiography, which led to one-sided and very superficial assessments” [XNUMX].
In turn, another historian Yuri Arzamaskin notes that the history of Russia, both in the Soviet period and in the pre-revolutionary period, is largely mythologized, since history is written by the winners.
Moscow princes in the struggle for the unification of Russian lands in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. managed to defeat the Tver, Galician and other princes. Ivan the Terrible turned the country away from the path along which the reformers of the Chosen Rada had led it in the middle of the 1918th century. In the Civil War 1920-50. The Bolsheviks took over. In the struggle for sole power, I. V. Stalin eliminated L. D. Trotsky and other associates of V. I. Lenin from his path, and N. S. Khrushchev in the 1991s. XX century - L.P. Beria and G.M. Malenkov. This list of events can be continued up to the alternatives of August 1993 or October 6. The winners traditionally write that everything they did was right, that it was almost the only possible solution to problems, and their opponents obviously were mistaken or were enemies of the people” [XNUMX].
That is, if we understand by the phrase “history is written by the winners” that the side that won the conflict interprets the political and social processes of the past from the point of view of a certain ideology, a certain system of outlook, then it really reflects reality to some extent and is relevant to present day.
This statement is also applicable to archival documents - if someone believes that they are a kind of fount of truth, then he is mistaken. For example, the American historian William Rosenberg believes that the very selection of documents for storage, their classification and cataloging are involved in the creation of a historical narrative. Archives, therefore, cannot be considered simple repositories of the remnants of the past, they are not ideologically and politically neutral, and the well-known saying can be fully attributed to them: “history is written by the victors” [7].
But in this case, the question arises: to what extent does history written by the victors adequately reflect the events of the past?
On the rewriting of history and factors affecting the objectivity of the historian
To begin with, it should be noted that the ruling elites of states do not rewrite all of history, but only that part of it that they consider necessary to rewrite. That part that can be used in the context of their policies. A discourse about, say, medieval chivalry will most likely be much more unbiased than about the Civil War in Russia or the Second World War, not to mention even closer historical events like the military operation in Ukraine.
One example of the politicization of history worth mentioning is the discourse on Normanism and anti-Normanism. In the Soviet Union, anti-Normanism was supported at the state level, and it was customary to generally deny the scientific significance of the Norman theory and refute it in every possible way.
With regard to approximate events in the historical community, let’s say, “official historians”, certain concepts have already developed (supported at the state level), which are quite problematic to revise due to the fact that historians share the same paradigm and will in every possible way prevent those who subject question their views. However, not all studies are interested in state machines, so the opinion that absolutely all history has been rewritten is also wrong.
In addition to the politicization of history, one more important fact should be mentioned, which seriously affects historical research. These are the political views and beliefs of the historian himself, his personal attitude to the subject of research and involvement in the issue. The historian does not live in a vacuum, he evaluates the world through the prism of his senses, so he cannot but have his own views on the subject.
For example, the left and the right have different attitudes towards history. As the historian of philosophy D. Moiseev notes, any essentially “leftist” theory proceeds from the understanding of the historical as an endless progress (“from the darkness of the past to the light of the future”) and evolution as a gradual turn towards justice. A significant part of the “rightists” comes from their view of history either as a gradual degradation of political, social and spiritual forms, or from a cyclical approach (“history moves in a circle”). And from one and the other position, history in any case moves either downward or in a spiral, and "tomorrow" turns out to be worse than "yesterday" [10].
As the historian Antoine Pro notes in his book, objectivity cannot stem from the position taken by the historian, for his point of view is necessarily conditioned, necessarily subjective. There is no Sirius point of view in history. Rather, one should speak not about objectivity, but about impartiality and truth. But after all, they can appear only thanks to the efforts of the historian himself [1].
“History is based on facts, and any historian is obliged to provide them in support of his claims. The integrity of a historical text and its scientific acceptability depend on how carefully and correctly the author has recreated the facts. Consequently, learning the craft of a historian includes simultaneously critical analysis, knowledge of sources and the ability to formulate a problem" [1],
writes Antoine Pro.
Another important factor that affects the objectivity of the historian is that he must understand the context of an era that was very different from ours. In the German philosophy of the XVIII-XIX centuries there is such a concept as zeitgeist, meaning "spirit of the times" or "spirit of the era". Proponents of historicism believe that each era is a unique manifestation of the human spirit with its own culture and values. If a contemporary wants to understand another era, he must realize that in the past time the conditions of life and the mentality of people - and perhaps human nature itself - have changed significantly. The historian is not a guardian of eternal values; he must strive to understand each epoch in its own categories [3].
Thus, it is impossible to objectively evaluate the historical process from the point of view of only the present, without understanding the spirit of the era. The German historian Oswald Spengler, for example, who criticized the dominant approach to the analysis of history and was convinced that history is not a continuous, linear and boundless process of human development, wrote:
“It is absolutely unacceptable, in interpreting world history, to give free rein to one's political, religious and social convictions. As a result, whole millennia are measured in absolute terms by such concepts as mental maturity, humanity, the happiness of the majority, economic evolution, enlightenment, freedom of peoples, dominance over nature, scientific outlook, etc.; and when the real aspirations of epochs alien to us do not coincide with ours, researchers prove that the peoples were in error or did not know how to reach the truth. “In life, life itself is important, and not its result” - these words of Goethe should be opposed to all sorts of stupid attempts to unravel the mystery of historical form through a program” [2].
The historian, of course, should strive for impartiality, and not to give vent to his convictions, but how practical is this? According to some historians, this is practically impossible. In particular, the historian Valery Tishkov noted that the historian must “... to strive to achieve the adequacy of the text he wrote to the real course of history, but the idea that this can be achieved is a delusion” [8].
And the historian A. Gurevich even believed that “any historical reconstruction is nothing but a certain construction of a vision of the world, on which historians have reached a certain consensus. The very formulation of the question of the objectivity of historical knowledge is incorrect. [8].
Science of the past or narrative of the past?
Doctor of Philosophical Sciences Yevgeny Degtyarev in one of his scientific articles in a rather categorical form claims that history is not a science about the past, but a narrative (story, narration) about certain interrelated events of the past.
“In order for historians to recognize such a narrative as “scientific” for the most part, it is necessary that it be of a generally accepted nature. Other narratives about the past are recognized by historians as “unscientific”, erroneous, etc. In addition, due to the fact that “history is written by the victors,” narratives, as a rule, are “ideologically colored.” First of all, this is precisely why (although not only for this reason) some historians may adhere to one narrative, others to another, still others to a third... History is not a science, but that makes it no less important for the life of society” [9],
he concludes.
This is a debatable statement that many historians would not agree with, for example, V.P. Smirnov, who noted that “if there is no objective knowledge about the past, history cannot be considered a science, then it is impossible to distinguish scientific research from the writings of graphomaniacs.” The historian Nikolai Vlasov does not agree with him either, who believes that history depends on the objectivity of specific individuals to the same extent as any other science.
Nevertheless, that politics and ideology strongly influence historical research is a fact that many historians acknowledge. History is really written by the winners, and it is they who give the appropriate coloring and interpretation to all the events that have taken place (and sometimes engage in outright forgery). But this does not mean that absolutely all historical research is biased, because far from all layers of history are of interest to politicians.
Recognizing that any objectivity is relative, the historian Nikolai Vlasov, for example, gave advice on how the reader should evaluate the objectivity of a historical work: first of all, it was a book, but this also applies to scientific articles. Since these tips are mostly sound, we will briefly outline some of them (with clarifications).
First, the you should look at the writing style of the material. If the author constantly appeals to the emotions of the reader, uses manipulative rhetoric, then there is no need to talk about the objectivity of the material.
For example, if already in the introductory part of the book about the First World War we see phrases in the spirit of “aggressive German imperialists unleashed a bloody war”, and in the book about the Civil War phrases like “the Bolsheviks saved Russia from the dominance of the bourgeoisie” (or vice versa - that “there was a beautiful prosperous Russia, but suddenly the damned Bolsheviks appeared”), then, in principle, there can be no talk of any impartiality.
Second, the you should look at how wide a range of sources the author of the study uses (although in many popular science publications and popular science articles they are sometimes not indicated at all). If, for example, a researcher writing about the Norman theory refers only to anti-Normanists, then such a study cannot be objective. However, a reader who does not understand the topic is unlikely to understand this.
Third, the propagandist basically makes an arbitrary selection of facts, coloring them emotionally, while the historian, who claims to be objective, even trying to prove the initially given point of view, avoids outright lies and is forced to cite, among other things, facts that do not fit well into his concept. In addition, the arguments of opponents and other researchers with whom the author agrees or disagrees should be given.
The personality of the author of historical material as a whole can tell us something, for example, if, on the one hand, a professor at Cambridge University, and on the other, an amateur historian and mechanical engineer by profession, then logically the professor will be more objective, since he is a professional, but In fact, this often does not work, since some “professionals” sometimes write highly biased works.
Given that there is a huge amount of dubious quality of historical literature on the shelves of bookstores, it is rather problematic to find a truly objective study. In addition, the reader can select books, also based on their beliefs, and ignore studies that do not fit into their system of views. Therefore, the advice given above is highly inaccurate.
In conclusion, it should be noted that history is written by people, and they often evaluate events through the prism of their own beliefs. In the same way, the reader most often evaluates the material based on his own views, and tries to ignore the information that contradicts them. American social psychologists Elliot Aronson and K. Tevris in their work “Mistakes that were made (but not by me)” rightly write that:
“History is written by the victors, and when we write our own stories, we do so like conquerors to justify our actions, to look good in our own eyes, and to appreciate what we have done or not done. If mistakes were made, memory helps us remember that they were made by someone else, and if we were there, then only in the role of innocent observers” [11].
Использованная литература:
[1]. About Antoine. Twelve history lessons. – M.: Russian. state humanist univ., 2000.
[2]. Spengler O. Decline of Europe, T. 1. / Per. with him. ed. A. A. Frankovsky. - St. Petersburg: Academia, 1923.
[3]. Oleg Plenkov. The disaster of 1933. German history and the rise of the Nazis to power. – M.: Veche, 2021.
[4]. Dushenko K.V. The history of famous quotes. – M.: Azbuka, 2018.
[5]. Actual problems of studying and teaching world history at school and university: materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference, Ryazan, April 20–21, 2016 / ed. ed. M. V. Zholudov; Ryaz. state University named after S. A. Yesenin. - Ryazan, 2017.
[6]. Arzamaskin Yu. N. Periodization of Russian history: transparent clarity or the most difficult puzzle? // Vestn. Samarsk legal in-ta. - 2013. - No. 2 (10). – pp. 81–84.
[7]. Pimenova L. A. The fate of archives in the era of change. Book Review: Identity and Loss of Historical Memory. The Destruction of Archives. Acts of the conference "Revolution and Archives" (Moscow, 19–20 April, 2006) / Ed. Igor Filippov and Flocel Sabate. Bern: Peter Lang, 2017.
[8]. Actual theoretical problems of modern historical science // Questions of history. 1992. No. 8–9. pp. 159–166.
[9]. Degtyarev, E. V. Some aspects of the logical and philosophical understanding of history on the subject of scientific character / E. V. Degtyarev // Intellect. Innovation. Investment = Intelect. innovations. Investments. - Orenburg, 2021. - No. 6. - P. 106–114.
[10]. See Moiseev D.S. The political doctrine of Julius Evola in the context of the “conservative revolution” in Germany. - Yekaterinburg: Armchair scientist, 2021, p. 15.
[eleven]. Elliot Aronson, Carol Tevris. Mistakes that were made (but not by me): why we justify stupid beliefs, bad decisions and harmful actions / Per. from English. A. V. Lisovsky. – M.: Infotropic Media, 11.
Information