Towards a Revival of Analytical Philosophy of History

150 Pages·2017·106.618 MB·English

by  Krzysztof Brzechczyn (ed)

!
Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 110 r a11d tl1t Humanities j 110
II L I R DOPI
9 789004 356870 brill.com/ps
Poznan Studies in the Philosophy Towards a Revival of Analytical
of the Sciences and the Philosophy of History
Humanities
Around Paul A. Roth's Vision ofH istorical Sciences
Founding Editor
Leszek Nowak (1943-2009)
Edited by
Editor-in-Chief Krzysztof Brzechczyn
Katarzyna Paprzycka (University ofW arsaw)
Editors
Tomasz Bigaj (University of Warsaw) - Krzysztof Brzechczyn
(Adam Mickiewicz University) - Jerzy Brzezinski (Adam Mickiewicz
University) - Krzysztof Lastowski (Adam Mickiewicz University) -
Joanna Odrowl!z-Sypniewska (University of Warsaw) - Piotr Przybysz
(Adam Mickiewicz University) - Mieszko Talasiewicz (University of Warsaw) -
Krzysztof Wojtowicz (University of Warsaw)
Advisory Committee
Joseph Agassi (Tel-Aviv) - Wolfgang Balzer (Munchen) - Mario Bunge
(Montreal) - Robert S. Cohen (Boston) - Francesco Coniglione (Catania) -
Dagfinn Follesdal (Oslo, Stanford) - Jaakko Hintikkat (Boston) - Jacek
J.Jadacki (Warszawa) - Andrzej Klawiter (Poznan) -Theo A.F. Kuipers
( Groningen)-Witold Marciszewski (Warszawa)- Thomas Miiller (Konstanz)
Ilkka Niiniluoto (Helsinki) - Jacek Pafoiczek (Lublin) - David Pearce
(Madrid) - Jan Such (Poznan) - Max Urchs (Wiesbaden) - Jan Wolenski
(Krakow) - Ryszard Wojcicki (Warszawa)
BRILL
VOLUME 110
RODOPI
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ps LEIDEN I BOSTON
Contents
Poznan Studies is sponsored by the University of Warsaw.
Cover illustration: "Roth before Paul's". Copyright Paul A. Roth.
Notes on Contributors vu
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Brzechczyn, Krzysztof, 1963-editor of compilation. Introduction I
Title: Towards a revival of analytical philosophy of history : around Paul A. KrzysztofB rzechczyn
Roth's vision of historical sciences I edited by Krzysztof Brzechczyn.
Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill-Rodopi, [ 2018] I Series: Poznan studies
in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities, ISSN 0303-8I57; 1 Reviving Philosophy of History g
VOLUME no I Includes bibliographical references and index. Paul A. Roth
Identifiers: LCCN 2017040846 (print) I LCCN 2017041969 (ebook) I ISBN
9789004356900 (E-book) I ISBN 9789004356870 (hardback: alk. paper) 2 Why Did Analytical Philosophy of History Disappear? Three Narratives
Subjects: LCSH: History--Philosophy. I Roth, Paul Andrew, 1948-I Analysis
of Decline 28
(Philosophy)
Classification: LCC D16.8 (ebook) I LCC D16.8 .T677 20I8 (print) I DDC Herman Paul
90I--dc23
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2017040846 3 The Mysterious Case of Analytic Philosophy of History: Paradigm Tum
in Historiography Revisited 42
Piotr Kowalewski
4 Philosophy of History and Analytical Philosophy in Germany: A Special
Relationship? 55
Chris Lorenz
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: "Brill". See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
5 The Future of Philosophy of Historiography: Reviving or
ISSN 0303-8I57
Reinventing? 73
ISBN 978-90-04-35687-0 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-35690-0 ( e-book) Jo uni-Matti Kuukkanen
Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. 6 A Pragmatist Critique of Dogmatic Philosophy of History 95
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill
Serge Grigoriev
Sense and Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, 7 Non-representationalism in Philosophy of History: A Case Study n6
without prior written permission from the publisher. Eugen Zelefuik
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite
910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. 8 What Do Narratives Explain? Roth, Mink and Weber 130
Stephen Turner
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.
g How Do Narratives Explain? A Comment from the Point of View
of Poznan School of Methodology 148
Krzysztof Brzechczyn
UNIVERSITY
OF YORK
LIBRARY
VI CONTENTS
10 Antinomies, Multiple Realities and the Pasts i66 Notes on Contributors
Rafai Pawei Wierzchosiawski
n ls a Dramatic Theory of History Possible? Shakespeare's Richard I I KrzysztofB rzechczyn
and 'Historical Truth' 204 Professor at the Institute of Philosophy, Adam Mickiewicz University in
Geza Kallay Poznan, Poland; [email protected]
12 Making up 'Vulnerable' People: Human Subjects and the Subjective Nancy D. Campbell
Experience of Medical Experiment 225 Professor in the Department of Science and Technology Studies, Rensselaer
Nancy D. Campbell and Laura Stark Polytechnic Institute, USA; [email protected]
13 "Spring and Autumn Annals" as Narrative Explanation 254 Serge Grigoriev
Dawid Rogacz Associate Professor of Philosophy, Ithaca College, USA; [email protected]
14 Comments and Replies 273 Geza Kallay
Paul A. Roth School of English and American Studies at Department of English Studies in
Lorand Ei:itvi:is University, Budapest, Hungary; [email protected]
Name Index 287
Subject Index 294 Piotr Kowalewski
Ph.D. student at Institute of History, University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland;
[email protected] l
jouni-Matti Kuukkanen
Associate Professor in Philosophy at the University of Oulu in Finland. He
received a Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh and has held academic
positions in the Universities of Durham and Hull in the UK and Leiden in
the Netherlands. He authored Postnarrativist Philosophy of Historiography
(Palgrave 2015); [email protected]
Chris Lorenz
Professor at Ruhr-University Boch um, Germany and Vrije Universiteit Amster
dam, The Netherlands; [email protected]
Herman Paul
Associate Professor of Historical Theory at the Institute for History, Leiden
University, The Netherlands; [email protected]
Dawid Rogacz
Ph.D. student at the Institute of Philosophy, Adam Mickiewicz University in
Poznan, Poland; [email protected]
VIII NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Paul A. Roth Introduction
Professor at Department of Philosophy, University of California-Santa Cruz,
USA; [email protected] Krzysztof Brzechczyn
Laura Stark
Assistant Professor at Center for Medicine, Health, and Society, Vanderbilt The philosophy of history has recently become a growing field of scientific in
University, USA; [email protected] terest. This was reflected in the foundation in 2012 of two portals popularizing
this domain of knowledge: Philosophies ofH istory at Leeds University and the
Stephen P. Turner International Network for Theory ofH istory, affiliated to Ghent University.1 The
Distinguished Professor at Department of Philosophy, University of South key characteristic of this emerging field of research is well communicated in
Florida, USA, director of the Center for Social and Political Thought. He has the following description:
also written extensively in the philosophy of social science, especially on ex
planation, normativity, and empathy. He authored (with Regis A. Factor) two Numerous scholars around the world are working on the theory and phi
books on Weber: Max Weber and the Dispute Over Reason and Value: A Study in losophy of history: the ever growing number of new publications and
Philosophy, Ethics, and Politics (Routledge 1984 ), and Max Weber: The Lawyer as journals devoted to this subject attest to the intellectual blossoming of
Social Thinker (Routledge 1994); [email protected] the field. However the field of historical theory remains fragmented and
most of its researchers often work at the periphery of long-established
Rafal Pawel Wierzchoslawski academic disciplines and frequently in relative isolation. Because of this,
Professor at SWPS (University of Social Sciences and Humanities), Social it is difficult to keep track of theorists of history, conferences, calls for
Science Campus Poznan, Poland; [email protected] papers, etc.
About !NTH, http://www.inth.ugent.be/about-the-inth/
Eugen Zelenak
Associate Professor of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts and Letters, Catholic The task of this and similar networks is to facilitate the cooperation and ex
University in Rufomberok, Slovakia; [email protected] change of thoughts between scholars and specialists working within the field
of philosophy of history. For instance, INTH co-organizes cyclical conferences
devoted to the philosophy and theory of history. The first of them The Future of
the Theory and Philosoph:y ofH istory took place in July 2013 at Ghent University
and gathered 270 participants and 180 presentations. The second conference,
entitled The Practical Past: on the Advantages and Disadvantages of History
for Life was organized in August 2016 at Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto.
There were 250 participants and 160 lectures and talks. In the intervening pe
riod, INTH was the patron of two other conferences: History and Historiogra
ph:y in the 20th Century in Athens (June 2015) and State-sponsored History after
1945, organized at Ghent University (November 2015). Likewise, congresses
and symposia on philosophy of history are regularly organized in the southern
hemisphere too and in 2017 Universidad de Ciencias Empresariales y Sociales
(u c Es) in Buenos Aires will host the fourth such meeting.
i The list of networks and websites are on the site of !NTH: http:/ /www.inth.ugent.be/links/
(accessed 2017-03-03) or in the site of History and Theory.
© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2018 I 001 10.1163/9789004356900_002
2 BRZECHCZYN INTRODUCTION 3
The other symptom of the growing interest in the philosophy of history is rules and laws, counterfactual history, contingency, and necessity in the past
the foundation of new journals, which now sit beside History and Theory and (Tucker 2001, 2010)
Storia della Storiografia, both of which have been published for over half a cen The purpose of this book is to discuss the idea of a revival of analytical phi
tury. Of notable mention here are Historiography Quarterly (since 1992), Cro losophy of history, proposed by Paul A. Roth during in his lecture Reviving Ana
mohs: Cyber Review ofM odem Historiography (since 1996), Rethinking History. lytical Philosophy of History given at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan.3
The journal of Theory and Practice (since 1997 ), Historein. A Review of the Past However, invited contributors were not only asked to respond to Roth's ideas
and Other Stories (since 1999 ),journal of Historical Theory and Historiography presented in his lecture, but also were encouraged to analyze other motifs and
(since 2003),]oumal of the Philosophy of History (since 2006), Hist6ria da His research problems presented in his wider scientific activity and/or to test his
toriografia (since 2008), Revista de Teoria da Hist6ria (since 2009), Expedii;oes: particular ideas in their chosen research areas.
Teoria da Hist6ria & Historiografia (since 2010 ),Journal of Cognitive Historiog In his address and accompanying article Roth used the term 'analytical' phi
raph:y (since 2014), Praticas da Hist6ria:]oumal on Theory, Historiography and losophy of history. By this term he understands a critical philosophy of history
Uses of the Past (since 2015). that is an epistemological reflection on the methods and conditions of his
As well as these journals, many prestigious publishing houses have launched torical knowledge. The notion of a substantial (or speculative) philosophy of
book series focused on the theory of history. Such examples include: Making history is also spoken of, pertaining to the interpretation of past events. This
Sense of History: Studies in Historical Cultures (Berghahn Books, published approach presupposes some ontological and metaphysical assumptions about
since 2002 ), History: Concepts, Theories and Practice (since 2003 by Routledge) the nature of historical process. Aviezer Tucker (2008) clarified the existing
and Routledge Approaches to History (since 2011).2 In addition, further proof of terminology, proposing a distinction between philosophy of historiography
the growing interest in philosophy of history in academic didactics can be seen and philosophy of history. The first is philosophical reflection and examina
in the publication of anthologies of papers and readers designed for academic tion of historiography, that is, the product of historian's practices. Philosophy
work (Tucker ed. 2008, Partner, Foot, eds. 2012 ). of history, on the other hand, involves theorizing about the past. Some authors
This boom in interest in the philosophy and theory of history is character (cf. Kuukkanen) from this volume have accepted this terminology, whereas
ized by its geographical dispersion. New journals from the have been launched others have kept to a traditional distinction. However, this classification can
outside the Anglo-American academic world in Brazil, China, Greece, and Ita be extended. The adjective 'analytical' refers to the analytical style of doing
ly, and centers promoting theoretical reflection on history have been founded philosophy which is traditionally contrasted with a 'continental' mode of phi
at less known universities (e.g. the Centre for Philosophical Studies of History losophizing. Therefore, philosophy of historiography and philosophy of history
at Oulu University in Finland or the Centre for the Philosophy of History at can be further divided into 'analytical' and 'continental' depending on the style
St. Mary's University, London). of doing analysis.
A characteristic feature of the present theoretical and philosophical reflec Within the field of philosophy of historiography the hallmark of its ana
tion on history is the emergence of new sub-fields of historical research such lytical style is, first and foremost, employment of logical terminology and a
as the history of historiography, memory studies, (ab )use of history, transition consideration of such problems which can be analyzed with its aid. A con
al justice and ethics of writing history, historicity, and the merging of historical tinental-oriented philosophy of historiography uses non-technical language
sciences with other disciplines of science (Lorenz 2008; Bondi 2011; Fusaro 2011; and considers pro bl ems and issues characteristic for this branch of philosophy.
Bevernage 2012; Savelieva 2011). This adds to the already lively discussions and This division can be also applied to philosophy of history. The counterpart of
research on more traditional topics such as the nature of historical sources, the continental approach to philosophy of history done can be traditionally
the structure of narrative, explanation versus understanding in history, social
3 This lecture was delivered during the session Naturalizing the Humanities. A View from the
2 Philosophy and methodology of historical sciences were is in the range of interest of Poznan Analytical Philosophy ofH istory organized by Department of History, Department of Philoso
Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities from its very beginning. It is phy at Adam Mickiewicz University and Poznan Division of Polish Philosophical Society on
enough to mention volumes published under editorship of Krzysztof Brzechczyn (2009), October 13, 2015. The participants of this session were: Krzysztof Brzechczyn, Ewa Domanska
Leszek Nowak (1982, 1989) andjerzyTopolsk.i (1979, 1990, 1994)· jouni-Matti Kuukkanen, Rafal Pawel Wierzchoslawsk.i Eugen Zelenak and Paul A. Roth.
4 BRZECHCZYN INTRODUCTION 5
conceived of as a speculative philosophy of history. It is also possible to point ("The Mysterious Case of Analytic Philosophy of History: Paradigm Tum
to a limited number works from philosophy of history written in an analyti in Historiography Revisited") uses the category of the worldview in order to
cal manner, such as Cohen (1979), Loone (1980), and Nowak (1983, 1991) or distinguish two explanations for the collapse of philosophy of history: inter
macro-history (Collins 1999 ). The collection of papers presented in this volume nal and external. This distinction leads to a different answer on questions
belong to a philosophy of historiography that takes both an 'analytical', and regarding the status of modernism and post-modernism in historiography. In
'continental' mode. "Philosophy of History and Analytical Philosophy in Germany: A Special Rela
The first essay "Reviving Philosophy of History" is a revised and expanded tionship" Chris Lorenz considers the problem of the development of analyti
version of Roth's lecture. In it, the author aims to revive the debate on the rela cal philosophy in Germany. According to him, the ascertainment of the 'weak'
tionship between explanation and narrative in historiography. The distinction position of analytical philosophy in this country cannot be simply explained
between the nomothetic and idiographic sciences presupposes that explana by the concept of German Sonderweg. He argues that an assessment of the
tion is based on the laws (Hempel), whilst an idiographic account, presented influence of analytical style of philosophy in German philosophy and a recon
in the form of literary narrative (White), is devoid of any explanatory dimen struction of reasons of this state of affairs can be done from both comparative
sions although it brings about the effect of understanding in a reader. In his and transnational perspectives. jouni-Matti Kuukkanen's article, "The Future
article, Roth investigates this thus understood abyss between narrative and of Philosophy of Historiography: Reviving or Reinventing?", addresses the po
explanation. He argues that narrative has explanatory dimensions, but they tential future shape of analytical philosophy of historiography. Based on Roth's
are not present in laws presupposed by historians because they "have no laws writings he discusses three promising research strands: naturalism, justifica
to insert" (Roth 2018, p. 10 ). Therefore: tionism, and explanation. However, according to Kuukkanen in order fruitfully
discuss these problems we need such a philosophy of historiography that guar
What makes a narrative explanatory involves the fact that an historian antees notion clarity in analyses of problems presented in historiographical
creates an event under certain description, one knowable only after the practice. The authors of the next four papers discuss various theoretical prob
fact, but true some prior time, and retrospectively offers an account of lems taken up in Paul A. Roth's writings. In an article entitled "A Pragmatist Cri
how that earlier events becomes the advent of the later. tique of Dogmatic Philosophy of History" Serge Grigoriev reconstructs Roth's
ROTH, 2018, p. 23 approach to philosophy of history. In Grigoriev's opinion Roth developed a
pragmatist (critical) approach to historiography based on the research practice
This stance presupposes a host of assumptions about the ontological status of of historians. This approach is contrasted with the dogmatic stand that served
the past and the epistemological dimensions of historiographical practice that the justification of Roth's own pre-philosophical and pre-theoretical presup
are carefully analyzed in the remainder of the book. This collection of papers positions. Eugen Zelenak's paper, "Non-Representationalism in Philosophy of
can be divided into three groups. The first four papers attempt to sketch the History: A Case Study," interprets ontological and epistemological assumptions
most important research pro bl ems in current analytical philosophy of history, of Paul A. Roth's concepts of philosophy of history. The authors of two last pa
the reasons for its fall, the present phase of development, and its possible fu pers in this section discuss the question of explanatory dimensions of histori
ture. The authors of the next four essays discuss detailed questions undertaken cal narrative. Stephen Turner ("What Do Narratives Explain? Roth, Mink and
by Paul A. Roth: his critique of dogmatic philosophy of history, ontological and Weber") juxtaposes Roth's view with that of the two scholars mentioned in
epistemological assumptions (anti-representationalism) and explanatory di the title, whereas Krzysztof Brzechczyn ("How Do Narratives Explain? A Com
mensions of the narrative. In the last group of papers, the authors attempt to ment from the Point of View of the Poznan School of Methodology") compares
test some of Roth's theoretical within their own specialist fields of research. Roth's stand with two authors from the Poznan School: Jerzy Topolski and Iza
In his essay "Why Did Analytical Philosophy of History Disappear? Three bela Nowakowa.
Narratives of Decline" Herman Paul presents three accounts of the decline of The authors of the last group of papers apply Roth's theoretical ideas to their
philosophy of history, from Hayden White, Arthur Danto and Paul A. Roth. He chosen specialist fields. Rafal Pawel Wierzchoslawski in his paper "Antinomies,
also tries to explain what the authors recognized to be worthy of continuation Multiple Realities and the Pasts" applied Stephen Turner's categories of princi
and what was seen to be outdated in philosophy of history. Piotr Kowalewski plism and antinomies to discussion on the Holocaust in the Polish lands under
6 BRZECHCZYN INTRODUCTION 7
German occupation. According to Wierzchoslawski, Turner's categories can be References
grounded on Roth's concept of explanatory narration and its ontological impli
cations (irrealism). In "Is a Dramatic Theory of History Possible? Shakespeare's Bevernage, B. (2012). From Philosophy of History to Philosophy of Historicities. Some
Richard II and Historical Truth" Geza Kallay employs Roth's notion of histori Ideas on Potential Future of Historical Theory. BMGN. Low Countries Historical Re
cal truth in an analysis of literary fiction. Nancy D. Campbell and Laura Stark view 127, no. 4, 113-120.
("Making up Vulnerable People: Human Subjects and The Subjective Experi Bondi D. (2011) Is There Still Room for the 'Philosophy of History'. Storia della Storio
ence of Medical Experiment") borrow the notion of narrative to investigate the grafia 59-60, 183-197.
creation of personal identity, and last but not least Dawid Rogacz's "Spring and Brzechczyn, K. (ed.) (2 009 ). Idealization XIII: Modeling in History. Poznan Studies in the
Autumn Annals as Narrative Explanation" uses Roth's idea of narrative expla Philosophy oft he Sciences and the Humanities 97 Amsterdam/New York, NY: Rodopi.
nation in an interpretation of a Chinese chronicle written around 480 B.C. The Cohen G.A. (1979). Karl Marx's Theory ofH istory: A Defense. Oxford: University Press.
volume is rounded off by Paul A. Roth's own "Comments and Replies." Collins, R. (1 999) Macrohistory. Essays in the Sociology of the Long Run. Stanford: Stan
At this point, it is high time to more substantially introduce the inspiration ford University Press.
for this volume to readers. Paul A. Roth was born on November 18, 1948 in New Fusaro, D. (2 011). Prolegomena to any Future Philosophy of History that Will Be Able to
York City. He studied at Wesleyan University (1966-1970) where he obtained Present Itself as a Science. Storia della Storiografia, 59-60, 209-223.
his B.A. degree and studied with Louis Mink. In his whole academic career he Loone, E. (1 980 ). Soviet Marxism and Analytical Philosophies ofH istory. London: Verso.
was also inspired by the works of Alasdair Macintyre, Clifford Geertz, Richard Lorenz, Ch. (2008). Scientific Historiography. In: A. Tucker (ed.) Companion to Philoso
Rorty, Stehpen Turner, and Hayden White. In 1971 he continued his studies at phy ofH istory and Historiography, pp. 393-403. Malden: Wiley /Blackwell.
the University of Chicago obtaining in 1972 M.A degree from social science. Nowak, L. (1983). Property and Power. Towards Non-Marxian Historical Materialism.
At this university Roth also defended in 1978 his Ph.D. thesis (on Philosophy): Dordrecht: Reidel.
"Natural Language, Natural Science, and the Nature of Philosophic Inquiry: Nowak, L. (1991). Power and Civil Society. Toward a Dynamic Theory of Real Socialism.
An Examination of Quine's Epistemology" under supervision of prof. Manley New York: Greenwood Press.
Thompson and prof. Daniel Garber. In his scientific career he has been con Nowak, L. (ed.) (1 982 ). Social Classes, Action and Historical Materialism. Poznan Studies
nected with two universities: From 1978-2004 he worked in the Department of in the Philosophy oft he Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 6. Amsterdam-Atlanta GA:
Philosophy at University of Missouri, St. Louis, and since 2004 he has been a Rodopi.
Professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He has authored the book Nowak, L. (ed.) (1989). Dimensions of the Historical Process. Poznan Studies in the
Meaning and Method in the Social Sciences: A Case for Methodological Pluralism Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 13. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA:
(1987) as well as numerous papers published in such prestigious journals as Rodopi.
History and Theory.Journal of the Philosophy ofH istory, Mind, Philosophy of the Partner, N., S. Foot (eds.) (2 012 ). Sage Handbook ofH istorical Theory. Oakland: Sage.
Social Sciences and Synthese, where he has discussed, inter alia: the ontological Roth, P.A. (1987). Meaning and Method in the Social Sciences: A Casef or Methodological
status of the past, the problem of truth in historiography, explanatory dimen Pluralism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
sions of narrative, explanation vs. understanding in social sciences and history, Roth, P.A. (2018). Reviving Philosophy of History. In: K. Brzechczyn (ed.). Towards a
the problem of rationality, the status of psychoanalysis, and methodological Revival ofA nalytical Philosophy ofH istory. Around Paul A. Roth's Vision of Historical
aspects of historiography of the Holocaust. Roth's writing is characterized by Sciences. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy oft he Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 110,
a clarity in the posing of problems, aiming for a precise definition of used no pp. 9-27. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
tions and scrupulous analysis of arguments used by the authors he attempts to Savelieva 1.M. (2 011). In Search oft he New "Tums": History and Theory in the 21st Century.
interpret. Roth is careful in formulating his own position on the problems he Basic Research Program. Working Papers. Series: Humanities. WP. BRP 02/HUM/2011.
considers. However, the knowledge of his arguments and reservations may be Moscow: National Research University. Higher School of Economics.
helpful in reaching our own conclusions. As a result, Paul A. Roth's consider Topolski, J. (ed.) (1979 ). Methodological Problems ofH istorical Research. Poznan Studies
ations and arguments are always worth of attention and discussion, something in the Philosophy oft he Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 5. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA:
best-proven by the present volume. Rodopi.
8 BRZECHCZYN
Topolski, J. (ed.) (1990). Narration and Explanation. Contributions to the Methodology CHAPTER 1
of the Historical Research. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the
Reviving Philosophy of History
Humanities vol. 19. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
Topolski, J. (ed.). (1994). Historiography between Modernism and Postmodemism. Con
Paul A. Roth
tributions to the Methodology of the Historical Research. Poznan Studies in the Phi
losophy of Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 41. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
Tucker, A. (2001). The Future of the Philosophy of Historiography. History and Theory,
A call to revive philosophy of history will, I expect, quickly prompt at least
40, no. 1, 37-56.
the following two questions: first, what exactly would this revival revive; and,
Tucker, A. (2010) Where Do We Go From Here? Jubilee Report on History and Theory.
second, why bother? Those skeptically inclined might counsel indefinite post
History and Theory, 49, 64-84.
ponement, inasmuch as this subfield has remained mostly deserted since the
Tucker, A. (ed.) (2 008). Blackwell Companion to Philosophy of History and Historiogra
i97os. My primary concern will be to outline where certain key issues now stand
phy. Malden: Wiley /Blackwell.
with regard to the first question, i.e., with an aim to identifying those aspects
within philosophy of history that both merit and demand renewed philosophi
cal consideration. Specifically, I focus on those features that make historical
explanation distinctive and yet belonging on any satisfactory catalogue of ex
planatory strategies. I conclude with two examples meant to illustrate how an
answer to the first question answers as well the second. In this case, it does
so by suggesting how our professional lives exist enmeshed in agendas set by
historical narratives.
Philosophy of history in the sense that primarily interests me connects to
issues that concern the nature of historical explanation. These arose in dis
cussions originating in the philosophical literature in the igth century and
in terms that still dominate. Varieties of positivism, whether of Comtean or
Vienna Circle style, advocated for forms of explanation modeled on their ide
alization of the natural sciences. Historians protested that all such models ill
fit their actual practices. In reaction, theoretically minded historians and sym
pathetic philosophers sought to specify why history as practiced counts as a
science, even if not of a form scouted by assorted positivists.
A terminology specific to that debate invokes a distinction between no
mothetic and idiographic modes of explanation. The former explains by regi
menting statements of fact into explanatory patterns so as to reveal how such
patterns instantiate laws or law-like connections. The latter mode explains by
elaborating those contexts in which things happen; on this account, the specif
ics of a situation provide what is needed by way of explanation. Later discus
sions that feature a distinction between thin and thick descriptions, where the
former invoke highly schematic accounts of what rationality consists in, and
the latter study rationality as construed in situ evoke and invoke this contrast.
Economists gone modeling and ethnographers gone native provide contempo
rary instances of these different explanatory strategies in action.
© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 20I8 I DOI I0.1163/9789004356900_003
10 ROTH REVIVING PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY 11
A distinction between explanation and understanding evolves in tan Note, however, that the term "narrative explanation" as now used has been
dem with these differing notions of explanation, the suggestion being that evacuated of the substantive content it has in Danto and in Mink. Evidence for
nomothetic explanations provide causes, and idiographic accounts engender this loss can be found in one of the very few recent articles in the analytical lit
understanding. That is, causal explanatory accounts imply underlying scien erature to seemingly bear on the subject of concern here, viz., David Velleman's
tific laws or at least their simulacra, and so do not depend on time and context (2003) "Narrative Explanation". Velleman begins by unproblematically assum
(see: Habermas 1988, esp. pp. 1-42 and Apel 1984, esp. pp. 1-68). As Hegel re ing a working contrast between scientific and narrative explanations. "Can we
marks, nature has no history (2008, p. 6). Understanding ties to context typi account for the explanatory force of narrative with the models of explanation
cally by seeking to comprehend what counts in a particular situation as good available in the philosophy of science? Or does narrative convey a different
or sufficient reasons for action. No claim is made that the goodness of the rea kind of understanding, which requires a different model and perhaps even a
sons generalizes; such matters will be specific to time and place. term other than 'explanation'?" (Velleman 2003, p. 1) Although Velleman dis
In the context of what comes to be called analytic philosophy of history, the plays some passing awareness of earlier work in philosophy of history by, e.g.,
1942 publication of Hempel's "The Function of General Laws in History" marks Mink, as well some contemporary work by Noel Carroll (2001),3 he nonetheless
a crucial intervention in this debate. Indeed, Hempel's essay became a near misses entirely Carroll's deliberate use of a classic example of Danto's, and in
exclusive focus of discussion both in and out of philosophy by (in)famously at least this important respect fails to understand a chief target of Carroll's own
insisting that historical explanations in their usual guise constitute at best "ex work on narrative explanation.4 Velleman's lack of awareness of the history of
planation sketches". Such sketches then have to be completed by citing some the topic helps account for, I suspect, his expressed frustration-"! began read
law or law-like connection between the explanandum statement and those ing the vast literature on narrative, and by the end of the first semester I was
putatively serving as explanantia. The problem notoriously was not that histo utterly lost. I decided to work on a different project, so as to have something to
rians had carelessly neglected to insert the relevant laws, like rushed students show for the year." (Velleman 2003, p. 22 )-with the entire topic as well as his
who omit lines in a proof, and so simply needed to tidy their presentations ultimate rejection of the notion of narrative explanation.
up a bit. Rather, historians have no laws to insert, and so it seems no genuine In a similar vein, a recent article in the Blackwell Companions series dedi
explanations on offer. cated to philosophy of history unfortunately only repeats the 19th century dis
In any case, in the subsequent three decades of debate triggered by Hem tinction between idiographic and nomothetic explanation without advancing
pel's essay, one of the most notable responses can be found in Arthur Danto's it. "[N]arrative explanation can be distinctively particular; it can pay due at
important work, Analytical Philosophy of History. It is in Danto's work that I tention to a particular context in all its complexity, and provide satisfactory
first find the phrase "narrative explanation". (Dan to 1965, p. 237 )1 What makes explanation of actions arising from those contexts without resorting to fanci
this point noteworthy is that it has come to name that form of explanation ful or trumped-up laws. It can do this while remaining faithful to the spirit of
specific to history, and connotes for our purposes those differences already in the generalist [Hempelian] position: all explanations must reduce to the sheer
play prior to Hempel's article. I claim that Danto's specific ways of motivating contingency of what is explained. It does this because the factors cited in nar
consideration of this term and Louis Mink's (1987) subsequent crucial modifi rative explanations are causally related (in various ways) to the events they
cations and elaborations of Danto's insights remain central to any serious con explain." (MacDonald and MacDonald 2009, pp. 139-140) But the parenthetical
sideration of this topic.2 remark in this quote only serves to reiterate the standing problem-how does
l The context suggests it to be Dante's own coinage. Close anticipations of Dante's term can
be found in Gallie (1968, u3-124, but esp.124) and Popper (1957, pp.143-144). One might well 3 For criticisms of Carroll's views that press points not discussed here, see Stueber (2015).
read Collingwood as suggesting this as well. Hayden White noted these anticipations to me. 4 The example is "Aristarchus hypothesized the heliocentric theory thereby anticipating
2 My remarks should not be taken to slight the importance of Hayden White's work to the Copernicus' discovery by many centuries." (Carroll 2001, p. 125), Carroll uses this example
development and discussion of the philosophical issues that attached to historical explana because Danto employs it to illustrate his (Dante's) notions of a "narrative sentence". (Danto
tion. I have elsewhere elaborated on the significance of White's work in this regard. However, 1965, p. 156) Since I am insisting on a need to return to issues in a form first raised by Danto
since one moral of my paper will be that, qua philosophers, one should attend less to issues and then Mink, this lack of recognition on Velleman's part proves critical. See (Carroll 2007)
of narrative form, White does not figure in my discussion here. for his critical response to Velleman.