Benedetto Croce.H. Roger-Viollet
Explanation and understanding
Both Croce and Collingwood, in their criticisms of earlier theorists, were especially anxious to expose what they believed to be recurrent and fundamental misconceptions regarding the method and subject matter of history: central to these was the assumption that historical occurrences could be subsumed under, and explained in terms of, universal laws of the sort that played an essential part in scientific interpretations of inanimate nature. This assumption was, in their opinion, a gross error. As Collingwood put it, the moment had arrived for history to be released from “its state of pupilage to natural science.” With this in mind, he went on to develop an account of historical understanding according to which the historian explains events by exhibiting them as the expressions of past thinking on the part of self-conscious purposive agents—thinking that the historian must imaginatively reconstruct or re-enact in his own mind—rather than by showing the events to be instances of general uniformities or regularities that are established by induction. In propounding this view—which Croce, though he formulated it less clearly and precisely, basically shared—Collingwood set in motion a controversy concerning knowledge and explanation in history that was central to much subsequent discussion. As Collingwood himself was fully aware, a position similar to his own had been originally advanced (though in a very different context) by Vico; and it is indeed noteworthy that the general division, evident at the speculative level, between those who wished to comprehend historical phenomena in ways suggested by the physical sciences and those who, by contrast, argued for an altogether distinct pattern of interpretation tended to re-emerge at the level of methodological and conceptual analysis.
Thus, on one side of the dispute, there were ranged philosophers who took their stand upon what has been called “the unity of science” and who insisted that the categories and procedures appropriate to the human studies do not enjoy a unique or privileged status that somehow sets them apart from those characteristic of systematic empirical enquiry in other domains. In a classical 18th-century discussion, David Hume had argued that, if two events were said to be causally related, this could only be in the sense that they instantiated certain regularities of succession that had been repeatedly observed to hold between such events in the past: to presume otherwise was to fall back upon an unacceptable belief in “intuitable” connections that had no warrant either in reason or experience. This doctrine may be said to have been given more rigorous expression among positivist philosophers of the 20th century in the shape of what is variously known as the “deductive-nomological” or “covering law” theory of explanation; as originally applied to history by Carl Hempel, it amounted to the claim that explaining a given historical occurrence in terms of some other event or set of events necessarily involves an appeal, which need not be more than tacit, to laws or general propositions correlating events of the type to be explained with those of the kind cited as its causes or conditions. Although the proposed analysis has received a variety of different formulations, each designed to meet specific objections that have been raised against it, its adherents never wavered from the conviction that some such account must be in principle correct if explanations in history are to be open to rational assessment of the sort properly demanded within any legitimate branch of empirical investigation. It is for this reason, together with others, that they were strongly opposed to Verstehen, or “empathy,” theories of historical knowledge. They regarded the contention that historical understanding presupposes an allegedly direct identification with the mental processes of past human agents as representing at best a heuristic recommendation of doubtful utility, at worst an obscurantist doctrine that transparently fails to provide an objective criterion whereby divergent historical interpretations can be evaluated.
Resistance to the positivist approach came from more than one direction. To a number of practicing historians, for instance, the account offered appeared implausible inasmuch as it overlooked the “irreducible particularity” of historical occurrences and because it postulated an unjustifiably high degree of reliance upon the presence of discernible uniformities in the sphere of human affairs. So far as philosophers are concerned, dissatisfaction was voiced both by those to whom the Croce-Collingwood notion of historical thinking as the “re-enactment of past experience” seemed to contain an important element of truth and also by those followers of Ludwig Wittgenstein who were impressed by the skepticism concerning the adequacy of scientific models apparent in his later discussions of mental concepts. A leading representative of the former group, W.H. Dray, not only constructed a series of arguments to demonstrate the deficiencies of the covering-law theory but further proposed an alternative conception of “rational explanation,” which—it was suggested—fitted many of the familiar ways whereby historians seek to render the past intelligible. Thus, Dray maintained that the function of much historical explanation consists of showing the actions of historical persons to have been “appropriate” when viewed within the perspective of their specific beliefs, aims, and principles: it was this consideration, he claimed, that was uppermost in the minds of theorists who were concerned to stress the part played by imaginative or empathetic understanding in historical reconstruction, their point being primarily a “logical” one and not necessarily carrying any of the dubious epistemological implications attacked by positivist critics. From a different standpoint, Anglo-U.S. writers influenced by Wittgenstein challenged the entire assumption that explanations involving the notions of human intention and purpose are susceptible to a Humean pattern of causal analysis; they also (for example, in the work of Peter Winch) stressed the extent to which historical descriptions of past behaviour require to be framed in terms the agents themselves would have recognized as giving meaning to their activities, terms embodying references to ideas and conventions that defined the social reality in which they participated. Objectivity and evaluation
Fundamental issues concerning the status of historical inquiry of the kind just mentioned arose in another crucial area of discussion, centring upon the question of whether—and, if so, in what sense—history can be said to be an objective discipline. Some modern philosophers inclined to the view that the entirely general problem of whether history is objective cannot sensibly be raised; legitimate questions regarding objectivity are in place only where some particular piece of historical work is under consideration, and in that case there are accepted standards available, involving such matters as documentation and accuracy, by which they can be settled. To others, however, things did not seem so clear, and they drew attention to the doubts that may be felt when history is compared with different branches of investigation, such as chemistry or biology: by contrast with such inquiries, the historian’s procedure, including the manner in which he conceptualizes his data and the principles of argument he employs, may appear to be governed by subjective or culturally determined predilections that are essentially contestable and, therefore, out of place in a supposedly reputable form of knowledge. One topic that was recurrently examined in this connection was the role of evaluation (specifically, of moral evaluation) in historical writing—a subject, incidentally, about which historians themselves are apt to exhibit a certain uneasiness. Nevertheless, recommendations to the effect that value judgment can and should be totally excluded from history and, indeed, from the social studies as a whole have met with a mixed philosophical reception. Among positivists and logical empiricists (also called logical positivists), traditionally skeptical of the rationality of value judgments and eager in any case to reduce the differences between the human and the natural sciences, they found some measure of support. But that was by no means a general response. Thus, objectors pointed out that the language the historian customarily uses, adapted as it is to the assessment and appraisal of human motives and characteristics, makes some degree of evaluation unavoidable. They argued that, even if the possibility of a drastically revised historical vocabulary allows the ideal of a wertfrei, or objective history, to be theoretically conceivable, such an ideal can scarcely be seriously entertained as a realizable practical goal. These considerations were reinforced by the further point that every historian, insofar as he has to select from the mass of material confronting him, is necessarily committed to forming judgments ascribing relative importance and significance; such attributions cannot, however, be simply read off from the facts and must, rather, be said to depend upon the prior acceptance of certain critical standards. To this extent, then, one is required to acknowledge the presence in historical writing of an ineliminable evaluative component, which is liable to obtrude itself into even so “objective” a field as that of causal analysis: it is notorious that disputes between historians as to the “true” causes of occurrences such as wars or revolutions often appear to resist resolution at a purely empirical level, and it has been persuasively maintained by some philosophers that the basic grounds for such disputes may often be traced back to one historian’s adherence to a moral or political standpoint not shared by his opponent. Conclusions