Introduction
In this document, we are going to study the work of EH Carr on history in the book what is history?
The document is divided into 5 parts to give the reader a flexible experience in the reading. Some points, paragraphs, and lines are taken from historical sources given by E.H Carr in his book what is history.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The document is created by Kumar Anantashish a student in 1st year BA LLB from Bennett University.
The reason to write this document is to explore the definition given by E.H Carr on history and his perspective on the subject of history.
And why the book What is history is considered a classic.
This document is written for study purposes so feel free to point out errors and mail the writer Kumar Anantashish.
Who was E.H. Carr
E.H. Carr was born on 28 June 1892 in London. He was an English historian, diplomat, writer, theorist of international affairs, and critic of empiricism in historiography. He was well known for his book WHAT IS HISTORY?
He is one of the greatest theorists and historians who briefly explained the controversial topic of what history means. His book what is history is accepted by almost every historian.
The research of E.H. Carr will be discussed in the next topic.
Carr's life has been well documented. A genius schoolboy in London and then received a double-length in Cambridge classics, an early career in the Foreign Office, including a CBE for his service at the Peace Conference (1920), a post in Russia, a 1936 appointment as Woodrow Wilson Professor of International Relations at Aberystwyth, Assistant Editor of The Times, and then a Fellowship at Cambridge, where he died.
His work throughout the book
It is a 1961 non-fiction book on historiography by historian Edward Hallett Carr. It addresses history, evidence, the bias of scholars, science, morality, individuals and culture, and moral decisions in history.
Historian and his facts
In the major research of the field of historical studies, E. H. Carr's article 'The Historian and His Facts' introduces his readers to the importance of recognizing the flaws inherent in the study of history, as well as his interpretation of how the historical reality is shaped and the relationship the historian has with his/her facts.E. H. Carr's article makes a wise appeal for a paradigm change in the field of historical research that departs from the arrogant and deceptive expectations of past scholars. While some of the knowledge he presents can seem to be common sense, such as the fact that history is never impartial, he nonetheless articulates his theories in a jargon-free way that any beginner can readily grasp. In the basic study of the field of historical studies, E. H. Carr's essay 'The Historian and His Facts' exposes his readers to the importance of understanding the shortcomings inherent in the study of history, as well as his view of how historical facts are produced and the connection the historian has with his/her facts. Using numerous authors as examples from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, E. H. Carr's article makes a wise appeal for a paradigm change in the field of historical research that departs from the arrogant and deceptive expectations of past scholars.
While some of the knowledge he presents can seem to be common sense, such as the fact that history is never impartial, he nonetheless articulates his theories in a jargon-free way that any beginner can readily grasp.
Carr starts his essay by denouncing the popular idea, often maintained by positivists, that history is merely a matter of collecting facts. This is because the Positivists, or those who believe in the Scientific Philosophy of Understanding, believe that history should be learned as hard science. This view, according to Carr, is founded on the (inaccurate) premise that an (impartial) inference may be reached by merely examining what is perceived to be empirical evidence.
The irony of such a belief should have been obvious to any rational historian, for even a fleeting deliberation would have given rise to the idea that humans are famously impressible. Indeed, they may all have their own guarded views, but they are also affected by others, and even shared memories are often remembered differently by different individuals. The secret to Carr's effort to correct the Positivists' flawed interpretation of history is his claim that the evidence should not speak for itself. Carr suggests that this is a duty left for historians who will choose and determine which details need to be seen, the order in which they are seen, and their meaning. The classic example of fishmarket will help us to understand the concept of carr- In the book, the author has given the example of the fisherman and the fish, facts are like fish where the historian is the fisherman who can select how he wants to present the fact. As history itself is packed with facts, these facts must then be calculated, evaluated, and examined for their importance and significance in comparison to the predominant historical information. From this view, the historical facts are thus seen as essentially created by the historian and not simply found. Obviously, this difference between development and invention has significant implications in terms of objectivity or credibility of the evidence, particularly for the Positivists, however, Carr accepts this intrinsic weakness in history as merely part of what the historian has to accept: 'Neutrality in history is impossible.'Thus by recognizing this limitation, the relationship of the historian with his/her facts is transformed from something similar to regurgitation, as posited by the positivists, into a discipline that actually creates them. Another way of looking at this is by viewing history as something that is 'made,' not 'born.'There are, of course, implications where one actually believes that subjectivity is the nature of culture. Indeed, this is a risky idea that everyone, whether ill or for good, may take advantage of. For example, all nation-states construct their own origin myths to promote a sense of common unity and to reconcile diverse groups of people, demagogues frequently reshape history to serve their purpose, and certain revisionist historians may make improvements to the dominant historical narratives to serve their purpose because history is necessarily ambiguous, frequently giving an infinity of alternative explanations, some scholars thus claim that all historical readings should be treated as equal—that none is more correct than the other. But some such as Carr, claim that while history may have an infinity of interpretations, one can still be comforted by the fact that there is a handful that provides a better understanding than all the others.
History is never impartial
History is never impartial, as already mentioned above. Likewise, history's interpretation of the past can never be separated from the dominant society, politics, and theories of the day. In other words, a historian's interpretation of the past is being filtered into his worldview. This suggests, however, that power dynamics, the existing norms, society, faith, and political ideas determine how the historian interprets history.
The creative license in history
Because history can never be objective, considering history don't have any base formula like another hard science subject, it gives historian a little creative license as to how the historian wants to present his/her work to the public.
Chapter 2
Carr tries to figure out how far the historians of individuals are, and how far the products of their culture and their age are, how far the facts of the history of individual individuals are, and how far the social facts are. This is because every human being, at every point of history or pre-history, is born into a culture and is molded by that society from its earliest years. The language he uses is not an individual legacy, but a social acquisition from the society in which he grows up. The historian is a human being. As all people, it is also a collective phenomenon, as a consequence and a conscious or unconscious spokesperson of the culture to which it belongs; it is in this way that it approaches the truth of the historical experience. Great history is written exactly because the historian's view of the past is illuminated by insight into the issues. According to Carr, you cannot completely comprehend or consider the work of the historian until you first grasp the point of view from which he himself viewed it the point of view is itself embedded in a social and historical context. The historian, when he starts writing history, is a product of history.
Carr goes on to suggest that the historian who is more mindful of his own condition is therefore more capable of transcending it and more capable of appreciating the fundamental essence of the discrepancies in his own culture and his own perspective and those of other times and other nations, than the historian who vigorously protests that he is an individual and not a social phenomenon. history itself is concerned, the facts of history are facts about individuals, but not about the actions of individuals carried out in isolation, and not about motivations, etc.
Carr continues by saying: 'Memory, then in all meanings of the term – that is to say, both the history of the historian and the truth of the past in which he enquires – is a historical mechanism in which people are engaged as social beings.
Chapter 3
Carr offers and contends with five possible explanations that history should not be considered science.
History deals solely with the peculiar science of the general: Carr disagrees, suggesting that the historian is continually using generalization to assess his proof. For example, the Peloponnesian War and the Second World War were somewhat different and both were special, but scholars call them both 'wars'.
History teaches no lesson: Carr claims that the true point of generalization is that through it we attempt to learn about history, to extend the lessons of one series of events to another set of events: as we generalize, we knowingly or unconsciously try to do so. He offers examples of Ancient Rome learning from Ancient Greece, or the Russian Revolution learning from French. He goes on to add that learning from history is never a one-way process. To think about the present in the light of the past often means to learn about the past in the light of the present. The role of history is to cultivate a better understanding of both past and present through the interrelationship between them.
History cannot predict: Carr disagrees once again. He says: 'The historian, as we have shown, is bound to generalize; and in doing so, he gives general directions for future action which while not precise forecasts, are both true and useful. But it cannot foresee particular events, because the species is special and because the feature of the accident is part of it The historian often deals with probability.
History is inherently subjective: a sociologist, an economist, or a historian must penetrate the modes of human action in which the will is involved, and figure out why human beings who are the subjects of his research can behave as they have done. This establishes a relationship that is unique to the history and the social sciences, between the observer and what is observed.
History is dealing with issues of faith and morality: Carr says that the position of the historian is close to that of the astronomer, who can believe in the presence of God, but not in the form of God who can alter the direction of the planets at will. As far as morality is concerned, Carr says that the historian is not expected to make a moral judgment on the private life of the characters of his novel. The positions of the historian and the moralist are not the same.
Stuck on your essay?
