How Problematic Discussions of History Arise
A jigsaw puzzle only makes sense when it is complete.
Allow me to tell you a story.
“Seen the new Napoleon movie?” I asked.
“Yeah, and mate, I would have won,” came the reply. Your inner voice warns against it, yet the urge remains enticing. Well, it was a Monday.
“What do you know that would have made the difference?” I asked. My left foot stepping into a hole that was six feet deep.
Then, I received an enriched and detailed history lesson on the mistakes of the Battle of Waterloo. I learnt that paying attention to weather was is essential for land warfare. After that, he discussed how unifying an entire continent’s aggression was another mistake. Truth be told, I actually learned a lot.
“Okay, valid points. But at what point did we, as in you and I, learn that those reasons would have made the difference?” I asked.
He frowned. “Historians and tacticians studied the battle and now we know,” he finally said.
“Now, but not then,” I said.
From where I was sitting, I understood a lot about what he was doing. People often need to interpret the past to plan for the future, as it is a sense of ownership. This pursuit is often intrinsically rewarding, offering justification and validation. However, we must acknowledge the inherent subjectivity, particularly when examining the past. We must understand the Historian’s Fallacy.
I will delve into the origins of the Historian’s Fallacy. There is a lot to dissect from its problematic consequences to the ability to learn from history. Then let’s consider some suggestions to counter this fallacy.
Since truth suffers from interpretation, we often develop more problems because we think we are right. Examining history through a modern perspective is tricky as biases are engrained in our processing. It’s no one’s fault, really. Our recent access to vast quantities of information often misleads our perceived omniscience. Our environment moulds our perception of that vast data. This becomes problematic, as we immediately have more access to information than our predecessors. This implies that we are actually incapable of judging their problems with the same frame of reference.
History gets us to learn, to judge, to condemn and celebrate. It becomes grounds for comparisons and warnings for the future. But with the eagerness to find the right answers, we can fall victim to the Historian’s Fallacy. A friend once said that, “everyone must clean their room yesterday so they can organise for today.” While I agree with the merit of self organisation, the refusal to accept the messiness of the past is problematic. The past did not have a predetermined outcome. We are simply the inheritors of it.
The historian, David Hackett Fischer, coined the Historian’s Fallacy back in 1970. He likened it to a psychologist’s trick, assuming people in the past knew exactly what we now know. Remember the conversation at the beginning? I recall feeling superior to Napoleon when learning about the mistakes that lead to his failure. This, Fischer argues, is precisely the insidious trap of the fallacy. People mistakenly attribute their contemporary knowledge of figures who previously navigated the world. However, they had far less information and far more unknowns at their point in history. It’s this deceptive ease of judging with “20/20 vision” that we must be cautious of.
What are the problems of the Historian’s Fallacy?
Firstly, hindsight erodes empathy and diminishes the humanity of historical figures. We readily pronounce judgments, condemning choices made under vastly different circumstances. While horrible acts of human cruelty are littered throughout history, their causes are seldom black and white. We forget the uncertainty that drove our predecessors and their limited oversight. Furthermore, we forget the differences in navigating their social, political, and technological landscapes.
Reducing figures to caricatures based on the outcomes promotes a superficial understanding of consequence. This diminishes the complexity of history with a few brief statements. Without awareness of this fallacy, we categorise humans by interpreting their acts, rather than see their behaviors and circumstances that led to the decision.
Now, this is not a justification for the atrocities of history in any shape or form. There is a requirement to understand them as there is a possibility it will save our future.
Secondly, the allure of hindsight fosters the illusion of historical predictability. We often mistake the past as a predetermined path. This gives us a flawed sense of control over the present and future. By overlooking chance, unforeseen consequences, and individual agency, we ignore the inherent contingency. We risk replicating its mistakes under the belief that we can manipulate the present. As humans, we adore noticing patterns and believe we can control the outcomes. The Historian’s Fallacy enables that as an allure.
Thirdly, individuals can weaponize the Historian’s Fallacy for moral justification. Since we judge historical figures and events through contemporary values, it often leads to condemning them for not possessing our present-day knowledge and values. This not only erases the context and constraints of their time, but also risks legitimizing present-day injustices through hindsight-constructed narratives. Blaming historical shortcomings for contemporary societal issues perpetuates cycles of resentment. This hinders efforts towards reconciliation and positive societal change as it cripples understanding. Without awareness of this fallacy, the past becomes weaponised to drive an agenda.
Furthermore, the seductive clarity of hindsight blinds us to the being wrong. We fixate on the choices made and outcomes achieved, neglecting the paths not taken. This oversight erases the circumstance and behaviours of individuals and groups. It reduces history to a predetermined script rather than acknowledging the interplay of human choices, unforeseen consequences, and chance. We are creatures that like to be right.
Finally, the Historian’s Fallacy impedes genuine learning from the past. We close ourselves off to the valuable lessons about human nature. True historical understanding requires grappling with the messiness and ambiguity of the past. This ambiguity tempts people into scripting lessons learnt to match their contemporary values. More often than not, this is not always true. We should not impose the simplistic clarity of hindsight onto its events and actors.
Remember, the Historian’s Fallacy isn’t about ditching retrospect. It’s about remembering that the past is messy and often incomplete. It’s about appreciating that the past is an accurate reflection of its time, not ours.
It’s about understanding that events are more complicated than a hindsight analysis.
The past is not a static tableau. Nor will it ever be. It is a mess of countless choices, accidents, and unintended consequences. To understand it, we must resist the Historian’s Fallacy and embrace the mess. We must understand the uncertainty, and the possibilities that make history genuinely human.
After all, a jigsaw puzzle only makes sense when it is completed.
