My rating: 3 of 5 stars
Arnold gives a good practical guide with concrete examples, demonstrating the joy of historical discovery and reliable reconstruction of the past. He surveys the history of history, rejecting scientific approach of Leopold von Ranke ("only to say how it really was") while trying to navigate away from the pure relativism of private stories.
Arnold rejects the concept of "Truth" as an illusion of certainty, but clings to "truth" as fidelity to the sources (56). But, I ask, who determines that? Arnold ultimately appeals to consensus: "Truth is therefore a process of consensus, as what operates as 'the truth' (what gets accepted as 'the true story') relies on a general, if not absolute, acceptance by one's fellow human beings" (115). Arnold applies this to Hitler and the Holocaust, "The consensus is rightly so strong on this topic that we know the Holocaust to have been an act of astounding evil" (120). So if this consensus is right, can a consensus be wrong? If so, how do you decide? Go back to the sources? But that can only provide another consensus at best.
Now, what if Hitler would have won? Would the consensus and thus the truth be different? I would say no! And thank God he didn't win. Thus we must appeal to something beyond consensus as even Hitler was operating on a consensus of fellow Germans he had persuaded.
We can only judge Hitler to be evil by appealing to Truth. This resonates with the moral beings we are, and calls for humility, because we don't always see the truth clearly or act in accord with it. It can be abused as a mere grasp for power, as with Hitler. But the Truth has a power of its own that would have defeated him even if he had won the war. Thus we submit our appeals to Truth to the Truth. As a Christian, I acknowledge my point of view, test it against the books of Scripture and nature, and see what comes of it. It's a journey but not an aimless one. We must seek the Truth.
Arnold strikes the post-modern pose of skepticism toward meta-narrative, saying, "In tackling the problems that face us, we have become suspicious of people spinning us great tales, and wish to pay more attention to the details of true stories" (91). This is a false dichotomy. Truth includes but must ultimately transcend mere fidelity to details. Otherwise your just "keeping score."
Arnold does come up with three good reasons for doing history: enjoyment, thinking outside of one's present time, and thinking "differently about oneself" (122). We need to have fun in the past, explore "an alternative world," and make historical arguments that give us the ability to change. But without Truth, whose to say it was for the better?
No comments:
Post a Comment