Analysis of General Theories of History - Essay Example

?Analysis of general theories of history Theory of history can be viewed as science of history that tends to not only document historical events but to inquire into the driving forces that caused these events. It explains how and why society evolved from the Stone Age into modern day world; and predicts its implications for the future along scientific reasoning. As society advances, social structures tend to change and sometimes these changes are drastic enough to be in conflict with old norms and values. This creates dire need to theorize about how history arises. Although prehistoric and barbaric societies were not bothered with either the past or the future but they did not realize that their own experiences shaped universal history. Experiences from one generation to another do not vary greatly; thereby it is important to learn lessons from the overall course of history. The first attempt to record the science of history was undertaken by the Greeks about twenty-five hundred years ago. The need to comprehend history and translate its effects into the future does not arise in societies with long-standing and relatively steady social structures. Such a state of affairs is not given much consideration. However, when societies face sudden drastic turmoil which triggers changes in the social structure, then understanding the underlying motives which led to the change becomes imperative. Usually wars, travelling, trade and colonization result in an entirely different culture being imposed on the society which they come into contact with. This forced integration of diverse cultures culminates in a clash between different social strata; so it becomes crucial to identify and comprehend the sources and foundations of such oppositions. Men of knowledge compare and contrast various sorts of governments and social structures in an attempt to resolve differences and bring harmony to the society. It is obvious that conflict resolution is not possible unless conflict description and diagnosis are accurate enough. The role and responsibility of creating accurate problem diagnosis is within the domain of political theorists. Neither has history been created nor have our social structures evolved in accordance with a pre-defined plan. Nature has not dictated the course of events rather it is the people who compose societies who chose their cultural norms, established various institutions and developed ideologies. It is time to realize that the human nature itself is determined by changes in life and labour. History has been shaped by economic progress, division of society in different social-economic strata, changes in condition of labour, advancements in production and trading. In this respect there have been a number of different contributions to thought on political history from various quarters. The evolution of political history in its current forms can be seen as deriving from the Age of Enlightenment where thinkers such as Hegel and Kant picked up the gauntlet to define history in such a manner. This work was carried on later by numerous others including Karl Marx who has had a major impact on the modern day given his role in the creation of a communist ideology. In more modern terms, the earliest thoughts on the philosophy of history derived from the views and work of Kant. He held that humanity had been driven into its current state of autonomy through the use of enlightened despotism (Kant, 1991) (Murphy, 1994). Kant’s views on the issue can be seen more clearly through his work titled Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose. Kant produced a paradoxical picture by expounding on the one hand that national liberation was only possible through enlightened despotism while ultimate autonomy rested entirely with the individual’s will to gain it (Williams, 1992). Kant recognised that history ensured that progress had to come in human affairs but Kant’s method of delineating the mechanism remains self-contradictory (Hampsher-Monk, 1993). Strangely he holds that liberation lies solely through Sapere Aude while also maintaining that only enlightened despotism could deliver liberation. The ideas of Kant were followed in close proximity by those of Hegel who used a different approach to deal with the issue altogether. Hegel made immense contributions to world history. He argued that the world was like an ‘objective mind’, meaning it could be easily understood and explained by the human mind. In addition, he advocated that the history is a universal and rational process; no single state or person dictated history rather every nation or person that existed made a contribution towards creating history differing in the amount they contributed towards the development. He conceived the idea that every event and stage is essential for the progression of mankind. No social structure existed in vain; however, there always exists a conflicting constitution which could be attributed to three factors. These were the accomplishments passed down by the predecessors, the particular conditions for the maintenance of the existing social structure and forces playing against it. The escalation of these oppositions eventually causes the crumbling and collapse of the existing social framework which is subsequently replaced by a better but different social system. Therefore, he concluded that all social systems are interconnected (Taylor, 1977). Hegel’s ideas can be better understood if placed under the lens of his dialectical materialism. Hegel argued that in itself history represented a constant process of dialectical clashes that have been present throughout its structure and course. In line with dialectical materialism, Hegel pronounced that any thesis in history was opposed by a matching antithesis. The combination of the thesis and antithesis resulted in the synthesis of the entire affair. In this manner the paradox between the thesis and the antithesis remained intact while sublating the entire issue. In addition, Hegel held the belief that reason was able to accomplish itself throughout history using his famous dialectical materialism system. He argued that man has transformed nature over time through his labour and toil so that he can find self-recognition in this scenario of change. In this manner Hegel believed that man’s reason was able to spiritualise nature. The resulting spiritualisation of nature can be seen as any change that has been initiated by man to create something manmade. Consequently, Hegel’s work can be seen as pointing to the fact that social progress is a direct consequence of the toil of reason present within the framework of history. It must also be borne in mind that Hegel’s scheme involved contradiction (through thesis and antithesis) so in this sense history must be seen to be in continuous conflict with various parts of itself (Hegel, 1967). Marx having derived in large part from the work of Hegel later expounded the idea of Hegel’s thesis, antithesis and synthesis using the French Revolution. He argued that the tyrannical rule of Louis XVI served as the thesis for change in history while the French Revolution served as the antithesis for the entire situation. These events were both later put through synthesis so that they were later sublated by the rule of Napoleon. Marx argues that Napoleon was able to do this because he likened his rule to the Ancien Regime and thus he was able to conserve the change that had occurred (Browning, 2010). In addition to this perspective on history, Marx is more famously accredited with producing his ideology on class conflict which in Marx’s view led to social change. This social change was in fact the very method through which Marx viewed historical change itself. In Marx’s view one section of society was out to get the other. Put more simply, the bourgeoisie was out to get the proletariat to serve its means through the creation of value. Human labour and other similar inputs according to Marx belonged to everyone equally but were being used in a skewed manner to aid the purposes of a few in societies (Nakhimovsky, 2011). He argued that when it became obviously apparent to the lowest exploited classes that they were being taken advantage of, change was inevitable. This conflict of classes led to the actual changes in history as per Marx. This essentially makes Marx a conflict theorist on the issue who banked on the ideas of Hegel to amplify the concepts of thesis and antithesis (Fukuyama, 2006). Conclusively it can be seen that the philosophy of history has more or less been changing over time. Moreover, this philosophy of history is subject to the historical context in which the political thinkers of the time are operating in. Kant held steady with enlightened despotism while Hegel moved onto more positivist trends. In time, the emerging gap between the rich and the poor was able to provide Marx with a new direction to define history. Bibliography Browning, G., 2010. Agency and influence in the history of political thought: the agency of influence and influence of agency. History of political thought, 31(2), pp.345-66. Fukuyama, F., 2006. The End of History and the Last Man. London: Free Press. Hampsher-Monk, I., 1993. A History of Modern Political Thought: Major Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx. London: Blackwell. Hegel, G.W.F., 1967. Hegel's Philosophy of Right. New York: Galaxy Books. Kant, I., 1991. Kant: Political Writings. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murphy, J.G., 1994. KANT THE PHILOSOPHY OF RIGHT (Reprints of Scholarly Excellence). Mercer: Mercer University Press. Nakhimovsky, 2011. The Closed Commercial State: Perpetual Peace and Commercial Society from Rousseau to Fichte. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Taylor, C., 1977. Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, H.L., 1992. Essays on Kant's Political Philosophy. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago. Read More