
The Decline of Historical Thinking - eplanit
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-decline-of-historical-thinking
======
dalbasal
_Walter Lippmann warned about a century ago, in his seminal “Liberty and the
News.” "Men who have lost their grip upon the relevant facts of their
environment are the inevitable victims of agitation and propaganda. The quack,
the charlatan, the jingo . . . can flourish only where the audience is
deprived of independent access to information"_

I no longer agree with this, personally. Politics is not a truth-seeking
exercise. It's no science, law or even journalism. It's an allegiance &
authority forming exercise. Part of that is forming a supporting _narrative_
but this is more an output than an input. Truth may inform or that narrative,
but only somewhat, and so do other things.

You can almost define a "political issue" as one where identity & allegiance
shapes opinions more than fact. Imagine most any conflict. Russians &
Ukrainians. Israelis and Palestinians, etc. Most people's political position
is dictated by their national identity. No facts will convince most Russian
nationalists that Ukraine has a moral right to crimea.

When a question is political enough, facts are subservient to opinion. People
will engage with facts that support their opinion, not the other way.

In fact, even the terms "facts," "opinion," or "truth" are somewhat
misleading. The operative concepts in politics are "identity," "allegiance"
and feelings.

(1)identity in this sense:
[http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html)

~~~
thedevil
> Politics is not a truth-seeking exercise. It's no science, law or even
> journalism. It's an allegiance & authority forming exercise.

You've articulated well something I've been trying to say for a while.

I've been saying I try to avoid politics because politics is the opposite of
math - the more you learn, the more stupid your thinking becomes.

I feel like my explanation just made me sound like a hater and yours nails the
problem on the head.

~~~
WhompingWindows
I personally like how Obama viewed politics, as a game of football, perhaps
like the recent "worst superbowl ever" where there is NOT much happening most
of the time, just posturing/attempts. Lot of injuries, insults, fights,
scandals, doping, but also occasionally beautiful plays that remind you
sometimes teams are able to score. Analogy does break down on bi-partisanship,
as ideally we'd get infrastructure, prescription drugs, and many other bi-
partisan things done, and there are few "cooperative" things about sports when
it comes to one team vs another.

------
OliverJones
So, the number of students taking history degrees is declining except in the
ruling-class colleges, is it?

I was fortunate enough to attend a ruling class college a long time ago. I
graduated from a high school where the required history course was simply
propaganda. The teacher never asked for the slightest bit of critical
thinking. That's 2019 me reflecting on the experience of 1969 me. 1969 me
thought it was over-the-top boring.

That high school class gave history a bad name. I suspect nothing much has
changed. So, why should the UW Stevens Point students waste their time and
tuition? They aren't. They are behaving rationally.

Knowing how to examine the past--to learn from the dead--is a part of
mastering ANY trade. Reading about Alan Turing and John von Neumann makes me a
better programmer. Knowing how Jon Postel (Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority) worked is key to understanding how the Internet became what it is.

Do future nurses need to know how existentially frustrating it was for Dr.
Ignatz Semmelweis to persuade his fellow surgeons to wash their hands before
touching patients? Yes, they do.

Do would-be social workers need to know how various religions understood human
sexuality a century ago? Only if they want to know how people got to be the
way they are.

Do marketing people need to know how upstart Pepsi gained market share from
Coca-Cola early last century? Yes.

Therefore: here's a CALL TO ACTION for History Departments in colleges. Work
with other departments to build and teach good history segments in other
courses of study. Build it into the content of various classes, don't just
teach a required history class. And, if you educate future K12 teachers, help
them know history.

Stop wringing your hands about fewer history majors. Take a page from the way
many English departments teach writing, and build it into other courses.

~~~
yostrovs
A response I'm imagining you'll get from college administrators today: "To
truly teach history, we must first begin with those who were not part of it
and understand why they were not. Why weren't there any important early black
computer scientists? Why were women mostly absent in elucidating the laws of
motion? These questions should form the basis of further historical study of
physics, surgery, etc."

~~~
matt4077
I love how you’re making fun of people by making up quotes they never said.

~~~
smhost
what do you mean? those are all valid questions.

------
whistlerbrk
Seems like a nice potential solution would be promoting dual majors in
journalism and history so journalists could provide deep historical context
for the events they report on

~~~
cm2187
High school should provide enough general culture in history to enable people
to have basic notions and make history books accessible should people want to
learn more about a specific period. I don’t think a college degree in history
should be required for that.

~~~
hopler
You believe that liberal arts college professors offer nothing of value?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
You believe that putting words in peoples' mouths is a good way to conduct a
conversation?

------
firasd
Interesting article. The worst combination is when people lean on the weight
of history, but in an uninformed, cargo cult way. I feel like this is done in
American discourse regarding World War 2 a lot, as stunningly exemplified in
this clip (Chris Matthews vs. Kevin James on Appeasement):
[https://youtu.be/YK0d8ENS__c?t=240](https://youtu.be/YK0d8ENS__c?t=240)

------
kijin
The decline of history departments in universities is not the same as the
decline of "hitorical thinking", though the two phenomena might or might have
a common cause.

One can have a keen appreciation of history without ever having set foot in a
history class in university. If this weren't possible, historical thinking
would be doomed anyway.

If historians really care about historical thinking as an ability, they should
stop complaining about the size of their departments and actually go out and
find a way to encourage the general public to take an interest in history, not
just the small subset who choose history as a major. Ditto for literature,
philosophy, and most of the rest of the humanities. These are things that
every educated person should be familiar with.

Disclaimer: I haz a Ph.D. in the humanities. I don't work in academia.

~~~
jacobolus
> _they should stop complaining about the size of their departments and
> actually go out and find a way to encourage the general public_

Do you have any suggestions? Many historians write popularly-aimed books, make
media appearances, give public lectures, ....

Academics I know prioritize getting their own work done above starting new
public outreach projects or the like, and already feel stressed about not
getting enough time to do their work in the face of many competing draws on
their finite attention including teaching, administrative nonsense, their own
families, ...

> _One can have a keen appreciation of history without ever having set foot in
> a history class in university._

One cannot develop the thinking style / methods of inquiry of working
historians without actually doing years of relevant work and getting lots of
feedback, which is possible but frankly extremely rare and difficult outside
of universities. Historians, ethnographers, critics, journalists,
philosophers, statisticians, corporate managers, diplomats, intelligence
analysts, prosecutors, ... have different approaches to problems and
dramatically different perspectives. Just reading a handful of books doesn’t
really manage to train a student in a whole system of thinking. Even getting
the barest appreciation for what those ways of thinking are about, how they
differ, why they are valuable, etc. takes significant engagement from
students. At least up through high school students have very little engagement
with real scholastic or professional working styles or methods of inquiry.
Secondary schools focus almost entirely on “content”, meaning more or less
trivia, and most of the general public thinks that e.g. the job of a historian
is to discover more precise lists of facts about the past.

~~~
kijin
> _Just reading a handful of books doesn’t really manage to train a student in
> a whole system of thinking._

Not everyone needs to be trained in a whole system of thinking. Does everyone
need to know how to do brain surgery or navigate a difficult diplomatic
situation?

There should be history students, and there always will be. What I'm pointing
out is that having more history students is not necessarily better than having
more people among the general public who appreciate the importance of history
at a basic level and stop to think about it when they vote, for example.

> _Do you have any suggestions?_

Perhaps more historians should write popular books and give public lectures.
But even better, I think historians should find a way to make their knowledge
useful in different fields like journalism, tourism, art, law, etc.

For every academic who landed a tenure-track position and is too busy to do
anything else, there are several Ph.D.s who are chronically un- or under-
employed. I hope they stop wasting time trying to feed the exploitative
machine that is the academic labor market, and start doing their own thing.

The greatest thing about the humanities is that it can be useful no matter
what else you do. The best way to make others appreciate your knowledge of
history, literature, or philosophy is to show them through the example of your
own life how it helps you be a better person, as well as better at what you
do.

~~~
AlotOfReading
Are you kidding about historical information not being applicable enough to
tourism? Versailles, the Acropolis, the Great Wall, D.C., Stonehenge, Machu
Picchu...?

~~~
kijin
Of course it's related, hence the suggestion.

------
sitkack
As we see STEM rise, if we look deep enough, the promotion of STEM also pushes
down everything else not stem, recess, physical education, art, history, the
very things that make us human(e). STEM is a hit on the humanities, learning
those is now the domain of the 1%.

Forced STEM is a way to train the next generation of wage slaves. It is votec
starting at the earliest possible age while being couched in a faux
constructionist _.

~~~
dalbasal
The promotion of STEM and demotion of humanities is deeply linked to the
promotion of college generally, to the majority of people.

Going back a generation or two, most people didn't go to college. Most of
those that did tended to be relatively wealthy, with better careers.

Education proponents argues that education made people wealthy/successful.
College was an investment, and the education paid for itself in later
successes... Human capital theory.

It turned out that lower-middle class kids who gave to college tend to make
lower-middle adults. Earning potential increases somewhat, but nothing like
human capital theory predicts.

Re-thinking, it seems more that philosophy and history are/were upper class
pursuits. They didn't make people wealthy. Wealthy people could afford it.

It just does not make sense for most _average_ people to study history. Its a
luxury.

STEM really means focus on employability. I agree that education is not just
about jobs. But, the premise of "everyone go to college" policies _is_ jobs.
Hence the dissonance.

~~~
harimau777
I agree with you that articles advocating for increased focus on the
humanities often fail to consider that historically university education in
the humanities was only pursued by the wealthy elite. At the same time
however, when I read books written by relatively average people from the early
1900s I notice that there are often many allusions to classical era mythology
and history.

This could just be a difference in the focus of the humanities that people are
learning (e.g. people in the past were educated in a relatively greater
understanding of hellenistic culture while modern people are educated in a
relatively greater understanding of non-western cultures). However, is it
possible that in the past primary and secondary schools gave people a
grounding in the humanities even if they never studied them at university?

~~~
mikeash
Are there really books written by average people from the early 1900s?

~~~
livueta
Sure, assuming the definition of "average" we're using here is "not from a
family with significant economic means", rather than "led an uninteresting
life".

One that immediately springs to mind as both relevant and a good read is You
Can't Win[1], the autobiography of a jailbird who was primarily active in the
American West around the turn of the century. (I read it after seeing it
mentioned in a HN thread, as it happens). I can't recall specific examples as
it's been a while, but the author received a grounding in history at a
religious school as a kid that shows up throughout the work in the form of
various allusions to history and mythology.

\---

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Can't_Win_(book)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Can't_Win_\(book\))

~~~
mikeash
I’d say the relevant criterion would be “had a typical education.” Seems like
this guy would qualify, in any case. Thanks for the link.

------
daddylonglegs
I feel that narrowly defining politics as it's negative aspects is dangerous
because it leaves us (English speakers) without a word for the necessary
processes of organising ourselves and resolving differences between more than
two people. Demagoguery, manipulation and sowing hate are all political but so
is choosing to stand up to a bully on someone else's behalf.

I think that many people (not the OP) use this as a device to present their
preferred view as the "natural" or "only viable" view and to dismiss any
consideration of alternatives as "political."

Regarding the article, I think it is true that, for a couple of decades now,
many players have chosen to discredit political discussion and compromise in
favour of tribalism. The message crudely is that everybody lies so there is no
point trying to figure anything out and you should just stick with your side.
This is a political position and it is my (political) view that this is
terrible.

I'm not sure that I would directly link this to the number of undergraduates
taking history in the US though. Everybody has political stances and a sense
of history and developing both is a lifelong process where quality matters
more than a particular formalism.

Edit: this was meant as a reply to dalbasal but I messed up.

------
drieddust
> The Yale history department intends to hire more than a half-dozen faculty
> members this year alone. Meanwhile, the chancellor of the University of
> Wisconsin–Stevens Point, Bernie L. Patterson, recently proposed that the
> school’s history major be eliminated, and that at least one member of its
> tenured faculty be dismissed.

How do they expect to hire and fire faculty members at whim. This can't be
done without compromising the quality which means level of education will be
going down further and student attrition will increase as a result.

I do not think these skills are build in a day or retained if one is fired
from the job and end up flips burgers. This idea of talent available on
standby seems pretty funny to me.

------
vaughnegut
This is a topic close to my heart, since I went to university for history (I'm
now doing a second Bachelor's in Comp Sci).

A theme I've noticed in the comments, and in the public at large, is confusing
learning history with learning to be an historian (or historical thinking).

During my degree, I obviously learned a great deal of history. However, a
large portion of my time was spent on context-building, and attempting to
understand sources on their own terms and to contextualize them into the
broader world around them. For example, to study the famous historic period
foo, you must first learn something of the period before it, bar. It's also
important to understand its society and culture, as well as those of a place's
neighbours (you can't learn English History without learning some French
history).

It felt less like a degree in "history", and closer to a degree in context-
building. This, in my mind, was the greatest value of it, as it wormed its way
into my brain informs how I view new topics and ideas. It's something I've
noticed is absent for many smart people when they talk about history
specifically (although they may be excellent at it in other fields).

A high school history course's purpose is to teach a base set of facts, as
well as to teach children the state's narrative of its own history (for better
and for worse). These cirriculums are usually written by hsitorians to fulfill
the state's needs. Youtube videos and podcasts contain many facts, but their
interpretation of the sources lead to poor understanding of the topic, and
factually incorrect statements (since they're lacking broader context to
understand them). Both of these have flaws, and lead to individuals "learning"
something that may be incorrect, or that they have misunderstood to the point
that they have learned very little.

I suppose that the point I'm trying to make is that learning about history !=
historical thinking, and a lack of historical thinking can inhibit the
learning of history.

As a side note, the Revolutions Podcast (and by extension I suppose the
History of Rome, although I haven't personally listened to it) is the only
popular history media that has actually impressed me with its methodology.
/r/AskHistorians has a tendency to be excellent as well, albeit with some
caveats.

------
JoeDaDude
Education in history can also be politicized to a large extent. Florida passed
a law that defined teaching history to be solely about certain facts without
interpretation or analysis.

[https://www.historians.org/publications-and-
directories/pers...](https://www.historians.org/publications-and-
directories/perspectives-on-history/september-2006/history-defined-in-florida-
legislature)

------
dade_
No book on the subject is perfect, but I recommend this book:
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/555926.The_New_Penguin_H...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/555926.The_New_Penguin_History_of_The_World)

Approachable by anyone, readable, and doesn't have an ending until we really
screw things up.

~~~
kiliantics
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn would be a good one to
get the historical context for politics today. A People's History of the World
is similar for a more global view.

------
RoutinePlayer
Folks here are acutely aware of needing to support their tech claims or
arguments with evidence, but seems like when it comes to other domains of
human understanding those requirements go out the window.

The responses here seem to be making Eric Alterman's point in that article,
that people who seem to have the resources to better understand ourselves
aren't doing it correctly, or keep shifting the discussion with specious
arguments.

All political thoughts are based on certain assumptions about human nature,
and the best (most prudent) assumptions we have about our human nature start
with evolutionary psychologists, and other who study how our brains have
evolved.

------
koosnel
If money was not part of the equation I would have loved to have studied
history.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
One of the nice things about the age we live in is that you don't need to go
to college to get a good understanding of history.

I have been listening to the Great Courses history lectures on Audible:
[https://www.audible.com/ep/the-great-courses-
history](https://www.audible.com/ep/the-great-courses-history) while
commuting. I have learned so much. Learning history helps give a new
perspective on current events.

------
jeromebaek
Or, perhaps, the reason for the decline of history is because it is written by
the "winners", and has, for the most part, failed to shed outdated, colonial
modes of thought. History is progressing very fast, exponentially faster than
it ever has. Do the old, tenured professors of today have what it takes to see
this progress and give up their outdated modes of thinking?

The fact that philosophy is not seeing a similar decline
([http://dailynous.com/2018/11/30/sharp-decline-philosophy-
maj...](http://dailynous.com/2018/11/30/sharp-decline-philosophy-majors-hit-
bottom-guest-post-eric-schwitzgebel/)) should be reason enough to believe that
people today, even less privileged ones, desire to know who and where they
are. Not that philosophy is unaffected by outdated modes of thought - but its
raison d'etre is to lay bare those modes, which allow students to engage with
the modes themselves, rather than the misguided content (bad history)
generated by misguided modes.

~~~
bobthechef
I don't know if the decline is because people think it's a bunk
rationalization of power, though I can see how some people might reason that
way and lose interest. Frankly, I'm not convinced by that. I don't think most
people think of history that way. Most people would probably accept whatever
historical claims at face value without any reason for suspicion. You've have
to make the case that the people who would have gone into history are now
suddenly woke and see history as a collection of suffocating lies.

A much simpler explanation is that history doesn't get you a job that pays
well, at least not in any obvious way that translates from major to job. And
universities have been emphasizing the marketability of majors for a few
decades now. So if there's a decline, it must reflect broader trends.

~~~
sonnyblarney
Especially as Uni becomes more expensive, the economic rationale of 'job' hit
even harder.

That said ... we should also consider that most subjects don't apply very
directly anyhow. I'll bet someone with a History major does just as well in
Communications that someone with a Communications major.

