Unit 11A - Why Historians Disagree
Why Historians Disagree
Allen F. Davis and Harold D. Woodman
Most students are usually introduced to the study of history by way of a fat textbook and become quickly immersed in a vast sea of names, dates, events and statistics. The students' skills are then tested by examinations that require them to show how much of the data they remember; the more they remember, the higher their grades. From this experience a number of conclusions seem obvious: the study of history is the study of "facts" about the past; the more "facts" you know, the better you are as a student of history. The professional historian is simply one who brings together a very large number of "facts." Therefore students often become confused upon discovering that historians often disagree sharply even when they are dealing with the same event.
Their commonsense reaction to this state of affairs is to conclude that one historian is right while the other is wrong. And presumably, historians who are wrong will have their "facts" wrong. This is seldom the case, however. Historians usually all argue reasonably and persuasively. And, the "facts"—the names, dates, events, statistics—usually turn out to be correct. Moreover, they often find that contending historians more or less agree on the facts; that is, they use much the same data. They come to different conclusions because they view the past from a different perspective.
History, which seemed to be a cut-and-dried matter of memorizing "facts," now becomes a matter of choosing one good interpretation from among many. Historical truth becomes a matter of personal preference.
This position is hardly satisfying. They cannot help but feel that two diametrically opposed points of view about an event cannot both be right; yet they lack the ability to decide between them.
To understand why historians disagree, students must consider a problem they have more or less taken for granted. They must ask themselves what history really is.
In its broadest sense, history denotes the whole of the human past. More restricted is the notion that history is the recorded past, that is, that part of human life which has left some sort of record such as folk tales, artifacts, or written documents. Finally, history may be defined as that which historians write about the past. Of course the three meanings are related. Historians must base their accounts on the remains of the past, left by people. Obviously they cannot know everything for the simple reason that not every event, every happening, was fully and completely recorded. Therefore the historian can only approximate history at best. No one can ever claim to have concluded the quest.
But this does not say enough. If historians cannot know everything because not everything was recorded, neither do they use all the records that are available to them.
Rather, they select only those records they deem most significant. Moreover, they also recreate parts of the past. Like detectives, they piece together evidence to fill in the gaps in the available records.
Historians are able to select and create evidence by using some theory of human motivations and behavior. Sometimes this appears to be easy, requiring very little sophistication and subtlety. Thus, for example, historians investigating America's entry into World War I would probably find that the sinking of American merchant ships on the high seas by German submarines was relevant to their discussion. At the same time, they would most likely not use evidence that President Woodrow Wilson was dissatisfied with a new hat he bought during the first months of 1917. The choice as to which fact to use is based on a theory—admittedly, in this case a rather crude theory, but a theory nonetheless. It would go something like this: National leaders contemplating war are more likely to be influenced by belligerent acts against their countries than by their unhappiness with their haberdashers.
If the choices were as simple as this, the problem would be easily resolved. But the choices were not so easy to make. Historians investigating the United States' entry into World War I will find in addition to German submarine warfare a whole series of other facts that could be relevant to the event under study. For instance, they will find that the British government had a propaganda machine at work in the United States that did its best to win public support for the British cause.
They will discover that American bankers had made large loans to the British, loans that would not be repaid in the event of a British defeat. They will read of the interception of the "Zimmermann Note," in which the German foreign secretary ordered the German minister in Mexico, in the event of war, to suggest an alliance between Germany and Mexico whereby Mexico, with German support, could win back territory taken from Mexico by the United States in the Mexican War. They will also find among many American political leaders a deep concern over the balance of power in Europe, a balance that would be destroyed—to America's disadvantage—if the Germans were able to defeat the French and the British and thereby emerge as the sole major power in Europe.
What then are historians to make of these facts? One group could simply list them. By doing so, they would be making two important assumptions: (1) those facts they put on their list are the main reasons, while those they do not list are not important; and (2) those things they put on their list are of equal importance in explaining the US role. But another group of historians might argue that the list is incomplete in that it does not take into account the generally pro-British views of Woodrow Wilson, views that stemmed from the President's background and education. The result will be a disagreement among the historians. Moreover, because the second group raises the question of Wilson's views, they will find a number of relevant facts that the first group would ignore.
They will concern themselves with Wilson's education, the influence of his teachers, the books he read, and the books he wrote. In short, although both groups of historians are dealing with the same subject they will come to different conclusions and use different facts to support their points of view. The facts selected, and those ignored, will depend not on the problem studied but on the points of view of the historians.
Similarly a third group of historians might maintain that the various items on the list should not be given equal weight, that one of the reasons listed, say, bankers' loans, was most important. The theory here would be that economic matters are the key to human motivation, and that a small number of wealthy bankers have a disproportionate ability to influence government.
In the examples given, historians disagree because they begin from different premises. But there is still another realm of disagreement which stems from something rather different. Historians sometimes disagree because they are not really discussing the same thing. Often they are merely considering different levels of cause and effect. Suppose the teacher asked you "Why were you late for class this morning?" "I was late for class" you explained, "because I overslept." Or to use a historical example, "The Civil War began because South Carolina shore batteries opened fire on the federal garrison at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861."
Neither statement can be faulted on the grounds that it is inaccurate; at the same time, however, neither is sufficient as an explanation of the event being considered. The next question is obvious: Why did you oversleep, or why did relations between one state and the Federal government reach the point where differences had to be settled by War? In other words, we have to go beyond the proximate cause and probe further and further. But as we dig more deeply into the problem, the answer becomes more difficult and complex. In the end, you might argue that the ultimate cause of your being late was the fact that you were born, but obviously this goes too far back to be meaningful. That you were born is of course a necessary factor, but it is not a sufficient factor; it does not really tell enough to explain your behavior today. Similarly you could trace the cause of the Civil War back to the discovery of America, but again, that is a necessary but not a sufficient cause. The point at which causes are both necessary and sufficient is not self-evident. Therefore historians may again disagree about where to begin the analysis. By now students should see that the well-used phrase "let the facts speak for themselves" has no real meaning.
The facts do not speak for themselves; historians use the facts in a particular way and therefore they, and not the facts, are doing the speaking.
Historians not only often disagree with others. They often disagree with themselves. Indeed they are often revising their ideas. They have to do so because they are constantly discovering new information, gaining new insights from other social scientists and mastering and using new techniques. Historians also learn from each other and benefit from international comparisons of similar events and institutions.
Can we eliminate all disagreement? If the state of our knowledge were such that it provided us with a model of unquestioned validity that completely explained human behavior, we can. But since we do not have such a complete and foolproof explanation, disagreements are destined to remain. When students realize that there is no one easy answer to the problems historians raise and that "truth" is but an elusive yet intriguing goal in a never-ending quest, they will find the study of history to be a significant, exhilarating, and useful part of their education.
参考译文——历史学家为何意见有分歧
历史学家为何意见有分歧
艾伦·F.戴维斯哈罗德·D.伍德曼
大多数学生开始学习历史时，通常抱着一本厚厚的教科书，而且很快便置身于浩如烟海的名字、日期、事件和数据当中。学生们的知识水平是通过考试来检验的，这种考试是要考查他们记住了多少历史数据资料；记得越多，成绩越好。从这样的经历中，我们可以得出这样几条明显的结论：学习历史就是学习过去的“事实”；作为历史专业的学生，你知道的“史实”越多，你的水平就越高。专业历史工作者只不过是搜集大量历史“事实”的人。因此，当学生们发现就同一个历史事件，历史学家们的意见明显不同时，他们常常感到困惑。
对于这样一种情况，他们的反应通常是，认为其中一位历史学家是正确的，而另一位是错误的。而且，大概错误的历史学家所列举的“事实”也是错的。然而，实际情况很少是这样的。历史学家在争论时都有理有据，具有说服力。而且，那些事实——名字、日期、事件和数据通常被证实都是正确的。此外，学生们常常发现争论双方的历史学家们对所持有的“事实”基本上观点一致；换句话说，他们使用的几乎是一样的数据资料。他们得出的结论不同是因为他们是从不同的角度来审视过去。
历史在过去似乎被认为只是普通地记忆“事实”，而现在却成为要从许多解释中挑选出一个理想解释的过程。历史真相变成了一桩由个人喜好所决定的事情。
这种看法几乎无法令人满意。学生们禁不住会觉得，就同一个历史事件的两种截然不同的观点不可能都正确；然而，他们缺乏从中作出取舍的能力。
要理解历史学家们为什么意见迥异，学生们必须考虑一个他们或多或少视为理所当然的问题。他们必须问自己历史究竟是什么。
从广义来说，历史是指人类过去的全部。比较狭义的概念是，历史是被记录下来的过去，即留下了某种记录的人类生活的一部分，如民间故事、手工制品或有文字记载的文献等。最后，历史也可以被定义为历史学家们所撰写的有关过去的资料。当然，三种意思是相互关联的。历史学家们必须将他们对历史的叙述建立在前人的遗留物上。很显然，他们不可能对过去一切都了解得非常清楚，原因很简单，即并非过去的每一件大小事情都有详细全面的记录。因此，历史学家们至多只能接近历史。还没有哪个人敢说自己已完成了这项探索。
但这种说法还不全面。如果说历史学家是因为记载不全面而不能对历史做全面了解的话，他们也没能有效地利用他们所能得到的所有记录。
相反，他们只挑选那些他们认为最重要的历史资料用于研究。此外，他们也对部分历史进行重新创造。像侦探一样，他们要拼凑证据来填补现有记载中的一些空白。
历史学家可以使用人类动机和行为的某些理论来挑选和创造证据。有时，这看起来很容易，因为这不需要丰富的经验和敏锐的观察力。例如，那些调查美国介入第一次世界大战原因的历史学家们可能会发现，美国商船在公海被德国潜水艇击沉这件事与他们的讨论有关。与此同时，他们绝不会使用与之无关的证据，如伍德罗·威尔逊总统对他在1917年头几个月买的那顶新帽子不满意。至于选择哪些事实来使用要基于一种理论——不可否认，在这种情况下是一种相当粗糙的理由。但不管怎么说，它仍是一种理论。这理论大致是这样的：正在考虑是否参战的国家领导人更可能受到敌对国家挑衅行为的影响，而不会因为对服饰经销商感到不满而卷入战争。
如果所做的选择是如此简单，那问题就很容易解决了。但选择并非如此简单。那些调查美国介入第一次世界大战原因的历史学家们发现，除了德国潜艇战一事之外，还有一系列的其他事实可能与他们正在研究的事件有关。例如，他们发现英国政府的一个宣传机构正在美国运作着，它在极力争取美国公众对英国战争的支持。
他们会发现美国银行家们向英国发放了大量贷款，一旦英国战败，这些贷款将石沉大海。他们会读到“齐默尔曼密电”截获事件。在密电中，德国外交部长命令德国驻墨西哥的外交使节，一旦战争爆发，他须建议墨西哥和德国结盟，这样一来，墨西哥在德国的帮助下便可以收回它在墨西哥战争中被美国夺去的领土。他们还会发现，许多美国政治领导人非常关注欧洲的势力平衡，这种平衡一旦被打破——如果德国打败法国和英国，从而成为欧洲唯一的主导力量——那将对美国非常不利。
那么，历史学家们将如何利用这些事实呢？一组史学家可能仅仅把它们列出来。这样做的话，他们会作出两种重要的假设：（1）那些他们列出来的事实是主要原因，而那些他们没有列出来的则不重要；（2）那些他们列出来的事实在解释美国在一战中所扮演的角色时同等重要。但另一组历史学家可能争辩说所列内容不完整，因为那其中没有把伍德罗·威尔逊亲英的观点考虑进去，那些观点涉及总统本人的背景和教育经历。其结果将使历史学家们意见出现分歧。此外，由于第二组历史学家提出了威尔逊的观点这一问题，他们会找出第一组忽略的一些相关事实。
他们会关注威尔逊的教育经历、他的老师对他的影响、他所读的书以及他所著的书。简言之，虽然两组历史学家在讨论同一个话题，但他们会得出不同的结论并使用不同的事实来支撑自己的观点。事实的挑选和忽略并不依据所研究的问题，而是取决于历史学家的观点。
同样，第三组历史学家可能坚持认为不应该把所列出的各项事实视为同等重要，例如，在所列出的原因中，银行家贷款一项最为重要。这里所使用的理论是：经济问题是人类动机的关键，为数不多的富有的银行家们有着相当大的能力来影响政府。
在以上的例子中，历史学家们之所以意见分歧是因为他们的出发点不同。但他们之间的分歧还来自于另一迥然不同的领域。历史学家们的意见有时出现分歧是因为他们实际上并不是在讨论相同的问题。他们常常仅仅考虑到事物因果的不同层面。假如老师问你：“今天早晨上课为什么迟到了？”你解释说我上课迟到是因为我睡过头了。”还可以再举一个历史上的例子。“南北战争的爆发是因为在1861年4月12日，南卡罗来纳州的海岸炮兵向驻守在萨姆特要塞的联邦部队开了火。”
虽然这两种说法都不够准确，但是也无可指责。然而，两种说法都不能充分地解释正在讨论的事件。下一个问题显而易见：你为什么睡过头？还有：为什么一个州和联邦政府的关系紧张到如此地步，以至于只能通过战争才能解决？换句话说，我们必须超越事物的近因，进一步讨论其起因。但随着我们对问题的剖析更加深入，问题也变得更加困难和复杂了。最后，你可能同意这样的说法：你迟到的最终原因是因为你来到了人世间，但是，这显然偏离我们讨论的话题太远，已经没有实际意义了。你的出生当然是个必要条件，但它不是充分条件；它不足以说明你今天的行为。同样，你可以将美国南北战争的起因追溯到发现美洲大陆，但是同样，那也是必要而非充分条件。造成某件事情的充要条件并不是不言自明的。因此，历史学家会就从何处着手分析问题再次产生分歧。现在学生们应当发现“让事实说话”这一老生常谈实际上没有任何意义。
事实不会自己说话；历史学家们在用一己特定的方式来利用事实，因此是他们而不是事实在说话。
历史学家不仅经常和其他人意见有分歧，他们也时常不能与自己保持一致。的确，他们经常在修改自己的观点。他们之所以这样做是因为他们在不断地发现新的信息，从其他社会科学家那里获得新的见解，掌握和使用新的技术。历史学家们也彼此互相学习，并且通过比较研究国际上类似的事件和机构而受益。
我们能消除所有的分歧吗？如果我们的知识水平已达到了这样的程度——它能为我们提供一个别无疑义、能全面解释人类行为的模式，我们就能做到这点。但由于我们无法作出这样一个完整而且可靠的解释，分歧便注定存在。当学生识到，对于历史学家们提出的问题不会有一个简单的答案，并且“真相”只是一种在永无止境的探索中的一个难以达到却又充满诱惑的目标时，他们会发现学习研究历史是自己所受教育中的一个重要、令人振奋并且使人受益匪浅的组成部分。
Key Words:
disagree [.disə'gri:]
v. 不一致，有分歧，不适应，不适宜
perspective [pə'spektiv]
n. 远景，看法，透视
adj. 透视的
conclude [kən'klu:d]
vi. 总结，作出决定
vt. 使结束，推断出
confused [kən'fju:zd]
adj. 困惑的；混乱的；糊涂的
professional [prə'feʃənl]
adj. 职业的，专业的，专门的
n. 专业人
dealing ['di:liŋ]
n. 经营方法，行为态度
obvious ['ɔbviəs]
adj. 明显的，显然的
vast [vɑ:st]
adj. 巨大的，广阔的
n. 浩瀚的太
reaction [ri'ækʃən]
n. 反应，反作用力，化学反应
interpretation [in.tə:pri'teiʃən]
n. 解释，阐释，翻译，(艺术的)演绎
understand [.ʌndə'stænd]
vt. 理解，懂，听说，获悉，将 ... 理解为，认为<
opposed [ə'pəuzd]
adj. 反对的，敌对的 v. 和 ... 起冲突，反抗
disagree [.disə'gri:]
v. 不一致，有分歧，不适应，不适宜
base [beis]
n. 基底，基础，底部，基线，基数，(棒球)垒，[化]碱
preference ['prefərəns]
n. 偏爱，优先，喜爱物
related [ri'leitid]
adj. 相关的，有亲属关系的
available [ə'veiləbl]
adj. 可用的，可得到的，有用的，有效的
claim [kleim]
n. 要求，要求权;主张，断言，声称;要求物
restricted [ris'triktid]
vt. 限制，约束 adj. 受限制的，有限的，保密的
relevant ['relivənt]
adj. 相关的，切题的，中肯的
sophistication [sə.fistikeiʃən]
n. 老练，精明，复杂，精密，有教养，诡辩，强词夺理
merchant ['mə:tʃənt]
n. 商人，店主，专家
adj. 商业的
nonetheless [.nʌnðə'les]
adv. 尽管如此(仍然)
evidence ['evidəns]
n. 根据，证据
v. 证实，证明
entry ['entri]
n. 进入，入口，登记，条目
available [ə'veiləbl]
adj. 可用的，可得到的，有用的，有效的
addition [ə'diʃən]
n. 增加，附加物，加法
propaganda [.prɔpə'gændə,prɔpə'gændə]
n. 宣传，宣传的内容
warfare ['wɔ:fɛə]
n. 战争，冲突
defeat [di'fi:t]
n. 败北，挫败
vt. 战胜，击败
thereby ['ðɛə'bai]
adv. 因此，从而
territory ['teritəri]
n. 领土，版图，领域，范围
ignore [ig'nɔ:]
vt. 不顾，不理，忽视
emerge [i'mə:dʒ]
vi. 浮现，(由某种状态)脱出，(事实)显现出来
disadvantage [.disəd'væntidʒ]
n. 不利，不利条件，损害，损失
relevant ['relivənt]
adj. 相关的，切题的，中肯的
incomplete [.inkəm'pli:t]
adj. 不完全的，不完整的
disagreement [.disə'gri:mənt]
n. 不合，争论，不一致
dealing ['di:liŋ]
n. 经营方法，行为态度
(复数）dealin
merely ['miəli]
adv. 仅仅，只不过
realm [relm]
n. 王国，领域
phrase [freiz]
n. 短语，习语，个人风格，乐句
vt. 措词
analysis [ə'næləsis]
n. 分析，解析
sufficient [sə'fiʃənt]
adj. 足够的，充分的
explanation [.eksplə'neiʃən]
n. 解释，说明
inaccurate [in'ækjurit]
adj. 不准确的，错误的
probe [prəub]
n. 探针，探测器，调查，查究
v. 用探针测
factor ['fæktə]
n. 因素，因子
vt. 把 ... 因素包括
ultimate ['ʌltimit]
n. 终极，根本，精华
adj. 终极的，根本
proximate ['prɔksimit]
adj. 最接近的，直接的
trace [treis]
n. 痕迹，踪迹，微量
elusive [i'lu:siv]
adj. 难懂的，难捉摸的，难记的，逃避的
social ['səuʃəl]
adj. 社会的，社交的
n. 社交聚会
disagree [.disə'gri:]
v. 不一致，有分歧，不适应，不适宜
quest [kwest]
n. 探索，寻求
v. 寻找，搜索
disagreement [.disə'gri:mənt]
n. 不合，争论，不一致
intriguing [in'tri:giŋ]
adj. 吸引人的，有趣的 vbl. 密谋，私通
explanation [.eksplə'neiʃən]
n. 解释，说明
particular [pə'tikjulə]
adj. 特殊的，特别的，特定的，挑剔的
foolproof ['fu:lpru:f]
adj. 极简单的，傻瓜式的
eliminate [i'limineit]
v. 除去，剔除; 忽略
参考资料：
- 现代大学英语精读(第2版)第三册:U11A Why Historians Disagree(1)_大学教材听力 - 可可英语
- 现代大学英语精读(第2版)第三册:U11A Why Historians Disagree(2)_大学教材听力 - 可可英语
- 现代大学英语精读(第2版)第三册:U11A Why Historians Disagree(3)_大学教材听力 - 可可英语
- 现代大学英语精读(第2版)第三册:U11A Why Historians Disagree(4)_大学教材听力 - 可可英语
- 现代大学英语精读(第2版)第三册:U11A Why Historians Disagree(5)_大学教材听力 - 可可英语
- 现代大学英语精读(第2版)第三册:U11A Why Historians Disagree(6)_大学教材听力 - 可可英语
- 现代大学英语精读(第2版)第三册:U11A Why Historians Disagree(7)_大学教材听力 - 可可英语
7394
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
