Canadian Social Studies - Volume 41 Number 1 - Fall 2008 - History from a Philosophic Perspective

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by SANS

Social Studies as a discipline relies on history, yet the paper argues that many rarely examine what “history” truly means. Through an analysis of Collingwood’s work, it explains how twentieth-century thought can be integrated into his framework. The discussion clarifies history’s philosophical questions, rejects simplistic or positivist views, and shows history as the reenactment of past thought in a historian’s mind to pursue self-knowledge.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages8

Reading Time20 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Philosophy of History: Collingwood

The meaning of history and historical reenactment

History versus positivism and “progress” narratives

History as art and science

CANADIAN SOCIAL STUDIES VOLUME 41 NUMBER 1, Fall 2008 [www.quasar.ualberta.ca/css](www.quasar.ualberta.ca/css) History from a Philosophic Perspective Catherine Broom Simon Fraser University Return to Articles Abstract One of the key components of Social Studies has always been history, yet many of us seldom explore what we mean by history. This paper delves into the meaning of history through an examination of Collingwood’s work and a discussion of how we can incorporate twentieth century thought into his work. This paper aims, in Collingwood’s words, to “deepen understanding” of our craft. Philosophy of History: Collingwood The philosophies of history of Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, St Augustine, Bodin, Vico, Herder, and Hegel (selections in Tillinghast, 1963) and Collingwood (1956) make clear that understanding “history” is not easy. The questions that have to be answered, such as for and of whom is it written and why, are philosophical ones. Most of these philosophers saw history from a religious viewpoint: they viewed its events as illustrating the unfolding of“Providence,” or God’s purpose. However, Collingwood’s work (1956) illustrates the true meaning of history. Collingwood argues that certain early accounts, such as in pre Greek societies, or certain modern accounts, like those based on dividing societies into a number of epochs, such as Marx’s, are not really history, as they shape facts to suit their larger theoretical frameworks. Rather, history is the re enactment of past thought in the mind of a historian in order to answer a question about people in the past the historian has first articulated. It is the past living as thought in the conscious mind of a historian at the present time. Thought is self conscious: it can be enacted in minds of different times and places, as opposed to that of a“flow of consciousness” which is based on particular and contextualized emotions. Collingwood, additionally, explains that history is not positivism, or describing unfolding,“progressive” narratives. For example, in his chapter on “Progress as created by Historical Thinking,”(Collingwood, 1956) he describes a change occurring in a society of fishermen. He states this change can be seen as progressive or not depending on whether it led or did not lead to “something better”(Collingwood, 1956, p. 326) . Knowledge gained by the historian allows him or her to comment on whether the changes occurring in a society are indeed “progress,” or improvement. Assuming a progressively developing society, as many nineteenth century historians believed their own societies to be, is flawed thinking. For a change may be primarily positive or negative for a group of people. We can determine whether a change is positive or not by re enacting in our own minds the society before and after the change and then seeing whether the new one indeed led to new solutions that solved both the problems the old thought was able to solve as well the problems it could not solve (Collingwood, 1956, p. 326) . Collingwood’s greatest insight may be that the re enactment of thought allows us to understand ourselves better, to consider what it means to be human: …History is ‘for’ human self knowledge. It is generally thought to be of importance to man that he should know himself: where knowing himself means knowing not his merely personal peculiarities, the things that distinguish him from other men, but his nature as man. Knowing yourself means knowing, first, what it is to be a man; secondly, knowing what it is to be the kind of man you are and nobody else is. Knowing yourself means knowing what you can do; and since nobody knows what he can do until he tries, the only clue to what man can do is what man has done. The value of history, then, is that it teaches us what man has done and thus what man is. (Collingwood, 1956, p. 10) Collingwood describes history as an art and a science. It is an art, as it requir

FAQs

What is the core aim of the paper regarding history?

The paper examines the meaning of history by analyzing Collingwood’s work and discussing how twentieth-century thought can be incorporated into it.

How does Collingwood define history in relation to the historian’s mind?

History is the reenactment of past thought in the mind of a historian, so the historian can answer a question about people in the past.

Why does the paper argue against positivism and overly “progressive” historical narratives?

It argues that positivism treats facts as causal laws of nature and frames history as linear progress; instead, change should be assessed by reenacting past and present societies to see whether new solutions truly solve the same problems.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by SANS