On Ranke’s Source Based History and Croce’s The Philosophy of the Spirit
A short essay written in partial fulfilment for the requirements in History 129 (World Historiography) at UP Visayas
Objectivity or Subjectivity?
Considered as the major proponent of the German historical profession, Leopold von Ranke’s take on history writing as one which ought only to present “how it really happened”[1] — without bias, interpretation, and with a primacy on written (mainly archival) sources — had influenced much of the positivist historians of the 19th century. Ranke disapproved of the notions that history can be understood through teleology or conceptual frameworks such as Hegel’s dialectics, wherein history can be sequenced and laid out in a linear progression, as he argued that each episode or segment in the past is equally unique.[2] He strove for objectivity in reading sources and in writing history, by making the sources speak for themselves instead of immersing oneself in a process of interpretation which will generally lead to a biased judgment.[3] This objective, unbiased, and detached view of history is therefore, according to the principles of Ranke, the way by which the truth in history can be achieved.[4]
On the opposite pole there is Benedetto Croce, whose view of history and history writing is marked by subjectivity and an emphasis on the role of the spirit, thought, and the present state of mind of the historians.[5] In opposition to Ranke’s idea of detaching oneself from the sources of history, Croce links history to every individual of the present, arguing that we are “products of the past” and that it lives within ourselves.[6] Apart from the stark difference between their views of how history ought to be written, the two historians also have conflicting views on what is to be considered historical sources. Ranke’s works on the histories of the various kingdoms and nation-states in Europe reveals a focus on political and diplomatic history, wherein priority is given to archival sources such as diplomatic letters and official documents.[7] Social and cultural history and even the accounts of emerging social movements are left underrepresented or marginalized in Ranke’s works.[8] On the other hand, Croce mentions the usefulness of certain “living documentations” that we continuously carry within ourselves, such as our language, customs, our way of reasoning, and our experiences, which are all shaped by history.[9] Furthermore, Croce critiques the aims of positivist historians in presenting history “as they happened”, as he points out that such fact can only be qualified by judging them through a principle of predicate existence and qualificative predicate.[10] This, in turn, is done by the historian in his/her thought, in his/her present state of mind.
Though Ranke’s influence in the profession and discipline of history is invaluable, especially in terms of his emphasis on primary sources and a consciousness to be objective in analysing historical sources, I believe that Croce’s argument on how history is and ought to be written is more attune to our realities. While we should be rigorous and critical in analysing historical sources, we must also learn to look at history not as apart or detached from ourselves, but as something which shapes who we are as a people.
Moreover, in writing history we have to accept the fact that the entirety of the past cannot be brought back or presented “as they happened”[11]; that undeniably, the writing and making sense of history is in accord with present needs and present situations and, as such, is supposed to be a liberating act — for by examining and analysing what has happened (especially the faults and shortcomings of the people in the past) we can realize the decisions that we ought to make in the present.[12]
Situating national/local history in universal history
The dilemma between Ranke’s objectivity and Croce’s the Philosophy of the Spirit continues to reverberate in the present writing of histories, as can be seen in the writing of national or local histories in former European colonies such as the Philippines. I believe that Croce’s principles regarding the connection of the past and the present, and the motivations of writing history, can be seen in the works which had looked beyond the official colonial documents; those which made use of relatively unconventional historical sources or “living documentations” in order to examine a part of that past which may have not been seen through official or state documents alone.
However, to better understand these more particular histories of a nation such as ours, or its regions, I believe that one also has to situate it in the larger universal history. The decline of the traditional textile industry in Iloilo, for example, can be seen as an effect of the larger economic developments in Europe and in other areas of the world. For one, the mid-1800s was characterized by the 2nd Industrial Revolution in Europe which saw European nations seeking new markets to sell their domestically manufactured consumer goods and sources of raw materials to fuel their industrial operations.[13] Hence, it was by the latter half of the 19th century that the Philippines opened up to world trade, which brought an influx of cheaper British textiles.
Similarly, the nationalist revolution in the Philippines by the late 19th century cannot be easily separated from the political and economic conditions of Europe and North America during that period — the weakening of the Spanish monarchy, the persistence of liberalism and republicanism, and the rise of post-Civil War United States as an imperial power. Therefore, if we are to situate our national and local history in a universal history, these watershed events in the nation and in its regions were significantly influenced by the emerging capitalist world economy and by the surge of New Imperialism[14].
In conclusion, we as students of history must learn to be flexible and open to new perspectives in viewing history; that while maintaining a scientific, critical, and source-based approach in analyzing history, so as to avoid any distortions, we must also accept that we are continuously affected and influenced by our present circumstances[15], and that our studying and writing of history always serves a need and a purpose. Being a product of the past, which applies to both the individual and the collective level, I agree with Croce’s view that the writing of our history liberates us from it.[16]
References:
[1] John Burrow, “German Historicism: Ranke, God and Machiavelli,” A History of Histories: Epics, Chronicles, Romances and Inquiries from Herodotus and Thucydides to the Twentieth Century (Penguin Books, 2007), 457–466.
[2] Burrow, “German Historicism: Ranke, God and Machiavelli,” 457–466.
[3] Burrow, “German Historicism: Ranke, God and Machiavelli,” 457–466; R. Vierhaus, “Leopold von Ranke,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, May 19, 2021, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leopold-von-Ranke.
[4] Vierhaus, “Leopold von Ranke”.
[5] Robert Caponigri, “Benedetto Croce,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, February 21, 2021, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Benedetto-Croce
[6] Benedetto Croce, “Historiography as Liberation from History,” in History as the Story of Liberty (London: George Allen and Unwin Limited, 1941), 43–45.
[7] John Burrow, “German Historicism: Ranke, God and Machiavelli,” A History of Histories: Epics, Chronicles, Romances and Inquiries from Herodotus and Thucydides to the Twentieth Century (Penguin Books, 2007), 457–466.
[8] Burrow, “German Historicism: Ranke, God and Machiavelli,” 457–466.
[9] Benedetto Croce, “Truth in History Books,” in History as the Story of Liberty (London: George Allen and Unwin Limited, 1941), 19–22.
[10] Benedetto Croce, “History Considered as a Premise of the Struggle between Value and Non-value,” in History as the Story of Liberty (London: George Allen and Unwin Limited, 1941), 46–49.
[11] Keith Jenkins, “What history is,” in Re-thinking History (Routledge, 1991).
[12] Benedetto Croce, “Historiography as Liberation from History,” in History as the Story of Liberty (London: George Allen and Unwin Limited, 1941), 43–45.
[13] Philip Adler & Randall Pouwels, “Chapter 36: European Imperialism and Africa During the Age of Industry,” in World Civilizations, 6th ed., (Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010), 498–500.
[14] Philip Adler & Randall Pouwels, “Chapter 36: European Imperialism and Africa During the Age of Industry,” in World Civilizations, 6th ed., (Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010), 498–500.
[15] Keith Jenkins, “What history is,” in Re-thinking History (Routledge, 1991).
[16] Benedetto Croce, “Historiography as Liberation from History,” in History as the Story of Liberty (London: George Allen and Unwin Limited, 1941), 43–45.
