History is a human endeavor.

It is important to remember that all history is a history of human origin. We may say we are writing the history of the typewriter, but we are writing about the human invention and the human evolution of its functions. It is a human story. And of course, the history of the Civil War is a history of the humans involved in that conflict.

It is thus important to recognize that all aspects of the nature of being human enter into our understanding of history. The key element in this post is pointing out the role of misunderstanding and error in history. As historian we concern ourselves with this issue in an historiographical way. This is to say we understand past historian have made misunderstood and made errors in their writing of history. No doubt this is true, but I am talking about its involvement in all moments of human historical action. All historical actors misunderstand and make errors. This isn’t controversial. But we fail to account for the degree in which this is true.

It is perhaps too subtle a point, but it is important to understand that nobody involved in any historical act truly understands its origins and purposes. All origins are diverse, and all purposes are unknowable. The problem of course is with the use of ALL. If we think about it, we do know that we don’t know, but we pretend they know, and we know what they thought they knew.

You might be reminded of an oft ridiculed comment by Donald Rumsfeld: “There are known knowns, things we know that we know; and there are known unknowns, things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns, things we do not know we don’t know.” I thought at the time that he ought not be ridiculed for this statement, though I likely did not agree with much else he was saying. His is a statement of great understanding. It has it exactly correct.

Now before you react by telling me that if I am correct, we cannot really write any history, I will say no, it is you who are incorrect. We can write history as we always have…we just cannot claim certainty and pure knowledge. This is perhaps recognizable as a point made by Wilhelm Dilthey. We can gain historical understanding, but not truth. How Dilthey gets to his point is a different conversation. He is correct. We need to cast off the chains of certainty and the shackles of truth, in order to gain understanding. Human understanding, dare I say Human, All too Human understanding.

Now it is not unreasonable to say that Nietzsche was more certain of his position than I am of his position, but they both lay closer to history than most like to admit.

I am not saying that most written histories are wrong or useless, but just as I wish they were written with a bit more humility, we certainly ought to read them in that way.

Extreme epistemological uncertainty is not an entirely pleasant place to live, but it is an honest place.