Introductory Lecture World History

8/8/2019 Introductory Lecture World History

1/6

World CivilizationsLecture One: Introduction

I do not know what knowledge any of you may already have of history, either from

reading or from hearsay. But having regard to the title of this history course, World

Civilizations, I am bound to proceed as though you knew nothing of the subject andneeded a basic level of instruction, even in its first elements. Inspired by Sigmund

Freuds lecture style and the problems he faced opening a new field of study, I have

patterned this opening lecture after Freuds own opening lecture on psychoanalysis. So,here we go!

One thing, at least, I may pre-suppose that you know namely, that history is the study ofhumanitys past and the means by which we understand the world around us. The only

living thinking creature on this planet that writes and reflects on its own history is

mankind. However, history is a very imperfect science. I can give you at once anillustration of the way in which the study of history differs from, and often even reverses,

what is customary in mainstream hard sciences. Usually, when we introduce students toa science we compartmentalize it into various building blocks and assure the student that

these blocks this puzzle will eventually merge in the creation of a rationalunderstanding of the universe. This is, in my opinion, perfectly justifiable, for a

traditional science. But when we undertake to evaluate historical events we must proceed

otherwise. Were historians more upfront with their students, they would likely tell themexactly what Freud told his students about the study of psychoanalysis, namely,

We explain to him the difficulties of the method, its long duration, the trails andsacrifices which will be required of him; and, as to the result, we tell him that we

can make no definite promises, that success depends upon his endeavours [sic],

upon his understanding, his adaptability and his perseverance.1

Just as Freud likely shocked advanced students of medicine with this statement, I believe

that historians would be well advised to apply this principle to their own discipline one

which even Freud acknowledged as an apparently perverse attitude.

Now forgive me if I begin by treating you in the same way as I do more advanced

students in history, for I shall positively advise you against coming to hear me a secondtime. And with this intention I shall explain to you how of necessity you can obtain from

me only an incomplete knowledge of history and also what difficulties stand in the way

of your forming an independent judgment on the subject. For I shall show you how the

whole trend of your training and your accustomed modes of thought must inevitably havemade you hostile to an accurate understanding of history, and also how much you would

have to overcome in your own minds in order to master this instinctive opposition. I

naturally cannot foretell what degree of understanding of history you may gain from mylectures, but I can at least assure you that by attending them you will not have learnt how

to conduct an historical investigation, nor how to carry out more complicated forms of

1 Sigmund Freud,A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (Garden City, NY: Permabooks, 1956

(1920)), pp. 19-28. All quoted passages in this lecture were drawn from these pages.

1


2/6

historical analysis. And further, if any one of you should feel dissatisfied with a merely

cursory acquaintance with history and should wish to form a permanent connection with

it, I shall not merely discourage him, but I shall actually warn him against it. For asthings are at the present time, such a person would find himself in a community which

misunderstood his aims and intentions, regarded him with suspicion and possibly

hostility, and let loose upon him all the latent evil impulses harbored within it. Perhapsyou can infer from the present popular discussion about the Dan BrownsDa Vinci Code

now raging what a fickle host the public can prove to be.

However, there are always some people to whom the possibility of a new addition to

knowledge will prove an attraction strong enough to survive all such inconveniences. If

there are any such among you who will appear at my second lecture in spite of my words

of warning they will be welcome. But all of you have the right to know what theseinherent difficulties of history are to which I have alluded.

First of all, there is a problem of the teaching and exposition of the subject. In most

fields of science, you have been accustomed to use your eyes. You can immediatelyexperience the lecture hall or perhaps recount names or faces of those who arrived before

and after you. Earlier today or this week, you may have driven through town, stopped ata traffic light, or witnessed an accident. Later you may have recounted these experiences

to others without any doubt about the certainty of your explanation. Consider now the

following event: You witness the lights at a railroad crossing turn on, the bells begin to

ring, and the crossing-gates descend. As you bring your vehicle to a stop, you can see thetrain approaching and then hear the train signal its approach to the intersection. It is

almost customary that we scan each car with our eyes to detect the unusual and to address

a certain boredom that comes with waiting for the train to pass. After the train passes, thegates rise, the bells go silent, and the lights go dark. You can now go on your way

towards your destination. As an historical event, you and your vehicle are both part of

the event and you are one of its actors. There are, of course, numerous factorsdetermining what you witness, including the side of the tracks determining your view,

your knowledge of railroad technology, and your personal interest if any in the actual

event. Thus a teacher of history acts in part as an exponent and guide, leading students asit were through the actual event, while students gain in this way a direct relationship to

the historical event and believe yourself to have been convinced by your own experience

of the existence of the facts.

Our train scenario represents but one minute example of the role history plays in our

sense of self and our knowledge of the world. Here one could draw a closer analogy to

Freudian psychoanalysis where nothing happens but an exchange of words between thepatient and the physician. The central issue here is one of communication between the

patient and the physician, or, as in our case, between the student and the historian. The

historian like the physician -- attempts to direct the students thought-processes andforces his attention in certain directions, gives him explanations and observes to the

extent possible the reactions of understanding or denial thus evoked. The students

unenlightened relatives people of a kind to be impressed only by something visible and

tangible, preferably by the sort of action that may be seen in the movies produced by

2


3/6


4/6

in a class of students. History, in contrast, is practical and necessary for both individuals

and larger groups.

The second difficulty you will find in connection with history is not, on the other hand,

inherent in it, but is in so far as your cultural predisposition to more scientific studies

have influenced you. Your training will have induced in you an attitude of mind very farremoved from the truly historical one. You have been trained to establish the origins and

causes of historical events as though one were investigating a crime. You are likely to

think in terms of means, motive, opportunity, and a rational thread to tie them together.You may be tempted to ask questions more typical of a psychoanalyst, namely, those

directed to the mental aspects of life. For these reasons a clearly historical attitude of

mind is still foreign to you, and you are accustomed to regard it with suspicion, to deny it

as was denied psychoanalysis in the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- any scientificstatus, and to leave it to the general public, poets, mystics, and philosophers. Now this

limitation in you is undoubtedly detrimental to your own personal growth. When

encountering your own inhibitions and the opinions of others, as in most human

relationships, I am afraid you will pay the penalty of having to yield a part of youralleged free will to which you aspire to a rather subtle cohort of quacks, mystics, and

faith-healers unless you have the confidence provided by a more enhanced sense ofhistory.

I quite acknowledge that there is no excuse for this defect in your previous education. In

contrast to the study of history, Freudian psychoanalysis both departed from the methodsof the originating profession. It also lacked any variety of speculative or descriptive

philosophy. As far as Freud was concerned, his focus group medical students lacked

anything useful of the relations existing between mind and body, or a key tocomprehension of a possible disorder of the mental functions. History and historians do

not have the luxury of any paucity in theory, philosophical or otherwise, or a lack of

significant evidence to explain the failure to inculcate into society a truly historicalconsciousness. It is true that historians serve a cacophony of voices. There is a public

demand for a quasi-mythological history elevating their pantheon of heroes into models

of behavior for future generations. The Roman historian Livy could be counted amongthem. The public is periodically drawn to those histories that place society and its leaders

under a quite critical microscope. The Florentine historian Niccolo Machiavelli played

such a role during the Italian Renaissance. To these we might add the conservatives, who

see history as a tale of what is to be cherished as well as what is to be avoided, and theliberals, who aspire to depart from traditional historical paths into a better future.

These are the tides which historians are striving to guide. It hopes to provide society withthe more dynamic but less certain foundation, to discover the common ground on which a

correlation of individual and societal identities become comprehensible. It is the

intention to give a sense of historical intuition to as many members of society as possible.History is not reality itself but an attempt to come to grips with reality. To this end it

must willingly interact with every preconception, whether domestic or foreign, social or

political, scientific or religious, but it must also work throughout with a clear conception

4


5/6

of a purely historical order, and for this very reason I fear that it will appear strange to

you at first.

For the next difficulty I shall not hold you, your training or your mental attitude,

responsible. Returning to Freud, there are two tenets of psychoanalysis which offend the

whole world and excite its resentment; the one conflicts with intellectual, the other withmoral and aesthetic prejudices. In contrast, historians tend to offend everyone at some

level of understanding. Let us not underestimate these prejudices; they are powerful

things, residues of valuable, even necessary, stages in human evolution. They aremaintained by emotional forces, and the fight against them is a hard one.

The first of these displeasing proportions of both history and psychoanalysis is this: that

mental processes are essentially unconscious, and that those which are conscious aremerely isolated acts and parts of the whole. I must ask you to remember that, on the

contrary, we are accustomed to identify the historical with the conscious. Consciousness

appears to us as positively the characteristic that defines the truly historical life, and we

often regard history as the study of the content of that consciousness. This even appearsso evidence that any contradiction of it seems to undermine our belief in the significance

of the historical actors. Marxist, Neo-Marxists, social, and economic historians haveworked diligently to escape the almost religious devotion to the individual for a more all-

encompassing historical theory. Their theories, however, failed to fill the publics need

for its own sense of historical identity. Something more was demanded. The

psychoanalytical definition of the mind is that it comprises processes of the nature offeeling, thinking, and wishing, and that there are such things as unconscious thinking and

unconscious wishing. Historical analysis, it would seem, aspires to a comparably

comprehensive understanding of humanity. Freud believed that in doing sopsychoanalysis forfeited at the outset the sympathy of the sober and scientifically

minded, and incurred the suspicion of being a fantastic cult occupied with dark and

unfathomable mysteries. Considering only the recent interest in theDa Vinci Code, wewill have no difficult recognizing the popular interest in these dark mysteries. Clearly,

there is a difference between the world of professional historians and the more popular

appetite for these historical conspiracies. Even so, the historian must aspire to understandmore than the historical deficiencies in the publics reading list. It is essential that the

historian seek out the origins and contemporary motives behind the publics fickle

attention. It is equally important to identify those unique individuals who molded that

historical process. Despite efforts to discredit the place of the individual in history, thereis inevitably one or more individuals consciously pushing the limits of what is perceived

as possible. It might be argued that historical conditions create historical actors.

However, even if these historical conditions served as a social fertilizer, there is noguarantee that the desired crop of historical actor or actors would appear. Rather, it is the

individual that takes the chance on the unknown and steps out from the crowd.

Freuds opening lecture now takes a more radical turn: recognizing the significance of

sexual impulses. Historians and other academics have been drawn to psychology and

psychoanalysis as new tools for dissecting their historical prey. These tools suggested

new insights into the minds of figures such as Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther. Freud,

5


6/6

however, had a more aggressive agenda: Nay, more, that these sexual impulses have

contributed invaluably to the highest cultural, artistic, and social achievements of the

human mind. The comprehensiveness and scientific potential of such a methodologystill has its allure.

In my opinion, historians aspire to many of the same goals pursued by Sigmund Freud.Freud believed he had identified the singular force for change in human history. He

believed that civilization had been

built up, under the pressure of the struggle for existence, by sacrifices in

gratification of the primitive impulses, and that it is to a great forever being re-

created, as each individual, successively joining the community, repeats the

sacrifice of his instinctive pleasures for the common good. The sexual areamongst the most important of the instinctive forces thus utilized: they are in this

way sublimated, that is to say, their energy is turned aside from its sexual goal

and diverted towards other ends is insecure, for the sexual impulses are with

difficult controlled; in each individual who takes up his part in the work ofcivilization there is a danger that a rebellion of the sexual impulses may occur,

against this diversion of their energy.

Where Freud projected the liberation of the sexual impulses as the greatest threat to

culture, historians collectively have identified a number of factors running like currents in

the ocean altering that nebulous clouds of history. Historians struggle balancing the placeof the individual against the general environment or trends. Where there appears to be a

descent into the sexual instincts, historians are inclined to see the antithesis of civilization

and civilized behavior. Where animal instincts begin, history has found its end. Historyis not, however, the subjective collection of desirable observations but a reasoned review

of the actions of human beings and their interaction with their environment. Contrary to

the popular reception of Freudian psychoanalysis in the 1920s, the public commonlyfinds this observation on history to be agreeable. It is, however, in the nature of the

details and their merger with the big picture that initiates the great schism.

The historians intention has been solely to give recognition to the facts as they are found

in the course of painstaking research. These, now, are some of the difficulties which

confront you at the outset when you begin to take an interest in history. It is probably

more than enough for a beginning. If you can overcome their discouraging effect, wewill proceed further.

6

Documents

Introductory Lecture World History