Ideas Have Consequences

There are three major problems with the way history is being taught to young adults, and as a student of history as well as a future educator, I must say that this is distressing, to say the least. These problems that I speak of are as follows: An undue emphasis on trade and economics, unhealthy amounts of "chronological snobbery," and the wanton imposition of modern ideals upon the various contexts of history. Let's take a look at these issues, and I shall explain in greater detail what I mean.

Trade. It is undoubtedly an important factor in the development of world events. But if you were to sit in on a university-level history course, you would get the impression that trade was the only factor which affected anything at all. I am currently enrolled in a class called, "World Civilizations Since 1500," an overview of historical events stretching from the late Renaissance all the way up until modern times. I can say without fear of hyperbole that the entire course has been centered around economics. This is not just my perspective, either, I have spoken with a few of the other students in the class who agree with this assessment. Let us take the example of the Enlightenment period. There were many ideas circulating during the Enlightenment, ideas which would effectively cause the destabilization of Europe and in many cases the deconstruction of long-standing governmental structures. These were replaced by new, revolutionary-minded forms of government, the most obvious example being post-revolution France. The ideas behind all of this were extremely influential at the time and also extremely complicated. Yet these same ideas were not really discussed or examined within in the context of my class. We didn't read any of the Enlightenment thinkers, or talk about the details and nuances of the revolutionary philosophy. Instead, we discussed how these new Enlightenment governments affected trade and politics.

What I want to talk about is WHY. Why did these ideas lead to revolutions? What are the consequences of this way of thinking? We were told that the Enlightenment was an age of free thinking, without really being shown what was being thought at the time. Does this make any sense? What is discussed in the classroom is mere FACT. I can find facts on my own, as could any motivated student. Libraries provide the student with essentially the same information that is available to any knowledgeable professor. A history teacher should be able to explain all of the connections and nuances behind the ideas, not merely gloss over their results. This problem exists not only in this particular class, but also in every other college-level history course I have taken. Economics is made the driving force behind everything, and the possibility of any other cause is ignored. The Crusades? Completely motivated by European greed and avarice. There is no allowance for justice or honor as motivators in that situation, and only the desire for land and wealth is "allowed" to control the actions of the past. The Reformation? Simply an ideological movement, something which allowed governments to break away from the supposedly oppressive Catholic church, bringing forth free government, free trade, and free press in Europe. Some of the most important ideas of the last millennium are ignored in favor of mere facts. Facts do not form a worldview, facts do not constitute morality, and facts do not spur the hearts of men to action. Why do we settle for this in the classroom? At the end of a four year education, most students will know nothing about the Reformation or the Enlightenment except for a two sentence textbook summary on the topic. This does not, in my opinion, benefit the student in any way, and I believe that professors do their students a disservice by making gross generalizations and excluding details that are in fact vital to a complete understanding of history.

Another deficiency that can be found in university classroom is "chronological snobbery." This is the assumption that the present is automatically better than the past, by virtue of supposed advances in technology, ideology, or religion. This is an incredibly fallacious way to look at things. Hindsight is, as they say, 20-20. The chronological snob might, for example, look down his nose at a some medieval scholar or logician, one who might have believed that the earth was located in the center of the solar system. The snob will declare said scholar to be a daft old fool, mired in the Dark Ages, and of no use to anyone. This concept can be put into a logical syllogism thusly:

I. You argue that A implies B.
II. A implies B is an old argument, dating back to the times when people also believed C.
III. C is clearly false.
IV. Therefore, A does not imply B.

Well, does that really make sense? Some teachers seem to think it is perfectly all right to go about completely discounting entire periods of time simply because they think that modern man has so vastly improved himself, so much so that silly things like, for example, Medieval Christianity cannot possibly be worth discussing, or even giving credence to. Every period has, as C.S. Lewis said, "its own characteristic illusions." But for professional educators to paint the portrait of history with so broad a brush seems very unscholarly to me, and I'm not sure why more care isn't taken to avoid this problem. The speed at which generalizations are made is indeed astounding, and makes one wonder whether or not some professors even care about accuracy.

The third problem I have seen is that of the modern ideal being applied to the historical context. (It could be said that this is, in fact, an outgrowth of chronological snobbery, so make of that what you will.) One example of this is the modern idea of "tolerance." Tolerance in our day and age is a sort of pluralism, a "live and let live" attitude towards beliefs or customs which differ from ours. Oftentimes, a historical group will be looked at and proclaimed to be more tolerant than other people of the day. We are then led to believe that this makes that particular group somehow better or more agreeable than their peers. But the definition of tolerance used is largely a modernist invention. To the modern mind, tolerance is progressive, tolerance is politically correct, tolerance is necessary for a free society. But is that how the historical context defines things? Was it really a desire for tolerance which prompted the institution of Dhimma within 7th century Muslim law? And should the 4th century Christian church be thought of as intolerant for trying to stamp out Arianism? At first glance, moderns will dismiss feudalism as oppressive and cruel, but is it really? Is that the way it was viewed by the people who actually lived within that context? It seems to me that many times, the vast differences between the modern perspective and the perspectives of the past are completely ignored. History is put into a blender along with modernism, and the result is a watery, revisionist concoction that is more counterproductive than anything else. No attempt is made to break free from the gravitational pull of our own biases. The practice of taking modern ideas and slapping them onto historical events in such a way is just plain old bad scholarship. The willingness of academia to view history through mud-coloured glasses is something which should not be taken with the complacency that so many seem to have towards the treatment of history in the classroom.

It would seem that for the modern university student, history has been reduced to money and power. Ideas are mentioned, but never investigated. Cultures are surveyed, but never explored. If I were to remember only one thing that I learned as a history student in high school, it would be that ideas have consequences. Worldview matters. Philosophies matter. Religion matters. These things affect culture, politics, economics, literature, music, art, architecture, and every other aspect of society imaginable. It amazes me that the most important factors in the development of history are ignored by those who have studied it the most.