What is Historical Thinking?

What does it take for us to think historically? What is the value of this knowledge? History is not just a story. Nor is it ‘his’ story (although sadly there is some unjust truth to this claim). It comes from the Greek word historia, which translates to a form of ‘inquiry’ or knowledge obtained by means of investigation. In the past, this form of inquiry about the past is recorded in a written text. Therefore, for a long time, the past that existed prior to written records was called ‘pre-history’.

One consequence is that societies without a writing system is often regarded as inferior or less developed. Often the value marker ‘civilisation’ is then used to judge which society is more advance in comparison to others. This way of judging a society ultimately tends to privilege values that have shaped European societies beginning in the 18^th century. Often cultures that do not share the same values were seen as barbaric or primitive or uncivilised. For the next two hundred years, this outlook began to determine what would eventually develop into the study of history as an academic discipline.

Today, this is no longer necessarily so. Over the course of the 20^th century, thinkers, artists, scholars and workers from all over the world began to critique the moral foundation of this intellectual framework. Whether it is because recent scholars have embraced the idea that the ‘text’ can be expanded to encompass rituals, objects and images, or, have recognised a diverse range of memory practices that are not always textual or written, ‘history’ today is a much more inclusive form of engaging with the past. While still prioritising the written record, scholars have nevertheless begun to also consider other sources much more seriously. This is where historians are learning other observational and interpretive tools from artists, literary scholars, anthropologist, art historians, sociologist, archaeologist, etc.

But, are all forms of accounting the past always historical? There is no short answer to this. In some sense, they are. Nevertheless, when it comes to the study of history, there is an ideal that a community of students interested in history subscribes to. This ideal is premised on the possibility of a rigorous evaluation of sources to produce a more holistic and informed understanding of this past.

While we often think of history as a recitation of facts, no historical account is really ever impartial or objective. However, that doesn’t mean we cannot be critical about our own biasness, limitations and also constraints. While history can never be entirely objective, it is also never entirely subjective. Rather, we can think of what we understand to be ‘truth’ about the past, as a form of thinking. This means that in ‘historical thinking’; we arrive at our argument, by exercising procedural deductive reasoning, while engaging in a conversation with an informed community of researchers.

Thinking historically allows us to understand the circumstances contributing to an event that happened, the experiences of a person or community that existed, or the value and meaning of an object that is created. Recognising the complexities and paradoxes that we are bound to face when we think historically helps us to write history more honestly, and also, come to terms with the uses and abuses of history. When undertaking historical research, historical thinking is a useful framework to assist you in a process of thinking that allows you to reach certain conclusions or arrive at a range of possible speculations, about what you think of the past.

Often what we arrive at, when we apply historical thinking to study about the past, is not some final answers to some burning questions in our heads. Chances are, what we will discover through historical thinking is not black or white, or something that merely affirms what we already believe in. Instead, historical thinking invites us to experience wonder, cultivate empathy and instil in ourselves an openness to ideas. In this sense, this mode of thinking encourages us to not make assumptions or pass flippant judgements; instead it should be driven by a desire to seek clarification and appreciation of the complexities that make up the varieties of human experience. This process is just as much an inward reflection that requires imagination and creativity on the part of the researcher as it is a procedure of doing actual archival work, or engaging in a spirited conversation with a scholarly community who are just as invested as you are on the topic.

Sometimes, this mode of thinking causes uncertainty and this might lead to a feeling of confusion. When compared with the certitude promised by sticking to a well established viewpoint about the world and by subscribing to a grand narrative, it’s not hard to see why many opt for the certainty that grand narratives and established viewpoints offer.

But there’s one thing that grand narrative doesn’t offer – which are the glimpses of and occasional flashes into another life or another perspective that will show us other possibilities and the varieties of human conditions, motivations, and experiences. While historical thinking proceeds from doubt and skepticism, it is not cynical. It is an invitation to reevaluate received wisdom, and to assess how we make-meaning for our life in relationship to the conducts of people and to things and events of the pasts.

Principles of Historical Thinking

Overtime, educators have helped to structure and clarify historical thinking into six principles. They are of course not absolutes. Many found the principles easy to understand and to apply to one’s research and I share them to provide a foundational yardstick to help anyone along with their evaluation process. These principles can be used alongside Wikipedia's entry on Historical Methods, which lists down guidelines by various historians on how to establish reliability of historical sources. They are:

1. Establish historical significance: what is worth remembering?



The past is a foreign country’, as the old adage goes. Yet it is everything that has happened to everyone, everywhere. There is simply too much of it. How do we come to choose what is worth remembering? Significance depends upon one’s perspective and purpose. A historical person or event can acquire significance if we, the historians, can link it to larger trends and stories that reveal something important for us today.

Historical significance cannot be justified by explanations such as ‘this person or event is significant because it is in the history book’ or ‘this topic is significant because I am interested in it’ or ‘this topic is significant because other people I trust tell me so’. However, one can evaluate significance by asking: How does this event or person shed light on enduring or emerging issues in history or contemporary life? Of what larger story or argument might this event or person be a part? If it is a well-known figure, why are you telling their story again? Did the historical significance of this event or person change over time? How are you telling it in a way that resonates with current concerns? 


2. Use primary source evidence: reading sources for evidence and its creative uses

A primary source is not just a body of transparent/neutral information, they are ingredients that call for active and creative interpretation. They exist in many forms, not just official documents and records. They also exist as letters, diaries, graffiti, newspaper accounts and even facebook comment threads. Besides textual sources, non-textual sources like heirlooms, illustrations, photographs, objects, architecture, ritual performance, music culture. The historian’s craft is to learn how to read these sources.

A primary source becomes evidence only through contextualisation, corroboration, and close reading.
 Always ask – what is the source, who created it and when was it created? How does the point of view/position shape the source? Who was the intended audience? What does it contribute to the argument you are making? What other sources are you exploring and in what ways do they relate to one another to form a bigger picture? Are they conflicting accounts, do they highlight different perspectives, do they corroborate, do they carry different tones and registers?

3. Identify continuity and change: degrees of transformation


History is not simply a list of events and outcomes, it is an attempt to understand a process of change. All things change over time: empires, languages, ideas, technology, attitudes. Change in history usually occurs over a long period of time; if there is a sudden and clear change resulting from a single event, the event is called a ‘turning point’. Whether change happens over night or gradually over a stretch of time , the past is made up of a complex mixture of continuities and change.

Producing a complex picture of what changes and what remains the same in a historical incident helps us to understand the degrees of transformation caused by a person or event. For instance, even if an event might be popularly viewed as a moment of radical change, one should also address the hidden continuities; conversely age-old traditions are not always perennial, their form or name might persist, but the values and meanings associated with them often change over time. Judgments of continuity and change can be made on the basis of comparisons between some point in the past and the present, or between two points in the past. The ability take this into perspective encourages us to complicate some of our common sense assumptions.

4. Analyse cause and consequence: human agency vs social forces



What were the actions, beliefs, and circumstances that led to these consequences? Human agency needs to be considered when interpreting history. People, as individuals and as groups, play a conscious part in promoting, shaping, and resisting change. At the same time, we are conditioned by social - ideological, economic, and cultural - and arguably biological forces.

Causes are thus multiple and layered, involving both long-term ideologies, institutions, and conditions, and short-term motivations, actions and events. Causes that are offered for any particular event (and the priority of various causes) may differ, based on the scale of the history and the approaches of the historian. Ultimately, when analysing cause and consequence, the historian has to decide which individuals, groups, and social forces were involved, then consider to what extent they influenced the event or trend.

5. Take Historical perspectives: unveiling patterns of intention



Compared to what we face today, what relevant circumstances were different for them in the past? (Some examples might include technology, media, economy, religion, family life, communication, recreation, etc.) How do you think the above factors influenced their thoughts and/or actions? The process of uncovering the patterns of intentions requires the historian to understand the social, cultural, intellectual, and emotional settings that shaped people’s lives and actions in the past.

At any one point, different historical actors may have acted on the basis of conflicting beliefs and ideologies, so understanding diverse perspectives is also a key to historical perspective-taking. The ability to understand patterns of intetion in past actions or actors and take account of these perspectives help us to understand a range of human behaviour, motivation, conduct and social practice that we might not be entirely familiar with. This empathethic knowledge offers surprising alternatives to the taken-for-granted conventional wisdom, or common sense, and opens a wider perspective from which to evaluate our present preoccupations.

6. Understand the ethical dimension and the stakes of historical interpretations: negotiating judgment and empathy

.

What responsibilities do historical crimes or sacrifices impose upon us today? What differences exist between our ethical universe (values and ideas of right and wrong) and that of a controversial past in relation to the issues involved in the conflict? What are the implications for today? It is simply to better understand human behaviour and human rights; b) or are we bearing witness, is there the debt of memory; c) does it have a restorative role that can lead to reparations and restitution?

Taking historical perspective demands that we understand the differences between our ethical universe and those of bygone societies. We do not want to impose our own anachronistic standards on the past. At the same time, meaningful history does not treat brutal slave-holders, enthusiastic Nazis, and marauding conquistadors in a ‘neutral’ manner. Historians attempt to hold back on explicit ethical judgments about actors in the midst of their accounts, but, when all is said and done, if the story is meaningful, then there is an ethical judgment involved.

We should expect that historical thinking promotes an approach to learning something from the past through a thinking process that helps us to face the ethical issues of today. This is the difficult paradox of historical thinking. What these principles suggest is that historical thinking is not about winning an argument or who is right or wrong. It is a procedure to enable us to appreciate the complexities of human lives and to cultivate empathy, so that these lessons that has survived the ravages of time can guide us in making decisions about pressing issues today and tomorrow.

- Developed from core methods found at The Historical Thinking Project
http://historicalthinking.ca/

Types of Sources

All forms of historical research depend on the use of sources. Generally, sources are divided into two types.

Primary sources are materials produced in the time period under study; they reflect the immediate concerns and perspectives of participants in the historical drama. Common examples include diaries, correspondence, dispatches, newspaper editorials, speeches, economic data, literature, art, and film.

Secondary sources are materials produced after the time period under study; they consider the historical subject with a degree of hindsight and generally select, analyse, and incorporate evidence (derived from primary sources) to make an interpretive argument. Scholarly works are the most common form of secondary source. Other secondary sources include - contemporary artworks that addresses a historical topic, documentaries, journalistic articles, etc.

Sources come in all forms and shapes and sizes. They include: Articles; Atlases, Maps and Gazetteers; Biographical Sources; Personal or Official Letters; Books; Diaries or Entry Logs; Dictionaries, Thesauri and Quotations; Directories; Dissertations and Theses; Encyclopedias and Almanacs; Genealogical Charts and Family Trees; Certificates and Documents; Government Information; Handbooks and Manuals; Photographs, Illustrations, and other still images; Laws and Regulations; Library Catalogs and Publication Lists; Market Research and Industry Analysis; Moving Images; News; Sound/Audio; Statistics and Numeric Data.

When a researcher has decided on a topic, they look for both primary and secondary sources to begin understanding more about the topic. Secondary sources help the researcher to understand what has already been written about the topic and how the research topic was interpreted by other researchers before. This allows the researcher to formulate a set of research questions. A researcher is then required to explore primary sources again to address those research questions that were formulated.

Tips on doing historical research and evaluating sources

Wikipedia: Historical Method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method) [N1]
Berkeley Library – Evaluating Sources (http://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/evaluating-resources)
Cornell University Library - Critically Analyzing Information Sources: Critical Appraisal and Analysis (http://guides.library.cornell.edu/criticallyanalyzing)

A survival Guide to Archival Research (https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/december-2004/a-survival-guide-to-archival-research)

Le Minh Khai’s SEAsian History Blog (https://leminhkhai.wordpress.com)
Investigating History: Colonial Singapore 1819 – 1941 (https://www.nationalmuseum.sg/-/media/nms2017/documents/school-programmes/teachers-hi-resource-unit-2-colonial-singapore.pdf?la=en)[N2]

[N1] An extensive survey of evaluation criteria devised by historians over time to test the plausibility and historical soundness of sources.
[N2] An activity book published by the National Museum of Singapore that translates some of the more theoretical discussions on evaluating sources into a series of exercises on materials/sources connected to the colonial history of Singapore.