The Philosophy of History, Progress and the Social Science

Bujar Aruqaj

The Philosophy of History has been focal point for the analysis and development of a distinct
philosophical system, from Immanuel Kant and G.W.F. Hegel to E.H. Carr. The question is not only what
history is, or how we can come to objective history, but also what the trajectory of history is, its aim and
direction.
In treating history, many of the enlightenment theorists attended to explain questions like: Why do
empires rise and fall? Why do certain people influence history? What is the ultimate end of history?
The concept of history plays a fundamental role in human thought. It invokes notions of human agency,
change, the role of material circumstances in human affairs, and the putative meaning of historical events.
It raises the possibility of learning from history.
For Hegel, history follows his dialectical principle of contradictions. There are three dialectical stages of
development: a thesis (giving rise to its reaction), an antithesis (contradicting or negating the thesis), and
the tension and resolution between the two by means of a synthesis. History has divine nature and it is the
unfolding of the world spirit in time (zeitgeist). In his words; history is the autobiography of god. Hegel
goes on to state that at all points of existence in which the spirit is imperfectly manifested, there exists an
urge towards perfection inherent within that same point of existence. As progress of history is towards
freedom, defined as conscious reason or the Spirits total consciousness of itself, the imperfection must
give way towards perfection.
According to this principle, history is not only deterministic but it is also determined to go in a certain
way. History is ultimately moving towards progress. The more man develops spiritually the more he
becomes coincidence of himself, the more he becomes coincidence of himself, the more he becomes
himself; that is, free ( ).
For Hegel as for Kant, reason ultimately governed and pushed history forward. However Hegel claims it
is only certain people that had agency in shaping history, or what he refers to as the hero. War is
unavoidable as there will always be contradictions. The victims will perish from history, as they do not
rise up to see the fullness of the historical occasion.
Kant had a different take on where history was heading. For him history was going towards universalism,
cosmopolitanism and the unification of nations. On the international level, reason would drive [states] to
give up their savage lawless freedom in order to accommodate themselves to public coercive laws and
form an ever-growing State of Nations. Such a system would at last embrace all the Nations of the Earth
(). Economic interaction between nations would strengthen their friendly ties and war would become
irrational under the Republic constitution. This idea is particularly relevant to social science and
normative basis of the United Nations system and the emergence of globalization. On the
individual/anthropological level it is significant in understanding the emergence of the cosmopolitan
human the term world citizen. Kant is thought by many to be an idealist for making such assumptions.
But in todays economically integrated world, one might want to praise him for being a visionary.
War seems to be an essential point of concern for the philosophy of history. But when examining war and
conflict, one needs to consider the unequal relationship of one human to another; one social class to
another; one nation to another. According to Freud, even among community or group there are elements
of unequal power relations (). For instance, between man and woman, elders and children, master and
slave and so on. There will be always a conflict between those who want to set themselves above law (the
rulers) and those who are struggling for their equal rights (the ruled).
Marx believed that personal freedom existed only for the ruling class. This class was in a sense
sponsoring this freedom by utilizing the means of production which they owned under capitalism. On
the other hand, the system was maintained by the constant and brutish exploitation of the ruled class the

proletariat. In the theory of material dialectics, the oppressed do not only have the agency to change
history, they also have the duty to do so. Considering this assumption is necessary for social science and
marginalized groups. Even today, it would be nonsense to outwit Marxs concept of the relationship of
production, considering the marginalization of the Roma population in Eastern and Western Europe alike.
At the same time, it is fact that we depend on our own capital to stimulate or restrict much of our
behavior hopes in life; relationships to other individuals; our prejudice and loyalty.
According to Marx, throughout history the ruling ideas were those of the ruling class; the core of the
theory of ideology. However, the division of society into classes - which is based on wealth, ability,
intellect or some other criteriais not an exclusively Marxist concept. It extends far into the history of
civilization, provoking intense debate and often conflict within and among societies. Indeed,
contemporary political debate, not only in the West, but all throughout the world, is rooted deeply in this
division.
Max theory of history is determined towards a classless societya society in which the benefits of its
abundance are extended to all and no man or woman is condemned to the enslavement entailed in the
capitalist system. Marx believed, people make their own histories, but not in circumstances of their own
choosing. So we cannot draw a sharp separation between social structure and social agency. Kant, on the
other hand, has no rigid view of class structure. Instead, he declares that all citizens must be regarded as
equal subjects before the law (Kant; 75).
According to Kant, the aim of society and the principal consideration in the determination of public
policy must not be the acquisition of material wealth and abundance and the subsequent distribution of
that wealth for the benefit of all the people, but rather the attainment of a supreme level of intellectual
enlightenment.
According the positions taken by Hegel, Kant and Marx, history and its determination ought not to be
doubted. E.H. Carr takes us much further in critically examining the accuracy of history. The Carrendorsed epistemological theory of knowledge argues that the past is knowable via the evidence, and
remains so even as it is constituted into the historical narrative. This is because the 'good' historian is
midwife to the facts and they remain sovereign. They dictate the historian's narrative structure, her form
of argumentation, and ultimately determine her ideological position. For Him, history is the continuous
process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and
the past (Carr; 37). In other words, history has a reciprocal nature.
Here the interest is in the characteristics of historical knowledge: how we know facts about the past, what
constitutes a good historical explanation and whether historical knowledge is underdetermined by
available historical evidence. For Carr who witnessed the destruction of two world wars, history was not
pre-destined to progress. According to him, there is no room in a belief of progress which advanced in an
unbroken straight line without reverses, deviations and breaks in continuity. Even the sharpest reverse is
not necessarily fatal to the belief (Carr; 135). History in its very essence is change, or movement. Change
is therefore in a way historys destiny, but progress is not. On the other hand, according to Carr, the
facts of history cannot be purely objective since they become facts of history only in virtue of the
significance attached to them by the historian.
For the most part in history it was only the great man that went down in history. This led some to belief
that history was nothing but the graveyard of aristocracies". For Hegel, only when one stands on high
ground can one survey the situation and note every detail - not when one has to peer up from below
though a small hole (Hegel;17). Carr illustrates his point by citing how historians have concentrated only
on Caesars crossing of the Rubicon River whilst neglecting the many others who have crossed it prior
and after him.

The question arises then if we can have objective history at all? For history to be truly objective it has to
detach itself from the hypocrisy of elite fetishism. Nevertheless, it was indeed the common human, not
the great man that endured the greatest suffering and paid the biggest sacrifice in history. Therefore, the
ordinary human remains to be acknowledged as the primary agent of this much proclaimed progress in
history.
The significance of the philosophy of history to the social science is undeniable. The field considers the
most foundational questions about the possibility of scientific knowledge about the social world. The
philosophy of history has provided substantial support for social explanations that depend on tracing a
series of causal mechanisms. Going forward, the philosophy of history should take the measure of
synchronous historical writing, historical writing that conveys a changing set of economic or structural
circumstances, writing that observes the changing characteristics of a set of institutions, and writing that
records and analyzes a changing set of beliefs and attitudes in a population. These should be recognized
as important features of the structure of historical knowledge, not simply aspects of the rhetoric of
historical writing.
History, for all its immense authority and power, is and always has been a human endeavor subject to
human capacities and limits. Put simply, history has never been pure. To be human is to err, and we
understand histories contribution to science better when we recognize it as the laborious achievement of
fallible, imperfect, and historically situated human beings.