"Why [consider history]?” Michel Focault declares “simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that [...] a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means [...] the history of the present." This man’s theory has been simply and my own ideas remain similar to his, as shown through my experiences in my history class through this quarter. Using my outlook on history, I was able to understand the present with more depth.
Focault’s theory, in its most basal form, says that he believes history to be important. Yet, in "terms of the present" it cannot be. Focault suggests that a history merely explained in modern language has no meaning to the present. If simply restated without drawing connections between the here and now to there and then and how it correlates, then history would be pointless to examine. When presented in this manner, history did not contribute to the making of modern times, so it will relate to no one and none will learn from it. Yet, history will forever be significant as a "history of the present." Focault presents, here, that when describing history it needs to be explained in a manner of how time actually came to the present. It needs to be shown in a way that helps people understand how the past defines the now, the present, and how it influences us in the actions to be chosen and to be paths taken. Basically, Focault believes that history can only be important when drawing connections to the present, showing the influence it has on decisions and not as simply a moment of time separate from the present restated again and again.
This view of Focault’s differs little from my own. In history 121, I began the course with a droll outlook, thinking it would be just another course in early American history, of a time that did not truly contribute to the present. Yet, as the class went on, I realized how closely tied and elaborate each event truly was. One moment of time precipitated a larger, greater event, a small difference that grew as the years went by until it ripped and tore at the nation, such as the divide over slavery growing from simply having a smaller number of slaves in the north than in the south to a devastating battle over emancipation and states’ liberties in the Civil War. Each of these events could not be removed in the shaping of the nation, and I soon realized how much of this country was founded upon these events. So now, as I look at the question Focault poses - “why [consider history]?” – I have but one response. This response is that history should be examined because history defines the self. I have heard that “you can’t know where you’re going until you know from where you came,” because history is merely a recording of actions, a list of responses acted out amongst several events. Simply put, the past is life, the present is living, and the future is based on the life lived.
As I began to apply this concept to American history, I began to see the themes prevalent now that had begun before even the birth of the United States – such as the aversion of controversial issues. It allowed me to see the ties strewn betwixt the past and present, weaving together similarities so they could be adequately viewed. Take how anti-federalists (of the constitution) wanted all classes to be favored in federal governments, while the federalists skillfully countered the opinion with the idea of the elite being the only ones with education and wisdom enough to lead the people, which was mostly true. Today, as one can see, public education has been free for generations and people can continue onto the higher education offered to individuals from every region on earth; yet, still the elite rule and the issue of class has been rarely brought up. If it happens to be, the leaders either give heartfelt speeches about ultimately worthless hope or merely change the subject. In this manner then, I can correlate the country’s past issues with its’ present ones. Had my answer to Focault’s question been any different, though, I am afraid I would have learned history in an entirely different manner. Instead of actively looking to connect the past and present, I would have had a negative outlook on history and been completely close-minded about it. When reading John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, I would have shrugged off his radical ideals of rising against the government when it does not meet the wills of the commonwealth – as the Americans applied to Britain and its Parliament – as another speculation of an era long gone, instead of a liberty the current generation has against the growing tyrannical powers President Bush has imposed onto the United States. Thus, had I never thought in a way similar to Focault, I would have been unable to explore the intricacies of the past and present.
Had I thought of history in any other way, I would never have been able to understand how the present came to be. Focault believes that history should only be explored when it actively shows the correlation between the now and then, instead of being viewed as a time completely separate from the modern era. I myself believe the past to be what was lived, the present what is being lived, and the future to be defined from that which was lived. By answering the question Focault imposed, the influence it had on my learning through class and how that experience would have changed had I not believed what I had, I was able to adequately explore this idea. As I show, history is more than just a time that has gone by.
No comments:
Post a Comment