ib theory of knowledge essay

TOK ESSAY Prescribed title no. 5

“The historian’s task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future.” To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge?

January 19th 2014

Momina Amjad

Candidate Number: 0022233-0028

Word Count: 1598

Candidate Name: Momina Amjad Candidate Number: 0022233-0028 5. “The historian’s task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future.” To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge??

1

The quotation in the essay title presents the historian as someone concerned only with

humanity’s past and, contrastingly, describes the human scientist as the torch bearer of change

for the future. This is an exaggeration of the assumptions in the title, nevertheless I have used it

to start building my main argument for the essay: these two disciplines are not quite

antithetical, and actually contain many similarities. To what extent is the historian only

responsible for understanding the past and the human scientist concerned with changing the

future? Is there an overlap between the two areas of knowledge and is it necessary to have the

knowledge of one to complete the other? These are the two knowledge issues that will be

analyzed in depth in my essay by comparing and contrasting the methodologies and aims of

history and the human sciences.

Firstly, we have to consider what history is. History is an area of knowledge that relies

on a combination of fact and interpretation. Every historian is a product of their cultural

paradigm and their method involves the selection of facts based on their perception which

becomes inherently subjective and reflective of said paradigm1. Interpretation is retrospective

and biased because it arises based on the intent of the historian, and if it is a part of the

dominant narrative, it will be synchronized with the prevailing values of his or her society. The

era of the historian espouses different norms than the era of the events, and furthermore, the

audience may belong in a yet another era. Histories have traditionally been associated with the

people in power, the victors and the conquerors; however many histories now re-examine and

re-evaluate events from the perspective of the marginalized class. Postcolonial studies and

gender studies have examples of such histories that aim to deconstruct and revise traditional 1Bastian, Sue, Vivek R Bammi and Craig C Howard. Theory of knowledge. Harlow, Essex: Pearson, 2008. p216. Print


2

history by challenging the starting point and context of the facts. This dynamic and fluid nature

of history, and imposition of the historian’s hierarchies of significance on events2 was what

British historian E. H. Carr was referring to when he said “My first answer…to the question

‘What is history?’ is that it is a continuous interaction between the historian and his facts, an

unending dialogue between the present and the past.”3

To illustrate these points further, I will use the example of the 1971 war between East

Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan, which led to the creation of the independent

state of Bangladesh. The war resulted in the deaths of about 500,000 people4. There was also

genocidal rape by the Pakistani military. However, this matter is completely whitewashed in

Pakistani textbooks. I am a Pakistani and I remember my middle school history textbook

devoting only a page to this war, calling it a great loss for Pakistan and citing Indian conspiracies

and the role of Hindu teachers as causes; not the fact that the East Pakistanis had been

marginalized consistently and had their cultural identity ignored5. There is a mention of the

Pakistani soldiers that died, but no mention whatsoever of the genocide. This concealment of

facts for nationalistic purposes is a recurring aspect of a lot of history textbooks. It

demonstrates the impact of historian’s deliberate selection or deselection of facts based on

their paradigm. Surprisingly, the Bengali textbooks have also been vague about the death toll,

2 Munslow, Alan. "What is History? | Reviews in History." History.ac.uk, 1997. Web. 14 Jan 2014. http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/41a 3 Carr, Edward Hallett. What is history? New York: Vintage, 1961. Print 4 Dummett, Mark. "Bangladesh war: The article that changed history." Published 16th Dec 2011. Web. 14 Jan 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16207201 5 "Library of Congress Country Studies." Memory.loc.gov, 1988. Web. 14 Jan 2014. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+bd0139)

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/41a

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16207201

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+bd0139)



3

but for a different set of nationalistic reasons6. There is now an academic movement in Pakistan

that strives to change the curricula in school textbooks in order for them to be more

representative of the historical truth- which demonstrates how the changing values of a society

can influence historical narratives.

The counter argument to the aforementioned points about history arises when one only

considers the facts themselves, without any interpretation. If in the example above, the

Pakistani textbooks honestly mentioned the Bengali genocide, and spoke only of the dates and

the timeline of the war, it would be considered to be more objective, and indeed, true. But

what is a historical fact without context? In my opinion, reducing human loss to a statistic

trivializes the very tragedy that took place. Interpretation can allow for a condemnation of the

injustices committed and a sense of regret, and can act as a learning exercise for the society to

not repeat these mistakes. Therefore, history is not merely an understanding of the past but a

constant work in progress; a discourse between the past, the present, and possibly even the

future.

The human sciences study individuals as a component of their societies. There is a

plurality of disciplines within the human sciences and each have their distinctive methods

which can be hard to summarize. Even within one discipline such as sociology, there are a

number of different approaches and schools of thought. On one hand, there are positivist

sociologists that prefer a more objective and quantitative data based research and on the

6"What do school books in Bangladesh and Pakistan say about 1971 war? - South Asia Citizens Web." Sacw.net, 2010. Web. 11 Dec 2013. http://www.sacw.net/article1767.html .

http://www.sacw.net/article1767.html


4

other, the interpretivist school of thought believes that this kind of objectivity is neither

possible nor desirable because the most relevant feature of a social action is that it is

purposeful and it is of utmost importance to analyze its cause7. The latter is more similar to the

historical method with the exception that the focus is not on the event but on the human being

that caused it. The methodology is sometimes problematic because many assumptions in the

human sciences cannot be sustained outside the theory. For instance, it is impossible to

generalize and categorize human beings and assumptions such as ‘Human beings are rational

creatures’ are untrue because emotions have been shown to wield an enormous impact on

behavior. So far we have discussed only some of the methods in human sciences that are based

on empirical research. The human scientist makes predictions about the future according to the

patterns observed, but he or she does not necessarily aim to change it. This is where this links

into the Knowledge Issue.

I am going to use Émile Durkheim’s8 investigation of suicide as an example here.

Durkheim looked for common elements in suicide cases such as unemployment, age, gender,

post-traumatic stress, etc. He gathered extensive data and found many explanations as to what

led to high suicide rates in one region and lower rates in another. He did not look at the cause

from the individual’s perspective, and offered no explicit steps for changing the suicide rate of a

society in the future. Although change may have been implied in his research, he was not

7Bastian, Sue, Vivek R Bammi and Craig C Howard. Theory of knowledge. Harlow, Essex: Pearson, 2008. p198-201. Print 8Émile Durkheim(1858-1917) French sociologist widely regarded as one of the founding fathers of modern sociology, specifically of the naturalist or objectivist approach.


5

motivated by changing the future itself, which is contrary to the assumption in the title of this

essay.

However this does not mean that no human scientist ever was concerned with changing

the future. In my study of Karl Marx9, I noted how as an economist, he identified many crises of

capitalism in his works such as Das Kapital and Grundrisse. He talked of the exploitation of

labor, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the inevitable class struggle, and along with

Friedrich Engels developed an alternative based in a classless society- an alternative that is

intrinsically grounded in change and revolution. Marx has been one of the most influential

people in history who has caused change not only in theoretical thought but also inspired

events like the 1917 revolution in Russia. This counterclaim indeed fits the “human scientist is

looking to change the future” claim in the title.

At this point, I believe it is important to link this example with the second knowledge

issue that was concerned with the degree of overlap between history and the human sciences.

Although Marx was primarily a human scientist and a philosopher, much of the theory he

created was established due to an analysis of history. The Marxist dialectics divided history into

five periods; primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and the final communism of

the future10. This historical interpretation formed the basis of Marxist thought, without which

there is not much of a justification or rationale for the economic or political Marxist theories.

Likewise, in the example of war between East Pakistan and West Pakistan, sociological analysis

is imperative in understanding the causes of war. East Pakistanis were disenfranchised and had

9 Karl Marx (1818-1883) German revolutionary, sociologist, historian, and economist 10Bober, Mandell Morton. Karl Marx's interpretation of history. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1948. Print.


6

very little opportunities; their cultural and linguistic identity was ignored and their resources

were exploited. Only with this understanding is it possible to comprehend the Bengali calls for

self-determination. Thus it is clear that history and human sciences overlap not only in their

methodologies (use of sense perception, selection, degrees of objectivity and interpretation of

data) but also in their outcomes. Historical knowledge and human sciences complement each

other and can even be considered as component parts of one area of knowledge.

The implications of this are far-reaching. If history and the human sciences are taught in

an integrated curriculum, it might be easier for people to understand not only that a war

resulting in enormous loss of life happened, but also why the war had started. Reflecting

critically on history and the human sciences may allow a society to prevent future conflicts. It

also leads to an improved comprehension of human behavior and edges closer to the truth.

In conclusion, a historian is not limited to the understanding of the past and a human

scientist is not required to change the future, although there have been instances where

human scientists have attempted change. In effect, both of these areas of knowledge work

across all verb tenses- the past, the present and the future- and are greatly enhanced when

they are utilized in unison; allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of knowledge in

their disciplines.

Word Count: 1598 words

Bibliography

Bastian, Sue, Vivek R Bammi and Craig C Howard. Theory of knowledge. Harlow, Essex: Pearson,

2008. Print.

Bober, Mandell Morton. Karl Marx's interpretation of history. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press,

1948. Print.

Carr, Edward Hallett. What is history? New York: Vintage, 1961. Print.

Dummett, Mark. "Bangladesh war: The article that changed history." 16th December. 2011.

Web. 14 Jan 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16207201

Durkheim, Émile. "Emile Durkheim (French social scientist)." Encyclopedia Britannica, 2013.

Web. 12 Dec 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/174299/Emile-Durkheim

Hussain, Misha and Huma Imtiaz. "What do school books in Bangladesh and Pakistan say about

1971 war?" 18 December. 2010. Web. 12 Dec 2013.


Marx, Karl. "Karl Marx (German philosopher)." Encyclopedia Britannica, 2013. Web. 12 Dec

2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/367265/Karl-Marx

Munslow, Alan. "What is History? | Reviews in History." History.ac.uk, 1997. Web. 14 Jan 2014.


Unknown. "Library of Congress Country Studies." Memory.loc.gov, 1988. Web. 14 Jan 2014.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16207201

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/174299/Emile-Durkheim


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/367265/Karl-Marx



ib theory of knowledge essay

Documents