Historism (Italian:storicismo) is a philosophical and historiographical theory, founded in 19th-century[1]Germany (asHistorismus) and especially influential in 19th- and 20th-centuryEurope. In those times there was not a single natural, humanistic or philosophical science that would not reflect, in one way or another, the historical type of thought (cf.comparative historical linguistics etc.).[1] It pronounces thehistoricity of humanity and its binding to tradition.
Historisthistoriography rejects historicalteleology and bases its explanations of historical phenomena onsympathy and understanding for the events, acting persons, andhistorical periods. The historist approach takes to its extreme limits the common observation that human institutions (language, Art, religion, law, State) are subject to perpetual change.[2]
Notable exponents of historism were primarily the German 19th-century historiansLeopold von Ranke[3] andJohann Gustav Droysen,[4] 20th-century historianFriedrich Meinecke,[5] and the philosopherWilhelm Dilthey.[6] Dilthey was influenced by Ranke.[7] The juristsFriedrich Carl von Savigny andKarl Friedrich Eichhorn were strongly influenced by the ideas of historism and founded theGerman Historical School of Law. The Italian philosopher, anti-fascist[8] and historianBenedetto Croce[9] and his British colleagueRobin George Collingwood[10] were important European exponents of historism in the late 19th and early 20th century. Collingwood was influenced by Dilthey.[7][11]
Ranke's arguments can be viewed as an antidote to the lawlike andquantitative approaches common insociology and most othersocial sciences.[12]
The principle of historism has a universal methodological significance inMarxism.[1]: 127 The essence of this principle, in brief, is:
not to forget the underlying historical connection, to examine every question from the standpoint of how the given phenomenon arose in history and what principal stages this phenomenon passed through in its development, and, from the standpoint of its development, to examine what the given thing has become today.
— Vladimir Lenin,The State: A Lecture Delivered at the Sverdlov University[13]
20th-century German historians promoting some aspects of historism areUlrich Muhlack,Thomas Nipperdey andJörn Rüsen.[citation needed]
The Spanish philosopherJosé Ortega y Gasset was influenced by historism.[citation needed]
Because of the power held on thesocial sciences bylogical positivism, historism or historicism is deemed unpopular.[14]
Georg G. Iggers is one of the most important critical authors on historism. His bookThe German Conception of History: The National Tradition of Historical Thought from Herder to the Present, first published in 1968 (byWesleyan University Press, Middletown, Ct.) is a "classic”[15] among critiques of historism.
Another critique is presented by the German philosopherFriedrich Nietzsche, whose essayVom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie für das Leben (On the Use and Abuse of History for Life, 1874) denounces “a malignant historical fever”. Nietzsche contends that the historians of his times, the historists, damaged the powers of human life by relegating it to the past instead of opening it to the future. For this reason, he calls for a return, beyond historism, to humanism.[16]
Karl Popper was one of the most distinguished critics of historicism. He differentiated between both phenomena as follows: The termhistoricism is used in his influential booksThe Poverty of Historicism andThe Open Society and Its Enemies to describe “an approach to the social sciences which assumes thathistorical prediction is their primary aim, and which assumes that this aim is attainable by discovering the 'rhythms' or the 'patterns', the 'laws' or the 'trends' that underlie the evolution of history”.[17] Popper wrote with reference toHegel's theory ofhistory, which he criticized extensively. Byhistorism on the contrary, he means the tendency to regard every argument or idea as completely accounted for by its historical context, as opposed to assessing it by its merits.Historism does not aim for the 'laws' of history, but premises the individuality of each historical situation.
On the basis of Popper's definitions, the historianStefan Berger proposes as a proper word usage:
I deliberately use the term ‘historism’ (and ‘historist’) rather than ‘historicism’ (and ‘historicist’). Whereas ‘historism’ (inGerman:Historismus), as represented byLeopold von Ranke, can be seen as an evolutionary, reformist concept which understands all political order as historically developed and grown, ‘historicism’ (Historizismus), as defined and rejected by Karl Popper, is based on the notion that history develops according to predetermined laws towards a particular end. The English language, by using only one term for those different concepts, tends to conflate the two. Hence I suggest using two separate terms in analogy to the German language.[18]
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
