Why study history?

History is an odd field of study. Here we are, seeking information about the past, things that are finished, people who are dead and gone. We say that it enriches us, or that it guides us, but at the same time we believe in our own freedom to buck the trends, be creative, and change the world (or at least send it in a new direction). Something about the past piques most people's curiosity. Who were those people who came before, and what did they do? How do they affect me? These are strange questions, coming as they so often do (especially here in the United States) from people who consider themselves unleashed from the confines of the past.

So why do we study history? As someone who actually does study history, I contemplate this question almost every day. So a while ago, I decided to run a Google search on the question "Why study history?" Here are some of the things I found.

At Hanover College, in Hanover, Indiana, the history department has a page titled Why Study History? Here is an excerpt of some comments there, attributed to Frank Luttmer, an associate professor of history there:

It is commonly acknowledged that an understanding of the past is fundamental to an understanding of the present. The analysis and interpretation of history provide an essential context for evaluating contemporary institutions, politics, and cultures. Understanding the present configuration of society is not the only reason to study the past; history also provides unique insight into human nature and human civilization. By demanding that we see the world through the eyes of others, that we develop a sense of context and coherence while recognizing complexity and ambiguity, and that we confront the record not only of human achievement but also of human failure, cruelty, and barbarity, the study of history provides us with a richly-textured, substantive framework for understanding the human condition and grappling with moral questions and problems. History is essential to the traditional objectives of the liberal arts, the quest for wisdom and virtue.

There is another reason to study history: it's fun. History combines the excitement of exploration and discovery with the sense of reward born of successfully confronting and making sense of complex and challenging problems.

I agree with Dr. Luttmer. History is an excellent way to give us a better understanding of our world. But do we really need the kind of understanding that history offers? I have asked myself this question many times, and have always found it difficult to answer. How many times have people made great leaps forward, or contributed great things to civilization by disregarding history? But then I might ask the converse question: How many times have people committed great atrocities by disregarding history? If history is so important, why are people often so quick to abandon it in favor of dogma, mythology, or unsubstantiated ideological hopes?

Let's continue and see what someone else has to say.

Over at The History Guide, a site that appears to be the creation of someone named Steven Kreis, there is another essay to answer the question "Why study history?" Here is an excerpt:

I first began to appreciate the study of history as an undergraduate studying political philosophy at Boston University. I was pretty keen on Plato, Aquinas, Dante, Hobbes, Locke, Godwin, Marx, Mill and a host of other "greats." But what I soon discovered was that my lack of understanding of history, i.e. the actual historical context in which these writers conceived and executed their theoretical work, made my understanding of their philosophy one-sided. Sure, I knew what they had to say about liberty, or the proletariat, or monarchy or the franchise. But what was the historical environment that gave rise to their ideas? Ideas are not akin to balloons hanging from the ceiling of Clio's den, waiting to be retrieved by a Marx, a Mill or a Plato. Ideas have a history. They undergo a process of development. They change, are modified, are distributed or are forgotten only to reappear years, decades or perhaps even centuries later.

Again I agree. But this time I think the perspective is more useful. If ideas like those of Plato, Hobbes, Locke, and Marx are conditioned by their historical context, then we ought to be more careful when adopting them for use today. Here is the kind of thing I meant when I spoke of "dogma, mythology, or unsubstantiated ideological hopes" above. There are plenty of Platonists, Hobbesians, Lockeans, and Marxists around today. But are those philosophies appropriate in our world? I won't attempt to answer that question right now, because it probably deserves a book or six, but perhaps you can see what I mean. If Locke, for instance, was formulating his political philosophy in response to a particular milieu, can his philosophy continue to function when that milieu has passed?

This question of why we study history can't be answered quickly or easily, so I'll stop here today. But expect to see more on this matter.