Thinking Historically And Teaching History: A Hierarchy of C’s

This month’s AHA Perspectives presents an engaging article on teaching students to think historically. Authored by Thomas Andrews and Flannery Burke, and titled “What Does It Mean To Think Historically?,” the piece argues for a five-themed approach in constructing teaching plans on history. The authors’ argument is intended for high school teachers, but also clearly applies to college-level instructors.

The piece’s core consists of five themes that should be discussed in all history classes: (1) Change over time, (2) Context, (3) Causality, (4) Contingency, and (5) Complexity. Andrews and Burke persuasively offer justification for including elements of each in a course, and offer practical examples of how to weave in all five. Some of the titles cover traditional issues, such as in the case of ‘context’ where storytelling is considered the key means by which context is conveyed. Under ‘change over time’ the authors also, conversely, include continuity in history. The category of ‘complexity’ works against the human need for order in history (Andrews and Burke’s phrase) – against simple chronologies and the use of presentist terminology to explain away the past.

While Andrews and Burke caveat their case, writing that “the five C’s do not encompass the universe of historical thinking,” their caution does not immunize the piece from critique. Their argument on the “five C’s” is incomplete. This is not the case because of misinformation, illogic, or any lack of information, but rather from a failure to prioritize. In ordering and simplifying Andrews and Burke’s list, my hope is to provide focus and allow for the incorporation of other themes.

The authors’ “five C’s” ought to be ordered as follows: Causality first; followed closely by Context; then a tie between Complexity and Change Over Time; and Contingency a distant last. In fact, Complexity and Change Over Time can be subsumed under Causality and Context, and Contingency left for idle chats outside of class. It’s not that Contingency isn’t relevant or interesting, it’s just that there’s no time in high school or college classes to adequately deal with the subject: it should be saved for graduate school.

If we raise Causality, which according to Andrews and Burke allowed for the discussion of arguments, to the top of the list then we can more easily incorporate the liberal arts – especially logic – into history. This is a subject too often ignored by historians, who frequently today see their craft as exclusively subjective. The extreme subjectivist crowd tends to use the term ‘theory’ instead of philosophy, such that one feels like history is excluded from the traditional rules of thinking that regulate the liberal arts. In highlighting the topic of philosophy, particularly arguments, I don’t mean to imply that one can tease out syllogisms from any one paragraph of an historian’s writing. Rather, discussing logic more easily allows the teacher to point out instances of illogic, or fallacies.

For instance, how can one accuse an historian of committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (a precursor to teleology fallacies) if one doesn’t know what a syllogism looks like the context of a historical narrative? Talking about logic also explains the appearance of books like David Hackett Fischer’s Historians’ Fallacies.

Andrews and Burke acknowledge storytelling under the category Context, but emphasize the need for description and the importance of imagination in history. As with Causality, the place of Context should be raised in the “five C’s.” In allowing Context a prominent place, I’m hoping to emphasize one of the unique aspects of history, telling stories. What Clifford Geertz called “thick description” is an important aspect of history, and should be introduced in the study of history at the earliest moment. Putting together that description partially encompasses that task of being a good storyteller.

But it should be noted that, like all good storytellers, historians tell their stories with a purpose. That purpose is the equivalent of an argument, or a story’s thesis. This is why I argue that Context is a close second behind Causality, to stick with the authors’ terminology. Helping students find or uncover a particular historian’s thesis is the single most important thing a professional, a history instructor, can do. Uncovering the thesis allows the student to see, or reconstruct, the historian’s argument. That argument can then be analyzed for weaknesses or fallacies.

Finding a historical work’s thesis and argument are critical tasks. Everyone who comes in contact with a historical narrative should understand that this is goal. Why? In their own way, everyone’s an historian – of themselves, their family, their culture, their religion, and – to be a good citizen – their nation. It’s up to us, the professionals, to give the public the tools to deconstruct historical arguments. Until we give up this “craft” secret, to borrow from Andrews and Burke’s introduction, the field of history will remain a mystery to the uninitiated. The best time to start the process of giving away those keys is well before college. – TL