Understand or explain? The dispute over historical science!

Understand or explain? The dispute over historical science!

Today it's all about the exciting discussion about the distinction between “explaining” and “understanding” in history. This topic, which originated in Germany in the late 19th century, sheds light on how historians and humanities scholars interpret and analyze events.

How do you get to the heart of the complex game of history? The answer to this was largely shaped by Wilhelm Dilthey, an influential thinker of his time. He argued that the methods of the humanities cannot achieve the same certainty as the natural sciences. Taking into account the motivations of historical actors and their interactions plays a crucial role. This differentiation is not just an academic construct, but forms the foundation on which we understand history.

Dilthey was born on November 19, 1833 in Biebrich-Mosbach and grew up in a theological environment. As the son of a pastor, he learned the art of understanding at an early age. His academic career led him through studies in theology, history and philosophy to a position that took him as an editor and teacher at the universities of Berlin and Basel. His major work, “Introduction to the Humanities,” became a mantra for everyone working in this field. Dilthey attempted to differentiate the humanities from the natural sciences and to place the concept of “understanding” at the center of the discussion. This is how he describes that the past not only needs to be explained, but also understood.

The distinction between causality and motivation

Today's debate shows that positivism, founded by Auguste Comte, often seeks clear causal connections, while German sociology, especially that of Max Weber, pursues a more nuanced approach. Historians such as Marc Bloch define history as “narrative through traces,” weaving documentary evidence with narrative elements while simultaneously confronting the challenges of source criticism.

Another important factor is what Reinhart Koselleck calls the “veto of sources”. This makes it clear that facts cannot be arbitrarily replaced or manipulated. Historians are obliged to cite their documents and carefully examine their authenticity. This leads us to the four central aspects identified by Denis Thouard, director at the CNRS in Paris: source analysis, source criticism, interpretation of the sources and finally the narration of the results in a poetic form.

A lively discussion in the spiritual field

Christophe Bouton, a professor of philosophy at the University of Bordeaux Montaigne, brings another dimension to this debate by discussing Hegel's views on time and history. This shows how intertwined the theories and approaches are and how there is an accelerated exchange between different traditions of thought. The question of the discipline of history and its methods therefore remains a central theme in German thought.

The debate about “explaining” and “understanding” has not lost its relevance and is still a hot topic among humanities scholars. The influence of Dilthey's ideas and subsequent discussions continue to shape the landscape of historical scholarship. This makes it clear: the standard of classification is of enormous importance not only academically, but also socially.

Thus, the boundary between “understanding” and “explaining” remains less rigid than one might think, opening up perspectives for new research and historical narratives.

At a time when humanity's memory is under threat, such as from the influence of the digital world captured in the Wayback Machine, it is even more important to look closely at our past and appreciate the tools and methods at our disposal. A call for financial support for such archiving projects is therefore more than just an economic concern, it is a contribution to cultural memory and identity.

For more information on these fascinating topics, you can read the detailed views and discussions in these articles: Radio France, Wikipedia and Archive.org.