Historical Studies (Chinese Edition)

No.1, 2017

 

A Critique of “Everyman His Own Historian”: With Comments on the Relativist Interpretation of History

（Abstract）

 

Zhang Jiang

 

The American historian Carl Becker’s famous slogan “Everyman His Own Historian” is an iconic declaration of the turn from positivism to relativism in the contemporary theory of Western historiography. It represents an absolute relativistic view of history. Becker deals incorrectly with the relationships between events and facts and between memory and facts; abandons objectivity by separating objective history from the subjective understanding of the objective history; and claims that history is the history of imagination, bringing about the unfortunate development of absolute relativist theory. History is fact, not imagination; history is about a nation, a people and even the development of human society as well as the facts and evidence of general laws, rather than fragmented personal experiences and memories. The great trend of history is made up of three directions: the events that determine or influence the historical process; the state of life of the human race and national society; and the general laws of historical development. Empirical study of history is indispensable, but the fundamental significance of historical research is to grasp the trend of history, to discover the laws of history, and to indicate the future for the actions of contemporaries. The unfolding of history is the unfolding of facts and laws. Imposed interpretations of history deviate from historical facts, subvert factual benchmarks, and interpret preconceived historical conclusions with set positions and patterns. Toynbee’s model of historical civilizations, studies that treat ontological history heavy handedly using established theories from other disciplines, and the erroneous belief that literary discourse can be used as historical discourse, are the main characteristics of imposed interpretations of history. The application of any theories from other disciplines should be limited. It is necessary to clearly distinguish between literary historical texts and historical literary texts. Imposed interpretations of history are not history.