Yesterday I was reading Tosh. He is a very talented historian who is on the reading list for a course I want to do. Being less bright than Tosh I read slowly and make notes.
One point he made was the contrast between tradition and history. Tradition might be historical but there is a distinction between tradition and history. Tradition means to do something in some way because it has always been done that way. This works well in societies without radical change, such societies are called traditional societies.
In societies that experience change then tradition is not as effective a means of working out what needs to be done. Thinking and looking for alternatives is essential for survival and this is the raw material of historical investigation. Examining and documenting a traditional society is the business of the antiquarians or the Sociologist but what history examines is the change and continuity that occurs within societies as they transform from one into another and what caused that transformation.
For example, the village of the high medieval period is interesting but less interesting than the transformation of the landscape through clearances for sheep or the ravages of the Black Death. The Victorian factory is interesting but the impact of factory reform and the transformation from the ‘dark satanic mills’ to the modern health and safety culture is fertile ground for historical study.
As I have written elsewhere why is a very important question in history but it would be redundant without change. The investigation of change and the opening up of possibilities and alternatives is the meat and drink of history.
Historytalker 