MODULE 1

CHAPTER 1

What is history?

Like any other academic disciples, there are as many definitions as there many theories on history. What
is common, however, is the idea that the study of history is a systematic study of the past. One cannot
do history in the future or if the event has not yet being unfolded by historical actors. Nevertheless,
history is not merely the record of past events: it is “the record of what one age finds worthy of note in
another”. Another historian understands it as “a science whose business is to study events not
accessible to our observation, and to study these events inferentially, arguing to them from something
else which is accessible to our observation, and which the historian calls ‘evidence for the events in
which he is interested” (Philippine Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 1993: 1).

         Ambeth Ocampo’s description of history is interesting. He proposes a working definition of history
as kasaysayan or history as narrative (which be written, visual, oral or a combination of all these) about
past events that has meaning to a certain group of people in a given time and place. For him, the two
components of kasaysayan—salaysay and saysay are inseparable. Without both, one cannot have true
history. He rejected the Western words for history which can mean a mere narrative of past events. For
him, history or kasaysayan is not just a narrative or salaysay—it MUST have saysay or meaning. If one
finds meaning in history, he said, it will gain power to change people’s lives (Ocampo 2001: x).

Whatever definition or description one has on history, the fact remains that the process of writing
history is problematic and subject to different interpretation. It depends on what theory or framework
the historian is viewing the historical event. Its objectivity is always being tainted by the personal biases
and theoretical orientation of the historian.

Can there be an objective historical writing then? This question is part of a greater debate in social
sciences, particularly in ethnographic writing in anthropology, whether it is possible to attain objectivity
in writing. Postmodernists have long challenged the assumption that the mind can attain an objective
description of reality: there is no such thing as objectivity but only shared subjectivity, that is, there is no
fixed norm of what is objective but only a consensus of people in a community on what is considered
objective. For them, there are limits of what the mind can describe and write. When one describes and
writes an event, the writer can only capture a portion of what s/he has seen using his/her sense of sight,
other data which can be attained through the other senses such as the smell, the sound, touch, and
taste are obviously missed out. Words cannot capture the totality of even for just one event or action.
Moreover, historian as a writer can only choose one perspective or point of view on how to describe the
event. The post-structuralists such as Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction theory, Michel
Foucault and others have warned us that a written text can have various levels of interpretation. In the
field of Hermeneutics, the act of thinking itself is already an act of interpretation. Thus, the
reconstruction and description of a historical event is an interpretation of the historian of the
interpretation of the writer of his/her source. If s/he uses a primary source or document, his/her piece
of writing is already a second level of interpretation. The author of that source is the first interpretation.
And s/he uses a secondary source, the historian’s view is third level of interpretation. The reader of the
historian’s account is also another interpreter who can understand the historical writing different from
the historian’s intention, and so on. That is why Derrida and others declare that everything is text and
interpretation. The diversity of Filipino historians’ interpretation of certain historical events can attest to
the contentious nature of historical writing. Take for instance, the authenticity of Jose Rizal’s retraction
before his execution. Historians are divided and their interpretation of the documents and other
evidence differ from one another. Though they can be grouped together generally as anti-retractionists
and pro-retractionists, still there are variations of interpretations within the grouping. There is no
uniformity of views even with those who hold similar position to a historical issue.

Are there given facts? Even though there is diversity of opinion and interpretation of historians to
historical events, there are certain things which many historians agree as “historical facts” which cannot
be subjected to debate. Thus, some historical figures, dates and places are generally considered as
historical facts by historians. These conventions of particular history which practitioners recognized as
given or assumed to be true. Church historians, for instance, agree that the Patronato Real de las Indias
is responsible for the Christianization of the natives in the Philippines, or that the Royal Audiencia served
as the “Supreme Court” during the Spanish period.

Why do we need to study history?

According to Carr (1970), history is a study of human achievement. The past is intelligent to us only in
the light of the present and the present can be fully understood only in the light of the past. To enable
us to understand society of the past and to increase our mastery over the society of the present is the
dual function of history (Carr 1970: 102). In short, we cannot fully understand the present situation in
Philippine society unless we have a firm grasp of the past.

This past whether during the Pre-Spanish, Spanish, American or any other period can only be
understood in the light of the present situation. Thus, one can only understand fully, for instance, why
People Power II occurred in such an organized manner to remove Joseph Estrada from the Presidency if
one fully appreciates what actually happened during EDSA People Power I which deposed President
Marcos from the presidency. Or one can only understand the present economic crisis of the country if
one learns the whole story of the interference of the United States in the Philippine economy since its
occupation of the country after the Spanish rule, particularly the adoption of the parity rights provision
in the constitution, free trade policy and the removal of the protectionist policy of the economy by
Philippine presidents loyal to America. History sharpens our understanding of the present and compels
us to look back what happened in the past to grasp fully the our present social ills.

Says Ocampo: “The point to remember is that history does not repeat itself. We repeat history”
(Ocampo 2001:xviii). Thus, to avoid repeating the same mistakes and errors in the past that plague the
nation, it is imperative that young people, especially students who are future leaders of this country,
must study history and learn from its lessons.

How do we study history?

Though contemporary approaches in history use artifacts and testimonies, the writing of history remains
dependent upon the availability of primary sources of evidence, particularly documentary sources. The
axiom “No documents, no history” still lingers to the mind of many historians. To construct history is to
narrate it based primarily on reliable documents. The historian constructs narratives, that is the telling
of a succession of related episodes. His primary work is to bring these episodes to light, to show the
relations existing between events, and in relating to explain them. Thus, history appears to be the
expository narration of the course of human societies in the past (PES: 3-4). The historian first proceeds
to decide what people want to know about, and then to go in search of statements about it, oral and
written, purporting to be made by the actors in the events themselves or the eyewitnesses have told
them, or have told their informants, or those who informed their informants, and so on.

Like any other social science like sociology and anthropology, history needs a find blend of theory and
historical data in reconstructing the past. Theory and data are inseparable components in historicizing.
The theory serves as a framework to interpret historical data, while historical data determines the
appropriate choice of historical theory. A good historian starts doing history with an open mind and
evaluates historical data critically in order to reconstruct the actual event. S/he does not tailor historical
data to fit them into his favorite theory or theoretical bias. Of course, a historian can do inductive or
deductive type of historicizing. In deductive approach, the historian begins with a theory and search for
historical data to confirm it. In inductive approach, s/he begins with appreciation of historical data and
proceeds to formulate his/her theory. In either way, the historian as a scientist must assume an
objective stance and must avoid making value judgment. For Max Weber, a true scientist must be value-
free in his/her judgment. S/he must bracket his personal values or biases while making assessment on
research data. In the same manner, the historian must be value-free and neutral in his/her judgment in
evaluating historical facts in order to attain objectivity. Exaggerating or underestimating facts to
accommodate one’s theoretical bias, or choosing a historical theory that fits to one’s taste and twisting
facts to validate it, is not a sound and scientific way of doing history.

The problem with the so-called critical history especially the Marxist approach is that the historians tend
to manipulate the facts in order to fit them into their preferred theoretical framework. The historian
Renato Constantino falls into this trap of twisting some facts to suit one’s theoretical taste. Because of
his a conflict theorist and historian, his interpretation of historical facts tend to be twisted in order to
suit to his critical-Marxist interpretation of Philippine history. For this reason, Constantino has been
criticized for not being empirical enough or balanced in his treatment of Philippine history. Says May
(1987):

In evaluating previous scholarship, Constantino applies a curious yardstick—whether or not the writer
criticizes the former colonial masters. He is not interested in balanced history. In his view, the Spaniards
and the Americans were simply bad rulers, and the aim of the historian should be to expose their
abuses. If a scholar writes a word in their defense—or if he attempts to be objective—he too is bad, or
at least misguided. Constantino only exhibits disdain for objectivity… (May 1987: 5).

Aside from “tailoring” historical facts to suit the historian’s theoretical preference, the danger of
exaggerating facts to highlight only the glorious past and to inspire the next generation is also another
trap that the historian must avoid. This what Prof. Randy David characterized as monumental history
where the historian includes only in his/her writings the glorious or positive side of history and excludes
its negative or dark side in order to impress people about the achievements of a nation and its heroes.
Like the critical-Marxist approach, this type of history lacks objectivity and balanced view of the past. In
monumental history, the historian becomes too selective in his/her choice of historical facts and
abandons his responsibility to choose an appropriate theory to interpret all historical data at hand in
order impress others.

A more balanced exposition of history requires neutrality and impartiality of the historian in choosing
theory and historical data. Whether the approach is inductive or deductive, s/he should pursue his/her
historical methodology with rigor and scientific discipline. S/he must allow the data to speak for
themselves and choose a theory that best interpret them, without precondition or bias.