What is history for? ──The dilemma and solution of contemporary historiography

What is the use of history? It is always a proposition that the contemporary history department must respond to and cannot escape. Not to mention whether there is some kind of relationship between "usefulness" and "history" that must be resolved, in the era of capitalism that emphasizes efficiency, utility, and function, the discussion of propositions about meaning and essence will be regarded as illusory and ethereal. The "out of reality" that is hard to swallow . As for the complex and chaotic question of the usefulness of historiography, the question itself is a function-oriented design, and history is not a function-oriented discipline. What is the use of historiography is consistent with the thorny degree of questions such as "Who am I?", "What is time?", and "What is the use of life?". Such questions are not so much answered as the question itself, from design to discussion to response, can be seen as a type of answer. Contradictions and paradoxes are often the answers to these questions, but in such an era, people cannot accept further thinking and want to obtain a clear and accurate answer that can be "put into the world". History does not work in this way, and even life does not work in this way, but this is exactly what historiography must respond to in such an era of seeking efficacy, and at the same time it must constantly question itself. History is useful to me, and history is useful to me. And what is "useful"? Can an answer like "I'm born to be useful" serve as a solution to whether something is useful? And if it's useful, what's the use?

Debate and historical reading

First of all, in terms of debate , expression is one of the means to sharpen logic and thinking, and further complete the theory and discourse of self through the discourse of language, although it contains various "games" of modification or language. Dialectical cross-examination with others through language expression allows the other party to look directly at the inadequacies of his arguments, and at the same time, he can look directly at his own problems more clearly and frankly. It is also in this process that the two parties can communicate rationally and effectively. Secondly, listening is also a very important part of communication. In addition to capturing the various arguments in the other party's argument, listening also captures how the other party "modifies" his own arguments and the tone in which to display various arguments. argument. In other words, "observing words and expressions" is indeed a skill that must be learned and mastered in debate.

How to communicate with peers and assign tasks during the debate is also a very important part. On a single topic, after convincing yourself first, then how to convince your peers. In other words, there must be two persuasion processes when there is a real debate. Communicating with peers also requires that kind of "observing" skills, as well as polishing and revising one's own arguments to serve the group's main thesis. Among the difficulties, in addition to communication, how to integrate oneself into the group is also a big problem. What parts are sacrificed or what parts need to be emphasized in order to weaken the self into the group need to be measured. The rights and interests of everyone must be involved. In other words, the group debating can be regarded as a certain interest group, in which everyone has the desire to emphasize their own discussion, how to negotiate and communicate in the group to achieve the greatest compromise and The greatest effectiveness of the team, these are the areas to be learned through debate.

Finally, learn to accept failure. It is unacceptable that the loopholes in its own logic and discourse must be corrected, which is why there is room for improvement. Effective debate must be based on issues rather than debates. The meaning of dialectics is to discuss the results that both parties can accept and that are integral to their respective original arguments, rather than arguing with superior rhetoric and debate skills. The debate is in a fierce and sharp mode, with a certain coercive force to revise its own discourse and logic. This coercive force comes from the rationality and dignity that exist between people. But when we put dignity above reason, and maintaining "dignity" in a "more rational" way loses the meaning of debate.

The ability to read sources is also one of the most important skills in history. Reading must be an ability that history must possess. How to read first-hand or second-hand information and translate it through one's own digestion is a difficult thing. Although the reading of history is similar to the reading of other disciplines, its scope of reading must be wider than that of other disciplines. History can be seen as a reinterpretation of the past, and the past is not just a chronological record or a sequence of events. The past includes a collection of various fields such as literature, philosophy, science, and religion. For this reason, if history is to be in-depth, it is necessary to extensively read various historical materials and second-hand materials. Back to historiography itself, reading can be regarded as one of the means of historiography. As a means or a method, reading seems to be a key to understanding the world or reflecting on oneself. Reading and practice are often regarded as the two poles of the spectrum of practical life. "Reading ten thousand books is not as good as traveling ten thousand miles" is still persuasive. The practice of life must be in contact with the society rather than living in the self, but how to improve it? A better and more "good" life depends on the ability of thinking and reflection brought about by reading. The usefulness of history is also reflected here. Becoming an independent thinker may seem simple, but it is a very difficult and complex process in terms of its practice. Independent thinking is often to recognize that one is under a certain system or an individual under a certain system, and at the same time to get rid of the self from a certain privilege, so as to truly think independently. In other words, if we are unable to recognize or understand ourselves and the society we live in, even if we walk the "10,000-mile road", we are just walking the road that others have traveled.

Furthermore, how to use the limited information at hand to satisfy one's own needs is also one of the very practical skills. To build a convincing argument through rigorous data research, the historian's process of exporting or translating is actually establishing self-awareness on the authority of predecessors. How to compromise and balance between ego and authority is also a skill that needs to be mastered. As discussed above, the process of reading is not only about understanding others but also about further incorporating them into oneself, and thus has the power to interpret a certain discourse . Although the contemporary imagination of this kind of power has long been inferior to the form of power for the appeal of money and capital.

So what practical use can historiography bring us in the contemporary context? How can the power of words help us?

If we say that history is a natural desire, such as the existence of sexual desire; or that history is a seed in everyone's heart, whether it germinates or not depends on the individual; value. Then, when historiography faces the masses in a capital society, it can contact the community through the form of "selling". Selling desire, selling words, selling stories. In the face of the era of emptiness, perhaps when human beings turn their heads and look back, they can reposition themselves.

Questions like "What is the use of history?" often cannot be answered clearly. Most scholars, speakers, and professors often reveal that what history brings to them is a use that has been internalized and then presented . Indeed, historiography is an internalized and profound subject, but what must be answered is how do we make the individual become important again in an era when the individual is no longer important, or whether there is a more practical and effective way of historiography? use.

The skill of "aesthetics" is one of the internalized applications of historiography. Rather than talking about such a complex system of history, it is better to grasp the so-called "aesthetic" vision through reading. Through a lot of reading and thinking, I can gradually understand the things that different works and authors want to show and prompt. At the same time, I can also systematically understand the context of the author's era and creative context . And this way of thinking can be applied not only to publications, but also to music, film, art and other forms. Excellent aesthetic ability can not only bring a better quality of life, but can even bring some kind of "spark" or the joy of heartfelt appreciation with the creator. This joy runs counter to fast-paced capitalism.

From an academic point of view, historiography also provides a set of clear, rigorous and profound thinking paths for these industries that use history as their employment medium. It is precisely because such a thinking path can be agreed upon, so the practicality of historiography is precisely here. But at the same time, it must be noted that through the training of historiography, a gap between the public and the public is often created. This gap prevents the public from being able to approach history easily, and makes the historians themselves become scholars of the highest order. But this difficult gap can be the value of historiography on the one hand, but also its defect on the other hand. Rather than assigning good and bad values to this "gap", it is better to regard it as an existing function and effect of historiography, and how we use this function and effect is what people who have been trained in history need to think about , rather than a value judgment of good and bad. (Just as every smart contract and program inevitably has a "loophole", but rather than a "loophole", it is better to regard it as a feature of this code.)

Another issue that must be addressed is how to integrate historiography with the current trends of the times. For example, some cultural and creative companies lead the public into the historical scene by means of immersive script killing or escape room. On the one hand, they achieve the purpose of bringing history into their personal lives, and on the other hand, they also have relatively close contact with the public. Not only that, history can still rely on a considerable number of industries for marketing and output. Such as movies, albums, etc., historiography also uses these translators to embed the thinking logic and context of how people look at the past and how to understand the present into their works. In other words, readers or viewers see more than just a set of historical stories. Rather, it is a certain historical view or even a certain ideological structure. This is one of the ways in which academia has a dialogue with the public.

And further, what we have to think about is how a fairly realistic power structure kidnaps historiography and historical practitioners . When we are unable to get rid of or even fall into a certain power structure, whether we have the ability to get rid of it, or even have the courage to recognize that we may be a part of the power structure. When we are pulling back and forth between reality and ideal, will we lose our original enthusiasm and fall into the quagmire of interests?

The interaction between new technology and historiography is what historiography training and historical practitioners must face and understand. History is a medium, whether it is an inward self-improvement or an outward form of capital, it must be attached to certain existing tools and carriers. Such carriers can be exhibition venues, art galleries, or books. But at the same time, it can also be NFT, metaverse, etc. In other words, it is precisely because history does not give us a standard answer, so there are more different answers.

To blame history or social structure for the seemingly pessimistic future of historiography is a cowardly and powerless statement. How can historiography be practical? How is it practical? There will be infinite possibilities, extending from internal practicality to external practicality; from virtual to real; from art to story, the shadow of how historiography is practical can be seen everywhere. In contemporary capitalist society, depth has been abandoned, and efficacy and wealth have become the top priorities. How does historiography turn? How to face the society? To correct or to recover or to obey? These are all things that history needs to think about, and those of us who think about "what is the use of history?" need to keep discussing.