|
|
|
Myths, Wagers, and Some Moral Implications of World History*
JERRY H. BENTLEY
University of Hawai'i at Manoa
| In his presidential address before the American Historical Association in December 1985, William H. McNeill argued that the relationship between myth and history was much closer than most professional historians would be comfortable acknowledging. In an essay that almost has a postmodern ring, he observed that historians have faithfully reflected larger collective urges for attachment and identity. They have done so partly by producing what McNeill called "mythistory," a form of knowledge about the past that relies on the techniques of professional historical scholarship but also draws inspiration from perspectives that offer idealized visions of a community and endow its historical accounts with meaning. He conceded that professional methods had enabled scholars to overcome certain prejudices, such as those arising from overtly confessional historiography, that often infected scholarship of earlier generations. And he adopted an upbeat tone, suggesting that myths were not necessarily reducible to unprincipled propaganda, but rather that they had the potential to guide societies toward the realization of noble ideals. Yet he did not compromise on his main point, the claim that all historical scholarship, no matter how professional or technically proficient, is mythistory in that it draws on some vision of the human community that is not susceptible to documentation in the archives.1 |
1
|
|
This view of things raises problems that go well beyond scholarship. While holding out the possibility that mythistory might inspire the pursuit of high ideals, McNeill also acknowledged the point—which developments both before and since 1985 have definitively confirmed —that myth-informed history has equally strong potential to fuel maniacal and murderous violence. The power of myths to promote tendentious or distorted understandings of the past and even to inspire the production of historical fabrications is all too evident in both popular and professional historical accounts of all lands and peoples without exception. Yet the production of parallel mythistories that stroke the collective psyches of national, ethnic, racial, religious, and other groups, while also nourishing their memories of supposed past injustices and encouraging hatred of their perceived oppressors, is a formula for disaster in a world oversupplied with appallingly effective technologies of destruction. |
2
|
|
How might it be possible to move beyond historical scholarship that takes glorification of the national community or some other exclusive constituency as its principal purpose? In his discussion of mythistory, McNeill proposed a remedy for the various narcissistic, clashing mythistories that fuel conflicts by emphasizing the glory and righteousness of some chosen people against its enemies. Without denying either the power or the considerable value of local identities and solidarities, he called for an approach to the past that focuses on the entire human community rather than its national, ethnic, racial, or religious components. "Instead of enhancing conflicts, as parochial historiography inevitably does, an intelligible world history might be expected to diminish the lethality of group encounters by cultivating a sense of individual identification with the triumphs and tribulations of humanity as a whole. This, indeed, strikes me as the moral duty of the historical profession in our time. We need to develop an ecumenical history, with plenty of room for human diversity in all its complexity."2 |
. . . |
There are about 12697 more words in this article.
Please log in (or, if you are not yet an
authorized user, please go to the
User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
|
