[quanto]

> while we might learn from history - that that is not the reason to "do" history.

If we don't learn from history, why do we do history? Is it a form of pure entertainment, i.e. of arts? If so, does that give more credence to White's argument?

I have had a PhD colleague who genuinely believed that history ought to be (in the philosophical normative sense) contributing to national propaganda, thus of national interest. By extension, this is why history departments should be funded by tax dollars.

[roenxi]

A fun party game is to get some pure mathematicians together, speculate loudly that they must be motivated in their work by the numerous practical applications of maths and watch cheekily to see which of their faces fail to conceal the spasm of fury. 1 point per asymmetric eye twitch.

They're academics, their job is to make true statements and maintain a culture that cares a lot about whether their colleagues can prove them false. Beyond that, it is hard to figure out what purpose they might be fulfilling.

[galaxyLogic]

I agree that goal should be to "learn from history" but not in the narrow sense of how could a specific historical catastrophe could have been avoided. We need a general understanding of histopry because it helps us understand human behavior in general. It helps us understand ourselves.

[oersted]

That's a good point, beyond prediction, history does have utility for surfacing "shared stories" that bring people together. Let's not underestimate the real-world impact of such stories. Most big societal movements, both very good and very bad, have been fueled by shared history, or the making of shared history.

What's tricky is that indeed such stories need not be factual to be powerful, just as long as they resonate well-enough with the current "common-sense" and have some kind authority behind it giving it credence.

Historians do have an important responsibility here in making sure that people are aware of the real story so that they are not easily manipulated, just like journalists have a similar responsibility in a democracy, fourth estate and all.

[CaptArmchair]

Oh, it's not just the "big stories". History is a pretty big flag that covers a lot of territory. At heart, history is about asking perennial questions like "where do we come from?", "how did the past shape us today?" and "how could the past inform us?".

This is true on an individual as well as a collective level, and goes well beyond academia. Consider genealogy & family history, local and regional culture and traditions, remembrance,... There is always a personal connection, and that tends to become extremely tangible in individual stories. Whether that's finding a lost relative, honoring one's culture, or just being able to empathize with the lives of people who are centuries gone and discovering that they weren't all that different from us today.

Historians do carry a big responsibility. That's why accountability is at the heart of anyone who does historical research on a professional level; or are motivated to spread their interpretation of the historical record well beyond a few listeners. That's why historians are instilled with a reflex to keep a pragmatic attitude and ask critical questions.

[UncleMeat]

> If we don't learn from history, why do we do history?

Historians uncover and communicate the story of humanity in as rich and diverse of a way as possible. This is, in my mind, somewhat comparable to the process of doing pure math research or fundamental physics research. While there may be practical outcomes for today (either unexpected or intended as a goal of a particular research direction), we also understand that doing math for its own purposes is valuable.

The process of doing archival research, putting sources in dialog with other research, and even simply reading secondary source writing achieves some positive outcomes. It widens and deepens empathy for the rich diversity of human behavior. It builds skills for critical analysis of media and communication. It can provide narrative and argument for people advocating for change today (both good and bad). But these do not need to be the reasons why we embark on history research. They are side outcomes of undirected analysis.

I'll also add that concern about "history departments funded by tax dollars" is just factually unfounded. My wife is a history and the size of grants is hilarious coming from my background in CS. Like, a grant for $2,000-$5,000 would be considered chunky. And grants are often coming from weird places like random corporations or donor funding rather than from the government. The NEH was already basically dead before Trump 2.0 and now is dead and buried. People upset about academic history can rest easy knowing that there aren't historians living large on your tax dollars.

[IggleSniggle]

One of the primary advantages of having a software engineer (or lawyer, for that matter) on staff isn't that they produce software, not exactly. It's that they guide the flow of process, and can adapt the river as needed to keep the business running smoothly.

Historians, imho, serve a similar purpose for society at large. They digest the information of the past to make sense of it for today, and sometimes they build dams that redirect the informational flow of future history.