El futuro de la historia (Noema nº 103)

by John Lukacs

Tras más de treinta libros y toda un vida dedicada a escribir y enseñar historia, John Lukacs vuelve la vista atrás y reflexiona sobre el ayer y el hoy de su oficio, sobre las muchas mudanzas en las modas y las costumbres que ha presenciado durante su larga carrera. Y trata de imaginar un futuro, un espacio donde su labor siga teniendo sentido. Con esta sencilla base, Lukacs firma la que quizá sea su obra maestra: un libro agridulce, realista y certero, escéptico pero cargado de ilusiones. "El futuro de la Historia" es el legado de un hombre al que durante toda su vida le obsesionó que la historia sea ante todo literatura de la mejor calidad, que ha reflexionado a fondo sobre los vínculos entre historia y la narrativa, que descree de las “ciencias sociales” y de las modas historiográficas, y que brinda por los grandes historiadores jóvenes, por el futuro. Emocionante, irónico, a veces desconcertante, a veces capaz de generar grandes preguntas con una reflexión aparentemente azarosa, Lukacs demuestra con "El futuro de la Historia" su maestría como prosista… y como historiador.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

160 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 1, 2010

About the author

Lukacs was born in Budapest to a Roman Catholic father and Jewish mother. His parents divorced before the Second World War. During the Second World War he was forced to serve in a Hungarian labour battalion for Jews. During the German occupation of Hungary in 1944-45 he evaded deportation to the death camps, and survived the siege of Budapest. In 1946, as it became clear that Hungary was going to be a repressive Communist regime, he fled to the United States. In the early 1950s however, Lukacs wrote several articles in Commonweal criticizing the approach taken by Senator Joseph McCarthy, whom he described as a vulgar demagogue.[1]

Lukacs sees populism as the greatest threat to civilization. By his own description, he considers himself to be a reactionary. He claims that populism is the essence of both National Socialism and Communism. He denies that there is such a thing as generic fascism, noting for example that the differences between the political regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are greater than their similarities.[2]

A major theme in Lukacs's writing is his agreement with the assertion by the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville that aristocratic elites have been replaced by democratic elites, which obtain power via an appeal to the masses. In his 2002 book, At the End of an Age, Lukacs argued that the modern/bourgeois age, which began around the time of the Renaissance, is coming to an end.[3] The rise of populism and the decline of elitism is the theme of his experimental work, A Thread of Years (1998), a series of vignettes set in each year of the 20th century from 1900 to 1998, tracing the abandonment of gentlemanly conduct and the rise of vulgarity in American culture. Lukacs defends traditional Western civilization against what he sees as the leveling and debasing effects of mass culture.

By his own admission a dedicated Anglophile, Lukacs’s favorite historical figure is Winston Churchill, whom he considers to be the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and the savior of not only Great Britain, but also of Western civilization. A recurring theme in his writing is the duel between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler for mastery of the world. The struggle between them, whom Lukacs sees as the archetypical reactionary and the archetypical revolutionary, is the major theme of The Last European War (1976), The Duel (1991), Five Days in London (1999) and 2008's Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat, a book about Churchill’s first major speech as Prime Minister. Lukacs argues that Great Britain (and by extension the British Empire) could not defeat Germany by itself, winning required the entry of the United States and the Soviet Union, but he contends that Churchill, by ensuring that Germany failed to win the war in 1940, laid the groundwork for an Allied victory.

Lukacs holds strong isolationist beliefs, and unusually for an anti-Communist émigré, "airs surprisingly critical views of the Cold War from a unique conservative perspective."[4] Lukacs claims that the Soviet Union was a feeble power on the verge of collapse, and contended that the Cold War was an unnecessary waste of American treasure and life. Likewise, Lukacs has also condemned the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In his 1997 book, George F. Kennan and the Origins of Containment, 1944-1946, a collection of letters between Lukacs and his close friend George F. Kennan exchanged in 1994-1995, Lukacs and Kennan criticized the New Left claim that the Cold War was caused by the United States. Lukacs argued however that although it was Joseph Stalin who was largely responsible for the beginning of the Cold War, the administration of Dwight Eisenhower missed a chance for ending the Cold War in 1953 after Stalin's death, and as a consequence the Cold War went on for many more decades.

Reviews

[Kuszma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Megint Lukacs, megint a második világháború. Történészünk ezúttal hat kínzó kérdést jár körül, úgymint: elkerülhető lett volna 1.) a második világháború 2.) Európa felosztása 3.) Hitler 4.) az atombomba 5.) a holokauszt 6.) vagy a hidegháború? Ilyen értelemben ez egy igazi "mi lett volna, ha...?" kötet, ami körbebalettozza azokat a döntő pillanatokat, ahol a történelem expresszvonata esetleg vágányt válthatott volna. Lukacs persze minden alkalommal megmarad a tényszerűség talaján, csak olyan hipotéziseket vizsgál meg, amelyek megvalósulása mellett komoly érvek szólnak, következésképpen hiába várunk merész következtetéseket. A végeredmény nagyjából úgy foglalható össze, hogy - esetleg, talán, feltéve, de meg nem engedve - lehetett volna máshogy is, de nem véletlenül nem lett máshogy.

Nem ez a legösszeszedettebb Lukács-kötet, azt hiszem. Enyhén csapongó, árnyalatnyit önismétlő, és rendre feltűnnek a szokott lukacsi toposzok is. Ugyanakkor nagyon jól esett olvasni. Nem először érzem azt vele kapcsolatban, hogy be tud vonni a gondolataiba - ami nem azt jelenti, hogy megköveteli az egyetértésemet, hanem többet annál. Prózája tiszta, elegáns, érvrendszere világos, de helyet hagy az alkalmankénti ellenérveknek, ami kifejezetten aktív olvasói pozíciót eredményez. Valahogy el tudja hitetni, hogy a történész interpretációja végső soron párbeszéd a befogadóval, nyitott rendszer, ami csak akkor fejlődhet, ha bizonyos pontokon kritikával találkozik. Ennek következtében Lukacsot olvasni mindig kicsit olyan, mint egy személyes találkozás egy nagy tudású úriemberrel, akivel ugyan a világnézetünk nem egyezik, de ettől még a tisztelet karcolatlan.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

I must admit that I am something of a sucker for short books by master thinkers of encyclopedic scope. That's a good description of The Future of History by John Lukacs. It's a dense meditation on the art and practice of history, aligning it more closely with literature than science, that contains one especially stimulating chapter (for me, at least): "History and the Novel."

But I'll get to that chapter in a moment. First some quick observations and issues: Lukacs wants to define history as we know it as something that sprang up in the 17th or 18th centuries along with a human self-awareness that he refers to as interiority. This is an observation that parallels, to some degree, Harold Bloom's contention that Shakespeare essentially invented the modern personality and put it on full display in his plays.

I find both these contentions odd. Lukacs knows, of course, about Thucydides and Bloom knows about Catullus, but each scholar is seeking to define a new phase in human experience and so each sets aside pretty good examples of historians and self-reflective, ironic literary personae that appeared on the human landscape thousands of years before their heroes of the "modern."

In general, Lukacs is writing a lament for what he calls the European or Bourgeois Age, which he argues required disciplined, well-trained historical researchers and writers whose principal job has been to ferret out untruths and secondary job has been to assert truths about that which has slipped away from us on the river of time.

History, he says, is always revisionist because it deals in a continuously evolving past that shapes and reshapes itself along with our perceptions of it. But he notes that history is not taught as much as it used to be in high schools and colleges and that the first print run of a history book by a university press often is 500 copies. Will we eventually lose interest in reading? Or the ability to read and reflect? Are we doomed to a future that will be defined by images, not words? What will this do to the critical faculties of the human mind?

These are pretty common concerns, but Lukacs does note that trade publishers sell more history books than novels, that history books written by what he calls "amateurs" are often better than history books written by PhDs, and that technology, rather than making us more materialistic, in some ways is freeing us to wander about in a more spiritual sort of way.

Example: I am sitting in my study in Arlington, Virginia. In a few minutes I will "publish" this review. And people I don't know in places I've never visited will have the chance to read, or ignore, what I've written. Why? Technology. But the subject is history, thought and books, and neither you nor I will pay much attention to the technological procedures bringing us together. What will interest us is Lukacs's provocations.

Now, the chapter on history and the novel: It's full of wonderful quotes, beginning with "Every novel is a historical novel, in one way or another."

Lukacs point is that novelists often record social history better than historians do through accurate observation and that they often tease out of an "age" characters who, while fictional, define that age as well or better than actual historical figures--Madame Bovary, for instance. But the novel is limited by, or defined by, class divisions in a given society. That's what makes it a strong symbol of bourgeois consciousness. And as classes melt (slowly, to be sure), the novel has lost its way, becoming too interior (Ulysses, for example) or too "exterior" (Norman Mailer's last novel attempting to write "faction" about Hitler's youth.)

You will have your own views on whether Lukacs makes a good case or not, but he so at ease ranging over all of modern history and literature that you're likely to take him seriously. His suggestion that the turn toward subjectivity (Ulysses, again) strengthens poetry while it weakens fiction seems somehow right to me, much as I admire Ulysses and don't share his questioning attitude toward it.

This book is only 177 pages. It's well-written but dense with erudite observations and citations. Lukas, having written more than twenty books, apologizes at the end for many historical scholars having ignored his work and not included it in their bibliographies or surveys of topical historical literature. This is typical of him. He's not really apologizing. He's admitting that he's vain and shouldn't be overlooked. And he's right.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was at times exceedingly dry and at other times deeply stimulating. Just the musings at age 87 of a professional historian on what history is, was, and shall be. It gets into all sorts of subtle distinctions that evaded me I must admit--historianship, historicity, historiography. This is the philosophy of history. There are some interesting discussions on historical fiction, poetry, the novel, and how history compares and contrasts with these forms. He discusses the future of books and reading and the impact of technology on history. We even delve into quantum physics with the idea of the act of observing and witnessing a event and how this act changes the event. Just lots of deep thoughts that need to be read slowly and ruminated. The author is a veritable Renaissance man with humorous wit even though he depracatingly dismisses his inadequate knowledge of Greek and Latin. He's one of those profs whom you'd never forget; probably get a C too but you'd learn.

[Palmyrah · Rating 4 out of 5]

A maverick but respected historian, John Lukacs had a lot to say about his own profession, and in the sunset of his life he gathered together his thoughts on the subject in this small but far from easy book. His theme is the role of history and the historian at the end of a historical era, the Modern Age.

Lukacs believed that modern Western civilization was something qualitatively different from its presumed forebears, the Classical Age of Greece and Rome and the so-called Middle Ages, and that it lasted from roughly the late Renaissance to the end of the ‘short’ twentieth century, which his colleague Eric Hobsbawm defined as having ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Lukacs foresaw a period of decline and decay commencing in the twenty-first century – though not necessarily a reversion to ‘barbarism’ as popularly defined, because he thought technology would sustain itself even as civilization declined and fell. So far, events appear to be proving him right.

This is a book of concentrated wisdom, gnomic and highly quotable. It is often eye-opening, as when, for example, Lukacs writes that

Flaubert’s Sentimental Education is more historical than its near-contemporary War and Peace... Flaubert’s portrait of 1848 is, historically speaking, more complex and more meaningful than Tolstoy’s of 1812, because Flaubert describes how people thought and felt at that time; his novel abounds with descriptions of changing sensitivities, of mutations of opinions and transformations of attitudes.

As the above suggests, much of The Future of History is concerned with the relationship of history to literature. Lukacs insists that historians should be readers first, writers second and historians, in a professional sense, third. He quotes with approval Jacob Burckhardt’s advice to students of history, bisogna saper leggere – ‘you must learn how to read’. This championship of non-professional historical scholarship and authorship runs right through the book, from his praise for de Toqueville to his contempt for the professional historians who failed to discern or describe the rise of American conservatism in the late twentieth century. Since I am a writer of historical articles and books but no historian, it gives me great pleasure to read that ‘in the twenty-first century the best, the greatest writers of history may not be certified professionals but erudite and imaginative “amateurs”.’

This is in keeping with Lukacs’s view that history is a literary genre and a creative endeavour rather than a strictly empirical pursuit. Yet he is insistent that a historian’s task is above all to search for truth, and he champions diligent research, using original sources as much as possible. He is refreshingly sceptical that such a thing as ‘scientific’ history can exist and contemptuous of what he calls ‘historical fads’ such as social, psychological or feminist history, which he regards as inevitably prejudiced and bound, therefore, to produce false results.

The Future of History is a book best taken in small doses, one or two pages at a time. Read it with a pencil in hand, and mark the bits you find quotable or interesting, because you are sure to want to return to them later: even, perhaps especially, if you disagree with them.

[Törő László Dávid · Rating 2 out of 5]

John Lukacs szerint a történészek legfőbb feladata „bizonyosfajta irodalom, nem pedig bizonyosfajta tudomány alkotása.” (75.)

Ha ez igaz lenne és csak irodalmi szempontok szerint kellene értékelnem a könyvet, akkor öt csillagot adnék. John Lukacs érthetően fogalmaz, gondolatait könnyű megemésztenie akár szélesebb olvasóközönségnek is. Néhány kritikájával egyet lehet érteni, pl. ami a tudományos élet növekvő bürokratizálódását illeti.

Más viszonylatban viszont a szerző meglepő szűklátókörűségről tesz bizonyságot, amikor a történetírás történetéről ír. Számára a történetírás kb. megállt a 19. századi porosz történészeknél, akik a külpolitikát és hadtörténetetet részesítették előnyben. Érthetetlen, miért írja, hogy a gazdaságtörténet egyenlő a materializmussal és a marxizmussal, vagy hogy a mentalitástörténetnek nincsenek jó forrásai, és hogy a pszichohistória és a gender history nem több, mint hóbort. A szexualitás történetének szerinte nincsenek forrásai és módszerei (talán el is kéne olvasni az ezekben a műfajokban írt a könyveket, nem csak a címüket idézni elrettentésül) és felháborító, hogy ilyen témák közérdeklődésre tarthatnak számot ahelyett, hogy hadtörténetet tanulna a történész hallgató. Összességében az volt az érzésem, mintha az zavarná, hogy a történelmet fogyasztók köre kitágult és egyre többen juthatnak hozzá történeti tudáshoz.
Sajnos nagy csalódás a szerző, még ha más területeken esetleg vannak is kiemelkedő munkái.

[Mark Fallon · Rating 1 out of 5]

The one positive thing I can say about this book - it's short, so the reader's suffering ends quickly.

[Ivette · Rating 5 out of 5]

Es un libro que es necesario para analizar la importancia de la historia. John Luckacs acierta sobre el porvenir y la falta de conciencia en la población sobre lo que es la historia. Me ha encantado.

[Bob Mobley · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Lukacs has written a challenging and enlightening book that examines the role of history in our thinking culture and subconscious. I find this one of the most interesting books I've ever had the opportunity of reading. It is really an examination of how we as individuals like to think about our world and what we believe it to be. A sense of the past and some kind of interest in it will always exist. Professor Lukacs' book looks at the role that history and historians play in how our societies come to regard themselves. What I find most compelling is The Future of History is also a study of leadership and how leaders use ideas about the past in order to create the present, and a perception of the future where they want to go. This is a book worth reading, especially in the light of what is going on in our world today, and the "spinning" of facts to arrive at political truths.

[Anson Cassel Mills · Rating 2 out of 5]

John Lukacs (1924-2019) was an elderly, Hungarian-born, American historian who wrote numerous books about Europe during the Second World War, as well as two prior volumes treating the philosophy of history. In this short, somewhat pessimistic, volume (perhaps “long essay” would be a better description), Lukacs criticizes, among other things, the pandering of the historical profession to contemporary intellectual fads. The author’s comprehensive learning is everywhere evident as he ranges through nineteenth-century historical and literary works for his illustrations; and the persistent reader will find insights throughout.

Unfortunately Lukacs takes pleasure in presenting his notions in an idiosyncratic style—the privilege of learned old men, perhaps, but not the best way to engage students of history. Below are some sentences that may allow the prospective reader to judge for himself:

“We cannot know much about the future, save projecting what we can see at present: but so much of that will not come about. Some of it will. Foresight is something else than prophecy: foresight depends on a serious, sometimes inspired knowledge and understanding of some things in the past. Through this some of us may know that this or that will not happen; but also that this or that, lo and behold, might.” (139-40)

“Anyhow: it is arguable and more rather than less evident that by the beginning of the twenty-first century much of an age that began about five centuries ago has passed. And also that the twentieth was an especially transient century (of course every century is transient in some ways), but the twentieth was, historically thinking and speaking, a short century too, seventy-five years long, from 1914 to 1989, marked by two gigantic world wars (and then the so-called Cold War was but a consequence of the Second). No reason here to argue further what is, or should be, obvious.” (161-62)

[Nicholas Young · Rating 3 out of 5]

The writing of history should be a form of literature, and efforts to cast it as a social science have led nowhere useful, argues the veteran Hungarian American historian in this short book on his craft. He seems confident that the tide has turned against (especially Marxist) theoretical approaches to the discipline and is happy to report that public interest in the past is now greater than ever before. (Internet searches on genealogy now rank second only to pornography searches, he says.) Nonetheless, he worries that “pictorial” media (TV, movies, youtube) are fogging the mind. Erudite and grumpy by turns, it is a stimulating, if not always convincing, read, with some interesting reflections on the history of historiography.

[Luis Cardenas · Rating 4 out of 5]

La historia de la historia resulta fascinante narrada de las manos de Lukacs, y es que escuchar los cambios historiográficos más pertinentes a través del tiempo y como las visiones del historiador van cambiando, nos hace replantear a los profesionales o aficionados si el camino trazado vale la pena, de como un cumulo de subjetivismos y gustos nos lleva a la historia y desde acá a entender de una manera particular el mundo que nos rodea. La historia o mejor dicho el estudio de la historia es un gusto inexplicable para quienes tratamos de crear critica histórica y entender como un ídolo como Lukacs tiene las mismas pertinentes e impertinentes pensamientos que nos hemos trazado, uno se percata que no estar tan perdido o desorientado como pensaba.

[Nuruddin Azri · Rating 4 out of 5]

While this book arguing with EH Carr, RG Collingwood & Leo Tolstoy and fond of Thucydides, Margaret MacMillan, Flaubert & Solzhenitsyn, Lukacs manage to analyse history from a different angle from its relationship with fiction, truth-untruth vs justice-injustice & the evolution of history from a kind of literature to science & eventually social science - and Lukacs believe that history is a form of literature.

[airy xie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A question on almost end-page: what will happen to history when books will disappear?

The answer to that question will vary, and the Internet thingy will mostly included. And that is also one argument share in this book why somehow internet will make history in a difficult path.

[Arturo Real · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un paseo por la historia reflexivo y acertado por veces, por otras muy pesimista. Interesante sin duda, y accesible, más allá de estar más o menos de acuerdo con las premisas del autor.

[Eli · Rating 3 out of 5]

This really is one of the strangest books that I have ever read. It was not overtly bad, but undoubtedly composed in the most disorderly manner (with no introduction, statement of purpose, back-matter or anything of the sort) and employs a novel dialogue method of expression, very informal, using lots of contractions and basic speech. Instead of a formal, structured work, we get one raw ramble from start to finish. While I cannot say that I think that this approach compensates for the lack of clarity, I must say that it is something that I have not encountered before, and may perhaps be an effective medium of expression, used correctly. Mr. Lukacs, unfortunately, did not present himself very clearly in my humble opinion.

Despite this poor lack of clarity or purpose, there are a number of very fascinating points, in themselves, presented within; like a very poorly woven tapestry comprised of fine materials. The future of the profession of history seems to be the cause of this work, and many things are considered concerning the nature of history, its inseparability from literature, the increasing appetite for history, a brief look at historiography and attitudes taken concerning how history is apprehended, and indeed there are many fine things presented within, but it is just a mess! The whole book is just so sloppy and disorganized that, though I consider it worthwhile to read through, because there are many good points presented in my opinion (and all the more so because history is important), it still cannot be overlooked that this is poor presentation. I am not by any means suggesting that I could write a better book, but the judgment is still made, if with a stance of humility.

Yet, in spite of all of this, this strangeness somehow makes it attractive; unique in many regards despite the obvious oddity of it, and defiance of conventional standards of the quality of modern publications. Is this the wisdom of an aged and experienced historian, trapped in the poor eloquence of incessant ramblings? I think so. Yet, wisdom and insight lies therein all the same. I think that it is worth the read, especially due to the importance of the subject matter and the shortness of the work, but, wow, is it weird!

[Bettie]

Description: Despite a recently unprecedented appetite for history among the general public, as evidenced by history television program ratings, sales of popular history books, and increased participation in local historical societies, Lukacs believes that the historical profession is in a state of disarray. He traces a decline in history teaching throughout higher education, matched by a corresponding reduction in the number of history students. He reviews a series of short-lived fads within the profession that have weakened the fundamentals of the field. In looking for a way forward, Lukacs explores the critical relationships between history and literature, including ways in which novelists have contributed to historical understanding. Through this startling and enlightening work, readers will understand Lukacs's assertion that "everything has its history, including history" and that history itself has a future, since everything we know comes from the past.

No matter how many parallels with incidents in the past, new 'history', such as Putin wanting to reverse the clock to those good old soviet days, never fail to shock anew. So long as there are humans, there will be new breeds of history being made.

[Ivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recently Dr. Michael Haykin introduced our Church History class to author and historian, John Lukacs. I'm glad he did. I've yet to read any of his actual books of history (Five Days in London, The Legacy of the Second War, and thirty others!), but I thoroughly enjoyed this little volume where he reflects on his profession, both its past and future, and especially on the need to see the teaching and writing of history as literature. It's a great book that captures the wisdom of a seasoned scholar.

[Lucy Pollard-Gott · Rating 5 out of 5]

The chapter on "History and the Novel" should be of special interest to writers. Lukacs argues that all fiction is necessarily historical, whether consciously or not, and the best novels for historians to learn from may not be those explicitly setting out to tell history.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was such a wonderful little read. His insight into the issues facing both writers and teachers of history were astute, penetrating, and eloquent. For such an easy read, I'm a bit astounded at how thought provoking it was.

[Joel Zartman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear, brilliant, brief.

Anybody who wants a definition of history and wants to understand what historians should be about needs to read Lukacs.

[Dakota · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear, precise, and instructive for all those with a continuing interest in history.