Isaiah Berlin and the plurality of histories: Two concepts of Karl Marx

Abstract

This essay presents Isaiah Berlin's forceful, if somewhat neglected, case for what can be termed ‘pluralist historiography’—a perspective which seems to be of growing currency today. Drawing on Berlin's prolific critiques of scientific history, this essay shows how he presents history as a hybrid discipline—incorporating rational, interpretive and creative components—but also with a hard core of elements indispensable to effective historical writing, including grounding in the established historical facts, the exercise of empathetic imagination and their creative fusion into narrative form. Berlin thus embraces a bounded diversity of historical approaches which reveal both the diverse range of human forms of life, and a common ‘human horizon’ of basic needs, faculties and values that links them all together. This flexible approach both retains confidence in generally being able to attain a consensual judgment on the best available historical account, while also allowing for the possibility of irreducible disagreement. Drawing in particular on Berlin's ethical value pluralism, this essay argues that he regards irreducible disagreement as preferable, despite its potential inconveniences, to monist distortion. Finally, the essay illustrates the character and force of Berlin's historiography through a case study of two historical accounts of Karl Marx and the development of his thought, one offered by Berlin himself and the other by his erstwhile student and friend Gerald Cohen. It stresses in particular the two writers' distinctive approaches, divergent conclusions, and their mutual admiration and respect nonetheless. Finally, it suggests while readers may legitimately disagree with one another in their comparative judgments of the two accounts of Marx, and that this type of dispute may have an unfortunate polarizing effect on the historical discipline, that there are at least some consolations to be found in it. These consolations indeed help to explain the growing influence of pluralist historiography today.