"Mais ce n'est pas l'histoire!": Some Thoughts on Toynbee, McNeill, and the Rest of Us

Abstract

Once upon a time the historical profession was more or less united, at least in the English-speaking world. Professional historians shared a common exposure to the classical and Christian traditions, a common Anglocentric perspective, and a common interpretive theme: the progress of freedom. This, of course, was the liberal or interpretation of history that traced mankind's pilgrimage from Mesopotamia to Mount Sinai, to Runnymede, Wittenberg, and two houses of Parliament and a free press' and assumed that backward peoples, if not weighed down by anchors like Hinduism, would follow the Anglo-American peoples to liberty. This vision held sway until the cataclysm of 1914-18 made belief in progress more difficult to sustain, the Great Depression eroded faith in liberal institutions, and decolonization forced consideration of non-Western cultures on their own terms. Whereupon the historical profession, lacking on proper themes, subjects, methods, and purpose, fractured to the point where considerable rancor now exists over the question of what history is, or ought to be, at all. Herbert Butterfield was most responsible for naming and describing the Whig interpretation,' which he judged to be an exercise in mythmaking-albeit a healthy, utilitarian myth that educated generations of youth to value and trust in the advance of human rights, limited government, individual responsibility, and decency in civic and international life. Perhaps Butterfield himself created a myth, perhaps the Whig consensus never existed to the extent he claimed, but the present fractures in the profession are nonetheless palpable. Some historians still suggest that progress exists in history and is associated with the West. But others