In this blog post, we will explore why we should study history, drawing on E.H. Carr’s ‘What Is History?’.

Introduction to the Book and Author

E.H. Carr’s ‘What Is History?’, a book that anyone with even a passing interest in history has likely read at least once, is practically a bible for historical research. Carr and his work are indispensable references in any history department at any university around the world, and they stand as one of the great pillars of modern historiography.
The book is divided into six chapters. These are Chapter 1, “The Historian and His Facts”; Chapter 2, “Society and the Individual”; Chapter 3, “History, Science, and Morals”; Chapter 4, “Causality in History”; Chapter 5, “History as Progress”; and Chapter 6, “The Widening Horizon.” Since Carr passed away while collecting materials and finalizing the preface for the second edition, the book includes supplementary materials and a preface pertaining to that edition. Each chapter unfolds in a sequence that presents the historian’s attitude toward writing history, the overarching significance of history, and, ultimately, the path forward.
When developing his views, Carr frequently cites appropriate and rich historical examples. His firsthand experience of turbulent eras—such as the decline of the British Empire, the First and Second World Wars, the rise of communist states, and the Cold War—provided vividness and concrete examples for his arguments. However, since these examples are primarily based on Western history, readers from different cultural backgrounds may find them somewhat difficult to understand without prior background knowledge.

Carr’s Definition: A Dialogue Between the Past and the Present

Regarding the question “What is history?”—which is also the title of the book—Carr answers at the end of Chapter 1 with the phrase, “History is a constant dialogue between the past and the present.” Here, “the past” refers to historical facts that occurred in the past, while “the present” refers to us today who study them. “A constant dialogue” implies that the relationship between the past and the present is not fragmented or rigid, but rather flexible and dynamic, characterized by communication and adaptability.
Carr believed that the historian’s approach should not be limited to merely uncovering past facts. History must be actively connected to the present and interpreted from that perspective; from this standpoint, he criticized the positivist attitude of objectively compiling facts alone.

The Boundary Between the Historian’s Subjectivity and Objectivity

Cahill argued that historians should more actively incorporate their own opinions and subjectivity. While positivism, the current mainstream approach, seeks to study and reveal past facts as they are, Cahill opposed an attitude that completely excludes the historian’s intervention. He expressed concern that the historian’s intervention sometimes carries the risk of altering or distorting the facts.
A suitable example illustrating this issue is the historical disputes among South Korea, China, and Japan in East Asia. Although these three nations have historically maintained very close ties, they find themselves in subtly opposing positions, and as a result, facts that could be viewed objectively are sometimes researched, interpreted, or distorted according to each country’s interests.
Personally, I view this issue as a matter of balancing historical facts with the historian’s subjectivity and intent. I believe both perspectives are necessary. To understand history correctly, the historical facts themselves must be established as accurately as possible. No interpretation or intent should interfere with those facts. Of course, the existence of perfectly objective historical sources is practically impossible, but efforts to ensure that sources are not artificially influenced are essential.
On the other hand, the historian’s subjective research and interpretation are also necessary for interpreting those sources. Facts, if they exist only in and of themselves, are of little use to us. For historical facts to have meaning, they must play a constructive role for us living in the present, and to this end, the historian’s interpretation must be capable of exerting a progressive influence. In summary, I believe that historical facts must exist within certain boundaries outside the historian’s sphere of influence, and that the historian must exercise their subjectivity within those boundaries, directed toward the present.

Diversity of Historical Perspectives and Critical Reception

If the historian’s subjectivity is necessary, then reflecting on that historian’s perspective is essential. The various historical perspectives that exist today are heavily influenced by the circumstances of the times and intellectual trends. For example, during the era of imperialist expansion, a colonial historical perspective emerged to justify colonialism, while during the era of pursuing colonial liberation, a nationalist historical perspective came to the fore.
Countless historical perspectives have repeatedly emerged to correct or dismantle errors, only to be challenged and refined in turn. Therefore, it is difficult to claim that any single historical perspective is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Just as is the nature of scholarship, diversity and freedom from criticism are necessary, and diverse historical perspectives offer diverse viewpoints. Accepting this is up to each of us, and it must be premised on the critical acceptance and constructive convergence of these perspectives.

Society and the Individual, Science and Morality

Chapter 2, “Society and the Individual,” and Chapter 3, “History, Science, and Morality,” prompt deep reflection on historical significance. Society and the individual are inseparably linked; society is composed of individuals, and the individual cannot exist without society. Kahn viewed history as having a dual function: helping humans understand past societies and increasing human control over present-day society.
The problem with viewing history through a hero-centered lens is that it overestimates the capabilities of individuals and leads one to believe that the driving force behind an era is entirely determined by a few heroes. Of course, widely known figures possess extraordinary abilities and qualities, but the era and environment in which they were able to exert their influence are not the product of individuals alone. The era and environment are the result of a society created by the gathering of many people.
The individual hero and the masses are complementary elements. A hero can be an individual who represents the voice of the many, and the many become the force that maximizes the individual’s abilities. In interpreting history, neither of these should be relatively downplayed.
The issue of science and morality is also important. While a scientific approach provides systematicity and rigor to historical research, moral standards are also necessary to imbue it with historical meaning. When attributing meaning to history, Carr emphasized the harmony of reason and emotion, science and morality.

Causality and Progress

Chapters 4, 5, and 6, which conclude the book, present the ultimate direction history should take. Carr viewed history as a continuous chain of strict causality and believed that the history of earlier eras inevitably influences later generations. He believed that this direction of history unfolds progressively and that a virtuous historical cycle opens up possibilities for the future.
It appears that in the second edition, Carr had planned to write an additional chapter on his outlook for the future; his overarching argument was that the “constant dialogue between the past and the present” must ultimately aim for “progress toward a positive future.” This can be interpreted as presenting to those who study history not merely a method or perspective, but the ultimate goal toward which they should strive.

Conclusion and Personal Reflections

As I reread ‘What Is History?’, I felt that I understood it more easily than before. I sensed that the arguments and examples that had been difficult to grasp in the past were now connecting to some extent. While this book seems to have given me my own perspective and foundation regarding history, I also keenly feel that I still have much to learn.
I wonder if I will have different thoughts when I read this book again in a few years. However, I hope that K’s positive view of history’s virtuous cycle and progressive development will remain valid.