Caught in the Inescapable Waves of History

In the digital milieu we often find ourselves torn between our awareness of global history and our personal experience. Navigating this tension is an essential task for contemporary intellectuals.

I wanted to write about the joy of teaching. Here I mean the real, concrete phenomenon of joy that teachers experience from time to time. I would like to define this form of joy, explore its causes, compare it to similar experiences, and so on. But given the darkness of the present times, a positive exploration of joy seems almost out of place.

As I have mentioned recently, the world seems to be on fire. From the hateful destruction of Palestinians in Gaza to sectarian anti-Christian violence in Syria, the world seems awash in wrath, violence, and cruelty. The vile Elon Musk mindlessly fires federal employees and guts essential government services, the Russo-Ukraine war continues, and so on. Amidst all of this suffering, vice, and stupidity, is it seemly to write about simple things like joy and teaching? Maybe I should write an essay, explaining that Israel has far exceeded the bounds of just retribution vis-à-vis Hamas and Gaza. On the one hand, we have the personal experience of joy; on the other, we have the tragic impact of large historical forces. I feel torn between the two, so I am going to write about this very tension — the tension between our awareness of global history and our personal experience of the world.

Global History

At one level, we have the universal unfolding of history. From this perspective, we can look out on hundreds or even a thousand years of history and detect patterns — shifting, but almost predictable currents. This is a heady perspective to be sure. From this advantage, one raises questions about the meaning and purpose of history. On this height, one thinks about Hegel and the meaning of history.

For my own part, I do not think that history is just one damn thing after another. Rather, as a Christian, I know that history is the outworking of a divine plan. But even below the theological level, I think there are patterns or at least tendencies that can be detected. Indeed, when one zooms back far enough one can see the reality of something like zeitgeist — an idea or spirit that defines a whole epoch. This way of thinking about history is valuable in itself because it actualizes the contemplative mode of intellect, which is among the higher goods of human existence. Indeed, it constitutes a midway point between imperfect civic happiness, and the beatific vision. As an Aristotelian, I am firmly convicted that abiding and universal truths can be gleaned from the changing particularities of history. But there is a flip side to this global view of history.

Personal Experience

I once knew someone who studied history, but was afraid of being crushed by it. After many years of thinking about it, I think I understand her perspective, in part. As already mentioned, it is possible to discern patterns and universal truths in the changing tides of history. From one point of view, this is an intellectually appealing vision, but from another it may appear to be an unstoppable force that crushes individuality and creativity. Let me explain.

What if Marx, Hegel, or Augustine were to be correct? Each of these thinkers certainly affirms the reality of a pattern, and even a structure in history. Indeed, both Marx and Hegel made confident predictions about the shape of the future based on what amounted to a supposed philosophical science of history. I will deal with Marx for the sake of convenience.

Marx saw history as the unfolding of a material dialectic. This involved the repeated transition from one form of production to an opposed arrangement. In essence, ever major pivot in the unfolding of history is driven by competition for the means of production. Why is this so? Because work and production is freedom — it is the expression of man’s greatness and dignity. Accordingly, possessing the means of production is how we realize our freedom in space and time. Marx predicted that inevitably the ownership of the means of production would be over-concentrated into the hands of the few in late capitalism. This will lead to the collapse of capitalism and the private ownership of the means of production will finally be rejected. In the place of private (or corporate) ownership, the means of production will be socialized and held collectively. Well it didn’t turn out that way (although Marx’s critique of capitalism is not entirely wrong), but this was a vision of history that impacted the live or millions of men and women. More to the point, what if it were true? Well in a certain sense the unique features and free choices of the individual would appear to be insignificant, overwhelmed by the tides of history. Indeed, one could come to imagine that all individuals are mere dependent parts in the machine of history or really mere instruments of larger forces. In such a perspective, personal space is diminished and eliminated and the intimate moments of life are crushed by the weight of history.

Now Marxism is only one global interpretation of history, and this essay is not meant to be a critique of this particular theory. Rather I am bringing to light the ways in which any global vision of history may be viewed from a certain perspective to be a threat to freedom or a truly human way of being in the world — present, personal, intimate, and engaged. And to be honest, although I reject Marxism, I believe in both the patterns and power of history. History is not just one thing after another. It does have a meaning (or set of warring meanings). And history is powerful. The person afraid of being crushed the force of history is not irrational.

Try this as a thought experiment. Think of your own life. Then think of the historical context in which you live. Consider the politics of your time, the level of technology, and the economic arrangements. These factors and many others are effects of historical forces that existed before you and extend beyond your range of control. Your language, place of birth, sex, culture, childhood religious affiliation, et cetera, are unchosen historical facts that condition everything about you. Do you see the point? Your existence really is a moment or a flicker in the rushing waves of history. Perhaps. I think this perspective must be true to some extent. At the same time, I cannot abandon the belief that personal existence is impactful and deeply significant.

The Unity of the Human Person

In defense of the personal dimension of experience I can say this, only fanatics and madmen act consistently from the perspective of global history. Even a good communist is not always acting from the perspective of the revolution. To be sure, his ideology informs his experience and agency, but other factors remain in play — biological urges, inherited beliefs, friendships, memories, etc. For the most part, we move and strive from a personal perspective. This suggests that history is not all powerful. But I think a better hypothesis is available.

Perhaps I have drawn the distinction between the historical and the personal too sharply. Many distinctions are like this. Initially, they bring to light features of reality or experience that were previously obscure, but pushed too far the very same distinction may end up misguiding us. Perhaps the historical and the personal are mutually informing dimensions of the human condition or equally attractive poles in the continuum of human experience. I think something like this must be the correct view.

Think about it this way. Consciousness of others and even self-consciousness is capable of sliding from the personal perspective to the global historical perspective. It is in the subject of the person that these perspectives are united; he is the real metaphysical subject of these perspectives, but neither form of consciousness needs to be privileged. Each perspective comes with its own form of awareness and agency. Global historical consciousness is synchronic, abstract, and features social agency; conversely, personal consciousness is analytic and concrete, and features individual agency; but again, these two modes of awareness and action are united in the metaphysical subject of the person. As such, they are mutually informing. I never lose myself entirely in the currents of history and my personal experience is always informed by history. The threads are inextricably interwoven. The goal is to bring these threads into a woven tapestry rather than a tangled mess.

So what is the practical import of all this speculation? An awareness of the flow of history is entirely legitimate for the rational subject. Indeed, our engagement with the flow of time (think of emotional reminiscences) distinguishes the human way of being in the world. It is both intellectually compelling and daunting; it is spiritually elevating and limiting. On the other hand, it is also legitimate to step back from our awareness of history and engage at a more personal level. Should the drama and terror of global politics engage the passions of the soul? Yes. Should we return from history and find solace and meaning in personal engagement? Yes.

I will risk one more image: remember the chariot in Plato’s Phaedrus and the two horses.

A Note to Readers: I appreciate all of those who read these essays and engage with the podcast. However, I need to increase the number of paid subscribers. If you are a free subscriber please consider becoming a paid member — even at the minimal level. As always, most of the material on Logos Letter will remain free. Thank you for your consideration.