Abstract
To start with, while study of history as it could have been or might have been is not entirely ignored by historians, it is not the most popular way of approaching the past. There are several reasons why historians discard, or at least downplay the problem of alternatives in studying the past and consequently pay little attention to those events that had the potential to become reality. And here indeed exists the problem of study of the past versus study of the future. Historians are often different from politicians in the sense that they are not participants in the making of history. Their interest is in the past, and they study events which have already been accomplished. Moreover, even when they are interested in contemporary life, that is, history in its making, they often are detached from the political reality and profess academic non-involvement. Thus, owing to their lack of personal involvement, there is a tendency to view the political and social process as impersonal and rigidly deterministic.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
2 An Alternativist Reading of History
Leopold von Ranke, The Theory and Practice of History, edited with an introduction by George G. Iggers and Konrad von Moltke (New York/Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1973), pp. 14, 28.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1999 Dmitry Shlapentokh
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shlapentokh, D. (1999). An Alternativist Reading of History: Theoretical Justification. In: The Counter-Revolution in Revolution. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230372160_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230372160_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-39864-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-37216-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)