In one of his recent entries, Brian Micklethwait referred to that small but intruiging part of historical scholarship, the “what-if” variety, in which writers conjecture what might have happened if a particular event, such as a political assassination or piece of intelligence, had not taken place. What interested me was that one or two comments suggested that this was a pure “parlour game” of no significance and that grown-ups should not bother themselves with such playful nonsense.
Ah, play. The idea that history, philosophy or art could involve play and other frivolous activity is offensive to a certain type of person. I happen to think quite differently. Playfulness is in fact often very useful in the realm of ideas. When a good writer wants to illustrate a point or an argument, he or she can often do so highly effectively through such gambits as a “thought-experiment”, or through borrowing from supposedly unrelated branches of knowledge.
A good example of this was the late libertarian author, Robert Nozick, who shamelessly borrowed from game theory, science and much else to make his arguments. He famously crushed egalitarian arguments for coercively redistributing wealth in his “Wilt Chamberlain” case by showing the injustice of taking wealth from a man who had earned it from the volutantary exchanges of people starting from a completely egalitarian starting point.
Maybe it is a product of puritanical Christianity, but our culture still revolts against the idea that ideas could, and should, be fun. I find that rather odd.
Its not a product of Puritanical Christianity…Taking the fun out of ideas is age old and goes hand in hand with all ambitions of control. Its so much easier to control the minions if you make things look serious. Nannyism is a perfect example.
Ingredients for growing your own Nanny culture:
1 Bag of mixed statistics
3 or 4 savoury facts
42 portions of expert opinion
69 creative new laws
E666
Empty your bag of mixed statistics into the melting pot and simmer of a high heat of inflammatory comments for several days. Chop several savoury facts into bite sized chunks (being careful to remove any real pieces of fun or anything with the wrong flavour) then drop into the pot with a liberal chunks of expert opinion. Bring to boil.
Boil till completely stewed, then empty entire pot into legal blender and be sure to throw in all your creative new laws… turn on blender and homogenise
Sive carefully to remove all education and any hint of individual fun
Spread the resultant smush over a large screen TV and allow to go cold until completely thick, then cut into large chips. Add chip to shoulder and sprinkle on E666(reconstituted virtual fun)
Repeat add nausia
If directions were followed precisely should serve up 6 billion to one 😉
The problem is not with the games, qua games, but games taken to be serious. While a counterfactual discussion might illuminate the real history by showing up what importance we should give a presumed factor, extended stories based solely on speculation are just stories.
History necessarily involves selection of the evidence we have and speculation where it is lacking. That’s already a creative exercise. What makes it history is that the story seeks to explain something that we think we know about the past. History is uncertain. It is what may have happened.
Since the point of counterfactuals is that they did not, then they cease to be illuminating, even if they don’t cease to be entertaining, when they reach a certain contradiction of the actual past. Continuing the story doesn’t tell what the future would have been. As it is founded on the author’s necessarily incomplete understanding of historical process, it doesn’t in fact tell us anything new. What it may do is communicate a model of the way the world works, or entertain.
How is it taking the fun out of ideas to point out what sort of ideas they are?
Joe, that was hilarious!!!
Have you ever read the “White Regiment” series of SF novels by John Dalmas? In his universe, there is a planet that has developed a philosophy that “play” is the highest form of self actualization.
Since the point of counterfactuals is that they did not, then they cease to be illuminating, even if they don’t cease to be entertaining, when they reach a certain contradiction of the actual past.
Review soc.history.what-if for discussion of Operation Sea Lion. Awesome amounts of ego invested.
Of course it could be that your idea of “having fun” isn’t the only way to go about it.
For example, I can ask myself what might have happened if Owain Glyndwr’s Franco-Welsh army had defeated that of Henry IV’s in the same way that Glyndwr pasted the English at Pumulon, but what is interesting (from my perspective) is how the events actually unfolded (or as much of them as we can determine and understand). Counterfactuals after a while are so much jerking off.
Ah, but isn’t jerking off play as well?
On a slightly more serious level, I would have thought satire as being the traditional medium for bringing fun or ridicule into dry debates of policy and personality.
“Jerk”,
You mean as practised by the Court Jester? it is a pity that today we seem to have more Village Idiots than Court Jesters…
When any of our modern day Court Jesters get a little too pointed in their remarks they get promoted to the Establishment via being granted an honour by our all seeing, ever generous PM. — Talk about ‘buying off’ one’s critics…
I see someone still thinks it is mature and a valid debating point to post messages using someone else’s name and email address.
Please stop this. You are only making a fool of yourself since the server records can very easily show where the posts come from.
EG
The importance of what-if histories is the realisation that chance plays a crucial role in shaping events, but that the range of those possible choices are constrained by such limiting factors as economics or human nature. To know what is true of the actualité is to know what is true of any possible counterfactual history. What is more to assert otherwise is claim that either history is essentially unknowable, a free play of signs without a signifier, or utterly determined.
Besides Huizinga has taught us that competative game-play is the defining characteristic of certain forms of civilization and that it informs every aspect of them including their legal systems, warfare and philosophies. Brian is Homo Ludens and all the better for it.
Wow, Euan, it really did sound like you!;-P
And yet, the counterfactual movement itself contains broad challenges to the Marxist conception of history. The idea that it all could have ended quite differently, even perhaps with just a small change, is a challenge to the idea that it must have inevitably turned out a particular way. (A problem that some of the more rationally-inclined libertarians sometimes suffer from as well, as do technocrats of all stripes.)