This "responsibility" bugaboo needs to be thrown out once and for all. No one has ever claimed that the terrorists who crashed into the WTC, Pentagon, and the ground in Somerset County were not responsible for their actions. But I'm a historian, and I know there is such a thing as causality. What I can tell you about causality is that it is always multiple and complex. While the job of historians is to investigate, evaluate, and prioritize those causes, I can also tell you that any historian worth anything will generally consider individual psychology to be well down that list in the grand scheme of things. However, in popular accounts it tends to end up much higher--thus the predominance in public school textbooks of "Great Man" history. (In a side note, it's interesting that we've gotten away from focusing on "Great Men" in quizbowl science, but not in quizbowl history--I think this has to do quite a bit with American mythology and our continuing societal belief in rugged individualism. But before I wander too far on topic...) Any real attempt to make historical sense of events will go beyond the psychological makeup of the actors involved and explore the political, social, economic, and cultural (at least) reasons for events. Those of us who see ourselves as part of an intellectual community, I feel, are obliged to do this, rather than uncritically engaging with events on the level of the mass media and (all too often) the general public. In a weird, twisted way, I almost have a kind of backhanded respect for Falwell and Robertson for doing the same thing--almost, but their premises are specious and their agendas are repugnant. Pinpointing responsibility vs. cause is a tricky business, but as I've said I believe the former is the short-term business of our country and the latter should be our long-term goal.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST