What is history but a fable agreed upon? (Venue A: Caffè Nero)

THE VENUE: Caffè Nero

The weather forecast for Sunday looks promising so we expect to meet outside by the river. But things may change. So, the default is to meet indoors but please look out for updates before you leave home.

When we meet inside, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Nero location.

We meet upstairs at Caffè Nero. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: What is history but a fable agreed upon?

This week, I am grateful to Laura and Rose who collaborated on this topic.

Our identity, culture, relationships, beliefs and actions are all profoundly impacted by our sense of history, but can we ever guarantee an accurate historical record when perspectives, interpretations and opinions are so different? How can we agree on our national and international histories? Can we encompass our personal and collective trauma or achievements? What of those histories that are untold, erased and misconstrued?

The philosophers Nietzsche and Foucault argued that knowledge is produced by those in power, and those in power rely on a specific form of knowledge at specific times in history, such as constructions of a common pattern, theme or ‘story’ to support their power structures. This view asks us to recognise how powerful institutions attempt to shape the narrative of important events in ways that serve political interests. They have to do with the stories we tell each other about who we are; how our histories brought us to this place; and what large events shaped us as a "people". While people have always purported history to suit their bias, in a world of easy access to online information and misinformation, it has become easier than ever to cherry pick a particular version of events to suit an agenda and even rewrite history altogether.

Foucault argued that history is used to reinforce the dominant social and political power structures of the time. History is truly “written by the winners”, past and present, and is about hegemony, not truth. Although Foucault highlights the authority those in power carry over history, does history-as-fiction-or-fable accord everyone enhanced individual agency to make of their ‘story’ what they will, discarding old narratives and constructing new ones to gain mastery over the past? Are so-called ‘revisionist’ histories simply different-but-equally-valid and lesser known ‘stories’?

The German-Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt shared some commonality with Foucault’s viewpoint of the uses and abuses of history by those in power, highlighting that totalitarian movements actively distorted and manipulated historical facts to create a narrative that supported their ideology and justified their actions. This involved rewriting history books, suppressing dissenting voices, and promoting a specific, often fabricated, version of the past.

However, unlike Foucault, Arendt believed it was vital to hold on to a sense of historical fact and truth, clearly distinguished from fiction. Arendt emphasises that historical enquiry and narrative is based on evidence, argument and careful analysis which provides a substantial account of the past, even if it cannot be wholly accurate or informed. Arendt also recognises that there are often multiple truthful, unbiased, and inconsistent narratives that can be told for a single complex event. For Arendt, truth is plural, in contrast to the single ‘Truth’ of totalising systems. Exactly because many things happened at once, individuals’ motives were ambiguous, and the causal connections among events are debatable, it is possible to construct inconsistent narratives that are equally well supported by the evidence. If we see history as mere fiction, do we cede our autonomy over to whoever is in power and let them shape our past experiences, sometimes in dangerous ways? Is it inevitable that historical fact will become more and more diluted, disputed and corrupted or can the truth survive?

Reference: Philosophy of History (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)