Historical data is the tool for comparing the current situation in the society. Retrospective events will always support the contemporary issues of the current situation of the society. It can be used one of the feasibility analysis for taking scientific decisions on the current events

The historical analysis will bring the complete picture of the country. If planners and policy makers didn't know the past historical events then the appropriate planning would not be successful. It is only for comparison purposes as well as learned lessons that will help to avoid any repeatation.

Historical analysis not only throws light on the past events but also helps to make a new strategy and teaches various shortcomings ultimately that guides and supports to overcome the problems of present present situation.

بلى يساعد التحليل التاريخي بنسبة كبيرة فى فهم الاحداث الجارية فى المجتمع المعاصر وخاصة اذا ربطنا الفترة السابقه للوقت الحالي تاريخيا بجانب التحليل السياسي والاقتصادي والجغرافي حيث لايساعد التحليل التاريخي لوحده للألمام بجوانب الموقف ككل لكنه جانب اساسي لفهم المجريات الحالية

Dragoljub Šarović, though very significant, it is not enough to accomplish the aim as it should be backed up by economic, anthropological, and social analyses.

I do not think that there is a acrucial relation.There are many other fields of analysis have greater and more grander effect.

History gives us a meaningful context in which current events fall into a pattern that scientists can analyze.

In order to answer the question, we would first need to decide whether contemporary events have an 'essence'. I don't know what that could mean, and can't see a reason to suppose that events, past or present, have an essence or even a self-revealing meaning. That is why historians exist, at least in some cultures.

In the same vein, it seems to me that the 'impact' of the past is not that of events, which could be understood in countless ways, but of rapidly formed national and other group traditions around them -- agreed views about what caused a war or revolution, why it unfolded as it did, and who 'won' it. Events themselves cannot decide these questions, but only human intelligence.

The main reason to study the past is, I guess, to understand the past (and the possibilities of human existence) better. That's not nothing, and many people happen to be interested in the ancient, medieval, and modern roots of institutions, ideas, and practices. With some such equipment, we can better understand also how we got to where we are—not by an inevitable process of causation, but because of choices made, in contexts we must work hard to recover, by those whose choices had consequence.

As for other disciplines, anyone who claims that theirs provides a comprehensive explanation of 'the present state of human society' -- and not merely the investigation of a particular question -- is deluded and/or deluding.

To Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak

That means that the cause of our behaviour today, except in the past, may be in the future.

Historical Analysis allows us to see and analyse similar events (or patterns) from the past and decide for the future course of action. For example: In everyday conversations too, we are interested in knowing a person's past (or history) to judge, evaluate and decide on the conversation further. Our basic inquiry is historical in nature. Therefore, I believe history is a way of knowing. Historical analysis is integrated to the way of knowing and inevitable.

However, Historical Analysis works only within a paradigm or culture. Phenomena beyond a paradigm or culture may not subscribe to the historical understanding.

All the points made so far are interesting and legitimate. However the biosphere has undergone major changes, just within the last 100 years. We are now living in the Anthropocene and therefore, I think that historical analysis should include also the ecological changes that have been occurring withing a specific time frame. Themes such as: population growth/explosion, massive urbanization, centralization of the food system, extraction and consumption of resources (oil, coal, water, and many more).

History Does Not Repeat Itself, But It Rhymes, so yes history is useful, as long as we do not expect simple answers. If there is a general lesson, that is the power of example. For example, unilateral measures to curb climate change could provide an example for later comers to follow, allowing them to tunnel through the peak emissions. https://www.e-ir.info/2013/03/16/climate-change-the-lessons-from-history/

What an interesting discussion. Part of the problem in communicating is that there are different kinds of historians, especially between the poles of the humanist (focused on particulars and unique contexts) and the social-scientist (who tends to seek patterns in aggregates). Both kinds of history are valuable, but they deal with different questions (e.g., a Prime Minister's declaration of war at a given moment vs. mining practices or mortality rates). The history I do is mostly the former kind. Here are three propositions from that bunker.

1. History is, by common consent, not every kind of past but the study of human actions in the past (not of rocks, planets, plants, climate, etc.), whether in particulars or aggregates.

2. Indeed, one can find patterns everywhere in the human past. Marxist historians find some; free-marketers, racial biologists, Hegelians, Comtean positivists, great-man (Carlyle types), and religious historians have found others, just as convincingly to them. My point above was that the events themselves do not generate these patterns. They come from the dialogue between observer and observed, and are decisively shaped by what the observer brings to the table. Events are messy and indistinct and multi-faceted.

3. If you want to look for norms and patterns in human behaviour, I suggest looking to the social and especially behavioural sciences. That's what they do, and they can investigate their problems methodically, with repeatable results from billions of people now living. They sometimes apply their models to the human past (or some historians apply them), and are likely to find evidence when they do. But their models cannot come from past events themselves, because the past -- being past, gone -- cannot be observed.

I think another factor that needs to be considered is that there is no history writing that is 100% objective. Any researcher, whether knowingly or unknowingly, operates with a world view, which involves a way of looking at reality, interests, perceptions, ideology, religion, philosophy of science, etc. Further, there are always gaps in history to fill, for no one has all data of history in all places. One thus has to work inductively by using models and/or one must make projections, extrapolations etc.

So, if the question is whether historical analysis is enough to understand the essence of current events, then I would definitely say no. One has to be aware of all of the above mentioned factors and for that matter, be aware that any interpreter of events (now and in the past) work with preconceived notions, worldview, etc. In the end, our understanding of events thus remains tentative, and we have to continue to acknowledge it.

It's indeed a very intersting discussion and I share your point of view Dragoljub Šarović : history is not "enough". But I have some things to add. First, history is a discipline that have evolved a lot during the past. The historical methodology that we use today is, in the better scenario, in place since the 70's. Fifty years to analyse in details more than five thousand year is not enough. In that case, it's normal that we can't make an update every day to say "Ok we have change our position on that point" so the relation with actuality is very hard and complicated.

Also, historical methodology has changed a bit (not like during the 60's) during the 90's. Historian open a lot of new perspective and domain of researches. Now history include things like ecology (our relation with disaster during the past for example) and a lot of natural science even, in rare case, theoretical physics. So your question is legit (it's not ironic I assure you) because historian have difficulty to communicate with the mass of the other like I said.

For example, I have to make a seminary about the Tambora eruption in 1815 that cause the year without summer in almost the entire world. I have to study the effect on the people among the world. It's an Indonesian volcano but it causes starving in France. The climate change, for example in Switzerland between April and September there's 130 days of rain and it snowed every week in June and July (quite the opposite of today's trouble). And there's a lot more to say (but I'm just began the research). I don't know if it's things like that that you were talking about in your question but I hope It open your perspective.

Finally, I just wanted to answer to Steve Mason about the essence of event. It's correct to talk about it but the word memory (or memorable) is more comprehensible. Of course, this essence is build with our discussion but that's exactly the point : they "live" through us. I think the better example for our generation is the Second world war. If I say to you "world war 2" : things, words even images come to your mind that is the essence.

PS: I hope you understood, English is not my mother tongue.

Follow. Interesting question and discussions.

Many previous comments have pointed out the necessity of studying the past.

A short answer is I think historical analysis is not enough.

Historical analysis is very important to understand the essence of current events in contemporary society, but we need many other things, the most important of which are ideological, political, ethnic and economic analysis ...

Edward Carr said how to understand the interpretations of the past, talking about Caesar and his "de bello gallico". We have to understand that the essence of the contemporary society depends into the historical process. 5 different issues to have a complete vision of the development. Economic evolution and his impact (inequalities), politics (philosophy) development and the history consequences on the society, arts and costumes (daily life) and, at last, the influence of the religions and science (perception of society).

After this kind of analysis we can get our interpretation. If you consider all of this "writing on history". According to me, yes. It is enough. The mission of historian is not only describe the past, but understand the present because there was a past.

I recommend you read the book: Apologie pour l'histoire ou métier d'historien. Marc Bloch.

12 leçons sur l'histoire from Antoine Prost is also an excellent book and it's more recent

Historical analysis is not enough for understanding the essence of current events in contemporary society because the phenomenal impact of modernization, technology, demographics, geopolitics, and other changes require further analysis in order to show how current events in contemporary society are related to historical events.

Although historical analysis alone cannot independently be enough to exlpain or explore contemporary social, economic, and political events, we can assert that historical analysis, are relevant in shaping the future based on the past.

Historical knowledge is clearly NOT enough to understand current problems, still less to come up with solutions (and I speak as a professional historian). The sciences, both natural and social, are also - obviously - necessary. The question, rather, is whether historical knowledge matters, how much, and in what respect. Historians tend to overcall their hand, claiming that history is a central and essential source of 'lessons' for the present + future.That, in other words, a review of history yields clearcut lessons that we can follow. Not so. I would say that without history we will get things wrong (e.g., we will invade countries without grasping the histories of those countries and of previous invasions). But 'lessons' are very hard to draw - and those who claim to draw lessons are usually politicians or pundits who use history to justify a pre-determined course of action.

History may help (and an ignorance of history may harm) in two respects. First, knowing the background to a current problem or policy choice is vital (that is obvious: it's like saying if you want to know if Man. Utd will beat Chelsea next Saturday the best guide is the recent history of matches involving those clubs). Of course, that places a premium on modern/contemporary history: medieval history ain't gong to help much. Second, more ambitiously, some would claim that history displays regular patterns that apply across time. Factors a, b, c, will produce outcomes x, y and z. Thus, we can retrospectively explain and even proactively foresee - for example - revolutions or economic depressions. Though intellectually interesting. this is very hard in practice: supposed patterns often turn out to be imposed by the (subjective) observer; and, in any given situation, there are so many factors in play (known, unknown, half-known, quantifiable, non-quantifiable, etc.) that it is impossible to extract clearcut, usable 'lessons'. A recession - or military defeat - may trigger revolution in one context, but not another. We cannot 'control' for all the 'variables', hence we cannot extrapolate conclusions drawn (hopefully correctly) from Historical Conjuncture 1 to H. C. 2. Personally, I think that limitation applies to all the social sciences, which is why economists and political scientists are no better at prediction than anyone else . . .

In my view, historical analysis is enough for understanding the essence of current events in contemporary society. In my further explanation, the historian is not a Historian unless he employs a multidisciplinary approach to explain any issue under focus.Therefore, putting the event of the contemporary society in view, what we only need for our analysis is the tool of history. This now depends to a great extent on who does the analysis and what sub-tools were employed. It is when one is adopting what is known in Historical Studies as the "Common-sense view of History" that one stays at the myopic level of only one discipline to explain historical fact. And at that level, it is absolutely impossible to do any historical analysis.

Quoting from the famous work of E.H. Carr, "History consists of a corpus of ascertained facts. The facts are available to the historian in documents, inscriptions and so on, like fish on the fish monger's slab. The historian collects them, takes them home, and cooks and serves them in whatever style appeals to him." A perceptive scholar would see the place of interpretation in historical studies and indeed, this is where History become a science. By this I mean, the Science of History.

Historical analysis alone may not be completely enough for the understanding the essence of current events in contemporary society. First, historical analysis some times, are influenced by inclinations of the scholars. For fact checking, look deeply at the reports and studies of Kenya and South-Africa history by various contributors. Secondly, there are current events in contemporary society that may be unique and unprecedented, hence in many ways, historical analysis will not do very much but a little. However, historical analysis of a particular subject from several dependable scholars can be of immense benefit in appreciating behaviors and responses in relation to subsisting variables as a means of attaining better appreciation of some current events in contemporary society.

المعروف ان علماء الياسة غالبا ما ينطلقون من الوقائع التاريخية لوضع النظريات الياسية المختلفة ونادرا بل قد يكون معدوما ان تجد عالم في السياسة لم ينطلق من معاير التطور التاريخي للاحداث ولاسيما وان اي حدث تاريخي وقع بناء على ما سبقه من احداث وهو بطبيعة الحال يؤسس لوقائع جديدة في المستقبل القريب على الاقل

I quote the wise words of Freya Stark in the frontispiece of my book The Baghdad Set (2019) as follows: "If the past were ever past there would be little use in recalling it; but it lives with us in never-ending variation, as if it were a magic carpet on which we travel through the middle air. The contours of our destination were long ago woven in its fading colours and half-obliterated mazes, and the time to alter or improve them passes quickly while the landscapes of our world race by below. Our future is uncontrollable if we are unable to read our past." —Freya Stark, Dust in the Lion’s Paw (1961).

To Adrian O'Sullivan

Nice quote.

Desde mi punto vista no es suficiente. Ahora bien, la perspectiva histórica, especialmente las monografías sobre hechos o colectivos muy concretos, nos permiten apreciar elementos de multicausalidad que si pueden ayudarnos a incorporar esas variables en el análisis de los acontecimientos presentes. Esa es mi experiencia como periodista e historiador especializado en sanidad durante 40 años, y mis investigaciones actuales como doctorando en Historia de la Farmacia.

It is undeniable that historical analysis provides valuable understanding of contemporary society. For example, we seem to deem propaganda as a nostalgic and humorous war-tactic of the twentieth century. Yet propaganda still lurks in society today and merely disguises itself in new ways. Understanding its function in the past is pivotal to discerning how it remains today, ever permeating the psyche of society.

Historical analysis is adequate to understand the essence of events in the contemporary society, as far as it involve humanities, sciences, technology and other aspects of natural phenomena. This is against the backdrop that all human endeavors follow some sort of pattern, that are largely informed by the natural instinct of man. In other words, a knowledge of past experiences can be used to recapitulate the whims of current events in all ramifications.

I believe that historical analysis cannot find solutions to all the current problems in modern society, but it contributes to a limited extent in finding solutions to some of these problems. We note that many of the current problems and crises have contemporary causes, and some of them are due to non-political causes such as the spread of diseases or nature disasters, so not all the problems can be solved by historical analysis. Thank you.

Historical Analysis is a powerfull weapon to read the contemporary society, but, if alone, is not enough. Is a disciplina made to analyze a whole fact, an event endend, often by a great time-distance, not a instrument thinked to reflect in fieri, on an event.

By this, to endure analysis on present, history need to be helped by external analysis of other academic subjects. Multidisciplinary is a helpfull need, not a menace.

Sorry for my bad english.

Historical analysis is important, but it is not enough to understand the essence of current events in contemporary society; only the philosophy of science gives a complete insight through the scientific paradigm - as a scientific view of the world. See the graph from my book "Three Essays on Science" (Osijek, 2008)

Milan Ivanović ,

Hvala Milane na odgovoru i prilogu.

Pozdrav

Dragoljub Šarović, as you rightly indicated, a historical analysis is not enough for a deeper understanding of the current events happening in our society, for various reasons. First of all, we might need immediate actions to effectively respond to the crisis in terms of medical interventions, and solutions to other associated challenges posed by the pandemics, such as Covid. The world-wide lockdown is an immediate response that came as an immediate strategy, which worked very well in country contexts. We need a multi-disciplinary team of experts, including historians, political analysts, journalists, scientists, data analysts, medical professionals, etc, which is only an indicative list. That said, historical analysis would help us in a great manner to trace back the solutions that our previous generations had to offer in addressing such pandemic situations.

From the historical point of view, man or nature is the creator of everyday history. In order to understand history, you must be able to understand the ideas of other disciplines in the social sciences and the humanities to appreciate its essence. In looking at the trends of different pandemics that happened in the history of mankind, you have to take a look at the reasons why and how it happened. Probably the point that you are raising that historical analysis is not enough for a deeper understanding of these current events is if you do not look at things from various perspectives. History has a lot of areas underneath such as political, economic, socio-cultural, medical, institutional, etc. Another thing here is that you have to bring the perspective of the past in the present in order to see the changes and developments over the years and then that is the time to analyze how and why those things happened. Just like in this COVID 19, there are a lot of theories on how it became pandemic and you have to analyze each and every angle in it before you could have a conclusion. Of course, it cannot be done in an instant because the situation is ongoing but you have to look at the explanations well before agreeing to a particular argument. Historical analysis is helpful but it depends on the data that is obtained and how it will be analyzed.

Historical analysis is a method to understand the past. The present Historian is already using the multi disciplinary approach and is also addressing varied issues. But definitely more is needed. The biosphere has changed in the past two hundred years. The issue of Human intervention has to be discussed and brought into public domain by social scientists. Both science and social sciences should complement each other.

Uma análise histórica ,complementada por , análises políticas e econômicas ,para complementada, história é complexa e fatos, e informações ,mesmo documental podem não descrever um todo a ser compreendido somar diversas fontes e áreas que acrescentam na chamada história , distanciamento um olhar de fora imparcial ,na medida do possível poderiam mostrar um quadro mais fidedigno desse passado histórico.

Не достаточно. Очевидно, что необходим комплексный анализ с исторической точки зрения, социологии и политологии. Тогда картина будет более полной, не все же не совсем объективной.

Dragoljub Šarović

Да, согласна, что влияние нашего прошлого на современную жизнь человеческого общества неоспоримо, но, чтобы понять и изучить современное состояние нашего общества необходим комплексный анализ и гуманитарных и естественноведческих наук поскольку это неотьемлемые части единого целого мироздания. Исторический анализ, в свою очередь, помогает понять современные события в контексте исторического процесса и предложить какие-то уроки.

Historical analysis is one of the factors that help in understanding the current events in contemporary society, but we must realize that the developments and changes witnessed by the contemporary society require a deeper understanding that is consistent with the new scientific, economic and political changes and developments in the contemporary society.

By all means. History offers us lessons, experiences and events to mine from, and that would serve as a guide to our present and future as one people. We learn that we, the people and events are interdependent. History never repeats itself in exactly the same way. But there would be parallel and similar conditions that would require us to recall and study history. The events and conditions of the 20th century may be studied so that the 21st century can be improved. One example I have in mind would be the presence of the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty, the European Union and other international institutions, which may have contributed, aside from the preponderance of American power and the worldwide predominance of Christianity, to the prevention of another World War I and/or World War II, which the League of Nations and US Isolationism during the 1920s and 1930s haven't been able to prevent. Another would be the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow racism, apartheid, anti-Semitism and all other forms of racism that lead to inequality. Despite the advances in technology, which made our lives more convenient in many ways, its still humans who ultimately use this technology for good or for ill, who make and who write their and other people's histories.

Today, any historical research requires the involvement of other scientific approaches and research methods. Only an interdisciplinary approach makes it possible to fully study and understand an event or phenomenon.

As society evolves, some aspects utilize the known historical trends which are easier to predict as they follow some sort of template and so has low entropy. However certain other aspects take unpredictable twists and turns mainly because of the new knowledge and concepts added along the way, and these have high entropy which makes them difficult to predict and understand.

Historical methodology is interdisciplinary nowadays, so I think historical analysis can provide both broad and deep understanding of what is currently going on. Even though history never quite repeats itself, there are nevertheless many pertinent similarities and analogies on which we can draw. However, more understanding always comes with hindsight. Understanding is a work in progress.