History: Art or Science?

The question of whether history is an art or a science has long been debated among scholars. Marc Bloch,
in The Historian’s Craft, and E.H. Carr, in What is History?, both engage with this question, exploring the
nature of historical inquiry and its relationship with scientific methodology. While Bloch emphasizes the
poetic and imaginative aspects of history alongside its rational analysis, Carr argues that history, like
science, is a systematic discipline committed to inquiry, generalization, and the search for explanatory
relationships.
Their views complement each other, highlighting the evolving nature of history as a field of knowledge.
Bloch and Carr both push back against narrow definitions of science that exclude history while also
resisting the idea that history is a purely literary or artistic endeavor.
The Ubiquity and Importance of History
Bloch begins his discussion by highlighting the deep and enduring human fascination with the past. He
points out that human civilization has always been preoccupied with history, citing the Greeks and Romans
as examples of “history-writing peoples.” Even Christianity, he argues, is a religion of historians because
its sacred texts contain historical narratives, and its central theological concepts—sin and redemption—
unfold in time and therefore in history.
History, Bloch notes, is omnipresent: it is embedded in monuments, oral traditions, and collective memory.
He warns that when history is misunderstood or misused, it can tarnish intellectual traditions and lead to
serious consequences, such as the distortion of facts for political propaganda. The misuse of history by
totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, for instance, underscores this danger.
Carr builds on this idea by examining how historical understanding evolves. He emphasizes that history is
not a mere collection of facts but an interpretation of the past, shaped by the historian’s perspective. The
way we understand history, he argues, changes over time as new evidence emerges and as contemporary
concerns shape historical inquiry. For example, the historiography of the French Revolution has shifted over
centuries, from liberal interpretations focusing on democracy and rights to Marxist analyses emphasizing
class struggle, and later to cultural histories exploring symbolic and ideological dimensions. This
demonstrates that history is not static but a dynamic and evolving discipline.
History as an Intellectual Endeavor: The Will to Understand
Bloch asks a fundamental question: what is the ge of history? He argues that intellectual inquiry is driven
more by the desire to understand than by the simple accumulation of knowledge. A true intellectual
pursuit, he asserts, must go beyond listing facts and must establish relationships between events,
categorize them, and analyze them through rational organization. He references the philosopher
Malebranche, who dismissed polymathy (the mere knowledge of many things) as intellectually insufficient.
To be meaningful, history must provide explanations, identify patterns, and offer insights into human
progress.
Carr agrees, arguing that history, like science, is fundamentally about asking and answering questions. He
critiques the view that history deals only with unique events, pointing out that historians, like scientists,
rely on generalization. For instance, historians classify events such as the Napoleonic Wars and World War
II under the broader category of “wars,” and revolutions like the Glorious Revolution and the Russian
Revolution as part of a wider pattern of political upheaval. These classifications allow historians to compare
different events, identify causes, and develop theories about historical change.
Carr also addresses the misconception that history cannot be a science because it lacks predictive power.
He argues that even the natural sciences do not make absolute predictions—Newton’s laws, for example,
do not predict when and where a specific apple will fall but only describe the general principles of gravity.
Similarly, historians can recognize patterns and trends that suggest likely future developments. The
collapse of authoritarian regimes, for example, has often followed economic crises, public discontent, and
external pressures—patterns seen in the fall of the Soviet Union and the Arab Spring uprisings.
The Influence of Science on History
Carr provides a detailed examination of how history has been shaped by scientific methodologies.
Throughout the 19th century, historians sought to establish their field as a science by borrowing methods
from the natural sciences. Bertrand Russell envisioned a "mathematics of human behavior," while Charles
Darwin’s theory of evolution led historians to see societies as evolving organisms. Economic theories, such
as Adam Smith’s laws of the market and Malthus’ population theory, reflected this scientific influence on
social thought.
However, Carr argues that even in the natural sciences, discoveries are not made by formulating absolute
laws but by proposing hypotheses that guide further inquiry. Historians operate in a similar way, refining
and testing hypotheses rather than searching for immutable laws. Max Weber’s hypothesis on the link
between Protestantism and capitalism, for example, does not function as a universal law but as a
theoretical framework that helps historians analyze economic and religious developments in different
societies.
Bloch also acknowledges history’s scientific aspirations but cautions against reducing it to mere formulas.
He believes that while history should be analytical, it must not lose its poetic and imaginative qualities. For
example, while demographic studies of the Black Death can quantify its impact, they cannot fully capture
the human experience of fear, loss, and social upheaval. The historian’s task, therefore, is to balance
rigorous analysis with an appreciation of history’s human dimension.
Two Schools of Thought: Durkheimian Sociology vs. Aesthetic History
Bloch describes two opposing approaches to historical study that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries.
The first, associated with Émile Durkheim, sought to establish history as a science by focusing on social
structures and general laws of human evolution. This school was willing to exclude many deeply human
aspects of life that it deemed too complex for scientific analysis. Events that did not fit neatly into rational
frameworks were dismissed as mere happenstance.
The second school, frustrated by the difficulties of establishing universal laws in history, took a different
approach. These scholars, unable to fit historical events into rigid scientific frameworks, saw history as an
aesthetic and intellectual exercise rather than a rigorous field of knowledge. They viewed history as
valuable for its ability to stimulate thought and enrich human understanding but doubted its ability to
provide definitive conclusions.
Carr critiques both extremes. He argues that while history should not blindly imitate the physical sciences,
it also should not retreat into pure subjectivity. Instead, history should be seen as a social science that
seeks to explain human behavior in a systematic way while acknowledging the complexity of human
affairs. He points to Karl Marx’s historical materialism as an example of a scientific approach to history
that, while not offering absolute laws, provides a structured method for analyzing economic and social
change.
Subjectivity in History and Science
One of the most common criticisms of history’s scientific status is its inherent subjectivity. Historians,
unlike physicists or chemists, study human beings who are both the subject and object of inquiry. This
creates an unavoidable degree of bias, as historians themselves are shaped by their own historical and
cultural contexts.
Carr, however, argues that objectivity in science is also not absolute. Even in physics, the observer and the
observed are not entirely separate. For instance, quantum mechanics demonstrates that the act of
observation can alter the outcome of an experiment. Similarly, in the social sciences, researchers must
account for their own perspectives and biases. This does not mean that history is unscientific—rather, it
means that history, like all sciences, requires critical self-awareness and methodological rigor.
Bloch shares this view and emphasizes that historical interpretation is inevitable. He argues that historians
should not seek a purely objective truth but should strive for balanced and well-supported conclusions. For
example, interpretations of the French Revolution vary widely—some see it as a struggle for democracy,
others as a class conflict, and still others as a crisis of monarchy. Each perspective highlights different
aspects of the same historical reality.
Religion, Morality, and the Historian’s Role
One of the most significant perceived differences between history and science is that history involves
moral and religious considerations. Carr refutes this argument by asserting that historians, like scientists,
must rely on empirical evidence rather than theological explanations. While historians may personally hold
religious beliefs, they cannot use divine intervention as a historical explanation any more than an
astronomer can invoke God’s will to explain planetary motion.
The question of morality in history is more complex. Carr distinguishes between judging individuals’ private
lives and evaluating their historical impact. Historians are not required to pass moral judgments on
personal character unless those traits influenced historical events. For example, the private virtues or vices
of a scientist do not affect their scientific contributions. Similarly, political leaders’ moral failings should
only be considered if they had consequences for public affairs. Carr critiques the 19th-century tendency to
moralize history, arguing that history should not function as a courtroom for issuing verdicts on past
figures.
Conclusion: The Case for History as a Science
Both Bloch and Carr ultimately defend history as a legitimate form of knowledge, though they
acknowledge its unique challenges. Bloch emphasizes the poetic and humanistic dimensions of history,
while Carr insists on its systematic and analytical nature. Together, their arguments reinforce the idea that
history is not merely an art or a science but a complex intellectual discipline that blends rigorous analysis
with interpretative insight.
As society continues to evolve, so too will our understanding of history. Just as scientific theories are
constantly revised, historical narratives are continually reassessed in light of new evidence and
perspectives. The task of the historian, therefore, is not to produce definitive truths but to engage in an
ongoing dialogue with the past, using the tools of inquiry, reason, and imagination.