The purpose of this essay is to discuss the usefulness of history and of the study of history. The answer will naturally depend on how ôhistoryö is defined and on how it is taught and studied.
Contemplation of any question about the usefulness of history can, and perhaps should, begin from George SantayanaÆs well-known dictum, ôThose who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.ö There has been debate, of course, over exactly what Santayana meant by this aphorism, and in what senses it might be true. Santayana did not believe in, and was not promoting, a cyclic view of history nor a fatalistic attitude. Rather, his concern was with how individuals make meaningful choices in life, and especially with how wiser individuals can learn from the mistakes of others and not repeat them. To benefit in this way, one must know what mistakes others have made. To push the envelope, to advance the state of the art in any field, one must know what has already been done; that is, one must know history.
It seems plausible that most peopleÆs disdain for history results from such factors as bad teaching and partisan interpretations. To impart the history of anything to another person is to tell its story; when the chronological narrative is forgotten, then the details of history lack obvious significance. This is why the old-fashioned ôkings and battlesö approach to the teaching of history was so deadly for students. The memorizing of dates, regnal lists, names of famous military victories, and important official occasions has no obvious utility if there is no framework that elucidates the significance of such facts within a larger conceptual structure. It is ôhistoryö at this level of abstraction that most people probably have in mind when they assert the uselessness of the study of history.
The other approach to history that most people find distasteful is that of patriotism and apologetics. In such an approach, the ôh...