Is history a science, or an art?

Science is defined as “the knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation; a department of systematised knowledge.”[1]

Art is defined as “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination; a skill acquired by experience, study or observation.”[2]

History is difficult to define in the perhaps rather rigid boundaries of art or science. The subject of history itself easily fills certain criteria of both categorisations – in approach, application, method. However, the perception of history in the wider world, within and beyond academia, and the status and judgement of those who choose to study it, could also be indicative of one or the other of these categories being considered as the rightful home of the subject of history.

Firstly, it might seem that history receives an ‘official’ categorisation as an art rather than a science. Universities, when awarding classifications in history, make graduates a Bachelor or Master of Arts, not science – seen, for instance, in the typical offers given by the University of Cambridge. The standard offer for an arts subject is A*AA, for a science subject A*A*A[3]. The standard offer given to study history at Cambridge – A*AA[4]. Furthermore, the skills required in a history examination – not even at degree but at the AS Level – contain a coherence and fluidity in writing style[5] [6]. The ability to write at length in prose is often, rightly or wrongly, viewed as a skill based in and necessary for arts subjects rather than science.

Also, the classification of history as a humanities subject perhaps contributes to its status as an art. The humanities are defined as: “the branches of learning that investigate human constructs and concerns as opposed to natural processes and social relations”[7]. Moreover, these branches of learning are specified in this Merriam-Webster definition as philosophy, arts and languages. These are deliberately and consciously removed from sciences in the definition given – examples of branches investigating natural processes are given as physics or chemistry. This is perhaps even reflective of the way humanities and sciences are viewed in a wider circle – as totally polarising and opposite spheres of study. Harvard graduate Maria Konnikova, now a writer for the New York Times, has written an essay on the subject enforcing the differing natures of the two areas – “Humanities aren’t a science. Stop treating them like one.”[8] Universities even embrace the opposition of the two branches of learning – UCLA, ranked 12^th in the world academically in 2014-15 by The Times, published an article on their newsroom: “Art and science: Opposites attract”. Therefore, if history is considered a humanity, which it is[9], then it belongs to either philosophy (defined as “the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.”[10]) or languages (“the study of languages”[11]) or art.
History: “a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events”. This doesn’t especially seem to fit either philosophy or languages – thus leaving art – acquired by experience, study or observation. Collection of historical evidence and information will be discussed later, but briefly, it frequently occurs through the study of primary and secondary sources and in more modern history the creation of further evidence through interviewing those who were actually there. Therefore, as a humanity subject, regardless of its potential as one that best fits the art category, history surely cannot be a science and a humanity all at once seeing as they have shown themselves to be such polar opposites.

The varying approaches to historical research may shine more light on whether the subject as a whole should be viewed as an art or a science. Since these approaches range in their method of research and date collection, they may make their own form of history fit to a more rigid category of art or science. For instance, quantitative historians, taking an approach based on “statistical analysis drawn from the social sciences”, might be regarded as taking a more scientific perspective[12] when analysing historical data, since they rely on a relatively objective study of numbers and statistical data. However, the structuralist approach studies the effect of external or alternate factors on events[13]. Structuralist historians take an approach interested in patterns rather than individuals, relationships between factors rather than the effect of each on its own. This is evidently more subjective than quantitative history – opinion varies from one historian to another on, for instance, the impact of Mao on the lives of the Chinese population, with some such as Philip Short and Jonathan D. Spence in contention for a more moderate catastrophe[14] [15] than Jung Chang[16] and Jon Halliday[17] who, arguably very fairly, advocate Mao’s status as a cold-hearted and self-interested murderer of millions, based on their differing opinions on, say, Mao’s reasons for launching the Hundred Flowers Campaign in 1957, and whether it was a simple miscalculation or a deliberate trap[18]. However, this subjectivity simply cannot be applied on the same level to statistical data like the economic growth of Russia remaining at 8% per year between 1894 and 1904, or the number of land remaining strip farmed by 1910 remaining at 90%[19]. Therefore, the subjectivity inherent in the former might be taken as more artistic than the latter since it relies more on the historian themselves to interpret the data in light of their own opinion – for instance, Jung Chang’s personal experiences and those of her mother and grandmother at the hands of Chairman Mao perhaps colours her research into him towards a depiction of him as someone who allowed, even orchestrated, the slow and painful deaths of millions. Whilst the qualitative approach, with science and objectivity as its base value, doesn’t leave much room for denial – it is impossible to suggest that Russia did not experience economic growth in the 1890s, and that agrarian reform remained inefficient even five years after first implemented, using the aforementioned examples as evidence. So different historians, based on their personal approach to history – and it is often personal, with elements of the wide variety of approaches being drawn in to tailor any individual’s method of research.

Conclusively, then, there is potentially no right answer. Perhaps a better or more relevant question would be whether history needs to be defined as an art or a science when it clearly sits quite comfortably on the cusp of both. History could be an art, with its penchant for subjectivity and the significance of the historian in the creation of narrative and reading of primary source material. Equally, it could be considered a science, given the systematised nature of research to find fact in the first place, and in its study of society – history is often discussed as a social science, amongst the ranks of psychology, law and human geography. But whether it is an art, a science, or both, history’s place in academia and research is surely fixed by its wide reaches into everyday life. The History Channel, commercial historical literature like Hilary Mantel’s Thomas Cromwell series (starting with Wolf Hall), and even the Horrible Histories books and television series for children make history widely accessible to so many, and the continuing significance of historical study to the way we live today make history relevant and of interest to potentially everybody. There is no point dividing history into art or science, it has elements of both. The classification of history makes it no more or less important as a subject, and certainly no more or less valued in the sphere of education where variety, development and flexibility are necessary to the survival of any academic discipline.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

[3] http://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/applying/entrance-requirements/alevels

[4] http://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/courses/history

[5] http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-HIS2O-W-MS-JUN14.PDF; page 7

[6] http://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/176165-mark-scheme-unit-f981-historical-explanation-british-history-june.pdf; page 4

[7] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanity

[8] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/humanities-arent-a-science-stop-treating-them-like-one/

[9] http://shc.stanford.edu/what-are-the-humanities

[10] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy

[11] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/languages

[12] http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/themes/quantitative_history.html