Intellectual History

Each day I post a new MCAT CARS Passage. This is for anyone who wants to practice for the CARS Section.

Every article is selected to meet the AAMC MCAT criteria for CARS.

Subscribe by email to receive a new practice passage each morning.

March 29, 2017 – MCAT CARS Passage

Question: What is your summary of the author’s main ideas. Post your own answer in the comments before reading those made by others.

‘Intellectual history’ is a label applied to a wide range of enquiries dealing with the articulation of ideas in the past. At its core has been the close study of written expressions of thought, especially those crafted at a fairly sophisticated or reflective level. A constitutive part of such study is the attempt to recover the assumptions and contexts which contributed to the fullness of meaning that such writings possessed for their original publics.

It may be that there is no longer any need to justify the term ‘intellectual history’ or the practice for which it stands. If this is so – experience can, alas, still occasionally cause one to wonder – then it is a relatively recent development, at least in Britain. Only three or four decades ago, the label routinely encountered more than its share of misunderstanding, some of it rather wilful, especially perhaps on the part of some political and social historians.

There was, to begin with, the allegation that intellectual history was largely the history of things that never really mattered. The long dominance of the historical profession by political historians tended to breed a kind of philistinism, an unspoken belief that power and its exercise was what ‘mattered’ (a term which invited but rarely received any close scrutiny). The legacy of this prejudice is still discernible in the tendency in some quarters to require ideas to have ‘influenced’ the political elite before they can be deemed worthy of historical attention, as though there were some reason why the history of art or of science, of philosophy or of literature, were somehow of less interest and significance than the histories of policies and parliaments.

In the course of the 1960s and 1970s, the mirror-image of this philistinism became common, particularly in the form of the claim that ideas of any degree of systematic expression or formal sophistication did not merit detailed historical scrutiny because they were, by definition, only held by a small, educated minority. The fact is, of course, that much which legitimately interests us in history was the work of minorities (not always of the same type, be it noted), and it remains true, to repeat an adaptation of a famous line of E. P. Thompson’s that I have used elsewhere, that it is not only the poor and inarticulate who may stand in need of being rescued from the enormous condescension of posterity.

A further, related misconception has been the charge, which still has some currency, that intellectual history is inherently ‘idealist’, where that term is used pejoratively to signify the belief that ideas develop by a logic of their own, without reference to other human activities or to what is loosely called their ‘social context’. There was possibly some truth to this as a criticism of some of the work written a couple of generations ago, particularly that originating in the history of philosophy, but it is simply false as a description of what intellectual history must be like. The intellectual historian is someone who happens to find the reflective and expressive life of the past to be of interest: it is the vulgarest kind of reductivism or ideology-spotting to presume that this betrays an unspoken belief in the superiority of one form of human activity, still less an underlying commitment to a monocausal view of history.

In some quarters, the very term ‘intellectual history’ itself generated unease, with the result that ‘the history of ideas’ has sometimes been preferred as an alternative label. However, the danger here is that the emphasis on the ‘history of ideas’ may precisely suggest that we are dealing with autonomous abstractions which, in their self-propelled journeyings through time, happened only contingently and temporarily to find anchorage in particular human minds, a suggestion encouraged by the long German tradition of Geistesgeschichte or Ideengeschichte which, revealing its Hegelian ancestry, looked to the history of philosophy to provide the pattern of human history as a whole. By contrast, the term ‘intellectual history’ signals more clearly that the focus is on an aspect of human activity and is in this respect no different from ‘economic history’, ‘political history’, and so forth.

One final, more local, form of resistance took the form of the suggestion – only partly facetious, one fears – that there is no need for intellectual history in the case of Britain since it, at least in the modern period, has been a society with no worthwhile or significant ideas, or – in another version – one where ideas are of no consequence, or – marginally less crass – one where the preferred idiom is that of the practical or the implicit (as though these, too, were not susceptible of historical analysis). In each of these claims, not only is the premise deeply disputable but the logic is, anyway, plainly faulty, as though one were to conclude that there could be no economic history of sub-Saharan Africa or no constitutional history of post-war Italy.

Given this still-recent history of prejudice and misunderstanding, one of the striking features of the best current work in intellectual history is its lack of defensiveness: it is written as a contribution to an area of scholarship which is already rich and complex, and its tone does not suggest any felt need to justify the larger enterprise. And it is indeed the case that the last couple of decades have seen an impressive efflorescence of work in intellectual history understood in the broad terms sketched here. Where previously the ‘history of ideas’ was often, especially in the modern period, a pursuit cultivated by philosophers, political theorists, literary critics, social scientists and others pursuing the ‘pre-history’ of their own disciplines, recent work in ‘intellectual history’ is much more likely to be done by those with a trained and cultivated interest in a particular period of the past, seeking to apply the same standards of historical evidence and judgement to the intellectual life of that period as their colleagues have traditionally displayed towards its political, social and economic life.

Adapted from The Institute of Historical Research.

Review

Leave a comment below with what you understood to be the author’s main ideas. Ask about this daily passage in office hours/workshops for help.

Subscribe to my Daily CARS mailing list by entering your email.

The full list of daily articles is available here.

This was an article on History.

Have a great day.
Jack Westin
MCAT CARS Instructor.
Contact Information

23 Comments


  1. To argue against the prejudice and misunderstanding facing intellectual history.

    Reply

  2. MIP: Intellectual History=interest of past+same standards of other histories=faulty misconceptions

    Reply

  3. IH = misunderstood + rich and complex

    Reply

  4. MI: intellectual history = expressions of thought + recent development

    Reply

  5. intellect history = misunderstood

    Reply

  6. To define intellectual history and its false misconceptions

    Reply

  7. IH = misunderstood and =/= different from other history

    Reply

  8. Intellectual HX + = misconceptions –

    Reply

  9. MIP: intellectual history = faced prejudice and misunderstanding in the past. Improving in modern times.

    Reply

  10. IH= ideas + written thought
    IH = recent development
    Tone= positive (towards IH)

    Reply

  11. To outline what ‘intellectual history” entails and to debunk any prejudices & misconceptions people have had with IH over time. Furthermore, the author shows how IH does not feel the need to justify/validate itself.

    Reply

  12. Intellectual history involves the study of the assumptions and contexts of old literature / Area of study is relatively new in Britain which has gained some traction by the political and social historians /Debate on the origins, traced to philistinism where ideas had to be regarded by the elite before they gained historical attention such as policies and not art, science, literature and philosophy (deemed unworthy) / Philistinism was propagated by the educated minority
    Not correct to describe intellectual history as being idealistic; intellectual historian finds reflective and expressive life of the past interesting / Intellectual history focuses on human activity, much like economic and political history / Author feels that modern Britain has any intellectual history worth studying and places like Africa and Italy have histories worth studying (author is averse to the prejudice shown to these countries) / Intellectual history used to be studied by intellectuals from diverse fields keen to better understand their respective disciplines; it is currently studied by trained professionals who apply the same standards as political scientists and economists

    Reply

  13. IH= + for author, but many misconceptions to other people
    IH= lacks defensiveness which is why it is useful

    Reply

  14. Intellectual History = misunderstood

    Reply

  15. Intellectual Hx = prejudiced by label + misunderstood. In spite of this, Int. Hx = reflective of the past + has its own standards

    Reply

  16. MIP: IH focuses on past ideas + many misconceptions; tone = +

    Reply

  17. Intellectual History = History of ideas = misunderstood.

    Reply

  18. author disagrees with the resistance to intellectual history. Intellectual History = ideas of the past + written expression, IH did not matter unless there was political influence

    Reply

  19. This passage discusses ‘intellectual history’, while providing the specific rebukes people have toward this field such as, it is to idealistic, there is no need for intellectual history, or it is useless with no context.
    The author seems to disagree with all those views and ultimately explains why intellectual history is prominent.

    Reply

Leave a Reply