History, by definition, is, “A continuous, systematic narrative of past events.” It is how we as the current makers of history and the ancestors of those who have already made history determine how history is formed that brings life to this otherwise simple definition. The Hegelian Theory of History is the theory that most accurately describes how history has proceeded for millions of years and will proceed eternally into the future. The Hegelian theory of history is depicted as a cause and effect chain with two effects that may or may not be related that combine and form a product that results from the two causes. The first aspect of the diagram is a thesis, which combines with an antithesis, the second effect, and yields the third event, the product or the synthesis. History has been, is, and always will be, inevitably, caused by other actions and events. When two causes react and form a product, what we know of as history is formed. The product of the addition of two separate actions can combine with another action to produce another effect that will continue a chain that never ends but has a beginning that can be easily found. This is history; a chain of events that are all interconnected, can be traced back for eons and can also be utilized so as to predict a small bit into the future. The Hegelian theory can also be speculated to be as big and small as history itself can be. In a small sense if a boy finds a dollar (thesis), then loses his pencil (antithesis), he can use his newly claimed dollar to purchase a new pencil (synthesis). Then in a much larger sense a country could have a good, such as a rare metal. Another country wants this metal. Trade relations could be set up between these two countries. Both of these examples could be part of the same sequence of events in some distant way or two different chains that may have some events or sequences in common. In this sense history becomes a sort of web linking many aspects of history to other distant parts in some way or another. Not all of history follows the same web as many actions are simultaneously occurring, but sometimes two different chains may eventually converge to form one chain, and then possibly branch off again into multiple chains. This curving, twisting, confusing path is all a part of history and when inspected, it will become apparent that seeming unrelated parts of history may have more than a few interconnected pieces. The Hegelian theory of history can be proven even more by disproving the other three types of how history is speculated to have been formed. One of these theories is that history is linear. This means that history has clear cut beginnings, middles, and endings. This is not to say that linear history is also a cause and effect chain. It is more like a series of stories that run parallel to each other. Actions may occur because other specific actions prompted for them to happen, but it does not always continue as a cycle. This cannot be true as history effects itself. Different parts of history converge or branch off to create more history that spans the globe. History is not simply different and separate stories that are not interrelated. The second theory of history is that history runs in a cycle. Better known as the cyclic theory of history it supports the theory that history is destined to repeat itself. There is no certain beginning or end; the end may just as well be the beginning and vice versa. While this theory can also be applied just as the Hegelian theory can, in terms of large and small, it does not make sense in every aspect of the world. If this theory was true, expansion and growth would not exist. A civilization could only get as far advanced as is destined for them before receding back into the cycle and repeating over and over again for eternity. History has to be traced back to some sort of starting point or it cannot be history. If a beginning is attempted to be found in cyclic history one will have to constantly flow in circles. This creates a paradox because something that happens after something else cannot happen before that same event. The fourth and final theory of history is the vortex theory of history. This type of history acts like a double-ended vortex, going in big, shrinking, and then growing again. While some civilizations did follow this path and some are going through it right now, it cannot be said for all aspects of history or even cover the majority of civilizations. The most prominent civilizations that have followed the path of the vortex were all part of Latin America. What happened there is known as the demographic collapse. The Aztec, Mayan, and Incan empires were all massive societies that dominated what is now Mexico. The Spanish then invaded this area and exterminated the ancient civilizations. After the Spanish settled in the ruins of the civilizations they started to rebuild, coming back out of the vortex. Attempting to find the beginning of this creates the same sort of paradox that the cyclic theory created. It is all but impossible to determine whether a civilization was originally dominant or inferior. If a country is stated to have started out small, it could have possibly been a superior city that was demolished, and this city could have sprouted from a minor civilization, and so the cycle continues backwards for eternity with their no set beginning. Every single, solitary aspect of our lives and the lives of others is history. History can be said to be global, national, or personal. All aspects of history have one thing in common, how it happened. All of history followed the path of cause and effect chains known as the Hegelian theory of history.
“Hegelian Theory of History." Welcome to Google Docs. Web. 27 Jan. 2010. <http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcf23zfg_86c2g9vxd6 >.
"File:Hegel.jpg -." Wikimedia Commons. Web. 27 Jan. 2010. <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hegel.jpg>.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis essay would benefit greatly from MLA citations referencing sources that support your thesis. As is, this is far too generalized and based not on support, but on conjecture.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, in your discussion of the Spanish Conquistadors, you fail to recognize the fact that the native Indian populations in Central and South America were not in fact totally 'wiped-out', but rather -- though surely the Europeans wreaked havoc in war and disease on the locals -- elements of native culture nonetheless mingled with elements of Spanish culture -- ultimately producing something very different from the European Spaniards; something that remains in Central and South American culture to this day.
3.1