Causality, Interpretation and Periodization in History
Causality, Interpretation and Periodization in History
Causality, Interpretation and Periodization in History - In understanding a historical event, there are several principles that must be understood by a historical researcher. Some of the principles that must be understood by a historical researcher, namely; causality, interpretation and periodization. For this reason, this article will explain what causality, interpretation and periodization mean.
Causality is the principle of cause and effect in an event. Causality is built or formed from the relationship (relationship) between a first event (cause) and a second event (effect or impact), in which the second event is understood as a consequence of the first event. The principle of causality is actually a basic assumption that develops in science.
Under the rules of the scientific method, scientists design an experiment to determine the causality of real life. Here embedded in the scientific method are hypotheses about causal relationships. The purpose of this scientific method is to test the truth of the hypothesis. Below is an explanation of what is meant by the concept of causality in history along with examples.
Causality in History
In conducting research, a historian is not only looking for answers to the who, what, when, and where questions about historical events. According to Kuntowijoyo, the priority in history is finding out why historical events occurred. The question of why historical events occurred is to clarify cause and effect. Causality is very influential in history will be a science that contains only chronological matters.
The why question provides an explanation in drawing a causal relationship to a problem. So it can be concluded that historical causality as well as social science causality is the cause and effect of events. The theory of causality (cause and effect) has developed for a long time where humans are always trying to find the causes for the occurrence of an event, an event. By knowing the cause, man will understand the root and source of the effect of that event.
The basic law of life was first put forward by Socrates around the year 400 BC which is called Causality or the Law of cause and effect. Besides Socrates, there is also a dictum issued by Leopold von Ranke. Where Ranke issued the dictum in the 19th century when the influence of positivism philosophy was still very dominant. Ranke stated that historians should write as it really happened. That is, historians must submit to facts, historians must have integrity, and historians must be objective (not impartial).
Causality relationships in history can be investigated by observing, reconstructing historical facts, analyzing primary and secondary sources, and formulating general causes for the occurrence of an event. In the principles of causality, historians must analyze two things, namely events and changes. The two differ in the consequences: the case is processual without change, while in the change there is a change in causality, namely structural changes and system changes.
The principle of causality is the existence of regularity. The details of the principle read, among other things, "a vacuum of authority leads to anarchy"; “political regimes that face difficulties are always looking for scapegoats”; “to prevent solidarity, the government appoints virtual or real enemies”; “injustice breeds resistance”; political crisis invites militarism”. Causality is a theme, so it doesn't need to be explicit.
Based on the dictum given by Leopold von Ranke that historians should write as what actually happened and historians should be objective (not impartial), it is certainly a very difficult thing. Because in this case a historian is constrained by the element of subjectivity so that opinions or conclusions from one person and another tend to differ. This element of subjectivity causes the causes to be diverse and difficult to generalize. The element of subjectivity can be minimized with the accuracy of historical facts and primary sources that will be the focus of research.
In a case study, it is found that there is a single complex case. A single case is called simple if the historian finds that the cause is only one (monocausal), while a single case is called complex if the causes are many (multicausal).
1. Monocausality
Monocausality is a theory of causality that first appeared in the science of history. This theory is deterministic (dependence), which returns the causality (cause-effect relationship) of an event, situation, or development to only one particular factor. The factor is considered as a single factor or the only factor that is a causal factor.
The deterministic principle in monocausality consists of geographic deterministic, racial deterministic, technological deterministic and economic deterministic. According to the theory of geographic determinism, geographical factors or the location of residence are the sole cause of the occurrence of an event, condition or development of a nation or population in a particular area.
For example, the development of civilization caused by extreme geographical conditions (hot or cold) requires people who are able to adapt and cope with harsh natural conditions. On the other hand, in tropical countries, natural factors make life so easy that it does not pose many challenges. Therefore, the development of civilization in tropical climates tends to be slower when compared to areas with extreme natural conditions and experiencing natural limitations.
In line with the single factor thinking, the example of the economic deterministic question assumes that economic factors are the sole cause of the development of society. According to economic deterministics, all social, political and cultural institutions (culture) are determined by economic processes, especially the production system. For example, a society that developed in Javanese civilization using an agrarian production system with traditional technology has created a feudalistic political and social structure. Where from the feudalistic nature, both of them only revolved around the relationship between landlords and tenants or farm laborers.
2. Multicausality
Multicausality is not like monocausality which focuses on a single factor. Multicausality provides an explanation by taking into account the various causes (factors) of the occurrence of an event. The principle of multicausality is based on perspectivism, which is a way of looking at problems by approaching them from various aspects or aspects and perspectives.
The meaning of perspective here relates to the concepts and systems approach. This approach assumes that the elements are interrelated, dependent and interrelated with each other. In relation to looking for causality, in this case the emphasis is more on the existence of various causalities and not monocausality. Therein lies the difference between perspectiveivism and determinism.
The emergence of multicausality is caused by the inability of the principles of monocausality in explaining events, circumstances or developments. For example, an explanation of the implementation of the Cultuur Stelsel policy in 1830. In monocausality theory, the implementation of this policy is explained as a result of the end of the Diponegoro War (1825-1830). Multicausality is not satisfied with the explanation that places the end of the Diponegoro War as the sole cause of the implementation of the Stelsel Culture policy. According to the multicausality theory, Cultuur Stelsel's policy was caused by various factors regarding the situation of international relations at that time.
Multicausality is very useful for understanding social change. The explanation of the concept of social change starts from the following principles:
1. The dynamics of society shows the movement from the previous level of development to the later, usually from the simple to the more advanced. Which elements are changing and what factors are causing the changes.
2. In various theories, social change always has a direction, namely from a simple form to a complex one, meaning that it has a better function to organize its life process. There is the theory of evolution, the theory of progress, the theory of social Darwinism, the positivist theory, and so on. These theories enter into the philosophy of history or social philosophy.
3. In the historical study of social change, the problems of patterns, structures, and tendencies in the process of change are examined. The focus of attention is on structural transformation and the factors that cause it. Does the same structure originate from another structure which is the same and what are the causal factors?, Does the same structure originate from the same causality and vice versa, does the same causality always produce the same structure?
In connection with the three principles above, it is necessary to conduct a comparative historical study, namely by making comparisons between events. Therefore, it should be emphasized that what is being compared is not historical facts but various patterns, tendencies, and structures. History using a social science approach has the ability to make comparisons between events. There are several possibilities for making comparisons:
1. Between two regions with the same period
2. Similarity in theme or type of event phenomenon
3. Combination of the first and second items.
4. Between two different periods of one region.
5. Between two different periods of the two regions.
An example is to try to make a comparison between Dutch colonial politics in Indonesia and British colonial politics in India. In the analysis will be extrapolated, among others:
1. The process of modernization through education
2. Socio-economic system
3. Fiscal commercialism
4. Feudal agriculture
5. Innovative flow organization structure
6. The role of the intelligentsia
7. Constraints from social structure
8. Ethnicity caste
A comparison between Indonesia and Indonesia can also be made on the level of success of modernization it has obtained. Comparison of degrees of modernization using the following criteria:
1. Social mobility
2. Horizontal and vertical integration
3. Productivity of natural and socio-cultural resources
4. System technology
5. Democratic power structure
6. The level of people's welfare.
Interpretation in History
What is meant by interpretation? interpretation or also called interpretation is a communication process carried out through speech or movement between two or more speakers who cannot use the same symbols, either simultaneously (known as simultaneous interpretation) or sequentially (known as sequential interpretation). By definition, interpretation is only used as a method when needed. If an object (artwork, speech, document, etc.) is clear enough in meaning, the object will not be able to produce an interpretation. The term interpretation itself can be interpreted in the ongoing process of interpretation or its results.
An interpretation can be part of a presentation, explanation or depiction of information that is modified to suit a specific set of symbols. The information generated can be in the form of spoken, written, picture, mathematical, or in various forms of language. Complex meanings can arise when an interpreter consciously or unconsciously cross-references an object by placing it in a broader framework of experience and knowledge.
Historical events only occur once, are objective in nature and have occurred in the past. Many people tell the story either orally or in writing so that the story is called a historical story. Historical stories are the result of interpretation. In interpretation, there is an element of subjectivity. Subjectivity makes interpretations of the same historical research topic different. This is influenced by the background and point of view of the person doing the interpretation.
An example of a different point of view is that an Indonesian chronicler considers Prince Diponegoro a hero, while a Dutch chronicler considers Prince Diponegoro a rebel. Similarly, Indonesian chroniclers consider the arrival of the Dutch in 1948 as a military aggression, while the Dutch consider it a police action. This action was a Dutch response to the proclamation of Indonesian independence. Where the Dutch wanted to return to the territory of Indonesia (Dutch East Indies) after the end of World War II.
The purpose of historical interpretation is usually to increase understanding of historical events. However, sometimes it is unfortunate that the interpretation contains more elements of the historical writer's subjectivity aimed at certain interests; like government propaganda, so that in the end it can confuse understanding and confuse history.
Periodization in History
Periodization in history is defined as the chronology of time used for various historical events. Periodization is closely related to historical chronology. Periodization means chronology in history based on time. Because history has taken place over a very long and complicated time span, one will have difficulty collecting all historical events in one time period, therefore periodization is made.
Events that occur in human life at any time are very complex, so it requires a classification based on the form and type of event. The classified events are then arranged in the order in which they occurred.
The span of time or period since humans existed until now is a very long span, so that historians often have difficulty understanding and discussing problems that have arisen in the history of human life. Scholars compile the periodization of history.
Periodization can be made based on political, socio-economic, cultural and religious developments. Making periodization aims to make it easier to study history. The easiest arrangement of the periodization is to use the order of centuries. However, such a periodization does not reveal a characteristic characteristic of the epochs under review.
When a historian proposes a periodization of history, he must be able to explain what distinguishes one period from another. Different times are events that occur in a certain time, so the periodization is not based on the time itself (years or centuries), but is very dependent on the historian's interpretation of the characteristics of events contained in each calendar time. Although the periodization is based on the characteristics of the event, periodization cannot be separated from the time element because these events are bound by the passage of time.
The periodization of Indonesian history is divided into several versions, depending on the historian and history writer who divides the classification and of course each historian has their own reasons for the division. Some divide it into two eras, the pre-literate era and the historical era. In addition, there are also those who divide the chronology (periodization) of Indonesian history into the pre-literate era, ancient times, classical times, colonial times, and the era of independence – Reformation.
So, that's a description of causality, interpretation and periodization in history, hopefully this material is useful.