This is an educational resource based on the Wikipedia article on Whig history. Read the full source article here. (opens in new tab)

The March of Progress

Deconstructing Whig Historiography: An academic exploration into the narrative of historical progression, its origins, key figures, applications, and critical evaluation.

What is Whig History? ๐Ÿ‘‡ Explore Criticisms ๐Ÿง

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!


When you are ready...
๐ŸŽฎ Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game๐ŸŽฎ

Defining Whig History

The Narrative of Progress

Whig history, or Whig historiography, is a methodological approach to the study of the past that frames history as an inherent progression from an oppressive, unenlightened past towards a superior, contemporary present.[1] This perspective typically celebrates the development of modern liberal democracy and constitutional monarchies, particularly the Westminster system in British history.[2] The term is also applied more broadly across various academic disciplines, including the history of science, to describe any historical analysis that views the past through a teleological lens, emphasizing an inevitable march towards current understandings.[3] When used outside the specific context of British history, the term is often rendered as "whig history" (lowercase) to denote this broader application.[3]

Emphasis on Institutions and Freedoms

Within the British historical tradition, Whig historians characteristically highlight the evolution of constitutional governance, the expansion of personal liberties, and advancements in scientific thought.[4][5] The term "Whig history" is frequently employed, often pejoratively, to critique historical accounts that present the past as a predetermined, inexorable movement towards enlightenment and progress.[2] In the history of science, this approach focuses on the successful chains of reasoning and experimentation that led to contemporary theories, often overlooking or downplaying discarded hypotheses and research dead ends.[6]

Global Implications

The principles underpinning Whig history influenced modernization theory and subsequent international development aid efforts post-World War II. However, this approach has faced criticism for potentially causing harm or disruption to recipient cultures.[7][8]

Origins and Terminology

Butterfield's Critique

The term "Whig history" was notably popularized and critically examined by the British historian Herbert Butterfield in his influential 1931 book, The Whig Interpretation of History.[9] Butterfield's critique targeted historical narratives that simplified the past, presenting it as a linear progression towards present-day ideals, often for dramatic effect or perceived moral clarity.[2] He argued that this approach studies the past with reference to the present, leading to selective emphasis on events that seem important from a modern viewpoint and a tendency to modernize historical figures and contexts.[14][16][17]

Etymology and Evolution

The term derives from the historical British Whig political faction, which advocated for parliamentary power over monarchical authority.[10] However, Butterfield's usage extended beyond this specific political context to encompass any progressive, teleological narrative.[2] Early historians like H. A. L. Fisher used the term more approvingly, appreciating figures like Macaulay for their illuminating histories.[12] Over time, "Whig history" became a broad descriptor for progressive historical interpretations.[2]

Decline of Academic Respectability

Butterfield's critique significantly impacted the academic standing of Whig history. Subsequent generations of historians largely rejected its presentist and teleological assumptions, favoring approaches that emphasized the contingency and complexity of past events.[13] While Butterfield's book was praised for its polemical impact, some critics like David Cannadine found it "slight, confused, repetitive and superficial."[26] Nevertheless, the core criticisms regarding bias, teleology, and present-mindedness remain central to the historiographical debate.

Butterfield's Core Arguments

The Historian's Verdict

Butterfield argued that Whig history often presents a moralistic dichotomy, casting historical figures as either champions of progress or opponents thereof. This leads to a simplified view where "heroes" are lauded and their adversaries are depicted as mere foils, contributing nothing to the present.[18] He criticized the tendency to judge past actions based on present-day values, a practice known as presentism.[16]

Abridging the Past

A key criticism was that Whig history involves "abridgements"โ€”selecting only those past events that align with the narrative of progress, thereby distorting the historical record.[15] This selective focus can obscure the accidental nature of historical change and the complex interplay of factors that shape events.[23]

Butterfield advocated for a historical sensibility that studies the past "for the sake of the past," appreciating its inherent complexity, concrete details, and fundamental differences from the present.[24] This involves moving beyond teleological frameworks and embracing the contingent nature of historical development.

Modernizing the Past

Butterfield also cautioned against "modernizing the past," where historical figures and their contexts are perceived as more contemporary than they actually were. This anachronistic tendency hinders a genuine understanding of the past on its own terms.[17]

Key Criticisms

Teleology and Determinism

The most significant criticism leveled against Whig history is its teleological natureโ€”the assumption that history is directed towards a specific end or goal. This often implies a deterministic view, suggesting that historical outcomes were inevitable rather than the result of complex, contingent factors.[3][23]

Presentism

Whig history is often accused of presentism, the anachronistic interpretation of past events and people through the lens of modern values and knowledge.[16] This approach can distort the understanding of past motivations and circumstances.

Moral Dualism

The tendency to divide historical actors into clear "good guys" and "bad guys" creates a moralistic, often simplistic, narrative. This dualistic framing can obscure the nuances of historical situations and the complexities of individual actions.[18]

Applications Across Disciplines

History of Science

In the history of science, Whig interpretations often highlight the scientists and theories that proved correct, framing their discoveries as inevitable triumphs over ignorance or superstition.[55] This perspective is frequently criticized by professional historians of science for its celebratory and didactic tone, and for creating an artificial distance between historical scientific practice and contemporary understanding.[56][57]

Economics and Philosophy

Economic retrospectives, particularly those focusing on the mathematization of the field, can exhibit Whiggish tendencies by presenting certain developments as inherently progressive, regardless of alternative viewpoints.[61][62] Similarly, philosophical systems like Hegel's, which posit a teleological trajectory for history, are often categorized as Whiggish.[63] Marxist historical materialism, with its predicted endpoint of communism, has also been described as characteristically Whiggish by some scholars.[25]

National Histories

Whiggish narratives appear in various national histories. For instance, Canadian historiography has been criticized for portraying historical figures like the rebels of 1837 as destined to lose, framing their defeat as a just outcome dictated by historical progress.[66] In general history, the concept of "progress" itself can be seen as a Whiggish assumption, influencing how events and societal changes are interpreted.[69]

Enduring Influence and Debate

Impact of World Events

Major historical events, such as the First World War, significantly challenged the fundamental Whiggish assumption of inevitable progress and societal improvement.[50][51] The ensuing skepticism and a desire to re-evaluate historical narratives contributed to the decline of overtly Whiggish interpretations in academic circles.

Contemporary Relevance

Despite its academic discrediting, the underlying tendencies of Whig history are argued to persist, particularly outside academia. The focus on progress, the simplification of complex historical processes, and the implicit judgment of the past based on present standards remain features of popular historical accounts and certain public discourses.[53]

Some scholars argue that the rejection of all "Whiggish" elements might be too extreme, suggesting that a nuanced understanding of historical progress and continuity is still valuable. The very definition of "science" or "history" can carry inherent Whiggish implications, making a complete avoidance of such perspectives challenging.[59] However, the dominant academic consensus remains critical of simplistic, teleological narratives.

The Historian's Role

The debate over Whig history underscores the critical role of the historian in interpreting the past. It highlights the importance of methodological rigor, awareness of potential biases (like presentism and teleology), and a commitment to understanding historical contexts on their own terms, rather than through the lens of present-day achievements.[24]

References

Scholarly Sources

  1. Blackburn, Simon (2008). "Whig view of history". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-954143-0.
  2. Cronon 2012.
  3. Burrow 2008, p. 473.
  4. Marwick 2001, p. 74.
  5. Bentley 2006, p. 20.
  6. Mayr 1990.
  7. Gardner & Lewis 2015.
  8. Ferguson 1990.
  9. Butterfield, Sir Herbert (1981). The Whig Interpretation of History. University of New South Wales Library. OCLC 218992532.
  10. Torr 2000, p. 52โ€“53.
  11. Sewell 2005.
  12. Bentley 2006, p. 171.
  13. Bentley 2006, p. 95.
  14. Butterfield 1965, p. 11.
  15. Butterfield 1965, p. 12.
  16. Butterfield 1965, pp. 24โ€“25.
  17. Butterfield 1965, p. 34.
  18. Hart 1965, p. 39.
  19. Butterfield 1965, p. 35.
  20. Butterfield 1965, p. 37.
  21. Butterfield 1965, p. 41.
  22. Butterfield 1965, p. 65.
  23. Butterfield 1965, pp. 68โ€“69.
  24. Wilson & Ashplant 2009, p. 10.
  25. Burrow 2008, p. 474.
  26. Cannadine 1993, p. 203.
  27. Cannadine 1993, p. 197.
  28. Carr 1990, p. 41; Cronon 2012.
  29. Bentley 2005, p. 65.
  30. Bentley 2005, p. 66.
  31. Bentley 2005, p. 67.
  32. Scruton 2007, p. 735.
  33. Feske 1996, p. 2.
  34. Trevor-Roper 1979, p. 10.
  35. Marwick 2001, pp. 74โ€“75.
  36. Trevor-Roper 1979, p. 12.
  37. Trevor-Roper 1979, pp. 25โ€“26.
  38. Macaulay, Thomas Babington (1848). "Chapter I". The History of England from the Accession of James II. Vol. 1. p. 14 โ€“ via Wikisource.
  39. Carr 1990, p. 41.
  40. Breisach, E. (2007). Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, Third Edition. ACLS Humanities E-Book. University of Chicago Press. p. 251. ISBN 978-0-226-07283-8.
  41. Bentley 2006, pp. 23 et seq.
  42. Reba N. Soffer (1994). Discipline and Power: The University, History, and the Making of an English Elite, 1870โ€“1930. Stanford University Press. pp. 87โ€“88. ISBN 978-0-8047-2383-1.
  43. Bentley 2006, p. 32.
  44. Bentley 2006, p. 33.
  45. Bentley 2006, p. 37.
  46. McCulloch, Gary (2011). The Struggle for the History of Education. Foundations and Futures of Education. Taylor & Francis. p. 28. ISBN 978-1-136-81124-1.
  47. Marwick 2001, p. 77.
  48. Bentley 2006, p. 96.
  49. Marwick 2001, pp. 77โ€“78.
  50. Bentley 2006, p. 7.
  51. Bentley 2006, p. 104.
  52. Bentley 2005, p. 71.
  53. Bentley 2006, p. 8.
  54. McIntire, C. T. (2004). Herbert Butterfield: Historian as Dissenter. Yale University Press. p. 205. ISBN 978-0-300-09807-5.
  55. Schuster, John Andrew (1995). "The Problem of 'Whig History' in the History of Science". The Scientific Revolution: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science. ISBN 978-0-86418-337-8.
  56. Bowler, Peter J; Morus, Iwan Rhys (2005). Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-06861-9.
  57. Alder, Ken. "The History of Science, or, an Oxymoronic Theory of Relativistic Objectivity". In Kramer & Maza (2002).
  58. Jardine, Nick (1 June 2003). "Whigs and Stories: Herbert Butterfield and the Historiography of Science". History of Science. 41 (2): 127โ€“128. doi:10.1177/007327530304100201. ISSN 0073-2753. S2CID 160281821.
  59. Hyman, Anthony (1 October 1996). "Whiggism in the History of Science and the Study of the Life and Work of Charles Babbage". The Babbage Pages.
  60. Harrison, Edward (September 1987). "Whigs, prigs and historians of science". Nature. 329 (6136): 213โ€“214. doi:10.1038/329213a0. ISSN 1476-4687. S2CID 4347987.
  61. Torr, Christopher (2000). "The whig interpretation of history". South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences. 3 (1): 52โ€“58. doi:10.4102/sajems.v3i1.2598. hdl:10520/AJA10158812_263.
  62. Torr 2000, p. 57.
  63. Pinkard, Terry (2017). Does History Make Sense?. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-97880-5.
  64. Wood, Ellen Meiksins (2016). Democracy or Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism. United States: Verso Books. pp. 108โ€“181. ISBN 978-1784782443.
  65. Benjamin, Walter (1968). Illuminations (2nd ed.). United States: Mariner Books. pp. 198โ€“199. ISBN 978-1328470232.
  66. Greer, Allan (6 April 2016). "1837โ€“38: Rebellion Reconsidered". The Canadian Historical Review. 76 (1): 3. ISSN 1710-1093.
  67. Barrow, John D; Tipler, Frank J. (1986). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 9โ€“11, 135. ISBN 978-0-19-282147-8. LCCN 87028148.
  68. Hijiya, James A. (1994). "Why the West Is Lost". The William and Mary Quarterly. 51 (2): 284. doi:10.2307/2946864. ISSN 0043-5597. JSTOR 2946864.
  69. Marquand, David (2009). "'Bursting with Skeletons': Britishness after Empire". In Gamble, Andrew; Wright, Tony (eds.). Britishness: Perspectives on the British Question. John Wiley & Sons. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-4051-9269-9.
  70. Ladouceur, Ronald P. (1 September 2008). "Ella Thea Smith and the Lost History of American High School Biology Textbooks". Journal of the History of Biology. 41 (3): 435โ€“471. doi:10.1007/s10739-007-9139-3. ISSN 1573-0387. PMID 19244720. S2CID 25320197.

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio
Click here to open the "Whig History" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about whig_history while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.
Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

superior energy services
    
hatchet
    
list of recorded texas historic landmarks
    
sundance film festival
    
gaius lucilius
    
bila krynytsia chernivtsi oblast
    
television licence
    
yulin yuyang airport
    
the tales of hoffmann
    
nationalist front of mexico
    

References

References

  1.  Marwick 2001, pp.ย 77รขย€ย“78. Contra Butterfield, who mentions Acton et al negatively.
A full list of references for this article are available at the Whig history Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Academic Disclaimer

Important Notice for Learners

This content has been generated by an AI model, drawing upon publicly available data. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy and adherence to academic standards, the information is presented for educational purposes and may not encompass all nuances or recent developments in the field of historiography.

This is not a substitute for rigorous academic research or direct engagement with primary sources. Users are encouraged to consult original scholarly works and diverse perspectives to develop a comprehensive understanding of Whig history and its critiques. The AI does not provide professional historical consultation.

The creators of this page are not responsible for any interpretations or actions taken based on the information presented herein.