History / Humanties

Humanities: Way to look at History - concepts of understanding - intangible ideas

History: What to look at in past - what exists - tangible reality

Sandeep Sir and myself often seem concerned about the disparity in students' minds about learning humanities/history. Whenever one asks him about humanities, he gives such a crisp, to the point answer, that one feels like recording it. The precision with which he speaks, I think, is a matter of age and experience.

But we discussed today that students don't connect to humanities, because they are often searching for an image to relate to, while humanities deals only with concepts of understanding history. This is complex, unless one is interested really in history. But in the western world, there is rigorous training in humanities and hence, it has been able to produce critical thinkers.

What students must understand is that history is not to be just mugged up and learnt for exams, but they are steps on which you stand and trace where we have reached. It's a measure of change. And humanities helps in understanding the relevance of change.

I used to dread history in school. But I never imagined that I would love history so much once I grew up, and also teach history and even wish to study history ahead. Perhaps it was my teacher who was responsible for my low interest in school, however, the point is that we are never taught (rather the teachers themselves don't know most of the times) why are they teaching, or why are we learning or even knowing history. If the agenda of teaching history is clear, then half the battle is won.

For some time, I have been thinking for which professions would history be more important? Some of them that I thought were the lawyers and the doctors. Laws are just historical acts. A decision passed by the Supreme court assumes the status of law. Thus, lawyers keep cross referencing 'historical ' cases to bring up new decisions (now that is completely humanities) - the ethics and morals of decision making. On the other hand, my family doctor keeps a record of 'patient history'. So he has all my records since I first visited him. Every time he checks me for any ailment, he speculates my body performance. After a few permutations and combinations, he arrives at what disease or ailment I must be suffering from and then suggests appropriate medication. his medication works fantastically.

So I wonder if one was to take all his 'history' case papers and read the history of 'disease' in the city, it would definitely show interesting patterns against the parameters of seasons, ages, genders, etc. One could do a whole thesis on the 'Health of the city' in the past 40 years. But similarly, history is important in all other professions. The key is to identify 'gaps' in thinking and build new bridges with existing or developed knowledge to break new grounds.

Architectural history is tricky, but at least in the west, there has been a tremendous use of history for basing architecture. Our inability to handle or even trying to deal with history (due to or overemphasis on culture and belief in the acts of the past) doesn't allow us to boldly question our past. The past has to be questioned to be able to step into 'a' direction in the future. Thus the past orients us to our future. Therefore history is important, and this direction is understood in the way we see our history. This is where arrives humanities. Humanities offers an arrowhead to history in a specific direction towards future. In other cases either we accept the same direction or we are direction less. Conceptually, in either case, we are aimless.

another aspect associated with history is recording it or passing it on. Most primary method of doing this is writing. And hence the second concern that arises is the lack of communication in writing. Within writing, two major problems that we face are: handling language and translation of language. Simply put, the language of expression and the language of thinking. Recently I have seen that students who have been trained in vernacular mediums express tremendously well in their own language, and are evidently weak when writing in English. The second category of students are those who have studied in English and still translate from their mother tongue to English (basically where the thinking language is different than the expression language). The last ones are those who think in English. The problem is the keeping the rigidity of expression language constricted to English. If we remove the barrier of this expression language to be english, half the battle will be won. Then a collaborative environment could be set up for translating texts in class. the problem with the second group of people is their unjustified comfort zone with their expression language. That is something that has to be broken, and can only be tackled if the student wishes to agree that there can be more richness to language of expression. The third ones are almost ready and need to understand the structure of language to be able to exactly communicate what they want. They have to work on using the right words, which convey the right sentiment and expression.

Anyway, I didnt mean to give a lecture here, but as I see and list these factors down, perhaps I will be able to tackle these three student groups in appropriate manner with history, humanities and its recording...