Vincent Coppola

12/10/2007

Writing Final

“Why [consider history]? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that… a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means… the history of the present.” In this quote, I can hear Michel Foucault describe his process of approaching historical matters. In actuality, Foucault was using this quote to answer a question posed by an imaginary person as to why he was so intrigued with punitive methodologies of the past, but his ideas can easily be applied to the approach of history as a whole. Foucault, as a 20^th century philosopher, believed that the most effective tactic to understanding history is to try to see the present as a variable that is contingent on affairs of the past. His views are contradictory to the idea that the past is dependent on the present and that history is on an inexorable path to its ultimate destination. Foucault’s theories are very popular and are applauded by many. However, I find myself disagreeing with Foucault’s ideas.

I’ve come to learn that the best way to develop an understanding of the past is to correlate its thematic examples with those of the present in order to develop a more important comprehension. Therefore, if Foucault’s question is “Why consider history?” I would answer by saying, if not for pure interest and curiosity, then I would choose to ponder the past solely to recognize historical patterns so that I could alter my present thoughts and actions. For example, in class, when I learn how the Spanish approached the Indians with immediate violence and disrespect which lead to retaliation, I will apply that situation to my life and change the ways I choose to approach new people. But on the other hand, I can also learn many positive lessons from history. I remember when I learned how Columbus couldn’t find a sponsor for his voyage in Portugal, but when he went to Spain, the king and queen agreed to sponsor his circumnavigation of the globe. I applied this lesson to my life and learned that sometimes, by making risky investments, it can pay off big time. Spain did, in fact, control the majority of the western world for an extended period of time.

If I had instead chosen to agree with Foucault’s statements, I would no longer be able to pick a present theme and trace it through history. I would not be able to think to myself, “Okay, so wars are generally initiated by the dissatisfaction of one side over the other… How can I piece apart the Revolutionary War to shed some light on my theory?” This type of thinking would be evaluating “a history of the past in terms of the present.” Foucault only considered the past for the purpose of discovering the history of the present. Not only is this pointless, it also doesn’t utilize the full potential of evaluating history.

Essentially, there are two main reasons why we evaluate and analyze the past. The first is for entertainment. Many people find a grand amount of intrigue and interest in historical accounts. The second is for the purpose of changing the present. I believe that this is the only true use for history and it is the very thing that contributes the most to the continuity of our society. I believe that if we didn’t analyze the past to learn how we must change, our world would be very different today; full of a plethora of duplicated mistakes from the past.

This entry was posted by vincentcoppola, on Monday, December 10, 2007. You can leave your response.