Knowledge and Language: History, the Humanities, the Sciences

Knowledge is not, as Marxisant post‐modernists insist, mere ideology or expression of bourgeois power. The high standards enjoyed in the developed countries are fundamentally due to the expansion in human knowledge over the centuries. Decent living conditions, freedom and empowerment for the deprived millions everywhere depend upon the continuing expansion, and, above all, diffusion of knowledge. History is but one domain of knowledge among many, with its own autonomous methods and principles; though very different in detail, these are in spirit similar to those governing the natural sciences. There is a fundamental distinction between the domains of knowledge and the creative arts. ‘Language’ has a number of significations. In the most fundamental one, it is a human faculty which enables us to communicate, but which raises many problems for historians; none the less language does not control us: we can control language. Usages in foreign languages can often be revealing, while scientists have to master a special language, mathematics. Historians should be aware of other disciplines, and ready to borrow from them. There are many fascinating interdisciplinary problems to which historians can contribute, but these do not call for abstruse cultural theory; what they do call for is an extra‐cool application of historical methodology. A case in point is that of the possible relationship between total war and the arts. Does total war affect artistic language or just content and philosophy?