Links Between East and West 45 What is History 东西方的连接45 - 什么是历史

History is the rational process through which societies develop and advance closer to a state of collective peace and freedom. This definition entails some of the most fundamental questions being posed in the realm of history, namely: What form does history take? What directions, if any, do history appear to point towards? What is the ultimate goal of human history? While history throughout the ages has taken on various forms, whether it is oral history in the early days of civilization or the complex databases extant on the internet today, there are some intrinsic characteristics that have stayed fixed. These fixated characteristics can largely be attributed to the consistent belief of societies in the power of looking back into the past.

The element to first examine in this definition is the word “rational.” People essentially use it to describe phenomena or objects that are logical and can be explained by the laws of the sciences. It might be counterintuitive to hook “history,” a subject usually associated with subjectiveness, with such a word. However, a closer investigation of history shows that it demonstrates a strong rationality. History is based on human patterns – it is made up of human decisions. Human decisions, although often fickle, do possess predictable patterns in general. For example, when a rising nation confronts a dominant nation, some form of conflict is inevitable (this is the essence of the Thucydides Trap). Since history is wholly dependent on the causes and consequences of human decisions, there must be a discernable internal logic. When an empire’s economy in a mired state because of a series of human errors, it is usually logical to assume that the empire would begin to decline. There were few cases in the past two millennia when such a cause-and-effect relationship did not occur. The Romans, the Ottomans, the Spanish, or the British, and many more prosperous empires witnessed a plummet in power following a financial crisis or severe economic downturn. From this example of empires, one can see that history, due to its intertwined nature with human decisions, often takes on a rational route that can be explained with human logic.

There is a greater narrative or logic at play, though, bringing one to the second notable element in the definition of history: developing and advancing to a collective peace and freedom. There is a general direction that history is on, and the rise and fall of empires, the specific consequences of certain human choices, are only embedded pieces of logic within this direction. The actualization of freedom can be the end goal that history directs itself towards. One can trace back in time to view this point in action. In the first river civilizations that populated Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Chinese, and Indian soil, societies did not have a slightest idea of the importance of freedom; as the Classical Greeks stepped up onto the historical stage, societies began to acknowledge that the freedom of a portion of the population should be held sacredly; as the Renaissance swept across Europe and the concept of “humanism” spread, societies realized that most individuals should be free; finally, since the American Revolution and the abolishment of slavery in the nineteenth century, a vast bloc of nations have recognized the importance of protecting the right to freedom of every citizen.

This whole “journey of freedom” does not mean that no setbacks can happen. As with the example of the medieval period when feudalism dimmed the lights of Athenian democracy, societies might choose to return to a state where freedom is less recognized. However, even during the Middle Ages, there were some communities that endeavored to innovate and push forward the idea of freedom. The Vikings, from the 800s to the early 1000s, developed democratic systems of law and government that gave power to most community members. Today, even though authoritarian states still exist, almost all states acknowledge the importance of ensuring the freedom of every individual citizen. There is enough evidence to believe, that one day in the future, the world will come infinitely close to a point where freedom is the keystone of any society.

The logic behind this argument that history involves a progression towards the realization of freedom is largely connected with the developmental patterns of human states. Authoritarian states of various kinds usually perform poorly in the long run, although some such states in the past did achieve great prosperity within a short span. Authoritarianism often breaks apart due to internal discord, as the rule by fear and coercion rarely wins long-term favor. When authoritarian governments collapse, people tend to envision less centralized and more functioning alternatives. Some form of government that values freedom appears as a natural yet significant improvement over authoritarianism. An oligarchy, a republic, or even a direct democracy (which might eventually degenerate into despotism) recognize the right to freedom of some individuals. As authoritarian states repeatedly fail, people should gradually build less centralized systems that emphasize on the well-being of the citizenry.

The postulation that history converges towards freedom does not mean that ultimately societies will thrive under no laws that restrict human action. While the concept of freedom denotes a state where people’s thoughts and actions are generally fully respected, the concept means simultaneously that people will enact laws and regulations to keep human passions and violent inclinations at bay. In fact, gradually, as societies encounter increasingly significant cases of violence and states of lawlessness, they move towards what seems to be an antithesis of freedom: legislations and stronger governmental frameworks. However, the most stable society where freedom can be consistently guaranteed is in one that hails this “negative freedom.” A society that believes freedom is the right to carry out any action will eventually be despotic.

There is one final element to examine in this definition of history, “the advancement towards a collective peace.” This point is intricately linked with the goal of freedom, because peace is a collective freedom between states. When states are peaceful with each other, they are willing to respect their mutual diversity and not interfere in one another’s internal affairs, consequently giving both states the freedom to govern themselves. In a state of conflict, however, there must be a side that becomes the master over the other, resulting in the loss of collective freedom. Thus, when history progresses towards freedom, it also progresses towards an international situation where states can check the frequency of conflicts and hold sacred a peaceful resolution of disputes. As written in a previous article, this international peace may be considered in reality if nations can form a grand federation on the political, economic, and cultural levels. In this federation, states trust in each other in providing a collective security and discuss ideas to promote communication on various social aspects.

History’s goals are quite lofty. They are not meant to be realized in the near term. The actualization of freedom and the advancement to a collective peace can only be approximated towards. Any group of states that tries to implement such ideas at the current moment risks a dystopian downfall. The collapse of the League of Nations, the Cold War that emerged from World War II negotiations were just two cases in the last century that illustrate this point well. At this point, societies are still grappling to find effective ways to check the facet of human nature which allows violence and greed to run rampant. It will likely take an innumerable number of conflicts over a prolonged time span for humankind to unearth the “gem” for a long-term peace and method to preserve freedom. The intrinsic value of the goals of history is its capability to prod leaders to make more carefully considered decisions. During the past seventy years, large-scale warfare has largely been controlled due to the careful decision-making of world leaders, guided partially by the principles of international peace. There is enough reason to predict that in the future, although conflicts will not cease, humankind will keep improving on a preexisting societal or political structure to approach the goals of history.

The direction or “growth” of history, as being discussed in this essay, is almost impossible to quantify. When governments measure economic growth, there are different parameters to choose from, the most notable one being gross domestic product (“GDP”). However, it is difficult to measure the growth of culture and civilization. The most common perception of such a growth of civilization takes the matter from a purely chronological point of view. Societies began as scattered villages and clans, then progressed to develop towns and cities. Following the global rise of cities, states and empires entered the scene. This chronological perception has two deficiencies. First, it assumes that the development of the government is simply one from authoritarianism to democracy – the prehistoric clans, the earliest civilizations, the kingdoms in medieval times eventually gave way to the Enlightenment and the boom of democracy. This assumption can be untrue on the micro level. Even during the “hunters-gatherers” period, before 12,000 B.C.E., studies suggest that there was no fixed way of governing. Based on the changes in the seasons, people switched between a more laissez-faire mode and a more authoritarian way. For example, during the winter, when survival became harder, tribes likely adopted a system in which an important leader made decisions. During the summer months, when the environment was not so demanding, people arranged themselves in a freer state. In agricultural societies, people similarly altered between authoritarianism and a free state. The Enlightenment did not ensure that all states would be forever invested in the democratic ideal, as the cases of Adolf Hitler and other totalitarian leaders show.

Second, such a chronological understanding blurs the idea of “progression” itself. It assumes that history progresses always because a more advanced and “better” government or culture replaces a previous version. Progression does not necessarily entail improvement in the narrative of history. Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that people’s innate kindness was buried in the complex development of society. Some other historians, such as Yuval Noah Harari, pointed out that the hunter-gatherer society is the “originally affluent” one, and the Agricultural Revolution, although arriving as a replacement to the former society, is one of “history’s greatest frauds.” History does not have to protect the rights and happiness of individuals or necessarily witness the birth of a more advanced governmental system to progress. During the two world wars, millions of lives were lost, constituting two of the most significant atrocities in the story of humankind. However, history progressed during both wars, as with the League of Nations and the United Nations, societies aimed to approach the ultimate goals of international peace and freedom. Progression should not be tied to time – it should only be tied to the outcome of a phenomenon or event. History would have a direction as long as humankind longs to experiment and realize their visions of a balanced and sustainable world. To be continued…

历史的发展是一个理性的过程，通过这一过程，社会得以发展与进步，接近集体和平与自由的状态。这一定义提出了历史领域一些最基本的问题，即：历史是以什么形式发展的？如果有的话，历史发展是指向什么方向的？人类历史的终极目标是什么？虽然古往今来的历史有各种不同的形式，无论是文明早期的口述历史，还是今天互联网上的复杂数据库，但有一些固有的特征是人类总结下来固定不变的，这在很大程度上可归因于社会对回顾过去可以带来力量的一贯信念。

在此定义中，首先要考察的要素是 "理性 "一词，人们用它以描述那些符合逻辑、可以用科学规律解释的现象或实物。将 "历史 "这一通常与主观性联系在一起的学科与这样一词挂钩，可能会有违直觉。然而，仔细研究历史就会发现，它表现出很强的理性。历史基于人类的决策所构成的，人类的决策虽然往往善变，但总体上具有可预测的规律。例如，当一个新兴崛起的国家面对一个占传统统治地位的国家时，某种形式的冲突是不可避免的，这就是修昔底德陷阱的本质。既然历史很大程度上依赖于人类决策的前因后果，那么就必然存在可辨别的内在逻辑。当一个帝国的经济因一系列人为错误而陷入泥潭时，通常可以顺理成章地认为这将是帝国衰落的开始。在过去的两千年中，很少有不出现这种因果关系的情况。罗马人、奥斯曼人、西班牙人或英国人，以及许多更繁荣的帝国，都曾在债务危机或严重的经济衰退之后国力一落千丈。从帝国的例子中，我们可以看到，历史由于与人类的决定交织在一起，往往会走上一条可以用人类逻辑来解释的理性路线。

不过，还有一种更宏大的叙事或逻辑在起作用，这就是历史定义中第二个值得注意的要素：发展和进步，实现人类自由。历史有一个大方向，帝国的兴衰、人类某些选择的具体后果，都只是这个大方向中的逻辑片段。历史的终极目标指向个体的自由，我们可以追溯历史，在历史的进程中看到这一点。在古埃及、美索不达米亚、中国及古印度的第一批大河文明中，社会没有探索“自由”的概念；当古希腊人登上历史舞台时，社会开始认识到，一部分“自由人”的自由是神圣的； 随着文艺复兴席卷欧洲， "人文主义 "观念传播，社会认可了大多数人应该享有自由；最后，自美国独立革命与十九世纪废除奴隶制以来，保护每一位公民的自由权利成为普世的价值观。

整段 "自由之旅 "并不意味着不会发生挫折。正如中世纪封建主义使雅典民主之光黯淡的例子一样，社会可能会选择回到不认可自由的状态。然而，即使在中世纪，也有一些社会努力创新，推动自由理念的发展。从 800 年代到 1000 年代初，维京人发展了民主的法律和政府制度，将权力赋予大多数社区成员。今天，尽管专制国家依然存在，但几乎所有国家都承认确保每个公民自由的重要性。有足够的证据表明，在未来的某一天，世界将无限接近自由，这成为社会前进动力的基石。

历史是朝着实现自由的方向发展的，这一论点背后的逻辑在很大程度上与人类国家的发展模式有关。从长远来看，各种类型的专制国家通常表现不佳，尽管过去有些专制国家确实在短期内实现了繁荣。威权主义往往因内部矛盾而分崩离析，恐惧、胁迫统治很少能赢得人民的长期认同，因其不符合基本人性。当专制政府垮台，人们往往会寻求更有效的、强调公民福祉、集权程度较低的制度替代方案。与专制主义相比，重视自由的政府形式似乎是自然而然的选择。寡头政治、共和制，甚至直接民主制（虽然最终可能沦为专制主义）都是相对于专制政权更有效的制度选择。

历史趋向自由的假设并不意味着社会最终将在没有限制人类行为的法律的情况下繁荣发展。虽然自由的概念是指人们的思想和行为普遍得到充分尊重的状态，但这一概念同时也意味着人们会制定法律法规来遏制人类的激情以及暴力倾向。事实上，当社会遇到越来越多的暴力事件时，就会逐渐走向所谓自由的对立面：立法与更强大的政府框架。然而，能够持续保障自由的最稳定的社会是一个崇尚这种由法律约束的 "消极自由 "的社会。一个崇尚自由就是拥有不受限制的采取任何行动权利的社会最终将走向专制。

在这一历史定义中，还有最后一个要素需要研究，即 "向集体和平迈进"。这一点与自由的目标密不可分，因为和平是国家之间的集体自由。当国家之间和平相处时，它们愿意尊重彼此的多样性，互不干涉内政，从而给予两国自我管理的自由。然而，在冲突状态下，必然有一方成为另一方的主宰，从而导致集体自由的丧失。因此，当历史向自由迈进时，它也在向这样一种国际形势迈进，即国家可以控制冲突的频率，并将和平解决争端奉为神圣。正如前一篇文章所写，如果各国能在政治、经济和文化层面结成一个大联邦，那么这种国际和平就有可能成为现实。在这个联邦中，各国相互信任，提供集体安全，并讨论各种想法，促进社会各方面的交流。

历史的目标相当崇高。这些目标并非在短期内就能实现。自由的实现与集体和平的推进只能是一个可以近似接近的目标。任何试图在当下实现这些想法的国家集团都有可能陷入反乌托邦式的衰落。国际联盟的解体和二战谈判引发的冷战只是上个世纪的两个例子，它们很好地说明了这一点。目前，世界各方势力仍在努力寻找有效的方法来遏制人性中任由暴力和贪婪肆虐的一面。人类很可能需要在漫长的时间跨度内经历无数次冲突，才能找到长期和平的 "宝藏 "与维护自由的方法。历史目标的内在价值在于它能够促使领导人做出更加深思熟虑的决定。在过去的 70 年里，大规模战争在很大程度上得到了控制，这要归功于世界各国领导人在国际和平原则的部分指导下做出的慎重决策。我们有足够的理由预测，在未来，尽管冲突不会停止，但人类将不断改进已有的社会或政治结构，以接近历史的目标。

历史的方向或 "行进"几乎无法量化。当政府衡量经济增长时，有不同的参数可供选择，其中最显著的是国内生产总值（GDP）。然而，文化和文明的增长却很难衡量。对于文明的增长，最常见的看法是从纯粹的时间角度出发的。社会从分散的村庄和氏族开始，然后发展到城镇和城市。城市在全球崛起之后，国家和帝国也随之出现。这种按时间顺序排列的观点有两个缺陷。首先，它假定政府的发展只是从专制走向民主--史前的氏族、最早的文明、中世纪的王国最终让位于启蒙运动及民主制的繁荣。这种假设在微观层面上可能是不真实的。研究表明，即使在公元前 12000 年之前的狩猎采集时期，也没有固定的统治方式。根据季节的变化，人们在更自由放任的方式和更专制的方式之间转换。例如，在生存变得更加困难的冬季，部落很可能会采用一种由重要首领做出决策的制度。而在环境相对友好的夏季，人们则以更自由的方式安排自己的生活。在农业及之后的工业社会中，人们同样在专制和自由状态之间转换。正如阿道夫-希特勒和其他极权主义领导人的事例所表明的那样，启蒙运动并不能确保所有国家都永远致力于民主理想。

其次，这种按时间顺序排列的理解模糊了 "行进"这一概念本身。它假定历史的进步总是因为一个更先进、更 "好 "的政府或文化取代了之前的版本。在历史叙事中，行进并不一定意味着改进。让-雅克-卢梭认为，人们与生俱来的善良被埋没在复杂的社会发展中。还有一些历史学家，如尤瓦尔-诺亚-赫拉利（Yuval Noah Harari）指出，狩猎采集社会是 "最初的富裕 "社会，农业革命虽然是作为前社会的替代品而到来，但却是 "历史上最大的骗局之一"。历史的进步不一定要保护个人的权利和幸福，也不一定要见证更先进的政府制度的诞生。在两次世界大战期间，数百万人丧生，这是人类历史上最重大的两起暴行。然而，历史在两次大战中都取得了进步，就像国际联盟和联合国一样，社会旨在接近国际和平与自由的终极目标。进步不应与时间挂钩--它只应与现象或事件的结果挂钩。只要人类渴望尝试实现他们对平衡和可持续世界的愿景，历史就会有一个清晰的方向。待续...