This blog post explores whether historical facts can be explained by universal laws or must be understood solely within the specific context of each event.
Are historical facts governed by universal laws, or are they unique? This question has long been a subject of sustained interest and debate among historians. This topic extends beyond mere academic curiosity, demanding deep reflection on the fundamental methodology and epistemology of historical research. Scholars on both sides of this issue have strived to deepen and expand their respective perspectives. German historicism, which emerged in opposition to the universalist perspective of the Enlightenment on humanity and society, was a representative viewpoint asserting the particularity of historical facts.
Enlightenment thinkers believed universal laws governing the natural world also governed humans and society, and that these very laws could explain human and social phenomena. From this perspective, historical events were also seen as part of natural laws. However, this universalist approach faced criticism for potentially failing to adequately account for the complexity and multi-layered nature of human actions and social phenomena.
In contrast, historicism, which developed in opposition to this view, placed paramount importance on the unique and particular value inherent in historical facts. Events occurring historically were treated as possessing their own reasons and validity, and it was not assumed that any universal laws operated upon them. The historian’s task lay in revealing the particularity of historical facts through the investigation of historical sources. This emphasized the importance of understanding the specific context and conditions in which historical events occurred.
Since historicism, discussions on the particularity of historical facts have developed in increasingly diverse ways. Among these, some scholars who emphasize particularity to an extreme did not acknowledge any universal laws governing the entire course of history. Furthermore, they argued that generalizations about groups or eras also lack validity as historical explanations. Even if a group or era exhibits general trends or moods, explanations of them ultimately require examining the actions and consciousness of individuals. This perspective holds that when explaining historical events, simple social structures or economic factors alone are insufficient. Individual consciousness, motives, and psychological states are considered crucial elements for understanding historical events.
However, the tendency to explain the particularity of historical facts excessively through individual consciousness is sometimes criticized by opponents as psychologism. This is because while acknowledging that descriptions of social phenomena are possible when people’s actions manifest as such phenomena, it maintains that explanations of these phenomena are only possible through the psychological processes of the individuals who caused them. This perspective argues that historical events are not merely products of external environments or social conditions, but that the psychological choices and decisions of individual figures play a crucial role.
Conversely, scholars emphasizing universality view all of history as the fluctuation of a vast system. They contend that all of history follows universal laws and undergoes gradual change according to those laws. Specific historical facts are subordinate to universal laws and exist within particular stages of that change. Even individual consciousness is not an independent variable but arises from the interaction between the individual and their social conditions. Explanations of this interaction ultimately rely on universal laws. In understanding history, they contend that universal elements—such as social structures, institutions, and economic factors—drive the changes of each era.
The debate over particularity and universality is not one that can reach a definitive conclusion. No matter how skillfully universal laws are combined, they cannot yield a single historical fact. Conversely, without relying on universal laws, one cannot connect facts or explain their ultimate historical significance. In studying and understanding historical events, the issues of universality and particularity must always be considered together, and the tension between these two perspectives has been the driving force behind the development of historiography.
This debate continues today, growing ever more complex and profound as new sources and interpretations emerge. Historians continue their efforts to harmoniously integrate these two perspectives, striving to gain a deeper understanding of human society and its history.
