Hartog, Historicity and Heritage

Patrick Wright’s book ‘On Living in an Old Country’ which examines the way we percieve and look at history today is interesting indeed. While reading it this morning I came across his reference to a French Historian named Francois Hartog. Francois attempted to explain the different ways in which we attempt to connect to history across different periods. He called these ‘regimes of historicity.’ An interesting term. It made me ponder over the way we relate to and deal with history in different eras and how history is never just the past but our interaction and reaction to the past in the present.

During the 19th century, at the height of Imperialism, History was looked at for inspiration for the future. After all it was the memory of the great works of antiquity – the marvelous intellectual and administrative achievements of the Greeks and Romans that inspired the Renaissance and from there modern science and the Enlightenment.

History then was looked at for inspiration as a long linear line of progress. The White Man’s Burden, his civilizing mission. His ‘Historical’ mission to save the world by ushering into it modern scientific thought.

History was of the monument – Monuments were there to inspire the present towards a golden future. Statues of Plato, Artistotle, Socrates, Newton, Nelson or Wren were inpirational. They embodied the virtues needed for the onward march of western progress.

Then came communism and the Marxist simplification of History as an eternal bipolar class struggle. Suddenly History was to be re-written. Most of the achievements that Enlightened Europe looked up to were to be condemned as either feudal, capitalist, monarchist or bourgeoise. In fact history was only to be looked at with disgust as a series of mistakes and abominable cruelty not to repeated as the Communist state took its masses to a classless utopia.

Then came post-colonialism and the sudden freeing of colonies. History again came into play differently. It affected the formerly colonised and the erstwhile colonisers differently. And in fact both showed a bipolar disorder in their view of history.

The former colonies rediscovered a series of national heroes from the past whom they enshrined in monuments for present inspiration. India’s new emblem was the famed Ashokan pillar, streets were named after natonalist heroes and legends of the past. Cities were renamed to their earlier pre-British titles – Madras became Chennai, The Hyderabad state became Andhra Pradesh, the place of the Andhra peoples as Madras presidency became the place of the Tamils. But it was bipolar - at the same time they also wanted to remove a lot of the embarassingly backward memories of the country's history - caste discrimination, superstitions, customs like Sati or in China footbinding - and look more to the future then to the past. Nehru looked at the gigantic steel plants and heavy industry as the Temples of a new India. This India as an India of the future not the past.

The former colonialists had a similar bipolar view. They looked back with pride, sadness and nostalgia at their glorious imperial years when they ruled the world and brought civilisation to millions. While, at the same time, running away from it as a period of mass exploitation, a misconcieved linear idea of progress, the horrors of imperialist greed and jingoism that brought about two World Wars. Bipolar disorder again.

40-50 years ago writes Hartog - a monument of the past was put up to inspire the future. There were three utopias people were looking at – the European and American powers were looking at a liberal, democratic, modern post-colonial world order. The Communists were looking towards their classless Marxist utopia and former colonies were looking the the birth and growth of their brand new nations into the new global powers. What an exciting time for the ‘future’.

Recently Hartog says – the world’s new ‘regime of Historicity’ is pure ‘presentism’. The memorial has replaced the monument, heritage has replaced history. History is not an inspiration for the future anymore. Everything has changed. History is purely to be enjoyed the way a film, a cricket match, a circus or a TV serial is enjoyed. Purely for the joy it gives in the ‘present’. There is nothing deeper to it. With this replacement of ‘history’ by so called ’heritage’ History has become big business. A 'Heritage' industry. It’s a multi-billion dollar tourism industry of 17day/16 night whistle-stop tours of historical sites. Purely to be enjoyed in the present and then forgoteen about.

Hartog says history now is no more about the future – about inspiration for the future – about a context for the future, but purely like the latest Hollywood blockbuster. Enjoy it for 2 hours and then go home, sleep and back to work tomorrow.

Presentism and Heritage have replaced the Past and History. And as the past ceases to inpire but only to entertain - does that mean we have nothing more to look ahead to apart from the fun of the 'now'?