Causation in History

The search for causes is crucial in historical analysis. E.H. Carr argued that ‘history is first and foremost a study of causes’. It is generally considered that the historian’s role in historical research is to find out the answers to questions like What, When, How, and Why. When approaching the questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’, the application of causation becomes critical. The answer to a why-question is typically a causal statement, in which the researcher expects the answer to begin with “because…”. When studying an event, historians try to explain why a particular event or phenomenon did or did not occur. Thus the theory of causation focuses on the relation between cause and its effects. To Carr, the organisation of causes is the highest stage of historical investigation: the ‘essence of [their] interpretation’.

The term ‘cause’ is derived from the Latin word ‘Causa’ which means ‘a relation of connectedness between events’. A cause is that which produces an effect. It refers to a thing, event, or person that makes something happens. It indicates how a certain result, situation, or event happens. It is one of the factors which help to explain why a historical event took place. It is a tool useful for the performance of the historian’s task of narrating the events of the past.

Nature and Types of Cause

The causes are not specific events that occur before certain other events whose origins can then be traced back to the former. The causes are conceived as a set of conditions under which particular events take place. These conditions provide both the necessary and sufficient ground for the occurrence of certain events. Moreover, causes are generally sought to explain a phenomenon.

It is generally considered that Montesquieu laid the foundations for modern causal history. He outlined ‘general causes’ which may have been applied to other instances in history. Louis Gottschalk recognizes that historians may seek to identify long and short-term causes for events. However, the identification of ‘long’ and ‘short’ term causes is dependent on the time period being analysed by the historian. One may be able to identify long-term causes stretching back thousands of years. There are several types of causes in history such as immediate causes, principal causes, essential causes, sufficient causes, real or actual causes, general causes, secondary causes, advantageous causes, necessary causes, efficient causes, etc. Historical changes may occur as a result of multiple causes.

Causative Factors in History

From the beginning of historiography, historians tried to find out the forces behind the occurrence of historical events. The general forces attributed as the causative factors for the change and progress of historical events are discussed as follows:

Role of Divine Will

Many historians, particularly Christian historiographers attributed the causes of history to the divine will. They formulated the providential philosophy of history to explain changes in the events and historical progress. They firmly believed that the motive force of the historical events is the Divine will. They attempted to prove that history has proceeded according to a definite divine plan.  

Role of Individuals

Writers like Carlyle, Nietzsche, and Spengler consider the individual hero as the ultimate factor in historical movement. The heroes of history are the makers of the past, the present, and the future. They may serve as the force or spirit of the age. They may bring about change either through positive means or through negative ways. They may take hold of society, convert it to their conviction and decide its destiny. All great men of history have attracted the attention of their contemporaries and whose memory is preserved by historians. They have influenced the world to varying degrees.

Role of Ideas

The role of ideas in causing changes in the course of history is well recognized by historians. Human actions are external expressions of ideas. R.G. Collingwood defines history as the history of ideas because historical events cannot be separated from the historian’s mind. The variations of philosophical doctrine belong to the area of ideas. The different theories advanced to explain historical phenomena and to interpret social change centre around ideas. Several theories have given a lot of interpretative ideas of great originality which opened the eyes of historians to new thinking. The concepts of fate, karma, and divine will are philosophical ideas. Monarchy, Capitalism, Socialism, Federalism, etc. are practical ideas. Renaissance, Reformation, Cartesianism, Anti- Cartesianism, Enlightenment, Romantic Idealism, Utilitarianism, Positivism, Scientific Socialism, Historical Determinism, Free will Doctrine, Historicism, Relativism, Dialectical Materialism, etc. are nothing but an expression of ideas.

Importance of Causation in History

• The approach of causation provides an answer to one of the most important questions of historical research – ‘why’
• Helps to discover the connection between one event and the other
• Causation helps to establish a relationship between facts - without it, historians are left with a collection of unrelated facts.
• Causation links events and issues to one another, giving coherence and meaning to the past.
• Without an adequate grasp of causation, history merely becomes a collection of facts and events. It is a key to historical methodology and to all historical explanations.
• Employing a causal approach is essential in helping to better explain and understand the past.
• Causation helps to link facts and events with ideas and concepts and thereby outline generalization.

Criticism of Causation

Eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume questioned the prevailing views of causal relationships. He argued that a cause-and-effect relationship could not be proven. Hume believed that the human mind formed the causal link between the two events. But, he was reluctant to fully reject the notion of causation. The postmodern historians Hayden White and Keith Jenkins have criticised the subjective nature of causal selection and interpretation. They argued that causal explanations are not concerned with the past. They are battles between historians for the primacy of position and interpretation. Despite the fact that some historians have rejected the role of causation in historical explanation, the majority have accepted that it has an important role to play.