History: A Story of Progress?

After attending a History taster course at SOAS recently, the lecturer, Angus Lockyer, raised the question that is an incredibly common question for those studying history to ask. Is History a story of progress? My opinion? No.

Those who see history as a story of progress can be seen as 'whiggish.' The term 'whiggish' or 'whig' comes from those in Britain that had supported a move away from the power of the monarchy  to the power of parliament and constitutional monarchy. They saw that an achievement of constitutional monarchy allowed British subjects political liberties and so therefore it was progress. However this is easily questioned. Why is parliamentary democracy seen as progress? For a whig to see this as progress is merely an assumption. The term 'whig' refers now to those who jump to the idea of constant progress in history. What we first need to ask ourselves is this, what do we mean by progress?

The definition of progress is "forward or onward movement towards a destination or goal." So to say History is a story of progress implies that there is a certain goal that humanity needs to reach by progressing.  There are certain ideals that most people see as progress, such as equality, freedom, advances in socio-economic statuses and technology. All this should be progress, however it is undeniable that the idea of progress is very much subjective. For example, extremist islamists may see progress as spreading Shari'ah law to other parts of the globe. Of course for most parts of the globe, this would be regression, as it would be a turn back on the positive change that has been made in society such as women suffrage in the world. Therefore, although there are ideas of what is progress that are ideal for all of society, the definition of progress is quite subjective and therefore the question cannot be answered identically for all. Progress in one persons view may not be progress for another.

Thomas MacCauley, writer of A History of England, adopts a rather whiggish view of History. MacCauley says that "the national wealth, during at least six centuries, [has] been almost uninterruptedly increasing" and we have "been exempt from evils which have elsewhere impeded the efforts." MacCauley takes this to be progress. He identifies the idea of progressive change throughout history that begins at the signing of the Magna Carta and the Revolution of 1688. Both of these movements reduced the power of the kings somewhat. He sees that the changes that have occurred in Britain in its history have mostly had a positive affect on Britain's progress. However, a huge flaw in MacCauley's argument is that he focuses on the history of Britain. A parallel idea of progressive change cannot be seen all over the world. For instance Burma, after it was annexed by the British actually saw what can be deemed as a regression in 1885. Removal of it's monarch, Thibaw, can be said to have destroyed the countries rice industries and  created political disarray that is still partly present today. Reduction of the power of a monarch in the case of Burma did not create any progress for Burma, against whiggish beliefs. Therefore it is difficult to say that history is a story of progress as this quite obviously does not wholly apply.

On account of what has been discussed, I hold the view that History is not a story of progress. Yes, positive change can be seen throughout the world, changes that should be seen as progress, such as the abolition of the slave trade. However the idea of progress is not universally held, that for many history is not a story of progress. Also, progress can be seen in the history of countries such as Britain, however the same idea cannot be said for other countries, such as Burma, that appear to have regressed over the years (if an assumption of the idea of progress is to be made.)If a jump to the facts is made, History is a story of progress. But if History is correctly analysed, as a whole, it is not a story of progress.