Ged Martin

Can we truly know history? Better yet, can we truly understand history? Most scholars would acknowledge that we cannot know history, as the past is not completely knowable. But most would say, with varying degrees of certitude, that we can understand history. History is understandable, at least in the sense that we can discover trends in history. We can retrospectively see how events play out or how individuals influence the course of events. At least, we think we can do these things.
Ged Martin, a historian and former professor of Canadian Studies at the University of Edinburgh, believes it is far more complicated than that. In order to understand history, Martin advocates analyzing the decisions that people make. By looking at past decisions, and locating those decisions within the context of their time, we can begin to make sense of history (4). The key to this analysis is the concept of past futures: the future or possible futures that could result from decisions made by historical actors, based on their perception of what those futures could be (111).
But it is not enough to simply examine past decisions. Our examination of these decisions may lead us to attempt to rationalize or evaluate the decision. Martin warns against this; to attempt this is to depend upon evidence that may not exist or, worse, may be misleading (29-30). The most that we can do, as historians, is to attempt to ascertain 'why when' rather than 'why'. It may not be possible or even worthwhile to determine why a decision is made; however, it may give us greater insight into the past if we can locate the decision within its own time and determine why the decision was made when it was made.
Along the way, Martin fleshes out his concept with extended discussions concerning the difficulties of the past: what is a 'long time' in history? Can we make ethical judgments of past decisions and individuals? These discussions are long and tedious. The language is often confusing and obtuse, long and wordy. The examples that are supposed to illustrate and make clear the arguments are drawn from (apparently) the most obscure events in Canadian history the author could find. (While it must be acknowledged that this book began as a series of lectures at a Canadian university, presumably Martin intended this book to serve a wider audience than just Canadian students.) It is possible to answer these two questions in a few sentences, instead of the chapters that Martin devotes to 'clarifying' the issue: it depends. A 'long time' in history can depend on what subject one is studying; whether or not one can make ethical judgments depends on whether it has been a 'long time' since those events took place and how far away their moral sensibilities are from our own (183; 253).
In the context of this discussion, Martin introduces his idea of significance, an idea that validates the study of history, as he understands it. While examining decisions—plotting them within their own time—we can understand some of the why of history; we can make sense of the past—the what of history—by assessing the importance of persons and events. By locating an event in time, we can assess its significance—its importance and relevance to history (190-191). While Martin declines to do so, the layman would probably describe his concept as identifying 'turning points' in history (190), those events whose significance eliminates all other possible past futures.
While the actual practice of history (archival research, etc.) would not change under Martin's paradigm, the intellectual thought processes might undergo significant alteration. Instead of seeking explanations of why things occurred, or seeking to make predictions, or trying to establish causal links between two different events, historians would seek a better understanding of why decisions were made at the time they were made. While the whole past is unknowable, individual situations and events can be assigned significance. For example, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is probably more significant than the fact that I ate breakfast yesterday; we cannot be certain, though, as not enough time has passed between the present and the latter event.
Martin has some bold ideas for history and the pursuit of history. The idea of past futures is intriguing and well thought out. But its baggage often outweighs the strengths of the book. Each point of the book is overburdened with examples drawn from the obscurest depths of Canadian history; Martin sometimes mentions just last names of past Canadian persons, and the reader is left to wonder who he is talking about. While the language of the book is mostly accessible, it often sinks under the weight of its own verbosity. Despite its weaknesses, Past Futures is a worthy addition to the debate over the practice of history.… (meer)