This article addresses the debate among historians about whether historical facts can be explained by universal laws or whether each event is unique and must be understood individually.
Are historical facts governed by universal laws or are they particular? This question has long been a subject of ongoing interest and debate among historians. More than just a matter of academic curiosity, it has become an issue that requires deep consideration of the fundamental methodology and epistemology of historical research. Scholars on both sides of the issue have sought to deepen and expand their perspectives.
German historicism, which emerged in reaction to the Enlightenment’s universalist view of man and society, was a prominent perspective that insisted on the particularity of historical facts. Enlightenment thinkers believed that the universal laws that govern the natural world also govern human beings and societies, and that these same laws can explain human beings and societies. From this perspective, even historical events could be understood as part of natural laws. However, this universalist approach has been criticized for failing to account for the complexity and multilayered nature of human behavior and social phenomena.
In response to this view, historicism developed, which emphasized the unique and particular value of historical facts. Historical events were treated as having their own reasons and validity, and no universal laws were assumed to govern them. The historian’s task was to reveal the specificity of historical facts through historical research. This emphasized the importance of understanding the specific context and conditions under which historical events occurred.
Since historicism, the debate about the specificity of historical facts has evolved into a variety of different positions. Some scholars who emphasize specificity to the extreme have refused to recognize universal laws that govern history as a whole. Furthermore, they have argued that generalizations about groups or eras are not valid as historical explanations. Even if a group or era has general trends, moods, and so on, it is only by looking at the behavior and consciousness of individuals that we can explain them. In this view, mere social structure or economic factors are not enough to explain historical events. The consciousness and motivations of individuals and their psychological states are considered important factors in understanding historical events.
However, the tendency to rely on individual consciousness to explain the specificity of historical facts has been criticized by its opponents as psychologism. This is because it acknowledges that when people’s behavior manifests as a social phenomenon, it is possible to explain the social phenomenon, but it is only possible to explain the phenomenon through the psychological workings of the individual who caused it. This perspective argues that historical events are not simply the product of external circumstances or social conditions, but rather the psychological choices and decisions of individual people.
Scholars who emphasize universality, on the other hand, see history as a series of fluctuations in a larger system. History as a whole is subject to universal laws and fluctuates in stages according to those laws. Specific historical facts are subordinate to universal laws and are at a particular stage of fluctuation. The consciousness of the individual is also not an independent variable, but arises from the interaction of the individual with the social conditions of which he is a part. The explanation of that interaction is in turn dependent on universal laws. In their understanding of history, universal factors, such as social structures and institutions and economic factors, drive the changes of each era.
The debate about particularity and universality is not a conclusive one. No matter how cleverly you combine universal laws, you can’t get a single historical fact. On the contrary, it is impossible to connect facts or explain their ultimate historical meaning without relying on universal laws. In the study and understanding of 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 is still ongoing today, adding to its complexity and depth as new sources and interpretations emerge. As historians continue to attempt to reconcile these two perspectives, they continue to strive for a deeper understanding of human society and its history.
