Changes

Why is the flourishing genre of ‘what if?’ <i>What Might Have Been: [[historiesImaginary]] the preserve of [[conservative]] [[historians]]? History from 12 Leading Historians</i> The introduction to such volumes typically begins with an attack on [[Marxists]], who allegedly believe in [[historical determinism]]ed. Take this latest instalment, edited by Andrew Roberts, who has himself contributed an essay on the bright prospects that would have faced [[Russia]] in the 20th century had [[Lenin]] been shot on arriving at the Finland Station. One of Roberts’s arguments in favour of this kind of history is that ‘anything that has been condemned by Carr, Thompson and Hobsbawm must have something to recommend it.’ He believes that the ideals of [[liberté]], [[égalité]], [[fraternité]] ‘have time and again been shown to be completely mutually exclusive’. ‘If,’ he continues, ‘we accept that there is no such thing as historical inevitability and that nothing is preordained, political lethargy – one of the scourges of our day – should be banished, since it means that in human affairs anything is possible.’

This Why is the flourishing genre of ‘what if?’ [[empiricallyhistories]] not the case. Roberts ignores the central preserve of [[ideologicalconservative]] [[paradoxhistorians]] of ? The introduction to such volumes typically begins with an attack on [[modernMarxists]] , who allegedly believe in [[historyhistorical determinism]]. Take this latest instalment, as formulated edited by Andrew Roberts, who has himself contributed an essay on the bright prospects that would have faced [[Max WeberRussia]] in <em>the 20th century had [[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of CapitalismLenin]]been shot on arriving at the Finland Station.</em> In contrast One of Roberts’s arguments in favour of this kind of history is that ‘anything that has been condemned by Carr, Thompson and Hobsbawm must have something to recommend it.’ He believes that the ideals of [[Catholicismliberté]], which conceived of human redemption as being dependent on good deeds, [[Protestantismégalité]] insisted on , [[predestinationfraternité]]: why then did ‘have [[Protestantismtime]] function as the and again been shown to be completely mutually exclusive’. ‘If,’ he continues, ‘we accept that there is no such [[ideologything]] of early as historical inevitability and that [[capitalismnothing]]? Why did is preordained, [[peoplepolitical]]’s lethargy – one of the scourges of our day – should be banished, since it means that in [[beliefhuman]] that their redemption had been decided in advance not only not lead to lethargy, but sustain the most powerful mobilisation of human resources ever experienced?affairs anything is possible.’

The This is [[conservativeempirically]] sympathies of not the ‘what if?’ volumes become clear as soon as you look at their contents pages[[case]]. The topics tend to concern how much better history would have been if some revolutionary or ‘radical’ event had been avoided (if Charles I had won Roberts ignores the Civil War; if the English had won the war against the American colonies; if the Confederacy had won the American Civil War; if Germany had won the Great War) or, less often, how much worse central [[ideological]] [[paradox]] of [[modern]] [[history would have been if it had taken a more progressive turn. There are two examples of the latter in Roberts’s volume: had Thatcher been killed in the Brighton bombing of 1984; had Gore been president on 9/11 (in this last essay]], written as formulated by the neo-con David Frum, any pretence to serious history is abandoned [[Max Weber]] in favour of political propaganda masked as satire). No wonder Roberts refers approvingly to Kingsley Amis’s novel <em>Russian Hide-[[The Protestant Ethic and-Seekthe Spirit of Capitalism]].</em> In contrast to [[Catholicism]], which is set conceived of human redemption as [[being]] dependent on [[good]] deeds, [[Protestantism]] insisted on [[predestination]]: why then did [[Protestantism]] function as the [[ideology]] of early [[capitalism]]? Why did [[people]]’s [[belief]] that their redemption had been decided in a Soviet-occupied Britain.advance not only not lead to lethargy, but sustain the most powerful mobilisation of human resources ever experienced?

So what should the The [[Marxistconservative]]’s answer besympathies of the ‘what if? Definitely not to rehash ’ volumes become clear as soon as you look at their [[Georgi Plekhanovcontents]]’s dreary thoughts about the ‘pages. The topics tend to concern how much better history would have been if some revolutionary or ‘radical’ [[role of the individual in historyevent]]’ had been avoided (if Charles I had won the Civil War; if the [[NapoleonEnglish]] never been bornhad won the war against the American colonies; if the Confederacy had won the American Civil War; if Germany had won the Great War) or, less often, someone else how much worse history would have been if it had to play taken a similar rolemore progressive turn. There are two examples of the latter in Roberts’s volume: had Thatcher been killed in the Brighton bombing of 1984; had Gore been president on 9/11 (in this last essay, because written by the deeper [[historical necessity]] called for a passage neo-con David Frum, any pretence to [[Bonapartism]]serious history is abandoned in favour of political propaganda masked as satire). I would rather question the premise that [[Marxist]]s (No wonder Roberts refers approvingly to Kingsley Amis’s novel <em>Russian Hide-and [[left]]ists -Seek</em>, which is set in general) are dumb a Soviet-occupied [[deterministBritain]]s who can’t entertain alternative scenarios.

The first thing to note is that ‘what if?’ So what should the [[historyMarxist]] is part of a more general trend, one which takes issue with linear [[narrative]] and sees life as a multiform flow. ’s answer be? The ‘hard’ Definitely not to rehash [[scienceGeorgi Plekhanov]]s seem to be haunted by the randomness of life and possible alternative versions of ’s dreary [[realitythoughts]]: as [[Stephen Jay Gouldabout]] put it, ‘wind back the ‘[[film]] role of life and play it again. The [[the individual in history]] of [[evolution]] will be totally different.’ This (had [[perceptionNapoleon]] of our never been [[realityborn]] as only one of the possible outcomes of an ‘open’ situation, the notion that other possible outcomes continue someone else would have had to haunt our ‘true’ play a similar [[realityrole]], conferring on it an extreme fragility and because the deeper [[contingencyhistorical necessity]], is by no means alien called for a passage to [[MarxismBonapartism]]). Indeed, the felt urgency of I would rather question the premise that [[Marxist]]s (and [[revolutionleft]]ary ists in general) are dumb [[actdeterminist]] relies on its who can’t entertain alternative scenarios.

Since the non-occurrence of the The first thing to note is that ‘what if?’ [[October Revolutionhistory]] is part of a favourite topic of ‘what if?’ historiansmore general trend, it’s worth looking at how one which takes issue with linear [[Leninnarrative]] himself related to counterfactuality. He was as far as he could be from any reliance on ‘and sees [[historical necessitylife]]’as a multiform flow. On the contrary, it was his The ‘hard’ [[Menshevikscience]] opponents who emphasised s seem to be haunted by the [[impossibility]] randomness of omitting one life and possible alternative versions of the stages prescribed by [[historical determinismreality]]: first as [[bourgeoisStephen Jay Gould]]-put it, ‘wind back the [[democraticfilm]], then of life and play it again. The [[proletarianhistory]] of [[revolutionevolution]]will be totally different. ’ When, in his ‘This [[April Thesesperception]]’ of 1917, our [[Leninreality]] claimed that this was as only one of the <em>possible outcomes of an ‘open’ [[Augenblicksituation]]</em>, the unique opportunity [[notion]] that other possible outcomes continue to start a haunt our ‘true’ [[reality]], conferring on it an extreme fragility and [[revolutioncontingency]], his proposal was at first met with stupefaction or contempt is by a large majority of his party colleaguesno means [[alien]] to [[Marxism]]. But he had understood that Indeed, the opportunity was provided by a unique combination felt urgency of circumstances: if the moment wasn’t seized, the chance would be forfeited, perhaps for decades. [[Leninrevolution]] was entertaining an alternative scenario: what if we don’t act now? It was precisely his awareness of the catastrophic consequences of not acting that impelled him to ary [[act]] relies on it.

There is a much deeper commitment to alternative histories in Since the non-occurrence of the radical [[MarxistOctober Revolution]] view. For is a radical Marxistfavourite topic of ‘what if?’ historians, the actual it’s worth [[historylooking]] that we live is itself the realisation of an alternative history: we have to live in it because, in the past, we failed to seize the moment. In an outstanding reading of at how [[Walter BenjaminLenin]]’s himself related to counterfactuality. He was as far as he could be from any reliance on ‘[[Theses on the Philosophy of Historyhistorical necessity]]’ (which . On the contrary, it was his [[BenjaminMenshevik]] never published), opponents who emphasised the [[Eric Santnerimpossibility]] elaborated of omitting one of the notion that a present [[revolutionstages]]ary intervention prescribed by [[repeatshistorical determinism]]/redeems failed attempts in the past. These attempts count as ‘: first [[symptombourgeois]]s’, and can be retroactively redeemed through the ‘-[[miracledemocratic]]’ of the , then [[revolutionaryproletarian]] [[actrevolution]]. They are ‘not so much forgotten deedsWhen, in his ‘[[April Theses]]’ of 1917, but rather forgotten [[Lenin]] claimed that this was the <em>[[failuresAugenblick]]</em> , the unique opportunity to actstart a [[revolution]], failures to <em>his proposal was at first met with stupefaction or contempt by a large majority of his party colleagues. But he had [[suspendunderstood]]</em> that the force of social bonds inhibiting acts opportunity was provided by a unique combination of circumstances: if the [[solidaritymoment]] with wasn’t seized, the [[societychance]]’s “would be forfeited, perhaps for decades. [[otherLenin]]s”’was entertaining an alternative scenario:what if we don’t act now? It was precisely his [[awareness]] of the catastrophic consequences of not acting that impelled him to act.

<blockquote>There is a much deeper commitment to alternative histories in the radical [[SymptomMarxist]]s register not only past view. For a radical Marxist, the actual [[failedhistory]] that we live is itself the realisation of an alternative history: we have to live in it because, in the [[revolutionarypast]] attempts but, more modestly, past <em>failures we failed to respond</em> to calls for action or even for empathy seize the moment. In an outstanding [[reading]] of [[Walter Benjamin]]’s ‘[[Theses on behalf of those whose suffering in some sense belongs to the form of life Philosophy of History]]’ (which one is [[Benjamin]] never published), [[Eric Santner]] elaborated the notion that a part[[present]] [[revolution]]ary [[intervention]] [[repeats]]/redeems failed attempts in the past. They hold These attempts count as ‘[[symptom]]s’, and can be [[retroactively]] redeemed through the place ‘[[miracle]]’ of something that is the [[revolutionary]] [[act]]. They are ‘not so much forgotten deeds, but rather forgotten <em>there[[failures]]</em>to act, that failures to <em>insists[[suspend]]</em> in our life, though it has never achieved full ontological consistency. Symptoms are thus in some sense the virtual archives force of [[social]] bonds inhibiting [[acts]] of voids – or, perhaps better, defences against voids – that persist in historical experience.</blockquote>[[solidarity]] with [[society]]’s “[[other]]s”’:

<blockquote>[[Symptom]]s [[register]] not only past [[failed]] [[revolutionary]] attempts but, more modestly, past <em>failures to respond</em> to calls for [[action]] or even for [[empathy]] on behalf of those whose [[suffering]] in some [[sense]] belongs to the [[form]] of life of which one is a part. They hold the [[place]] of something that is <em>there</em>, that <em>insists</em> in our life, though it has never achieved [[full]] [[ontological]] consistency. [[Symptoms]] are thus in some sense the virtual archives of voids – or, perhaps better, defences against voids – that persist in historical [[experience]].</blockquote> For [[Santner]], these [[symptom]]s can also take the form of perturbations of ‘normal’ social life: [[participation]], for example, in the [[obscene]] [[ritual]]s of a reigning [[ideology]]. In this way of [[thinking]], [[Kristallnacht]] – a half-organised, half-spontaneous [[outburst ]] of [[violent]] attacks on homes, synagogues, businesses and individuals – becomes a [[Bakhtin]]ian [[carnival]], a [[symptom]] whose fury and [[violence]] revealed it as an attempt at ‘[[defence-formation]]’, a covering up of a previous failure to intervene effectively in [[Germany]]’s social crisis. In other [[words]], the very [[violence]] of the [[pogrom]]s was proof of the possibility of an authentic [[proletarian]] [[revolution]], its excessive [[energy ]] marking the reaction to an ([[unconscious]]) awareness of the missed opportunity. And is not the ultimate source of [[Ostalgie]] ([[nostalgia]] for the [[Communist]] past) among many intellectuals (and ordinary people) from the defunct [[German Democratic Republic]] also a longing not so much for the [[Communist]] past, but rather for what that past might have been, for the missed opportunity of creating an alternative [[Germany]]?

The ‘what if?’ [[dimension ]] goes to the core of the [[Marxist]] [[revolutionary]] [[project]]. In his ironic comments on the [[French Revolution]], [[Marx]] opposed revolutionary enthusiasm and the sobering ‘[[morning after]]’: the actual outcome of the [[sublime]] revolutionary explosion which promised [[liberté]], [[égalité]], [[fraternité]] is the miserable [[utilitarian]]/[[egotistical]] [[universe ]] of [[market]] calculation. (This gap was even wider in the case of the [[October Revolution]].) [[Marx]]’s point, however, is not the commonsensical one, that the vulgar [[reality]] of commerce turns out to be the ‘[[truth]] of the theatre of revolutionary enthusiasm’ – what all the fuss was about. In the revolutionary explosion, [[another ]] [[utopian]] dimension shines through, that of [[universal emancipation]], which is in fact the ‘[[excess]]’ betrayed by the [[market]] [[reality]] that takes over on the [[morning after]]. This [[excess]] is not simply abolished or dismissed as irrelevant, but is, as it were, transposed into the [[virtual]] [[state]], as a [[dream]] waiting to be realised.

* [[Lenin Shot at Finland Station]]. ''[[London ]] Review of Books''. Volume 27. [[Number ]] 16. August 18, 2005. <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n16/zize01_.html>. Also listed on ''[[Lacan]].com''. <http://www.lacan.com/zizekfinland.htm>.  [[Category:Ideology]][[Category:Culture]][[Category:Politics]][[Category:History]][[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:Works]]