Is There a Future for History ? On the Need for a Philosophy of History and Historiography

Within the philosophy of history the main focus has been on problems regarding the ideal typical division between the sciences and the humanities. However speculation on ideal forms risks neglecting the epistemic problems regarding historical research, writing history and education. Therefore the philosophy of history needs a new dimension by supplementing it with a line of thinking Harry Jansen would like to call the philosophy of history and historiography, in short phh. Very much like the painter Velazquez, who in his Las Meninas invites people to look into the mirror and see themselves as rulers, Harry Jansen wants to invite historians to look into the mirror of historiography and see themselves as users of epistemic tools. This requires the historian to view historical interpretations from a comparative perspective. Historical texts not only inform us about the past, they can also be seen as providing insights into the intellectual operation of historical production. These insights show not only the richness of historiography but above all they provide the historian with the theoretical tools with which that richness can be acquired.

Lughod and Robert Kaplan, historians might consider for example dividing history into three periods -before, during and after European hegemony -, though there are other options. 3 Issues concerning periodisation call for the study of temporality, a philosophical field riddled with pitfalls that have almost defeated a whole range of philosophers from Aristotle to Heidegger. Temporal problems are linked to other philosophical problems relating to research, explanation and representation. The problem, for instance, whether the Renaissance is the last flicker of a civilization in decline or the dawn of Modern Times questions the issue of continuity and discontinuity.
Other questions also come to the fore when we rethink the ins and outs of the discipline of history with an eye to the changing world of the twenty-first century. Understanding other civilizations does not only require knowledge, but also empathy and imagination regarding different cultures.
Jorn Rüsen has made an important remark in this respect: Historians should explicate and reflect their own historical perspectives and concepts of interpretation. They should confront them in a systematic way with the perspectives and concepts of interpretation that are a part of those traditions and cultures with which they are dealing. This mutual checking is more than a comparison: it introduces elements of methodologically rationalized empathy (italics hj) into the work of the historian, and empathy is a necessary condition for recognition. 4 All of the above issues belong firmly to the field of the philosophy of history, but it is unfortunate that traditional philosophers of history do not really take them into account. Until now the main focus within the philosophy of history has been on problems regarding the ideal-typical division between the sciences and the humanities. From Wilhelm Dilthey to Frank Ankersmit there is a solid disposition to maintain that division. 5 In that tradition history is usually seen 1 I would like to thank the members of the is there a future for history? jansen as belonging to the humanities, although from the beginning of the twentieth century a trend to defend a more 'scientific' ideal type of the discipline is discernible.
As a consequence of this tendency towards ideal-typification three theories of justification came into being in the philosophy of history, to However speculation on ideal forms risks neglecting the problems mentioned above regarding historical research, writing history and education.
Although historians pay a great deal of attention to methodological and historiographical difficulties, they tend to ignore epistemic problems, as a result of which the consequences of a hermeneutic, post-positivistic or a post-structuralistic approach in historiography remain obfuscated. Both historians and representatives of the prevailing philosophy of history lack the instruments to reveal the historiographical rationalities pertaining to the three philosophical approaches. Therefore the philosophy of history needs to be supplemented by a line of thinking I would like to call the philosophy of history and historiography, in short phh.
A phh-approach aims at investigating the different rationalities in history writing and provides the tools to do so. As such it supplements speculation about the ideal historical explanation and makes the philosophy of history more historiographical and historiography more historicophilosophical. In 1971 the Hungarian philosopher of science, Imre Lakatos initiated a rapprochement between history and the philosophy of science.
Paraphrasing Kant, he commented pithily: 'Philosophy of science without history of science is empty; history of science without philosophy of science is blind'. 7 I propose to paraphrase Lakatos' squib for the historical sciences as follows: 'A philosophy of history without historiography is empty; historiography without philosophy of history is blind'.  jansen Temporality, as we have seen above, is but one of many philosophical problems encountered in history writing. It will lose its emptiness and receive its full clearness by showing differences in time construction between, for example Fernand Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism and Amy Chua's Day of Empire. 8 Whereas Braudel employs a compounded time model of core and periphery, Chua makes use of a temporal approach consisting of a rise-andfall construction. Such a phh-use of historiographical models benefits higher education in history especially.
On the other hand, including a philosophical point of view can dispose of historiography's theoretical blindness. For instance exploring the different historical roots of historiography reveals the ontological, or rather the ontographical assumptions, which are strongly related to these roots. In the next section I will elaborate on this issue to show what phh can mean.
The final sections of this article will set out a phh-view on the teaching of the philosophy of history at universities and colleges of higher education, as well as history teaching in secondary education. The phh-approach, as well as temporal and ontographical items, encompasses argumentative, narrative and aesthetic aspects. Regrettably, the space of this paper does not allow dwelling on all of these issues. 9

Historical roots and ontographical assumptions
Since the dawn of history as an academic discipline its ontographical   Performance is another core element of phh as it consists of a reflection on the intellectual operation of historical production. 24 In the production of history the historian has to perform activities such as reading, selecting, defining, associating, interpreting and formulating that all involve making choices. Rethinking periodisation is only one example of the need for new performances in history as a discipline. An enhanced awareness of the philosophical possibilities and constraints of these performances will make the historian much more reflective and thoughtful. phh is therefore not only a plea for a specific methodology or for certain epistemic virtues, although forum they remain important, but most of all a plea for insights into the intellectual operation of historical production.
In higher education phh will teach students of history that historical texts should not be taken at face value. In my opinion this adage concerning texts constitutes a vital point of departure in developing a university curriculum. Students should be trained in the analysis of all kinds of historical texts on their phh implications; in other words, the ontographical, the synoptic, the argumentative and the temporal and aesthetic aspects of the production of historical texts. Handbooks of historical theory should provide students with texts and tasks for training in these aspects. 25 In addition such a perspective on the teaching of history in secondary education will reveal that the current curriculum is oriented exclusively towards an inner story of the history of Europe and the Netherlands (respectively, 'de tien tijdvakken' and is there a future for history? jansen