Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:56:04.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Counterfactual Arguments in Historical Analysis: From the Debate on the Partition of Africa and the Effect of Colonial Rule

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2014

Jarle Simensen
Jarle Simensen*
Affiliation:
University of Trondheim
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the last decade the question of counterfactual arguments has attracted a good deal of attention both in philosophy and history. A recent example, which concentrates on the logics of counterfactual analysis in history, is T.O. Climo and P.G.A. Howells' “Possible worlds in historical explanation.” Further progress in this field probably depends both on a development of the purely logical issues involved and an analysis of the actual usage of counterfactuals in the language of practicing historians. My own approach belongs primarily to the latter category. I shall consider examples of counterfactual arguments in two hotly debated fields, first the partition of the African continent and, second, the effects of colonial rule. This approach will provide examples of the function of counterfactuals both in causal analysis and in historical evaluations. My primary aim is to establish a categorization of different usages, but the opportunity will also be taken to discuss in a general manner criteria for the legitimate use of counterfactual argument in history. In this connection I should emphasize my lack of knowledge in formal logic, except that provided by my two Norwegian collegues, Ottar Dahl, and Jon Elster, on whom I rely heavily for the more theoretical parts of this paper.

Historical analysis is preoccupied with causes, and in causal analysis there is a particular urge to identify socalled “sufficient” and “necessary” causes. In propositions about such causes some counterfactual assumptions are logically implicit. The clearest example of a necessary cause or precondition for European expansion in Africa is that of technology. To take an early and typical example, Holland Rose maintained that it was an “essential condition” of colonization that “mechanical appliances should be available for the overcoming of natural obstacles.” The implicit counterfactual is that without technology, never colonization. Counterfactuals of this kind scarcely attract attention precisely because of their obvious legitimacy.

Type
Research Article
Information
History in Africa , Volume 5 , 1978 , pp. 169 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © African Studies Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Fogel, Robert, Railroads and American Growth, (Baltimore, 1964)Google Scholar and Fogel, Robert and Engerman, S., Time on the Cross (Boston, 1974).Google Scholar For an introduction to the debate and references to some important contributions, see Fischer, David H., Historians' Fallacies, (New York, 1970), p. 15.Google Scholar A recent Scandinavian contribution to the debate is Gustavson, B. “Den ‘nya’ ekonomisk-historiska forskningen och de kontrafaktiska förklaringarna”, Svensk Historisk Tidskrift, No. 3 (1976).Google Scholar

2. Climo, T.A. and Howells, P.G.A., “Possible worlds in historical explanation,” History and Theory, 15(1976), pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For an introduction to the philosophical debate see Goodman, N., Fact, Fiction and Forecast (London, 1955)Google Scholar; Lewis, D., Counterfactuals, (Cambridge, Mass., 1973)Google Scholar; and Sosa, E. (ed.), Causation and Conditionals, (London, 1975).Google Scholar

3. Dahl, Ottar, Om årsaksproblemer i historisk forskning, (Oslo, 1956)Google Scholar, Elster, Jon, Nytt perspektiv på økonomisk historie, (Oslo, 1971)Google Scholar; idem, “Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Social Sciences,” unpublished manuscript, Oslo, 1975.

4. Rose, J. Holland, The Development of the European Nations (London, 1905)Google Scholar, quoted in Wright, H.M. (ed.), The “New Imperialism” (Boston, 1961), p. 2.Google Scholar

5. Lenin, V.I., Imperialism. The Highest Stage of Capitalism (revised translation, New York, 1939)Google Scholar, quoted in Wright, , The “New Imperialism,” pp. 33–34.Google Scholar

6. The thesis has been developed further in Robinson, R. and Gallagher, J., “The Partition of Africa” in The New Cambridge Modern History (12 vols.: Cambridge, 1957–1970), 11:593–640.Google Scholar In the study of the debate I benefited much from Berg, E., “Robinson-Gallagher kontroversen”, unpublished cand. philol. thesis manuscript (Trondheim, 1975).Google Scholar

7. Robinson, and Gallagher, , Africa and the Victorians, p. 163.Google Scholar

8. Ibid., p. 465.

9. Robinson, and Gallagher, , “The Partition of Africa, p. 608.Google Scholar

10. Oliver, R. and Atmore, A., Africa Since 1800 (Cambridge, 1969), p. 108.Google Scholar

11. See, e.g., R. Oliver's review of Robinson and Gallagher's Africa and the Victorians in The Observer, 27 August 1961 and Shepperson's, G. review of the same in Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, 40(1962), pp. 1228–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. 13 October 1890, Rhodes Papers, Rhodes House, Oxford. Quoted in Jean Stengers, “The Partition of Africa. L'impérialisme colonial de la fin du XIXe siècle. Mythe ou Réalité?”, JAH, 3(1962), p. 490.Google Scholar

13. Ibid. Translation mine.

14. Ibid, p. 491. Translation mine.

15. I owe this point to Jon Elster.

16. Such criticism, however, overlooks the fact that Egypt and European strategic motivation only represents one side of Robinson and Gallagher's theory. The full explanation of the authors is based on a very comprehensive theory of European-African interaction in the nineteenth century.

17. Weber, Max, Kritische Studien auf dem Gebiet der Kulturwissenschaftlichen Logik (1905)Google Scholar, reprinted in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre (Tübingen, 1922)Google Scholar, part II, “Objektive Möglichkeit und adequate Verursachung”, quoted in Gustavson, , “Den ‘nya’ ekonomisk-historiska,” p. 286.Google Scholar

18. The distinction between “real” and “instrumental” evaluations is discussed in Langholm, Sivert, “Verdielementer i historiske teorier” in Historisk Metode i Forskning og Undervisning [Studier i Historisk Metode, I] (Aarhus, 1966).Google Scholar

19. Manning, P., “Analyzing the costs and benefits of colonialism,” African Economic History Review, 1/2(1974), pp. 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Hodgkin, T., foreword to Green, R.H. and Seidman, Ann, Unity or Poverty (London, 1968), p. 14.Google Scholar

21. Crowder, M., West Africa under Colonial Rule (London, 1968), p. 8.Google Scholar

22. Ajayi, J.F. Ade, “The continuity of African institutions under colonialism” in Ranger, T.O. (ed.), Emerging Themes of African History (London, 1968), p. 195.Google Scholar

23. Rodney, W., How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (London, 1972), p. 160.Google Scholar

24. Ibid, pp. 246-47, 250-51, 253-54.

25. Ibid, p. 245.

26. Cabral, A., “Brief analysis of the social structures in Guinea” in his Revolution in Guinea, (2nd. ed. London, 1974), p. 56.Google Scholar

27. Perham, M., The Colonial Reckoning (London, 1961), p. 134.Google Scholar

28. Gann, L.H. and Duignan, P., “The precolonial economies of sub-Saharan Africa” in Gann, and Duignan, , ed., Colonialism in Africa 1870-1960, (5 vols.: Cambridge, 1969/1975), 4:56.Google Scholar

29. This and the following arguments are found in Gann, L.H. and Duignan, P., The Burden of Empire. An Appraisal of Western Colonialism in Africa South of the Sahara (London, 1967), pp. 365–371.Google Scholar

30. Oliver, R. and Mathew, G., eds., History of East Africa, I. (London, 1963), p. 456.Google Scholar

31. Hopkins, A., An Economic History of West Africa, (London, 1973), p. 203.Google Scholar

32. Brett, E., Colonialism and Underdevelopment in East Africa: The Politics of Economic Change 1919-39 (London, 1973), p. 305.Google Scholar

33. Leys, C., Underdevelopment in Kenya: The Political Economy of Neo-Colonialism (London, 1975), pp. 28–29.Google Scholar

34. Brett, , Colonialism and Underdevelopment, p. 297.Google Scholar

35. Ibid., p. 261.

36. Jon Elster, MS cited above, note 3, chapter on “Imperialism and Colonialism.” I also owe main points of the two following paragraphs to Elster.

37. Manning, P., “Analyzing the costs and benefits of colonialism,” pp. 15–22.Google Scholar

38. Ibid., p. 19.

39. Carr, E.H., What is History? (London, 1961), 91 ff.Google Scholar

40. For the development of the concept of “objective possibility” see von Kreis, J., Über den Begriff der objektiven Mögliahkeit und einige Anwendungen desselben (Leipzig, 1888).Google Scholar A recent Marxist example of the use of the concept is Berntsen, H., “Objektivitet og historie,” Syn og Segn, 75(1969), pp. 434–44.Google Scholar