This week’s readings really spoke to me as an international affairs student. Most of the time, I
look at a situation in terms of statistics and circumstance. For example, I will research
unemployment rates, inflation, literacy, or human rights to evaluate a situation- like the
revolutions in the Middle East, especially Egypt. While this partially does explain why the
uprisings occurred in Egypt, it is not the entire spectrum. I think Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” and
Greer’s article really bring light to my shortcomings in understanding (which is already very
Tolstoyan).
In Tolstoy’s Epilogue Part I, he explains the limited understand of humans and our
inability to grasp the complexity of history. So called “historians” try to write history in a way
where great men are the forces of historical events, by either “chance” or “genius.” Yet, if we
learn to understand history as a series of happenings, events, circumstances, we can understand
the importance the individual in history. It is only when we can accept this can we start to
understand how a picture formed from pixels. Tolstoy gives the example of Napoleon, whose rise
to power was built on a series of chances. Because he succeeded in gaining power, invading
Africa, etc, he considered himself as great. Yet, according to Tolstoy, this is inadequate to
explaining history.
So in Tolstoy’s Epilogue Part II, he thus examines what is the force that causes events to
occur, such as the French Revolution. The concept of “power” is also inadequate as we cannot
explain how it works. He gives the example of a military command, where the soldiers fighting
are the least involved in directing the fighting. It is the moral power of a leader that can control
an event. Yet, even the soldiers on the battlefield will have to take into consideration time and
circumstance when trying to adhere to their commander’s orders. Most importantly, however,
Tolstoy argues again that our free will is an illusion that we preserve as we cannot understand the
complexities contributing to a circumstance.Tolstoy believes that we must come to terms with
our limited understanding and understand that is is part of a “predetermined historical
design.” (Greer)
Summing up his arguments, I can go back to my first point about my (limited)
understanding of the Egyptian uprisings. As an Egyptian, I can understand Tolstoy and Greer’s
viewpoints about “chance” and “genius.” As it was difficult to put a face to the Revolution, many
in the West picked Twitter and Facebook as the catalyst for the Revolution. Yet, there is a
paradox here as Twitter is an instrument of the people. It is not an abstract form that “moves
nations” on its own will. It is a medium of the people to facilitate a reaction and express the
collective will. As Greer says, we tend to search for a “great man” or technology to “assign
responsibility for the fact that...perhaps millions of human beings gathered over the course of 18
days to demonstrate against Hosni Mubarak.”
With the millions of people in Tahrir on January 25, 2011 and June 3, 2013 came millions
of narratives of why they decided to march that day. However, history will still be painted in a
way that searches for one driving force or “hero.” And each account of Tahrir will differ
according to the historians’ own grievances. The narrative is convoluted further if you look at
news media, where each organization assigns themselves to a certain agenda and therefore a
certain perspective on how to portray a history.
No comments:
Post a Comment