Historical synthesis in the age of the Anthropocene: Or how I learned to love the monster

How should we tell the story about the Anthropocene? Latour’s (2014) question is crucial for anyone interested in historical Bildung. In this paper, the possibilities of synthesis are discussed against the background of the ongoing repositioning of historical orientation.

Rüsen (2017) locates the narrative essence of orientation in humans’ desire to bridge the gap between ‘the irritating experiences of contingency and the ensuing push towards interpretation’. When interpretations produce a surplus of meaning, which extends beyond the given circumstances, it becomes useful for orientation. This surplus is the fabric of master narratives, which McLean and Syed (2015) define as ‘culturally shared stories that guide thoughts, beliefs, values, and behaviours’. 

If history education aims to improve students’ narrative competence, engaging in synthesised content is as influential as learning historical thinking. From a psychological perspective, Syed et al. (2020) insist that master narratives are not only about dominance but also ethics, as it sets the agenda of what makes a good life. Nonetheless, history educators are more inclined to make associations to nationalistic cannons and tend therefor to shy away from discussing principles of content selection (Nordgren, 2023). This creates a ‘vacuum’ around the formation of historical consciousness, which is moulded by competing narratives. 

The presumption in Latour’s question is that modernity can no longer guide us. But is it sensible to search for a new plot forty year after Lyotard declared the end of grand narratives?  Latour (2011) draws an analogy to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein from 1818: the scientist prevails over nature but abandons his creation disgusted with the result. Latour sees the greatest sin of Frankenstein as well as modern science not in the ‘wish to have dominion over Nature, but to believe that this dominion means emancipation and not attachment’. 

Frankenstein can also be a parable to the responsibility of historians and educators to face the ‘monsters’ they create. In the late 19th century, Nietzsche described the potential monstrosity within the public use of history, as it balances on the edge of serving life and destroying it. He accused the rising guild of historians of being ‘spoiled idler[s] in the garden of knowledge’ and forsaking those syntheses that brought hope, familiarity or change to life. However, the split between specialised knowledge and the surplus of meaning was never total; on the contrary, history played a fundamental part in shaping the notion of modernity (Bhambra, 2011). Although research, education and lifeworld are driven by different logics, they nevertheless overlap (Nordgren, 2021). The sum of inquiries, deconstructions and multiperspectivity are also clustering in narrative patterns, and like assembled monsters, they seek belonging in master- or counter-narratives.

How should educators answer Latour’s question? Chakrabarty (2021) suggests we think planetarily and challenge the borders of historiography. Some scholars have been experimenting with new syntheses, while many critical and post-humanists have ironically abandoned the monster. A history education that is not satisfied with apologetic add-ons needs to face its monster and find alternative master narratives that can nourish ethical orientations in the Anthropocene.  

Bhambra, G. K. (2011). Historical Sociology, Modernity, and Postcolonial Critique. The American Historical Review, 116(3), 653-662. https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr.116.3.653 

Chakrabarty, D. (2021). The climate of history in a planetary age. University of Chicago Press. 

Latour, B. (2011). Love your monsters. Breakthrough Journal, 2(11), 21-28. 

Latour, B. (2014). Agency at the Time of the Anthropocene. New literary history, 45(1), 1-18. 

Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (Vol. 10). U of Minnesota Press. 

McLean, K. C., & Syed, M. (2015). Personal, master, and alternative narratives: An integrative framework for understanding identity development in context. Human development, 58(6), 318-349. 

Nietzsche, F. (2005). The use and abuse of history. Cosimo. (1873)

Nordgren, K. (2021). Powerful knowledge for what? History education and 45-degree discourse. In A. Chapman (Ed.), Knowing History in Schools (pp. 177-201). UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv14t477t.13 

Nordgren, K. (2023). History curriculum in the Anthropocene: how should we tell the story. International Encyclopedia of Education, 296-307. 

Rüsen, J. (2017). Evidence and Meaning: A Theory of Historical Studies (Vol. 28). Berghahn Books. 

Syed, M., Pasupathi, M., & McLean, K. C. (2020). Master narratives, ethics, and morality.