Similarities in Renan's article and Collingwood's chapter on Hegel
It is argued that the philosophy of history is not a reflection on historical facts, but it is rather the concept of understanding the reasons why facts happened as they did (Collingwood 1994, 113). “The philosophical history will be a universal history of mankind and will exhibit progress from primitive times to the civilization of today. It involves the development of freedom, which is identical with the moral reason of man as exhibited in an external system of social relations so that the question which philosophical history has to answer is the question how the State came into existence.” We will look at Hegel’s approach to history: the process of nature and history are different from each other. History is about interpretation and the mind and motives of the agents the historian is narrating, while nature is a series of events, not acts. History is the history of thoughts and there is no history except the history of humans (rational life). Everything that has happened in history has happened by the will of humans because the process of history consists of human actions (Collingwoord 1994, 115)
We would like to further explore this concept concerning our field, Japanstudies, and specifically expand the theme of week 7, about history. Last year, we have read about the making of a nation and Collingwood’s book reminded us of that. will do so by juxtaposing Renan’s article with the lecture about Collingwood’s sources reminded us of that again. In his article, Renan explains his idea of a nation and how a nation is formed.
According to Renan, none of these are sufficient to form a nation. A modern nation is the result of a series of historical facts. He says that according to political theorists, a nation is a dynasty above all. Following that theory, nations form through a dynasty and its wars, marriages, treaties and it ends with the dynasty (nation) that had established this. This does not mean nations can't exist without a dynastic principle. He describes the nation as a soul, a spiritual principle, and that two principles constitute this soul: one in the present and the other in the past. The nation is a combination of past efforts, sacrifices, and devotion. Similarly to Hegel’s approach to history, where history is described as the history of human thoughts, minds, and actions.
A nation can only be formed by the succession of human actions, by the will to be united. Because of all the history that nations have built up, there is a heritage of glory and regrets in a country. The author says that suffering together unites people more than joy or triumphs. It requires a common effort from the people. To have common glories in the past, a common will in the present; to have performed great deeds together, the ills one has suffered and sacrifices one has consented to together. According to the writer, in a nation, language and race can invite unity. Countries like the USA and England both speak the same language but they are not one nation, but this also goes the other way. Renan uses the example of Switzerland. It has had three or four languages yet it's still united. This is because there is a will in the people to be united in Switzerland, despite the diversity in languages. To add to this, religion alone does not form an adequate basis for the establishment of a modern nationality either. It still preserves its importance in the individual’s heart, but it is not a defining factor anymore for people in a nation, according to Renan. Nowadays, there is no longer a state religion and religion has become an individual matter, at least here in the Netherlands. Furthermore, Japan is usually seen as a single ethnic group. Despite anthropologists saying that Japan's origins are multi-ethnic, the mono-ethnic image of Japanese people is still there. The illusion of oneness has been maintained and has evolved since ancient times.
Another similarity we found in Collingwood’s book we can learn about Hegel’s dialectics, which is a dialectical method of argument, which involves the theory of the logical structure. This structure involves a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In other words, it means that when a certain concept (thesis) is developed, it will be countered by an opposite (antithesis). Eventually, a new phase will develop where the tension between the thesis and antithesis is resolved (synthesis). This could also be traced back in Renan’s article, e.g. at the beginning of his article:
“Since the end of the Roman Empire, or rather since the dismemberment of Charlemagne’s empire, Western Europe appears to be divided into nations, some of which, in certain epochs, have attempted to exercise hegemony over the others, without ever succeeding in a lasting fashion. It is unlikely that anyone will achieve in the future what Charles V, Louis XIV, and Napoleon I failed to do. The founding of a new Roman Empire or of a new Carolingian Empire has become an impossibility. The division of Europe is too great for any attempt at universal domination not to be met very quickly with a coalition that would force the ambitious nation back to its natural limits. A kind of equilibrium is established for the long run. Centuries from now, France, England, Germany, and Russia, despite the vicissitudes they will have encountered, will still be individual historical units, the essential pieces of a checkerboard, whose squares constantly vary in importance and size but are never wholly confused with each other.”
References
Collingwood, R. G. 1994. The Idea of History: with Lectures 1926-1928, 113-26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Renan, Ernest. 2018. ‘9. WHAT IS A NATION? (QU’EST-CE QU’UNE NATION?, 1882)’. In What Is a Nation? and Other Political Writings edited by M. F. N. Giglioli, 247–63. New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.7312/rena17430-013.