Rejoinder

32 Historically Speaking · May/June 2006 Rejoinder Bruce Mazlish a Have the responses to my "Progress in History" advanced the discussion? After all, the piece was intended to evoke such a possibility, and was written with that aim in mind. I am pleased to say that David Christian's comment has done just that. He has either extended or clarified some of the points made in my essay (while kindly overlooking any needed corrections). He has very wisely emphasized the need to distinguish between the questions of directionality and of betterment, instancing Francis Bacon as one who in the 17th century sought to bring the two meanings together. As Christian notes, it is easier to recognize directionality on the large scale—whether in terms of cosmic evolution or more limited human evolution . With regard to the latter, it is critical to recognize that there is not just one direction but many. Christian identifies a few of these over the course of the last 4,0005 ,000 years. He mentions increases in human population, energy use, and the exchange of ideas. It would be hard even for those who are antagonistic to the idea of progress to argue against these facts (whether they signal change for the better is an argument separate from the directional question). Citing Eric Chaisson, Christian supports the claim that there has been a long-term trend toward complexity, i.e., from simple systems to more complex ones, in all fields. Famously, Stephen Jay Gould argued against this finding, but most scientists accept it. On another front, complexity has become a central topic among those who discuss the ways in which the natural and human sciences can be brought closer to one another. The subject is approached by "trying to understand the dynamic behavior of complex systems that range from individual organisms to the largest economic, technical, social, and political systems."1 Here I wish to pause and consider an oftraised question: Why has there been so much "progress" in the natural sciences and seemingly so little in the human sciences? This is a large and complex question, which I do not intend to treat here in any detail. I want only to assert that the complexity encountered in the natural sciences is simple in contrast to that characterizing human affairs. To bypass this problem, attempts are frequently made to reduce the human sciences to the natural ones, or subsume the former under the latter. I see little progress in this direction. As long as we remain humans, even though increasingly as prosthetic Gods, we are limited in our efforts to grapple with the complexity of human affairs. Christian reminds us that collective learning is unique to humans. It makes cumulative Why has there been so much 'progress" in the natural sciences and seemingly so little in the human sciences? knowledge possible, and thus the growth in scientific findings. One form this takes is in regard to the natural sciences, another in regard to the human sciences, where because of the constant emergence of social systems and resultant change such accumulation is far more difficult. Yet in terms of directionality it is hard to argue against the assertion that we know more in regard to "nature" than earlier generations, and that, in fact, the same is true in regard to "humanity" (I put quotes around both to indicate that they are social constructions ). Does directional progress entail human betterment? No simple answer is possible. As Christian points out, we witness an increase in destructive as well as constructive powers. The list is long, ranging from nuclear to climate threats, and including many other dangers . Thus, as he cogently concludes, in spite of our efforts to separate descriptive from normative issues, direction from betterment, the task is more or less hopeless. He recommends, therefore, that we dispense with the idea of progress in general. Here I agree with him with one caveat. The idea of progress—some would say the myth—is a part of social reality ; it serves as an inspiration for moving in a particular direction and must be studied in exactly those directional terms. J.C.D. Clark attempts to flesh out my account ofthe...