6.

CASUAL JUDGEMENT IN HISTORY

Historical investigations are usually concerned with finding out what happened and
explaining why it happened. Explaining why a particular event occurred means
identifying the cause or causes underlying that event. This means specifying the
condition or conditions that led to the occurrence of the event. Historians are therefore
concerned with describing the course of events and showing how or why they happened
the way they did.

In explaining the ‘why’ of an historical event, historians rarely deal with monocausal
explanations; rather they deal with a multiplicity of causes. This is because historical
events usually result from a series or chains of events or factors. For example, the First
Word War was caused by factors such as power politics, world anarchy, commercial
rivalries, national aspirations, mutual fear and territorial ambitions. Historical events are
therefore caused by factors that may occur over a long period of time.

Historians also distinguish between the immediate cause or trigger event and remote or
underlying causes of an historical event. For example, the conditions listed above can
be said to have been the underlying causes of the First World War, while the
assassination at Sarajevo was the trigger event. It is easy for historians to agree on the
immediate cause of an event, but when it comes to the starting point of a major event
differences of opinion arise. Explaining the long-term causes of events is therefore
important in history. In other words, the ‘immediate’ or short-term cause is not really a
cause. It is merely the point in a chain of events, trends, influences and forces at which
the effect begins to show. The immediate cause is just a lead to the antecedents that
may be satisfactorily described as ‘the causes’.

But historians are not contended with identifying the multiplicity of long-term and short-
term causes of a given event. They also try to establish a hierarchy of the causes with
the aim of fixing the relationships among the causes. In other words, they try to find out
which of the causes of the events were crucial to its occurrence, and which ones were
merely contributory. As far as possible the historian tries to identify the cause that

1
should be regarded as the ultimate cause or the cause of the causes. This ultimate
cause provides the historians interpretation of the theme.

Every historical question therefore revolved around the question of the priority of
causes. After identifying the causes underlying an event, the historian should
subordinate one cause to another so as to create order and unity in his narrative. In
other words, the historian must work through the simplification and multiplication of
causes.

The relationship between the historian and his causes is similar to the relationship
between the historian and his facts. The causes determine his interpretation of the
historical process, and his interpretation determines his selection and marshalling of the
causes. In other words, it is the historian who decides which causes of an event were
significant and which ones were not so significant. The criteria the historian uses in this
selection is the ability of such causes to fit into his pattern of reasonable explanation
and interpretation. We can therefore distinguish between rational and accidental
causes.

Rational causes are those that are potentially applicable to other countries, other
periods and other conditions. Such causes lead to fruitful generalisation and lesson can
be learned from them. These causes also broaden and deepen our understanding of
ourselves and other human beings. On the contrary, accidental causes cannot be
generalised. They are therefore unique and teach us no lessons. They also do not lead
to any conclusions. It is with the rational and significant causes that the historian is
concerned because these can be applied to other historical situations.