CHAPTER 18

THEORIES, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS,

AND THEORISING IN NIGERIAN HISTORICAL STUDIES

Ejitu Nnechi Ota, PhD

Charles Okeke Okoko, PhD

Ikechukwu Ahamefula

Introduction

History studies the past of man in dynamic interaction with his society and environment. It is the duty of the Historian, therefore, to enquire into the past, bringing into focus, therelationship between the events of the past. In doing so, he does not discriminate against any section of the society or against any of the principal actors whose actions contributed to the events which he (the Historian) is studying. The series of events to be studied are arranged according to how they happened, and such a chronological approach is meant to ensure that the occurrence of the events are not muddled up and thus rendered ambiguous and invalid. It is also to show the relationship and subsequent ones, that is how one thing helps to lead to another.

In the words of E.H. Carr:

The past which a historian studies is not a dead past, but a past which in some sense is still living… the reconstitution of the past in the historian’s mind is dependent on empirical evidence. But it is not in itself an empirical process, and can’t consist in a mere recital of facts. On the contrary, the process of reconstruction governs the selection and interpretation of the facts: this indeed, is what makes them historical facts.

Quoting Johan Huizings, Nail Ferguson believes that: “The historian must… constantly put himself at a point in the past at which the known factors will seem to permit different outcomes”. What this means is that two seemingly similar events may not produce the same results because of the circumstances and personalities involved. The observation of Huizings is, however, not in agreement with Henry Thomas Buckle’s position that:

Every generation demonstrates some events to be regular and predictable, which the preceding generation had declared to be irregular and unpredictable; so that the marked tendency of the advance of civilization is to strengthen our belief in the universality of order of method and of law.

Buckle appears to be deterministic in his observation on the role of causation in history. In other words, he assumes that given the same circumstances, the actions of men will yield the same outcome. But this has not always been the case, because human behavior is unpredictable and the same circumstances may not always produce the same results even when the actions of men are the same. For instance, in Nigeria, there was an embarrassing scarcity of bread in 1985 due to the country’s inability to produce enough wheat in spite of heavy investments by the government on large-scale irrigation projects. At that time, Nigeria was ruled by the military under Ibrahim Babangida. Scarcity of bread in both, France and Russia were partly responsible for the revolutions in both countries in 1789 and 1917, respectively. This was because bread in both countries was considered the cheapest food for the ordinary French and Russians. Yet, when a scarcity of bread occurred in Nigeria in 1985, there were no food riots. That was because bread has never been a staple food for ordinary Nigerians. Thus, Buckle’s deterministic thesis did not apply to Nigeria because in as much as the circumstances in 18 century France and 20 century Russia shared similarities with Nigeria in 185, the role of bread was not the same in Nigeria vis-à-vis France and Russia.

The aim of this chapter is to examine the relevance or otherwise of adopting conventional Social Sciences theories in the explanation and analysis of historical events. In other words, it seeks to look at how and why theories and theoretical frameworks could fit into historical reconstruction. That is why the work has been divided into four substantive sections. First, there is the section that looks at the traditional theories of history, followed by an attempt at distinguishing between theories and theoretical frameworks. This is followed by the section on theoretical frameworks and theorizing in history. Then there is the question on whether theories are really relevant in history. Finally, there is the conclusion.

Theories of History

In the pure sciences, education and social sciences, a theory refers to a hypothetical deductive system, consisting of a group of hypotheses whose terms are strictly defined and whose relationships between terms or variables are most often given mathematical forms. Usually, an elaboration of a theory in these disciplines starts with a conceptualization of a perceived or observed reality: action or highly abstract relationships govern the system and allow the researcher to rediscover, by deduction, either appearances that are thereby fully explained, or facts that are perceptible through devices, if not through the sense, and which temporarily either confirm the theory or invalidate it. A study, therefore, is theoretical when it is less practical and when it less permits or suggests the handling of its object.

Conversely, theories of history are attempts at explaining why things happened the way they did and the possible or likely implications or consequences these have for the future. Thus, in reconstructing the past, it is important to understand the nature of a certain phenomenon and the causal relationship that exists in it. Unlike what obtains in the pure and social sciences and education where theories seek to create new knowledge through the use of experiments, observations and the variety of scientific methods n order to logically build up a theory, the theories of history do not involve testing and re-testing in order to create a new theory or a new knowledge. Rather, they are concerned with finding explanations for why certain events occurred and the relationship cause and effect.

There are six major traditional theories of history, namely:

i. The Cyclical theory

ii. The Linear theory,

iii. The Great Man theory,

iv. The Everyman theory,

v. The Geographic theory,

vi. The Marxist theory.

While the Cyclical theory posits that history often repeats itself in different forms, patterns and trends, the Linear theory argues that history studies progress and the relationship between cause and effect, and explanations such as “This happened, and then that happened; that happened because this happened first”. On the other hand, while the Great Man theory believes that the course of history is determined by the activities, position and role of a small group and the powerful elite in a given society, Every Man theory takes the position that history is shaped by social groups and everyday or ordinary people, and not by the efforts of small elite groups or individual. There is also the Geographic theory whose argument is that to a very large extent, the destiny of a people’s success is based on their geographic location and access to resources. Finally, the Marxist theory sees history as being characterized by and preoccupied with the struggle between different social classes, especially between the bourgeoisie who are powerful and control both wealth and resources, and the powerless proletariat who struggle to survive under the oppression of the powerful groups.

These then are the major traditional theories of history. Most histories have been written using these theoretical constructs. All of them agree with the major task of every historical enterprise, that is, to seek the truth. In studying the past, history looks for evidences that are historical, and these could be sourced for and interpreted in documents and even artifacts, such as buildings, ornaments, and other physical things. For any historical statement to be acceptable, therefore, it must match the available evidence. It is such interconnectedness, when established, that can make history socially relevant. This does not in any way obfuscate the fact that historical evidences can be refuted. The truth is that the historian cannot and must not seek to invent the truth by a strait-jacket adoption and scientification of any theory.

Distinguishing between a Theory and a Theoretical framework

A theory, according to Wikipedia, is a contemplative and rational abstract or generalized thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking. The American Museum of Natural History defines a theory as, “… a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts”. Put differently, a theory provides the researcher with a generalized picture, and is usually subjected to a series of tests and re-tests. It is only when such tests and re-tests give the same result that the truth could be guaranteed. This means, therefore, that the essence of formulating a theory is to understand the nature of a certain phenomenon and the causal relationships that exist therein. In this case, an existing knowledge could be challenged and extended, using a given theory. While a theory helps the researcher to understand and explain a phenomenon (or phenomena), the theoretical framework serves to connect such a researcher to existing knowledge. This addresses questions of why and how. It, therefore, helps the researcher to explain and understand an otherwise unexplained phenomenon by looking at its meaning, nature, and challenges.

Theories, theoretical frameworks, and theorizing in History

To theorize means to formulate a theory about a given subject, or to speculate. Such an exercise naturally involves the adoption of one theory or the other as the basis of analysis. In other words, while a theory provides the platform for normative and speculative thinking, the theoretical framework, in the words Gabriel Abend, is “… the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. The theoretical framework introduces and describes the theory that explains why the research problem under study exists” In historical studies and reconstruction, a theoretical framework is, more or less synonymous with a hypothetical construct because its properties and implications have never been proven by any empirical research. This is so because as an explanatory variable, such a construct is not directly observable. Rather, it is an ideal or desirable object which exists only in the mind of the researcher. The situation in the pure or natural sciences is, therefore, different in the sense that a construct does not necessarily depend on the subjects mind but is real and observable.

Furthermore, by focusing on specific variables and limiting the researcher’s specific viewpoint in the task of analyzing and interpreting available data, the use of a theoretical framework serves to not only respond to problems that have no previously identified solutions, but also to prescribe solutions to the research problems identified by the reseracher.

With particular references to the social sciences, it lays the physiological foundation for executing researchers by first of all, identifying the methodologies adopted, and secondly, justifying the choice of a particular theoretical framework, vis-à-vis others. It seeks to introduce and describe the theory chosen by the researcher as well as exposing the reader as to why the researcher, opted for a particular research problem and the hypotheses provided for the purpose of achieving the identified problems,

However, History does not belong, strictly speaking, to the social sciences. But in recent times, the study of History as an academic discipline in Nigeria’s tertiary institutions became endangered. Many prospective students found the course unattractive due to its concern with the past, a factor which questioned its utility in the ever-expanding employment market. It was basically for this reason that History began to interface more intimately with disciplines in the Social Sciences. In the course of time, it began to merge with such other disciplines as Diplomatic Studies, Strategic Studies and International Relations, among others an important outcome of this development is the adoption of terminologies hitherto unknown to historical studies. It has also come to imply the adoption of research methodologies that were hitherto alien to the discipline of History. Among these is the adoption (or incorporation) of theories and theoretical frameworks by some “Fugitive or Re-visionist” Historians, that is, those whose first degrees are not in pure History, but in History/International Studies; History/Diplomatic Studies; History/Strategic Studies; or History/International Relations, et cetera, and who ultimately earned their Masters and Doctorate degrees in Peace Studies; Strategic Studies, or Diplomatic Studies, et cetera. Some of the, did not even earn their first degrees in History but in other disciplines with no links whatsoever to History.

The interdisciplinary approach which History has always applied in the reconstruction of the past has, somehow, become its albatross in the area of the requirements for conducting and writing Masters Dissertations and Doctoral Theses. The “feud” between “Conventional Historians” and the other group has not yet resulted in any known exchange of virulent academic diatribes. But it is, indeed, simmering. While Conventional Historians are not averse to the relevance and sustenance of the interdisciplinary approach to the study of History, they do not believe that History should lose its research methodological garths to those of the Social Sciences. Revisionist Historians, on their part, appear rather impatient in their drive to sublimate both conventional historical method and historiography to the new multidisciplinary perspectives of the 21 century. In no other way are these in perspective more manifest than in some of the History departments of Nigerian universities. At the University of Port Harcourt and the University of Uyo, the Schools of Postgraduate Studies have imposed the quantitative research methods of the Social Sciences, Natural Sciences and Education on their History Departments even when such methods and concepts have no relevance in the qualitative analytical method of History.

Do we really need Theories and Theoretical Frameworks in the study of Nigerian History?

An attempt was made in the introductory part of this essay to define History as both a discipline and as an activity. The finding is that History is tripartite: it is about people, about change (events, trends, et cetera); and it is about time (period). Put differently, History is concerned not only about things, but more importantly, it is an activity which is concerned with the past activities of groups and individuals; some kind of a process of interaction between the people concerned and involved, and the historical material. History is, therefore, a truth-seeking and not a truth-creating activity. As has been observed “A response can only be historical if we are satisfied with the truth of the material”.

Objectivity is a major issue in any historical reconstruction. Is it really possible for a historian to be and remain neutral in the course of interrogating the past? According to Charles Beard, this is not possible for three reasons, namely:

i. The Historian invites ethical and aesthetic considerations in his subject-matter;

ii. His mind is not neutral and cannot be neutral; and

iii. He cannot, unlike the chemist, ‘observe’ his subject-matterand cannot also re-observe.

It or deal with it repeatedly at will. To add to the problematic nature of objectivity in History, G.M. Trevelyan has argued that, “Whatever acts of purification the historian man perform, he yet remains human, a creature of time, place, circumstances, interests and predilections, culture”. This does not in any way diminish the fact, as has been rightly observed, that History seeks to understand both human development and human reality, as well as the universe of value in which this or that group of men or the past lived, how and why people have lived and worked together in society, or have failed to do so.

Against this background, is it not possible that the adoption of the methodological preoccupations of the Social Sciences by some Historians (the “Fugitives” or Revisionists”) will ultimately work enormous hardship on the truth-seeking assignment of the Historian? Must History be compelled to employ the quantitative techniques of the Social Scientists in reconstructing the past? In other words, can History as a discipline, be analyzed, understood, and controlled through the adoption of theories and theoretical frameworks? Must History be “scientificized” just to make the discipline remain relevant? Is it possible to subject the experience and consciousness of historical processes by individuals, societies, and communities to theories and theoretical frameworks?

In finding an answer to these questions, one must note that all sciences (both Physical, Biological, and Social Sciences) are fundamentally speculative. But History is not. Scientists, despite their many internal crises on methodological and research approaches, seem to insist that scientific knowledge is the only means of knowing and interpreting reality. This, unfortunately, is what some Nigerian Historians appear to be accepting without question because they want to “belong”. They forget that as a matter of historical fact, it was the drive to achieve a technological-managerial society in the United States that led to the adoption of the assumptions and methodologies of the Sciences in the Social Sciences after the Second World War.

In as much as the use of theories may aid interdisciplinary studies/researches, the fact remains that some of the questions whose answers History seeks to find, cannot be given any sort of objective answer based on any theoretical approach. In other words, the subject-matter of History is not amenable to any strict theoretical construct. This is so because quantification and measurement are not part of historical reconstruction. Adopting theories and theoretical frameworks can only lead to shifting emphasis to mere trivialities. Moreover, the “scientification” of History will negate the essence of historical craftsmanship, that is, historiography whose domain, according to E. J. Alagoa:

… Is concerned as coextensive with the methodology of history, as well as with philosophies of history, formal folk or otherwise and eventually, with the practice of history in the context of philosophy and methodology. The evaluation of historical sources for their reliability should not, in any way, be predicated on the methodologies of the social sciences which, as earlier pointed are speculative. On the contrary, the reliability of such sources could be determined through a number of ways. For instance, human sources, such as relics, are more reliable than narratives. Similarly, an eyewitness account is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is equally more reliable than hearsay.

Conclusion

One of the electrifying consequences of the addition of adjunct and cognate academic disciplines to mainstream historical scholarship is the adoption of research approaches and methodologies hitherto alien to History Department in some Nigerian universities. At the University of Port Harcourt, University of Uyo, and the University of Calabar, among others, postgraduate students of History are subjected by their Schools of Post Graduate Studies, to compulsorily adopt the research methodologies of the Natural and Social Sciences, in writing and presenting their Dissertations and Theses. Thus, there are to be found in such projects ridiculous chapter headings and subheadings like, “Research Design”, “Study Area”, “Sampling Design and Procedures”, “Data Collection Instrument”, Data Analysis”, Data Interpretation”, “Theories”, Theoretical Framework”, et cetera.

For History and Historians, the gradual elimination of the descriptive and narrative aspects of historical reconstruction and indeed the sublimation of social science methodology over Historiography, is analogous to removing the nectar from a flower: it loses its essence. Admittedly, theories could be formulated to extend the relevance of some courses and topics in the History Departments of Nigerian Universities. For instance, in Peace Studies, Military and Strategic Studies, and other cognate disciplines which are now adjuncts to mainstream History, the use of theories and theoretical frameworks is permissible. This will help in highlighting the problems which topics in such Sub-disciplines seek to investigate. Such an approach is good for both inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary scholarship. The same can also be said of the use of hypotheses.

But the traditional methodological approaches of the discipline of History should not be abandoned. The relevance of History to social reality is in no way to be ignore or abuse, for , after all is said and done, in addressing contemporary social, economic, and political problems, the Historian must have a recourse to the past. This is in order to find out what used to be and its relationship with the present. In other words, the Historian looks at the reality of the present as an offspring of the past and a parent for the future.

It does not help historical scholarship to impose the research approaches of the Social Sciences on studies that are purely historical. This is most likely going to lead to already assumed research findings which, in the end, will result in distorted and unreliable knowledge. In the Social Sciences, for instance, there is a nexus between research design, data collection, data analysis, and the implications of the research findings. But students working on conventional topics in History do not have to be burdened with these methodological approaches. As has been rightly observed:

Some topics, by their nature, lend themselves to theoretical explorations and reflections…not all works have to be theoretically informed or make theoretical contributions. In historical scholarship, for instance, a good narrative is what we’re looking for, not forced theoretical discussions.

Endnotes

1. E. H. Carr, What is History? (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd), 1984 edition, 22.

2. Niall Ferguson, “Introduction”, In Niall Feruson (ed.), Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals. (London: Pan Macmillian Ltd, 1998), 1.

3. Henry Thomas Buckle, “History and the Operation of Universal Laws”, In Patrick Gardiner (ed.), Theories of History. (Gleneco, Illinois, 1959), 114.

4. See Gunilla Andrae and Bjorn Beckman, The Wheat Trap: Bread and Underdevelopment in Nigeria. (London: Zed Books, 1986).

5. Rishlibrary.newton.kiz.ma.us/cassell Theories.

6. En.m.wikipedia.org “Theory”. Accessed on 9-12-19.

7. https://www.amnh.org. “What is a Theory”. Accessed on 9-12-19

8. See Richard A. Swanson, Theory Building in Applied Disciplines (San Francisco, CA: Berrett- Koehler Publishers, 2013).

9. Gabriel Abend, “The meaning of Theory”. Sociological Theory, 26, June 2008, 173-199.

10. Libguides.usc.edu, “Research Guides”. Accessed on Friday, January 10, 2020.

11. Ikechukwu Nwakaeze Ogugua and Ifunanya Ogugua, “History: Facts, Truth or Lies?”. Uzu: Journal of History and International Studies, vol.4, No.1, October 2014, 35.

12. Ogugua and Ogugua, “History: Facts, Truth or Lies”. Uzu, 35

13. D. G. Watts, The Learning of History. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972), 51.

14. Charles Beard, “That Noble Dream”, In Pritz Stern (ed), Varieties of History (Cleveland, Ohio World Publishing Coy, 1956), 323-325.

15. G. M. Trevelyan, “Bias in History”. History XXXII, No 115, March 1947, 1-15.

16. L. A. Thompson, “The Menace of Bogus History”. Ibadan Journal of Humanistic Studies, vol. 1, 1981, 57.

17. Ebiegberi Joe Alagoa, The Practice of History in Africa: A History of African Historiography (Port Harcourt: Onyoma Research publications, 2007), 1-2.

18. Alagoa, The Practice of History in Africa …

19. For a detailed discussion on the core principles of determining reliability in History, See en. Wikipedia.org/wiki/ Historical methods. See also the following books: (a). R. J. Shafer, A Guide to Historical method. (Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1974); (b). C. Ben McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984) and (c). Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001).

20. Moses Ochonu, “The Academic Nonsense called “Theoretical Framework” in Nigerian Universities. www.educeleb.com. Accessed on 10-12-19.