Is History Explanatory or Narrative?

In their very short romp through history titled The Lessons of History, Will and Ariel Durant, start by flipping that famous quote and ask:

“Is history “a fable” not quite “agreed upon”?”

And on a related note, they ask:

“As his studies come to a close, the historian faces the challenge: Of what use have your studies been? Have you found in your work only the amusement of recounting the rise and fall of nations and ideas?”

Or:

“Have you derived from history any illumination of our present condition, any guidance of our judgment and policies, any guards against the rebuffs of surprise or the vicissitudes of change?”

 

Some believe that history repeats itself. Others, like Mark Twain, believed that history rhymes, but doesn’t repeat. James Carse, in his book, Finite and Infinite Games, says there are other historians who believe that history can never be objective, that it is affected by the observer (Heisenberg would probably have agreed!). Carse then says:

“The mode of discourse appropriate to such self-aware history is narrative.”

 

Those who believe things “had to” come to a particular outcome (slavery had to end, colonialism had to end, the USSR had to collapse) subscribe to the explanative version of history. Carse brings out the differences of explanatory v/s narrative history:

“(Both explanations and narrations) are concerned with a sequence of events and brings its tale to a conclusion… (But) in a genuine story there is no law that makes any act necessary.”

And:

“Explanation can tolerate a degree of chance, but it cannot comprehend freedom at all… On the other hand, causation cannot find a place in a narrative.”

And most importantly:

“Explanations settle issues, showing that matters must end as they have. Narratives raise issues, showing that matters do not end as they must but as they do. Explanation sets the need for further inquiry aside; narrative invites us to rethink what we thought we knew.”

 

Which raises an all too relevant question: do people inherently fall in one of those camps: explanatory or narrative? Or do they switch modes based on whether or not the currently accepted history aligns with their beliefs and values? I suspect almost everyone falls in the latter category…