A Berlin for Historians

On his death in 1997 Isaiah Berlin was widely hailed as a leading philosopher of political liberalism. This article takes the position that Berlin's philosophical views, particularly those on freedom and cultural pluralism, can also be construed as a valuable guide for historians working in the present, "postmodernist" climate of debate. It further argues that Berlin's character and career, the subjects already of considerable critical inquiry, lend added authority to these views. The focus is on three lengthy essays on history written by Berlin in the 1950s, one of which was first published in the first issue of this journal. The article concludes, following Berlin, that it is the responsibility of historians, as historians, to recognize the often incommensurate plurality of ultimate values to which their fellow human beings historically have subscribed and to judge, as judge they sometimes must, with that recognition fully in mind. If the result of these as well as the other choices that they make is a plurality of histories, of contending subjects, approaches, methods, and outcomes, that is only to be expected, indeed welcomed. It is freedom in practice, and infinitely preferable as such to any known alternative.     

Requiem for the Net Migrant

Despite recent research that has demonstrated the clear superiority of a multiregional perspective in measuring and projecting the dynamics of internal migration flows, many scholars continue to adopt the uniregional perspective that is forced to focus on net migrants, a nonexistent category of individuals. Net migration models are misspecified because the rates that they use confound changing migration propensities with changing population stocks. Moreover, they obscure regularities in age profiles of migration and thereby further misspecify the spatial dynamics generating observed settlement patterns. Thus, the use of the net migration rate as the dependent variable in explanatory models of migration can produce a misspecification of the fundamental relationships that are the subject of inquiry. This paper considers deficiencies of the net migration concept and illustrates them with numerical examples.     

Requiem for the Fixed-Transition-Probability Migrant

In a recent paper titled “Requiem for the Net Migrant” Andrei Rogers persuasively argues for the use of a multiregional perspective rather than a uniregional one in measuring and projecting the dynamics of internal migration. In particular, he highlights the deficiencies of using net migration rates in population projections, giving illustrations of the very large differences that can occur if constant net migration rates are assumed versus fixed interregional transition probabilities. Net migration rates are conceptually unsound because their denominators are not true “at-risk” populations. Fixed interregional transition probabilities, however, are inconsistent with a sound behavioral representation of migration system dynamics. Whereas such stationary Markov models posit a role for shifting origin region populations, they do not embed the assumptions intrinsic to gravity or opportunity model concepts about the role of changing destination region populations. This paper explores alternative, more behaviorally pleasing interregional models that posit a role for shifting destination populations in altering the attractiveness of migration alternatives. Density-dampened, destination-population-weighted transition probability structures are explored. The importance of modeling intraregional migration separately from nonmovement is stressed.     

Historians Writing about Historians

This article takes three famous historians writing about historians and history-writing as its subject, considering Fan Ye’s work in light of Liu Zhiji’s understanding of history and Fan Ye’s writing on Ban Gu. It seeks to discover in Liu Zhiji’s work the principles for writing a guoshi 國史 (court history), reading Liu Zhiji’s principles in relation to Liu’s assessment of Fan Ye’s Hou Hanshu (History of the Later Han) in general, and, it provides, more particularly as a case study, a study of Fan Ye’s treatment of the earlier historian Ban Gu, author of the Hanshu (History of Han). The article builds the cases that Liu Zhiji and Fan Ye are model historians, insofar as they were responsible for supplying plausible accounts of the past based on the evidence available to them. Liu Zhiji’s metahistorical rules and Fan Ye’s biography of Ban Gu serve in the article as examples in this regard. The article presumes that the historians’ experiences in their own lifetimes inevitably shaped both the style and content of their works, as no “objective” or “scientific” account of history is possible. The good historian instead holds himself accountable for the judgments rendered. So although modern historians of China today may well prefer the rhetorical style of one of the three early historians to that of the others, moderns would do well to ponder, and in some cases emulate features of the early histories under review here.     

Hayden White's Appeal to the Historians

Historians rarely agree with Hayden White's account of theirdiscipline. To a certain extent their dissatisfaction can be explained by the fact that historianscustomarily distrust historical theory and always tend to look at the historical theorist with thegreatest suspicion. But historians find an extra argument for their dislike of White's ideasin his alleged cavalier disregard of how historical facts limit what the historian might wish to sayabout the past. And, admittedly, this criticism is not wholly unfounded.
Nevertheless, this essay attempts to show how misguided this traditional criticism ofWhite actually is. For it is historians who too easily take the truth of their accounts of the past forgranted, whereas White's theoretical writings can be shown to express a full awareness ofthe kind of problem encountered in the effort to tell the truth about historical reality. Hence,White's writing—rather than those by historians criticizing White—testify to therespect that we owe to historical reality itself.
That this is how we should read White becomes clear if we consider his intellectualevolution as a whole rather than the individual books or essays that he wrote.