Why do we study the history of the world? The study of history develops the ability to understand the flow of our society in the now. R.G. Collingwood states that "history teaches what man has done, and therefore what man is" (Holter 9). Gustavson claims that a history student "is learning how the world he lives in was put together" (Gustavson 3).

All people have some intuitive awareness of history, however, this understanding is often flawed. As Gustavson states, "most of the more flashy panaceas that are offered are usually put forth with little idea of origins" (Gustavson 3). To fully benefit from history, a person should work, study and think about more than the names, dates and places. He begins to look into the underlying social forces, causes, revolutions and continuations in the stream of history. A methodology must be applied to fully understand these characteristics. That methodology is called historiography, the "theories, practices and approaches historians bring to research, writing and thinking about history" (Holter 9).

Gustavson approaches historiography by specific applications of driving forces (i.e. loyalty and individuals) that are built upon four principles describing historical events which, in turn, are supported by a foundation of historical mindedness. This hierarchical approach to the study of history is practical. As the approach builds upon itself, it tends to be easy to learn the basics. After learning the basics, the only obstacle to a true historical understanding is to employ the approach often, honing the skills with each new application.

The foundation, historical mindedness, consists of developing the ability to think historically and a realization that the past exists in the present. Before beginning to develop the principles for applying historiography, it is important that the beginning historian develop a sense of historical mindedness. There are seven tenets of a person that has developed this trait.

"A natural curiosity as to what underlies the surface appearance of any historical event" (Gustavson 6). This first characteristic is the basis for further development of historical mindedness. Without this natural curiosity as to the underlying nature, the beginning historian will only study the dates and names of history. For example, without this curiosity, the reason for North Carolina seceding from the Union is simple, NC seceded to be with its brethren states in the continuation of slavery. However, upon further insight, NC seceded from the Union because the "seizure of Federal property, which followed the firing on Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops, helped cause Union sentiment in North Carolina to disappear over night" (Barrett 13).

"In studying any present problem, idea, event or institution, the mind of the historian inevitably gravitates in the direction of the past, seeking origins, relationships and comparisons" (Gustavson 6). Historical mindedness strengthens the ability to discern the minutiae of our modern society. Today, Greensboro, NC is known as the "Gate City." Why is it called such? "Nevertheless, the high hopes of the 1870-1920 period brought the claim that Greensboro was 'the railroad gateway to North Carolina,' which was shortened to the term 'Gate City'" (Stoesen 29). Although the term, "Gate City," is used extensively in Greensboro, many people have no comprehension as to why.

"The student of society must try to discern the shapes and contours of the forces which are dynamic in society" (Gustavson 6). To grasp social forces and their effects on history is critical to full awareness. The selection of Greensboro as the home of NC A&T University, originally known as the Agricultural and Mechanical College for the Negro Race, set the forces in motion that eventually led to the civil rights sit-ins of 1960.

"He stresses the continuity of society in all its forms" (Gustavson 6). As most people naturally resist change, history is more often in a state of continuity as opposed to change. Although a majority of the southern states felt that the election of Lincoln gave reason to secede, in North Carolina, "the great majority of people did not regard the election of a 'Black Republican,' however distasteful, as sufficient grounds for withdrawing from the Union" (Barrett 4). The people of the state opted for continuity versus revolution.

"Society is perpetually undergoing a process of change" (Gustavson 7). If change did not occur, then society would quickly stagnate. Very simple, transparent changes can be significant. For example, "with the change to state control of the highway system in the 1920s…the state constructed a concrete highway between Greensboro and High Point…and made it easier for residents of High Point to get to the county seat" (Stoesen 39). This change created the situation where the two cities have virtually merged into one. Thus, the entire region has been strengthened.

"He must approach his subject in a spirit of humility, prepared to recognize tenacious reality rather than what he wishes to find" (Gustavson 7). As any good scientist knows, a hypothesis can only become a theory by the application of experimentation. If the experiment goes per the hypothesis, then the hypothesis progresses to a theory. However, should the experiment go the opposite direction, then something is still learned. We must not be closed minded to any possible learning, whether it supports our hypotheses or not.

"Finally, the historian knows that each situation and event is unique" (Gustavson 7). History does not repeat itself, contrary to what is often quoted. We must reap the benefits of learning the lessons of history to prevent problems occurring today. However, these are not the same problems that faced the people of history. The stock market, as with any other institution, strives to expand. Understanding the causes of the stock market crash of 1929 cannot prevent a crash today. In 1929, a major cause was an "imbalance of wealth [that] created an unstable economy" (Gusmorino 3^rd 1). The stock market today has mechanisms in place to prevent "an imbalance of wealth" from toppling the market, but, this does not preclude the possibility of a stock market crash.

The final chapter of becoming historically minded is the realization that all that dwelled in the past continues to exist at this moment. As we move through the present world, yesterday constantly surrounds us. It is of great consequence that the young historian have the ability to see the world that existed and its influences on today's world. Should the young historian not be able to see the ancient world in the present, then he has no ability to delve into the causes of why things happen as they do.

The central piedmont region of North Carolina provides an example of the influences of yesterday on today. In this region of North Carolina, there is a lower percentage of African-Americans and a much higher tolerance of diversity. Why? This area of North Carolina was originally settled mainly by the religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Two characteristics of Quakers are that they aspire to be a peace loving people and they revel in treating others as equals. These characteristics became part of the local personality, even among non-Quakers. The desire to treat others equally obliged the settlers of this region to not own slaves. Thus, the central area of North Carolina did not have legions of slaves. Without a significant slave population, the percentage of African-Americans was reduced. This lowered percentage persists. Secondly, because of the desire for peace, the Quakers taught tolerance, increasing the magnanimity toward diversity of cultures. Today, because of these early settlers, the Piedmont Triad region of North Carolina is more tolerant of diversity than much of the south.

After learning the principles of historical mindedness, they must be applied. Not only can they be applied to history, but, also to everyday life. An example of this occurred at my workplace. I work for a company that is wildly successful (1500% growth in 10 years). At one point, my superior was replaced by an outside hire. Upon starting his employment, this person ignored the history of the company, he failed to realize that continuity and gradual change is preferable to revolution. Within 3 months, he had 30 major projects that were to be completed within 3 months. He attempted to start a revolution in quality, however, he succeeded in starting a revolt against his management style. This gentleman lasted about 1 year with my company. If he had perceived the social forces within our company and comprehended historical mindedness, he may have prevailed.

By diligently applying the seven tenets outlined above, the budding historian develops a sense of historical mindedness. Assiduous application of the tenets prepares the historian for learning the principles of historiography. These principles, according to Gustavson, are: (1) continuity, (2) change, (3) causation and (4) social forces.

The first two principles of historiography are intertwined. Change and continuity are not opposites as most people suspect. The historian knows the truth, that change cannot exist without continuity or vice versa. Evolution (or continuity) is the normal course of events in the world, not revolution (or change). History shows that the world is more often in a state of peace than in a state of war. This occurs because the human spirit needs long periods of recuperation after relatively short periods of drastic change. Gustavson's recounting of the growth of the English Parliament is an effective demonstration of both continuity and change.

Evolution allows for growth in the human condition. It does not preclude small, incremental changes for the better. Evolutionary changes are often unplanned, haphazard and, often, invisible to the people that are living it. Thus, change is not perceived. After a period of time passes, it is much easier to see the improvements that occurred in this fashion. Unfortunately, these periods of history often go unnoticed, as they are normally unremarkable.

Gustavson states, "subjected to the incessant pressure of ever-changing social forces, these forms undergo a constant process of alteration" (Gustavson 65). The concern for the historian is that change be emphasized in the correct quantity. In our youthful considerations of history, the great eras of change were the normal mode of study. Revolutions and wars fascinated the adolescent mind far more than the ages of normalcy. These juvenile ramblings overemphasized change at the expense of continuity. An experienced historian will comprehend that these times of change are unusual.

The third principle of Gustavson's historiography is causation. The ability to divine true causation is not an easy task. Causation is complicated and multi-faceted, not simple and one dimensional. The young historian must be wary of simplistic and superficial thinking about causation. Historians often assign many causes to certain events, never a single cause. However, even multiple causes are merely theory, not fact. Unfortunately, the world can never fully interpret the causes of the past. This is not due to a lack of understanding, but, because the facts of history often reflect the viewpoints of the prevailing party or institution. For example, an American will study the American Revolution with an American viewpoint and American books. This study shows that the Revolution was a good thing. But, should you be British, your view will look dramatically different.

Gustavson tells the story of the Reformation (Gustavson 56-62). As the story progresses, many possible causes of the Reformation are offered. Which of these are true? It is possible that all caused the Reformation, or that two of the reasons did or even that none of the stated reasons are the true cause. Can we determine the true cause? Again, we do not have the ability to strictly assign the cause.

Moving forward in time, the looking glass that we use to view history changes. As the views of history change, causation often changes with it. Our theories of the causes of the Reformation are limited by our modern views. The true historian will realize that his personality and environment will bias his hypothesis of the causes of any historical event. Thus, the historian must always be open to differing opinions and viewpoints, as these may change his thinking on any particular subject.

Gustavson's final principle is social forces. History flows from the past into the present on rivers of social forces. These forces are "human energies which, originating in individual motivations, coalesce into a collective manifestation of power" (Gustavson 28). According to Gustavson, there are six social forces, "economic, religious, institutional (mainly political), technological, ideological, and military" (Gustavson 28). However, social forces are more numerous than this. Other social forces include education (not the institution, but the amount), the "spirit of cooperation" (Holter 19), "class consciousness" (Holter 19) and competition (the ability to better oneself by working harder and better than others). This list is still not exhaustive, but it gives a good feel for the variety of social forces.

The Gustavson hierarchical approach to historiography emphasizes social forces to the diminishment of other principles. Are social forces the truest comprehension of history? Although answering yes is easy, a question must be raised: is it possible for an individual or an idea to alter the course of history? If it is possible, then these concepts change the flow of social forces and, thus, are stronger drivers of history than the social forces. There are no good, solid answers to these questions and comments. Probably the best answer is that either is a stronger driver, dependent on circumstances.

Social forces are the agents of continuity. The social forces that Gustavson discusses all tend to evolve, causing evolution in the world around them. Government, an institution, is a perfect example of social forces as agents of continuity. To remain vital, an institution must have "(1) the necessary economic support; (2) the facilities for convincing the populace of its value; (3) tools for defense, spiritual and material; (4) sufficient discipline within the group to avoid internal conflicts" (Gustavson 82). None of these characteristics lends itself to revolutionary change, rather, they are evolutionary. The social force is vulnerable to revolution by right of its characteristics. Revolution, by the Gustavson definition, "a social or economic group is superseded in control of the state by another group under circumstances of violence" (Gustavson 99), directly moves toward attacking the institution of government. Thus, in this instance, revolution is the stronger driver. It alters the path of history by causing a discontinuity in the evolution of the social force.

The second layer of the hierarchy is laid when the historian learns these principles. The final layer, the driving forces that are able to change the course of history, requires the most diligent work and thought. Gustavson includes chapters on seven of these forces: (1) social forces (again), (2) the institutional factor, (3) revolution, (4) the individual in history, (5) the role of ideas, (6) power and (7) international organization.

Driving forces tend to be a characteristic that has the ability to change the course of history, without the help of social forces. The individual in history provides a good model of a driving force. Two theories have survived surrounding the role of the individual in history: (1) the Great Man theory and (2) the deterministic movement.

The Great Man theory allows that a person can dramatically change the course of history in opposition to the prevailing social forces. Any, truly Great Man would need to be a genius, with tremendous will power and drive. These Great Men would be the primary drivers in history, with social forces only providing the means of transporting society from one Great Man to the next. This theory tends to be very popular. However, it has definite flaws, such as the basic premise that individuals are the only possible history change agents. What about institutions, economics and a myriad of other feasible drivers? A potential example of the Great Man would be Adolph Hitler. Upon the surface, it is very easy to believe that Hitler significantly changed history, going against the trend of social forces. But, this is a very simplistic view of the causation of World War II. Hitler was actually supported by prevailing social forces, in addition to being a great leader. "The most frightening totalitarian state was Nazi Germany. A product of Hitler's evil genius as well as of Germany's social and political situation and the general attack on liberalism and rationality in the age of anxiety" (McKay, Hill, Buckler 936).

The other view of individuals in history is that of the deterministic movement. The basic belief of the determinists is "history is a record of a constant process of evolution toward a predetermined goal in which interruptions may occur, and there may be unforeseen delays and detours, but the ultimate result is foreordained" (Gustavson 124). This notion does not leave room for the possibility that leaders do truly lead, the view believes that another leader would have come along and used the circumstances to their advantage.

Gustavson appears to side more with the determinists when it comes to the individual, as opposed to the Great Man theory, believing that a man must have the right conditions (i.e. social forces) for him to make a significant change in history. Nevertheless, he leaves room for both theories to work in moderation. This is an enlightened view, realizing that both philosophies have something to contribute. Evolution will occur in history, but distinct men provide channels for it in differing ways. These channels then influence the course of the evolution.

Gustavson claims that "history is often made by the right man at the right time" (Gustavson 128). This statement apparently allows the combination of the two doctrines. But, how do we know that it was "the right man at the right time?" As related by the study of causation, we cannot truly know the answer to this question. It is only correct in viewing history from the vantage point of the future. If another man had come along to lead, as the determinists believe is possible, then would history be different? A different man would have provided a distinct channel for the social forces, thus, leading to an altered history.

A second force that is capable of swaying the course of history is power. All of the social forces try to draw power to their causes. An example of this is in the institution's drive to expand. By expanding, the institution's influence multiplies, giving more power. Influence is but one type of power, physical force, economic control, spiritual power and technological might are others (Gustavson 180-181). Another type of power, not included in Gustavson's list, is intellectual ability, which underlies several of the other types of power.

Most types of power are subtle, physical force is not. The bully on the playground typifies this power. He shows up and all the other kids immediately give in to him. He does not have to "play games" to get what he wants. History contains many examples of this type of power. Probably the most consistent exhibition of physical force is in the standing armies of most civilized countries. These countries should not need the armies, but, they are there nonetheless.

Gustavson considers economic power to be "much less dramatic in its historical manifestations and is less visible in the events narrated in history, yet it is, as we know, all-pervasive in its insistent pressure" (Gustavson 180). This view requires modification since Gustavson's time. The economic world has gained tremendously in authority in the last three or four decades as evidenced by the importance of the modern stock market.

Spiritual power generally associates itself with religion and the church. This tremendous institution appears as a major controlling factor in history. The Roman Catholic Church displayed enormous power throughout Europe prior to the 1900s. As time has progressed, this power does not appear to hold as much sway over people. It is being replaced by technological might.

The pace of increasing technological power is accelerating. As the Twentieth Century draws to a close, this type of power has become frightening. Almost the epitome of technological power was the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. By applying technology that only America had at the time, a potential deadly invasion of the Japanese homeland was avoided. This type of power is quickly replacing both physical and spiritual forces. With the physical force, technological might renders it moot. At the turn of a switch on a computer, all of the physical might of a company can be stopped. Technology is motivating people to look at the now, more than things such as the afterlife. Spiritual power diminishes due to people becoming more materialistic because of technology being more widely available. Even Gustavson, from his view in the 1950s, states "technological power is an emerging form which has not yet been brought fully into use" (Gustavson 181).

The final type of power is intellectual. Many would say that this is not a separate type of power. But, it is the basis for at least two of the other powers. Modern economic power derives from the aptitude to understand the business world and the stock market. These abilities are academic in nature and, thus, intellectual prowess is necessary to gain economic power. Technological power is similar in nature. The development of the atomic bomb took "many of the greatest physicists of the time" (Gribbin and Gribbin 92). Physics is considered to be the ultimate science, necessitating great intellectual ability. Intellect also supports spiritual power, as understanding of the great philosophies of religion becomes difficult, requiring great intelligence.

After learning the layers of the hierarchy, the historian should zealously apply the search for the truth. Although the hierarchy often becomes entangled, the driving forces and principles not remaining separate and distinct, the historian must, as part of his training, learn to untangle the hierarchy. It is then possible to drive on to the true calling of the historian, to increase our knowledge of the past, without confusing it further.

To increase our knowledge of the past, the historian is compelled to be a time traveler, viewing today from yesterday and from tomorrow. To become this time traveler, the first step is to master Gustavson's hierarchy, or some similar approach to historiography. The true work begins next. Delving into the primary sources of history, applying historiography and writing about the findings. Thus, expanding our comprehension of history.

The Gustavson book works very well as a beginning study in historiography. Gustavson appears to be developing a hierarchy of historiography. His writings take the reader through the hierarchy by building the foundation first (an understanding of historical mindedness), then teaching some of the social forces, finally concluding with the driving forces. He sometimes interweaves the social and driving forces, this is effective due to these forces true natures also being intertwined. In each of these layers, he builds an understanding of the dogma, while also injecting his viewpoints. For example, in the chapter on the past in the present, he states "the first important idea to grasp in studying history is that in the world in which we live, the contours we accept as a part of our modern world are in reality outcroppings of layers laid down in the past" (Gustavson 22). Whenever he offers his own opinion, it is supported by stories from European history.

Although he covers each of the layers of hierarchy with a coating of true history, the book remains a very analytical, somewhat dry volume that truly teaches the topic. The examples from history do not form a coherent look at the evolution of time. They are simply snippets that support the point to be learned.

Gustavson attempts to provide a balanced viewpoint of the theories of history. He does not appear to have a bias for any type of social force, whether it be institutional, economic or ideological. This balance view allows him to bring in differing viewpoints and offer both to his reader. For example, in the chapter on the individual in history, he offers both the Great Man and deterministic viewpoints (Gustavson 124). He then uses these differing viewpoints to build his own, an excellent approach to teaching. This balanced view also answers many questions that arise while reading. As an example of this, I questioned the validity of the League of Nations as I read through his review of that institution. He gave a balanced view that answered my questions of the effectiveness of the institution (Gustavson 201-206).

As Gustavson is a relatively old book, it is amazing that its concepts are still very useful today. Although some of the work is outdated and the bibliography is somewhat small, the text is an excellent start to a personal adventure in learning history.

Barrett, John G. The Civil War in North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1963.

Gribbin, John and Mary Gribbin. Richard Feynman: A Life in Science. New York: Penguin Books, 1997.

Gusmorino 3^rd, Paul A. Main Cause of the Great Depression. Online. http://www.escape.com/~paulg53/politics/great_depression.shtml. World Wide Web. 30 May 1998.

Gustavson, Carl G. A Preface to History. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1955.

Holter, Howard. Humanities 501, Defining the Humanities: History Course Guide. California State University, Dominguez Hills, 1997.

McKay, John P., Bennett D. Hill and John Buckler. A History of Western Society: From Absolutism to the Present. 2 vols. Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991.

Stoesen, Alexander R. Guilford County: A Brief History. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Division of Archives and History, 1993.