explanation of history (historical explanation)

1. HISTORICAL EXPLANATION 2. NATURE OF HISTORY History is an independent science. Autonomous means having his own philosophy of science, the problem itself, and its own explanation. History means to interpret, understand, and understand. We show the khasan mualia with history as a science. Will Helm 1833-1911 Diel They divide knowledge into two, namely knowledge about the outside world and the science of the world. Studies about the outside world is the study of nature, while science is about the world in the humanities ilm humanities, human studies, cultural sciences in the human sciences inclusion of history, economics, sociology, social anntropologi, psychology, comparative religion, political law , philology and literary criticism. We can conclude is the science of history by Will Helm 1833-1911 Diel They include knowledge about the world within. Of the particularities of history it is clear that there must be a special approach to explain the historical phenomena (events, characters, actions, pikira, and words). The approach used to study the history by using the approach through the natural sciences (the science of the outside world) is not in accordance with the nature of the human sciences. Coastal erosion, landslides, flash floods, and other natural events that can indeed be analyzed on a definite cause and effect based on the theory that science can be cumulative. Likewise with symptoms technical, medical, astronomical, farming, geology, and so does not fit with history. The term "explanation" sufficient to explain gejjala history. History: elongated in time, limited in space. History is a process, history is a progression. According to Galtung, the history of science is derived from the word diachronic diachronich; him in Latin and means through chronicus mean time. The history of science is called diachronic, for researching the history of symptoms extending dalama time, but in a limited space. Some say science synchronous, ie the science that examines the symptoms are widespread in space but in a limited time. Both of these sciences are related. Some examples of fictional topic from a diachronic history of other social sciences dn synchronous will explain the difference more clearly. Diachronic historical topic, eg: "Unisoviet history, 1917-1989"; "American Diplomacy: the death of political isolation, 1898-2003"; "cold war, 1945-1989". (Intentionally titles are numbered year, solely to demonstrate its diachronic. Research archives allow people to examine a long time. The term includes extending the time history of symptoms also is in a long time. As an example, topic topics from other social sciences for example is: "Order of Naqsyabandiyah - Qodiriyah in pesantren java"; "metro politan cities: Jakarta, Surabaya and Medan"; (survey and interview methods only allow a contemporary topic in the short term, but the bias so the space is very broad. We would like to note that there is a cross between history yahg diachronic and other social sciences singkronis. This means that there are times when a history of using social science, and vice versa, using social science history. Diachronic science mixed with synchronous. Examples: "the role of military in politics 0.1945 to 1999" written by an expert in political science; "elite religion and politics 1945-2003" written by sociologists.

History: telling a single symptom. The history of social science as others, have storytelling (description) and explanation (explanation). But history is different from other social sciences in the telling of history is said that a single symptom, while the social sciences attract public law. Sjarah said that an object or idea and raised it as a singular phenomenon in the meantime, other social sciences wish to attract the law, and raised the general symptoms. Example topic fictitious clarify the difference: "the Indonesian revolution 1945-1949; French revolution 1789; tragedy Priuk headland. Any thing that is spoken by historians only applies in particular to the Indonesian revolution, the French revolution, and the tragedy headland Priuk; not for other events especially for all the revolutions and bloody events. As for the other social sciences such as: industrialization and economic inequality and social mobility of radicalism. In any topic that people want to make theories about social mobility, economic behavior radicalism and personal industi politicians. 1. HISTORICAL EXPLANATION After knowing the kind of history as a science subject will be explained below in connection with this type of historical explanation ilmupeganglah following three points: 1. Historical explanation is to interpret and understand 2. Historical explanation is an explanation of time that extends 3. Historical explanation is an explanation of singular events In many books on the history of the pressure main explanation of causal explanation. For example, the book Alan J. Lichtman and valeriye French, Historians and the living past; book petrick Gardiner, the nature of historical explanation. But, as it will appear more historical explanation of the causal explanation (causal explanation). Emphasize causal explanation and leave the other means a reduction on the nature of science history. It would no longer need to be emphasized that all historical explanations must be supported by the data of authentic, reliable and complete. Furthermore, when simplified, the rules of historical explanation are: 1. Regularity 2. Generalization 3. Wearing inference (conclusion) Statistics and statistical methods 4. The division of time in the history of (long term) the geographic 5. Explanation of history is also contained in the historical narrative, descriptive, and history tells 6. The explanation is multiinterpretable, depending on the perspective of historians 1. 2. Periodization Periodization is a concept of mere historian, a produkmental which only exists in the minds of historians, a adeal type. Periodization that even if only as a product of the historian of thought, is not determined arbitrarily. Periodization is the result of comparative thinking between one period to another period when historians look characteristic of a period of history. Historians also indicate the important changes from one historical period to historical period berikutnya.periodisasi generally will divide history into three periods, namely the Ancient, Middle, and modern. There is a difference to every aspect of history in the area, time range, and variation. The differences in the historical aspects of the area, time span, and there are also variations in the history periodization Indonesia.

1. Causality LEOPOLD VON RONKE issued a dictum that historians should write as occurred yng truth. That is, the historian must submit to the facts, the historian must have integrity, and the historian must be objective (no sides). He issued a dictum that in the 19th century when the influence of philosophical positivism very dominan.Dalam kausalitassejarawan must analyze two things, namely cases (events) and change. Both differ in the impact: the case of processual nature without changes, whereas there is a change in the change of causality, ie structural changes and changes system.Dalam case study we found no single case is complex. Single cases of so-called simple if historians discover the cause bshwa only one ( monokausal), whereas a single case of so-called complex if the causes are many (multikausal). Monokausal.Prinsip analysis of causality is the presence of regularity (keajekan). Details itdiantaranya principle reads as "vacuum of authority resulting in anarchy"; "political regime is facing difficulties are always looking for a scapegoat"; "to stand in solidarity, the government appointed the enemies of virtual or real" ; ketakadilan cause resistance "; political crisis invites militarism". Causality is a theme, so no need to explicitly. Example of a book by John Ingleson, Road To Exail: The Indonesian Nationalist Movement 1927-1934. The theme of this book is injustice causality cause resistance ". Causality initidak book will be explicit, and we will think that this book Narrative hiastori choose the path, because this book managed to track down the theme almost from day to day. This book tracks the movement of nationalism in Indonesia since 1927 to exile nationalist figures in 1934.Di therein we find the issues that only a contemporary, such as problems ko o dank, and the moderate and radical economic and social progress of Indonesia's independence. 1. a. Case Studies In case studies we found a single case of simple and complex there is a single case. Single case is called simple when historians discovered that the cause is only one (mono-causal), whereas a single case of so-called complex if the causes are many (multi-causal). Analysis monokausal The principle of causality that is the regularity (keajekan). Detailed principles of which reads "vacuum of authority resulting in anarchy; political regime who face difficulties are always looking for a scapegoat; for solidarity, the government appointed the enemies of virtual or real; inequalities caused resistance; and political crisis invites militarism". Causality is the theme, so no need to explicitly. Multi-causal analysis. Same with a single case study is simple, multi-causal analysis of development there are also processual. The difference lies in the analysis of causality. In a multi-causal analysis, historians look at the case from several aspects, trukturan processual and complex causality. 1. b. Changes Study Dlam study of change, the historian must determine the unit of analysis: structural studies (one part) or the study of the structure (overall). The study is the structure of the political economic, social, and cultural in a society. The study of these structures can of course be reduced to the study of structural elements such as, health, banking, sports, and so on. The study structure

is similar to the case study. It's just his subject matter is a structural change. Studies discuss the system as a whole system change. Studies on the system could have a small social units, such as a city, a community, or a village. Both studies of the structure and study the system, they are not limited to the scope and time span. In the study of structure and systems, causality (the agent of change) can be a rapid process or a long and ongoing process. The process that occurs for example in rapid revolutions that gave birth to new countries. A long and continuous process for example, contained in liberalization, democratization, industrialization, and the dissemination of ideas (eg, nationalism, socialism). 1. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS The concept of the structure into the realm of historical science through struturalis tradition of thought (Marxism and structuralism). According to Christopher Lloyd in Explanation in Social History, explanation of the history of the concept of structure has three streams. First, the flow of culture, look at the structure of this flow by examining the culture of human mental products in all its forms. Antopologi studies, history of thought, the history of mentality, psychology, analysis of Martial Arts, often including this flow. Second, the flow of geography, economics, and social. This stream looks at the process and continuity that exist beneath the surface of the symptom-gejal.a history. Third, the flow focusing on epistemology and methodology in the relationship between structuralism and the way other explanation. As a historian, the first flow and the latter that concerns us. Why the idea of the structure appears, according to historian Lucien Febvre should not impose a priori theory in the study of society and history, while historians should not just stop at the facts. Indeed, the historian must seek out and and find the facts, but not a slogan "the facts to the facts". Historians have to understand, understand, and menjelasakanfakta-fact. And so history is not stuck to the preformance of one hand and the theory of narrative simply Matadi other hand, was born the concept of structure. The structure is useful to organize the facts. KataMarc Bloch, "history is one way of organizing the past, so that the past does not become a burden". Structure of the past to make history by analogy is also contemporary history. In the sections below will be submitted four different explanations histografi structure in Indonesia, respectively, the structure of culture, social structure, political structure and the structure of the material. The structure of our culture take from symbolic realism, social structures and political structures we take from atructurationism, and material structure of ecological materialism. Cultural structures. The concept of the structure of culture or symbolic realism is that the symbolic structure of "systems thinking, attitudes as they appear in words, objects, and conventional behavior." Social structure. Here we use strukturasionisme. Strukturasionisme argues that the structure refers to a number of rules in an institutionalized social system. The structure is both means and outcome of organized practices are repeated continuously. Material structure. We use materialismeekologis. Ecological materialism (historical materialism) "put the power base of social development on the plains of material from the public". There is a

conceptual ecology (rural, urban, big city, metropolis), there are actual ecology (mountains, fields, lading). Ecology we mean the actual and concrete, as concrete was like bones to dogs. 1. PARALLELISM IN Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word 'parallel', among others defined as "moving in a common purpose". Thus, parallelism (parallel) has two senses: the similarity and otherness and otherness pengulangan.kemiripan and obtained by comparing the two symptoms with a history of similar themes in different places. Similarities and otherness that can be called judga such as horizontal parallelism. Repetition obtained if the similarity between the two phenomena is taken with the theme of history and place the same but different times (past and present). Repetition is the vertical parallelism. Close parallelism with the history of comparison (comparative history), which compares the historical events the same. 1. Similarity The resemblance has not received attention from historians of Indonesia, but only a few people. Yet the opportunity for it abound. Many units of the history of Indonesia is very promising from the point of resemblance to history. Symptoms such as trading history, indusrtialisasi, urbanization, crime, nationalism, and modernization of its history of bias sought parallelism. In the atmosphere mulkti kulturisme, the study of parallelism has a strategic role. 2. Repetition These studies are rarely found. Karennanya we only found two studies, one theoretical, while the other is empirical. 3. Generalization History In contrast to the parallelism that by comparing the two units of history only task is completed, the generalization must compare many units of history. Historical generalization is to compare the units history. Location of historical explanation is that there are generalizations that, not on the description of each unit history. Generalization words actually require a long explanation, concerning the philosophy and practice of writing history. Here we describe words in terms of the generalized practice of writing history. In practice, the writing of history has at least four generalizations meaning two of which are mentioned in Alan J. Lichtman and Valerie French, Historian and the living past and covering Laws of syllogisms. Two other meaning is the statistical inference and generalization of history (Historical generalization). Statistical inference is the generalization captured by statistical methods, namely distriusi, correlation, regression, content analysis, and time series. Adapaun historical generalization is a generalization that is made by comparing the historical units. 1. RAPPROCHEMENT (HISTORY AND SOCIAL THEORY) Cooperation between the science of history and social sciences will appear as a contradiction. History of symptoms associated with a unique, once occurred, and bound to the context of time and place. Meanwhile the social sciences seek common law (general laws)

occurs over and over and out of context of time and place when historians talk about the Indonesian revolution, social scientists talk about the revolution. Besides the contradiction also occurs because the diachronic history of social sciences while synching cronich. Therefore, the historian who uses social science must have a social science logic means he must think at once diachronic and synchronic double. 1. Quantification The importance of inference (conclusion) and statistical methods to historical explanation has been advanced by William O. Aydelotte (American historian) said that the quantification in the study of history is useful for memverikasikan generalizations (general statements). He also said that history ended with an impressionistic quantification. Statements containing such factual generalizations significant, increase, spread, and tifikal, is actually a quantitative statement. With the quantification of vague statements that the bias in measuring precisely. But not all of the writing of history requires quantification. History of psychiatric thought and history, for example, can not be in kuantifikasikan. In short, everything to do with human consciousness, will not be in kuantifikasikan. If consciousness quantified, it means denying human values, a dehumanization. In history, the dehumanization is not likely to occur. However, in the social sciences is possible dehumanization. Attitude for example, can both on kuantifikasikan. History, on the contrary, which uses only a limited statistics (descriptive statistics rather than the Predictive Statistics) is not possible to dehumanization. The difference between descriptive statistics and Predictive Statistics lies in the kind of statistic that is used. Descriptive statistics only revolve around the techniques for describing data in the figures, namely distribution, measuring the relationship between two variables (correlation, regression), content analysis, and time series. Meanwhile, predictive statistics are very useful in experimental research, especially to confirm the generalization, but little relevance to the study of history. So, there should be no concerns will dehumanized history, history does not deny the human elements. 1. Narrative History Narrative history is to write a descriptive history but not just lining up the facts. At least three conditions we find a way to write narrative history, namely: Coligation, plot and structure of history. 2. Colligation This was stated by WHWalsh in the Philosophy of History theory says that writing history is to find an inner connection (in relation) between historical events. Following the procedure as usual telrlampaui historical method, it was time we did colligation. 3. Plot The plot is a way of organizing the facts into a whole. People are not likely to do the writing of universal history, but must break it into parts, such as political history, religious

history, family history and so on. This method proposed by paul Veyne in writing History. The plot in history similar to the plot in the literature, namely the interpretation and explanation. 4. Historical structures According to Webster's New College Dictionary is a way of organizing. The need for the structure of history as an accurate reconstruction proposed by Micael Stanford in the Nature of Historical Knowledge.