Causal Explanation in History: An Analysis of Research Practices

Abstract (How) do historians infer causality? Comparing two typical bodies of research literature—the dispute over the Anglo-American “Great Rapprochement” after 1895 and that over extreme violence in colonial warfare—I analyze to what extent historians use causal language, establish causal–intentional explanations, analyze unintended consequences, and use causal theories, comparisons, and counterfactuals. I conclude that historical research practice defies the clarity of methodological dichotomies such as “explaining vs. understanding,” though it is best described as vaguely causal–analytical. Given the disconnect between methodological discussions (of both the social sciences and history itself) and research practice, historians do not appear to be either “natural allies” in the struggle of anticausalist social scientists or easy sparring partners for methodological exchange with causalist social scientists.