Anachronism or antichronism basically consists of using the concepts and ideas of one time to analyze the facts of another time. In other words, anachronism is a mistaken form where we try to evaluate a certain historical time in light of values that do not belong to that same historical time. As much as this seems like a trivial or easily noticeable error, we must be aware of how anachronism interferes with our study of history.
On the one hand, historians, in the daily challenge of their research, always try to escape the problem of anachronism. This would be a “deadly mistake” to be avoided in any serious and well-executed research. Contrary to what it might seem, this problem not only affects history professionals, but is also found in the daily life of classrooms. Generally speaking, many students often comment on the past based on their own values.
It is common to see students complain about how the Portuguese managed, even though they were a minority, to dominate the immense population of slaves in Brazil. Others wonder how the Church had so much power during the Middle Ages. When studying democracy in Athens, they do not believe how the Athenians recognized as democratic a regime that excluded women and foreigners from political matters.
When making this type of criticism, they do not realize that the concepts of equality, reason and democracy used by them were conceived some time after the experiences exemplified here. In this way, they disregard the ideas and concepts that could really justify the habits in Colonial Brazil, in the Middle Ages or in Classical Antiquity. At the same time, they do not take into account that man interprets the past and thus ends up creating a new understanding of it.
One of the broadest examples of this type of practice is seen in the eighteenth century, at the height of Enlightenment thought. Electing reason as the best tool of the human intellect, the Enlightenment scholars considered religiosity as a great obstacle to knowledge and knowledge. In this way, the Middle Ages were interpreted as the “dark age”, where belief and religiosity obscured man's vision.
However, by belittling the medieval past, the illuminists ignored the entire contribution of the medieval philosophers and the fact that the first universities in Europe emerged in the same "age of darkness". From this perspective, we can also consider that the Enlightenment, in the eagerness of its rationalism, failed to look more comprehensively at the characteristics of the Medieval Age.
Detecting this interpretative flaw, we could conclude that anachronism must be completely banned from history. However, would it be impossible then to look at the past with the values of our present? Probably not. If on the one hand we cannot make the mistake of anachronism, we would also never be able to know literally how the individuals of a given period thought. So, how to avoid anachronism?
Anachronism cannot be considered a “ghost” that haunts students and historians. Before that, we must place the values of our time as a reference point by which we could better understand the past. By comparing the differences between the concepts of two different historical times, we can establish a dialogue of our expectations towards the past without disregarding its values. Thus, anachronism is no longer a trap and becomes an important tool for historical understanding.
By Rainer Sousa
Graduated in History
Brazil School Team
History - Brazil School
