Progress and Teleology

Of all the “isms” and “ologies” that tend to come up in conversation, I often find myself gravitating toward hashing out the idea of teleology in class discussion . So…what is it and why do I ask my history students to think about it all the time?

In relation to the history discipline, teleology refers to the belief that historical events have a purpose or goal. Some, including theorists and scholars, suggest that historical processes are part of a bigger plan or design, and events happen in a predetermined or predestined way toward a particular outcome. Think of it like this: people who embrace teleological arguments see history as part of a grand narrative or the see a higher purpose guiding historical developments – even a fulfillment of prophecy (Divine Providence at work, in some cases…).

Critics (myself included) argue that teleological views oversimplify or distort our understanding of the past. Have you ever heard the expression: “the right side of history” in relation to progress? Such an expression suggests history is moving - or “progressing” toward some thing - maybe a utopian vision, and events either get us closer to that thing or not. This is what I mean. So, when we discuss “progress” in history we have to be clear. We have to ask ourselves: what kind of progress? Whose terms? And in what context? Remember, progress is relative to the individual or group’s definition. Is there an object truth? Sure, at least I think so, but the perceptions of the truth vary depending on all sorts of things. I like to think of historical events along the lines of contingency, recognizing all sorts of factors, complexities, and perspectives – noting that history has no finish line.   

I would love your thought on this.