Objectivity In History Essay
Objectivity in History
First exposure to history, whether it be at home or at school, will almost certainly be at an age when the child can do no other than expect to be told the truth.
So, from the very beginning, whether we find history dull or exciting, easy or hard, we do at least assume that we are being given an accurate account of the past. Our subsequent growing up can be seen as a process of progressively shedding the literal beliefs of early life, from Father Christmas and Easter Bunny, to parental infallibility and perhaps religion; the literal truth of the history we learn could be regarded as a further casualty along that road. I wonder, though, whether we ever quite shake off the feeling that if a book or a film claims to be historical, then it should represent the past as it indeed was. To take a topical example, is it only British national pride which is offended when American film makers rewrite the history of the last war to the greater glory of the United States? Or are we feeling what we may later learn of Montesquieu, who wrote of Voltaire that the latter was "comme les moines, qui n'écrivent pas pour le sujet qu'ils traitent, mais pour la gloire de leur ordre"?
There is indeed much that we have to learn if we aspire to knowledge of history and of the philosophy behind it, but we will with great probability come to the subject sharing this almost universal prejudice that we have a right to believe what is presented as history. Perhaps an early doubt will creep in when we are told that the very word "history" is the Greek for "inquiry", a doubt quickly strengthened by the most superficial reflection on the frightening ease with which we can and often do misunderstand things we are told in our daily life; what the military know as the "three-and-fourpence syndrome". We go on to learn that one of the founding fathers of history, Herodotus, dealt almost exclusively with events to which he could personally interview eye-witnesses, any other accounts presumed to be unreliable.
R G Collingwood tells us that a great deal of the history of writing history is about the gradual increase in the professionalism of historians, their growing skills in evaluating and comparing sources and authorities, the realisation that the net must be cast as wide as, no, wider than possible, in order to catch every related fact which may cast light on an event. And these facts must then be checked against each other. The slow emergence of the scholarship of inscriptions provided further help, as did the study of linguistics. From the latter we can learn much about a society by observing the words which have passed into the language as metaphors; for example, what.' but an agrarian society would use the word "disseminate", or sowing of seeds, for the spread of knowledge?
We may have assumed that biography, or indeed any form of monograph, by delving very deeply into one subject, would result in something near to a true and accurate...
Loading: Checking Spelling0%
Objectivity in "The Fountainhead" Essay1964 words - 8 pages The Fountainhead, written by Ayn Rand, is a novel about the ideals of four characters, all brought together to play different roles in the architecture industry. Ayn Rand, originally from Russia, moved to America in 1925, only one year after graduating from college (Ayn Rand Intitute). She came to America to escape the fighting brought on by Communism (ARI). Witnessing first-hand the evils of communism influenced Ayn Rand to develop her own,...
Objectivity in Journalism Essay975 words - 4 pages Public journalism has changed much during its existence. Papers are striving to actively involve readers in the news development. It goes beyond telling the news to embrace a broader mission of improving the quality of public life. The American style of journalism is based on objectivity and separates us from the bias found in most European partisan papers. American journalism is becoming too vigilant in being objective that the dedication to...
Lack of Objectivity - an essay on Timothy Garton Ash's We The People821 words - 3 pages Lack of ObjectivityTimothy Garton Ash's We the People, takes an in depth look at the fall of communism during a time of political chaos. He is witness to some of the most historical events in history. Although his accounts of these events are detailed thoroughly, it can not be believed that they are perfectly accurate. Not only does Ash witness these incredible...
Loss of Objectivity1911 words - 8 pages Loss of Objectivity Loss of objectivity is a personality trait of someone who has grown out of childhood yet has not matured emotionally in order to recognize other people’s wants and desires. A person without objectivity functions much like a child. They are able to let their imaginations run wild and function without regard to the consequences of actions. Madame Bovary and Miss. Jean Brodie are two characters who...
People Coping With Objectivity1157 words - 5 pages Can a person truly know and/or experience anything objectively? The title of this paper has been a question that has made many philosophers very busy. During research of this question I found that there are particular terms to learn, when it comes to discussing anything objectively. In this paper, I will share information found and my own experiences to explain the question and to give a response. There will be three sections of information...
The price of objectivity (crit792 words - 3 pages The Price of Objectivity The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway is one of the pre-eminent...
Objectivity versus Subjectivity as Social Research Methods2505 words - 10 pages Objectivity versus Subjectivity as Social Research Methods Discussions from social research argue over or try to maintain a sense of equilibrium while answering and discussing the questions of "objectivity" and "neutrality" vs. "bias" and "subjectivity." While reading, "So what do you want from us here?" by Barbara Myerhoff, "Getting In" by Ruth Horowitz, and "Jelly’s Place" by Elijah Anderson I focused on the questions of "objectivity" vs....
Investigating the Extent to Which Historians Can Be Objective1603 words - 6 pages Investigating the Extent to Which Historians Can Be Objective ‘You have reckoned that history ought to judge the past and to instruct the contemporary world as to the future. The present attempt does not yield to that high office. It will merely tell you how it really was’ - Leopold Von Ranke ‘There are no facts, only interpretations’ – Nietzsche Here we encounter two diametrically opposed views concerning ...
The Landscape of History1627 words - 7 pages In The Landscape of History, John Lewis Gaddis makes a cohesive argument concerning about the debate over the objectivity of truth by stating “objectivity as a consequence is hardly possible, and that there is, therefore, no such thing as truth (Gaddis 29). The question for objective history has long been debated by numerous historians, and the differing viewpoints of history have led to a transition in our ways of thinking in the modern world....
Howard Zinn on History, by Howard Zinn1675 words - 7 pages Howard Zinn: On History by Howard Zinn (2011) is a collection of previously published essays ranging from Freedom Schools in the 1960s, issues in scholarship, to the American Empire. Even though the essays were written over several decades there is a constant theme throughout the work—the activist scholar. Zinn feels that scholars should not be passive citizens concerned with their research alone, but active citizens that use their research to...
Can and Should Sociology be Value Free. this essay is about the aim of sociology that is to be value free and whether it can and should achieve that aim2145 words - 9 pages The term value neutrality was used by Weber to indicate the necessary objectivity researchers need when investigating problems in the natural sciences. Weber even though had introduced the term and accepted a scientific in the study of sociology, he did not believed that absolute objectivity is attainable.Weber said that value neutrality should be the primary aim in sociology but it cannot be obtained since sociology is the study of...
Read this article to learn about the objectivity and bias in history:
Historical knowledge is not purely intuitive because it is derived from a critical examination of source material and is checked by further reference to the source. Historical objectivity is closely related to value-judgment.
By objectivity, we mean dispassionate, disinterested and scientific treatment of all events which would be depicted by a historian as if he was a judge pronouncing his verdict in the most impartial way without any fear or favour.
Knowing as we do human nature, prejudice to a certain extent is a built in complex in man. With confidence a historian declares the fact is……………… but many of these alleged facts are better than his own observation, remarks and opinion. They are the result of judgments not necessarily compelled by the facts but flowing from the mental make-up of the historian.
Image Source: niemanlab.org/images/objectivity-sol-lewitt-1962-ap.jpg
It is because this historian cannot back up the statements he makes with scientific proof that many people feel that historical knowledge is subjective rather than objective. The very subject matter of history being reflective thought such subjectivity become inevitable.
Voltaire pointed out that history is a pack of tricks we play upon the dead. An element of subjectivity enters at every step in the process of investigation; the present can and does influence our knowledge of the past.
Every historian has his own likes, tastes, aptitude and preferences. He may choose either political or social or economic or military or constitutional or art-history and because he or she is specially inclined towards that particular subject, he or she is likely to be affected by it. Froude’s history gives us an impression of the course of events that is entirely different. Karl Marx would pick only the class struggle, Hegel would concentrate on human spirit. Acton on freedom.
The problem of selection such that the history of Europe from 1861 A.D. to 1890 A.D. is only the history of either unification of Germany or expansion of Prussian kingdom or its leader Bismark. Imagine the events of 1857 A.D. in India.
The English historian think that it was the first war of Indian independence and the historian, either from Russia or America would not agree with either of these views.
An element of subjectivity enters at every step in the process of investigation; the present can and does influence our knowledge of the past because past events do not any longer exist anywhere except in mind of the historian, who has now become both subject and object. He reconstructs or reenacts the past in his own mind and in doing so super imposes at least some of his ideas on past events.
Talking about the Asoka’s renunciation of war, the historian cannot resist the temptation of evaluating Ashoka in the light of present potential danger to peace because of nuclear weapons. The historian would fail to achieve his main goal of narrating an event as it really happened.
Historical objectivity is not attainable because of three factors such as- the nature of historical events, the selection of historical events and the personality of the author, his motives intentions and temperament.
Historian works under certain limitations. All the facts or events are not well preserved or stored for him. The source material or evidence that might have contained facts might have been destroyed, or those who recorded the events might not have observed very well or even if they observed, they might have, deliberately omitted to record them.
The historian himself be a victim of ideological considerations, political thoughts and commitment, group prejudice, national feelings, patriotic zeal and partisan attitude. Ideological considerations such as theological, philosophical, materialistic or any other intellectual bias might distort his vision. He is not free from his own viewpoint.
When Barani or Abul Fazl wrote their “Tarikh-i-Ferozshahi” and “Akbarnama” respectively, they were not free from their political considerations or loyalty to their master. The whole ranges of medieval chronicles have a direct impact of political prejudice.
The historical material of medieval Empire contains lot of distorted material. Religious superiority, racial prejudice, group affiliations, national pride, party inclination and connection, social inhibition, linguistic inclinations have influenced the historical writings.
The racial complexion also mars the objectivity of the history such as English vs. Indian historians. The exponents of the philosophy of history have generally followed such a selective approach as to establish that history has worked along a set pattern.
Certain other factors too might stand in the way of objectivity such as political pressure, party loyalties, religious fanaticism etc. To allow the full scope for imagination would be to reduce history to the level of fiction.
To reconcile ourselves to the presence of subjectivity, which enters at every step in the process of investigation; the present can and does influence our knowledge of the past. Some people have gone so far as to say that the closest we can get to what actually happened is to believe what the records say actually happened. Historical thought about the past and all history, consequently, is the history of thought.
But surely this is to over emphasis the element of subjectivity. It is impossible for us to know something about the world outside the human mind even if our knowledge of it cannot be absolute. Therefore, the historian should consciously make every effort to be objective as far as possible. He should aim at presenting facts with as much accuracy and faithfulness as possible.
He should exhaust all available sources on the subject and should not confines himself to the limited number of sources. The criticism of our sources will enable us to obtain reasonably accurate idea of which state men they make about events and changes can be accepted as valid and which cannot. We can also check one person’s version of what actually happened by comparing it with that of another person or by examining all the relevant sources ourselves.
Historical knowledge is not knowledge of certainties, except perhaps with reference to what did not happen, but of varying degrees of probability. History is not a branch of literature, it is a science.
It must be liberated from rhetoric. Excessive nationalism and a highly philosophic tone would distort history. After we have gone through the steps of historical enquiry ourselves, we will know just how much confidence we can place in our knowledge of a particular set of events and changes.
The conversation which is history does lead to further conversation. The enquiry continues to go on because at no point we can say that we have arrived at the absolute truth. The evidence and our understanding of what comprises sound historical methodology are there as a court of higher appeal.