Objectivity can be considered the founding principle of
historical writing. It denotes the representation of the past without bias and
prejudices. Peter Novick, in his book That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity
Question” and the American Historical Profession, pointed out that ‘The
objective historian’s role is that of a neutral, or disinterested, judge; it
must never degenerate into that of an advocate or, even worse, propagandist.
The historian’s conclusions are expected to display the standard judicial
qualities of balance’. The objectivist
tradition believed in both the reality of the past as well as in the
possibility of its mirror representation. Objectivity is a balanced
assessment of the evidence. This is professional work in collecting, identifying,
weighing the evidence, and analyzing evidence.
Auguste Comte
and the Scientific Method
Auguste Comte was a French positivist philosopher, who introduced the
idea of positivism. He introduced scientific observations into the study of
history and thereby popularised the concept of objectivity. He also claimed
scientific status for the humanities. Comte arranged the sciences in order of
their importance as Mathematics, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and
Sociology. In the 19th century, a group of historians called the
Positivists emerged. They believed in the positivist philosophy of Auguste
Comte and argued that the duty of a historian is (a) Ascertaining facts and (b)
Framing laws.
Contributions of Ranke
It was Ranke who laid the foundation of
a genuinely ‘objective’ historiography. He clearly distinguished history from
literature and philosophy. By doing so, he attempted to avoid overdose application
of imagination and metaphysical speculation. For him, the historians’ job was
to investigate the past on its own terms and to show the readers how it
essentially was. It did not mean, however, that Ranke had blind faith in the
records. He argued for the strict analysis of the sources to determine its
authenticity. He wanted the historians to critically examine and verify all the
sources before reposing their trust in them. But, once it was proved that the
records were genuine and belonged to the age which the historian was studying,
the historian may put complete faith in them. He called these records ‘primary sources’. He considered that these sources would provide the
foundations for a true representation of the contemporary period. Thus the
historians should trust the archival records more than the printed ones which
might be biased. He, however, believed that it was possible to reconstruct the
past and that objectivity was attainable.
Critique of Objectivity
W. H. Walsh points out that “Every history is written from a
certain point of view and makes sense only from that point of view”. Thus
history represents the subjective account of the past. While interpreting the sources, a historian may be guided by the following subjective conditions, which may reflect in his interpretation:
- Historian has no direct contact with the past. It is, therefore, difficult for them to be objective in the representation of the past.
- ‘All the facts of the past are constructed facts’, hence the facts itself are a subjective representation of the past.
- The lack of evidence sometimes necessitates the use of imagination to fill the gap between the facts.
- The very selection of the topic may be determined by the social position of a historian hence the research starts from a biased position.
- Nationality is a crucial element that influences a historian while writing about his nation and others.
- The personal likes and dislikes of the historian will reflect in his interpretations. His perspectives, emotions, ideologies, and existing social positions, all will influence his thoughts.
- Historians generally use theories to interpret their sources, which naturally place his work as one partial way of thinking, because there are several conflicting theories.
- Historians approach the past with their own philosophical ideas, like ethical, religious, metaphysical, rational, etc., which decisively affect their way of interpretation.
Is Total Objectivity Possible?
Historians have generally accepted that the historical
research procedure is objective. Therefore, it is necessary to strike a balance
between objectivity and subjectivity. Historians should try to overcome extreme
subjectivity biases, prejudice, mental climate, and political and ideological
connections.
At the same time, it has been argued
that written history can never be objective, even if the personal bias of the
historian can be overcome (which is doubtful). It is still inevitable that what
is written must be relative to the tastes, customs, and prejudices of the
creative moment. No two historians can agree on what really happened in one
particular historical moment.
Some argue that impartial history is ideal and is a downright impossibility. No historian can narrate everything
that happened in the past even within the field he chooses to study. Max
Nordau in his book, the Interpretation of History argues that ‘objective
truth is inaccessible to writers of history’. Therefore objectivity - subjectivity
is an unresolved issue. To conclude, as Eileen Power points out that “Objectivity is an illusion… but it is a
necessary and beneficial illusion.”
