Objectivity in History and its Critique

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 19^th 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.”