http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?

id=389988

Objectivity in history
Dr Sakul Kundra
Monday, February 20, 2017

+ Enlarge this image

Much of Fiji's history can be found at the Fiji Museum in Suva. Picture: FILE

OBJECTIVITY in history is a basic theme which historians, researchers, students and everybody should
be careful about. This article endeavours to present a synoptic view about objectivity, subjectivity and
bias, which are interconnected and then go on to examine how a historian can be objective.

"Is history a science?" is a debate among philosophers regarding this theme and how far the historical
inquiry is objective.

EH Carr's book What is History? describes the influence of historical and social environment on the
selection and interpretation of facts by the historian. Therefore, he rejected absolute and timeless
objectivity in history because history requires the selection and ordering of facts about the past in the light
of some principle or norm of objectivity accepting by the historian which necessarily included elements of
interpretation.

Without this, the past dissolves into a jumble of innumerable isolated and insignificant incidents and
history cannot be written at all. Further, he explains the facts of history cannot be purely objective as they
only become facts of history by virtue of significance attached to them by the historian. Therefore,
historian craft is all about getting the facts right and applying the right standard of significance to the past.

Carr calls a historian objective based on two factors.

Firstly, "he has the capacity to rise above the limited vision of his own situation in society and in
history…his capacity to recognise the extent of his involvement in that situation, to recognise that is to
say, the impossibility of total objectivity".
Secondly, a historian "has the capacity to project his vision into the future in such a way as to give him a
more profound and more lasting insight into the past than can be attained by those historians whose
outlook is entirely bounded by their own immediate situation". Therefore, some historians write history
which is more durable and has more of objective character than others.

This historian, terms that historian objective who have a long-term vision over the past and over the
future.

As historians endeavour to reconstruct or recreate history to reflect how life was experienced and how it
may be understood, as it requires an imaginative engagement with the mentality and environment of the
past. Thus, a historian cannot be objective as facts do not speak for themselves and no two historians will
have completely identical imaginative response to any hypothesis.

Objectivity, subjectivity and bias

Objectivity means existing independently of perception or an individual's conception. It is undistorted by

emotion or personal bias and is related to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts,
feelings etc. Something is objective insofar as it is independent of either a particular mind or minds
altogether.

Secondly, subjectivity referred as it is a belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the
thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered. It is related to or emanating from a
person's emotion, prejudices, etc and lastly, biasness stand for as a mental tendency or inclination esp.
an irrational preference or prejudice or influence.

Norman Hampson's Subjectivity and Objectivity in History describes the difference between fact
(objective) and opinion/interpretation (subjective) is that objective information has the ability to be counted
or described whereas subjective information usually consists of statements of judgment, assumption,
belief, suspicion, or rumour. Objective information does not vary and is close to the truth, whereas
subjective information can vary greatly from person to person and is far away from the truth.

Carr explains there are simply too many facts, even after the historian followed the procedure of selecting
only the significant ones, what he calls "the facts of history" and the major obstacle to objectivity is 'the
historian himself'. Objectivity is history cannot be objectivity of facts and absolute truth is unachievable.

Is history a science?

The questions attached to objectivity is discussed by John Tosh's The Pursuit of History' Is History a
Science? The first proponents argue that history employs the same procedures as the natural sciences
and that its findings should be judged by scientific standards.
The basis of all scientific knowledge was the meticulous observation of reality which fitted all the known
facts and explained the regularity observed. These views are much closer to the view positivism. In this
regard, the beliefs and values of historians are irrelevant and their sole concern is with the facts and the
generalisations to which they logically lead.

Whereas the second view, gives conceptions of the nature of science have been radically modified, which
were closer to the philosophy of idealism, "human events much be carefully distinguished from natural
events because the identity between enquirer and his or her subject-matter opens the way to a fuller
understanding than anything … natural events can only be understood from the outside, human events
have an essential inside dimension composed of the intentions, feelings and mentality of the actors".
They believe historical knowledge is inherently subjective. Thus it's necessary to evaluate every age be
understood in its own terms and their practical emphasis on political narrative make-up of the actions and
intensions of great men.

Furthermore, M.E. Hulme's History and its Neighbors maintains that "historical facts, in sharp distinction
from scientific facts, are highly subjective". Science has the characteristic that it uses expression we can
bring to the "test", but history could certainly not be conducted objectively if its statements were not
criticisable and some historians make statements which are not in this sense objectively testable.
Therefore, history is not a science and as a paradigm of objectivity for the philosophy of history science
just will not exist.

Who is an objective historian?

The essential requirement to be an objective historian are believed to be, firstly, that he has a capacity to
rise above the limited vision of his own situation in society and in history; secondly, he has the capacity to
project his vision into the future in such a way as to give him a more profound and more lasting insight
into the past. No historian can claim to write ultimate history or total history of an event but some
historians write history which is more durable and has more of objective character than others, these are
the historians which have a long term vision over the past and over the future. The historian of the past
can make an approach towards objectivity only as he approaches towards the understanding of the
future.

Neil Munro narrates that a historian who, "gather the facts from the history is also a human being, who
comes with full complement of background, education, attitudes, opinions, likes and dislikes. He may
even have a belief in one or other of the great determinist theories of history, which will be better suited by
some facts than by others. Historian will inevitably see the course of history through those particular
eyes". Carr warns that the facts of history cannot be pure, being always "refracted through the mind of the
recorder!"
Therefore, before reading a history, he suggests that the reader should first study the historian and find
out all that one can about the author. This will help the audience to know the author's mind of expressing
history. One scholar said objectivity in history lose value when it is applied to nothing and it loses its
usefulness when applied to everything.

Can history be Objective?

Many philosophers have rejected the possibility of objective historical knowledge on the premise that one
does not have access to a given past against which to judge rival interpretations. However, Mark Bevir's
Objectivity in History explains objective interpretation are those which best meet rational criteria of
accuracy, comprehensiveness, consistency, progressiveness, fruitlessness and openness and these
interpretations should be regarded as moving towards truth understood as a regulative ideal. He
defended the objectivity via an intentional theory of meaning and his claim that it might be possible to
extend this logic of the history of ideas to history in general; he calls an anthropological epistemology, a
standard based on appeals to shared facts based on historians' consensus about what happened, a
critical/rational attitude by the historian and comparing rival webs of theories of, or hypotheses for
explanation. For him, objectivity rests on comparison and the explanation of human actions.

Marc Trachtenberg questions if objectivity is possible as he believes history should be ultimately

obtainable but shows concern the way in which society is moving it will become an obsolete ideology.

He stress one should put ones political beliefs aside and draft questions in a manner that answers turned
on what the evidence demonstration.

Whereas, Keith Jenkins article What is History? outlines that objectivity is impossible to achieve in the
study of history, as actual past has gone and creating history in present means content is as much
invented as found. As it is impossible for historian to remove his or her, preconceived ideas and personal
motives to write history in an objective way.

Furthermore, he believes historians disregard the facts which do not fit into his or her ideologies.

This post-modernist writer views that historical objectivity is oxymoron and the history is more of an
entertainment than an arm of academic study.

* Dr Sakul Kundra is an assistant professor in history at FNU. The views expressed are his and not of this
newspaper or his employer