thus objectivity means the property of being
independent from the perceptions, which has been
variously defined by sources.
Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even
outside a
subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A
proposition is
generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when
its truth conditions are met
without biases caused by feelings, ideas,
opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. A second, broader
meaning of the term
refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or
external
influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used
synonymously with neutrality.
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 accepted 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. Furtherore,
he explains the facts of history cannot be purely objective as they only become
facts of history by virtue of significance attached to it 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 and have a 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, has terms of an objective historian 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 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 of 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 looses 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 an oxymoron and history is more of an entertainment than an
arm of academic study.
No comments:
Post a Comment