Objectivity and Interpretation

The principle of objectivity is one of the most essential principles in historical writing, as it has become the basis for interpreting events for centuries. Objectivity has been a vital element for Western historians who believe they are objective at the core of their writing and interpretation of historical data and events. This belief of historians, however, has been challenged by philosophers and thinkers as they assert that the quest for objectivity is futile.

Also Read: Causation – Meaning and Analysis of Facts

Historiography – the way of History-Writing

What is Objectivity?

Objectivity in history-writing is an interpretation of historical events based on evidence to tell the truth without bringing any wishful thinking or propaganda into it. Philosophers have defined objectivity. According to American historian Peter Novick, the assumption on which objectivity rests includes a commitment to the reality of the past and to the truth as correspondence to that reality.

It makes a sharp separation between knower and known, between fact and value, above all between history and fiction. To achieve objectivity, historians have to be impartial and should rely on the evidence without applying their personal beliefs. Novick says the objective historian’s role is that of a neutral, or disinterested and judge. Historian Thomas Haskell, however, questions objectivity and neutrality.

He says objectivity and neutrality are two different things, and a neutral person does not mean that he is objective in the presentation. There are some features of objectivity like; it is the founding principle of history-writing, it is different from propaganda. It relies on evidence and logic, it aims to tell the truth, and it separates history and fiction.

Possibility of Objectivity

Given radical flaws and arguments against the possibility of achieving objectivity in history-writing, questions can be raised about whether objectivity can be achieved or whether historians can have an understanding of the past. All the criticism has made us aware, however, that it is not that easy to bring objectivity in history-writing because historians getting influenced by the present situations, cultural environment, and intellectual atmosphere is natural.

And it is difficult to provide an objective narration based on records. Many historians also now admit that it is not possible to get a complete picture of the past through records, as sources are varied and there are different interpretations. However, the fact that total objectivity is not possible does not mean that no objectivity is possible.

Historians like Noel Corroll argue that even as it may not be possible to tell the whole truth of the past, that does not mean that partial truth cannot be reclaimed. Some historians, like Brian Fay, have appealed for a middle ground in achieving objectivity in history writing.

Thus, there are several challenges like lack of authenticity and bias, to objectivity in history writing, but objectivity plays important role in history writing in the modern world as well.