Leopold Von Ranke advocated historical objectivity. His approach was to avoid applying the spirit, modes of thought, wisdom and beliefs of the present to the events of the past – this is known as historicism and was pioneered by Giovanni Battista Vico – by only using contemporary accounts and records. His tagline became Wei es eigentlich gewesen (How it actually happened). Ranke distrusted historical textbooks, and argued that primary rather than secondary sources should be used. Arthur Marwick has slightly similar views regarding the nature of source material, also drawing a distinction between primary and secondary sources. To him, primary sources carry the most authority and historical value. He does not altogether rule out secondary sources, but argues that as these are “filtered” through other writers, their objectivity suffers and are therefore less reliable / acceptable.
Even so, using primary source data only does not necessarily result in objectivity as primary records are just as prone to their writer’s personal preconceptions and can suffer from selectivity or even censorship. A Russian journalist close to the events of the 1917 Revolution could hardly have been expected to publish an uncensored, impartial account. Even film and photographs can be staged.
In response to postmodernist views that historians’ writings are invariably present-minded and therefore always subjective, Sir Geoffrey Elton maintains that historical study should be separated from the present – the writer should not be ‘at the centre of the historical reconstruction’ and should ‘escape from his prejudices and preconceptions’. However, Elton concedes that, whilst the historian should aim for this detached subjectivity, their work is ‘processed through [their] mind and pen’; therefore some degree of objectivity is always present.
Howard Zinn acknowledges that historical writing involves selecting, from an often-vast amount of source data, what will be presented. The writers’ choice will depend on what they deem to be important or relevant to what they are writing. Bad academic practise can occur this way, if the writer only selects that data which reinforces existing views. This selection can be further altered by their personal political, moral or even religious stance. To Zinn, the writer of history cannot help but to be subjective.
He also believes that objectivity is not desirable in historical study, as history should serve a social goal, for example, to learn from past mistakes – using lessons learned from history as an example for the present. Zinn assigns to history a social task. The choice of what to write, from the array of available material, should be made with this idea in mind.
Zinn likens historical writing to mapmaking – to aim for full objectivity in historical study is analogous to attempting to compose a map which shows every single feature of a piece of terrain. Impossible, but supposing such a map was drawn, it would be pointless and unusable. Maps are designed for a specific aim, and such a map could not serve any practical purpose. Instead, ‘different maps are constructed, depending on the aim of the mapmaker.’ All maps are different and ‘partial’. Partiality is exactly how a map fulfils its purpose.But here Zinn appears to overlook the moral aspect of historical writing. A map is purely practical – there are no moral connotations when deciding what features to include and what to leave out.
Edward Carr believes that a personal interpretation of the basic facts is central to historical enquiry, and part of what he terms the “dialogue between the past and the present”. To Carr, history cannot make progress without this interactive dialogue. The facts are stark and meaningless without any interpretation made from them, and interpretation is impossible without facts as a starting point.
Carr argues that particular societies that historians belong to invariably shape their particular views or opinions on the past. This could be taken to mean that a truly objective historical enquiry cannot exist – how could it, under these circumstances? Carr goes further, stating: ‘Great history is written precisely when the historian’s vision of the past is illuminated by insights into the problems of the present’. Here, the “dialogue” is moving from the present to the past (events in society at the time of writing are influencing how the writer interprets the facts before them).
Carr believes that it is equally important for the “dialogue” to move from the past to the present – here emphasis here is on learning from the past, history as a guide to future actions. Carr (like Zinn) assigns the utmost importance to historical study – he sees the historian as having a duty to analyse and interpret relevant historical facts, and the causal links between them, for the purpose of making ‘fruitful generations’. Trevor Roper in a 1957 lecture agreed, saying history without usefulness is “mere antiquarianism”, adding that history without controversy is “dead”. To Carr, objectivity is not desirable – a good historian should be selective, and good historical writing is a product of subjectivity.
Bibliography
Carr, Edward H: What is History? Penguin, 1990
Collingwood, R.G: The Idea of History Oxford University Press, 1994
Elton, Sir Geoffrey Rudolph: Return to Essentials: Some reflections on the present state of historical study Cambridge University Press, 1991
Gooch, G. P: History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century Longmans, 1952 (Includes a chapter on Leopold Von Ranke)
Jenkins, Keith: On ‘What is History’: From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White Routledge, 1995
Marwick, Arthur: The Nature of History Macmillan, 1970
Zinn, Howard: The Politics of History University of Illinois Press, 1990
Word count - 1100
Elton, G.R: Return to Essentials – Some reflections on the present state of historical study Cambridge University Press, 1991 (P. 43)
Zinn, H: The Politics of History University of Illinois Press, 1990 (P.10-11)
Carr, E.H: What is History Penguin, 1990 (P. 37)