Biased Interpretations and Nonsense or the Objective Truth?
History: A subject often debated and declared as nonsense because of its lack of clear answers. I mean would you believe the argumentation of a historian if another one says the exact opposite? The presence of bias in interpretation and source selection is the reason why often these differing interpretations exist, causing the question whether the creation of objective knowledge is really possible.
The work of historians in recreating the past is highly debated and often accused for not being objective. Although history is different to other areas of knowledge in the way it cannot test hypothesis, the assumption that objectivity cannot be established is limited in its argumentation. Objectivity in history refers to the lack of bias and opinionated interpretations in historical events, their causation and effects. Bias and the selection of different historical sources play a big part in the principle of objectivity, as they need to be eliminated to ensure its validity. Bias in that way can be compared to a filter that has been put over an event, influencing the way it is perceived. In order to create historical knowledge, historians use a distinct method that involves the selection of sources, their analysis and is followed by the historian’s interpretation of the source. As such, historians make hypotheses based on their research and then aim to prove said hypotheses through explanations and further reliance on sources. Bias could therefore be present not only in their interpretations but also in the way they select the sources. Although bias and source selection need to be considered when creating historical knowledge to reduce the subjectivity, it is possible to create objective historical knowledge due to the collaboration of differing perspectives, authors and sources that leads to the creation of robust historical knowledge.
Through the collaboration of differing perspectives, authors and sources, objective historical knowledge can be created. Historical knowledge, rather than a piece of historical interpretation by an individual in the form of a paper, can only be created when there is a consensus that has been established in the historical community. When taking this into consideration, it is clear that it can only be established when different authors collaborate and debate on key issues surrounding the historical event. The aforementioned debates lead to constant revision of the material where different sources are taking into consideration that support contrasting hypotheses by varying authors. In this process, the biases that each individual historian has placed upon his work are cancelled out as they are countered by opposing biases. The cancelling that occurs during the establishment of a consensus therefore leads to objective knowledge in the subject of history besides the biases present in source selection and in interpretation. For instance, in the field of Nazi German history there were prolonged debates about Hitler’s leadership and strength as a dictator. Some historian such as Hans Mommsen who was German himself had inherent biases that caused him to view Hitler as an all evil dictator who had planned the Holocaust from the beginning and was working towards such a goal. In his selection of sources and his interpretations of them this bias distorted his view on the event. On the other hand, there were also historians who viewed his leadership as entirely weak, arguing that the Holocaust was not caused by Hitler himself as he did not make any decisions in the party and therefore was a product of his subordinates entirely. However, as the debate progressed a compromise between the two arguments was made that included both biases in the selection process and otherwise to be cancelled out. The argument Ian Kershaw focused on in his Working towards the Führer principle has now been accepted in the community. The consensus established led to both the end of the debate and the creation of objective historical knowledge surrounding the topic.
Although it is theoretically possible to create objective historical knowledge there are many barriers that could limit its creation. When historians select sources there are always biases present within. The source selection process alone can never take into account all possible sources on the event as it would make the scope of the investigation too broad and not allow the historian to synthesize all of the information. Therefore, when selecting sources, a historian is most likely to select those that follow his line of argumentation which would impose an underlying bias on the entire investigation, ultimately making the historical knowledge created from his investigation less objective. Furthermore, the sources themselves often have biases that cannot fully be cancelled out as the event has passed and there are only limited amounts of accounts on the event. Written sources in that way would be biased as it is only one person’s perception of the event that had occurred and even photographs could not be unbiased as they only capture one frame of the event. Thus, there are prevailing biases that are present within the sources and their selection that could possibly distort the objectivity of the historical knowledge. An example for this can be seen when investigating the start of the Cold War and its historiography. There are several opposing views on the roles of the USSR and the US in the origins of the Cold War with historians who accessed different sources arguing contrasting points. Historian John Lewis Gaddis who was able to access sources such as the Soviet archives after they were opened puts some of the blame on Communist expansionism and Stalin’s policies coupled with the Soviet totalitarian government drawing the West into an escalation of hostility. On the other hand, other historians with contrasting biases have completely different interpretations of the start of the Cold War which could be due to their source selection. For instance, the historian William Williams, rather than highlighting the role of the Soviets, rather emphasizes the US “dollar diplomacy” as one of the main reasons for the start of the Cold War. Therefore, whilst the creation of objective knowledge in History is possible, biases and source selection do impact its objectivity and place a limit upon it if not taken into consideration.
To conclude, biases and source selection do distort interpretations of historical events and could lead to it being more subjective. However, the creation of objective knowledge is possible due to the debates between historians, leading to a consensus, cancelling the biases of each author out. This has several implications. Firstly, historians need to be careful when selecting their sources and continue with debates in order to help establish objective historical knowledge. The general public however also needs to have an awareness of these problems to prevent one-sided knowledge that includes biases by only consulting works from one author or one source in order to aid in its creation.
What do you think? To hear from a different perspective on this, check out this video. Leave me a comment below about your thoughts on the matter!