Historic research- objective or subjective?

Is History object or subjective?

I tend to think the study of history is approached from both subjective (internalized) and objective (externalized) manner. I think we all know that to look at something objectively or the scientific approach is to find the variable and formulate laws based upon concrete evidence after observation or careful research. Objective knowledge tend to view the object studied from the outside or externally and the researcher discovers this and puts it into meaning but it lacks the metaphysical, spiritual and emotional understanding that is unique to human nature. We all know concrete facts about history such as the Pearl Harbor was bombed or Constantinople was conquered in 1453 but the human aspects is looked at subjectively or the humanistic manner because knowledge is constructed by people in a variety of environments of interaction so the cultural meaning is internal to the individual. (why was Pearl Harbor attacked-subjective) People interact with each other so knowledge whether it is scientific or historical can never be complete in intercultural communications and this can lead to misunderstanding or a different interpretation of the facts, I see it all the time on forums. There are the objective historical facts but many of us are from different cultures, speak different languages and have different metaphysical beliefs or none at all. Because of bias, upbringing philosophical views or politics we see history subjectively or from our perspective and this can cloud the objectivity of our research. We may observe objectively in our research but in reality we do not because we, as humans, are part of the objective world and we tend to interrelate with what we are studying, adding our own subjective bias or viewpoints. It is important to look at all the variables both the inward subjectivity, based upon feeling, and what we know as concrete or objective and I think we do this on the most part here but this sort of popped in my head and it will take more research which I do not have time for but your thoughts. I was hoping this would not be a hot topic but fun.



Epistemology is defined as the branch of philosophy that studies how people know what they claim to know. This process involves knowing who we are (our self image) , what people from other cultures think of us (our reflective image), who people from other cultures are (the other culture)

Objectivity is a necessary component of history to ensure that it provides a solid and unbiased analysis of past events. Without objectivity, history can simply be the patsy of any party who wishes to push an agenda.

Subjectivity cannot be completely dismissed from history, but I think the professional historian today writes for a globalised world and must take note of the fact that he/she is no longer writing for a culture cushioned from the outside world. Historians today must think of what appeals to humanity as a whole on a subjective, emotional and personal level instead of what is only relevant to one specific culture.

Cultural aspects must still be included, of course. Mentioning the London Blitz, for example, would not be complete if the things which were important to ordinary Londoners were not taken into account. To express history in totally cold terms which exclude what was important to humanity would weaken history as an institution. I think the best level of objectivity should be maintained to ensure history is not corrupted, but that historians should embrace cultural aspects relevant to the issue and subjective aspects relevant to humanity as a whole.

Originally posted by Mila There, Constantine. It's not nice to copy what I said and claim it as your own.

Egad! I've been sprung!

Subjectivity cannot be completely dismissed from history, but I think the professional historian today writes for a globalised world and must take note of the fact that he/she is no longer writing for a culture cushioned from the outside world. Historians today must think of what appeals to humanity as a whole on a subjective, emotional and personal level instead of what is only relevant to one specific culture.


I tend to agree with you on this with professional historians but it depends upon your audience and your definition of a historian. In the case of Native American history it is based upon their own subjective mythos and it is not tailored to a world view but it is very inclusive and subjective. Some tribal historians see their myths as objective truth and in some cases the myths and legends of their culture cannot be written but is only transmitted orally and exclusively to tribal members and invited guests. I live close to three Indian reservations and I enjoying studying the history of the local Salish tribes. I only have Native American ancestry because it goes back too far back, but I am sympathetic to their desire to keep their history and legends unwritten.
Like I said in historical research you have to approach it from an objective manner but because of the human factor you cannot leave out subjectivity. With objectivity you have the empirical facts but with subjectivity the approach is to capture and represent the meaning as it relates your thesis and the opinions of the historian or their bias. Bias is not always negative!

Historian is a detective who's come late to the place of crime for hundreds of years. And witnesses are so little trustworthy as a rule!

Edited by arsenka

Originally posted by eaglecap Is History object[ive] or subjective? ................................

As this is a subject close to my heart, I will engage in some clarifications for myself and, in the process, share them with readers.

Before looking the question as to whether "history discourse" [historiography; history-speaking] is objective or subjective, I wish to define its subject-matter. (I myself us the term "history" as something which has been occurring and as the discourse about it.) History is neither the story or biography of humans, nor the anthropology of  associated human organisms in their habitats; it is the story of the life of human societies in the course of time.

The life of a society consists in the manners in which the associated humans behave with respect to one another; in the manners of living relatively to their environment (both natural and fashioned by themselves); and in the manners in which they live politically. Thus the history of a people or society is a sociology, a cultural history, and a politics of that people.

To write an account of the life of a people (or of a segment of that life, or of one aspect of that life) is to white a CHRONICLE of that people. A Gazetteer or News Reporter restricts himself to writing a chronicle of a category events that occurred in society in one day, such as the spectacular robberies and murders.

Whatever the agenda of a chronichler, the extent of what is covered is important: What he covers may be objective [truthful; accurate], but what he omits constitutes a fault (due to the "subjectivism" of selection). On the other hand, even if the number of robberies in one day is mentioned, the reason for describing a certain robbery is both legitimate and due, because a huge robbery may affect the lives of many and may reveal a new strategy which was invented by a robber. (A grand action which is both bad and intelligent shows precisely the nature of some people in a given society.) What a member of the society does which has no consequences on others is privately biographical and not an object or reporter concern. If two individuals lock themselves in their house and smoke themselves to death, or keep on stabbing themselves to death, these are private or biographical matters that are not the concern of the reporter or for that matter of legislators or of priests; on the other a psychologist, an employer, or a family member may be concerned with these events. The point is that those events are not facts of social interaction, political action, or (public) operating in the world -- they are not deeds of the public life, and, therefore they are not a Chronicler's object, whether he knows of them or not.  If we want to expand this object so as to include the biographgies of the citizens and the anthropology and biology of their organisms, we can do so, but then we must beware of what we do not report: a chronicle might give us a very distorted picture of a people and would be pointless to have it.

There can be the subjectivism of "onesidedness" in a report, not by intentional omission, bu because of the misjudgments of the reporter. For instance, news reports and chronicles, though formally correct, concentrate on all that is negative in a society. Presumably, the negatives are few and thus manageable for reporting; the positive things, together with non-happenings, are innumerable and it would be practically impossible to report them or write a chronicle of. So, a society is presumed to be either good or neutral, and only the bad things are reported. All the good public enactments in everyday life are neglected, but occasionally some extraordinary or spectacular events occurs, such as a flight to the moon (unless they occur in other societies), or the results of games, which the population is eager to find out. In such cases, good things are re[ported, too.

Now, some of the good or neutral things which the chroniclher or the daily repoter systematically neglects may be things which are bad (in the eyes of some other members of the society). He operates according to the evaluations that he makes out of his personal culture and background, for hardly ever is a reported  an inquirer in what is good or bad, moral or immoraly, objectively ("juristically") right or wrong; what is legal or illegal he knows by being a member of the political society. Accordingly, this is a truism that, until proven differently, all chronicles are  subjective. (An American chronichler who writes according to his own commonplaces as to what is right or wrong will write chronicles or reports about other countries which, wittingly or unwittingly, serve the purposes of a president to go and  suppress those true or historically proven non-Americans.)  If a chronichler had true criteria of what is right and wrong, he would report on his country as he would on any other.

Sometimes reporters sin from excess: They do not limit themselves to report events which are either good or bad according to his uncritical evaluation; he sets out to justify certain deeds or to condemn certain otherdeeds. Thus he creates a spcies of reports which can be called "priestly reports," in contradistinction to "scientific reports," which are PRO ROSTRIS (from an authoritative stand: accurate and selective according to true or juristic criteria of value-judgement)  and not EX CATHEDRA (from a pulpit and dogmatically).

The uncritical evaluation of certain deeds is often made not of the deeds per se, but because of who made them. For example, during the years of belligerent actions of Israel and of the USA against Arab populations [may "Skull and Bones" and other secret societies save their souls], the Arabs who, in their own ways and chosen times, retaliated against the aggressors, were branded "terrorists": they could not be recognized as soldiers, since they were not led by a "commanders-in-chief" and since "soldier" or "freedom-fighters" (such as Reagan called the rebels whom he instigated in other countries) would provide a rational explanation for their actions. So, by definition, a terrorist is a violent or vandalistic person who acts out of hate rather than out of reason.  Israel and the US invented the character and name of the "terrorists" and all the News Agencies (who report and package international news) thought and spoke according to the framework provided by those governments. So, no matter how accurately the deed were reported, the reported doers were erroneously branded terrorists. This subjectivism consists in the misrepresentation of the people who are being reported. The reports are like the bearing of false witness in a court of law. The reports and such  chronicles are about imaginary people. The stories deceive the listeners or reader, but they create "public opinion" and serve the purposes of the governments that originated the deception.

Historiography starts with chronichles; it is as good or as bad as the Chronicles are. But assuming that the existing chronicles he uses are good, he still has the task of finding more facts than the chronicles reveal. He has to be a chronichler who goes beyond eye-witness reports and chronicles. His major sources of non-witness resources or indirect testimonies are the material goods of a culture (present and buried in the past) and a detective investigation through all the testimonies that he has.

The work of detection is essential because the chronicles may have omitted much that was witnessed, and because many events, especially of a political nature, are kept secret and to such an extent that Disraeli and others have publicbly recognized that there are two histories: the one which everybody knows, and the one which only the people behind the scenes know. The detective method of truth-finding is frought with difficulties, the first one being that not too many people can intuit that certain events are clues or symptoms of other events. There are no rules on how to be a great detective or, for that matter, a great strategist for peaceful or bellic endeavors. The inventive mind is not a commonplace.

The ultimate goal of the historian is to reduce chains of human events to their causes (the implemented decisions of some). The same perspicacity which goes into a detective's insight or discovery is what brings many things under one glance and bares their connections. He unveils the logic of history, whatever the extent of his history may be.


Edited by Amedeo