KIBABII UNIVERSITY

NAME : ISABEL ADISA

REG NO : MA/HIS/008/18

COURSE TITLE : PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY

COURSE CODE : HIST 812

LECTURER :

TASK : DISCUSS OBJECTIVITY AND SUBJECTIVITY IN HISTORY

 OBJECTIVITY
Introduction
Objectivity has been subject of discourse in historical research. A lot of people
including the students of history do not know what it means to say a piece of
historical account objective or otherwise many philosophers have rejected the
possibility of objective historical knowledge on the ground that there is no given
past which to judge rival interpretation.

Objectivity is one of the questions which are usually raised among the people
especially historians whenever the nature of history is being discussed (wal sh, 1967).
It is one of the features which must be present in any knowledge that claims to be
scientific.

Hegel (1956) pointed out that the debate, whether history is objective or not is
associated with the development of the positivist theory which is concerned with
the desire to base the study of history on serious of general laws. This background
bas bad considerable influence on the subject of objectivity in history and has made
many writers to conclude that history is incapable of attaining obsolete objectivity.
As rightly observed by bevir (1994), objective interpretation of history are those
which best meet national criteria of accuracy, comprehensiveness, consistency,
progressiveness, fruitfulness and openness. In abide to tack the problem of
objectivity in historical writing it is therefore necessary to examine and ensure
some of the pertinent questions relating to this issue these include the operational
definition of objectivity in historical research.
What is objectivity?
Historically, facts are meaningless without interpretation or judgment. Objectivity
means a state of having a comprehensive, systematic record of the past events as
they actually happened. Objectivity holds the belief that historical writing should be
based on solid facts alone (henige,1982). These facts should be devoid of sentiments,
emotions, biases and prejudices. It could also refer to the ability of history on to look
at nature not as part of himself but ability to detach himself from nature through
reasoning and thereby, act as a rational being.

In other words, it refers to the ability of historian to stand out of himself and view
things in a detached rational manner, it is also referred to as "respect for the truth"
(fadeiye 2004". In a nutshell it is the act of disassociating the investigator from the
object of investigation so that the same conclusion can be reached by independent
investigators. With these definitions, objectivity is viewed in the absolute sense
which may not apply to any inquiry (white 1978). The idea of complete of complete
and absolute disassociation from the object of investigation is inapplicable in
historical research. In an actual sense, there is always an element of human factor
involved in the historical inquiries. This views is shared by pass more when he
asserts that "if only those enquiries are objective, in which the enquirer begins with
a blank mind, then no inquire, there's already beliefs, expectations and interests,
even the average and mediocre historian who perhaps believe and pretends that he
is merely receptive, merely surrendering to the data before him (smith, 1978).
Given the truth of the above the definition of objectivity which calls for the
complete elimination of the human element from all inquiries is therefore, not
entirely acceptable. However, rather than talk of objectivity in the obsolete sense,
we shall take the term to mean the degree to which on investigator is able to direst
judgment of self and class interest. It is a degree to which a writer is able to exhibit
the actual facts, hot colored by his feeling or emotion. However, the point of
argument is "can history be objective" in answering this question, we shall
examine the nature of history.
The nature of history
In examining the nature of history, it is very pertinent to define history itself
History has been adjudged to be the record of the past events but in a real sense it
goes beyond that e.h car (1961) expatiated that history in a general sense is the
description and interpretation of past important activities of men. History in the
broad sense is the totality of a11past events, although a more realistic definition
would limit it to the know past (marwick, 1981) of all human endeavors, history
seems the hardest to define precisely because the attempt to uncover past events and
for emulate an intelligible account of men necessarily involves the use and influence
of many ackiliary disciplines and literacy forms. It must be stressed that the motive
of historical study is to promote the currency of true ideas. The historians aim at
finding out the truth and telling it (dray 1971)
A few inferences can be drawn from the above definitions. Firstly, history is
seemed as the past of human actions and in this case, it studies men in relation to
their social relationship since history is concerned with human actions in the past,
the historian must rely on the present or available evidence of the past event, for
proper documentation of the past action.
Secondly, it i clear that the historian cannot fully capture the past in his writing,
therefore, he selects from evidence is therefore can essential aspect, of what a
historian does.
Thirdly, historians need not to be empathy in his work. Since one of the duties of the
historians to understand and tell the truth about the past, he needs a degree of non-
empathy and imagination in his work (Joyce, 1982)
Theories on objectivity in history
Ever since history started to be documented, historians have reflected on the
theories and methods with which they approach the past, and the possibilities and
limitations of acquiring reliable knowledge about them.
1. The skeptical theory of objectivity
The skeptical theory of objectivity maintains that certain moral and meta-physical
beliefs are behind different historical interpretation and these beliefs are not
scientific in nature. This implies that historical thinking has sometime irreducibly
subjective about it, which colour the understanding of the past. Therefore, this
theory not only denies the possibility of objectivity in history, but also implies that
history is in the past resort not a branch of knowledge that can be understood
without interpretation. The critical against this theory is that it has removed the
distinction which historians often make between history and propaganda. This is
because history as always be distinguished from propaganda results in the writing
of an objective historical account which cannot be labeled as propaganda (white
1978) on the other hand, where the historical methodology is ignored the account
which is produced faces a serious danger of being labelled as propaganda and hence
is of no value.
2. The positivist theory of objectivity
The positivist believe that the attained of absolute objectivity as it is attained in
natural science is also attainable in history. They argued that, if the historians are
given the same method of investigation used by scientist, what the scientist have
achieved in the study of nature could also be achieved in the study of the society,
( berlin, 1960). Also the theory emphasizes as an important element in the writing
of history which is the interpretation of historical data. A writer who does not
interpret, is not a historian but narrator or story teller. A historian must be
meticulous in the interpretation of his historical fact. The historian must not only
be concerned with narration aspect of the work but also a proper interpretation of
his facts. This is what Robert smith calls the "why and how) aspect of history.
Indeed, whether or not a fact is accepted a fact of history depends largely on the
question of interpretation (Finley] 965). Hence the element of interpretation is
involved in every interpretation as opened by proponent of positivist's theory.
It is worthy to not that no single historian can fully put together every aspect about
the past. He can only put together facts which are at his disposal. In this case his
narrative may be considered incomplete. It is therefore possible to have different
narratives of the same event as no two or three historians have equal access to the
same set of evidence. Therefore, positivist' theory is inapplicable to history.
3. The perspective theory objectivity
The perspective theory of objectivity holds the view that every historian considers
the past from a particular stand point 1t asserts that any history is a product of two
factors namely; subjective element of the historian i.e. His view point of the object,
and evidence upon which his account is based. However, the existence of the first
factor would appear to present any historian from reliving the past as it actually
happened (dray 1971)
The perspective disagree sharply with the positivists. The perspectivists contend
that it is not enough for a historian to collect his materials and write them down as
they accord. For the perspectivists, therefore, the idea of interpretation does not
negate objectivity.
The fact must be accepted that no historian starts out with his mind blank to be
gradually filled by the evidence. In other words, the historian always has a pre-
conceived idea of his writing (Joyce 1982)
But the argument is that this needs not and in fact should not, unduly influence a
reconstruction of the past event. The important point is that regardless of what the
perspective of the historian is, he must allow himself to be led in his writing by the
evidence at his disposal.
Based on this, the perspectivists contend that objectivity can be attained if the
historian follows certain fundamental rules. Firstly, the historian must properly
scrutinize his evidence. Secondly, he must only accept conclusion only where there
is good evidence for him and thirdly, he must maintain intellectual integrity and
honesty in his arguments and presentations. Therefore, for the perspectives, an
historical account is subjective if it does not follow strict historical methodology.
Steps in achieving absolute objectivity
Among all, the theories on objectivity examined, the perspectivists theory appeals
to us because it appears to take cognizance of the nature of history as what history
does. The best one can do is provide an explanation of what it entails. In history,
objectivity is not absolute. In fact, there is no absolute fact in history. The fact are
determined by the significance the historian attaches to them (Marwick, 1981).

In interpreting historical facts, the historian must play down his sentiments and
emotions. He must respect his evidence by not suppressing or deliberately twisting
them to suit any selfish purpose (Joyce 1982). He should base his judgment on
verified fact and to strive to give the other side of account where such exists, he
should avoid looking at the past events with the eye of the present/ (Hegel 1956)
pined that an historian must demonstrate a high degree of intellectual integrity and
honesty in his work. When an historian has followed these procedures, his account
becomes objectives. On the contrary, if he ignores them in his work, then his
account may be considered subjective.
More important, it must be stressed that since the historian is a student change, his
conclusions just as in science, may not be valid at time. In other words, objectivity
in history may also be tentative in the sense that discovery of fresh evidence may be
affect historical reconstruction and therefore the results is re-evaluation of a previous
objective account considering this, it is crystal clear why each generation re -writer
and re-interprets its history.
Nevertheless, must be pointed out that an objective historical accounts should be
based on deep research an investigation and should be able to stand the best of
time. The concept of absolute objectivity is however neither applicable to history nor
to science.
 Conclusion
It has been shown from the foregoing that objectivity is useful in history to the
extent that is serves as a methodological tool to prevent the historian from reflecting
biases and prejudices in his account. It must also be retreated that the primary
concern of every historian is to provide understanding about the past if this is to be
achieved, then it is unnecessary to have universally acceptable conclusion in history.
In fact, to have different views is better because it will be a step towards achieving
the goal of history which is the understanding the past.
 SUBJECTIVITY
Introduction
History is subjective, because it is based on what the author of history is interpreting.
But whatever it is, objective and subjective id the process of gaining knowledge
that has lasted for a long time leaving from others, as well as self-discipline is a
concrete example of objective and subjective ..
Subjective is not the opposite of objective. Historians pride themselves on their
efforts to render the past legible in a responsible manner, and they realize that
although they can never be completely "objective" in their accounts, they
nevertheless value the sustain effort.
Subjectivity, however, always inflects the historians choice of topic and evidence as
we11as the selection of an appropriate authorial Roic. Although present at every step
of historical research, historical subjectivity general has been rendered obscure as
part of the attempt to be objective. Subjectivity and objectivity are related nor
opposed.
Historians as agents and historical actors, contrast narratives about the past that
would never exist without some amount of self-assertion, choice, desire, fortitude,
and above all, writing all of which must come from somebody, single person,
namely the historian.
Historical subjectivity begins with the individual scholar's perception or her
connection to, and distance from, the past and it is sustained through the historian's
decision to make that perception integral to her scholarship. In other words, historical
subjectivity is an expression of an individual's historical consciousness.
Factors that can enhance historical subjectivity
1) being professional
A historian should view himself first as a historian before anything else. He must
use his imagination and suppress evidence.
2) avoid premeditated notions
A historian should avoid pre conceived notions in his interpretations and should not
jump into conclusion.
3) laws of interpretation
Historical objectivity can also be achieved when the historian follows the historical
laws of interpretation. There should be no bias or prejudice in the selection of
evidence. The facts should be depicted accurately from available evidence and not
from other facts, which could be considered extraneous.
4) corroborate sources for verification
On the issue of conflicting theories and evaluation the historian should, make use
of the principles of corroboration, the point where various sources agree.
History consists of a series of accumulated imaginative inventions
Voltaire (1694-1778)
Voltaire's words take us down to the very basic root of history and its various
interpretations. Before analyzing the various theories, outcomes, features of history,
first of all, let us endeavor, just the primitive concept of history or just like it is
commonly asked in classes "what is history?" the origin greek occupation of
historia was that of some research, or investigation.
Not the rigidly performed scientific method of research employed by historical
critics today, but an investigation into and a setting forth of the great deeds by
illustrious men. Often with distinct bias.in this assignment, i am going to deal with
the topic of subjectivity, it's omnipresent in the world of the past and how it helps to
ornament Alize history. Before we go on to the topic of role of subjectivity, it is
essential for us to understand what we mean by history.
What is history?
Looking into the work of ehcarr, in his lilted book "what is history", he claims that
history is like a vessel comprising of two elements, historians and facts. Similarly,
carr concludes that any historical event in effect is determined by the historian and
as such it is the reflection of historians' time and environment. He concludes his
work with the issue in history. Predecessors like ranked and other historians
attributed much of the events of hi story to 'great men" while carr had taken a
standpoint which is in contribution to them in this matter, in his work, carr provides
a broader outlook on history which is vastly different from his predecessors such as
Ranke, Trevelyan, Collinwood and others. The key theory which he puts forward is
that, history is relative to the interpretation and selection of historians who in tum
are the end-products of their environment. The main matter of carr's work is that
history is subjective not objective which puts it at odds with the Rankins and several
other empiricists.
History is indeed a highly debatable subject and there are several events which still
hasn't reached any conclusion of its own. It depends on the individual historians
how convincingly they manage to present their own theory with the help of sources.
But gain, is to sources which determine history or it history which determine
sources? History can be defined in various ways, depending on the historians as to
how they eye the timeline of events occurring since ages. Much unlike other social
subjects, history gives away more freedom to an individual's likes and dislikes,
interpretations, understanding, concepts, constructions and re-constructions.
Witnesses and readers of history are free to analyze in their own way and conclude
their views in return, this is the magic of subjectivity' which plays a pivotal role in
history. Historians are at ease to cook up, with ingredients of their choice, primary
or secondary, including or excluding sources, putting their own addons, and finally
baking up a fermented part of history. The responsibility of shaping up the path of
history is in their hands, as to whether it would be a lighted round or a dark road not
much taken by people. History is how it is presented and acknowledged by people.
Whether or not it has sufficient proofs backed up. A society and its people are often
unaware of its historical past when the historians come into action, fitting the
various pieces of history into a concrete jigsaw puzzle and presenting it to the world
carr has argued that positivists or academic activists has failed to understand the
role of history in our daily lives, just by ignoring the historical subjectivisms. Various
representations help formulate distorted versions of history and attracts multifarious
public opinions especially in the pages of oriental and occidental history. Yet again,
it is up to the readers to agree to such views towards history.
Path to subjectivity
It is important for us to know how various historians out down their view points
and substantiate them which in turn leads us on to the path of subjectivity. As
Winston Churchill once said, pages of history are written by victors, those who defeat
enemies in wars and battles and survive to write down an account of it. But it is not
always possible for them to be present or be an eye- witness to all unfolding events
in history which again leads on to the rendition of primary and secondary sources.
Primary sources are first-hand or original accounts of work which also has the
author/narrator present as a witness to the event. Primary sources can be of various
types be it memoirs, autobiography, manuscripts, artefacts, architectural remains,
sculptures. Newspaper; books, etc. Whereas secondary sources is one step behind
primary ones, mainly where the author is not a part of the event. Also when any
work is undertaken with an aim behind it, deliberately written for anyone, or public
as a matter of fact, rt becomes a secondary source. It is not always that all modern
history sources are secondary sources and all ancient or medieval works are primary
Sources. Akbar-Nama; a medieval work grows more authentic only after the year
1572 when Abul Fazl himself joins the Mughal court and witness whatever he has
included in his work. Hence, not all historians can provide with authentic historical
fact and illustrate the true picture. A historian knows that his only possible
knowledge of the past is always mediate or inferential al, never empirical". Along
with that, no historian would blindly believe his predecessors and their work
without going-into the depth of it, as there is no authentication of that very source.
It is a historian's discretion whether he would support or believe predecessors'
historical facts or criticize them and if so, then how? Gardiner Patrick has dealt with
this topic in his own way, and his idea of history has resulted into indeed a
prodigious was of looking at history itself, that the historian must re-enact the past
in his own mind". In other words, he has to imagine himself being present in the era,
period, event he is working upon, try to turn the virtual surroundings into reality,
rediscover the past with the help of artefacts and relies, get into the character and
understand the reason and emotion behind each word spoken or written about and
finally conclude. "the historian observes, even though his object is not there",
rightly pointed out by Paul Ricoeur highlighting the paradoxical situation of
historical investigation.

It is not always easy for a historian to bring back the past piece by piece and in
most cases, language act as a fine sheet of barrier. As languages have continuously
undergone changes with the flow of time, changed generation by generation, across
the vast continents, which poses as a challenge to successor historians to decode
and understand what acts as a boom in history helping historian to interpret in their
own way and language, add on his understandings and therefore, reconstruct the
past. As Susan crane articulated that historians are agents, or historical actors who
construct narratives about the past that would never exist without some amount of
self-assertion, choice and desire, fortitude and above all, writing. Historical
subjectivity begin with the individual scholars' perception of her connection to and
distance from the past and it is sustained through the historians' decision to make
that perception integral to her scholarships.
In simple words, subjectivity is defined as any interpretation influenced by personal
views and thoughts. Subjectivity comes into play when a historian can accurately
yet beautifully interpret history in her/his own words. History is interlinked with the
idea of subjectivity and cannot be detained by any means. Historians work as a
medium of transferring historical subjective-ness from the event itself to the
subjectivity. Not only histories but also their viewers, readers, critics have a hand
in subjectivity as it is up to them to interpret the history presented by the writers.
Subjectivity gives readers a freedom or license to understand every chapter of
history the way he wants to. Historians turn into philosophers and even subjective-
interpreter with time whenever required. Using the power of subjectivity does not
mean that all historians are lying and history
Is nothing but fiction, rather it is in the bands of historians to interpret the past in
their own way and present it in front of viewers either in the old format or in a
different way. Whether they can creatively represent history, come up with new
ideas and analysis, even many times judge various pre-writings or incidents and put
forward his/her own set of assessments in their own personalized way or be just a
mere bunch of repetitiveness and plagiarism. Much again referring to the
problematic area, when a historian is about to interpret any written source of history,
they might not set the tone of the writer, his philosophical view points and sense of
depicting incidents, which further welcomes the idea of extrapolation which the
historians resort to, filling in the gaps of history without authentic information. Yet
again biasness comes into play, when a historian is not in support of ant historical
event to be prejudiced towards any other historian he/she might resort to writing a
bigotry version of history. Pinches of extra details in timeline, ager or sympathy,
imaginations, thoughts and political dogmatism can spice up the flavors of history
anytime. Hence the strange thing going on between the writer's subjectivity and
readers' subjectivity is that while a historian uses his power of subjectivity and
presents a concealed work in front of the readers who again in turn re-interprets the
work and tries to find out the loopholes. We can call it a cycle of subjectivity, thus
unlike science subjects, social subjects do not follow any set of rules which the
readers have to abide while reading any book or writing any piece which gives
them a freedom of interpretation.
 The issue of subjectivity itself beckons a lot of debate and differences if it has to
be analyzed deeply. But it surely not a crime and it can be never completely avoided
by neither historians nor readers, every historian is self-trained to a certain element
of subjectivity which depends on nor readers, is every historian self-trained to a
certain element of subjectivity which depends on his psychological matrix but
misusing subjectivity in every comers and nooks of historical event must be avoided
by historians or else there would never be a proof of actual history.
Real incidents in historical timeline can make us belief how subjectivity has played
an interfere part, down the ages. Going back to the roots, talking about oral history,
it has been a great example of subjectivity ever since. Folklore, narratives, first-hand
accounts of oral history which has been passed down the ages, verbally serve as a
huge base for subjectivity, since generations. Even written records and manuscripts
were nowhere in the picture, these verbally said narratives were heard remembered
later to be written down with add on. It is not always that whatever the narrator bas
spoken is recorded line by line, as the listener may not remember, understand,
agree or be biased to include every original word. It: is a very common occasion
which we get to see in our own household, our grandparents tell us stories and
episodes of the past and not all very true its words. It often happens that they repeat
the same story more than once but in different versions, having cut off or added
extra chapters. Hence, we can say that subjectivity is hidden even in the walls and
corners of household and inside us. We get to hear a sense of proclivity present in
the air.
We can find similar actions in not only history books but also other books like
might's children, penned down by Salman Rushdie where he emphasized more on
the events that he personally, found, worthy of highlighting like the Jallianwala Bagh
incident, perspectives of the Muslim who were against the partition, the riots, indo-
pakistan war taking place thereafter and others. He put down in details the areas
which interested him personally and attracted his attention and curiosity. Likewise,
we get to see the action of subjectivity inside a historian's mind, in e.m foresters, "a
passage to India" where he also picks and chooses the incidents which he wants to
focus on. Even at the time of partition, most historians chose to focus on the Hindu
Muslim wars and plights and minimum attention
Was given to the remaining Christian population who became a minority. In this
process, many deserving faces get lost in the crowds of the unknown and new
'unsung heroes come into existence.
 Conclusion
After a deep analysis of both historical subjectivity and objectivity, we might
conclude that there are no specific rules and laws of writing history and one cannot
choose between the two. Subjectivity and objectivity both are interdependent on
each other and both help to structurize history in making.
The power is in the historian's hand how he/she would choose to mold the chapters
of history. Whether to approach history scientifically or interpret it in one's own
personal way, is a historian's discretion who can also be called a sculptor of the past.
Personally speaking, I think both subjectivity and objectivity is required to deal the
historical situation as both will check and balance each other. History is all about
as well as interpretation and it depends on both writers and readers as to how they
will absorb the must pages of the past. It is not about blaming the other section but
to co-exist mutually. In this paper, i have essentially tried to put my point as to how
subjectivity plays a vital role in the making of history and other social sciences as
well. I other word, subjectivity can be liked or disliked by many but never ignored.
 References
Alago, E.J. 9976) The Relationship Between History And Other Disciplines. Tarikh
Vol 6.No.L
Finley, M.I (1965) Myth, Memory And History. History And Theory. Vol. Iv, No.3
Thompson, D. (1969). Arms Of History, London: Macmillan Press
Carr, E.H "What Is History?" Renguin (2008)
Gardiner, Patrick. (Theories Of History: Readings From Classical And
Contemporary Sporce, "Free Press (1959"