Analyse E. H. Carr's assertion that the "opinion in a difficult key of historical facts existing objectively and individually of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one that it is very hard to eliminate" (Carr 1961).
(2010 Exam Question) Answer fully the question with regards to key historical thinkers and works.
When Edward Hallett Carr's asserted that "perception in a difficult central of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historians is a preposterous fallacy, but the one that it's very hard to eliminate", he tips to a prevalent debate that still goes through today. Historians have contested with the other person for years on the opportunity of neutrality ever sold and background as an empirical knowledge.
In my view, I agree with Carr that it's completely impossible that historical facts achieve total objectiveness "untainted" by the interpretations and assessments of historians. That is based on the actual fact that understanding of the past are inevitably prepared by human heads, going through the process of selection, evaluation and interpretations that may always contain personal components of prejudices and preconception.
In the first instance, historians decide what is to be known about days gone by. As Barbara W. Tuchman aptly clarifies Carr's discussion, "historical occurrences are akin to a dropped tree in a forest, whereby if there is no one to listen to the audio of its crash, who would have known that it just happened?" Carr draws an evaluation between Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon which is studied as an historical event, set alongside the millions of other people who crossed the Rubicon as well but never gets their consideration told. Finally, historians chooses what constituted as a major historical event to be examined, whereas other past events considered insignificant may never reach speak its tone. Historical facts therefore cannot can be found independently of the interpretation of historians as they make a decision in what gets to be told as a historical fact.
As Carr's argues, "History is always automatically selective. "
Evidences left out tend to be preselected and predetermined by prominent power structures, leading us to believe what they wished us to. Whether or not we were to suppose all evidences are untainted by the past, they remain chosen by historians from an array of documents of the past to surface as an ascertained historical simple fact. Carr clarifies, "if he (historians) does not evaluate, how do he know what is worth saving?"
Historian themselves chooses what's to be conserved and discarded in order to determine an intelligible consideration or answer to their question. Historian's interest and judgement performs a part in deciding which evidences gets to be directed more attention than others. As a result, objectivity of historical facts is compromised as it'll curently have been inspired by historian's desire on what's to be deemed significant to be on record, which does not constitute the complete fact. Quoting Carr, "The facts, speak only once the historian telephone calls with them: it is he who determines to which facts to give the entranceway and in what order or framework. "
Still, positivists questions Carr's view and thinks that historians can and have a obligation to consider most documents left behind, keeping no biasness in selection, and present the historical facts as plainly as the evidences suggest. Leopold von Ranke wished history to be shown how it really was and Lord Acton needed it served plain. In supporting this ideal, empiricist such as Acton argues that objective historical facts can be extracted from artifacts from the past as long as we detached ourselves from it, maintain neutrality and pay rigid attention to the reality.
However, this isn't possible as evidences left out do not instantly form a clear window to the past. As Dominick LaCapra remarked, "documents are texts that product or rework 'reality' rather than mere resources that divulge factual statements about 'simple fact'. " Historical evidences are always designed by the interpersonal institutions and cultural perception of its time. Artifacts left out will therefore, never maintain its purest form, needing historians to judge and decipher them to be able to provide it meaning and credibility. As historians cannot take evidences at face value, it becomes unavoidable that historians bring their own applying for grants the documents how it should be read.
In this technique of analysis, historians will inescapably be affected by their personal prejudices and preconception. They will also certainly be influenced by pre-existing rules and belief presented independently and the ethnical milieu of his time. Since historians see the history through present sight, he is bounded by present day concepts and public environment, which renders him struggling to correspond exactly to the past and becomes subjective in his analysis.
As McCullagh C. Behan inferred from Michel Foucault's idea, specific interests together with social and ethnic context takes on an important role in identifying that your interpretations of past that historian promote. There is also certain fact in Robin George Collingwood's remark that, "All record is the annals of thoughts. " Historians' accounts of days gone by will be what they thought of days gone by to be, by deriving it using their values and point of views. Historical facts cannot simply be dished up plain in the way suggested by Acton.
Historical facts therefore are always subjective to the interpretations of historians and can't be independent from it. They are simply always prepared by historians based on their selection and analysis of evidences, which may be influenced by their sociable environment, cultural context as well as personal prejudices and preconception.
However, are we to denounce historical facts as simply mere fabrications of historians? In my own view, Keith Jenkins has gone too far when he argues that "whenever we study background, we aren't studying the past but what historians have created about days gone by. " Positivists do have valid known reasons for believing in the objectivity of historical facts.
First of all, historians do not and cannot simply interpret historical events and facts they way they think about it; historical fact is based on evidences and rationality. Even as a historian is affected by their personal prejudices, preconceptions and communal context, he's constrained by his career to give a logical and justified justification that concurs as much as possible with most available evidences.
A historian's interacts with available materials in his disposal to form a coherent as well as logical reasoning and interpretation of days gone by. While evidences and documents themselves do not inform the whole real truth, these are genuine relics of days gone by rather than mere creations of the historians. However, we are usually unaware of how process of selections and analysis can affect and distort a historical real truth.
Historical synthesis is also not only a subject of selection and interpretation according to the way a historian desire, for he's restricted by the code of conduct to make a fair and thorough presentation of the subject. Historians are to follow these rules, or face the consequences of being criticized and condemned by fellow academics of the self-discipline.
The history job is ultimately, characterized by its critical analysis of facts, cross-inference skills and rigorous strategies of historical inquiry. It's the discipline's extensive necessity in rigor and trustworthiness that gets us closer to understanding days gone by. Absolute objective history we cannot have, but it generally does not imply that historians do not work towards comparative objectivity.
Yet, it is these requirements and characteristics that mislead some historians to think that they are able to detach themselves as an authorized to present an objective and true consideration of the past. Historian's commitment to truth will not render them objective, as they'll forever be inspired by the preconceptions and prejudices as reviewed previously. Being critical in analysis and alert to lifestyle of biasness also will not automatically remove these affects.
Abundance of evidence coupled with rational and critical analysis by historians might not point to absolute fact, but positivist argues that when there is a generally consensus among academics as to what probably happened, it ought to be pretty credible. Unless new evidences are found out or better explanations are created, existing interpretations should act as our basis to understand days gone by.
However, we have to not blunder the most rational or dominating interpretation as the historical fact and makes it being objective. Generally accepted consensus will not change interpretations to be certainty and we do have to stay critical of what's provided as facts.
Nonetheless, the question on objectivity of historical facts is a sophisticated issue that historians today still think it is hard to grapple with. It is rather hard to eradicate the perception in historical facts existing objectivity and individually of historians. It will continue to be debated as some will persist on the notion of total objectivity when they cling on to their responsibility as historians to maintain fidelity to the notion of historical real truth. As Housman remarked, "Accuracy is a work, not really a virtue (of historians)".
However, it is only when we are aware that there can never be utter objectivity in historical facts that we become more critical of accepted historical facts and more convinced to remove any existing prejudices and subjectivity. As Milton Lomask suggested, "the destruction that ingrained behaviour can do to your understanding of the data diminishes in direct percentage to your awareness of them"
Therefore, historians must be prepared to come to terms with the reality that historical fact is always subjective and reliant on interpretations of historians. Using this method, new point of view can be opened up with acceptance of counter-top views to postulate new and accurate interpretations. By being aware of the subjectivity of historical facts, improvement then can be produced to improve the criteria of historical inquiry and research, in order to reach better level of comparative objectivity. In this case, we are rewarding our obligation to accuracy and reliability by progressing nearer to the truth.
Carr rightly said, "Background is a continuous process of relationship between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between your present and the past". We should continue to take part in such a dialogue with days gone by, revisiting and revising accepted historical facts by receiving there is never absolute fact in historical facts and ultimately, achieve greater relative objectivity; aiding us to comprehend days gone by better for the purpose of today's.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay