28 August 2023
The historiography regarding metahistorical analysis is as enlightening as it is plentiful. This type of inquiry can often lead to recognition of shortcomings in the field, as well as the revelation of trends that historians often follow. The importance of engaging in this practice primarily lays in the investigation of the field over time. In other words, when historians study how history has been produced over time, they become not only more informed of their own work, but also become more aware of deficiencies in the study overall. This is especially true when discussing the topic of historical truth – is there even such thing as a historical fact?
One author that performs this type of meta-analysis is John H. Arnold, in his text History: A Very Short Introduction. [1] Arnold argues that to produce history, historians take the chaotic past and aim to make sense of the chaos, thus “finding or creating patterns and meanings and stories from the maelstrom.” [2] He explains this by taking the direction of discussing the various aspects that historians engage with to produce history: archives and their source material, the role of objectivity and subjectivity, the bigger picture of history, and the importance of producing it. Thus, Arnold claims that it is through these processes and tools that historians find historical truth, or fact, by sifting through the chaos of the past.
Hayden V. White, in the text Burden of History, argues that there is societal resentment held towards the study of history in the Modern Age. [3] In earlier eras, the historian was able to claim the role as mediator between the Arts and Sciences – in other words, historians were the bridge between objectivity and subjectivity. White claims that this is no longer justified, using several accounts and examples from past intellectuals to prove that Art and Science have transcended, leaving history behind. He argues this by explaining that both Art and Science have evolved into finer studies, more refined and efficient than previously seen throughout the ages. To combat this issue, the author proposes that Historians should “recognize that there is no such thing as a single correct view of any object under study but there are many correct views, each requiring its own style of representation.” [4] Thus, White urges Historians to, in essence, stop focusing on the single meaning, and to instead narrow in on the many different meanings. This, according to White, will therefore place the study of history back into its role of mediator.
A third text that analyzes the production of History is Telling the Truth About History, by Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob. [5] The main idea of this book is that “what historians do best is to make connections with he past in order to illuminate the problems of the present and the potential of the future.” [6] However, in conveying this point, the authors also claim that the “insistent democratization of Western Society” [7] led to more engagement with and people performing history, which has led to many differing perceptions of historical truth. With the number of people attending university growing exponentially, the amount of people producing history has also risen. This has caused society to have a lesser respect or trust for the historian, for it is difficult for the average person to identify historical truth. Furthermore, the authors argue that the only way to adapt to the implications of the democratization of history is to “depend on objectivity, defined anew as a commitment to honest investigation, open processes of research, and engaged public discussions of the meanings of historical facts.” [8] Only then will we be able to have a well-informed public regarding historical truth.
Through analysis of these three texts, one can see clear alignment with and deviations from another, each serving to form a well-rounded understanding of the historiography regarding the topic. There are two central themes that run throughout all the texts – objectivity versus subjectivity; and that historical truth depends on making sense of the murky, or chaotic past to enlighten the present. Focusing on the latter, one can clearly gleam this understanding from Arnold’s text primarily, however each author heavily discusses this topic. The book provides one with a very strong overview of the various components, tools, and processes that historians rely on to make sense of the chaotic past. However, it is when one brings White, as well as Appleby, Hunt, and Jacob into the discussion, that objectivity and subjectivity arise.
White juts into the conversation by declaring history as the mediator between Art and Science – Art representing subjectivity, and Science representing objectivity. He claims that society no longer has faith in the historian to produce historical truth because of the evolution of Art and Science. Those two disciplines have left history in the dust, and in order to keep up, history needs to do the same thing. To combat this, White argues for more subjectivity in historical analysis, that historians need to focus on the multiple “truths” versus the single truth. White’s mindset is assuredly valuable to the historian, for much of the field relies heavily on investigating topics under new lenses. This is what enables the modern historian to cover topics as heavily researched as the American Civil War without repeating historians of the past.
However, when subjectivity is left to run amok, as one could argue is occurring in the Modern Age, less faith is placed in the historian to make sense of the chaotic past – that is, reveal historical truth. One could even extend this claim to argue that reliance on subjectivity is a sure-fire way to blockade oneself from the truth. In order to find this truth, objectivity must be readily employed to combat the murkiness or uncertainty of the past. Reliance on objectivity is, and always has been, a tenant of History. When historians conduct research, they are answering questions, including identifying the questions, arguing their answers, and using evidence to support. What is the point of answering a question if the answer will always be subjective?
While the necessity of objectivity in the historian’s toolbelt is clear, there are equal dangers to its overuse as well. Constant skepticism of both primary and secondary sources is commonly taught by history professors, but when the skepticism becomes too much, the main point of producing history is lost. Historians produce history to make sense of the present, give voice to those without, and illuminate past events. When one engages in too much objectivity, then they are likely ignoring combatting evidence or non-aligning accounts, which does not produce historical truth.
Overall, it seems that though both objectivity and subjectivity have their place in the historical process. Real historical truth encompasses the totality of a topic, but not the frivolity. To reveal the totality of the topic, one must utilize subjectivity in order to see all aspects of what is being studied. However, to remove frivolity, historians must engage skepticism and objectivity. Only in this process can legitimate historical truth be revealed.
Bibliography
Appleby, Joyce Oldham, Lynn Avery Hunt, and Margaret C. Jacob. Telling the Truth About History. New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1995.
Arnold, John H. History a Very Short Introduction. Oxford, New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000.
White, Hayden V. “The Burden of History.” Wiley for Wesleyan University 5, no. 2 (1966): 111–34.
[1] Arnold, John H. History a Very Short Introduction. Oxford, New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000.
[2] Arnold, John H. History a Very Short Introduction. P.13
[3] White, Hayden V. “The Burden of History.” Wiley for Wesleyan University 5, no. 2 (1966): 111–34.
[4] White, Hayden V. “The Burden of History.” P. 130, 131.
[5] Appleby, Joyce Oldham, Lynn Avery Hunt, and Margaret C. Jacob. Telling the Truth About History. New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1995.
[6] Appelby et. al. Telling the Truth About History. P.9
[7] Appelby et. al. Telling the Truth About History. P.3
[8] Appelby et. al. Telling the Truth About History. P.10
Dalton G. King 