Objective History: Does It Exist?

When we examine our past we tend to try to do so 'objectively.'

What does that mean? Logic, by it's very nature, requires assumptions upon which conclusions can be made. History, while fortunately not (at least supposedly) concerned with ethics, is concerned with epistemology. We need to know how we learn about our past before we can know anything about it. Historians, therefore, tend to assume the correctness of uniformitarianism and determinism; that the forces of the universe do not change, and that the current state of the universe was created by those forces acting on previous states. This is not to say that those are bad assumptions. I would agree with them. It is to say, however, that they are assumptions, in that they are baseless. There is no evidence to prove either because each is necessary to determine what is evidence.

To return to the original question, what, therefore, is 'objective?' Even if we assume perfect logic given assumptions, said assumptions still have to be taken to be true without evidence. That therefore means true objectivity in history is impossible; something always must be assumed, and said assumption has no basis, and is therefore subjective.

Why is this so important? Objectivity is an idea that students of history tend to gravitate towards. In its pure state, however, objectivity is unobtainable. We must accept that assumptions must always be made. The best we can do, therefore, is clarify our assumptions when we present anything as absolute truth. Nothing can exist as such in a vacuum; something can only be proven to be true if the criteria for such a proof have been established, an intrinsically subjective act.

Clarifying assumptions is key to effective communication of ideas. If two students of history disagree upon a point, if both don't accept the same assumptions, no argument, however logical, will convince either of them. Both will see the other's argument, perfectly logical under the other's assumptions, as illogical, for they are judging it using their own assumptions. This is how many historical arguments are created. A key prior step to overcoming this is to first determine what one's own assumptions towards history actually are, a question that is not always so easy to answer.

Once such a question is answered, however, either both can accept the same assumptions and logic can prevail to decide upon the verdict, or both can understand that neither can ever be 'objectively' correct, for there is no way to determine the better assumption.

This is a problem particularly prevalent in the study of history because in the study of history people tend to assume that they are operating 'objectively,' when clearly they are not. Instead, we must remember not to abandon logical argument, for that is the key to understanding history given assumptions, but we must also remember to clarify our assumptions, for otherwise no such logical argument is possible in the first place.