Objectivity serves as a methodological tool to prevent historians from reflecting bias and prejudice in their accounts.[1]
It is important to note that Objectivity has and is still facing several militating factors namely; personal bias, group prejudice, conflicting theory of historical interpretation, interpretation of facts, the historian’s selection of material, the freedom of usage of natural language, the cultural background and ideological inclination of the historian, imperfection of sources, culture of silence, underlying philosophical conflicts, etc. All these and more have been explained in the previous post.
As formidable as the problems and factors that militate against objectivity in the discipline of history are, historians have agreed that objectivity, though difficult can be achieved and for this to be achieved the historian must first detach himself from whatever he is writing. This means that the historian should control his humanistic nature, such as emotions of hate and love. Also, a historian must play down his sentiments and emotions.
Also, a possible panacea to the issue of objectivity is to avoid suppression of evidence. For a historian to achieve a certain level of objectivity, he should not deliberately or consciously attempt to forcefully put down any evidence, in a bid to project a particular point of view. In other words, he must respect his evidence by not suppressing or deliberately twisting them to suit any selfish purpose. [1]
The historian should address all issues and questions related to the document or sources. To achieve the above, the historian must ask questions such as; is the document believable? Who was the document intended for and what purpose was it intended to serve? The Historian must also ensure that the documents are not fake or forged. He should determine if the document or source is original or secondary, understanding the meaning of the document or source, as intended by the author of the document.[2]
Another panacea is the Principle of corroboration. This is a law term that denotes the usage of more than one piece of evidence to analyse an occurrence or situation. Concerning a court case, an accused cannot be convicted of some offences upon the testimony of one witness, except it is supported and verified. [3]This can also be applied to a historian when he is working with his source by taking into account all evidence, be it testimonies from oral sources. When the testimonies have an element of semblance, it is close to the truth.
Usage of other sources helps in achieving objectivity. This is because once a historian is opened to different sources, he gets more information from the sources and once he subscribes to the different sources, his work is enriched. Examples of the different sources include Archaeology, Linguistics, ethnography, ethnohistory, botany, etc. [4]
Carr E.H opines that it is necessary to study the historian before studying his works. Thus, he says: “Study the historian before you begin to study his facts, before you study the historian, study his historical and social environments”.[5] This simply means that before making use and passing comments on a document, test the presenter’s skills and competencies.
Additionally, if a historian wants to be objective, he should watch out for bias, as his bias can be from when he was making research, selecting evidence, etc. This biased nature could also be in the evidence, sources, and materials of the second and third parties. Bias can also come in the form of evidence been clouded by feelings and emotion, personal preconceptions which affect their conception of the past.[6]
Other possible panaceas include proper scrutiny of evidence by historians. Historians should accept conclusions only where there is good evidence. They should maintain intellectual integrity and honesty in arguments as well as presentations. Also, judgment should be based on verified facts. Historians should avoid looking at past events with the eyes of the present. Lastly, when historians follow this procedure, then their accounts can be said to be objective and if historians ignore all these and more in their work, then the account can justifiably be criticised as being subjective.[7]
A question that is frequently asked is how to determine if the historian is objective? The first step is that the historian should make use of balancing of sources, the historian should be neutral, he should make his point based on the different sources he has gotten. The historian should and would have corroborated his work with different sources. Once added with the above panacea, all these would lead to 50/50%, 70/30%, or 60/40% objectivity. It is important to note that there is no absolute objectivity and if a historian pursues absolute objectivity, he is only chasing a mirage. In other words, historians should strive to attain a certain amount of objectivity.
In summary is important to note that every reputable historian acknowledges the need for some sought of objectivity and impartiality in his works. Against the backdrop of these militating factors against objectivity, historians should carry out the following measures; portraying a high level a high degree of intellectual integrity and honesty in their works, properly scrutinizing evidence, avoiding suppression of evidence, applying the principle of corroboration, and using other sources, etc., to achieve objectivity.
[1] Olubomehin, O.O. 2001. The Issue of Objectivity in Issues in Historiography ….p45
[2] Ajayi S. A., note on Problems of Theories and Methods in History- The Pursuit of Objectivity, Department of History, University of Ibadan, pp62-64
[3] Evidence, 11. Corroboration, A study paper prepared by the law of Evidence Project, 1975. Department of Justice Canada P 11
[5] Carr, E.H. 1961. What is History? … pp 23-24
[6] Walsh W.H, 1967. An Introduction to Philosophy of History, …p 21
[7] Walsh W.H, 1967. An Introduction to Philosophy of History,… p 112
