The term objectivity in history simply means the ability to separate oneself from the object of study, to analyse, and interpret, without allowing prejudice or personal bias to influence your writing. 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.
It is important to note is that there is no absolute objectivity. Thus, some elements and factors militate against objectivity and tend to make a historian unobjective. It is important to note that historians are human beings and, to that end, can be influenced by several human factors in their works, thus making the historian subjective.
One of these factors is personal bias, which simply denotes something concerning and affecting a person that influences the person, most times in an unfair way, thus bringing out partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue. This personal bias includes personal likes and dislikes for either an individual or class of people and this leads to prejudice, which most time affects the average historian judgement.[1] An example is William Carlisle, a British historian, who admires great men while Wells and other historians do not, and this affects how they interpret their sources.
Another factor that could hinder objectivity is group prejudice. Prejudice is a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation This arises from the obvious fact of assumptions made as members of the group, either right or wrong with these assumptions, members of the group becomes hard to detect and therefore to correct an error, examples Social group, political group, religious opinion.
In other, to write history, one must try not to be influenced by this different group prejudices. An example of this is the supposition that the historian in a Marxist group or school will always tend to see history from the economic perspective and write in this area, same with every other group.[2] Another example of Group prejudice is the assumption an average historian makes due to his membership to a group, as belonging to this or that nation, race or social class.[3] This is visible in John Locke, Trevor Ropper, A.P Newton and other Eurocentric historians who wrote about African history. In their work, Africa and Africans were seen as barbaric, savages, uncivilized, illiterates etc. [4] they were influenced by their race. This can also be applied to the Average African Nationalist historians’ work when trying to debunk the Eurocentric view. [5]
Conflicting theories of historical interpretation is also a factor that affects objectivity. In history, theory of historical interpretation means the theory of relative importance of different kinds of causal factors. These theories cause conflicting interpretations which lead to historical disagreement. For example, those who put forward comprehensive theories profess to derive them from facts, for which they are ready to stand for in the face of unfavourable evidence. The behaviour of the Marxist in regards to the theory of Historical materialism best explains the above. It is important to note that this could be found in other schools such as liberalist, rationalist. Looking at the different theories of historical interpretation, it could be seen that the different schools that propounded these theories stand by it, despite prove of another side to the history or historical event. There are several reasons why historians accept and stand by these theories due to emotional, intellectual. These theories are held in a way that their supporters think the theories are the final truth about the period under study, Thus this makes the average historian repudiate all rival views as erroneous. Therefore, these conflicts of different theories arise, and subjectivity is the order of the day.[6]
A problem that has hindered objectivity in the discipline of history is the interpretation of facts. This is because historians search for the truth about the happenings of the past but the past is not open to direct assessment or examination. This means the historian must study his facts and evidence, which come from different sources such as oral, written, archaeological and linguistic sources. The importance of the interpretation of these sources lies in the fact that, if the historian does not interpret the sources well, the conclusion the historian would make, may inhibit the achievement of objectivity in history.[7]
Also, the historian’s selection of materials is an added factor that militates against objectivity in history. This can be explained in the words of R.F Atkinson: “In making selection, historians will be expressing their personal and class prejudices”.[8] This is because it is through the selection process that historians make choices of the sources and evidence they want to use, and consequently the selection process to a large extent, determines the form which his account will take.
A factor that compromises objectivity is the freedom of usage of natural language. This can be seen in the translating process that is involved in interpreting material of a language that a historian does not understand. This tends to lead to misunderstanding and inappropriate interpretation of the language material. Also, the usage of the natural language, which historians make use of in deliberating their account, has a tendency to cause dispute.[9]
The cultural background and ideological inclination of the average historian could influence objectivity in history, as factors like religion and race could have a bearing on a historian’s objectivity. [10]For example, if an average Muslim historian is to write about a history of a Christian man (his values and belief), there is no how the average Muslim historian would not be influenced by his Islamic beliefs in his essay. There are selected few who write objectively such as Saidi Abubakar who as a Northerner wrote on the Yoruba in the Groundwork of Nigeria history, and Mamuds work on Good Moslems and Bad Moslems.
One other factor that could militate against objectivity in the discipline of history is that a reputable and average historian, most times than none, write about other different times, eras and ages. Thus, if he is not careful, he may be influenced by his own time, era and age, when he is writing about a different time and era and age. Since history deals with the human past event, the past has to be constructed as it was when the historian writes about it. It is important in the present time, there have been instances of a historian writing about his present time and or occurrence. In order words, the past has to be constructed to be a true reflection of itself.
Additionally, it is important to note that the sources are imperfect. This means that sources are damaged, flawed, defective, lacking and faulty. On this note, the historian is faced with the challenge of being objective from the start and due to the imperfect nature of sources, objectivity in history is already militated against.
Underlying philosophical conflicts is also a factor that could militate against objectivity in the discipline of history. This factor arises from different moral and metaphysical beliefs as well as world views, which could affect the historian’s interpretation. An example of this is the different causal beliefs related to different happenings, especially ethical and supernatural causal beliefs.[11] Another example is Samuel Johnson’s explanation of the factor for the collapse of Old Oyo, which to him was a result of the wrath of God on the people by God. [12]In other words, the average historian’s philosophical behaviour can affect interpretation, which also affects objectivity.
Another factor militating objectivity in history is the culture of silence. This Culture involves the silence of a group of people relating to a subject, topic, event and occurrence.[13] The culture of silence relates to many societies including the African Continent. This affects objectivity because there is an omission in transferring facts, knowledge and information that is needed for objective work. Due to the high usage of Oral sources for reconstructing African history, this culture is visible. Some societies do not want some of their history to be written and documented, and thus the people interviewed decides to be silent of the occurrence, by doing this oral accounts would be withheld and be distorted. Simply put the culture of silence are facts that exist and are withheld from the public, Facts that are hidden discourse and can only be said in closed doors and clandestine meetings e.g. the existence of slavery in Anlo.[14] There are reasons for this silence some of which are cultural loyalty, fear of oppression, isolation from society etc.[15] once a fact is distorted the attainment of objectivity would be slim
To conclude with 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 above.
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 must 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] Walsh W.H, 1967. An Introduction to Philosophy of History ….pp99-100
[2] Walsh W.H, 1967. An Introduction to Philosophy of History, …pp100-101
[3] Walsh W.H, 1967. An Introduction to Philosophy of History, …p99
[4] Ajayi S.A, Sources For the Study of Early African Culture and Civilisation in African Culture and Civilisation. Ajayi S.A (ed). Ibadan: Secreprint Nigeria Limited. P 22
[5] Afolayan F., 2016.African Glories; Nationalist Historiography. Perspective on African Historiography. Alao A., (ed.). Ikeja: Silk Nigeria Limited, pp. 42-44.
[6] Walsh W.H, 1967. An Introduction to Philosophy of History,… pp101-102
[7] Olubomehin, O.O. 2001. The Issue of Objectivity in Issues in Historiography. … p 41
[8] Atkinson R..F, 1978, Knowledge and Explanation in History, London:Macmillan Press.p 73
[9] Olubomehin, O.O. 2001. The Issue of Objectivity in Issues in Historiography. … p 41
[10] Ajayi S. A., note on Problems of Theories and Methods in History- The Pursuit of Objectivity, Department of History, University of Ibadan, pp61-62
[11] Walsh W.H, 1967. An Introduction to Philosophy of History … pp103-104
[12] Ajayi S. A., note on Problems of Theories and Methods in History- The Pursuit of Objectivity, Department of History, University of Ibadan, p60
[13] Robert N. St Clair. The Social and Cultural Construction of Silence. The University of Louisville retrieved 26/06/2017
[14] Greene S. E., 2003. Whispers and Silences: Exploration in African Oral History. Africa Today, Oral Heritage and Indigenous Knowledge. Indiana University Press. Vol. 50, No. 2, P48
[15] Greene S. E., 2003. Whispers and Silences: Exploration in African Oral History. Africa Today, Oral Heritage and Indigenous Knowledge. Indiana University Press. Vol. 50, No. 2, P49
[1] Olubomehin, O.O. 2001. The Issue of Objectivity in Issues in Historiography…p 46
You can contribute by leaving a reply