Formulating Historical questions, Identifying Perspectives and biases, Differentiating Objectivity and subjectivity History

Introduction

History has been defined as the knowledge of past, the work of historian is to find out the happenings of the past. When doing so he will collect documents from an archive which needs authenticity of the documents and its contents. To analyze the authenticity of documents historical method is used in research methodology. This method is negative in approach and enables a researcher to eliminate errors and thus helps to know the truth. This paper traces out the authenticity of documents through raising questions, brings out objectivity and subjectivity in historical writing and helps in identifying perspectives and biases.

1.Analytical Operation

The first task in research is mentioned technically as analytical operation[1] used to close scrutiny of the material. It has been divided into two branches, namely external and internal criticism. Its main job is to pronounce whether a given data is acceptable as a fact or not. Events as presented in the records may or may not conform to reality, for they might have been distorted, twisted or misrepresented. The two branches of analytical operation are two different apparatuses used in methodology to find out truth.[2] For John C.B. Webster these are two important criticisms for historians, in interpreting the past.[3]

1.2.External criticism- Heuristics[4]

Waitz, Mommsen and Haureau of Germany and Jadunath Sarkar are few who combine the tasks of external criticism,[5] which is used to find out the authenticity of the document,[6] it is also called as ‘lower criticism’ because it is considered to be a negative operation. The historian is cautioned never to take a document at its face value. He should begin by suspecting it and should probe deeper to find its genuineness.[7] It starts with interrogation. Is this document the same as it claims to be? Is it what I believe it to be? Is it what I am told it is? These questions should be asked by historian and find answers. Each time when he finds new trace, new piece of information or new document these questions must be asked repeatedly. The answer will give the authenticity of documents.[8] The duty of the historian is to doubt every document and statement, until its authenticity is established by critical examination and test.[9] Prof. Langlois and Seignobos hold that external criticism means, “The first group of preliminary investigation on the writing, the form, and the source.”[10]

1.3.Functions of External criticism

External criticism has mainly three functions: to establish the authorship of the document, to determine the place of the document and to fix the time of the document.[11]

1.4.The need for criticism

Finding out the genuineness of records has become a part of research.[12] External criticism usually deals with forgeries, garbled documents and partial texts, ghost writings[13], interpolation[14]and plagiarism.[15]

1.4.1.Tampered record

In Indian history there are instances of epigraphical records which have all been tampered. Historical records are tampered not for material advantage but other reasons like pride, vanity, sympathy, antipathy, personal rivalry, political differences, social distinctions, religious disputes. In such cases the question to be asked is who could carry out the forgery and why? Sometimes documents have been faked to be sold for gain or to deceive others if it is a donation grant. Scholars might fake document to provide a missing link in a sequence of events.[16]

1.4.2.Forgery

Forgeries is in fact one of the oldest and commonest of human offences. Politicians used forgeries to damage their opponents. It is believed that a large number of forgeries have been placed in all the archives. Documents are often forged to establish false claims. According to Renier, this is an extremely rare occurrence because in the raining of historians increasing emphasis is laid upon the checking documents as to whether they are forged or not.[17]

1.4.3.How to detect a forgery?

Paleography[18] helps us in this field, ancient Indian history is reconstructed mostly with the help of lithic and copper plate records. The characters of writing have changed from time to time. In forged documents the alphabets do not conform to the type prevalent at that point of time.  Likewise the handwriting, spelling, diction, style and other characteristic features suggest whether tampering has taken place.[19]

1.4.4.Textual criticism

Textual criticism raised to a very high level of refinement, is one of the techniques of determining whether a document is forged or original.[20] Scholars devote their entire time and life to external criticism in the restoration of texts, investigation of authorship, fixation of dates chronology, collection, classification and verification of documents, and hence they help historians in well authenticated document. Their job is critical scholarship, a part of external criticism which became popular in nineteenth century and this task was scientific. Some scholars oppose this method because it is mechanical but is not interpreting the past and despises critical scholarship.[21] The difference between forged letters and original letters can be understood by comparison. By comparing the texts, the words, passages, ideas and style of the author can be traced out and those which does not resemble the style of the author can be grouped as forged document. Auxiliary sciences are of immense help in carrying textual criticism in ascertaining the authorship, time and place of the document.[22]

1.5.Methods of external criticism

External criticism consists of different process or technique which may be divided into three main heads: 1. Content analysis, 2. Comparing pieces of evidences, 3. Checking the physical properties of evidence.

1.5.1.Content Analysis

Content analysis is an examination of the social content of the evidence. An evidence may speak about the authorship of the document in terms of social culture where may not be able to point out the particular author a group of authors. E.g. the seals of the humped bull and Mohanjodaro, discovered in 1922 give an idea about the Indus valley civilization.[23] Content analysis is also implies examination of anachronisms. Anarchonisms[24] are useful in checking the author ship and date of a document. E.g. a historian who knows Shakespearean anarchoronism can easily find out whether another work claimed to be Shakespeare’s. The anarchoronism used in a particular period may differ from those in use at other periods and this will the historian in determining the date of the evidence. Content analysis also helps to check the authorship and through reference to religious functions and austral[25] events. E.g. During vedic age certain religious functions prevailed and that will identify the date and authorship.

1.5.2.Comparing pieces of Evidences

Comparing pieces of evidences helps the historian a lot, in the process of external criticism. Comparison is made on the basis of language, script, style, etc. Historian should find out whether the style of the alleged writer resembles that which he exhibits in documents of known authenticity. The language script used in a document also throws considerable light on its authorship and date.

1.5.3.Checking or examining the physical properties of evidence

Spectroscopic[26] analysis or chemical analysis or Carbon analysis is used to check the paper because it has information. Made of silk or linen fibre alone and yet contain a mixture of cotton. Sometimes it purports to be of the linen and cotton periods and yet which may be made of wood pulp. The ink used in the document can also lead us to the truth. Old documents have ink containing aniline hues since such inks were not used prior to 1850. Paper and ink can be subjected to chemical tests, hand writing can be tested through graphology and microbiology. All these tests help in determining the date and authorship of the document.[27]

1.6.Internal criticism - Hermeneutics

External criticism naturally leads to internal criticism one should scrutinize the contents of the document with the intention of knowing how much of it is true, and how much false. This operation in methodology is also known as interpretative criticism. A scholar after examining the external aspects of a document proceeds to ascertain the trustworthiness. This is obviously a more fundamental and significant task, and hence it is known as higher criticism. The technique adopted in hermenutics is critical approach, whereby researcher analyzes the product of the author’s labor in order to distinguish between operations correctly and incorrectly performed.[28] A true historian should be interested in lies as well as in truths and he should try to find out the extent of truth or of falsification in a document. A document may be genuine but statements contained in it need not be always so.[29]

The first job in internal criticism is a close and miniute study of each of the ideas contained in document. As part of analysis the whole document is cut into parts. Analysis is at the root of interpretation and it is a very important mental activity, which helps to know the nature of the historical fact. Analysis isolates the ideas contained in a document and tests its validity through criticism. Each idea is separately analysed and tested to bring out which is true and false. It is the business of internal criticism to know which one is true and which one is false. Analysis is thus necessary for criticism and criticism begins with analysis.

There are two operations involved in internal criticism (i) Analysis of the content of document or Positive interpretative criticism; is to get literal and real meaning of author’s statement (ii) analysis of the conditions under which the document is produced or Negative interpretative criticism; to verify whether what the author has said conforms to what really happened to eliminate the possibility of error in his statements.[30]

1.7.Sources of Error

In internal criticism an important fault to be overcome is the source of error. More of the errors result from ignorance, bias, subjectivity, mutilation of evidence, cultural differences and misuse by adherence to a dubious system of interpretation. Two or more of these errors may exist side by side in a document and present while a historian interpret those documents. It is the duty of the historian to steer clear of them.

1.7.1.Ignorance

Ignorance may occur at two levels, from the author and from the historian. The ignorance on the part of the author’s evidence may seriously affect the preparation of the document based on the evidence. This may be due to the person’s physical, mental or social ability or disability. In the case of historian he may not receive all the facts relating to a particular event or episode and hence the documents will not contain a truthful account of it.[31]

1.7.2.Bias and subjectivity

Bias is the act of deliberately taking side or clinging to opinions based on insufficient examination of evidence. Subjectivity is not a crime and the historic can never completely avoid it, every historian is conditioned by a certain element of subjectivity which depends on his psychological matrix. Both should be eliminated completely so far as historical writing is concerned and it creates error. Historians should be aware of this and try to eliminate them as far as possible from their works.

1.7.3.Mutilation of evidence

Historians are not guilty of mutilation of evidence but there are rare exceptions. A letter document, or piece of autobiography, originally quite genuine and candid, all its parts possessing the same general value as evidence, has been revised emended or otherwise so tampered with that some parts of it become untrustworthy. Its integrity has been destroyed and the evidence which it contains mutilated. As researchers we must deal with large class of documents which are composite in character, proceeding from various hands or sources. Diary, autobiography or volume of letters should be used without a watchful eye for intimations the text has been altered or any inserted material which will reflect the writers’ shrewdness.[32]

1.7.4.Cultural difference

Cultural differences may exist between the author of the evidence and he who help in the preparation of the document as well as in the person who actually write about it. Owing to cultural differences, evidence may be falsified. Writing of an incident by two persons may present diametrically opposite points of view depending on their educational or cultural differences.

1.7.5.Falsification of Evidence

A large portion of the materials contained in a document may be partially false, either by the intention or by accident. The famous book of Charles beard ‘Economic Interpretation of the American Constitution’ is an example of international falsification of evidence. For Beard, American constitution is the result of conspiracy of the well-to-do but the records do not completely justify the views of Beard.

1.7.6.Adherence of Dubious system of Interpretation

Depending on the school of ideology historians are committed to certain ideals. The historian should always remember that he is not committed to any person or ideology. His duty is towards history and to the presentation of facts as they really happened. Historians belonging to Marxist school always give a materialistic interpretation to history, emphasizing the socio economic aspect of history.

2.Objectivity in Historical writing

Objectivity in historical writing is of capital importance for the growth of historical studies on healthy lines.[33] Modern historiography culminated in writing scientific history with objectivity of facts and interpretation. Ranke laid the foundation of history to be made objective by presentation of facts which are not subject to controversy. It is objectivity that elevates history to the discipline of science. According to E.H. Carr, the facts of history cannot be purely objective. Objectivity in history cannot be an objectivity of fact but only the relation between facts and interpretation between past, present and future, and so he gives equal importance to facts and interpretation. Historical objectivity aims to bring to light historical truth and is against personal bias, sentimental approach and partiality. Volatire and the rationalists, Ranke and the positivists contributed to the development of objectivity in history. Objectivity gives scientific character to history and disregards philosophical and materialistic interpretations of history. According to Acton, Ultimate history may not be possible in this generation and challenged the objectivity in historical writings. It is impossible to present all the facts. Historical truth is different from truth in the other disciplines. Becker, Beard and other historians of twentieth century confessed that history can never be objective or free from subjectivity. Objectivity is desirable but not attainable.[34]To Friedrich Nietzsche, objectivity is to be meaningless, impossible or undesirable.[35]

2.1.Objectivity

To be objective means not influenced by personal feeling or opinions.  Objective is the state of being objective. Objectivity in historical writing refers to “dispassionate, disinterested and scientific treatment of all events”. It means unbiased and fair writing. Scholarly writing is an impartial, unbiased and unvarnished presentation of the problem “using a tone of scientific impersonality”. Ranke, the father of scientific History, analyzed the historical sources critically, followed the principle of unbiased research and sought to write his historical accounts with ‘tranquil objectivity’.[36]

2.2.Hindrances to objectivity

W.H. Walsh points out certain hindrances to objectivity. They are: Personal likes and dislikes, Group prejudice, Religious and moral beliefs, Racial and national prejudices and conflicting theories of Historical interpretation.[37]

2.3.Importance of objectivity

Objectivity in historical writing is of critical importance and the credibility of the historical thesis depends on objective presentation. History will degenerate into fiction in the absence of objectivity. Critical study of history is not possible without objectivity. The need for objectivity in historical writing is self evident. Real history is possible only when it is written objectively. It is a matter of intellectual honesty and moral standards. Systematic methods for the attainment of objectivity in history must be employed. Objectivity ensures accuracy, authenticity and acceptability. Due to the varied historical data the historian must be cautious and careful in handling historical material.  He must be as objective as possible. Objectivity alone will save the historian and his writing from subjectivity syndrome.[38]History as a science is to reveal the truth as it is.[39]

2.4.Subjectivity

Subjectivity is antithesis to objectivity. It exists in the mind of the historian and not produced by things outside the mind. It refers to the preconceived ideas, feelings, opinions, notions etc. of the Historian. Subjectivity seems to be inescapable and is inbuilt in the art of writing history. Mostly historians are affected by the virus of subjectivity. Subjectivity and bias are not synonymous. Bias refers to historian’s predisposition. It refers to the feeling that strongly favors one side in an analysis of a historical problem or one item in a group or series of facts or events. Bias is the breeding ground of subjectivity. Bias and subjectivity are like identical twins. [40] Subjectivity itself is not bad but no writer can completely escape from it. It may be conscious or unconscious. If the historian is conscious of his subjectivity, he can avoid it while writing, but may not be completely successful since it is psychological.[41] Trevelyan points, when one writes, he is present in his work with his whole personality, with his temporant, with his reason and with his group consciousness.[42]

Conclusion

Writing history should have a scientific approach and modern writers have adopted new methods to write history, in spite there is no proper method in writing history. Historical method emerged due to the advancement of science and technology. It is negative in approach but critically analyzes the document and content and eliminates the errors and brings out the truth. Bias must be prevented in writing history until and unless it leads to subjectivity.

Bibliography

Day, Mark. The Philosophy of History. London: Continuation International Publishing, 2008.

Krishnan Nadar G. Book of Historical method and Historiography. Trivandrum: SPK Offset printing works,             1995.

Majumdar, R.K. A.N.Srivastva.  Histriography. New Delhi: SBD Publishers Distributors, 1991.

Rajayyan, K. History in theory and method. Madurai; Madurai Publishing house, 1976.

Sheik Ali, B. History: Its Theory and Method. Madras: Mac Milan India Limited, 1978.

Venkatesan, G.  A Study of Historiography. Rajapalayam: V.C. Publications, 1994.

Webster, John C.B.  Historiography of Christianity in India. New Delhi: Oxford University press, 2012.

---

[1] It is analytical because the whole document is not examined but is split up into its elemental parts, to its single idea and then its validity is tested. It is an operation because the document is cut open threadbare like a surgeon opens human body.

[2]B. Sheik Ali, History: Its Theory and Method (Madras: Mac Milan India Limited, 1978) ,111. (Here after cited as Sheik, History… )

[3] John C.B. Webster, Historiography of Christianity in India (New Delhi: Oxford University press, 2012), 68.

[4] Gk word meaning aiding, Inciting to find out , helping, guiding in discovery

[5] Sheik, History…,115.

[6] Sheik, History…,112.

[7] G.Krishnan Nadar, Book of Historical method and Historiography (Trivandrum: SPK Offset printing works, 1995),113. (Here after cited as Krishnan, Book of Historical…, )

[8] Sheik, History…, 112.

[9] Krishnan, Book of Historical…, 118.

[10] R.K.Majumdar, A.N.Srivastva, Histriography (New Delhi: SBD Publishers Distributors, 1991), 57.

[11] Krishnan, Book of Historical…, 113.

[12] Sheik, History…, 112.

[13] to write (an autobiographical or other article) on behalf of a person who is then credited as author.

[14] Estimation of an unknown quantity between two known quantities (historical data), or drawing conclusions about missing information from the available information.

[15] Krishnan, Book of Historical…, 113.

[16] Sheik, History…, 112, 113.

[17] Krishnan, Book of Historical…, 113.

[18] the study of ancient writing systems and the deciphering and dating of historical manuscripts

[19] Sheik, History…, 113.

[20] Krishnan, Book of Historical…, 117.

[21] Sheik, History…, 113.

[22] Krishnan, Book of Historical…,  117.

[23]Krishnan, Book of Historical… , 115.

[24] The word derives from chronos, the Greek word for “time,” and ‘ana’-, a Greek prefix meaning “up,” “back,” or “again.” When it was first used in English in the 17th century, anachronism referred to an error in the dating of something.

[25] in or coming from regions of the south; “the southern hemisphere”; “southern constellations” of, relating to, or coming from the south.

[26] the use of spectroscopy in determining the chemical or physical constitution of substances

[27] Krishnan, Book of Historical…,116.

[28] Sheik, History…,116, 117.

[29] Krishnan, Book of Historical…,118.

[30]Sheik, History…  ,117.

[31]Krishnan, Book of Historical… , 118.

[32] Krishnan, Book of Historical…,119.

[33] K.Rajayyan,  History in theory and method (Madurai; Madurai Publishing house, 1976), 253. (Here after cited as Rajayyan, History in theory…, )

[34] Krishnan, Book of Historical…, 50, 51.

[35] Mark Day, The Philosophy of History (London; Continuation International Publishing, 2008), 156.

[36] G.Venkatesan, A Study of Historiography ( Rajapalayam: V.C.Publications, 1994), 389. (Here after cited as Venkatesan, A Study of Historiography… )

[37]Krishnan, Book of Historical… ,51.

[38] Venkatesan, A Study of Historiography… , 388, 389.

[39]Rajayyan, History in theory…, 254.

[40] Venkatesan, A Study of Historiography… , 389.

[41] Krishnan, Book of Historical…,51.

[42] Rajayyan, History in theory…, 255.