ROLE OF SUBJECTIVITY IN HISTORY

''History consists of a series of accumulated imaginative inventions.''

-Voltaire (1694-1778)

Voltaire's words take us down to the very basic root of History and its various interpretations.

Before analyzing the various theories, outcomes, features of history, first of all, let us endeavour,

just the primitive concept of history or just like it is commonly asked in classes ''what is

History?''. The original Greek conception of historia was that of some research, or investigation.

Not the rigidly performed scientific method of research employed by historical critics today, but

an investigation into and a setting forth of the great deeds by illustrious men, often with distinct

bias.1 In this assignment, I am going to deal with the topic of subjectivity, it's omnipresent in the

world of the past and how it helps to ornamentalize history. Before we go on to the topic of role

of subjectivity, it is essential for us to understand what we mean by History.

WHAT IS HISTORY?

Looking into the work of E.H. Carr, in his titled book "What is History?'', he claims that history

is like a vessel comprising of two elements, historians and the facts. Similarly, Carr concludes

that any historical event in effect is determined by the historian and as such it is the reflection of

1
Rockwell D. Hunt, Aspects of the Study of History, University of California Press on behalf of the
Historical Society of Southern California, p 5.
the historian’s time and environment. He concludes his work with the issue of subject matter in

history which in turn determines what is important in history. Predecessors like Ranke and other

historians attributed much of the events of history to ‘great men’, while Carr had taken a

standpoint which is in contradiction to them in this matter. In his work, Carr provides a broader

outlook on history which is vastly different from his predecessors such as Ranke, Trevelyan,

Collinwood and others. The key theory which he puts forward is that, history is relative to the

interpretation and selection of historians who in turn are the end-products of their environment.

The main matter of Carr's work is that history is subjective not objective which puts it at odds

with the Rankeans and several other empiricists.

History is indeed a highly debatable subject and there are several events which still hasn’t

reached any conclusion of its own. It depends on the individual historians how convincingly they

manage to present their own theory with the help of sources. But again, is it sources which

determine history or is it history which determines sources? History can be defined in various

ways, depending on the historians as to how they eye the timeline of events occurring since ages.

Much unlike other social subjects, history gives away more freedom to an individual's likes and

dislikes, interpretations, understanding, concepts, constructions and re-constructions. Witnesses

and readers of history are free to analyze in their own way and conclude their views in return.

This is the magic of 'subjectivity' which plays a pivotal role in history. Historians are at ease to

cook up, with ingredients of their choice, primary or secondary, including or excluding sources,

putting their own addons, and finally baking up a fermented part of history. The responsibility of

shaping up the path of history is in their hands, as to whether it would be a lighted road or a dark

road not much taken by people. History is how it is presented and acknowledged by people,

whether or not it has sufficient proofs backed up. A society and its people are often unaware of
its historical past when the historians come into action, fitting the various pieces of history into a

concrete jigsaw puzzle and presenting it to the world. Carr has argued that positivists or

academic activists has failed to understand the role of history in our daily lives, just by ignoring

the historical subjectivisms. Various representations help formulate distorted versions of history

and attracts multifarious public opinions especially in the pages of oriental and occidental

history. Yet again, it is up to the readers to agree to such views towards history.

PATH TO SUBJECTIVITY

As we were talking about defining history in the introductory portion, it is also important for us

to know how various historians put down their viewpoints and substantiate them which in turn

leads us on to the path of subjectivity. How can any historian or researcher know about the past?

As Winston Churchill had once said, pages of history are written by victors, those who defeat

enemies in wars and battles and survive to write down an account of it. But it is not always

possible for them to be present or be an eye-witness to all unfolding events in history which

again leads on to the rendition of Primary and Secondary sources. Primary sources are first-hand

or original accounts of work which also has the author/narrator present as a witness to the event.

Primary sources can be of various types be it memoirs, autobiography, manuscripts, artefacts,

architectural remains, sculptures, newspaper, books, etc. Whereas Secondary sources is one step

behind primary ones, mainly where the author is not a part of the event. Also, when any work is

undertaken with an aim behind it, deliberately written for anyone, or public as a matter of fact, it

becomes a secondary source. It is not always that all modern history sources are secondary

sources and all ancient or medieval works are primary sources. Akbar-nama, a medieval work

grows more authentic only after the year 1572 when Abul Fazl himself joins the Mughal court
and witnesses whatever he has included in his work. Hence, not all historians can provide with

authentic historical fact and illustrate the true picture. A historian knows that his only possible

knowledge of the past is always mediate or inferential, never empirical. 2 Along with that, no

historian would blindly believe his predecessors and their works without going into the depth of

it, as there is no authentication of that very source. It is a historian's discretion whether he would

support or believe the predecessors' historical facts or criticize them and if so, then how?

Gardiner Patrick has dealt with this topic in his own way, and his idea of history has resulted into

indeed a prodigious way of looking at history itself, that the historian must re-enact the past in

his own mind.3 In other words, he has to imagine himself being present in the era, period, event

he is working upon, try to turn the virtual surroundings into reality, rediscover the past with the

help of artefacts and relics, get into the character and understand the reason and emotion behind

each word spoken or written about and finally conclude. ''The historian observes, even though

his object is not there'', rightly pointed out by Paul Ricoeur highlighting the paradoxical situation

of historical investigation.4

It is not always easy for a historian to bring back the past piece by piece and in most cases,

language act as a fine sheet of barrier. As languages have continuously undergone changes with

the flow of time, changed generation by generation, across the vast continents, which poses as a

challenge to successor historians to decode and understand what one actually meant to say. There

comes the role of subjectivity, which acts as a boon in history helping historians to interpret in

their own way and language, add on his understandings and therefore, reconstruct the past. As

2
Patrick Gardiner, Theories of History: readings from classical and contemporary sources, Free Press,
(1959) p254.
3
ibid. p255
4
Paul Ricoeur, History and Truth, C.A. Kelbley(trans.), Northwestern University Press, (1991), p23
Susan Crane articulated that historians are agents, or historical actors who construct narratives

about the past that would never exist without some amount of self-assertion, choice, desire,

fortitude and above all, writing. Historical subjectivity begins with the individual scholar's

perception of her connection to, and distance from the past and it is sustained through the

historian's decision to make that perception integral to her scholarship.5

In simple words, subjectivity is defined as any interpretation influenced by personal views and

thoughts. Subjectivity comes into play when a historian can accurately yet beautifully interpret

history in her/his own words. History is interlinked with the idea of subjectivity and cannot be

detached by any means. Historians work as a medium of transferring historical subjective-ness

from the event itself to the reader. We must not forget to mention the active role which readers

play in the name of subjectivity. Not only histories but also their viewers, readers, critics have a

hand in subjectivity as it is up to them to interpret the history presented by the writers.

Subjectivity gives readers a freedom or license to understand every chapter of history the way he

wants to. Historians turn into philosophers and even subjective-interpreter with time whenever

required. Using the power of subjectivity does not mean that all historians are lying and history

is nothing but fiction, rather it is in the hands of historians to interpret the past in their own way

and present it in front of viewers either in the old format or in a different way. Whether they can

creatively represent history, come up with new ideas and analysis, even manier times judge

various pre-writings or incidents and put forward his/her own set of assessments in their own

personalized way or be just a mere bunch of repetitiveness and plagiarism. Much again referring

to the problematic area, when a historian is about to interpret any written source of history, they

5
Susan A. Crane, ''Historical Subjectivity: A Review Essay,'' The Journal of Modern History 78, no 2
(June 2006) p 434
might not get the tone of the writer, his philosophical viewpoints and sense of depicting

incidents, which further welcomes the idea of extrapolation which the historians resort to, filling

in the gaps of history without authentic information. Yet again biasness comes into play, when a

historian is not in support of any historical event or is prejudiced towards any other historian,

he/she might resort to writing a bigotry version of history. Pinches of extra details in timeline,

anger or sympathy, imaginations, thoughts and political dogmatism can spice up the flavours of

history anytime. Hence the strange thing going on between the writer's subjectivity and reader's

subjectivity is that while a historian uses his power of subjectivity and presents a concealed work

in front of the readers who again in turn re-interprets the work and tries to find out the loopholes.

We can call it a cycle of subjectivity, thus. Unlike science subjects, social subjects do not follow

any set of rules which the readers have to abide by while reading any book or writing any piece

which gives them a freedom of interpretation.

The issue of subjectivity itself beckons a lot of debate and differences if it has to be analyzed

deeply. But it is surely not a crime and it can be never completely avoided by neither historians

nor readers; every historian is self-trained to a certain element of subjectivity which depends on

his psychological matrix. But misusing subjectivity in every corners and nooks of historical

event must be avoided by historians or else there would never be a proof of actual history. Real

incidents in historical timeline can make us believe how subjectivity has played an integral part,

down the ages. Going back to the very roots, talking about oral history, it has been a great

example of subjectivity ever since. Folklore, narratives, firsthand accounts of oral history which

has been passed down the ages, verbally serve as a huge base for subjectivity, since generations.

When written records and manuscripts were nowhere in the picture, these verbally said narratives

were heard and remembered, later to be written down with add on. It is not always that whatever
the narrator has spoken about is recorded line by line, as the listener may not remember,

understand, agree or be biased to include every original word. It is a very common occasion

which we get to see in our own household, our grandparents tell us stories and episodes of the

past and not all very true to its words. It often happens that they repeat the same story more than

once but in different versions, having cut off or added extra chapters. Hence, we can say that

subjectivity is hidden even in the walls and corners of household and inside us. We get to hear

them tell us stories about the past, India's past, partition and many other things and often there is

a sense of proclivity present in the air. We can find similar actions in not only history books but

also other books like Midnight's Children, penned down by Salman Rushdie where he

emphasized more on the events that he personally found, worthy of highlighting like the

Jallianwala Bagh incident, perspectives of the Muslim who were against the partition, the riots,

Indo-Pakistan war taking place thereafter and others. He put down in details the areas which

interested him personally and attracted his attention and curiosity. Likewise, we get to see the

action of subjectivity inside a historian's mind, in E.M. Forsters, ''A passage to India.'' where he

also picks and chooses the incidents which he wants to focus on. Even at the time of partition,

most historians chose to focus on the Hindu-Muslim wars and plights and minimum attention

was given to the remaining Christian population who became a minority. In this process, many

deserving faces get lost in the crowds of the unknown and new unsung heroes come into

existence.
 REMEMBERING THE HSITORICAL OBJECTIVITY AS WELL

Let us not forget the objective part of history which is also present in the background, vaguely

merged with subjectivity. In simple words, being objective basically, means not getting

influenced by personal feeling or opinions. But that does not always mean, objectivity is the

opposite of subjectivity. Rather subjectivity and objective are the two faces of the same coin. It is

the manner in which how historian depicts historical writing in a very blatant, glaring, outright

manner, without adding his/her own opinions. It is like scientifically treating the historical facts

in some science laboratory following a set of norms. 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’. 6 Objectivity has its own pros and cons,

the most of important of which is having the ability to tell the truth about any historical event.

History can turn into pure fiction-writing and prevarication comes into play if the whole of it is a

victim to subjectivity. Hence the presence of objectiveness is duly important to maintain the

factualness of history. the date, place, area or year of occurrence of any incident has to be

objectified if we want to critically study history. The requirement for objectivity in historical

writing is thus, self-evident. The real story hidden behind each event is exposed only when it is

written objectively. Ranke, Voltaire and other Rationalists were in support of laying the

foundation of history by objectivity with presenting facts which are not subject to controversy or

stir debate among historians. Historical objectivity desires in bringing light to the overshadowed

historical truth and is against personal bias, sentimental approach and partiality. Mark Bevir in

6
Andreas Boldt, ''Ranke: Objectivity and History'', Rethinking History: Journal of Theory and Practice,
Vol 18, Issue 4, (2014) pp 457-74
his work on objectivity mentions that the working out of objectivity is itself a profoundly history

process.7

But on the other hand, there are several historians and philosophers who are in oppose to the

theory of historical objectivity much like E.H. Carr, who claimed that facts of history cannot be

absolutely objective. Another strong presence of opposition is from W.H. Walsh in his work who

points out certain hindrances to objectivity like, personal likes and dislikes, group prejudice,

religious and moral beliefs, racial and national prejudices and conflicting theories of Historical

interpretation.8 Beard, Becker and other historians of 20th century confessed that history can

never be objective or free from subjectivity. Objectivity is desirable but not attainable. Even to

Friedrich Nietzsche, objectivity is to be meaningless, impossible or undesirable.

CONCLUSION

After a deep analysis of both historical subjectivity and objectivity, we might conclude that there

are no specific rules and laws of writing history and one cannot choose in between the two.

Subjectivity and objectivity both are interdependent on each other and both help to structurize

history in the making. The power is in the historian's hand how he/she would choose to mold the

chapters of history. Whether to approach history scientifically or interpret it in one's own

personal way, is a historian's discretion who can also be called a sculptor of the past. Personally

speaking, I think both subjectivity and objectivity is required to deal the historical situations as

7
Mark Bevir, ''Objectivity in History'', in History and Theory, Vol. 33, No. 3 (1994), p344
8
Christopher Blake, Can History Be Objective? Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind
Association, Mind, Vol. 64, No. 253, (1955), pp 62-64
both will check and balance each other. History is all about facts as well as interpretation and it

depends on both writers and readers as to how they will absorb the musty pages of the past. It is

not about blaming the other section but to co-exist mutually. In this paper, I have essentially tried

to put my point as to how subjectivity plays a vital role in the making of history and other social

sciences as well. In other words, Subjectivity can be liked or disliked by many but never ignored.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Carr, E. H. ''What is History?'', Penguin (2008)

2. Crane, Susan A. ''Historical Subjectivity: A Review Essay,'' The Journal of Modern

History, University of Chicago Press, Vol 78, no 2 (June 2006) pp. 434-456

3. Tucker, Erika. 'The Subjectivity of History: Historical Subjectivity and Historical

Science', Journal of Philosophy of History (2013), pp. 205-229

4. Gardiner, Pactrick.'' Theories of History: Readings from classical and contemporary

sources'', Free Press, (1959)

5. Blake, Christopher. ''Can History be Objective?'' Oxford University Press on behalf of

the Mind Association, Vol. 64, No. 253 (1955), pp. 61-78

6. Bevir, Mark. ''Objectivity in History,'' Wiley for Wesleyan University, Vol. 33, No. 3

(1994), pp. 328-344 .