Objectivity among historians is a difficult and pressing problem. From a philosophical standpoint, objectivity can be loosely defined as a judgement based on observations, judgment free from biases or individual perceptions or prejudices. For those involved in the humanities, specifically historians and anthropologists, objectivity calls for us to detach ourselves from personal feelings when analyzing a situation, in hopes that, without the interference of biases, we will arrive at a well-rounded, educated conclusion.
As Mark Gilderhus writes in History and Historians, historians first practiced this philosophy when history was first conceived as a scientific study. As time progressed, however, many historians abandoned this scientific viewpoint in favor of various other methods. Many chose to narrow their focus of study on one specific area, such as ethnic or gender studies. Focusing on a certain time period will inevitably provide the historian with a certain approach – for example, an historian studying women’s history will most likely have a motivation which propels them into the field and that will stick with them through their studies. If an historian identifies as a feminist historian, specializing in the field of women’s history or gender history, for example, that historian certainly would not hold an objective viewpoint – they’re certainly not going to leave their opinions and viewpoints at the door if it will motivate their work.
But there are also times where leaving one’s opinions out of the equation proves valuable, even necessary. When studying a subject one is not familiar with, making hasty judgments and voicing opinions before you have thoroughly thought things through can have very negative consequences. For example, one who studies first-century Palestine through a Christian perspective would have a difficult time with studying the same period from the standpoint of a Roman government official, unless the historian first researched the subject.
Historians have grappled with the question for an uncountable number of years. Is objectivity possible? Is it possible to leave all of one’s opinions at the door, and look at a question or subject through completely unbiased eyes? Will opinions always come to the surface, whether we want them to or not? Holding an opinion might have its downsides, but it also certainly has its upsides. Being able to validate one’s argument and understand the culture and context of that argument lends credibility to the historian. Oftentimes, how objective you need to be will vary depending on your audience. Are you speaking with someone who genuinely values your opinion, or are you speaking with someone who is interested in hearing only dates and facts? Objectivity then might indeed be possible, if the historian can train his- or herself when to use it properly.
Is objectivity necessary, then? Should we remove our opinions when the situation calls for it? It is a solid goal to attempt, no doubt, but as historians or anthropologists or even as human beings, I believe we should go beyond this question. Instead of looking at a situation through a neutral viewpoints, why not attempt to look at it through multiple viewpoints? Why not try looking at first-century Palestine through both the eyes of a Christian scholar and a Roman official? Being well-rounded adds credibility to arguments, as well as making the person’s knowledge more valuable to a wider audience.
Should objectivity be strived for? Certainly. But the bigger issue is learning when to let one’s opinion surface (as well-rounded as it might be), and learning when to keep your opinions in check. While this option is undoubtedly difficult, it does recognize that we are all human, and that we will have opinions regardless of whether we suppress them or not. Historians and anthropologists are human and thus have opinions, but we need to bear in mind that so, too, do our audiences.
For an in-depth look at historical viewpoints and objectivity, see Mark Gilderhus, History and Historians, Prentice Hall Publishing.