Last year, I wrote a couple of posts defending historical presentism, that is, the view that we should examine events and actors in history (at least in modern history) in the light of our current concerns, rather than treating them as exempt from any standards except those that prevailed (in the dominant class) at the time.
I have an unfinished writing project that will involve, among other things, discussing Australian public attitudes in the 1970s and 1980s towards questions of gender and sexuality, and the views of political actors in that period about how they should respond to those attitudes in their capacity as elected leaders of membership-based organisations in which those attitudes were reasonably widespread. On the one hand, I want to exercise some kind of "historical imagination" as to why those elected leaders felt compelled to make certain concessions to those attitudes, but on the other hand I don't think I will be able to avoid stating my view that those concessions were neither necessary nor desirable, and that other actors who opposed making them have been vindicated in the light of subsequent social changes and current attitudes on those issues.
"... I don't think I will be able to avoid stating my view ... "
It might be helpful for you to consider what in social psych is known as the fundamental attribution error or correspondence bias.
Research in this cognitive bias finds we tend to ignore the impact of situational factors on behavior, instead attribute the actions of others to purely dispositional factors like personality traits or character.
When writing a historical account the author not only has to consider his own tendency for such bias, more so that of her audience. Such bias can manifest itself in victim blaming, ignorance of social/cultural differences and assumption of intent.
Historical accounts for that reason should address these sources of bias openly for both the author and audience. Very important to contextualise the intent for writing the historical account and acknowledging different views but common humanity. It should be written with reflection to encourage readers to self-reflect in order to avoid self serving bias.
Above all let historical facts speak from primary sources. Hard to argue against documents or artifacts created by a witness to or participant in an event, be they firsthand testimony or evidence created during the time period under study.
As such any history or writing will include the "view" of the author. If such view is appropriately contextualised in intent, encourages reflections for the benefit of the reader, and based on solid primary sources, then it is an authentic and legitimate view.
Just finished Stranger in a Strange Land, I felt like the stranger looking back on the 1960s. Now reading Cellini's autobiography, murder, pedophilia, mob justice... just the way things were.
I loved Biggles and Arthur Upfield's Bony stories as a boy, unreadable for me now.
Yes, I definitely judge past attitudes, my own included.
How do we learn from history if we do not have some sort of analysis? Are Historians the best field of knowledge to provide this analysis or should it always be multidisciplinary?
I’m not sure there’s much evidence that we do learn from history. On the contrary, “history” is used merely as a stock of interpretive tales from which we select those which happen to support our preferred position. Academic historians were long ago warned off from role of analysis, their discipline now relegated to (re)stocking the shelves. Multidisciplinary analysis will likely be performed by ChatGPT - what could go wrong …?
I have an unfinished writing project that will involve, among other things, discussing Australian public attitudes in the 1970s and 1980s towards questions of gender and sexuality, and the views of political actors in that period about how they should respond to those attitudes in their capacity as elected leaders of membership-based organisations in which those attitudes were reasonably widespread. On the one hand, I want to exercise some kind of "historical imagination" as to why those elected leaders felt compelled to make certain concessions to those attitudes, but on the other hand I don't think I will be able to avoid stating my view that those concessions were neither necessary nor desirable, and that other actors who opposed making them have been vindicated in the light of subsequent social changes and current attitudes on those issues.
"... I don't think I will be able to avoid stating my view ... "
It might be helpful for you to consider what in social psych is known as the fundamental attribution error or correspondence bias.
Research in this cognitive bias finds we tend to ignore the impact of situational factors on behavior, instead attribute the actions of others to purely dispositional factors like personality traits or character.
When writing a historical account the author not only has to consider his own tendency for such bias, more so that of her audience. Such bias can manifest itself in victim blaming, ignorance of social/cultural differences and assumption of intent.
Historical accounts for that reason should address these sources of bias openly for both the author and audience. Very important to contextualise the intent for writing the historical account and acknowledging different views but common humanity. It should be written with reflection to encourage readers to self-reflect in order to avoid self serving bias.
Above all let historical facts speak from primary sources. Hard to argue against documents or artifacts created by a witness to or participant in an event, be they firsthand testimony or evidence created during the time period under study.
As such any history or writing will include the "view" of the author. If such view is appropriately contextualised in intent, encourages reflections for the benefit of the reader, and based on solid primary sources, then it is an authentic and legitimate view.
Theo, thanks for the advice.
In the end, it is all about silencing and censorship. This has become a familiar and cowardly flaw with msm.
Used be "do-gooders". But if the road to hell is paved in good intentions bad intentions are shortcuts that get there quicker.
Read older literature and cringe.
Just finished Stranger in a Strange Land, I felt like the stranger looking back on the 1960s. Now reading Cellini's autobiography, murder, pedophilia, mob justice... just the way things were.
I loved Biggles and Arthur Upfield's Bony stories as a boy, unreadable for me now.
Yes, I definitely judge past attitudes, my own included.
How do we learn from history if we do not have some sort of analysis? Are Historians the best field of knowledge to provide this analysis or should it always be multidisciplinary?
I’m not sure there’s much evidence that we do learn from history. On the contrary, “history” is used merely as a stock of interpretive tales from which we select those which happen to support our preferred position. Academic historians were long ago warned off from role of analysis, their discipline now relegated to (re)stocking the shelves. Multidisciplinary analysis will likely be performed by ChatGPT - what could go wrong …?