Objectivity and the Writing of History

In: History of European ideas, Band 28, Heft 1-2, S. 43-50

Abstract

How do historians approach objectivity? Mark Bevir addresses this in The Logic of the History of Ideas (1999) via his argument for an anthropological epistemology with objectivity in the historical narrative resting on the explanation of human actions/agent intentionality equating with meaning. The criticism of this position is at several levels. As sophisticated constructionists, historians do not usually ask "Can history be objective?" Rather, they work from the balance of evidence reflecting the intersubjectivity of truth & they acknowledge the problematic nature of inferring agent intentionality & the difficulties in equating this with "what it means." Why Abraham Lincoln issued the 1863 emancipation proclamation is a case in point. No historian would claim to have located its true meaning objectively, in effect doubting Mark Bevir's claim that "objective knowledge arises from a human practice in which we criticise & compare rival webs of theories in terms of agreed facts." The article offers four reasons for rejecting Bevir's position & concludes with a defense of the narrative linguistic determination of meaning. This suggests that history is subject to the same narrative & imaginative constraints as other forms of realist writing, rather than being privileged by an access to knowable intentionality & that this constitutes objective historical knowledge. 5 References. Adapted from the source document.