In the contemporary world, there has been a snowballing concern on historical objectivity aimed at historical writing void of biases. McCullagh in his article, Bias in Historical Description, Interpretation, and Explanation speaks of biased accounts of past historians. This paper seeks to review the article written by McCullagh, Bias in Historical Description, Interpretation, and Explanation.
McCullagh starts his article with a brief synopsis of the exertion of historians F.R. Ankersmit and Hayden White who have written groundbreaking work involving the subjectivity of narrative in history. According to McCullagh, who appreciate the work of Hayden and Ankersmit, claims that, they ignore their cognitive function by focusing mostly on the literary and subjective sources of historical narratives. Mainly the biases in history can be of two types’ personal biases and cultural biases. Personal biases may be deliberate, whereas cultural biases might not necessarily be intentional. There are four main ways in which historical article can be biased.
These ways are misinterpretation of evidence, omission of data, inaccurate description of evidence, and misguiding the reader.
According to McCullagh, historians misinterpret evidence so that they are not to blame when proving the validity of the readings they draw about what happened in the past . For example, historians may claim that a certain event happened but he may, however, decline to show evidence to prove the validity of the occurrence of the event. Secondly, historian might omit vital facts about a person, institution, or even an event hence the data provided is unbalanced. For instance, he may provide data that might elaborate a person’s virtues while ignoring his/her vices. This, therefore, gives a wrong picture of a person. Inaccurate description occurs when the general description given about the past doesn’t agree with the evidence given during the present time. This means that the explanation given may false when related to the evidence provided. The fourth form of bias is provision of misleading information. For instance, a historian may provide a casual explanation which only describe only some of causes of an event, this in turn, mislead the reader impression of how the event came to happen.
Moreover, McCullagh argues that these accounts of bias only happen when the historian want the outcome to occur meaning that the bias happens because the historians is assembling the evidence to ascertain an outcome. In case the bias happens accidentally or as a result of an oversight, then the writing is not actually biased, but simply unjustified. Fundamentally, McCullagh asserts that bias occurs due to historian motivation. He proceeds to say that historians might be blind to these motivations due to schooling in a specific brand of historical thinking. For instance, a Marxist can notice the class struggle where it doesn’t exist.
McCullagh stipulates that philosophers contend that personal bias unavoidable since humans have numerous limitations such as they can’t ignore their own interest or become impartial observers. McCullagh in the article argues that historical bias matters, and it should be eradicated. The third slice of McCullagh article gives the expected responses to his claims. One eminent response is that the inevitability of subjectivity in historical writing is given exceptional attention. At this section, McCullagh wonders whether historical bias can be avoided. At the fourth section, he argues that, while thorough detachment from one’s historicity is impossible, there are reasonable standards of historical inquiry. Therefore, he encourages historians to put their commitment on historical writings above their personal interest so as to maintain objectivity and eventually avoid bias. The author clarifies that even though the historians are just in their writing, the materials at their disposal might be biased. Finally, the author states that historians will always be biased despite their commitment to fairness due to the inevitable cultural bias.
In nutshell, McCullagh makes claims about ways to avoid or correct personal bias in historical accounts. In his text, he outlines four forms of bias, which are misinterpretation, of evidence, omission of facts, inaccurate descriptions, and misguiding the reader. Moreover, he shows that historical ideas have consequences and including material consequences. The author of all expects the writer to be fair and show commitment to their profession as historians as a means to eradicate biases. Fundamentally, McCullagh asserts that bias occur due to historian motivation. He proceeds to say that historians might be blind to these motivations due to schooling in a specific brand of historical thinking. For instance, a Marxist can notice class struggle where it doesn’t exist.
McCullagh stipulates that philosophers contend that personal bias is unavoidable since humans have numerous limitations e.g. they may fail to ignore their own interest hence causing them to be become impartial observers. In the article, McCullagh argues that historical bias matters, and it should be eradicated. The third slice of McCullagh’s article gives the expected responses to his claims. One eminent response is that the inevitability of subjectivity in historical writing is given exceptional attention. At this section, McCullagh wonders whether historical bias can be avoided. At the fourth section, he argues that, while thorough detachment from one’s historicity is impossible, there are reasonable standards of historical inquiry. Therefore, he encourages historians to put their commitment on historical writings above their personal interest so as to maintain objectivity and eventually avoid bias. The author clarifies that even though the historians are just in their writing, the materials at their disposal might be biased. Finally, the author states that historians will always be biased despite their commitment to fairness due to the inevitable cultural bias.
In nutshell, McCullagh makes claims about ways to avoid or correct personal bias in historical accounts. In his text, he outlines four forms of bias, which are misinterpretation, of evidence, omission of facts, inaccurate descriptions, and misguiding the reader. Moreover, he shows that historical ideas have consequences and including material consequences. The author of all expects the writer to be fair and show commitment to their profession as historians as a means to eradicate biases.
Reference
McCullagh, Christopher Behan. Justifying Historical Descriptions. New York: CUP Archive, 1984.
McCullagh, C. Behan. The Logic of History: Putting Postmodernism in Perspective. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Moore, Megan Bishop. Philosophy and Practice in Writing a History of Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2009.
Roberts, Geoffrey. The History and Narrative Reader. New York: Routledge, 2001.
Yerxa, Donald A.. Recent themes in historical thinking: historians in conversation. Boston: University of South Carolina Press, 2008.
