Notion_of_Indisputable_Truth_in_History

DISCUSS THE NOTION THAT THERE IS NO INDISPUTABLE TRUTH IN HISTORY The notion that there is no indisputable truth in history has been the central issue in history studies today. This issue brings along the debate of what truth is and how we might/might not get access to it.[1] The two sides Catherine Keenan introduces in her work “In the right corner” are the objective historians; the conservatives who argue the commonsense proposition that history aims to uncover the truth about the past, and the postmodernist historians who present the idea that there is no such thing as the objective truth.[2] Post modernists even though they usually concede that we can know certain facts about the past, argue that once we weave those facts into a story; into a history, we enter the realm of subjectivity, and this is the consequence of the fact that each historian chooses their facts differently.[3] Post modernism is the most radical and significant challenge to the common view of what a historian does. Post modernist ideas completely reject the notion of truth saying that we have no way of accessing reality except through language and language is incapable of doing this as it comprises gaps, symbols, metaphors and evasions of which even writers themselves are unaware of[4]. As most of historical information possessed by historians is text the issue of distortion can never be eliminated as there are inherent problems such as bias, propaganda, gaps in evidence and the context of the writer in each source a historian makes use of which makes the elimination of distortions impossible. Even if a historian is capable of uncovering all the distortions of a text their own texts would be distorted in the same way[5]. Postmodernist historians argue that what historians really write is nothing more than fiction. As they argue that we can neither uncover nor explain what is universally and exactly true. They argue that truth is relative because the truth we uphold is the truth which best suits our needs[6]. Post modernism argues that what society claims as objective knowledge, is nothing more than the version those in power have decided is the truth and then, they control who can have access to it. Post modernists stress the relativism of truth, the idea of heteroglossia, and the idea that objective progress is non existent. They argue these on the bases that the historian can never obtain absolute objectivity, that they will always be influenced by their temporal context, and that everyone chooses their facts differently. As Keenan expresses in her work an example of this would be a couple going through a divorce, each one will paint a radically different picture, therefore the idea of heteroglossia. Keith Jenkins in his work “What is History” reflects the key ideas of postmodernism by declaring his perspective of history as a ‘narrative prose as much invented as found’[7], which he believes to be constructed by ‘present minded ideologically positioned workers’.[8] He views history as being appropriated for particular agendas by historians, and views it as a complete fabrication because historical construction takes place entirely in the present, and then is transformed into a particular ideology by historians. He emphasised the idea that history is written for a purpose not content[9], therefore arguing against the notion of an absolute truth. As Keenan explains in her work post modernist historians argue that the way we see the past depends on our point of view in the present, and that historical truth is not singular and that there are always multiple, subjective yet equally valid ways of looking at the past[10]. Keith Jenkins in his work clearly marks his position along these arguments. These views presented by postmodernist historians have been criticised by many historians, especially the objective historians, the conservatives as Catherine Keenan has made reference to in her work whom believe that we should be able to decide between two competing versions of a history by weighing up the evidence and argue that the historian is able to achieve absolute truth and that the pursuit of truth should be maintained as the main aim of a historian through objectivity. The conservative perspective is that truth is obtained through the historian’s objectivity which is obtained by placing their own perspectives aside which is viewed as possible and achievable by conservative historians. Through the critical examination of a wide range of sources objectivity is attained in the eyes of conservative historians. However the post modernist historians argue against this preposition for objectivity saying that the sources have inherent problems also that some historians have rejected particular sources of history an example is Keith Windshuttle who disregards the value of oral history in regards to Aboriginal affairs in Australia. Conservative historians also view footnoting as essential for the validity, transparency and the testability of a historians work which will enable them to be objective and therefore obtain truth. Objective historians also view the cross referencing of sources as important for the attainment of objectivity and truth as the sources are correlated and contrasted to achieve a clearer picture of the past. Richard Evans one of the most important advocates for conservative historians has criticised the post modernist arguments in his work “In Defence of History” along the lines that the post modernist argument that “it is true to say that there is no truth”[11] is contradicting its self because they are actually saying that truth still does exist. He argues that post modernists want us to believe what they are saying is true and objective when they say nothing is true and objective[12]. Another criticism is the moral/ethical dilemmas of challenging the notion of truth as it creates a medium for the denial of issues such as the holocaust. The argument against post modernism is that the post modernist denial that any one explanation for the cause is better then any other creates the way for those who deny such events.[13] Richard Evans points to David Irving to stress the importance of maintaining the criterion of objectivity as fascist historians such as Irving are the result of the kind of “moral relativism”[14] and the unforgivable “anything goes attitude”[15] the post modernists have introduced. He also stressed the importance of footnoting in his fight against Irving to prove him to be an active holocaust denier by checking Irving’s sources with complete tenacity and reiterating the conservative historian’s perspective of footnoting being essential to a historian’s objectivity. [16] Even though both sides seem to be abhorrent towards one another and their perspectives on history and the aim of history seem to be opposing one another, there is a middle ground where the similarities and differences of the two sides are acknowledged. Both sides of the argument are in search for the truthful representation of the past. They both seek a fuller picture of the past and both are bound by facts. The only difference between the two sides is the inability to agree about the degree of truth, their inability to agree how true a fact is and whose truth is being presented. These points are expressed by Joy Damousi who suggests that these questions are the result of the notion of objectivity being undermined by the rise of the women’s movement and the end of colonialism. Which portrayed that progress which was the promise of objectivity for history, was actually the progress of dead white males made at the expense of women and non whites, which taught us that history is subjective and thus resulted in these questions being asked and the origin of post modernist thinking.[17] The final implication of challenging the notion of truth and post modernist historiography was that it substantially altered the study of history and historiography, in that it has resulted in the alteration of the foundations of history; the pursuit of truth and objectivity. It has questioned the mere foundation of history and disturbed the foundations Leopold Von Ranke laid for the study of history. The challenge to conservative history is the challenge to the history Von Ranke established as his aims, purposes, constructions and recording of history are the methods which conservative historians are forced to defend with the uprise of postmodernists. Von Ranke’s establishment of the notion of objectivity as the catalyst for uncovering the facts of the past and his stress on the use of primary sources has pioneered the conservative historians’ insistence on rigorously analysing firsthand documentation[18] and therefore the inevitable criticising of their methods by postmodernist historians. The notion that there is no indisputable truth in history is argued upon by both post modernist historians and conservative historians even though both sides have similarities concerning the issue but they also have differences. Consequently makes the issue the central concern in history studies today, and one that just cannot be agreed upon, but one that also creates dramatic implications for the study of history and historiography, as it questions and attempts to alter the mere foundations of the study of history. ----------------------- [1] Catherine Keenan – In the right corner. [2] Catherine Keenan – In the right corner. [3] Catherine Keenan – In the right corner. [4] John Warren – History and the historians [5] John Warren – history and the historians [6] John Warren – history and the historians [7] Keith Jenkins – What is history [8] Keith Jenkins – what is history [9] Keith Jenkins – What is history [10] Catherine Keenan – In the right corner [11] Richard J. Evans – In Defence Of History [12] Richard J. Evans – In Defence Of History [13] John Warren – History and the Historians [14] Catherine Keenan – In the Right Corner [15] Catherine Keenan – In the Right Corner [16] Catherine Keenan – In the Right Corner [17] Catherine Keenan – In the Right Corner (full article) [18] Ken Webb- Extension History: The Historians