History is both the actual events that happened in the past AND the study of them. The events themselves are "objects", tangible realities. But the historian's interpretation of them, involving the cause and the effect in particular, can INTEND to be objective, (free of bias and even ignorance), but may be open to further interpretation or, at worst, challenge! If more objective fact is discovered, the interpretation of the whole event must be adjusted.

Just like science, the scientist's theories are only as good as the evidence available. Yet we don't question the objectivity of science. There was no atomic theory, and further application of that theory, until the atom was discovered by John Dalton in 1808. The discovery of the atom led to the discovery of the electron. A whole new world of radioactivity opened up.

And so it is with history. Based on facts, Adolf Hitler has been painted as a tyrant massacring innocent Jews. But further exploration of facts have revealed, initially, he was not a tyrant. He wanted a better life for the German people. He improved road networks. He offered work to the masses. He attempted to unify Germany, for possibly the first time since it was declared a country in the 1870's. Knowing these "hidden" facts helps our understanding how this merciless leader managed to draw a large following. Initially, he gave hope. It was later he bred fear in the minds of the Germans.

So with this "adjusted" view of Hitler, does that mean that history was not objective in the first record of his exploits? No! With the facts available, the theories were objectively valid.
New facts mean new theories. It is all part of "the objective process".

But you may say that primary sources, eye witness accounts, must be objective! No! They are initial reactions to an event. They too can be just as easily "blinkered" by a narrow set of observations available as the historian may be! Primary sources are useful evidence to an historian, but must be carefully viewed in terms of who the person is and what role the person may have in the event.

And so the realization dawns. Is there really such a thing as pure objectivity? If we view objectivity as a product, we must answer a resounding NO! We are human! We are not pure truth nor can produce pure, factual truth. If we view objectivity as a process, one of trial and error, then history, alongside science, must be an outstanding example of this process in action!

Learn more about this author, Gemma Wiseman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Why history can never be objective?
We want to hear your view. Write now!