Objectivity and Relativism in History

The debate over whether historians can attain objective knowledge of the past, or whether their accounts are unavoidably shaped by perspective, present interests, and ideology.

Definition

The objectivity question asks whether and how historical accounts can be true to the past independently of the historian's perspective, while relativism is the thesis that historical knowledge is always conditioned by the standpoint, time, and interests of the historian.

Scope

This topic covers the long contest between the Rankean ideal of disinterested, source-based objectivity and the relativist claim that all history is written from a standpoint. It includes the American historical profession's 'objectivity question', the role of present concerns in selecting and interpreting facts, and the postmodern intensification of doubts about historical truth.

Core questions

• Can historians describe the past 'as it actually was', or only as it appears from their standpoint?
• How do present interests shape the selection and interpretation of historical facts?
• Is some objectivity attainable through professional methods and peer scrutiny?
• Does acknowledging perspective entail abandoning the idea of historical truth?

Key theories

Present-minded relativism

Becker argued that every historian reconstructs the past in light of present concerns, so historical knowledge is inescapably shaped by the historian's own time.

Objectivity as a regulative ideal

Novick traced how American historians treated objectivity as a 'noble dream' — an ideal that organized the profession even as its philosophical foundations were repeatedly contested.

History

Ranke's nineteenth-century ideal of writing history 'as it actually happened' established objectivity as a professional norm. American relativists Becker and Beard challenged it in the 1930s, Carr reframed it as a dialogue between historian and facts in 1961, and the postmodern challenge of the late twentieth century, surveyed by Novick and Iggers, renewed the controversy.

Debates

Disinterested truth versus situated knowledge

One side holds that disciplined method can yield objective accounts of the past; the other insists that all history is written from a perspective shaped by present interests and ideology.

Key figures

• Leopold von Ranke
• Carl Becker
• Charles Beard
• E. H. Carr
• Peter Novick

Seminal works

• novick1988
• carr1961
• becker1932

Frequently asked questions

What did Ranke mean by writing history 'as it actually was'?

He expressed the ideal that historians should reconstruct the past faithfully from primary sources, setting aside present judgments — an ideal that became the founding norm of professional objectivity.

Does relativism mean history is just opinion?

Not necessarily. Many theorists argue that recognizing perspective is compatible with disciplined method, evidence, and peer criticism, which constrain interpretation without guaranteeing a single objective account.