History is Interpretation - "Objectivity" in History

Summary

This video explores the interpretive nature of history and the quest for an ideal, yet unattainable, historical truth. It emphasizes the role of historians in shaping our understanding through consensus and the reinterpretation of sources. The script discusses the evolution of historical perspectives, such as the economic view of Nazi Germany, and highlights the importance of narrative in conveying history's moral compass. It concludes by emphasizing historians' dedication to truth and the impact of their work on society.

Takeaways

• 📚 The script discusses the interpretive nature of history and the pursuit of an ideal historical truth that is always evolving.
• 🔍 It emphasizes that historians' reconstructions of the past are never perfect due to practical difficulties and the discovery of new sources that can change interpretations.
• 👥 The consensus among historians can shift as more sources are found and as different perspectives are considered, leading to a reevaluation of past conclusions.
• 📖 The importance of historians' proper source use is highlighted, including assessing the quality of sources and avoiding over-reliance on specific ones.
• 🆕 The appearance of new sources is not the only way history can change; sometimes, new topics or angles that have been neglected are brought to light, leading to a shift in consensus.
• 💼 Adam Tooze, an economic historian, is mentioned as an example of a scholar who seeks to add perspectives to the understanding of Nazi Germany, particularly the role of the economy.
• 🏆 John Lewis Gaddis, a Cold War historian, stresses that no two historians will interpret history in the same way, and there can never be a single standard for objectivity.
• 📈 The script mentions that historians reflect the present in their judgments of the past, and history is constantly being re-evaluated with new metrics, such as the role of women, minorities, and culture.
• 📝 Roderick Stackelberg and Edward Hallett Carr are cited to argue that history is a continuous interaction between the historian and the facts, with a balance between fact and interpretation.
• 🌐 Peter Novick discusses the concept of historical objectivity as a contested idea, with no single definition agreed upon by all.
• 📚 William Cronin asserts the importance of narrative in history, stating that stories told by historians can influence actions and have the power to effect real change.

Q & A

What is the main thesis of the video regarding the writing of history?

The video posits that history is interpretive in nature and that historians strive towards an ideal historical truth, which is a goal but never fully attainable due to practical difficulties in writing history.

How does the consensus among historians form and change?

Consensus forms as more historians write on a subject and agree on the majority opinion. It can change through the discovery of new sources that shed light on events or periods, requiring a reinterpretation of existing sources and potentially altering our view of history.

What is the role of new historical sources in the evolution of historical understanding?

New sources can fundamentally alter our view of history by demanding a reinterpretation of other sources and taking the new information into account, which may lead to a shift in the consensus about past events.

Can historians who operated under previous consensus be considered wrong if new sources change the understanding?

No, they cannot be called liars as they were operating in good faith according to established norms. The discovery of new sources may show that their interpretation was not completely accurate, but it does not imply dishonesty or malintent.

How does the video address the idea of historians being both qualitative and quantitative in their source assessment?

The video suggests that historians should assess their sources qualitatively, considering whether they rely too much on specific sources or if they have discarded certain sources with legitimate reasons.

What impact does the sudden appearance of a new source have on the historical consensus?

The sudden appearance of a new source can lead to a change in the consensus as it may require historians to reinterpret existing sources and possibly revise their understanding of historical events.

What does Adam Tooze aim to contribute to the understanding of Nazi Germany through his work?

Adam Tooze aims to change the perspective of Nazi Germany by adding economic perspectives that he believes are lacking, which have been relatively neglected by historians.

How does John Lewis Gaddis view the objectivity in historical representation?

Gaddis believes that there can be no single standard for objectivity in history, as no two historians will perform the task in the same way, and that historians' judgments reflect the present they inhabit.

What does Roderick Stackelberg emphasize about the relationship between history and interpretation?

Stackelberg emphasizes that history is interpretation and that writing history is inseparable from interpreting it, even in the selection of facts deemed worthy.

What does the video suggest about the role of narratives in understanding history?

The video suggests that narratives are essential to our understanding of history and the human place in nature, as they serve as our chief moral compass and influence our actions.

How does the video describe the process of a historian's interaction with historical facts?

The video describes it as a continuous process of interaction and an unending dialogue between the present and the past, where the historian molds facts to their interpretation and vice versa.

What is the final message of the video regarding historians' pursuit of truth?

The final message is that historians are constantly trying to find the ideal historical truth not just for the sake of doing so, but also in hopes that it will make society better, by providing a deeper, multifaceted understanding of the past.

Outlines

00:00

📚 The Interpretive Nature of History

This paragraph introduces the video's focus on the interpretive nature of history writing. It acknowledges the consensus among historians that history is an ongoing process of interpretation and consensus building, which can change with the discovery of new sources. The video aims to explore the challenges historians face in striving for an ideal but unattainable historical truth. It emphasizes the importance of source evaluation and the potential for reinterpretation when new evidence emerges, highlighting the dynamic and evolving nature of historical understanding.

05:01

🔍 The Evolution of Historical Consensus

This paragraph delves into the evolution of historical consensus, discussing how new sources can lead to reinterpretations of history and how historians must reassess their work in light of new findings. It also touches on the idea that historians are not simply wrong when their interpretations are revised; they were operating within the norms of their time. The paragraph introduces Adam Tooze, an economic historian, who has contributed to the understanding of Nazi Germany by focusing on economic factors that were previously undervalued. The discussion highlights the importance of considering various perspectives and the role of historians in shaping our understanding of the past.

10:01

🌐 The Role of Narrative and Interpretation in History

The final paragraph emphasizes the inseparable link between history and interpretation, even in the selection and presentation of facts. It references various historians and their views on the subject, including Roderick Stackelberg, Edward Hallett Carr, Peter Novick, and William Cronin. These scholars argue that history is a dialogue between the present and the past, an unending process of interaction between the historian and the facts. The paragraph also discusses the concept of historical objectivity as a contested idea and the power of narratives to affect real change. It concludes by suggesting that historians' work is not just about finding the truth but also about making society better through a deeper understanding of the past.

Keywords

💡Historical Consensus

Historical consensus refers to the general agreement among historians about the interpretation of historical events or periods. In the video, it is mentioned as the majority opinion that forms through the collective work of historians, which can evolve or change with the discovery of new sources or perspectives. The script illustrates this with the shift in understanding of Hitler and Nazi Germany due to the cultural and ideological turn in their study.

💡Interpretive Nature of History

The interpretive nature of history acknowledges that history is not just a collection of facts but is shaped by the historian's perspective and the context in which they work. The video emphasizes that historians strive for an 'ideal historical truth,' which is a goal rather than an attainable reality, highlighting the subjective elements in historical writing.

💡Source Usage

Source usage in historical research involves the selection, assessment, and reliance on various types of evidence to construct a historical narrative. The video discusses the importance of historians' proper use of sources, questioning whether they rely too much on specific sources or discard others without legitimate basis, which affects the accuracy and interpretation of history.

💡Reinterpretation

Reinterpretation is the process of re-evaluating historical events or periods in light of new evidence or perspectives. The video script mentions that the discovery of new sources can demand a reinterpretation of existing sources, fundamentally altering our view of history, as seen in the evolving understanding of Nazi Germany's economic history.

💡Ideal Historical Truth

The ideal historical truth is an aspirational concept representing the pursuit of an accurate and complete understanding of the past. The video suggests that while this ideal is the goal, it is never fully attainable due to practical difficulties and the evolving nature of historical research, as exemplified by the continuous reinterpretation of historical sources.

💡Cultural and Ideological Turn

The cultural and ideological turn refers to a shift in historical studies that emphasizes the importance of cultural and ideological factors in shaping historical events. The video script cites this turn as a reason for the significant change in the understanding of Hitler's regime, moving away from viewing it solely through a political or military lens.

💡Economic History

Economic history is the study of the role of the economy in shaping historical events and periods. In the video, the neglect of economic history in the study of Nazi Germany is highlighted, with the speaker advocating for a more integrated approach to understanding the past that includes economic perspectives.

💡Objectivity in History

Objectivity in history is the attempt to present historical facts and interpretations without personal bias or influence. The video discusses the challenges of achieving true objectivity, as historians' judgments inevitably reflect their present context, and the importance of recognizing the subjective elements in historical representation.

💡Narrative

A narrative in history is the story or account constructed by historians to explain past events. The video emphasizes the essential role of narrative in understanding history, as it provides a framework for organizing facts and events into a coherent and meaningful whole, influencing both the historian's and the audience's perception of the past.

💡Moral Implications

Moral implications in historical studies refer to the ethical considerations and judgments that arise from the interpretation of historical events. The video mentions that recent shifts in historical focus, such as the role of women and minorities, carry moral implications, suggesting that history can influence our moral understanding of the past and present.

💡Historical Representation

Historical representation is how historians depict and convey the past through their writing and research. The video argues that all representations of the past are inherently 'wrong' in the sense that they can never fully capture the complexity of history, but this does not undermine their value, as they are part of the ongoing pursuit of a deeper understanding.

Highlights

The video discusses the interpretive nature of history and the aspiration towards an ideal historical truth that is never fully attainable.

Consensus in historical understanding forms through the work of multiple historians and can change with the discovery of new sources.

The reinterpretation of history is often required when new sources are discovered, affecting our view of past events.

Historians operate in good faith and according to established norms, even if later proven wrong by new evidence.

The process of writing history involves a continuous struggle towards an ideal and perfect reconstruction of the past.

The assessment of sources by historians is crucial and can be a topic of its own for discussion.

The appearance of new topics or angles in history can lead to shifts in consensus and a more complete understanding.

Adam Tooze, an economic historian, seeks to change our perspective on Nazi Germany by adding economic perspectives.

John Lewis Gaddis emphasizes the impossibility of a single standard for objectivity in history due to differing historian perspectives.

Gaddis discusses how historians' judgments reflect the present and how history is re-measured with previously neglected metrics.

Roderick Stackelberg asserts that history is interpretation and that writing history is inseparable from interpreting it.

Edward Hallett Carr outlines the continuous interaction between the historian and facts, emphasizing the dialogue between the present and the past.

Peter Novick describes historical objectivity as a contested concept with varying interpretations and disputes.

William Cronin argues for the essential role of narrative in understanding history and its impact on human actions.

Historians aim to find the ideal historical truth to better society and are trusted for their awareness and reflection on the challenges of historical representation.

The video concludes with a quote from Gaddis about learning from the past liberating the learner from earlier constructions.

The video emphasizes the importance of historians' reflections on their work and their role in striving for truth and societal improvement.

Transcripts

this video seeks to serve as a brief

introduction to one of the most

foundational aspects of understanding

how history is written the thesis of

this video is based on an established

consensus among historians on the nature

of history and instead of purely relying

on my words you'll be hearing from

respective professors whose work I base

my understanding of history on in one of

my recent videos I explained the

interpretive nature of history and the

aspiration towards an ideal historical

truth by ideal I mean that it's the goal

but in practice it's one we'll never

quite fully reach due to some of the

Practical difficulties of writing

history no matter how perfect our

reconstruction of the past it will never

fully be the past that has come and gone

as more historians write on a subject a

consensus begins to form that is the

majority opinion however this majority

opinion can also change the most obvious

and fundamental way this happens is

through the discovery of sources that

shed new light on the event or period

This Then often demands a

reinterpretation of the other sources

taking the new source into account which

then can fundamentally alter our view of

history now the consensus might evolve

to claim that those previous historians

didn't get it quite right but we can't

call them Liars they were operating in

good faith in accordance with

established Norms in the field could you

say that they were wrong though well to

do that would need to know what's right

surely

and we can't rightly say that another

news source isn't going to pop up

proving the current interpretation wrong

I mean it's happened once so it's not

crazy to say it could happen again as

you can see we're struggling towards

that ideal and perfect reconstruction of

the past at all times but since we're

never going to get it quite perfect our

only metrics are the consensus which can

have faults as I mentioned and the

historian's application of proper Source

use does the historian qualitatively

assess their source as well do they rely

too much on specific sources have they

discarded certain sources and if so was

the basis for doing so legitimate

there's a whole host more Source usage

could be a whole video on its own now

the sudden appearance of one new source

isn't the only way that history as in

our idea of the past can change some

topics straight up haven't been

addressed at all despite the sources

being there or a certain angles haven't

been covered this will always be the

case there is an impossible amount of

information out there to parse and in

this situation just like the one with

the sudden appearance of a new source

the consensus is likely to change to

Encompass the new topic atom 2s is an

economic historian professor of Columbia

University and director of the European

Institute he's written an excellent book

on the economics of Nazi dictatorship in

the professor's book he talks like most

historians do in the beginnings of their

Works about what's been written before

on the topic and the nature of the topic

itself he says the following

the cultural and ideological turn in the

study of fascism has permanently

remodeled our understanding of Hitler

and his regime it is hard to imagine now

but there was a time not so long ago

when historians routinely dismissed mind

Kampf as a historical source and thought

it reasonable to treat Hitler as just

another opportunistic imperialist those

days are gone thanks to the work of two

generations of historians we now have a

far better understanding of the way in

which Nazi ideology conditioned the

thought and action of the Nazi

leadership and wider Society then he

goes on to explain the reason for

writing his book and the contribution it

will serve towards a more whole and

complete understanding of Nazi Germany

in World War II but whilst we have been

busy unraveling the central ideological

and political threat of Hitler's regime

other crucial strands of the story have

been relatively neglected most notably

historians have tended to downplay or

even ignore the importance of the

economy in part this has been a

deliberate Act of rejection in part the

marginalization of economic history is

self-inflicted the statistical

terminology in which much of economic

history is couched is inaccessible to

readers trained in the humanities and

too little effort has been made by

either side to bridge the gap so as you

can see Adam twos is looking to change

our perspective of Nazi Germany by

adding to the history the perspectives

that he believes are lacking the

perspectives that he is equipped with

here's John Lewis Gadis a cold war

historian Pulitzer Prize winner and a

professor at Yale because no two

historians will ever perform this task

in just the same way there can be no

single standard for objectivity in

biography or for that matter in all of

history there'll never be a consensus on

the reputation of Peter the Great and

any more than there will be on the

length of the British Coastline there

certainly is circumstances though on the

existence of both and indeed on the fact

that the former once sailed along the

ladder

we do it I think by coming back to the

idea of fitting representation to

reality the judgments any historian

applies to the Past can't help but

reflect the present the historian

inhabits these will show the shift as

present concerns do history is

constantly being re-measured in terms of

previously neglected metrics

recent examples include the role of

women minorities discourse sexuality

disease and culture all of these carry

moral implications and they by no means

exhaust the list but the history of

these representations represent has not

changed it's back there in the past just

as solidly as that imprecisely measured

Coastline it's this reality that keeps

our representations from flying off into

fantasy

now me and Gaddis disagree on some

things he's a bit more pessimistic about

consensus than me for example but we do

agree that the history we're right the

representations we create will never be

the past itself

but that we're always striving towards

that unreachable goal and that's what

keeps us in the aggregate moving in the

same direction towards a more complete

historical truth Roderick stackelberg

professor emeritus at Gonzaga University

in Spokane quoting from Hitler's Germany

history is interpretation noisorian

however can justify his or her work

solely on the basis of providing the

essential facts writing history is not

separable from interpreting it even the

most positivist and meticulously factual

approach to history cannot avoid

interpretation if only in the selection

of facts deemed worthy or presenting in

this book I present the interpretation

that I believe is best suited to help

understand this extraordinary historical

phenomenon he goes on to say this in the

next chapter in its shortest definition

history is past Politics the late Edward

Hallett Carr whose work forms one of the

pillars of modern historiography

outlines these Concepts well and is

beautifully written what is history our

examination of the relation of the

historian to the facts of History finds

US therefore in an apparently precarious

situation never navigating delicately

between the Cilla of an untenable theory

of history as an objective compilation

of fact of the unqualified Primacy of

fact over interpretation and the

caribitis of an equally untenable theory

of history as the subjective product of

the mind of the historian who

establishes the facts of history and

Masters them through the process of

interpretation between a view of History

having the center of gravity in the past

and a view of the center of gravity in

the present the historian is neither The

Humble slave nor the tyrannical master

of its facts the relation between the

historian and its facts is one of

equality of give and take as any working

historian knows if he stops to reflect

what he's doing as he thinks and writes

the historian is engaged on a continuous

process of molding his facts to his

interpretation and his interpretation to

his facts it is impossible to assign

Primacy to one over the other he then

goes on to say the historian without his

facts is ruthless and futile the facts

without their historian are dead and

meaningless

my first answer therefore to the

question what is history is that it is a

continuous process of interaction

between the historian and his facts an

unending dialogue between the present

and the past and he goes on to

explicitly say

the facts of History cannot be purely

objective since they become facts of

History only in virtue of the

significance attached to them by the

historian objectivity in history if we

are still to use that conventional term

cannot be an objectivity of fact but

only of relation of the relation between

fact and interpretation between past

present and future here's the late Peter

Novick who in life was a professor at

the University of Chicago

historical objectivity is not a single

idea but rather a sprawling collection

of assumptions attitudes aspirations and

antipathies at best it is what the

philosopher W.B Galley has called an

essentially contested concept

like social justice or leading a

Christian Life the exact meaning of

which will always be in dispute

and finally here's William Cronin a

professor at the University of

Wisconsin-Madison cementing his view

that narrative is essential to history I

wish to record my own conviction

chastened but still strong that

narrative remains essential to our

understanding of history and the human

place in nature because I care so much

about nature and storytelling both I

would urge upon environmental historians

to the task of telling not just

histories about nature but stories about

stories of nature

I do so because narratives remain at our

chief moral compass in the world because

we use them to motivate and explain our

actions the stories we tell change the

way we act in the world

in a very literal sense the frontier

stories helped cause the dustbow

just as the New Deal stories helped

cause the government's response to that

disaster

history in other words and the

narratives told by it has the power to

affect real change historians seldom

write about topics they don't care about

and so the history they write shouldn't

be viewed just as an ordering of the

facts or an attempt at changing or

adding to the historical consensus but

also as attempts at changing the world

and there's nothing Sinister or wrong

about this

historians are constantly trying to find

the ideal historical truth not just for

the sake of doing so but also in the

hopes that it will make Society better

than a deeper multifaceted understanding

of the past that accounts for many

different perspectives leaves us better

equipped for the present and the future

now finally for the end of this video I

want to leave you with this quote from

Gaddis learning about the past liberates

the learner from oppression's earlier

constructions of the past have imposed

upon them

now I hope you don't misunderstand this

to mean that historians can't be trusted

not at all this is precisely why they

can be trusted because they are aware of

these things they spend a lot of time

reflecting on this because they want to

tell the truth as best they can and they

know the challenges that they have to

overcome in order to do so the more

historian seems to have reflected on

this the more I am inclined to trust

them if a historian seeks to elevate

their perspective or view by appealing

to some nebulous singular objective

history that just so happens to agree

with everything they're saying then I

see them for what they are a useless

historian at best and a liar at worst

not all history is created equal

although I say that all representations

of the past are wrong in the sense that

they can never be fully adequate

there are historians out there who are

more wrong than others I think I'll make

a video on how to evaluate the work of

history from the perspective of

historian in the future and at the end

of this video I want to thank all of you

for watching the video but especially I

want to thank my patrons dacted ishluger

I think Sam Raines Lux Scipio or Crimson

crash Raiden Larson and Alexander

Kessler and I want to give a special

thank you to Josh for watching my video

here's some more content for you to

react to

foreign

[Music]

[Music]