Ethics & Issues: Challenges Confronted by a Young Historian
Practicing history is like walking a tightrope. Or, at least, that’s how it sometimes seems to me.
As a young historian, history can often be a balancing act, amidst all the barrage of expectations, untruths, and conflicting interests of 21st century life. In fact, the discipline of history itself often oscillates between extremes.
How do we remain unbiased, but also value our own backgrounds and what we bring to the table? How can we learn from history while also keeping in mind that we too will be judged by history? Is history an objective science or a subjective art? These are just some of the ethical questions that confront me (and probably others) as I begin my career as a historian.
Bias is perhaps the slipperiest of slopes when it comes to practicing history. It’s undeniable that everyone brings some sort of bias to the table, whether it’s in the form of preconceived notions about a historical figure or simply part of your personal background. Sometimes bias can be harmless or even good. For example, my affinity for German Americans and Catholics in the Civil War probably stems from a long lineage of German Catholics in my family tree. But history is an interpretive craft, after all. So, if that’s the case, we can accept bias and move on, right?
Unfortunately, not. Bias looms as a dangerous threat to any historical work. Yes, it can help drive curiosity, inquiry, and research, but it can also cloud what could otherwise be sound, historical judgement. For example, my nostalgia for the movie Gettysburg—which fundamentally shaped my interest in the Civil War—might make me more reluctant to level valid criticisms against it. And there lies the ethical dilemma. How can historians accept bias while combat it at the same time?[1]
I think the first step in this balancing act is acknowledging our own biases. Historian Allen Guelzo does this well in his biography of Robert E. Lee. Guelzo squarely admits that “being a Yankee from Yankeeland” proves a difficult hurdle to interpreting Lee’s life “as he was in the days that he lived.”[2] Despite whatever preconceived notions Guelzo might have harbored against Lee, he proceeds to interpret the Confederate leader fairly and forthrightly, even showing compassion to the general at times.
That’s the fine line all historians must walk—the tightrope. We must be cognizant enough of bias to accept it as an inevitable, external factor in our work but also actively work to combat it by attempting to throw all our preconceptions or historical prejudices out the window. We must
“unlearn what we have learned,” as Master Yoda would say.
If bias is permissible in moderation, then is it even acceptable to judge history?
I’ve never been one to believe that history is untouchable, that we can’t pass judgment on people from the past. After all, what’s the point of studying history if we can’t learn from the triumphs and mistakes of the people before us? But we must also be careful not to judge the past too harshly and castigate our modern worldviews upon historical subjects who operated within their own set of values, mores, and judgments relative to their time and place. So yes, we can certainly judge the merits of historical actions while keeping in mind, as David McCullough oft remarked, that “we, too, will one day be judged by history.”
After all, historians are, principally, devoted to the pursuit of truth. But, as Obi-Wan Kenobi says, “you’ll find many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”
Many of us, I imagine, are uncomfortable with relativism and want to believe there are some things that are absolute truths. Of course, we accept that the battle of Gettysburg took place on July 1-3, 1863. The Civil War lasted from 1861 to 1865. But the answers to more challenging questions (like “what is the enduring legacy of the Civil War?”) are less cut and dry. These kinds of big questions draw many of us (including myself) to the study of history, but that doesn’t make them easier to answer or interpret, especially in an age in which social media, artificial intelligence, and political polarization breed misinformation and disinformation.
Needless to say, finding the historical truth is difficult. Your personal background, judgments, and political persuasion can all be useful tools in a historian’s belt, but leaning too far into any of them undoubtedly proves dangerous to the historical craft. So how much of that baggage do you leave at the door, and how much do you bring with you to aid in your interpretation? This is the fine line upon which every historian must walk.
History at its finest should be an interpretive craft based on facts. Not one without the other. Like most things in life, I think the answer lies in moderation—walking the line between two extremes. So, I guess it’s time to get back on that tightrope.
[1] John Lewis Gaddis, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past, (Oxford University Press, 2002), 146-147.
[2] Allen Guelzo, Robert E. Lee: A Life, (New York: Vintage Books, 2017), 3.
When I was researching my historical novel about the Civil War, I read Guelzo’s biography of Lee. The second or third sentence in the prologue stopped me cold: “How do you write the biography of someone who commits treason?” My first thought was, could you, would you, have written that if the South had won? Was an assessment like that based on who lost and who won, or on whose power had prevailed? If that’s true, then the same thing could have been said about George Washington and the signers of the Declaration of Independence. I agree with you that Guelzo was overall fair to his subject, but the question he asked was unsettling enough that it colored the rest of the book for me and had me questioning what he wrote throughout the book. Even now, several years later, I still find the question unsettling.
I, too, was a taken aback by Guelzo’s opening line. To answer your question, no, I do not think he could or would have written that line had the South won. However, as a strict constructionist, Guelzo bases this argument on his reading of the Constitution’s definition of treason, that “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” (art. III, § 3, cl. 1). I think he pretty effectively argues that Lee did indeed commit treason based on the confines of that definition, but that doesn’t mean he can’t have admirable qualities. I think Guelzo walks the fine line of historical scholarship by both critiquing and also sympathizing Lee.
This piece reminded me of this gem of an article from Barbara Fields. It’s from 1991, but just as true today as it was then.
“So, you want to be a historian? Are you sure? …If you want to be a historian, you must rate all alike as entitled to respect and justice. Not because they are good, not because they are smart, not because they are talented, not because they are wise, not because you would necessarily like them if you ever came face to face, but just because they are human.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/1991/11/03/so-you-want-to-be-a-historian/b57c0195-dbbf-4bb4-a1f4-4e0500f0a641/
When I was getting my first Masters in History I had a great professor as my advisor as well as teacher, and he kept reminding me, “Historians must be concerned only with facts.” He lived it; the day after yet another rigged election for the Presidency of Mexico I asked him what he thought of these events, and try as I might, I could not get an opinion out of him. He simply would not stray from fact to offer opinion.
Now that has largely gone to the wind with today’s historians, as the Marxist drive in America seems to be, “Destroy American History, and make up your own version that suits the current 21st Century dishonest viewpoint that we need in order to subdue and control the populace.” Hence I see people frothing at the mouth and threatening violence over certain Civil War issues when these slobs have never even read a book on the Civil War. But, they reason they do not need to read such; they’ve already been indoctrinated on the truth of the Civil War…which always turns out to be a lie.
Allen Guelzo I cannot even call a “historian.” He’s a “copy-and-paste” man, bringing nothing new, just repeating what others have already researched and written, retreading tired topics, and toeing the Woke line carefully. That’s how you survive at an Ivy League school – and win “awards.” He needs to be excoriated for repeating long-debunked lies about Robert Lee in his book but hey – the guy was a traitor so we HAVE to find something bad about him! Personally, he was extremely rude when I met him. College professor historians tend to be that way when they encounter their superiors – just revealing their insecurities.
If you disagree with Professor Guelzo’s interpretation you should write your own book to advance your own and show why yours is supported by better evidence. That’s how historical scholarship works
I admire your professor for remaining neutral and not betraying his political bias so as to sway his students. That’s something I try to do with my own students, and I agree that mentality has become increasingly rare in academia. However, I disagree that “Historians must be concerned only with facts.” Certainly, at is very core, history must be a based on factual evidence. But, as I said in my post, the discipline is at its finest when it combines facts with interpretation. You would be hard pressed to find any historical interpreter (liberal or conservative) who thinks of their job as merely spewing facts. What’s the point of studying history if we can’t interpret it and make our own, responsible judgements about it?
As for Guelzo, I can’t vouch for his personal character, but I don’t think he would identify as one of those “Woke, Marxist” historians you claim him to be. He certainly interpreted the Constitution from the standpoint of a strict constructionist (which forms the basis of his statement that Lee committed treason). I think his work on Lee is both responsible and fresh scholarship. He might not conform to the Lost Cause interpretation of Lee as “the Marble Man,” but I found Guelzo’s Lee to be much more real, and quite frankly, human. We’re straying from the topic of the post, but I’d encourage you to give the book a second chance.
This post reminded me of an article titled “So, You Want to be a Historian” by Barbara Fields, and published in the Washington Post. It’s from 1991, but just as true today as it was then.
“So, you want to be a historian? Are you sure? …If you want to be a historian, you must rate all alike as entitled to respect and justice. Not because they are good, not because they are smart, not because they are talented, not because they are wise, not because you would necessarily like them if you ever came face to face, but just because they are human.”
It’s certainly high praise to be compared with Barbara Fields, but I definitely like and agree with that quote!
Thank you for your insights into this topic. As someone aspiring towards the world of academia, this is a question I frequently ponder. I really appreciate hearing the thoughts of another young historian on the topic.
That’s great! Glad I could help!
In the words of the eccentric, but worthy historian John Lukacs, “The historian describes the past. The tools he uses are words. The words he chooses are a moral choice.”
I’ve never heard that one, but I like it!
I believe facts are of the primary importance. History should not be a dull read so certainly personal opinion or judgement should be allowed to be included. However, these should be clear to those reading the manuscript so as not to confuse them with fact. There is far too much fictional history representing itself as fact.
Facts are certainly the primary concern in history, but unlike other disciplines, historians oftentimes advance an argument to seek a better understanding of the past. Historical arguments could try to answer questions as narrow as “who ordered the charge of the 20th Maine on Little Round Top at Gettysburg?” or as broad as “was Reconstruction a failure?”
Excellent article that states the struggle that all students of history find themselves struggling with often. This article made me think of my own views that I try to eliminate when examining and analyzing decisions and events. Such a difficult job that must be done. Thank you and outstanding work once again.
Thanks, Mike! That means a lot