What are the problems that historians face in writing history today?
Answers
Answered by
1
The first big picture question which haunts historians is the problem of bias. We constantly attempt to remove ourselves from our own writings, making a narrative voice which is above the action and hopefully avoids inferring any specific agenda.
This is, of course, almost impossible. I write medieval history, so really I have it easy: modern historians have to deal with figures who have been deemed villains or heroes by modern culture, and have to attempt to insulate themselves from that influence.
Related to the problem of bias is the issue of "facts". Even eyewitness accounts are clouded with bias and mistakes, and often historians don't have the luxury of a nicely-written eyewitness account. So we dig through reams and reams of materials, trying to piece it all together into a coherent account. Historians of older materials (such as medieval and ancient) have a different problem, in that sometimes we only have one or two sources on a major event and have to carefully comb through that one source to try and present a history.
I suspect with economists, you can do a certain amount of data-tweaking, but for the most part the facts are just that, facts. The interpretation remains open, but the facts are solid. As a historian, we have to deal with not only the open interpretation, but open facts that are reported by flawed sources. I don't mean to sound like I'm complaining, it's actually enjoyable to sort through accounts and try to piece together the pieces of the puzzle, but it's certainly challenging.
This is, of course, almost impossible. I write medieval history, so really I have it easy: modern historians have to deal with figures who have been deemed villains or heroes by modern culture, and have to attempt to insulate themselves from that influence.
Related to the problem of bias is the issue of "facts". Even eyewitness accounts are clouded with bias and mistakes, and often historians don't have the luxury of a nicely-written eyewitness account. So we dig through reams and reams of materials, trying to piece it all together into a coherent account. Historians of older materials (such as medieval and ancient) have a different problem, in that sometimes we only have one or two sources on a major event and have to carefully comb through that one source to try and present a history.
I suspect with economists, you can do a certain amount of data-tweaking, but for the most part the facts are just that, facts. The interpretation remains open, but the facts are solid. As a historian, we have to deal with not only the open interpretation, but open facts that are reported by flawed sources. I don't mean to sound like I'm complaining, it's actually enjoyable to sort through accounts and try to piece together the pieces of the puzzle, but it's certainly challenging.
Similar questions