This document discusses the debate around whether history can be objective or subjective. It defines subjectivity as being influenced by personal feelings, while objectivity is based on unbiased facts. Several historians and philosophers are discussed who have differing views, with some arguing history inherently involves interpretation and is therefore subjective. However, others believe objectivity is still possible if historians compare interpretations and evidence to draw conclusions. The document also notes that lack of complete primary sources and destruction of evidence over time can make objectivity challenging. In the end, it concludes that while history requires some subjectivity, objectivity from facts is still necessary to draw valid conclusions about the past.

1. 1
Title:
Subjectivity and Objectivity in History
Authors Name:
Edice Hua
About Author:
She is in University of Belize in History and Anthropology. She is undergraduate. She is
just a historian who love people and culture.
Introduction:
First of all we should have to understand about the terms subjectivity and objectivity.
What is subjectivity? Subjectivity is defined as the quality of being influenced by personal
feelings or opinions. What is objectivity? Objectivity is defined as the term in which facts and
figures are not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations; facts based on unbiased
approach and an objective opinion.
Can history even be objective? What makes history subjective? All of these questions can
be answered to the extent in which one can be answered it by using solid evidences or sources.
This article describes different point of view of people and also tell author’s own point of view
about the nature of history either it is subjective or objective in nature. Every historian has his
own likes, tastes , aptitude and preferences. Voltaire is in the favour of subjective nature of
history. In his point of view subjectivity becomes necessary in history. On the other hand Mark
Bevir has different point of view than Voltaire. By analysing their point of views and using her
own intuitions, experiences and critical analysis author also describes his own point of view
about the nature of history in this article i.e either history is subjective or objective .
Summary:
According to Sir Isaiah Berlin “The case against the notion of historical objectivity is
like a case against international law or international morality; that it does not exist.’’ From
headlines it is confirmed does not exist. The facts sometimes are nothing but some words
smudge on paper but it does not means that history is not true. History means ‘inquiry’ and the

2. 2
inquiry is done by historians. While doing inquiry such questions make into mind either history
is subjective or objective. These questions are answered by historians by investigations.
Many philosophers believe that history can be interpreted differently because of biases
and controversial claims. So, history is not entirely objective because historians write according
to their own perspectives but not on truth.
Historians do not have complete primary sources to make firm and rigid conclusions.
The only barrier to make historical objectivity is the historians themselves. Historians
investigate the truth and decide whether it should be added or not. These all things make history
subjective rather than objective.
On the other hand, Mark Bevir stated that people should not reject the concept of
objectivity. As it is used in the process of comparisons and interpretations. In this way historian
can compare two or more interpretations and can exclude the inferior one.
English historian, Edward Carr and the author of “What is history?” argued that there are many
facts. The procedure of selecting the significant one is the major obstacle in objectivity.
Historian should use ‘narration’ and ‘interpretation’ along its significance while writing about
any event. Mentioning significance will affect the people within the course of history.
Voltaire pointed out that “History is a pack of tricks we play on dead one.” The elements of
subjectivity is seen while investigation. Different interpretations come in history because the
artifacts are destroyed, unfinished, limited or incomplete.
Historians alone are unable to make justifiable claims because evidences are not
documented or written so, they need the help of scientists to uncover the prehistoric sources.
Edward Carr gave analogy of the fish to describe how historians interpret their sources. The
fishermen will select fish to caught, while the fishmonger will select type of fish to cook,the
chef will select type of fish to cook, at last costumer will select the type of fish to eat. The
process of interpretation is same as the process of selecting the fish. Historical records are gone
through many hands before they are handed to the historians. That's why a problematic part of
history is when it has little evidences to support many claims. These things are also some
of trouble in the achievements of objectivity.
Kieth Windschuttle, an Australian historian argues that they will still converge on the
line of trurh. Whenever more evidences are there, historians often give up their former beliefs
to make a new account which is closely related to objectivity. Some historian believe that
history is written for practical purposes so it is subjective in nature.

3. 3
History is not hard science nor it has complex mathematical equations. It does not mean that
history is less important than other subjects. History is study of past and legacies of past and
present. It point out the future. It encourages people to improve and access knowledge. So,
there should be a link between past, present and future in history.
Historian should started to make unified theories and test them with data generated by historical
records and other special subjects to make it more authentic and valuable.
In last historians write the truth only about the incidents or accidents occur in past all other
information given in history is interpretations.
Methodology:
On this article multiple methodologies are used which are as follow:
Qualitative Approach
Qualitative research is a scientific method of observation to gather non-numerical data.
In this article qualitative approach is used because in this article there is use of concepts
definitions, characteristics and description of things and not to their counts or measures.
Descriptive Approach
As in this article the Historian Hua has used examples to explain the things clearly as
she has used Carr’s fish analogy example to explain the collection of historical data which
explains that it is a descriptive approach.
Conceptual Approach
Hua has used the quotation of many historians and philosophers to make her article
more authentic and valuable so it is conceptual approach.
Sources:
This article has been extracted from Secondary sources. (i.e. use of articles and books
which has been written in late 20th and early 21st century)

4. 4
Critical Analysis:
Writing style of this article is very smooth and elegant. All the information is relevant
and to the point. Precise wording has been used. The purpose of writing is to inform the concept
and opinions of different minds. Thus material has been presented clearly and accurately. And
is in well-organized manner.
According to many philosophers, history has a subjective nature. And many
philosophers rejected the existence of objective historical knowledge. But it is impossible to
create interpretations without existence of facts which we called objectivity. We can look at
many histories from different sources which are same except their writing style. We can never
neglect the objective element of the history. And it is very clearly illuminated through the wide
spread history of Islam. One of the prodigious miracle of past is Quran which exists in its
100% pure form. Quran is the most readable book in the world and it is purely unbiased and
objective in its nature. Rather than it is 1400 years old book, it is preserved in its original form
without any interpretation.
Objectivity has been completely neglected by saying that “facts” presented in history
are nothing more than a smudge on thepaper, which is wrong. Assumptions and interpretations
are constructed only by considering the facts as an important element. Facts give a platform to
build a house through thinking and perceptions. So, facts can never be smudge on the paper.
Historians may write on the factor of their biasness but the base of such biasness is
always truth. Rather the evidence and information is little but it is true. Thus it is not right to
say that Historians write on the behalf of their perspective and not on the truth.
Concept of Edward Carr proves very relevant with all the histories which has been
written till now. Facts and authentic information has inverse relation with assumptions and
interpretation. More the evidences less there will be exaggerations and vice versa. According
to Edward Carr, The little information or evidence there is in history, the more assumptions
and interpretation will further be made. It is too little evidence to support many claims.
We can state that itself history is objective but the historians made it subjective.

5. 5
Conclusion:
In the nut shell, history has subjectivity but it is impossible without objectivity. History
is incomplete and show vague conclusion if it is purely based on the facts and figures. So, there
is a need to insert the element of biasness in order to complete the history. Thus we can not say
that “history is subjective” but To pen a history, objectivity has priority over the subjective
nature of history.