What is historical truth?

Are there limits to formulating a truthful

Introduction

The concept of historical truth occupies a central position in the philosophy of history. It raises
fundamental questions about whether, and to what extent, the past can be known and represented
accurately. Historical truth refers to the accurate and faithful representation of past events, based on
evidence, interpretation, and context. It aims to reconstruct what "actually" happened, considering the
limitations of the available sources and the perspectives of those who produced them. Historians have
long debated the nature of truth in history, grappling with issues of objectivity, evidence, and
interpretation.

The Nature of Historical Truth

Historical truth refers to the idea that there exists a factual account of past events that can be uncovered
through research and analysis. This concept is closely tied to the notion of objectivity, where the
historian's goal is to provide an unbiased, accurate portrayal of what actually happened. However,
achieving this ideal is fraught with challenges. The past is not a static entity; it is a complex web of
events, actions, and interpretations, often recorded by biased or incomplete sources.

E.H. Carr in What is History (1961) provides a discussion on this topic. Carr argues that historical facts
are not simply 'given' but are constructed by historians through a process of selection and interpretation.
He posits that "the facts speak only when the historian calls on them"1 highlighting the active role
historians play in shaping the narrative of history. Carr's assertion implies that historical truth is not an
objective reality waiting to be discovered, but rather a subjective construct influenced by the historian's
perspective and the available evidence.

This view is further supported by Hayden White, who challenges the notion of historical objectivity in his
works. White argues that history is a form of narrative, and like all narratives, it is shaped by the
historian's choices in structuring and presenting the past. He introduces the concept of "emplotment,"
where the historian's selection of events and the way they are arranged into a coherent story reflects
underlying ideological and cultural biases. White's critique suggests that historical truth is not only
constructed but also inherently limited by the narrative frameworks within which historians operate.

1
E. H. Carr, What is History?, Vintage, New York, 1961, pp. 11.
The Role of Evidence in Historical Truth

The relationship between evidence and historical truth is a critical area of debate in the philosophy of
history. Evidence, in the form of documents, artifacts, and testimonies, is the foundation upon which
historical narratives are built. However, the interpretation of evidence is a subjective process, influenced
by the historian's preconceptions, the context in which the evidence is found, and the limitations of the
evidence itself.

Marek Tamm, in his article Truth, Objectivity, and Evidence in History Writing (2014), explores the
epistemological challenges historians face when dealing with evidence. Tamm argues that evidence is not
a transparent window to the past but rather a complex and often ambiguous source that requires careful
interpretation. He emphasizes that the historian's task is not only to uncover facts but also to understand
the context in which these facts were produced and recorded. Tamm's analysis underscores the limitations
of evidence in providing a definitive account of the past, as evidence is often fragmentary, biased, and
open to multiple interpretations.2

The problem of evidence is further complicated by the concept of the "historical record." The historical
record is inherently incomplete, shaped by the availability of sources, the interests of those who recorded
the past, and the passage of time. Sometimes certain events and perspectives are systematically excluded
from the historical record, either through intentional omission or the loss of sources over time. Scholars
have also pointed out towards the role of power in shaping what is remembered and what is forgotten,
suggesting that historical truth is always partial and contingent on the survival of evidence.

Objectivity and the Historian's Perspective

Objectivity in history has been a contentious issue, with some arguing that it is an attainable goal and
others asserting that it is an illusion. The debate centers on whether historians can truly separate
themselves from their own biases, cultural backgrounds, and ideological commitments when interpreting
the past.

Leopold von Ranke, often regarded as the father of modern historical scholarship, famously advocated for
an objective approach to history. His dictum that historians should present the past "as it actually was"
reflects a commitment to uncovering historical truth through rigorous analysis of primary sources.
However, Ranke's ideal of objectivity has been challenged by subsequent scholars who argue that
complete impartiality is impossible.

2
M. Tamm, Truth, Objectivity, and Evidence in History Writing, in Journal of the Philosophy of History,
vol. 8, no. 2, 2014, pp. 265-290.
It has been argued that the aspiration for objectivity is a "noble dream" but ultimately unattainable.
Historians are always influenced by the contexts in which they live and work, and these contexts
inevitably shape their interpretations of the past and while objectivity remains a guiding principle for
many historians, it is recognized as an ideal rather than a reality.

The historian's perspective is further complicated by the role of interpretation in historical writing. As
Collingwood argued in The Idea of History (1946), history is not merely the accumulation of facts but
involves the active reconstruction of past events through interpretation. Collingwood's work emphasizes
the historian's role in making sense of the past, suggesting that historical truth is not a static set of facts
but a dynamic process of interpretation. This process is inherently subjective, as different historians may
interpret the same evidence in different ways, leading to multiple, sometimes conflicting, representations
of the past.

Louis O. Mink's essay The Autonomy of Historical Understanding discusses the unique nature of
historical knowledge and the ways in which it differs from other forms of understanding, particularly
scientific knowledge. Mink argues that historical understanding is autonomous and cannot be reduced to
the methods and principles of the natural sciences. History, he suggests, has its own distinct way of
interpreting the past, which is not merely about establishing causal relationships or discovering laws, as in
the natural sciences. He argues for the distinctiveness of historical understanding as a form of knowledge
that relies on narrative, interpretation, and contextualization, rather than the search for objective, causal
explanations and this autonomy of historical understanding, he believes, allows for a richer, more
nuanced engagement with the past.

The Limits of Historical Representation

Given the challenges of objectivity, evidence, and interpretation, the question arises: are there limits to
formulating a truthful representation of the past? The answer, according to many scholars, is yes. The
limitations stem from the inherent complexities of history, the nature of evidence, and the subjective
perspectives of historians. There are inherent challenges and limits to formulating a completely truthful
representation of the past:

Bias in Sources: Historical records are often created by individuals or groups with specific perspectives,
agendas, or biases. This can lead to selective recording of events, omission of certain facts, or the
portrayal of events in a particular light.
Fragmentary Evidence: The evidence available to historians is often incomplete or fragmented. Many
events or experiences, particularly those of marginalized groups, may not have been recorded at all,
leading to gaps in the historical record.

Historians' Perspective: Historians bring their own biases, perspectives, and theoretical frameworks to
their work, which can influence how they interpret and present historical evidence. Different historians
may interpret the same set of data in different ways, leading to multiple versions of "historical truth."

Historiographical Changes: The way history is understood and written changes over time as new
methods, theories, and evidence emerge. What is considered "true" in one era may be revised or
challenged in another.

Limits of Language: The language used to describe the past is inherently limited. It is difficult to fully
capture the complexities and nuances of historical events and experiences. The choice of words,
metaphors, and narratives can shape how events are understood and remembered.

Constructed Narratives: Historical narratives are constructed often by blending facts with
interpretations. The process of selecting which events to include, emphasize, or connect within a broader
story influences the perceived truth of that narrative.

Loss and Destruction of Evidence: Over time, evidence can be lost, destroyed, or deteriorated, which
limits historians' ability to reconstruct the past fully. Archaeological sites may be looted or artifacts may
degrade, leading to incomplete pictures of past civilizations.

Political and Cultural Influences: Access to certain archives or sites may be restricted due to political or
cultural reasons, further limiting the ability to explore and interpret the past.

Competing Narratives: Different groups or communities may have different versions of historical
events, each rooted in their own experiences, memories, and identities. These competing narratives can
lead to different "truths" about the same event.

Ethical Considerations: In some cases, historians face ethical dilemmas when certain truths might harm
communities or perpetuate injustices. Deciding what to include or exclude from historical narratives can
influence the portrayal of truth.

Distortion over Time: Memory, both individual and collective, can distort over time. Oral histories,
while valuable, are subject to the limitations of human memory and the influence of subsequent events on
how the past is recalled and retold.
 As previously discussed, not all events or perspectives are recorded, and much of what happened
in the past is lost to time. This means that any historical narrative is necessarily incomplete, based on the
available evidence, which may not fully represent the diversity of experiences and events. Moreover, the
historian's selection of evidence is influenced by their research questions, theoretical framework, and
cultural context, leading to a partial and potentially biased account of the past.

Additionally, the historian's perspective is shaped by the time and place in which they live.
Historians are products of their own historical contexts, and their interpretations of the past are influenced
by contemporary concerns, ideologies, and values. This means that historical truth is always provisional,
subject to revision as new evidence emerges and as historians' perspectives change over time. The idea of
a single, unchanging truth about the past is thus called into question, as history is continually reinterpreted
in light of new discoveries and changing contexts.

Conclusion

The pursuit of historical truth is a central goal of the historian's work, but it is a goal that is fraught with
challenges and limitations. The nature of history, the complexities of evidence, and the subjectivity of
interpretation all contribute to the difficulties in formulating a truthful representation of the past. While
historians strive for objectivity and accuracy, the limitations of the historical record, the role of narrative,
and the influence of contemporary contexts mean that historical truth is always partial and contingent.
While historians strive for an accurate and truthful representation of the past, the inherent limitations in
sources, interpretation, and representation mean that historical truth is always partial and provisional. It is
a constructed understanding that evolves as new evidence is discovered and as society's needs and
perspectives change.

This does not mean that the pursuit of historical truth is futile. On the contrary, the recognition of these
limitations can lead to a more nuanced and critical approach to history, where historians are aware of the
biases and constraints that shape their work. By acknowledging the provisional nature of historical truth,
historians can continue to explore the past with rigor and integrity, while remaining open to new
interpretations and perspectives. In the end, historical truth may be elusive, but the search for it remains a
vital and ongoing endeavor in the study of history. Historical truth, therefore, is best understood as a
pursuit rather than an absolute, always subject to revision and reinterpretation.
References:

Carr, E. H. What is History?, Vintage, New York, 1961.

Collingwood, R. G. The idea of history, Oxford University Press, London, 1946.

Mink, Louis O. "The autonomy of historical understanding", in History and theory, Vol. 5, no. 1, (1966).

Tamm, Marek. "Truth, Objectivity and Evidence in History Writing", Journal of the Philosophy of
History, Vol. 8, no. 2, 2014, pp. 265-290.

White, Hayden. "The value of narrativity in the representation of reality" Critical inquiry, Vol. 7, no. 1,
(1980).