Ethics of a Historian

When people think of ethical problems in certain fields, usually history isn't a primary topic. Professions like nursing or business have the highest profile ethical debates, but history doesn't get the prevalence it should. History makes people who they are, and holds key insights as to where they're headed. But history can easily be twisted, and recorded differently than remembered, and used to further an agenda, merely because one historian was willing to violate his ethics to promote his bias.

Many claim that historians, like scientists or journalists, are unbiased. This is not the case, however, because in both fields, men lean one direction or another based on their worldviews. Worldviews filter the vision of each individual, much like sunglasses filter the sun. Facts, data, opinions and any other information are viewed and interpreted based off the ways in which your point of view has been shaped, by the era and culture in which you were born and raised, by your education, and by the expectations of the communities to which you belong, both by choice and by birth. This poses an ethical problem, however: if historians are supposed to be objective, how can we do that when our starting point is tainted by our worldviews? How can two historians who unearth the same data or historical evidence – whether it be an artifact or manuscript or what have you – and come up with two vastly different results? The answer is simple: bias stemming from your worldview. As much as any historian, scientist, journalist or any other supposedly unbiased professional would hate to admit it, everyone has their biases. An example that has been used with prevalence in some historical circles is that of a pair of archaeologists, unearthing the fossilized remains of a dinosaur of some kind. One man states with absolute certainty that it died millions of years ago, somehow being protected from scavengers while slowly buried by river sediment. Another man, an archaeologist with the same level of education, but a different background, would look at the exact same remains, yet claim that they were buried rapidly, with some aquatic, cataclysmic event – such as a worldwide flood – and that the vast amounts of sediment displaced sealed away the specimen for a few thousand years, until being unearthed today. Sadly, the worst part about this example is that, with a rare exception, both archaeologists would deny they were being biased, yet would accuse the other of the very thing. If both men could stand up and be willing to acknowledge their prejudices, civil discourse, and an increase in knowledge, would ensue.

Acknowledging one's biases and preconceived notions is the first step in overcoming them, as painful or seemingly unprofessional this may be. Admitting bias also means admitting biases in your sources as well. Just as the historian has bias, those who came before and recorded history had biases as well. The historian Josephus would record an event in one manner, being a Jew, while Philo Judaeus would record the same event completely differently, being a secular contemporary. If you understand that everyone has bias, and you declare that, then all your work can be taken as it should – with the proverbial grain of salt.

If you don't admit your bias, though, you will begin to sacrifice other ethical considerations on the altar of partisanship: ignoring contrary evidence, theories and views, for one. By shouting down the opposition, overlooking a bit of evidence that doesn't quite line up with your theory or just submitting to the established order of things because it's the "proper" thing to do, you lose credibility, and your argument will lack a foundation. As iron sharpens iron, a challenging view or opposing theory will strengthen your own, in a make or break situation.

Any number of philosophical theories could be translated to suit a comeback for these dilemmas, whether it be a utilitarianist view, a relativist view, or even normative and virtue ethics; for the sake of the argument, however, deontology will be chosen, since it seems to be most applicable in this situation. Since deontology stresses the importance of duty to the 'rules' above all else, it's extremely apt for a historian in his, or her, field. Deontology at its core means that we are duty-bound, and in order for a historian to do his or her best work, they must adhere to the duties placed upon them, namely, objectivity and honesty. This field, like any science, is no place for consequentialism, because historians are to act morally right, not based on the consequences or their own personal virtues, but because it is required of them. Honesty is expected, regardless of the outcome. It doesn't matter if the end result just falls in line with every other historical thesis, or if it sets the world of historians on its proverbial head, so long as it is reached through honest means, accepting all evidence, and giving full merit to all opposing theories. By accepting his or her own bias, and being willing to place duty over that bias, the modern historian can begin to break away from the establishment and their status quo, and promote free thought among all branches of history: from the Indiana Jones-esque archaeologist to the lowliest lab tech, to the student getting his proverbial foot in the door.

History is, unfortunately, a rather overlooked branch of study in modern culture. There isn't vast amounts of wealth to be made, not a permanent celebrity status if you become successful, or even a reasonable standard of becoming successful. But it is a unique area of study, because to have a part in it, you must truly love it. And if you do truly love it, doing your duty to keep it intellectually sound, and morally straight, won't be a cumbersome, inconvenient bother, but something that you strive to accomplish every waking hour. It is a historian's duty, yes, but it is also a historian's passion. And that is why all historians need to keep each other accountable, sharpening and testing one another, and ever increasing their thirst for knowledge and unlocking the secrets of mankind's past.