I don't think I can be satisfied with limiting myself to an entirely 'suspensive' approach, especially since I ultimately want my work to have relevance to popular discourse as well as to academic circles. But I also have tried to leave pro/con debates mostly on the message boards, where they belong. If I have failed to do that here, it is good to have that brought to my attention.The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that this historian is simply wrong. How can one tell stories or evaluate motivations and personalities if one is suspending judgment on issue of faith and historicity? Doesn't the question of whether Joseph was a prophet or a fraud affect our judgment of what the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham were meant to accomplish? Do they not seriously alter the content of the stories we tell about him?
Of course, one cannot always leave questions of historicity aside, especially since they have direct bearing on one's methodology in studying the text and its meaning to the prophet and his scribes. In this respect I think a suspensive approach is impossible (or at least seriously deficient). I can certainly understand and appreciate the view that an "academic" or "scholarly" approach to religious history must be neutral with respect to questions of faith, but it is not a view with which I agree. I am, nevertheless, willing to disagree agreeably and to make the effort to meet folks like yourself halfway wherever possible.
Perhaps more importantly, are historians here to tell stories that only other historians will care about, or to tell stories that are relevant to the general public? Are they here to unearth obscure historical facts that have no connection to present living? Or to unearth historical facts that help us answer big questions about meaning, existence, and what the future holds? Is not the point of story-telling to explore such questions?
I must admit that at first I was a bit offended to be told that my paper was un-academic, especially since it was basically an extended text-critical analysis that wasted no more than a hundred words on anything resembling rhetoric or polemic. I can hardly think of anything more academic. The offense faded as I realized that what this historian was really saying is that he's a firm believer in a particular philosophy of history, and that he thinks that only authors adhering to that philosophy have a legitimate claim to academic publication. As I explained to him in my email, I can sympathize with his view. But it also smacks to me a little too much of political correctness. I don't feel that the most important questions the public faces should be off-limits to those of us who might actually have the tools to address them.
14 comments:
Just because it matters doesn't mean it's necessarily the historian's place to tackle it.
Hi, Seth! I can agree with you, in principle. I don't think it's the historian's place to answer, for example, questions about climate change or biological evolution (except insofar as he's a historian of science and his data are pertinent to the questions). The historian simply is not equipped to answer these questions. But I have never been a great fan of history-exclusively-for-historians, and am a firm believer that history must be relevant to the general public. Where we are equipped to answer such questions, as I believe we at least partly are in this case, I think it is our place to do so.
Which one would you classify Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling" under? History for historians?
Hi Seth,
Bushman's is not a suspensive approach. He has argued very ardently in several essays against critics of the Book of Mormon who defend a naturalistic, nineteenth-century interpretation of the Book. His biography of Joseph Smith assumes the prophet's sincerity and the authenticity of his experiences. In other words, he moderates his tone and attempts to write books that will satisfy both historians and the general public, but he doesn't entirely bypass questions of faith and historicity. The same could be said of Terryl Givens' By the Hand of Mormon: the apologetic agenda is muted, but definitely present. Both of these historians have made decisions about who they believe Joseph Smith was and how his prophetic gifts operated, and their views are reflected in their work. Such decisions are necessary for any historian who wants to seriously understand Joseph Smith and his motivations. Dan Vogel is another great example of a biographer who makes these kind of decisions, and produces an excellent biography as a result. Robert Remini is an example of a "suspensive" historian, whose work reviews positively raked over the coals as a result.
-Chris
I agree with you Chris. I think historians can offer their viewpoint, and in fact they probably should. It is impossible to totally unbiased, it can only be restrained. Plus history for historians is totally dry and very hard to read, especially by non-specialists.
If religious authorities pronounce empirical truth claims, of course, historians have an obligation to test such statements.
In fact, Christ's advice was to determine false prophets by their fruits. That admonition implies two statements:
1. Believers can tell the difference between good and bad fruit.
2. Fruits are observable.
The latter means that prophetic fruits are subject to empirical investigation.
At least when it comes to false prophets, there is no difference between the 'Christian' and the rational methodology.
Other religions might be less concerned with empiricism but it is a feature of Christianity.
Joseph Smith made any number of statements that are beyond the direct scope of empirical inquiry. However, Smith also proclaimed a multitude of truth claims that can be empirically tested.
Bushman was quite clear. He believes because he desires to believe. His faith validates his parents and his relationship with them.
That is not history. It is identity validation.
Christ's admonition about the false prophets means that inquiry takes precedence over faith. Any demand to suspend the standards of academic inquiry is an indication of a lost cause.
I guess I would have to say that I am on the side of the historian you corresponded with. For me history is a method of critically analyzing texts and to point out in which directions this process leads to. The major feature of this method is the ability to pick up on red flags. Does a text play to a story style narrative? Does the information you are being given seem to fit into advancing the author’s agenda? As a historian you learn to read texts from a sidewise angle to pick up on incidental information. The truth of any religion is outside of all of this. I cannot evaluate if someone spoke to God or if a given text was written through divine guidance.
Hellmut,
>>However, Smith also proclaimed a multitude of truth claims that can be empirically tested.
That's exactly right. It's true that science has nothing in particular to say about whether God exists or not, but science and history are excellently positioned to evaluate a whole battery of other religious claims.
Benzion,
I have to disagree. Analyzing texts is part of the historical method, true, but history is really all about storytelling. We tell stories about the past in order to learn from what has gone before, to understand who we are and what makes people tick, and to bring order, sense, and meaning to our frequently chaotic existence. If a storyteller omits the most important elements of his narrative, preferring to tell the story "sideways" and to relate only "incidental information," his or her story will not be very useful or interesting!
Best,
-Chris
"However, Smith also proclaimed a multitude of truth claims that can be empirically tested."
Like what exactly?
Chris
While the end product of history is usually some sort of narrative, the real study of history is textual analysis. Most historians, particularly academic ones, do not deal with narrative at all. History done properly will help create an overarching narrative. This does not mean bias. The example I often use with history is that of a murder investigation. An investigator is going to look at the pieces of evidence; murder weapon, fingerprints, blood, semen, alibi, witnesses etc. From these pieces of evidence one can suggest plausible conclusions. If your fingerprints are on the murder weapon and witnesses saw you at the scene of the crime than the cops are going to consider it highly plausible that you did it. This has nothing to do with being a liberal or conservative. There is not a liberal or a conservative way to conduct a murder investigation, regardless of whether the person convicted is black or a white evangelical pastor, there is just a professional way and a non professional way to conduct things. So to with historians. Historians analyze evidence and suggest plausible narratives based on that evidence. There is nothing liberal or conservative about it. Either you are a competent historian, who knows how to analyze evidence, or you are not.
Hey, Benzion!
Bias enters into your hypothetical murder investigation at two points: first, in the selection of evidence, and second, in the construction of narratives. Both of these are obviously constrained by the physical world itself, but the act of choosing one thing and calling it "evidence" while ignoring something else as irrelevant already assumes the project of narrative-creation. Even though police officers are not lawyers, judges, or jury-members, their job is still narrative-construction: they're the ones who decide which guilt-narrative should be tested in a criminal trial. We then actually encourage the prosecution and defense to create biased and adversarial narratives, and expect the jury to be able to sort out which is more believable.
History is much the same. No historian, no matter how academic, just collects evidence without any kind of narrative at all in mind. How would he or she decide which evidence is important? What would be the point? All history is story-telling. Some stories or more boring than others, granted, but they are stories nonetheless. And even some of the most boring (read: "academic") narratives are told adversarially, with intent to knock down traditional interpretations or to refute other historians. The mark of a good historian is not to be bias-free, but to use or channel bias into the task of interpretation and narrative-formation, while ensuring that it remains constrained by the boundaries of reason and evidence.
Moreover, textual analyses often must be contextualized against the background of the broader narrative in order to be accurate. Friedrich Schleiermacher spoke of interpretation as a circular process: the individual parts of a narrative clarify the whole, and then the whole narrative clarifies the parts. We move back and forth between them until we achieve some sort of stable equilibrium. Thus, to do textual analysis without attention to overarching narratives may actually result in deficient conclusions.
Best,
-Chris
Chris
Yes in a sense there is a “bias.” When the police decide to rely on DNA and fingerprints and ignore the local psychic they are being “biased” in favor of science. I would say simply that they are making the decision to operate with the scientific method. That is the game they are playing. There is no bias in the sense of being conservative or liberal.
As a historian I am not being biased when I attack the views of my colleague. I am doing my best to follow the historical method and if it leads in ways that go against what my colleague said then so be it. I would hope to be an adult and a professional and not turn polemical with it. I hope my colleague would also be an adult and a professional about it and not take it too personally. One of the uses of history is that it trains you to step away from ones biases when constructing narrative by allowing you to deal with topics that are divorced from the issues of the day. I have no personal stake in who had the legitimate claim to the throne during the Hundred Years War. I am not against narrative. I agree it does have an important role to play in history in that in practice it is the end product that we reach for.
I would recommend you read Herbert Butterfield’s The Whig Interpretation of History. Probably the single greatest essay written to describe what a professional historian should be. I like it all the more since he focuses on my area early modern Europe.
Hi Benzion,
I can't help wondering if we're not talking past each other. By no means am I arguing that one should allow conservative or liberal ideologies to control one's interpretations of history. I started out as a conservative Christian, and I ended up a liberal one due to my study of history. If I had allowed my interpretations to be controlled by my biases, I could never have made that transition. I think there will inevitably be bias in the process of interpretation, but I also believe that we should attempt to filter these biases out as much as possible and to make our historical judgments on the basis of evidence, reason, and probabilities.
The only biases I am defending are biases toward particular types of historical questions. That is what this thread was about, in the first place: what types of questions are the proper domain of history, and what types are off-limits to historians? I would venture to guess that there is some reason you are interested in early modern Europe and in "who had the legitimate claim to the throne during the Hundred Years War". Something in your background, your experience, or even in your genetic makeup biases you toward those topics and questions. And that's not a bad thing, since without these biases we would be hard-pressed to explain why your work is at all relevant or why you should continue to do it. It would be a terrible bore, not only to you, but also to your readers.
My point, then, is that many of the questions toward which I am biased, the ones that seem interesting and important to me, have to do with faith and historicity. Was Joseph Smith sincere? Was Mohammed sincere? Was Jesus sincere? How true are the biblical narratives? In what century was the Book of Abraham written, and for what purposes? These are the questions that tickle my fancy. And I know for a fact that I am not the only one. So my question for you is, why are your biases toward certain historical questions more valid than my biases toward other kinds of questions? Do not we both have an audience? Are not our questions relevant to someone? Are not we both engaging in historical study using the same sorts of methods with similar narrative results? Are we not both disagreeing (like adults) with those who have expressed seemingly inaccurate views? What makes one set of questions "academic," while the other is disqualified from that label?
Best,
-Chris
Chris
I am glad to see that we are fairly close in our views. The issue of our reasons for discussing a specific field is something I do, in general, discuss when dealing with the issue of bias in history. It is important though to distinguish the” bias” of interest and the bias of advocacy. To not make a clear distinction is to fall into relativism and ultimately serves to legitimate the later very real form of bias.
No as to the examples you give. In theory there is nothing wrong with fielding such questions as long as one remains within the historical method. I can have a very fruitful discussion about who had the legitimate claim to the throne of France during the Hundred Years War. I have volumes of legal writings by French and English lawyers and clerics debating the issue. I am not able nor do I have the desire to say who is right or wrong, but can thoroughly analyze the various view points and show how they fit into the medieval worldview. When I turn around and start asking Liar, Lunatic or Lord questions about Mohammed or Joseph Smith there is not much of anything productive I can say. I can present their theologies and try to understand why people followed them but after that I am stuck. So in practice I can’t with these Liar, Lunatic or Lord questions.
Post a Comment