It bears repeating sometimes that history is not the past, but the past as reconstructed in the mind of the historian. This mind is not an unbiased repository of pristine “facts”, but an organ shaped by experience and world view. It is imperative, then, that historians remain aware of their own limitations. This much is probably uncontroversial.
Here’s what I want to know: should it be incumbent upon historians to make their political, moral, and spiritual principles known? To bring it down to our own hobby: should a historian working on early Mormon social and political history disclose that she is a democratic socialist (for example)? Is it necessary to know whether a historian of Joseph Smith is a believer? If we are reading a history of Mormon women, do we need to know that the writer wishes for modern LDS women to hold ecclesiastical office?
December 4, 2007 at 11:11 am
To the degree that bias may affect how the history is presented, then yes. Of course. For instance I respected Compton for laying his cards on the table regarding his views on feminism and polygamy. Did it affect his writing about the wives of Joseph Smith? Probably. Certainly it affected the theoretical models he builds as well as his stance to the inspiration of the practice. I think as a reader that is information we have to know in terms of dealing with both his theories and presentations.
I wish more people were up front about this like Compton.
December 4, 2007 at 11:17 am
I don’t think that sort disclosure is necessary, since a historian’s work should stand on its own. A careful reader can usually discern the author’s views anyway.
The corollary is that historians should drop any pretense to impartiality. Yes, we should try to be fair, but we need to keep your first paragraph in mind. Caveat lector.
December 4, 2007 at 11:26 am
Complicated questions, Ronan! They remind me somewhat of the complaint some had when Helen Whitney’s PBS documentary didn’t place “pro” or “anti” labels on the persons speaking. Some people want those kind of convenient labels as a tool in “screening out” certain sources. Whitney indicated that she wanted viewers to allow the sources to speak for themselves, instead of prejudicing viewers by placing such labels.
For almost five years now, I have been working on a history of the influence of Freemasonry on early Mormonism. This began well before I chose to withdraw my membership from the LDS church. As a liberal, gay, former member of the LDS church, who is working on such a project, I have observed the results of this sort of “disclosure.”
When I first came out to close friends, and informed them of my decision to withdraw my name from the records of the church, they already knew the nature of my research and writing. They trusted my work. Oddly enough, several of them had little or not particular reaction to the fact that I was coming out of the closet. Rather, their immediate reaction was to bemoan what this meant for how my forthcoming book would be received by LDS readers.
Their concern was not entirely misplaced. At least one Mormon historian has already been subjected to a book review which argued that his research and writing should be disregarded on the basis that he is gay. Further, many LDS seem to insist that anyone who chooses to leave the LDS church automatically is out to destroy it. I have continued to receive encouragement and interest in my work from many who are interested in Mormon history, but I have also seen the opposite. In the bloggernacle, I have seen outright attacks from a few individuals. Some have directly stated that because I am a former member of the LDS church, none of my research can be trusted, I must be taking my information out of context, etc. I’ve also seen a few bloggernacle participants who feel completely confident that if I left the LDS church, I must have no understanding of Mormon doctrine and history. Everything I say is automatically suspect for these persons, because of my “disclosure.”
I do sympathize with the desire to know as much as possible about a source. After all, that’s what I do when I investigate historical sources. At the same time, however, I find reason to be concerned that some use this information to dismiss sources out of hand, rather than using it as one piece of the puzzle.
December 4, 2007 at 11:37 am
Why limit the question to historians? If disclosing personal principles is useful in history, it is just as — more? — useful when the subject is doctrine or morals or marriage counseling or child rearing or any other field represented in LDS writing.
It’s been a long time since any historian I know has claimed objectivity, yet we still get hammered regularly for a claim we don’t make. I’m interested in the personal biases of scholars in ANY field.
December 4, 2007 at 11:40 am
Nick,
I do sympathise with your plight. However, I think it is important to know that, say, someone writing about Mormon same-sex matters is himself gay. It would be no reason to dismiss the work, of course.
BTW, are you a brother?
December 4, 2007 at 11:47 am
#3: I agree fully with you. Wouldn’t you love to be in a room with all the great Mormon Historians, and have this kicked around?
December 4, 2007 at 11:48 am
Along with Adris, I think the concept should be extolled in all forms of scholarly discipline. I would rather know their background, because it helps you decide how to interpret what they are saying. Nick does bring up an excellent point, but I think that if someone is going to not read his work simply because he is a gay, ex-member is probably not going to except his work even if he didn’t know about Nick being a gay, ex-member. Which is sad.
December 4, 2007 at 11:52 am
#4 Ardis:
You make an excellent point. Every historian I know readily acknowledges that true objectivity is an impossible dream, yet others pretend historians are hiding their lack of objectivity. I’ve decided that critical demands for “objective history” are much like rants about “activist judges.” Nobody ever accused a judge they agreed with of being an “activist judge.”
#5 Ronan:
Agreed. I simply feel that many take such information as a reason to dismiss, rather than as a tool for better understanding.
Yes, I am a brother Freemason. Are you?
December 4, 2007 at 11:56 am
Nick,
Nope, but my FIL is a MM and we sometimes dine with the lodge (part of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Warwickshire) on social occasions.
December 4, 2007 at 12:17 pm
When I first read this post I immediately thought of Todd’s example and was pleased to see Clark mention it in #1. I think that’s a good template for giving some basic self-disclosure.
December 4, 2007 at 12:30 pm
While it is helpful in some instances for the historian to put their cards on the table in some arguments, as it were, I think there are times when doing such would also only get in the way of the history being told. If the historian is attempting to deliver a message to the present from the past with the history, then they should be upfront about it. (I guess one might say that if the historian is not trying to deliver a message to the present from the past, why on earth are they bothering to write the histroy to begin with.)
however, if the aim is to get someone to think about an issue in a certain way, who would otherwise not think about that issue if it were not couched in some palatable format to them, then I guess I can see why people do what they do. (Example- Not many people pick up books on the evils of religion who do not have a distrust of religion, so boom, Happy Feet gives conservative Christians spoonfuls of the problem of religion in a cute and cuddly format) However, I think often the message, if too subtle, doesn’t come accross effectively, and if too blunt, comes accross as ham-fisted. Further I think there is a real risk in being unclear as to message being misconstrued.
December 4, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I thought Givens and Bushman did pretty well on disclosure in the forewards of their books as well.
December 4, 2007 at 1:01 pm
In Banner of Heaven, Jon Krakauer credits Mike Quinn for such an approach and attempts to elucidate his own religious, political, and spiritual biases at the end the book. I’d love to see a tradition emerge where history books, especially religious history books, include a foreward or afterword that includes something about the author’s “political, moral, and spiritual principles.”
December 4, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I don’t think folks are pretending historians hide their lack of objectivity. I just think readers ought know where the probable biases are. If one is an expert in the subfield this is less of an issue because one is already able to discern in the text the biases. For those not able to discern the biases being told up front the stance the historian comes from will help enormously with reading the text.
After all if the historian doesn’t pretend objectivity doesn’t that entail a responsibility to help the reader engage with the text?
To say, as some do, caveat emptor seems to be shedding ones responsibility to ones audience.
Certainly some might go overboard and instead of using biases in terms of reading the text better merely use them to discount a text. But let’s be honest. Anyone doing that is hardly going to be a responsible reader of the text anyway.
December 4, 2007 at 2:02 pm
How about newspaper writers and editors and newsblabbers on TV or radio? On the TV you could just run a legend across the screen for each of them, noting their political and social and religious views.
Now, I cannot stand Lou Dobbs, but at least you don’t need an onscreen legend to tell you that he’s bat***t crazy about them d**ned furriners that are destroying America. He may pontificate as if he’s above the fray, but the mud on his forehead proves otherwise.
Speaking of unspoken biases, one of the 3 network news broadcasts last night, in their Romney story, had a short statement from Bill McKeever (of Mormonism Research [sic] Ministries [sic]). His hatchet was hidden, and the newsblabber didn’t bother to describe where McKeever was coming from.
December 4, 2007 at 2:02 pm
The computational/machine learning scientist would opine that you cannot avoid bias in any learning/discovery/analytical model, and that any competent researcher would describe somewhere in the publication the inherent bias of the model (i.e., it’s biased toward a particular data characteristic over another, a particular condition, etc.)
December 4, 2007 at 2:10 pm
It’d be interesting if the Bloggernacle required background disclosure. How much disclosure would be needed would depend on what we’re biased toward wanting to know.
(queuno is born/raised in Midwest to Utahns, descendant from pioneers, lives in the South, BYU science + humanities grad, RM, active TR, married, children, Eagle Scout, has traveled outside US, registered dem in 88, registered gop in 2000, now is independent, married a dem, current PhD student … )
What else would we want to know about someone’s profile?
December 4, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Good idea Queuno
(Matt W. MWM, likes long sunsets, holding hands, getting lost in the rain; fears committment and loss; watches the office; )
December 4, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I could care less knowing if someone is an active member when I read a book. I agree with #2 that the work should stand on its own. And I LOVE that Helen Whitney didn’t put labels on the people she interviewed. All research has a goal or message to get across. Also, each person usually has their own type of agenda. They don’t necessarily have to align. If that message is thoroughly researched, properly sourced, and thoughtfully written, it is probably something worthy of reading, regardless of whether we agree with it or not.
#12 – Givens and Bushman probably did the forwards to provide assurances to the usually jittery target audience of mainstream Mormons. They didn’t want to be treated like Quinn was by the church or its membership.
December 4, 2007 at 5:57 pm
One definition of “interestingness” is a result that defies expectation, given the background. A Southern Baptist minister supporting Romney? A Democrat who doesn’t support gay marriage or abortion? A Mormon male supporting Hillary Clinton? A popular teenager who’s loaded her iPod with Vivaldi?
The cross product of bias and background yields interesting points. To get back to the Lou Dobbs example – when he opens his mouth on a topic on which he hasn’t expounded, you can generally tell what he’s going to say. But it’s refreshing to find unexpected spokespeople on a particular issue — it’s because their expected bias doesn’t match up with their background.
It’s impractical to fully describe someone’s entire background and bias set. But when you’re talking about a particular issue, *some* level of disclosure helps.
(And I realize I’m starting to blend bias and background, which isn’t the intent, but either can help disclose one’s preconceptions.)
To be honest, the fact that Kevin Barney is an attorney from Chicago has always made his writing more interesting to me than, say, someone working at FARMS. It’s not what I’d expect. (That’s not a slap at the FARMS people.)
How much easier would it be to read a blog (any blog) and be able to filter on background and bias and find the truly unexpected positions…
Givens and Bushman probably did the forwards to provide assurances to the usually jittery target audience of mainstream Mormons. They didn’t want to be treated like Quinn was by the church or its membership.
It also makes it easier for mainstream LDS to realize that they aren’t being attacked…
December 4, 2007 at 5:59 pm
re: 15
Which network interviewed Bill McKeever in their report on Romney? That’s appalling, akin to having someone from the KKK (sans hood) speak on camera during a report on Obama.
December 4, 2007 at 6:05 pm
When watching Helen Whitney’s documentary, “The Mormons,” I had a lurking suspicion that one of the historians that provided commentary was anti-Mormon. But as I learned more about the documentary, I discovered that the commentator was LDS. Her commentary instantly made me realize that I needed to be less defensive and listen to what she had to say.
Knowing a historians religion is important only when it will aid in an audience’s understanding. Otherwise, it doesn’t serve a purpose, and can only aid to bias; a fine line that is completely dependent upon individual interpretation.
December 4, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Paradox,
I suspect you’re referring to Kathleen Flake. Because she is a professional historian who works on religious history, she tends to use an academic style when speaking about the church, and many people mistook this for some sort of anti- or at least non-Mormon mode of speaking.
People might be surprised to learn that she is entirely devout, and really quite orthodox in many ways. They shouldn’t be. That example ought to make us aware of how quick we are to confuse style of expression for the substance of an argument, and we probably ought to be at least a little ashamed of that tendency.
December 4, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I try to avoid disclosure in many instances, specifically for the reasons Nick articulated – but from the other side of the Mormon coin.
I want people to get their first impressions of me based on what I say and do – not what they assume about me because of my “objective” Mormon or educational bio. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard, “No way! You can’t be ______________ (Mormon, from rural Utah, a Harvard grad, a socially liberal Republican, the father of six, etc.).” If these specific people had known that particular thing about me, they would have jumped to conclusions that would have changed the way they interpreted what I was saying.
Otoh, sometimes I feel compelled to do some “calling dropping” disclosure when I am about to explain a doctrinal or social perspective to a conservative member or Church audience – for the exact same reason. For example, I don’t want to be dismissed out of hand as “faithless” or “anti” just because I don’t believe the Priesthood ban was God’s will. In that case, unfortunately, disclosing my current calling or some of my past callings helps the hearer grant me a degree of legitimacy that they might not grant otherwise. It’s sad, but it’s real.
In each case, ironically, I am using my own assumptions in order to attempt to avoid confusion or incorrect assumption. As a young man, I heard and internalized the statement, “It is more important to not be misunderstood than it is to be understood,” and I disclose or don’t disclose based primarily on that standard.
December 4, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Re 21
I don’t remember–I was flipping between channels to see if they all would have a story on it (I think they all did). It may have been NBC, but I’m not sure.
I agree with you Mike that choosing him as a source for anything on Mormonism is appalling–at least his appearance was brief and he didn’t really say anything.
December 4, 2007 at 10:56 pm
I tracked it down–it was ABC. You can read the text of the “report” here.
December 5, 2007 at 5:26 am
I think there is also a problem with putting labels i historians (and other scientist) If i was a mormon historian anything i would find that would be pro-book of mormon would be dismissed as “but you’re a mormon so you’re biased”. while if i would publish anything against the book of mormon i would get flamed for either “how could you publish this” or “you’re not a real mormon”.
Besides, who is going to assign those labels. If you let an editor assign the labels you’re going to deal with just as much problems. Because then you would have to look at the lables of the editor (a.k.a. is it a mormon editor) to judge the values of the lables he hands out. If you let people assign lables themselves then what would be the use. I think most of the time their bias is obvious and if it isn’t you’re either reading a text you don’t understand or you’re dealing with an actual unbiased author.
December 5, 2007 at 6:19 am
Thanks for this post Ronan. I flip-flop on this issue. I really liked the way the PBS documentary forced people to listen to the actual content of what people were saying in order to discern if they supported the Church or not. Of course, for people interested in this stuff, there was no guess work involved. The reaction of some uninformed members was pretty irritating when they claimed that Flake and Peterson were anti-Mormons, but it is also understandable. Latter-day Saints have been conditioned by the society in which they live to be suspicious of the motivations of anyone talking about Mormonism who they do not know in advance to be Mormon. It is a posture that stems from unfortunate and painful experiences in the real world. So you get the phenomenon of many Latter-day Saints tuning in to the PBS documentary with a sense of trepidation about what it might say about that which is most dear to them in the world, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which they see as part and parcel with the Church itself. They are therefore suspicious of what will be presented and, one must admit, the opening bit was not something that was going to put many Latter-day Saints at ease with regard to whether it was going to be a hatchet-job considering the use of the corpse-Moroni and sinister music. (Disclaimer: I like the PBS documentary; this is an attempt to explain why I think it was natural for some or many Latter-day Saints to approach it with suspicion, which approach then colored perception of the interviewees.) With that introduction to the documentary, everything the interviewees said was taken defensively and critically such that you get the absurd result that one of Mormonism’s greatest defenders (Dan Peterson) was mistaken by some to be negative toward the Church. What was going on was that people were reading negativity into what he and others were saying through a sort of hybrid of attribution and circling the wagons. But upon reflection on the documentary, I have concluded that I liked what Whitney was trying to do in not identifying biases of interviewees upfront.
On the other hand, I think that upon the first viewing of the documentary, I was a little irritated at the lack of identification because I worried that it could have precisely the result that it did have among jittery LDS viewers already very concerned about how badly PBS might portray their faith. But more generally I have found that it enriches my reading of a text when a writer of history (in any of the fields of history that I am interested in, not just Mormon history) discloses points of bias or at least of experience that implies bias. Understanding the everyone has biases and that these biases will inform what particular inferences are drawn from what appear to be facts in the historical record, such disclosure can put the text into context and facilitate analysis and engagement with the conclusion drawn.
December 5, 2007 at 7:14 am
I don’t think disclosure is necessary and usually not even helpful in understanding a text, even for those fixated on authorial intent.
I like what Leslie Torch said.”>said:
December 5, 2007 at 7:15 am
[One more time for the quotation]
I don’t think disclosure is necessary and usually not even helpful in understanding a text, even for those fixated on authorial intent.
I like what Leslie Torch said:
December 5, 2007 at 11:06 am
Queuno,
Shut up, just shut up. You had me at “born/raised in Midwest to Utahns.”
December 6, 2007 at 1:19 am
I think the trend in most writing–blogs, journalism, and academic–is toward more transparency about one’s biases. Everyone understands that nothing can be seen except from a point of view.
However, some of the biases that mislead the most aren’t easy to disclose or to even be aware of. Since these are often common biases of certain ages and communities, we may need to wait for perceptive historians to point them out. “He shared the peculiar biases of his age. . .”
Much of my own growth has been a gradual recognition of biases that I earlier thought were simply “the way it was,” and I assume I am nowhere near the end of this process, which means most of my biases remain intact and invisible to me.
#24 What I think is most interesting is the way disclosures become yet another rhetorical device, used to persuade, sometimes by deception. (I’m NOT suggesting Ray is misleading anyone, only that his focus remains upon persuasion, and the uses of disclosure are selected with that that purpose in mind).
December 6, 2007 at 10:35 am
mlu, I acknowledge that possibility, but it doesn’t accurately reflect my own comment.
As I have said in the past, I am a dedicated parser, so it bothers me when my words or actions are not taken at face value but rather filtered through a subjective lens of supposition and assumption – in a way like your use of the term “persuasion”. I honestly am not focused on “persuasion” in my decision to disclose or not disclose; I am focused on “real understanding” – which is very different than persuasion. Many times I don’t care if someone agrees with me (if I am able to persuade them), but I always care that they understand me – regardless of whether they accept my view or not. Sometimes disclosing or not disclosing affects a person’s ability to understand – which is much more fundamental than agreement.
December 6, 2007 at 2:30 pm
If the primary purpose of a historical treatise is so that the author can build his/her own reputation, then I agree with those saying disclosure is unnecessary.
If the primary purpose of a historical treatise is to assist the reader in forming conclusions about the “truth” of a matter, then of COURSE the author’s own prejudices and approach are relevant. A bit ironic how a hypothetical historian would insist that we can’t take the “History of the Church” (or conversely, the “Nauvoo Expositor”) at face value without knowing more of the background of those who wrote these documents and the context in which they were written–and then demand that his own work not be evaluated through the same lens.
December 6, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Amen, JimD.
December 18, 2007 at 3:46 am
Todd Compton did a great job of laying all the cards on the people. I was hoping that the Correlation Dept. would do the same with the new Church manual on Joseph Smith. I would have liked to see in the historical outline the marriage dates includes for the general church membership to see. Should the Church disclose this information is a better question to ask yourself.