The Duties of Historians

Beneath its calm tone, Prof. Benedict’s long, thoughtful, and at times quite sympathetic review of my book challenges assumptions about the purposes of history and the duties of historians that lie at the book’s (and other books’) foundations. Thus, Benedict questions, among other things, the propriety of choosing and exploring historical topics in part out of a desire to contribute to current policy debates; the utility of combining historical, social scientific, and legal approaches; the desirability of openly declaring one’s convictions and contending with opposing viewpoints; the likelihood that clear statements and explicit tests of hypotheses and open consideration of all major pieces of evidence will allow conclusions to be and to be seen as objective; and the possibility of assigning motives to historical actors. Do historians necessarily betray their profession and their objectivity by focusing on topics relevant to contemporary policies? Must they appear dispassionate, their histories, bloodless? Can historians assess human motives, or are people’s capacities for rationalization so overwhelming and the probability of unintended consequences of their actions so high that any search for motives is fruitless? Putting the skeptical views of historians’ objectivity and their subjects’ subjectivity together, is historical knowledge even possible? It is worth taking a bit of space to respond to such questions