Subjectivity in History:
A Valuable Lens for ToK Essay 1 Discussions
The role of subjectivity in historical knowledge is contentious both in academic history and in Theory of Knowledge (ToK) debates. Positivists argue that history should be an objective recounting of events, free from the subjective viewpoints of individuals. Those taking such a perspective may (unfairly) condemn subjectivity in history. This blogpost proposes that subjectivity could be a good thing, enriching our understanding of the past by capturing the everyday experiences of the people who lived it.
In traditional (positivist) historical narratives, the focus has often been on significant events, political manoeuvres, or extraordinary individuals. While these certainly have value, they fail to provide a comprehensive understanding of historical realities. More importantly, they leave out the daily experiences of ordinary people, which are, by nature, subjective. These experiences form the fabric of social memory and give depth to historical knowledge
Integrating subjectivity into historical accounts can humanise history. For instance, diaries, letters, and oral traditions provide subjective viewpoints that allow us to empathise with individuals from different times and places. The knowledge arising from these subjective accounts contributes to arguments for ToK Essay 1, inviting us to scrutinise the complex perspectives comprising historical knowledge, and its formation. It challenges the notion that history should be a sterile, objective discipline, asking instead whether the subjective experiences of individuals offer valuable insights that can complement 'hard facts.'
Subjectivity in history can be a vehicle for inclusivity. Historical events have affected different communities in various ways, and subjective accounts can help in exploring these nuances. For example, understanding the Civil Rights Movement isn't complete without the personal stories of those who fought for their rights or suffered from injustices. These subjective narratives can add depth to our understanding, complicating the otherwise simplified mainstream accounts.
In conclusion, whilst objectivity has its merits, subjectivity should not be hastily condemned in historical knowledge. Subjectivity offers an emotional and human dimension that objectivity often lacks, filling in the gaps of our collective memory. The discussions developed in ToK Essay 1 could suggest embracing a more holistic, nuanced view of history. The subjective content enriches our understanding and makes historical knowledge more inclusive.
Find out more about this essay title in the overview discussion with Gareth Stevens.This is just a start of the type of overview that you can find in our ToK Essay Guidance notes for Essay 1. This year we have two versions of the notes:
The Foundation Notes fully unpack the title, explore different ways to approach the concepts in the title, and explain a number of knowledge arguments that could be used. These notes are 4,000-5,000 words.
The Complete Guide has all of the same content as The Foundation Notes, and in addition has fully explained real life examples to illustrate each knowledge argument.The Complete Guide also has evaluation points and implications for each knowledge argument. These notes are 8,000-11,000 words.
You can find essay guidance notes for all of the essay titles at this link.
Stay Toktastic my friends,
Daniel,
Bangkok, Sept 2023
Detailed guidance video on ToK Essay 1 May 24
Initial thoughts with Gareth Stevens on ToK Essay 1 May 24
Exploring the tension between reliability and validity in AoK History
Can History be "true"?