Comments on: To “Declare One’s Allegiance” When Writing Biography http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:20:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Juvenile Instructor » “gigantic and sometimes polemical”: The Persistent Marginalization of Mormon History as an (Un)acceptable Field of Study http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/comment-page-1/#comment-24201 Juvenile Instructor » “gigantic and sometimes polemical”: The Persistent Marginalization of Mormon History as an (Un)acceptable Field of Study Mon, 15 Dec 2008 08:56:22 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/#comment-24201 [...] affiliation and belief system (or any other aspect of one’s identity) when writing history. That has been discussed elsewhere at length. I am more interested in exploring the possible reasons behind Howe’s decision to [...] [...] affiliation and belief system (or any other aspect of one’s identity) when writing history. That has been discussed elsewhere at length. I am more interested in exploring the possible reasons behind Howe’s decision to [...]

]]> By: SC Taysom http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/comment-page-1/#comment-12077 SC Taysom Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:30:28 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/#comment-12077 The issue of self-disclosure is cyclical. In American religious history at the moment, it is the "in thing" to discuss one's religious affiliation, background, etc, in the introduction to books. I guess I caught an aversion to this from my dissertation director. If I carry a particular bias of sufficient strength to materially impact an honest reading of the evidence, then my admitting that won't correct for it. In most cases the biases that most matter are the ones we (and our readers) don't recognize because they are so deeply rooted in our shared culture. Careful readers can spot howling biases right away--disclosed or not. Read the same book 100 years later and it will be viewed as full of all kinds of biases that were invisible to author and contemporary readers. The issue of self-disclosure is cyclical. In American religious history at the moment, it is the “in thing” to discuss one’s religious affiliation, background, etc, in the introduction to books. I guess I caught an aversion to this from my dissertation director. If I carry a particular bias of sufficient strength to materially impact an honest reading of the evidence, then my admitting that won’t correct for it. In most cases the biases that most matter are the ones we (and our readers) don’t recognize because they are so deeply rooted in our shared culture. Careful readers can spot howling biases right away–disclosed or not. Read the same book 100 years later and it will be viewed as full of all kinds of biases that were invisible to author and contemporary readers.

]]> By: BHodges http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/comment-page-1/#comment-12073 BHodges Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:49:56 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/#comment-12073 Parenthetically, it is spelled "Barack Obama." ;) An interesting post. I prefer to know something about an author before I read a book. I agree that "objectivity" is a chimera, and that the past is not something historians dutifully travel to the past to gather and carry back in a nice lump of reality. If the author doesn't self-disclose I'll likely look for disclosure elsewhere to see where they are coming from, which just adds to the workload of reading a book, imo. Parenthetically, it is spelled “Barack Obama.” ;)

An interesting post. I prefer to know something about an author before I read a book. I agree that “objectivity” is a chimera, and that the past is not something historians dutifully travel to the past to gather and carry back in a nice lump of reality. If the author doesn’t self-disclose I’ll likely look for disclosure elsewhere to see where they are coming from, which just adds to the workload of reading a book, imo.

]]> By: Traci http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/comment-page-1/#comment-12071 Traci Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:15:31 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/#comment-12071 You call it "declaring one's allegiance" which, I think, is one way to put it. I would call it "disclosing one's bias" because you need to know what the author's opinion is to decide whether or not, or how much, they can be trusted. For example, a biography written on Barrack Obama will probably be told differently by a Democrat than a Republican. If the affiliation is disclosed, I know that when I read the Republican's Obama bio, the negatives will likely be emphasized and the positives minimized; the Democrat's Obama bio probably does just the opposite. Sincere authors know there is no such thing as true objectivity. Their own personal views are the lense through which they see the story, and they need to disclose to the reader what that lense is in order to allow the reader to make an truly informed opinion. You call it “declaring one’s allegiance” which, I think, is one way to put it. I would call it “disclosing one’s bias” because you need to know what the author’s opinion is to decide whether or not, or how much, they can be trusted. For example, a biography written on Barrack Obama will probably be told differently by a Democrat than a Republican. If the affiliation is disclosed, I know that when I read the Republican’s Obama bio, the negatives will likely be emphasized and the positives minimized; the Democrat’s Obama bio probably does just the opposite.

Sincere authors know there is no such thing as true objectivity. Their own personal views are the lense through which they see the story, and they need to disclose to the reader what that lense is in order to allow the reader to make an truly informed opinion.

]]> By: Hunter http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/comment-page-1/#comment-12069 Hunter Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:03:04 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/#comment-12069 I think that most readers of history understand that the biographer/historian cannot be totally objective. And I heartily agree that stating one's allegiance up front makes good sense; it also engages the reader from the start to sort of form their own opinion as they read. Incidentally, I'm currently writing a short history of my own dad's life. It's an interesting line to walk, avoiding undue criticism on the one hand, but also avoiding hagiography on the other. I think I will include a paragraph in the preface "declaring my allegiance." I think that most readers of history understand that the biographer/historian cannot be totally objective. And I heartily agree that stating one’s allegiance up front makes good sense; it also engages the reader from the start to sort of form their own opinion as they read.

Incidentally, I’m currently writing a short history of my own dad’s life. It’s an interesting line to walk, avoiding undue criticism on the one hand, but also avoiding hagiography on the other. I think I will include a paragraph in the preface “declaring my allegiance.”

]]> By: John Turner http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/comment-page-1/#comment-12064 John Turner Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:35:41 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/#comment-12064 Per comment #6: very overwhelming... Per comment #6: very overwhelming…

]]> By: Brett D. http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/comment-page-1/#comment-12028 Brett D. Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:22:30 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/#comment-12028 I have to admire Ellis' high minded attempt at objectivity, but I find great worth in the act of declaring one's intentions from the beginning of their book. Nobody who has done an effective job of researching an individual for a biography will be able to mask their bias and opinion for long, so why not declare it outright. This said, there are certainly some bounds which good academics will impose upon the extent to which one allows that bias to influence their writing, but any scholar worth half his or her degree will follow those guidelines anyways. While I don't love all of the effects of postmodernism upon history, I do appreciate its liberating rejection of unrealistic objectivity. I have to admire Ellis’ high minded attempt at objectivity, but I find great worth in the act of declaring one’s intentions from the beginning of their book. Nobody who has done an effective job of researching an individual for a biography will be able to mask their bias and opinion for long, so why not declare it outright. This said, there are certainly some bounds which good academics will impose upon the extent to which one allows that bias to influence their writing, but any scholar worth half his or her degree will follow those guidelines anyways. While I don’t love all of the effects of postmodernism upon history, I do appreciate its liberating rejection of unrealistic objectivity.

]]> By: Christopher http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/comment-page-1/#comment-12015 Christopher Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:23:56 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/#comment-12015 Religiously, Turner may not have much of a stake (although, as an evangelical, his writings on Mormon topics <em>could</em> very well affect him within his own faith community), but professionally, he has much at stake. He's a young professor tackling a rather overwhelming topic. Walker and Bagley don't have to worry about tenure, and Turner definetely does. He has an academic reputation (off to a great start with his first book being published by a major press and receiving excellent reviews) to protect, and how his bio is received and reviewed by the larger historical community and the Mormon historical community is seemingly crucial to his academic credibility. Religiously, Turner may not have much of a stake (although, as an evangelical, his writings on Mormon topics could very well affect him within his own faith community), but professionally, he has much at stake. He’s a young professor tackling a rather overwhelming topic. Walker and Bagley don’t have to worry about tenure, and Turner definetely does. He has an academic reputation (off to a great start with his first book being published by a major press and receiving excellent reviews) to protect, and how his bio is received and reviewed by the larger historical community and the Mormon historical community is seemingly crucial to his academic credibility.

]]> By: Ben http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/comment-page-1/#comment-12014 Ben Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:13:40 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/#comment-12014 Ardis: Point taken. Maybe he doesn't have <em>as much</em> at stake ;) Ardis: Point taken. Maybe he doesn’t have as much at stake ;)

]]> By: Ardis Parshall http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/comment-page-1/#comment-12012 Ardis Parshall Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:02:47 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/to-declare-ones-allegiance-when-writing-history/#comment-12012 Barring technical manuals, perhaps, *every* writer has a stake. Turner has a stake -- as someone who is not and never has been LDS, no matter how well he contextualizes he cannot really grasp what a believer does about Brigham Young. If he could, he would *be* LDS, officially or not. He may not overtly campaign fer or agin' 'im, he may very well capture the essence of a religious thinker/doer and the place BY holds in the hearts of Mormons, but that isn't the same as not having a stake. Barring technical manuals, perhaps, *every* writer has a stake. Turner has a stake — as someone who is not and never has been LDS, no matter how well he contextualizes he cannot really grasp what a believer does about Brigham Young. If he could, he would *be* LDS, officially or not. He may not overtly campaign fer or agin’ ‘im, he may very well capture the essence of a religious thinker/doer and the place BY holds in the hearts of Mormons, but that isn’t the same as not having a stake.

]]>