This article challenges Peter Novick's claims that truth and objectivity are not proper goals for historians to strive after. The author argues that, on the contrary, these ideals are morally and intellectually indispensable. The argument consists of an attack on several fundamental claims Novick makes: that history and fiction are barely distinguishable; that although there are such things as facts, it is easy to get them right and it is possible to construct whatever theory one likes around them; that historians should be honest not in the sense of being faithful to the truth (which, he believes, does not exist) but only in the sense of admitting that what they do is make up stories.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Reprinted, with additions, in Norman Finkelstein and Ruth Bettina Birn, A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth (New York: Henry Holt, 1998).
2.
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah . 1996. Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
3.
Kant, Immanuel . [1781] 1965. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Norman Kemp Smith. New York: St. Martin's Press.
4.
Lichtenberg, Judith . 1996. In Defense of Objectivity Revisited. In Mass Media and Society, ed. James Curran and Michael Gurevitch. 2d ed.London: Edward Arnold.
5.
Martin, Raymond . 1998. Progress in Historical Studies. History and Theory37:14-39.
6.
Mill, John Stuart . [1859] 1956. On Liberty. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
7.
Novick, Peter . 1988. That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession. New York: Cambridge University Press.
