Since history is a very facts-driven discipline, it would be natural to assume that there is objective truth within it. After all, there are some historical truths that seemingly cannot be disputed such as:
William the Conqueror won The Battle of Hastings in 1066.
In 1605, the gunpowder plot was a failed assassination attempt by a group of English Catholics against King James the first.
The holocaust of World War Two led to the murder of millions of Jews.
However, even an event as well documented as the holocaust is still questioned by certain groups of people. Holocaust deniers dismiss all claims that the Jews were purposefully persecuted during World War Two or that the Nazis were in any way directly responsible for their deaths. They claim that the official Nazi reports documenting the murders were forged by people working for 'world Jewry'[1]. The fact that some of these deniers, such as the British historian David Irving[2], have been jailed for trying to spread their views shows that despite some doubt, the atrocities and existence of the holocaust is viewed by most as an objective fact which should not be challenged.
Consequently, it seems to be unquestionable that historical facts do exist. This leads us to consider whether facts can be considered as synonymous to 'truth'. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a truth is 'a fact or belief that is accepted as true'[3]. If we follow this definition, it would seem fitting to accept an event such as the Holocaust as an objective truth. Therefore, some events in history must be considered objective truths. Whether these facts and events are portrayed accurately is another issue.
History concerns itself with the study of the past, one which could not be replicated, and could therefore only be studied through proxies. These include both primary ones like first hand accounts, and secondary ones such as studies on particular events. While some positivists would argue that this would sufficiently inform historians about the past, as they would be able to reason and piece together the facts that forms the basis of their arguments, and put together a narrative; proxies are intermediaries, and win this case, non-replicable intermediaries. This leaves room for the perceived facts to be picked apart and challenged, no matter how convincing it may initially seem. As such, like statisticians, historians are inherently bound to accept some degree of uncertainty, just without a p-value attached to it. They coexist with uncertainty in their facts, biases, and agendas; and create work that tries to better understand history with these issues in mind.
Moreover, historical facts are interpreted and yet also presented as truth by historians. A marxist historian who believes that the Nazis have risen as a form of proletariat revolution, and the German people were betrayed makes value judgements that may be deemed totally invalid, yet others would consider it a school of thought to be given the same consideration as Jewish perspectives on the rise of Nazism being a result of anti-semitism. In this regard, what is considered valid and true in history lacks objectivity, and perhaps arguably, is rather arbitrary.
While many events have happened in the past, not all are given the same importance, and considered part of history. James Everest may have had a jolly ol' adventure in SOAS to explore their basement 20 years ago, while Christopher Columbus had one in the Americas 400 years ago. Yet while both are undoubtedly adventures, only the latter was recorded and studied in history. This shows how History selects its truths, sometimes with seemingly arbitrary criterion, and would be hard-pressed to claim itself objective.
A quintessential example of History's seemingly arbitrary whims would come more than familiar to feminists, as history focuses on the physical battles in warfronts, where a predominantly male experience is recorded in detail that are sometimes down to the second, while the predominantly female experiences of life and the impact of war back at the belligerent countries are ignored. While the records can be objectively true and impartial, it would be difficult to say that the history has been written objectively due to the biases and agendas that are embedded within the selection of facts.
The Bayeux Tapestry depicts the events leading up to and including the Battle of Hastings, which resulted in the conquest of England by William, Duke of Normandy in 1066. It is a 70 meter long piece of embroidery that was commissioned by a Norman patron. Because the commissioner was probably a Norman patron, many scholars originally believed that the work showed a pro-Norman account of the Conquer of England. However, an opposing view has been argued by scholars including Andrew Bridgeford:
“I would argue that the Tapestry is designed to please a Norman audience at a superficial level, while at the deeper level, it tells the same story as that put in writing by Eadmer of Canterbury: there are subtle pictorial clues throughout the work that consistently undermine the Norman version of events.”[4]
Even though the Bayeux Tapestry was described as a “unique piece of pictorial evidence of one of the most important turning-points in early medieval history and western civilization: the Norman Conquest,”[5] the noticeable and subtle forms of subjective storytelling obscure the true details of the event.
Censorship plays a huge role in the omission of truth in the study of history, especially regarding education. Censorship can thus be seen as a governmental tool to create an “official historiography” of a country, which in turn is used to push political agendas or to portray their nation in a solely positive light.[6]
One example is that of the Japanese history textbook controversy. The government approved textbooks hugely downplay the Japanese aggression and war crimes during WW2. This is seen as a nationalist attempt to whitewash the Japanese actions during this time. [7]
Although Japan can be seen as distorting the truth, the Japanese nationalists view that they have in fact apologised for their actions and that the Chinese textbooks are in fact guilty of presenting themselves as faultless in their side of history. Truth in the history of wars can thus be viewed as subjective depending on which side one was on, yet the number of fatalities and the stories of the victims of war are undoubtedly objective.
The use of censorship is not, however, always as evident. In Texas, a state in a seemingly democratic country, textbooks have been seen to devalue the role of slavery in the American Civil War.[8] This use of censorship, to hide the darker side of one’s history, is unfortunately difficult to tackle as the Board of Education argues that they do not view certain aspects as pertinent to the curriculum.
Owing to the nature of historical sources, their content cannot be taken to be objective truth. Sources include a mixture of bias, truth and hopes which therefore only provide one viewpoint on the history being analysed. By looking at a mixture of sources it is possible to get closer to an objective truth however it is arguably still subjective as the person looking at these sources creates their own narrative of what they believe happened, inevitably projecting their own opinion. These sources are still useful as they provide a different kind of truth such as society’s beliefs and dreams.
Some historians create differing narratives of history from the same sources highlighting how influential opinion is in creating ‘historical truth’ and that some areas of history cannot be seen as objective.
Even archaeological evidence, which some might view as objective evidence, can hold bias. For example, the stereotypical view of the Vikings is that they were violent barbarians. The preservability of certain materials plays into this truth as weapons made of high quality steal or even iron can survive until now whereas objects used in everyday life were predominantly made of wood meaning that they quickly decomposed.[9] Therefore, only looking at archaeological evidence in this case would reveal one small aspect of Viking life, violence, and not reveal the whole truth.
A hallucination occurs when, in the absence of external stimuli, an individual’s perceptions are significantly altered. A very strong and compelling sense of reality is felt by such individuals. The question of whether or not there is truth in this 'perceived reality' has several differing answers, depending on the perspective or discipline that is employed to examine it. [10]
What is the issue regarding truth and hallucinations?:
Hallucinations come from within one's mind, therefore objectivity regarding the subject can be difficult to achieve as the existence of hallucinations is based solely on a person's personal experience. As with all topics, there are different ways of approaching the subject of hallucinations, while a positivist view would present the chemical reality and a clinical psychological interpretation of the matter and an interpretive view a more person-centred explanation, it is also possible to look at hallucinations as a product of culture and social construct.
Chemical Reality:
Hallucinations can occur within a very wide range, which extends to the five sensory modalities (namely sight, touch, smell, taste and hearing), however, the most frequently experienced ones are visual and auditory hallucinations. [11] A recent study carried out at the University of Oregon found that after administering mice with a dose with a similar chemical structure to LSD, the mice experienced reduced activity in their visual cortex. This suggests that whilst there may not be 'truth' behind the perceived reality of the hallucination, there is, in fact, an empirical reality in the chemical, physiological and neurobiological natures of such experiences. The visual cortex is located at the back of the brain. It is responsible for processing all the information that is taken in by the eyes. This mechanism provides some evidence to possibly explain the genesis and chemical reality of hallucinating. For example, seizure activity in the brain can cause irritation in the cortical centers, which may lead to the development of hallucinations.[12]
A distinction must be made between hallucinations and illusions. The latter being misperceptions of real external stimuli. Essentially, hallucinations are seeing, hearing, feeling, or smelling something that is real but which are given an incorrect interpretation by the brain. On the other hand, true hallucinations do not include such incorrectly interpreted stimuli. Hypnagogic experiences are unusual perceptual experiences that often occur while dreaming, falling asleep, or waking up. These false perceptions include vivid dreaming or lucid dreaming. In summary, real hallucinations are mainly experienced as symptoms of either medical, neurological, or mental disorders (e.g. epilepsy or schizophrenia).
Certain recreational drugs can also induce hallucinations. The most frequently used drugs include amphetamines, cocaine, hallucinogens, lysergic acid, diethylamide, LSD, phencyclidine (PCP), cannabis, and marijuana. Visual hallucinations (sometimes referred to as lilliputian hallucinations), whereby individuals report false perceptions of animals or other individuals, have been closely linked to substance use. Withdrawal syndromes that arise from drug abuse have also been associated with this type of hallucination. For instance, withdrawal from alcohol, sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics. [13]
This suggests that overall there is some form of truth in hallucinating, even it is not apparent at first. The chemical alterations in your brain provide real, empirical evidence that a disruption of brain chemistry has occurred. Hence, hallucinations are symptoms of irregular brain activity and from this perspective can be considered to be true.
Mental wellbeing:
In terms of medical illnesses and wellbeing, genuine hallucinations have been most closely linked to delusion. If someone experiences a hallucination in the absence of such a mental illness there is a higher index of suspicion (that the hallucination is in fact, fake). [14]
Cultural influences on hallucinations:
According to Stanford anthropologist Tanya Luhrmann, hallucinations differ depending on the patients' cultural and social environment [15]. The approach in treating the patients in different places would also have an impact on hallucinations. Professor Luhrmann's research underlines an important issue in the treatment of mental illness in society, a univocal view of hallucinations as a clinical problem is not beneficial for patients as other factors influencing the origins of these symptoms are being overlooked.
Tanya Luhrmann stated that ““The work by anthropologists who work on psychiatric illness teaches us that these illnesses shift in small but important ways in different social worlds. Psychiatric scientists tend not to look at cultural variation. Someone should, because it’s important, and it can teach us something about psychiatric illness” [16].
Professor Luhrmann and other academics conducted a research project in which they interviewed 60 adults from places in the USA, India and Ghana who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia
[17]. The subjects were asked whether their auditory hallucinations were overall positive experiences or whether the voices were negative and violent. The Ghanaian and Indian subjects mostly assessed their conversations as positive, they talked to family members and divinities sometimes whereas all the Americans reported violent and harmful interactions. What may serve as an explanation of this is that in the US, hallucinations and schizophrenia is treated as a clinical dysfunction and is subject to social taboo. On the other hand, in non-western civilizations, the idea of spirits is more culturally accepted and socially, self-identity does not outweigh the collective as it does in western cultures. Therefore, Luhrmann's research shows cultural environment has in impact on hallucinations and therefore one definition, one truth, does not suffice in the treatment and understanding of hallucinations.
Conclusion:
Looking at hallucinations as influenced by culture presents some truth. However, if hallucinations are a product of our society and culture, we can question whether the scientific approach to understanding and treating hallucinations and the chemical reality explained in this article is the only truth. If external factors such as cultural influences (and the emotional state of the patient) can influence hallucinations then we can conclude that there is not one truth in the understanding of this subject, a positivist, constructivist or interpretative approach does not suffice. The issue of truth within disciplines is apparent as no truth is universal in the understanding of hallucinations.
Roland Barthes notes that a photography is not a lesser form of reality: “It is not at all necessary to break down this (photographic) reality into units and to constitute these units into signs substantially different from the object they represent the image is not the reality, but at least it is its perfect analogon, and it is just this analogical perfection which defines the photograph.”[1]
Photography is a representation of reality. It was invented to catch details and to be the most accurate to reality
Photography has often been use as a way to expressing and denouncing reality as it shows reality as it truly is. Many photographers, as Robert Capa for example took pictures of war to show the reality of its and to reveal the truth of this horrific acts.[2]
Moreover, photography has often been used as a historical proof of marking events. Since the invention of photography each marking event is captured to let a permanent illustrated proof, which stays in mind
"Migrant Mother", by Dorothea Lange, 1936Photography sometimes catchs a reality that we are missing at the naked eye, as for instance, a look, an emotion, a call for help. A photography that show the suffering and questioning and fears through a look is Migrant Mother, by Dorothea Lange, in which the look of the women reveals her sad reality and preoccupation, a look that was captured and that may have not been picked up if not captured.
Photography captures a moment, but a moment may not be enough to inform the viewer of the context or narrative behind what is being captured.
For example, a photo of a sailor kissing a woman. Many assume them to be lovers, however this requires a lot of assumptions to be made on behalf of the viewer. How do we know the relationship between the two subjects from this photograph? Do they know each other? What are the events leading up to this photo? Looking at truth from a qualitative and inquisitive perspective may be required and viewers should be skeptical. A relativist approach is important.
How is it framed? The photographer may be using a certain composition to lead your eye in a certain way. They may be trying to emphasise certain elements or tell a narrative but how do we know this narrative is true?
A photograph may not be enough to depict emotion. The temporal element of emotion is lost when you take a photograph.
Has the photograph been edited or adjusted in any way? Post processing allows one to alter reality entirely, distorting or creating an entirely new reality. Lens choice can also distort reality, creating fake perspective or optical illusions that may not be representative of truth.
Photography also modifies and influences the true and instant reality. Indeed, Roland Barthes notes that the human subject can be made less real through the process of being photographed. He notes, "Once I feel myself observed by the lens, everything changes: I constitute myself in the process of 'posing', I instantaneously make another body for myself, transform myself in advance into an image."
Photographs can be easily manipulated in the darkroom, as did famous photographer Man Ray
Photography, like all forms of art, has historically been a key tool utilised to influence the opinions of the masses.
Due to the propensity of modern humans to unquestioningly accept photography as a form of objective truth it has been seen as the perfect tool for propaganda by both democratic and authoritarian governments.
This can be clearly illustrated by examining two case studies from the 1930s, one from Germany and the other the United States:
In Germany, the Nazi Party were utilising photography to promote anti-semitism amongst the population. A key example of this is The Eternal Jew, an exhibition held in Munich from 1937-38 featuring 265 unappealing images of Jews. It was attended by approximately half a million people and was reported to have corresponded with a significant rise in violence against Jews.[3]
Through this, we see a prime example of what philosopher Susan Sontag spoke of as the ability of photography to ‘murder’ people by removing their humanity; those featured in the exhibition had no say in the way in which they were depicted.[4]
Meanwhile, in America images of the dire conditions in rural areas of the country following the Great Depression were being utilised in an attempt to improve support for Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. In order to achieve their political goal, only unappealing scenes were chosen as the subjects of these photographs.
US government photographers were instructed not to stage their photographs but, as Kathleen Collins notes, the presence of a camera almost always results in a change of a subject’s behaviour. This was highlighted by Dorothea Lange, the photographer behind the highly influential ‘Migrant Mother’ image, who revealed that “[the mother] seemed to know that my pictures might help her, and so she helped me”[5] by behaving in a particular way.
From these examples, it is clear to see that all photography inherently involves the manipulation of reality, whether conscious or not, and as such can be a highly powerful persuasive tool.
Truth in Psychoanalysis, a "science" or not
Come the 20th century, science gained a new angle of vision in viewing the human species. Indeed, with the birth of the movement of psychoanalytic psychology, humans were seen as being more complex than previously thought. The two major figures in this movement were Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung who shared and were divided on certain aspects. Both being authoritarian dogmatic people, their refusal of the theories other than theirs leaved this new science being little credible. Indeed, the element of truth in this subject was thoroughly debated by many. It was at first not even recognized as a science. Theoretically, a science is founded once it is given a method. However, in the case of psychoanalysis, no real method was given. It relied mainly on therapy, leaving this science mostly based on theories that had not been proved using a method. There was therefore no real evidence in any theory suggested by Freud or Jung, leaving this science weak with few followers compared to other sciences. Future theories will fail to bring the spotlight back again on this science as it will fail to be based on reproducible scientific experiments. In fact, Peter Fonagy, a psychoanalyst said himself that “the evidence base for psychoanalytic therapy remains thin”. This is delicate as therapy and modern medicine requires hard evidence. The only evidence Fonagy found was based on short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (which cannot be generalized to long term psychodynamic therapy) – brief therapy differs however from classical psychoanalysis, leaving this evidence thin.
Let´s focus this study on two main areas of study: child development and the human mind.
Child Development
Freud saw children under the Oedipus complex, urging them to kill the same sex parent and have sex with the opposite sex parent. This means that children are sexual beings from birth. Is there any truth in this theory however? Freud saw children under the Oedipus complex, urging them to see the same sex parent as a rival and have sex with the opposite sex parent. This means that children are sexual beings from birth. Is there any truth in this theory however? Obviously Freud didn’t get this theory whilst analysing children having sex with their mother or father. He rather, for example, separated participants according to gender, then again divided into three groups: participants in each group read some backstory about a character of their sex. One condition, the “oedipal loser”, the participant is a 6 year old child who walks in on his/her parents having sex. Another, the “spousal betrayal” implies the participant being an adult walking on his/her spouse having sex with another person. The final one, “control” the participant is a college student who walks in on his/her roommates making breakfast. The participants then had to give their attitude towards pornography. Regarding the “control” participants, men were seen having more interest in pornography than the women. However, the “oedipal loser” and “spousal betrayal” men participants were seen having little interest in it, similarly to the women. Freud concluded that the child aged between 3-6 is attracted to the opposite sex parents and sees the same sex parent as a rival. Fearing castration from the same sex parents, the child starts imitating the same sex parents. Thus, Freud gained support for his theory he claimed to be universal, about a child’s sexuality: the Oedipus complex. It encountered opposition rapidly. In 1929, polish anthropologist Malinowski demonstrated that in a situation where the father of the child is the mother’s lover and not its model (disciplinarian), the father son relationship was healthy. Another issue was that there was only one child case study: the case of Little Hans in 1909. Hans’s father even was a supporter of Freud’s theory, leaving this theory less and less credible. So overall, this theory contains some truth but has never found enough solid evidence to be applied universally. In fact, Freud overemphasized the libido influence.
Common sense takes for real what is immediately perceptible (eyesight, hearing, touching, ...) in other words "the sensitive world" that we can tell by our senses. Nevertheless, I know that my eyesight can be mislead so until when can I say that my senses can tell me the truth.
Platon, an athenian philosopher in Ancient Greece, wrote in his oeuvre La République his vision about truth. To illustrate his thesis he decided to use an allegory, the cave allegory. Envision human figures living in an underground cave with a long entrance across the whole width of the cave. Humans have been here since their childhood and have their legs and necks chained so they cannot move and can only see what is in front of them. Above and behind them, a fire is blazing to distance they see only their own shadows that the fire throw on the opposite wall of the cave. Between the fire and the prisoners, there is a raised way with a long wall that is used as a screen where puppets player show their puppets. They only see the shadows of the objects that are shown. To them the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.
Platon distinguish two worlds :
The "sensitive world" : knowledge by opinion, a reality that mislead, relativism, subjectivism, knowledge based on appearances (the cave)
The "perceivable" world : eternal, unchangeable, knowledge by essence, immaterial, (reality)
What we understand from this allegory is that we must detach ourselves from the sensitive world, because it is a poor, illusionary and fake knowledge.
The allegory compares the soul to a chained prisoner and the goal of this allegory is to show how human beings unchain themselves from the sensitive world to rise up to the contemplation of the "idea". The exit of the cave represents the rise of the soul towards the perceivable. There is a parallel between the alienation of the chained body and the alienation of the mind. The man is characterised as a puppet (doesn't know how to control itself, can't move by itself). Need something from outside to move.
There is two possibilities to exit the cave :
The prisoner goes out alone, he is blinded by the sun, it hurts his eyes and so he decides to go back to the world that he knows. Here, Platon criticises a sudden education.
The prisoner goes out with a philosopher. Proceed to a step-by-step education, he learns how to look at the sun, how to get used to luminosity. The philosopher is seen as a doctor who heels the souls.
The truth does't reside in sensations, it is made of unchangeable concepts that can only be thought of. Truth is designed and thought of, it can't be touched or seen, it can be reached only through the mind.
Platon seeks to put forward the universality of truth vs the particularity of opinions. To know we must free ourselves from prejudices and preconceptions.
