OBJECTIVITY AND THE GREAT MAN THEORY IN HISTORIOGRAPHY
OBJECTIVITY AND THE GREAT MAN THEORY IN HISTORIOGRAPHY

Summary/Abstract: The debate on objectivity and the great Man’s theory in historical writing is of remote origin. Prominent historians and scholars have adumbrated different sides of this debate. The objectivity debate questions the historian’s ability to present an entirely unbiased interpretation of historical facts and historical events in epistemology. It assesses the extent to which the historian resolves the “insider problems” in the reconstruction of a past which he (the historian) is a part of and also the degree to which the historian is influenced by his environment in the interpretation of historical facts. Simply put, objectivity in history evaluates the extent to which the historian reconstructs the past. The great man’s theory on the other hand interrogates the selective focusing of history on the activities and exploits of great Men. It raises the question of a complete and comprehensive history of mankind. Carr’s emphasis on Ceaser’s crossing the Rubicon while many had crossed it before Ceaser buttresses the selectiveness of historical events and the great man’s theory. This paper examines the notions and dialectics of objectivity and the great man’s theory in historical writing and provides an explicatory critique on both concepts reflecting the views of modernist and postmodernist historians.

• Details
• Contents