Objectivist Smobjectivist.

From Wikimedia

There are many and varied advantages to the wide availability of historical materials in digital form, and they should not be discounted.  I am, however, an unabashed skeptic.  While there is clear utility to the digital format, to whom is all of this material addressed?  To what purpose will it be put and how does that translate to an understanding of what has been, how it has changed, and what might be?

The big issue as I see it is the old debate over historical objectivity versus subjectivity.  I am not an objectivist; instead, I am a big believer in informed subjectivity.  Digital history takes a big step away from traditional notions of objectivity as it emphasizes the empowerment of a reader who is not limited to a single journal or even a dozen shelves full of them.  In moments the reader can access content that would have been unavailable to him or her just a decade ago, and the new mediums do not impose restrictions on how that material is used, shared or interpreted.  That is a sword that cuts both ways.  In a culture that still struggles with the implementation (or, in some cases the very conception) of egalitarian equality, wider availability is a welcome corrective.  But there are significant problems.

As the lay reader traverses the Internet, he or she makes few distinctions between The History Channel’s website and that of theLibrary of Congress.  Both are treated as though they were of the same standing and are weighed equally.  There is no real assessment of bias, context or reliability.  What the Tea Party says about eighteenth century American history is as valid as a historical monograph.  Wikipedia is the first place many go in search of a concise – and purportedly faithful – narrative of a historical event even though it is notoriously (even hilariously) inaccurate and poorly supported.  This is not to say that the collaborative aspect is of no value; it certainly is, but it comes at potentially significant cost.  The other side of that, however, is that important historical projects have the benefit of wider dissemination and perhaps a greater scholarly audience than they might have previously.  Much of the input I receive for articles submitted for publication comes electronically via email in just weeks rather than months.  Electronic mediums also encourage a dialogue that is notably absent from a formal letter of rejection (of which I have a growing collection).

Perhaps none of this is of much concern because objectivity is largely illusory.  In the end, the point may simply be that history is what we collectively understand it to be.  I would argue that hazards of subjectivity aside, there is no use in referring to an “objective” historical narrative, because no such account exists.  Even the best sources are not, of themselves, truth; they are signposts, written in the hand of an interested observer, that indicate an interpretation of the truth.  Even the most erudite historian has no choice but to interpret an existing interpretation that was, in turn, influenced by the observer’s perspective (itself a product of cultural factors).

And now, here is a picture of a bunny with a pancake on his head.  Interpret subjectively and liberally.