Summary Of The Objectivity Question By Peter Novicks

Thomas L. Haskell’s issue with Peter Novick’s The Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession is the author’s views and opinions on objectivity. While Haskell feels that Novick and himself genuinely have the same passion when standing up for historical issues and practices, however, he states that the two share different views when it comes to the idea of objectivity. While he says that Novick feels that objectivity is “essentially confused” Haskell, on the other hand, believes that objectivity was a significant goal that all historians should look at (Haskell, 130). Novick, however, believes that objectivity consists of several different concepts. Novick comprised a list of assumptions, attitudes, aspirations,

Regarding this Haskell states that objectivity in the present “has precious little to do with neutrality, but a great deal to do with a cultural orientation,” and continues by stating that if objectivity were rooted in neutrality there, in his opinion, would be nothing to defend (Haskell, 131). While Haskell seems to feel that there are some bias viewpoints to objectivity and the history that historians write, Novick believes quite the opposite. Novick suggests that he believes that historians can write history itself from an unbiased opinion. He presents this by writing, “that historians, as historians, must purge themselves of external loyalties,” with this established Novick finishes by stating that historians ultimately, provide their loyalty to “the objective historical truth” (Novick, 2). Haskell continues to disagree with Novick’s view of objectivity as he defines the term as stating that it is useless to be neutral, and all historians write from the point of

Novick states that while the typical understanding of a myth is something that is considered untrue or factual. He, on the other hand, views the idea of a myth as being a tool that can back historical objectivity as it works to rid historians and history of bias views of an event (Haskell, 3-4). Haskell states that his problem with Novick’s view of the definition of myth and objectivity. While Novick feels that objectivity shows a flaw, as a historian way of viewing and writing history from an opinionated stance, Haskell states that his view on the way Novick views the “myth of objectivity” is nothing more than a way for historians to “professionalize their discipline, enhance their dignity, and maximize their incomes” (Haskell,