- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:43 pm
#36038
Complete Passage Discussion
Passage A
The passage outlines the standards for objective historical scholarship, and argues that the focus on
historical facts is central to the ideal of objectivity.
Paragraph 1 Overview
The first paragraph introduces the ideal of objectivity and some of its presuppositions. Of these, the
author considers the distinction between history and fiction to be especially important.
Paragraph 2 Overview
In the second paragraph, the author makes a distinction between historical facts and interpretation.
To the objective historian, facts take precedence over interpretation, the value of which can only be
judged by how well it accounts for the facts. The author rejects the relativist view that events lack
fixed or absolute meanings just because they may have multiple interpretations.
Paragraph 3 Overview
In the final paragraph, the author describes some of the tenets central to the ideal of objectivity. In
particular, objective historians must separate themselves from any external loyalties, such as political
considerations, partisanship or bias, and instead adopt the role of a neutral judge. The judiciary
functions as a metaphor for the all-important qualities that objective historians should seek to
emulate.
Summary
As a whole, the passage is not overly complex. The author’s language is bold and persuasive; her
attitude—didactic more than introspective. She firmly believes that an ideal historian is someone
who places a premium on facts over interpretation, separates history from fiction, rejects external
loyalties, and avoids becoming a propagandist at all costs. A historian’s primary allegiance is to the
objective historical truth.
Passage B
The second passage focuses on the distinction between historical objectivity and neutrality. Authentic
objectivity requires making powerful arguments that take into account reasonable objections and
alternative constructions. Unlike neutrality, which repudiates position-taking altogether, the ideal
of objectivity is faithful to the complexity of historical interpretations and embraces the plurality of
human perspectives.
Paragraph 1 Overview
The first paragraph distinguishes historical scholarship from propaganda. This distinction requires
self-discipline, and helps historians reject tempting interpretations that contradict established
historical facts.
Paragraph 2 Overview
The second paragraph redefines the ideal of objectivity as compatible with strong political
commitments and inimical to neutrality. While detachment is still an indispensable means of
achieving deeper understanding, objective historians should take into account all plausible objections
to their arguments and appreciate a multiplicity of viewpoints. This, according to the author, forms
the “powerful argument” in which the ideal of objectivity is most compellingly embodied.
Paragraph 3 Overview
The third paragraph draws a sharp line between the powerful arguments of objectivity and the neutral
stance of a television newscaster. The newscaster is a particularly valuable metaphor, as it helps
elucidate a distinction central to the argument in passage B.
Summary
Overall, the author differentiates between objectivity and neutrality by suggesting that the former
requires historian engagement with multiple perspectives, whereas the latter abjures position-taking
altogether. Due to the highly nuanced and abstract nature of this argument, passage B is slightly
more difficult than Passage A.
Passage Similarities:
Both passages endorse an objectivist approach to historical scholarship, and believe that propaganda
is antithetical to the central tenets of historical objectivity. There is also a considerable agreement on
the need to abandon biased interpretations contradicted by the facts.
Passage Differences:
While the two authors agree that the ideal of objectivity is central to historical scholarship, they
define this ideal in vastly different ways. To the author of passage A, objectivity entails staunch
adherence to historical facts, leaving little room for conflicting interpretations of such facts. Unlike
the second passage, passage A demands that objective historians purge themselves of external
loyalties and develop an allegiance to colleagues who share their point of view. Objectivity is
synonymous with neutrality, requiring evenhandedness and insulation from political considerations.
By contrast, passage B regards the ideal of historical objectivity as antithetical to neutrality. Instead
of presuming that historical events have fixed or absolute meanings, objective historians should
embrace a multiplicity of viewpoints and accord respectful consideration to rival interpretations.
Doing so would make their arguments more powerful, not less so. Lastly, the author of passage
B rejects the proposition that objectivity is incompatible with political commitment, and has a
decidedly negative view of a historian whose only intellectual allegiance is to “fellow habitués” (line
53).
Passage A
The passage outlines the standards for objective historical scholarship, and argues that the focus on
historical facts is central to the ideal of objectivity.
Paragraph 1 Overview
The first paragraph introduces the ideal of objectivity and some of its presuppositions. Of these, the
author considers the distinction between history and fiction to be especially important.
Paragraph 2 Overview
In the second paragraph, the author makes a distinction between historical facts and interpretation.
To the objective historian, facts take precedence over interpretation, the value of which can only be
judged by how well it accounts for the facts. The author rejects the relativist view that events lack
fixed or absolute meanings just because they may have multiple interpretations.
Paragraph 3 Overview
In the final paragraph, the author describes some of the tenets central to the ideal of objectivity. In
particular, objective historians must separate themselves from any external loyalties, such as political
considerations, partisanship or bias, and instead adopt the role of a neutral judge. The judiciary
functions as a metaphor for the all-important qualities that objective historians should seek to
emulate.
Summary
As a whole, the passage is not overly complex. The author’s language is bold and persuasive; her
attitude—didactic more than introspective. She firmly believes that an ideal historian is someone
who places a premium on facts over interpretation, separates history from fiction, rejects external
loyalties, and avoids becoming a propagandist at all costs. A historian’s primary allegiance is to the
objective historical truth.
Passage B
The second passage focuses on the distinction between historical objectivity and neutrality. Authentic
objectivity requires making powerful arguments that take into account reasonable objections and
alternative constructions. Unlike neutrality, which repudiates position-taking altogether, the ideal
of objectivity is faithful to the complexity of historical interpretations and embraces the plurality of
human perspectives.
Paragraph 1 Overview
The first paragraph distinguishes historical scholarship from propaganda. This distinction requires
self-discipline, and helps historians reject tempting interpretations that contradict established
historical facts.
Paragraph 2 Overview
The second paragraph redefines the ideal of objectivity as compatible with strong political
commitments and inimical to neutrality. While detachment is still an indispensable means of
achieving deeper understanding, objective historians should take into account all plausible objections
to their arguments and appreciate a multiplicity of viewpoints. This, according to the author, forms
the “powerful argument” in which the ideal of objectivity is most compellingly embodied.
Paragraph 3 Overview
The third paragraph draws a sharp line between the powerful arguments of objectivity and the neutral
stance of a television newscaster. The newscaster is a particularly valuable metaphor, as it helps
elucidate a distinction central to the argument in passage B.
Summary
Overall, the author differentiates between objectivity and neutrality by suggesting that the former
requires historian engagement with multiple perspectives, whereas the latter abjures position-taking
altogether. Due to the highly nuanced and abstract nature of this argument, passage B is slightly
more difficult than Passage A.
Passage Similarities:
Both passages endorse an objectivist approach to historical scholarship, and believe that propaganda
is antithetical to the central tenets of historical objectivity. There is also a considerable agreement on
the need to abandon biased interpretations contradicted by the facts.
Passage Differences:
While the two authors agree that the ideal of objectivity is central to historical scholarship, they
define this ideal in vastly different ways. To the author of passage A, objectivity entails staunch
adherence to historical facts, leaving little room for conflicting interpretations of such facts. Unlike
the second passage, passage A demands that objective historians purge themselves of external
loyalties and develop an allegiance to colleagues who share their point of view. Objectivity is
synonymous with neutrality, requiring evenhandedness and insulation from political considerations.
By contrast, passage B regards the ideal of historical objectivity as antithetical to neutrality. Instead
of presuming that historical events have fixed or absolute meanings, objective historians should
embrace a multiplicity of viewpoints and accord respectful consideration to rival interpretations.
Doing so would make their arguments more powerful, not less so. Lastly, the author of passage
B rejects the proposition that objectivity is incompatible with political commitment, and has a
decidedly negative view of a historian whose only intellectual allegiance is to “fellow habitués” (line
53).
