In today’s blog I wanted to focus on a concept that most people fall victim to when writing about the past (history). Presentism, the historical fallacy or problem area, applies when writing about general history or trying to write about our family. Don’t try to sugar coat (cover-up) the actions of the ancestors you don’t agree with.
Presentism is a historical term meaning judging past actions by today’s standards, or uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts. We all too often color history with the lens of our current prejudices. Remember, attitudes and cultural values have changed over time. Try not to make excuses for the past.
In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past.
Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy in historical writing.
Now for Then — Nunc pro Tunc
The Oxford English dictionary gives the first citation for presentism in its historiographic sense in 1916, and the word may have been used in this meaning as early as the 1870s. The historian David Hackett Fischer in his book Historian’s Fallacies, Toward a Logic of Historic Thought, identifies presentism as a fallacy also known as the “fallacy of “nunc pro tunc.” It is the mistaken idea that the proper way to do history is to prune away the dead branches of the past, and to preserve the green buds and twigs which have grown into the dark forest of our contemporary world.
Fischer has written that the “classic example” of presentism was the so-called “Whig history,” in which certain 18th- and 19th-century British historians wrote history in a way that used the past to validate their own political beliefs.
This interpretation was presentism because it did not depict the past in objective historical context but instead viewed history only through the lens of contemporary Whig beliefs. In this kind of approach, which emphasizes the relevance of history to the present, things that do not seem relevant receive little attention, which results in a misleading portrayal of the past. “Whig history” or “whiggishness” are often used as synonyms for presentism, particularly when the historical depiction in question is teleological or triumphalist.
History differs from fiction in offering not truth-likeness or truth to life, but truth itself; not what might or could have happened, but what did.
Studying Women’s rights is a good example. The rights of women have changed dramatically over the past 100 years. During the nineteenth century women could not vote and by today’s standards were considered second-class citizens. Slowly they received more and more respect — they could vote and own property. What did the founding fathers really intend? It has been debated for decades, but if historians try to apply their current values and beliefs, arguments and disagreements are all that result. Just accept your ancestors with all of their beliefs and value their accomplishments.
Just Describe What Happened
Presentism is also a factor in the problematic question of history and moral judgments. Among historians, the orthodox view may be that reading modern notions of morality into the past is to commit the error of presentism. To avoid this, historians restrict themselves to describing what happened and attempt to refrain from using language that passes judgment. For example, when writing history about slavery in an era when the practice was widely accepted, letting that fact influence judgment about a group or individual would be presentistism and thus should be avoided.
Critics respond that to avoid moral judgments is to practice moral relativism, a controversial idea. Some religious historians argue that morality is timeless, having been established by God. They say it is not anachronistic to apply timeless standards to the past. (In this view, while mores may change, morality does not.)
Customary and Acceptable Then — But Not Now
Others argue that application of religious standards has varied over time as well. Saint Augustine, for example, holds that there exist timeless moral principles, but contends that certain practices (such as polygamy) were acceptable in the past because they were customary but now are neither customary nor acceptable.
Fischer, for his part, writes that while historians might not always manage to avoid the fallacy completely, they should at least try to be aware of their biases and write history in such a way that they do not create a distorted depiction of the past.
Our ancestors were a part of the time they lived — not our own time.
I was surprised to find a term for this, thank you. This seems particularly relevant right now with groups toppling statues of those they deem historically unacceptable.
Exactly what I am trying to explain in this time of civil unrest in 2020. We need to consider the accurate context of the culture at the time the leaders and heroes of our country’s history lived. We have statues ripped down today, of people whose lives were seriously scrutinized to be worthy of a huge very expensive monument at the time they were erected. Students of history need the entire picture of how and why these individuals thrived and excelled in the context of the environment of the era and their personal lives. The current issue is universal negativity to slavery. Every person, otherwise having heroic attributes, that was a slave owner and had a statue erected in their era, is a target to be torn down. During their era, slavery was accepted, and not as a conscious wrong. Many of the people inherited slaves with large plantations. Many loved and treated them well. Of course mistreatment is not acceptable. At that time slaves were considered the most viable and capable work force. Many were not educated to do anything else. Many of the slave owners were actively trying to change the culture they were born into, by working to educate and bring an end to slavery. Heros who lived during that evolving era, are now being harshly judged by the standards of our current culture, a hundred years post emancipation and total intolerance of any form of slavery.
Thanks, this message is quite important in today’s world, the news is filled with people practicing presentism.
A great article that needs mentioning now for people not to judge past acceptable practices by today’s standards. Changes in morality evolves very slowly over time.
Why do people have such a problem understanding this. Times change, people change, beliefs change so many things change. Learn from our history to make better choices but don’t make the mistake of applying today’s standards to past conditions.
It’s actually a nice and helpful piece of information. I am glad that
you just shared this helpful info with us. Please keep us up to date like this.
Thank you for sharing.
I feel it must be very difficult not to view history using a modern view, because that is the only view we truly know how to use. I feel our brains are made to view events with modern views, because it is all our brains know. I also don’t feel the modern view would be judgmental so much as more so educated. Don’t get me wrong I completely understand getting the facts, the events, the history of an event. But am I wrong by saying a major job of a historian is to provide that information for generations to come not to waste their time trying to do the same old things?