Avoiding presentism 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 presentist and thus should be avoided. Critics respond that avoidance of presentism on issues such as
slavery amounts to endorsement of the views of dominant groups, in this case, slaveholders, as against those who opposed them at the time. History professor
Steven F. Lawson argues:
Critiques of moral neutrality Critics further respond that to avoid moral judgments is to practice
moral relativism. Some religious historians, including
William of Ockham,
Robert Merrihew Adams, and
Philip L. Quinn, 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.) Others argue that application of religious standards has varied over time as well.
Augustine of Hippo, 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.
James H. Sweet wrote an article observing a "trend towards presentism" in contemporary historical scholarship and critiquing
The 1619 Project. Sweet's article sparked much commotion.
Dominic Green, among other conservatives, drew on Sweet's arguments to depict "the
woke mob" growing in influence in historical scholarship, while condemning Sweet for allegedly
giving in to the "woke mob" when Sweet apologized. (Sweet eventually apologized for what he called "my ham-fisted attempt at provocation", writing, "my provocation completely missed the mark". Writing for
The Chronicle of Higher Education, historian
David A. Bell responded to the debate in an article entitled "Two Cheers for Presentism". Responding to Bell,
Joan Wallach Scott observed a "moment of unprecedented attacks on the teaching of history", which "Bell misses". Nonetheless, she observed issues in not just overt defenses of presentism but also the opponents to presentism, while also fundamentally taking issue with "the recent debates on presentism" themselves. Scott wrote, "[w]hile we can all cite disturbing examples of students and faculty on the left seeking to censor what can be taught or even spoken, the concerted attack from the right — in the ultimate form of
state laws prohibiting the teaching of so-called critical race theory,
the 1619 Project, gender and sexuality, and other topics — are much more dangerous to [...] the practice of history". Historian
Keisha N. Blain responded to the debates: "Black historians have long recognized the role of the present in shaping our narratives of the past. We have never had the luxury of writing about the past as though it were divorced from present concerns." ==See also==