Bias in Historical Description, Interpretation, and Explanation

Debates among historiansshow that they expect descriptions of past people and events, interpretations of historicalsubjects, and genetic explanations of historical changes to be fair and not misleading. Sometimesunfair accounts of the past are the result of historians' bias, of their preferring one accountover others because it accords with their interests. It is useful to distinguish history that ismisleading by accident from that which is the result of personal bias; and to distinguish personalbias from cultural bias and general cultural relativity. This article explains what fairdescriptions, interpretations, and explanations are like in order to clarify the senses in which theycan be biased. It then explains why bias is deplorable, and after noting those who regard it asmore or less inevitable, considers how personal bias can be avoided. It argues that it is notdetachment that is needed, but commitment to standards of rational inquiry. Some mightthink that rational standards of inquiry will not be enough to avoid bias if the evidence availableto the historian is itself biased. In fact historians often allow for bias in evidence, and evenexplain it when reconstructing what happened in the past. The article concludes bynoting that although personal bias can be largely avoided, cultural bias is not so easy to detect orcorrect.