“Relationism Vs. Objectivity: Reinterpreting Ethics, Bias, And Evidence In Historical Writing”

Abstract

Writing history requires sources, which can be literary, archaeological, or archival in nature. However, assessing the authenticity of these sources is a challenging task because every author writing these sources is inevitably influenced by a particular ideology. This ideology stems from the concept of relationalism, meaning the concept of history writing emerges from the relationship between the author and the event or hero (about whom history is written). This relational perspective in history writing begins with birth, and touches upon family, caste, religion, personal relationships, social, political, economic aspects, and even intellectuality.

When different historians present divergent views on an event that has occurred in history, the influence of relationalism can be clearly observed. In certain instances, it has been noticed that when the author shares a good relationship with the ruler, there is a glorification of the ruler, and conversely, when the relationship is not favorable, the author highlights the ruler's shortcomings. This explains why, even with a single event, one may find varied opinions from different historians. If the event is the same, how can the truth be multiple? This raises doubts about the authenticity of archival records as well, as most inscriptions are in the form of prashastis (eulogistic accounts) commissioned by rulers and written by their courtiers, with no criticism of the ruler.

Thus, relationalism has impacted history writing both positively and negatively, which the researcher will further elaborate upon with examples in the detailed discussion.