The Problem with History-Blind Judgements

Should individuals of an earlier era be criticised for holding certain views that in later times would come to be considered wrong?  There is a crucial difference between someone who believes in what the vast majority of people at that time routinely believe, and someone who refuses to question an idea when many have begun to cast doubt on its acceptability.

 

It’s understandable why someone living in the 10th century BC might assume the earth was flat, yet anyone holding such a view in the 21st century would arouse suspicion about their capacity for learning.  Similarly, we would not chastise a European cartographer whose 5th century map omitted the Americas, but we would not excuse a 19th century mapmaker who displayed a similar lack of knowledge.

 

Our judgement of people from the past ought to be based on how far ahead or behind they were in comparison with their contemporaries.  Furthermore, one could be ahead in many significant ways while lagging in some areas nonetheless.  Newton, for example, is rightly considered a great scientific thinker who led the world in advancing our understanding of many aspects of physics, even if he subscribed to a few spurious astrological ideas prevalent in the 17th century.

 

Unfortunately, when it comes to the social understanding of other people, it seems that the level of comprehension that has been attained here and now is used by many as the standard to judge the moral quality of people regardless of what historical period they actually lived in.

 

There were people who were cruel and callous by the prevailing standards of their times, and their attitudes and behaviour should be frowned upon. Instead of celebrating them as heroes, they should be seen as contemptible figures.  However, there were also many who had grown up with assumptions common in their times about others with a different ethnicity, nationality, gender, religion, or social status, and even though they might have gradually discarded some of those prejudices through critical reflections, they did not shake off every last one of them.  Should they be singled out as vile reprobates, or should we recognise that they had managed to move forward in some areas, and the direction of travel of their ethical thinking was towards the further elimination of prejudicial thought even if they had not got there completely?

 

In fact, can any of us say that we have got there ‘completely’ in terms of thinking appropriately about everything that matters in life?  As the 18th century Enlightenment taught us, the key is to keep learning, reviewing, discovering, so that we may move forward from mistaken assumptions of the past.  So long as we are making a real effort to improve, and encourage others to do likewise, we should not be faulted for not eradicating all errors in how we think – if indeed that is ever possible.

 

Ironically, many leading thinkers of the Enlightenment have been attacked for holding particular prejudiced views at some point in their lives even though overall they devoted themselves to combating bigotry and dogmas on numerous fronts.  The problem with history-blind judgements is that all too often they savage those who were seeking improvement, and divert attention from the incalcitrant reactionaries who genuinely deserve to be censured.