When doing political science research, how do we know that one story
is not just as good as the next? Every historical school of thought
purports to provide a “true” account of its subject matter.
But contradictory schools of thought can not all be given equal weight.
While much has been written on the epistemological question of objectivity
in history, remarkably little work has been done regarding the practical
problem encountered by political scientists faced with multiple narratives
and historical bias. This essay develops a pragmatic method, which aims to
evaluate historical narratives according to their utility in solving
analytic and political problems. I illustrate the approach through the
case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, where multiple, conflicting accounts of
the “story” are vivid and copious. I conclude that while
historical objectivity is elusive, some narratives are better than others
at adjudicating both political science debates and
“real-world” political problems.Jonathan B. Isacoff is assistant professor of political
science at Gonzaga University (isacoff@gonzaga.edu). The author thanks
Jennifer Hochschild, Bob Vitalis, Ian Lustick, and four anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.