Bias and Critical History
By what information do we form our perceptions, opinions and future behavior? Psychologist point out that people are not entirely rational and rely on shortcuts called “biases” to make sense of information. One particular bias that seems relevant for a reflection of historical events and their impact on the present and future is called the “availability heuristic.” This particular bias relies on available and prevalent information to make judgements and is susceptible to how familiar an event or idea is perceived to be [1].
This cognitive bias came to mind as I read Nigel Biggar’s book, Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning. Bigger seeks to dive into the academic discipline of colonial studies and, to his initial surprise, a cultural position that is critical of the British Empire’s colonial present. Bigger summarizes this way, ““This unscrupulous indifference to historical truth indicates that the controversy over empire is not really a controversy about history at all. It is about the present, not the past”[2]. In other words, Biggar is not addressing a purely academic study of Britain’s past, but the very identity of the British people. He states it this way, “What is at stake is not merely the pedantic truth about yesterday, but the self-perception and self-confidence of the British people today, and the way they conduct themselves in the world tomorrow”[3].
The Challenge of Critical History
Biggar’s begins his book by recounting how he inadvertently stumbled into this controversial subject that, he admits, is somewhat outside his academic field. Yet, being trained in ethics and pastoral theology provides an unique perspective on how one can provide and judge the moral obligation and responsibility for the history of people and governments. This is the problem from Bigger’s perspective. Much of the work within critical history concerning colonialism is not merely an academic exercise, as it has far-reaching implications as it undermines the place of West in the global landscape. As Biggar states, “Thus, academic post-colonialism is an ally – no doubt, inadvertent – of Vladimir Putin’s regime in Russia and the Chinese Communist Party, which are determined to expand their own (respectively) authoritarian and totalitarian power at the expense of the West”[4].
Bigger has amassed plenty of criticism for his moral assessment of the past and present British colonialism. Central to the criticism is that Biggar is not an historian, to which Biggar replies that he is evaluating the moral implications of the history in question[5]. In responses to his critics and to offer transparency of his perspective, Biggars summarizes his positions as the following[6]:
- We ought not judge the past by the present
- Ethics are shaped by Christian conviction
- Human’s are basically equal – dignity
- People and Governments should pursue their interests
- History contains injustice
In his conclusion, Biggars summarizes the “evils” of British colonialism as “…brutal slavery; the epidemic spread of devastating disease; economic and social disruptions; the unjust displacement of natives by settlers; failures of colonial government to prevent settler abuse…”[7]. He goes on to conclude that none of these are as morally equivalent to the atrocities of Nazi Germany agains the Jews[8].
It is at this point that I wonder if Biggars is making the same critical error of availability bias that many of his critics are making against his position. Given the increases prevalence of critical history and criticism of past governments and social action against whole groups of people, many may uncritically assume the position of judging the past by the present. This seems to be the same tactic used by Biggar to argue against whole-sale judgement of the past British Empire by appealing to a resent historical atrocity. Essentially using the argument that the British Empire’s history is not as bad when compared to Nazi Germany. This does not absolve the “evils” but does invite evaluation, which seems to be Biggar’s point in making the comparison.
Conclusion
Admittedly, I was not familiar with the issues presented by Biggar and the past, present and future controversy concerning colonialism of the British Empire. I appreciated the critical examination of the complex history of slavery, land ownership and implications this has on the current global position of Western countries. I did find Biggar’s conclusion that history is morally complicated to be compelling. There are no simple solutions to the complex relationships and historical decisions made by past governments. That does not free present governments or people from critically examining the past, yet the moral implications must be considered in determining current and future obligations. The reality is that all empires are complex and space must be made to wade into the complexity of the history for the sake of the future.
1. Cass R. Sunstein, “Hazardous Heuristics” (University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper No. 33, 2002).
2. Nigel Biggar, Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning (HarperCollins UK, 2023), p. 3.
3. Ibid., 7.
4. Ibid., 5.
5. John Lloyd, “Colonialism and Its Discontents,” Quillette, February 6, 2023, https://quillette.com/2023/02/06/colonialism-and-its-discontents/.
6. Beggars, 8-12.
7. Ibid., 276.
8. Ibid.
About the Author
Chad McSwain
Chad is a systematic creative serving in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years, Chad is a professional question-asker and white-board enthusiast, who enjoys helping people discover their own passions and purpose. A life-long learner, he has a B.A, Philosophy - Univ. Central Oklahoma, M.A Theology - Fuller Seminary, M.Div. Perkins School of Theology at SMU and is pursuing a Doctor of Leadership - George Fox University. He is an ordained Elder in the United Methodist Church, currently serving as Lead Pastor of Whitesboro UMC. Chad and his wife, Brandi live in Prosper, Texas along with their three children, two pugs and a chameleon.7 responses to “Bias and Critical History”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Chad, great post. You wrote, “The reality is that all empires are complex and space must be made to wade into the complexity of the history for the sake of the future.” So true. Things are so much more nuanced than we often try to make them out to be. By what measure do we judge the past and should we judge it at all. What can we learn from both the positive and negative aspects of any historical empire?
Hey Chad,
I appreciate you highlighting the “availability heuristic” at work in Biggar’s work. He, as you pointed out, is admittedly not a historian. Though his work is robust nevertheless. However, the availability heuristic can work against him in that there are likely skeletons in the closet of British colonialism that he is unaware of. In addition to this, as you pointed out, Biggar puts forward five maxims. Three of them are particularly interesting: Ethics are shaped by Christian conviction,
Human’s are basically equal – dignity, People and Governments should pursue their interests. This final piece naturally creates competition to undermine the first two positions. Great work Chad!
Chad, Wow, you did such a great job meeting Biggar’s complex conversation with complex challenges and thoughtful observations. I really like your first paragraph and the way you related the “availability heuristic” to Biggar’s work.
I thought this quote was interesting, too: “What is at stake is not merely the pedantic truth about yesterday, but the self-perception and self-confidence of the British people today, and the way they conduct themselves in the world tomorrow.” It reveals Biggar’s motivation for writing (protecting his people), which sometimes seems to contradict what he says he’s writing (a true and thorough account of history).
Do you think you would recommend Biggar’s book to others?
Thanks, Chad!
Hi Chad,
I read your post and the comments from the cohort.
I agree with the comments that the cohort has shared. I am curious how you will answer their questions.
Great job!
Chad,
This stood out to me “There are no simple solutions to the complex relationships and historical decisions made by past governments. That does not free present governments or people from critically examining the past, yet the moral implications must be considered in determining current and future obligations.” I agree there are zero simple solutions to these complex relationships and past historical decisions.
Chad
good points:
“There are no simple solutions to the complex relationships and historical decisions made by past governments. That does not free present governments or people from critically examining the past, yet the moral implications must be considered in determining current and future obligations.”
I agreed with you when you said that you missed Dr. Clark for this zoom call. I missed his British voice. I think he would have given us some good insight.
“Bigger has amassed plenty of criticism for his moral assessment of the past and present British colonialism.”
What was a criticism that surprised you?