In literary and historical analysis, presentism is a term for the introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy when writing about the past.
The debate surrounding presentism in historical analysis is ongoing, with some arguing that completely divorcing moral judgments from historical inquiry may lead to a relativistic approach that fails to acknowledge the universal nature of certain moral principles. Balancing historical context with ethical considerations remains a challenge for historians and philosophers alike.
The Oxford English Dictionary gives the first citation for presentism in its historiographic sense from 1916, and the word may have been used in this meaning as early as the 1870s. Historian David Hackett Fischer identifies presentism as the ‘fallacy of nunc pro tunc’ (lit. ‘now for then’). He has written that the ‘classic example’ was the so-called ‘Whig history,’ in which certain 18th- and 19th-century British historians wrote history in a way that used the past to validate their own political beliefs.
Whig historians viewed history as a linear progression towards greater liberty, enlightenment, and prosperity. They believed that society was constantly improving and that the present was better than the past. Whig history often portrayed historical events as inevitable steps towards the ideal present, with a strong emphasis on the triumph of liberal and democratic values.
Today, Whig historians are known for anachronistically judging historical figures and events by the standards and values of their own time, rather than considering the context in which they existed. They also had a selective focus on political and constitutional developments, often neglecting social, economic, and cultural factors. Whig historians constructed a teleological narrative with a specific endpoint in mind, the triumph of their own political and social values.
Critics of Whig history, such as English historian Herbert Butterfield in his 1931 book ‘The Whig Interpretation of History,’ argue that this approach oversimplifies the complexities of the past and imposes a biased and presentist viewpoint on historical events. Modern historians generally strive for a more balanced, context-sensitive, and multifaceted approach to the study of history.
The Whig interpretation was presentist because it did not depict the past in objective historical context but instead viewed history only through the lens of contemporary Whig beliefs. In this kind of approach, which emphasizes the relevance of history to the present, things that do not seem relevant receive little attention, which results in a misleading portrayal of the past. ‘Whig history’ or ‘whiggishness’ are often used as synonyms for presentism particularly when the historical depiction in question is teleological or triumphalist.
Presentism has a shorter history in sociological analysis, where it has been used to describe technological determinists (those who believe that technology is the primary driving force shaping society) who interpret a change in behavior as starting with the introduction of a new technology. For example, scholars such as Frances Cairncross proclaimed that the Internet had led to ‘the death of distance,’ but most community ties and many business ties had been transcontinental and even intercontinental for many years.
Presentism is also a factor in the problematic question of history and moral judgments. Among historians, the orthodox view may be that reading modern notions of morality into the past is to commit the error of presentism. To avoid this, historians restrict themselves to describing what happened and attempt to refrain from using language that passes judgment. For example, when writing history about slavery in an era when the practice was widely accepted, letting that fact influence judgment about a group or individual would be presentist and thus should be avoided.
Critics respond that avoidance of presentism on issues such as slavery amounts to endorsement of the views of dominant groups, in this case, slaveholders, as against those who opposed them at the time. History professor Steven F. Lawson argues: ‘For example, with respect to slavery and race, historians, influenced by the present, have uncovered new data by raising new questions about racial issues. They have discovered, for instance, points of view and behavior among the enslaved that contradict older histories told primarily from the perspective of slaveholders. In addition to the various forms of resistance embraced by enslaved peoples, opponents of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries, including Quakers and abolitionists, objected on moral grounds to the enslavement of Africans.’
Critics further respond that to avoid moral judgments is to practice moral relativism. Some religious historians argue that morality is timeless, having been established by God; they say it is not anachronistic to apply timeless standards to the past. (In this view, while mores may change, morality does not.) Others argue that application of religious standards has varied over time as well. Augustine of Hippo, for example, holds that there exist timeless moral principles, but contends that certain practices (such as polygamy) were acceptable in the past because they were customary but now are neither customary nor acceptable.
Fischer, for his part, writes that while historians might not always manage to avoid the fallacy completely, they should at least try to be aware of their biases and write history in such a way that they do not create a distorted depiction of the past. Conservative critics have portrayed a trend towards presentism in modern historical scholarship such as The 1619 Project as reflective of a growing dominance of ‘woke’ attitudes in wider society.
The Daily Omnivore 
Leave a comment