Gordon Wright (historian) - History As A "moral Science"

History As A "moral Science"

Aside from being a brilliant historian, Wright was also well known for promoting what he termed “moral science,” which was also the theme of his presidential address in an annual meeting of the American Historical Association in 1975. He argued that “ideological conflict and intense moral ambiguity” had been hallmark themes in the twentieth century and could be seen in major events such as World War II and Watergate. These themes raised the question of what role morality has in the field of history.

A revolution in the approach to history had occurred after the Victorian Era. No longer was morality taught, since morality was subjective or a figment of human desire for security, meaning, and order. Instead, the facts of history were given to students, readers, and other audiences, so they could then derive interpretations of history for themselves based on their belief system. Wright argued that “True, we have clothed our conduct in attractive garb: we speak of detachment, open-mindedness, tolerance, understanding. But beneath theses euphemisms, the critics say, abdication is the essential reality.”

Wright examined the effect this form of history had. He found it produced a “moral vacuum” and the Orwellian form of decency was extinct. While this might be understandable in less educated classes, he reasoned, those who have had a quality education should have learned from history how to behave appropriately. He was stunned that an event such as Watergate could happen, since the individuals involved had had privileged educations. Wright recognized that those who espoused this form of teaching thought that the historical facts would encourage morality; however, he points out that it has not and a new system needs to be created.

His solution was moral science. Wright believed that various interpretations and values could be given, thereby planting the seed of morality. This allowed the audience to consider morality and apply it as it saw best. He stated,

The central goal is to encourage to read, reflect, and argue about some sensitive issues associated with modern war. For example, can one distinguish just from unjust wars? Are there moral constraints in wartime on soldiers, statesmen, citizens? Do men fight because they are innately aggressive, or because they are socially conditioned to do so? Are modern wars purely destructive, or are they locomotives of history, that speed up technological development and social change? My role in all this is to set the agenda and then to prod and provoke when necessary -- definitely not to hand down obiter dicta.

Wright was well known for evoking, and provoking, ideas in others and challenging them to constantly improve themselves and their arguments. However, he also did not believe in attempting to force his views on others. In fact, he made it a habit of not giving his opinion unless it was asked of him. Though his belief in moral science has not been adopted by the greater community of historians, many respected him and his work.