Presentism

{{historynav}}{{logicnav}}
'''Presentism''' can refer to either a style of [[argumentation]] or [[philosophical]] position, depending on the context in which it's used. 

In history and sociology, presentism describes when the ideas of the present unduly inform perspectives on the events of the past. The use of the word is pejorative.

In philosophy, presentism is the belief that only the present exists.

==History and sociology==
===Historical determinism and context===
In the field of history and sometimes [[sociology]], presentism is a style of writing or argument that can be [[fallacious]], depending on the circumstances. Most simply, presentism refers to, intentionally or unintentionally, writing history from a [[teleological]] point of view (or [[historical determinism]]) or reading primary documents outside of their historical context. The most blatant forms of presentism are [[revisionism|revisionist]], [[negationism|negationist]], or triumphalist histories attempting to justify the actions of a certain group or paint it as superior. Teleological forms of history like that of [[Karl Marx]] or technological determinism (the belief that technology determines history) and triumphalist [[pseudohistory|pseudohistories]] like those written by [[David Barton]] are usually characterized as presentist. Those extolling the [[good old days]] or a [[golden age]] inevitably commit this fallacy.

===Moral judgments===
Another common form of presentism is allowing present-day [[moral]] judgments to creep into characterizations of the historical figures. For example, you can dig up quotes from any number of figures active in [[civil liberties]] or [[equal rights]] movements that would seem [[racism|racist]], [[sexism|sexist]], or otherwise [[bigotry|bigoted]] by today's standards to paint them as crazy, [[reactionary]] [[wingnut]]s.<ref group=note>Abraham Lincoln, [http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html Charles Darwin], and Karl Marx are popular figures for this sort of thing.</ref> Historians remind us that people are products of their times and so must be judged within that paradigm (though what establishes the moral mandate that they must be judged on such terms isn't exactly clear). It is probably more accurate to say that historians are primarily interested in simply describing the events of history as accurately as possible, and providing moral judgements in one's presentation arguably distorts this aim. This is similar in part to the aim of antrhopologists who espouse a professional [[cultural relativism]].  

Some, especially [[politicians]], are often blamed for consequences of their actions that they could not have foreseen. This often boils down to legal-esque argument over whether the individual was negligent, short-sighted, or acting with malicious intent. In good scholarly historical work, like in law, it's imperative to separate the consequences of the action from the intent.

Similar criticism is levelled at fictional works made and/or set in bygone eras, such as with the Brothers Grimm fairy tale "Snow White" especially with the better-known [[Disney]] version where Prince Florian is seen in the finale kissing Snow White. Folks have argued that the "true love's kiss" is non-consensual, and whatever resuscitation attempt Prince Florian could done to the girl would amount to [[rape]].<ref>[https://www.instagram.com/p/CghnTIOu7U8/ No, kissing someone while they’re unconscious or otherwise incapacitated is NOT romantic]</ref><ref>[https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/experience/america/theme-parks/2021/05/05/disneyland-snow-white-ride-backlash-prince-charming-kiss-without-consent/4962154001/ Backlash over Disneyland's Snow White ride's 'kiss without consent'.]</ref><ref>[https://www.instagram.com/p/CqQnRbvjT0p/ Questioning inequalities in Snow White & Beauty and the beast.]</ref> Criticizing the creators for ''knowingly'' depicting rape as a positive thing can be called presentist; that being said that doesn’t mean we must therefore consume such media in the modern day uncritically. Doing so may allow the spread of harmful messages in the present period. There is a reason many people don’t simply watch ''[[The Birth of a Nation]]'' as if it is just another film, even if at the time of release it wasn’t viewed as problematic. In the same vein, much of [[Shirley Temple]]'s films are scrutinised by some who come into the conclusion that the movies the child star-turned-diplomat appeared in are little more than [[paedophile]] apologia<ref name="Fay">{{Cite web |last=Fay |first=Rua |date=December 11, 2022 |title=The Sinister, Untold History of Shirley Temple |url=https://www.cinemasters.net/post/the-sinister-untold-history-of-shirley-temple |access-date=2025-12-07 |website=Cinemasters |language=en}}</ref> by way of Shirley is seemingly presented—baby doll dresses, cherubic persona and interactions with older men—never mind the fact that applying contemporary societal anxieties towards children in a work that was clearly a product of its time flattens and pathologizes Shirley's legacy as an entertainer and speaks volumes about the mindset of those who see fetishism in Shirley regardless, case in point the now-infamous ''Wee Willie Winkie'' review where British author Graham Greene insinuated and painted a lecherous image of the then-nine-year old girl as a child sex symbol of sorts in what was supposedly a condemnation of Fox's marketing of America's Sweetheart.<ref name="greene">{{Cite web |title=Novelist Graham Greene reviews the 9-year-old Shirley Temple |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/menwritingwomen/comments/r898jc/novelist_graham_greene_reviews_the_9yearold/ |access-date=2025-10-10 |website=[[Reddit]]}}</ref> Shirley's filmography is indeed in some ways problematic, especially ''Baby Burlesks'' where the idea of placing toddlers in risque scenarios is clearly demented on part of the producers, not to mention the racist and sexist themes in some of the later Shirley Temple features, but at the same time, it would also be misguided to view her films as overly toxic filth with little regard to the standards and circumstances of the day.<ref name="Hatch">{{Cite journal |last=Hatch |first=Kristen |date=March 2016 |title=Shirley Temple and the Performance of Girlhood |url=https://academic.oup.com/jah/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jahist/jav701 |journal=Journal of American History |language=en |volume=102 |issue=4 |pages=1243–1244 |doi=10.1093/jahist/jav701 |issn=0021-8723}}</ref>

Of course, the ''accusation'' of presentism itself can be used as a fallacious argument. For instance, relativist arguments that "slavery wasn't viewed as evil in its day" ignore the fact that there ''was'' moral opposition to slavery back when slavery was present. Often militantly so, such as with the case of {{wpl|John Brown (abolitionist)|John Brown|.}} These arguments also ignore that there was a large group of people who believed that slaves should be free even if wider society didn't: the slaves themselves.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwUIDNYwZRY|title=The Cult of Tradition|last=Thomas|first=Leon|date=July 7th, 2020|publisher=Youtube}}</ref>

===The historian's fallacy===
The term "historian's fallacy" is sometimes used synonymously with presentism or considered to be a type of presentism. The term was coined by David Hackett Fischer to refer to characterizing the actions or decisions of historical figures as if they had access to all the information we have now in the present.<ref>[http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/104-historian-s-fallacy Historian's fallacy], Logically Fallacious</ref> Thus, it is similar to the problem with moral judgments as above. These could be considered a form of [[outcome bias|outcome]] or [[hindsight bias]]. This is more commonly known among historians as anachronism.

===Whig history===
[[File:Steven Pinker The Better Angels of our Nature.jpg|thumb|180px|[[Steven Pinker]] The Better Angels of our Nature]]
{{wpl|Whig history}} views the past as a march of [[progress]] towards the present age of [[liberty]] and enlightenment. Assuming that current political ideas were in fact held in the minds of prior figures, it cast those figures in the roles of heroes, people who laid foundations for the current status quo, or villains who opposed them. Whig history frequently appears in the historiography of [[science]], especially in popular works of the ''Microbe Hunters'' type. Scientists were either heroes, who are on the side of truth (as is now known), or villains who opposed the emergence of these truths because of ignorance, [[bias]], or clinging to power.

===Chronological snobbery===
[[C.S. Lewis]] coined the term "chronological snobbery" for a similar phenomenon in which intellectual accomplishments of the past are considered necessarily inferior to the ones of the present.<ref>[http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/47 C.S. Lewis on Chronological Snobbery] by Art Lindsley, C.S. Lewis Institute</ref> This could be considered a type of [[appeal to novelty]].

===History itself as a historical product===
Less commonly, presentism is sometimes used to refer to works of history themselves as products of their time. There is some debate between historians over what degree historical works are simply products of their time and if, in fact, this is inevitable. Thus, presentism is often unintentional as well as intentional.

===Not fallacious===
Of course, if you're marshaling historical fact to make an argument about the present, presentism is not fallacious. For example, making an argument for a certain policy based on history is obviously not a fallacy, but is not usually labelled as "presentism" as it's considered within the purview of political science or political philosophy rather than history, though the [[Howard Zinn|lines can often be blurry]].

==Criticism==
A criticism that is often held against the historian's claims of presentism when applying moral judgements is that it admits a type of [[moral relativism]]. Philosophers who espouse [[objective morality]] argue that whether or not a given act is morally acceptable or unacceptable is timeless, so it does not constitute a genuine cultural bias when moral judgements are made of historical figures. There is also the question of how far back or what constitute cultural relevancy when speaking to deeds of those in the past. At what point is something far enough in the past as for "present" moral judgements to no longer apply? 

Religious figures also object to the claims of presentist bias on the grounds that morality is a eternal standard established by [[God]], and so cannot vary throughout time. To say this is debatable is putting it lightly.

==Philosophy==
In the philosophy of time, presentism is contrasted with eternalism. Presentism is the metaphysical view that only the present moment actually exists, while eternalism holds that all events in time are equally existent. This is unrelated to the concept of "presentism" used by historians. 

==External links==
*[http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2002/0205/0205pre1.cfm Against Presentism by Lynn Hunt, American Historical Association] (history)
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#PreEteGroUniThe Presentism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia] (philosophy)
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=7_G2UumJCEQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false ''Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought''] by David Hackett Fischer

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Evaluating arguments]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Pseudohistory]]

Categories: Evaluating arguments, History, Informal fallacies, Philosophy, Pseudohistory