Contextual Focus on History - Essay Example

The Nature and Forms of Neutrality on the Areas of Knowledge: Contextual Focus on History and Ethics Introduction The extensive idea of neutrality and its integration within the context of the areas of knowledge and the ways such different areas are acquired may tend to be difficult but worth analyzing. In fact, a statement discussed by Temkin (2012, p. 491) shows that it is interesting to ask with the regards of neutrality, if the various areas involved in acquiring what may be rightful such as “sentient beings, space, and time”, will have to be viewed similarly or contradicting from each other. With this statement presented, it can be construed that neutrality really has a great connection prior to achieving rightfulness in a person’s way of thinking. Progressively, such rightfulness, in a person’s viewpoint, may directly be conforming to how a person has acquired knowledge and what areas such person value the most. In this paper’s focus, this is made in order to present the nature of neutrality while integrating it with the areas of knowledge. As chosen, history and ethics may be two compelling yet interesting areas of knowledge, which neutrality may be useful. The Nature of Neutrality Describing the nature of neutrality can be very broad. In the aspect of a settlement or resolving vague cases, neutrality can be very useful. According to Trujillo, Bowland, Myers, Richards, and Roy (2008), the idea and the presence of neutrality can be the primary arbitration for a situational dilemma at present times. Observing such statement, it can be understood that neutrality, at one of its core and basic purposes, is used to have an equitable or a fair-based comprehension on things during a situational analysis. On the other hand, the nature of neutrality can also be related in the scientific aspect. According to Goldsmith (2000) in his letter discussed in his own article, addressed to Professor Wolpert, he stated that the regards of the contemporary science will never be neutral as they are gathered objectively. In this statement made, however, this can be construed that the idea argues that the nature of neutrality, in a scientific point of view, may explicitly mean that it is structured unbiased and even-handed. Relating to the previous natural setting of neutrality in the aspect of settlement, the scientific aspect now connects as they both extend to initiate neutral or fair concepts. Two Chosen Areas of Knowledge As this paper progresses, neutrality can also be a cohesive concept to the areas of knowledge. Two of the compelling areas of knowledge, namely history and ethics, are both integrated to the nature of neutrality and its various forms. However, it may be difficult also to integrate neutrality to the two given areas of knowledge without taking into account their natures, as well. Also, it is very important to consider how to acquire these areas of knowledge. So as to provide this necessary information about history and ethics, as knowledge areas, the following are presented: History History is the area of knowledge considered, when referring to events or ideas that occurred or were conceptualized in the past. It studies events or ideas in its chronological order, seeks to trace their origins and examines how the event or ideas developed (Standler, 2013). Some scholars do not consider history as an academic subject, but instead, a method that is applied to gain knowledge of how an idea or event evolves (Edsforth, as cited in Standler, 2013). Individuals, who study History, are called Historians. Historians make an attempt to answer why an idea or event was developed by understanding the changes that an idea or event has undergone (Standler, 2013). They use varied approaches to study past occurrences to arrive at an objective judgment (Underwood, 2008). Some apply idealism and associate history with ideas while others maintain historicism, which sought to appreciate the independence of the past (Thol, as cited in Underwood, 2008). History is an important area of knowledge for it helps in understanding and embracing change. The history of ideas and events contributes to the changes, occurring at present. In order to figure out their relevance, the ideas and events that were conceptualized long ago have to be connected. Ethics Scholars attribute the right and wrong behavior of individuals to ethics. Ethics is an area of knowledge that is significant to sustaining order in society as it provides individuals an idea of what is acceptance and unacceptable behavior. It is a branch of philosophy that concerns human behavior concentrating on their rightful and wrongful conduct (Bowen, 2009, p. 1). Ethics sets out the standard behavior in, for instance, the workplace. By its very nature, ethics is the area of knowledge that answers questions criticizing individual conduct or behavior. Ethical studies focus on moral and ethical issues. Oftentimes, it seeks to answer questions pertaining to the positive or negative response of an individual to a particular situation that is ethics in personal context. This has to do with personal ethics or the manner of how an individual deals with elements such as discretion, obligation, honesty, loyalty and respect (Bowen, 2009, p. 3). On the other hand, ethics may also be studied in a social context. This associates the area of knowledge to the relationship of an individual with others with reference to the given circumstances (Bowen, 2009, p. 3). Forms of Neutrality Integrating History as an Area of Knowledge Neutrality in the context History can be associated with questions presented during an oral history interview. Oral historians make it a point to examine the background information of a certain topic in order to gain biographical information about the individual, who is the subject of the interview (Ritchie, 2011, p. 30). Neutrally framed oral history questions are often used in an oral history interview. The use of neutrally framed questions by oral historians is done so that the narrator will not be given a hint of what answers are to be anticipated. However, there are those who argue that the type of questions asked during these interviews present unavoidable bias (Ritchie, 2011, p. 30). That is because neutrally framed questions regarding the personal background of the interviewee indicate that he or she conceives the significance of knowing the instructions given to the narrator, which is an evident example of value judgment (Ritchie, 2011, p. 30). An example scenario of a history taking interview is between a physician and his patient. History taking involves a doctor-initiated question and answer arrangement. The outline of a history-taking question aims to make known the assumptions of a physician, as well as their viewpoint on the condition of a patient. The construction of history taking questions is a critical aspect of a history taking interview between a patient and his physician. However, in these scenarios, legitimate neutral questions are impossible to design, because the narrator already have an idea of what answers to expect from the interviewee. Forms of Neutrality Integrating Ethics as an Area of Knowledge Neutrality in the context of Ethics is also known as ethical neutrality. Ethical neutrality contradicts the assumption that morality can be achieved if decisions or policies are designed to guide individuals and not their personal moral principles, i.e. in public bureaucracies (Thompson 1985, as cited in Lewis & Gilman, 2012, p. 105). Ethical neutrality, for instance, in public service, is essential to attain unbiased public administration. However, it is not deemed similar to policy impartiality, impartial treatment, or nonpartisanship (Lewis & Gilman, 2012, p. 105). Instead, neutrality in ethics endures bureaucracy and changes it to a strictly regulated assembly line (Lewis & Gilman, 2012). It attempts to encourage an individual not to make their actions or decisions dependent on their own moral beliefs. Ethical neutrality in public service is, however, being criticized by some of its opponents. Adam and Balfour (as cited in Lewis & Gilman, 2012, p. 105), in particular, argue that it changes humans completely into technical beings, which deprives them of their humane characteristics in dealing with their managers and other individuals, whom they owe their service. Hence, an individual is dehumanized and are made to justify their actions based on the technical aspect of their professions. Since the individual is deprived of having their own judgment on ethical dilemmas, the essence of ethics is rejected (Lewis & Gilman, 2012, p. 105). Therefore, the idea formulating neutral questions in ethics, to justify the role of people in public service, is also rejected. Conclusion The application of neutrality to different areas of knowledge still remains subject to further inquiry. While some scholars recognize the conceptualization of neutral questions in the analysis of history and maintenance of ethics, these have not been fully justified. Indeed, it is difficult to ascertain whether a question is truly neutral or is only perceived as neutral. The integration of neutrality into history and ethics, although considered plausible, is also being criticized because of its negative impact on individual perceptions. The nature of neutrality in these areas of knowledge is still linked to biased judgment and is negated despite its existence. References Bowen, R. T. (2009). Ethics and the practice of Forensic Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Goldsmith, E. (2000). Is science neutral? Retrieved from http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/887/is-science-neutral/ Lewis, C. W., & Gilman, S. C. (2012). The Ethics challenge in public service: A problem-solving guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ritchie, D. A. (2011). The Oxford handbook of oral history. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Standler, R. B. (2013). What is history and why is history important? Retrieved from http://www.rbs0.com/wh.pdf Temkin, L. (2012). Rethinking the good: Moral ideals and the nature of practical reasoning. New York: Oxford University Press. Trujillo, M.A., Bowland, S.Y., Myers, L.J., Richards, P., & Roy, B. (Ed.). (2008). Re-centering culture and knowledge in conflict resolution practice, New York: Syracuse University Press. Underwood, R. M. (2008). Defining history. Retrieved from http://www.homesaustin.com/Documents/DefiningHistory.pdf Read More