6. “One way to assure the health of a discipline is to nurture contrasting perspectives.

” Discuss
this claim.

Word Count: 1600 (without citations)

This essay will consider the prescribed title, “One way to assure the health of a discipline

is to nurture contrasting perspectives.” The role of contrasting perspectives in assuring a

discipline’s health is a point of ambivalence in many areas of knowledge, including history and

the natural sciences. Before this claim can be discussed, it must be understood through the

meaning of its terms. A “perspective” in history is an individual’s interpretation of fact that

forms the basis of a plausible historical narrative or theory. In the natural sciences,

“perspectives” are presupposed theories or inquiries about various phenomena in the natural

world that are then tested through experiments and studies. In history and the natural sciences

“nurturing” a perspective means creating systems and structures that allow for different

approaches and ideas to exist and be investigated within a discipline. Similarly, “health” is

universal, a discipline is healthy when new ideas are being pursued through the discipline’s

established methodology. Considering these definitions, and the claim’s implication that

contrasting perspectives are inherently valuable to a discipline’s health, a reasonable question is

evoked: To what extent, if any, is the health of a discipline assured by nurturing contrasting

perspectives? One view might be that contrasting perspectives are vital to the health of the

discipline, because they provide alternative approaches to study, increasing the potential for

more ideas to be studied. Another view may hold that contrasting perspectives do not guarantee a

discipline’s health, as polarized views on either side of an issue can cause deviation from

consensus, and thus impede the production of knowledge. Hence, it is my contention that a

1
discipline’s health is assured by nurturing contrasting perspectives, so long as those perspectives

share common principles of reality.

What is the nature of the relationship between nurturing contrasting perspectives and

methodology in assuring the discipline’s health? In history, contrasting perspectives follow

convention with the discipline’s methodology, providing a conceptual foundation for the

exploration of new ideas through the methodology, which is healthy for the discipline. A real life

example is the historical question of whether or not the Mau Mau rebellion was a catalyst to

Kenya’s independence from Britain. David Percox argues that while the Mau Mau had an impact

on Britain's eventual transfer of power to Kenya, by forcing the implementation of policy

reforms that temporarily alleviated Africans’ complaints and stemmed support for violent

resistance, it didn’t affect the political advances that gave rise to decolonization (80).

Alternatively, others like Hilda Nissimi maintain that the “Mau Mau of the mind”, the memory

of the Mau Mau, pervaded essential considerations of the decolonization decision including

racial relations, international power considerations, and constitutional negotiations, shaping a

liberal mentality that compelled Britain to grant Kenya’s independence (13). I read both works as

a starting point for a research project in my history class; these sources stimulated questions and

ideas that guided my research in different directions to find corroboration for the respective

arguments posited by each historian. This discussion doesn’t concern facts, but instead manifests

in a degree of abstraction, meaning it deals with the impact of events and facts rather than the

events and facts themselves. This abstraction relates to the methodology of the history

knowledge framework, as it is understood as an example of historical theory that has been

constructed out of available evidence using reason and imagination. These theories act as

foundations for further pursuit of knowledge. This is significant because, as demonstrated by my

2
personal experience, these foundations expand the pursuit of knowledge differently, according to

the alternative inclinations of the perspectives they originated from. Therefore, perspectives are

key to formulating historical theories that make history more healthy, because researchers can

use them to pursue more ideas.

Another interpretation of this question might be that nurturing contrasting perspectives

that are emotionally charged trivializes the methodology, to the detriment of the discipline’s

health. This is evidenced by an example in the discipline of neurobiology, an article concerning

the science of trans identity or “gender dysphoria”, which is the grief caused by a believed sense

of incongruence between assigned sex and gender identity. The main study discussed was

performed by Dick Swaab in 1995, as part of a wave of biological determinism that emerged in

response to groups that facilitated the spread of disproved “pseudoscience” that promulgated

“homophobic ideas about gay men and women”, suggesting that dysphoria and homosexuality

were afflictions that were potentially contagious (Barasch). The study was an autopsy

examination of the brains of transgender women in comparison to their cisgender (gender-sex

congruent) counterparts. Swaab observed that in trans women (determined male at birth), the

volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) -- believed to

be “essential for sexual behavior” -- was, on average, more alike that of cisgender women, a

finding that was well-received by society (Barasch). However, the fact that the brains of

transgender men were not observed in the study, in addition to the inadequate sample sizes

“muddied” the findings (Barasch). This example provides two perspectives: the perspective of

Swaab and his research team, as well as the original studies that his study arose in response to.

These perspectives, upon which these studies were based, were grounded in emotion rather than

impartial reason and imagination. This presents itself as an issue in the case of Swaab’s

3
experiment, the methodology of which was flawed in such a way that may have skewed the

results of the study to reflect a certain finding, as it did not adhere to the scientific method in

accounting for all variables. Alternatively, studies on the other side of the debate were later

debunked as pseudoscience born of anti-LGBTQ sentiments. This shows how political and social

views of researchers are conflated with their scientific perspectives. This is significant, because

such partisanships inhibit the process of dispassionate inductive reasoning to draw conclusions,

potentially limiting the accuracy of future studies and dichotomizing scientific discourse.

Nurturing such corruption of the spirit of scientific curiosity is unhealthy because it does not

encourage a genuine pursuit of new ideas through the standard methodology of the discipline.

What is the role of historical development in nurturing contrasting perspectives to assure

a discipline’s health? In history, alternative perspectives within the discipline revise and

challenge conventional narratives and beliefs, including more voices in the record and creating a

more complete account of history. As indicated by the historical development section of the

history knowledge framework, present preoccupations affect the study of past events. Looking at

another real life example, the Australian History Wars, this is evident. Various historians,

including Lyndall Ryan and Judy Watson, investigated the history of massacres against

indigenous ethnic groups in Australia perpetrated by the British in the 19th century, mapping out

massacre sites (Dovey 2). Evidence for this theory was collected from traditional media sources

and the oral histories of indigenous people themselves (Dovey 4). Based on their research and

mapping, they estimated over 500 massacres committed against indigenous people, compared

with fewer than 10 such massacres committed against British settlers (Dovey 5). However,

conventional history, the narrative that most Australian historians were taught from youth, is

denialist and downplays these numbers, with sourcing from British army officers or settlers who

4
committed the atrocities (Dovey 4). This is an example of historians challenging what has been

accepted, and in the process they were able to consult new sources and uncover well-

corroborated information. Considering this result, the aspect of history’s historical development

that states that present preoccupations affect the study of past events is clear. In the History

Wars, the new preoccupation is how historians are now trying to consider the accounts of

indigenous peoples in the accepted historical narrative, and are more concerned with the

inclusiveness of the record for every Australian. This newer revisionist view taken by these

historians is significant because they were able to jointly discover an abundance of historical

information that would have otherwise been left out of the record and largely unknown. Overall,

it is to the benefit of the discipline’s health that historical development is sustained, so that the

discipline can evolve in response to new ideas being pursued.

Ultimately, to what extent, if any, is the health of a discipline assured by nurturing

contrasting perspectives? The view that nurturing contrasting perspectives does not guarantee the

discipline’s health is valid, as radically different perspectives are counterproductive to pursuing

knowledge in any discipline. Taking the neurobiology example, proponents of transphobic

pseudoscience and Swaab couldn’t agree on basic biological facts, meaning they were arguing

their points from different spheres of reality, and the discussion didn’t move the discipline

forward. However, this should not be interpreted to mean that the existence of contrasting

perspectives is inherently unhealthy. On the contrary, it is also true that disciplines need

alternative perspectives on either side of an issue to cultivate diversity and magnitude in the

ideas being pursued in the discipline. Rather, it is emotionally-driven perspectives that should

not be nurtured to protect the health of the discipline, in order to preserve the discipline’s health.

More importantly, to assure the health of the discipline, contrasting perspectives must share

5
common principles of reality. When basic facts and stipulations on certain issues are conceded

by both sides, knowledge is more easily built. This relates to the Mau Mau example, where

Nissimi and Percox may not have agreed on the impact of the Mau Mau, but could certainly

agree on basic facts such as the events that took place, chronology, who was involved etc. which

allowed for a debate that expanded the discipline. Accordingly, I believe it to be prudent to

nurture perspectives that can reach consensus, through which civil discourse can occur, enabling

an open-minded pursuit of knowledge.

6
 Works Cited

Barasch, Alex. "Biology Is Not Destiny." The Washington Post, 27 June 2018,

www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/27/feature/seeking-a-

scientific-explanation-for-trans-identity-could-do-more-harm-than-

good/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.29a4959617d2.

Dovey, Ceridwen. "The Mapping of Massacres." The New Yorker, 6 Dec. 2017.

Nissimi, Hilda. "Mau Mau and the Decolonisation of Kenya." PDF file, May 2006.

Percox, David Antony. 'Circumstances Short of Global War': British Defence, Colonial

Internal Security, and Decolonization in Kenya, 1945-63. 2001. U of Nottingham, PhD

dissertation.