On Writing Biographies

Tags

I write biographies. A recent conversation I had with another historian and biographer reminded me that writing biographies is rife with bias.

As a career scientist turned historian, bias is a familiar topic. All humans are inherently biased. We’re biased by our upbringing, which includes whether born rich or poor, black or white, tall or short, Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist/[Fill in blank], and any number of other “environmental” factors. I grew up on the seacoast, so naturally I became a marine biologist. At least at the beginning. We’re also biased by our parents’ political leanings, if they had any, where we went to school, and, well, you get the idea. We’re a malleable species, guided by circumstances and experiences in directions we either embrace (usually) or rebel against (also usually, at least in some ways).

But bias is such a loaded word. Let’s just call it “perspective.”

You’ve probably heard of the parable of the six blind men and the elephant. Each man touches a particular part of the elephant and comes away with a perception of what is an elephant. None of them is exactly right because none of them knows the complete picture.

Which gets me to the conversation, brief as it was, which had to do with how various biographers dealt with the evaluation of Mary Lincoln. Mary was clearly critical to Abraham Lincoln’s growth as a politician, but how historians define “critical” is a source of contention.

I mentioned that there is an inherent bias we have as biographers. Our specific subject (say, Abraham Lincoln) is scrutinized for complexity and nuance while others in their orbit (say, Mary Lincoln) are treated as foils. Unless it is a particularly long and comprehensive biography, there is a tendency to mention other characters in passing, usually without the depth of understanding that is given to the main focus. This isn’t surprising. The biography is of “Person A,” and Persons B, C, D-Z play their roles, with the emphasis on how they affect the growth of said Person A. If you want in depth on Person Q, go read a biography of Person Q. If there is one.

Biographies of Lincoln dig deep on him and bring in Mary to highlight his achievements, often by raising Lincoln’s pedestal higher or lowering Mary to show the burdens he had to overcome. Biographies of Mary reveal her complexity and how Lincoln made life difficult for her. In Lincoln’s case, Mary becomes a witchy nightmare above which Lincoln rises to greatness. In Mary’s case, she had to raise a family alone due to Lincoln’s constant absences while on the legal circuit and his lack of engagement even when he was home.

The more comprehensive biographies of Lincoln do a better job of fleshing out more characters. The worst books caricature the non-Lincoln people, including Mary.

There’s another bias that seems apparent in how researchers handle the Lincoln/Mary relationship. Most biographers of Lincoln are male. They often consider Mary a mentally unstable woman who made Lincoln’s life unbearable, which makes him seem even greater. Both male and female historians have written biographies of Mary, and both male and female Mary historians dig deeper into Mary’s life than she would get in biographies focused on Lincoln himself. That makes sense (see “read biography of Person Q, above). The Mary biographies written by men, however, still tend to be more critical of Mary. Mary biographies written by women, while they do lay out her faults, tend to be more sympathetic. Both male and female Mary biographers cover the same material and rely on the same primary sources but seem to evaluate that material in such a way to reach different conclusions. Or perhaps just differently nuanced conclusions.

As a scientist, I was constantly reminded to leave my biases at the door. That’s easier when you’re dealing with numbers and facts, but even those had to be scrutinized for reliability (standard study, good quality control, appropriate statistical analysis). As a historian, I know that many of the “facts” are more debatable. We often must rely on third-party reminiscences in which the person is likely to be interjecting his own self-serving biases – perspectives – into their memories. I’ll dig into that issue in a future post, as well as how science and history have similarities and differences in how we assess data. Bottom line is that biographies are often more subject to the author’s perspective than we might like to admit.

So, what does this all mean? Mostly it means we historians have to be careful to consider our own perspectives as we evaluate the historical record. We also need to be wary of the blind men and the elephant problem, which can be partially solved by getting different perspectives or by collaboration. My science career was a good training ground, I think, for this.

But that’s just my perspective.

What do you think?

David J. Kent is an Abraham Lincoln historian and scientist. His latest book, Lincoln: The Fire of Genius, now available for pre-order on Amazon and Barnes and Noble websites. His previous books include Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World as well as two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.