This article explores the evolving debate among historians and theorists over presentism—the tendency to interpret the past through the lens of present-day values and concerns. Traditionally viewed as a methodological flaw or even a ‘sin’ within the discipline of history, presentism has recently been re-evaluated, with arguments increasingly highlighting its productive and even virtuous forms.
The paper sets out to clarify and structure the diverse landscape of presentism-related discussions by distinguishing between two central notions: present-centredness and present-mindedness. Present-centredness refers to the historian’s thematic and methodological ties to the present, while present-mindedness denotes distortions resulting from projecting contemporary moral and ideological values onto the past.
The article first explores how presentist approaches have been critiqued for leading to overly simplistic or progressive historical narratives, particularly through the lens of Herbert Butterfield’s criticism of the so-called Whig interpretation of history. Butterfield warned that viewing the past as a linear path to the present can obscure historical complexity and project modern motivations onto historical actors.
Attention then shifts to the contemporary trend toward writing history focused on the recent past, especially the 20th and 21st centuries. Scholars such as Lynn Hunt and James H. Sweet have expressed concern that this short-term perspective narrows the scope of historical inquiry and risks subordinating history to current political narratives. François Hartog’s influential concept of ‘regimes of historicity’ frames this as part of a broader societal shift in temporal experience, where the dominance of the present challenges historians’ traditional role as mediators between past and present.
In response to these critiques, the article turns to so-called virtuous forms of presentism. These approaches acknowledge the inevitable connection between historians and their present without compromising scholarly rigour. Motivational presentism involves choosing historical topics relevant to contemporary issues, while methodological presentism refers to using modern concepts and theoretical frameworks to analyse the past. Scholars such as Laurent Loison have defended narrative presentism, where the goal is to understand how the present came to be without assuming its inevitability or superiority. Lynn Fendler has promoted strategic presentism, which aims to destabilize seemingly natural contemporary categories by uncovering their historical contingency. Hasok Chang advocates for pluralist presentism, which encourages historians to explore forgotten or discarded historical paths as a way of imagining alternative futures. Descriptive presentism, meanwhile, involves translating historical concepts into modern terms to aid understanding, provided this is done transparently and without misattributing modern ideas to historical figures.
The article concludes that presentism need not be viewed solely as a threat to historical integrity. Rather than seeking to eliminate contemporary influences altogether, historians should cultivate critical awareness of their present-centred perspectives and use them constructively. This approach not only supports more insightful historical interpretations but also enhances the relevance of historical scholarship in contemporary public discourse.