Geoge Bush’s election is a good example. First, we consider “elected.” The Florida debacle comes into play. Whether he became President by election or by judicial decree is very much under dispute in contemporary society, let alone posterity. Most who want to answer this question are supporters of Bush or do not support him—few are considered “neutral.” Was he “actually” elected? Who knows what the voters intended? That’s a factor of chads, dimples, pregnancies, vote counters, etc. Then there’s the theoretical debate as to whether any of that matters once the “process” has reached a decision (whether or not it corresponds to what it “should” have).

Next we consider Kennedy. What is “1963”? Why, a human (subjective) construct, of course. Some considered it the Year of the Rabbit. And then consider all those conspiracy theories…can no historian ever question whether JFK was in fact assassinated? Must they ignore the conspiracy theories that are well-known and which people persist in bringing up?

Now Napolean. What is “Russia”? Why, another social construct. It’s boundaries change, due to shifting geographical features, military action, diplomatic agreements, etc. Once we (subjectively) define things, then we can (sometimes apparently objectively) say what events meet our (subjective) definitions.

In other words, things really happen. But our understanding of them is skewed by our language, culture, and social positioning. This is what I understand to be Wright’s “critical realism.” The Modern solution to bias is to pursue neutral objectivity; the Postmodern solution is to seek agreement from people with diverse biases—languages, cultures, and social positions.