Hagiography - What is it and Why is it Problematic?
In regard to historical writing, hagiography refers to the biographies of revered individuals or groups, often focusing on their exceptional qualities, achievements, and contributions to society. These accounts seek to portray these figures as exemplary and almost larger-than-life, often overlooking their flaws and complexities. While such biographies can offer valuable insights into the values and ideals of a specific era or community, they are problematic for history students for a variety of reasons.
Hagiographies tend to present an overly idealized and uncritical view of historical figures, failing to provide a balanced and nuanced perspective on their lives. This lack of critical analysis hinders students from gaining a comprehensive understanding of these individuals and their impact on American history.
But what’s worse, hagiographies can perpetuate myths and legends, blurring the lines between fact and fiction. By focusing on extraordinary feats and ignoring more human aspects of these figures, these texts may inadvertently create a distorted narrative.
One example of a problematic hagiography in American history is the Parson Weems biography of George Washington written in the early 19th century. Weems's work, The Life of Washington, introduced the enduring tale of young George confessing to chopping down a cherry tree, famously declaring, "I cannot tell a lie." This anecdote lacks historical evidence and is considered more of a moral lesson rather than a factual account. Weems's biography, overall, contributed to the idealized and mythic image of George Washington, playing down his complexities as a historical figure and shaping a heroic narrative around him. I mean, then man had his virtues to be sure. But he was no saint.
A more recent example leaning into the hagiographic tradition is Carl Sandburg’s Lincoln, published in the 1920s and 30s, which was criticized for its uncritical use of evidence (though it won the Pulitzer…) and even more recently Bob Spitz’s Reagan (2018)
There is definitely value to reading these books - as I have…all of them. Still, they must be balanced with critical analysis and a broader examination of historical context to gain a more accurate portrayal of the individuals and events that shaped history.
Have you encountered examples of a hagiography in your reading? Comment below!