Should avoid the passive voice in an undergraduate history thesis?
I would say “yes.” As an undergraduate, it probably won’t be nearly as much of an issue. When I wrote mine, I didn’t care a whit for passive vs. active (but I was at a liberal arts history department, not a research one). When I went for my master’s, I got *slammed* for my use. All of the professors I dealt with raged against it to an (IMHO) obsessive degree. I’d say it can’t hurt. Ideally, passive should be used only when you want to stress the passivity or ineffectualness of something – which is rarely. Example: Poland was invaded by Germany vs. Germany invaded Poland. The first highlights Poland’s poor defense, whereas the second stressed Germany’s aggressiveness.
I would say yes, avoid the passive voice. There are very few sentences which are naturally passive. What Wikipedia is likely refering to is writing (particularly lab reports) in the natural sciences which do tend to use the passive voice constantly, in an attempt to pretend that experiments are not performed by people. There is no reason to use this in a history thesis.
There’s nothing wrong with the passive voice per se. Your goal should be to express yourself clearly and simply, without excess words. Yes, it’s a mistake to contort “I shall always remember my first visit to Boston” into “My first visit to Boston will always be remembered by me.” But it’s also a mistake to contort “I was born under a bad sign” into “My mother bore me under a bad sign” or “Clinton was elected in ’92” into “The electorate elected Clinton in ’92.” There are some people with no sense of style who put everything in the passive voice, either to boost their word count or to show off. If you’re one of those people, then yeah, avoiding the passive altogether will cure you. If you’re not one of those people, then forget about it — just say what you mean as straightforwardly as possible.
Each discipline has a style manual. Almost all writers in the humanities like the active voice. We like to know who did what, who said what, etc. Long verbal phrases– the book that was being read, The murder that was committed by John… sound ugly and vague. If you are in the hard sciences, you absolutely need to use the passive voice in lab reports and abstracts. I think it may have something to do with the hypothetical nature of writing in the sciences. So that accounts for the ambivalence in Wikpedia. About the only time the passive voice is charming, is when you are consciously avoiding naming the agent of an action. ‘ Mistakes were made. A gun went off. The price was paid by my wife…’ ‘My pay-check seems to have been spent’ I think things are more complex in the Social Sciences, but I know that many writers still prefer the active voice. (I wasn’t sure if you were asking how to avoid it. The best way to proof read for the passive voice is to look for the verb –actually copula
When the object of the verb is the most important thing – make it the subject of your sentance. In other words, use the passive. This is why the passive tense exists. So, for instance, I would rewrite the Clinton sentence as follows: Clinton won the election in 92. This is not the same meaning as the other sentance. The other sentance was about Clinton being elected – this is about Clinton winning the election. If you are talking about how Clinton won the election through his profoundly impressive presentation of his hair, sure, use this one. But if you want to say that he was elected because his opponent was a kitten eating lizard monster from outer space, use the passive. There is a meaning difference. But, as a history TA (and TAs are generally more anal than profs, since they don’t feel as confident about their marking) – my number one piece of advice for writing would be to READ YOUR WORK ALOUD. You will hear any the convoluted phrasing as unnatural, and be panting on any run-on s
