…while there is no such thing as neutrality in the telling of history, there is such a thing as objectivity, and the varied interpretations of historical evidence are yet susceptible to generally agreed upon procedures of verification that allow us to challenge others’ reading of the evidence. You might believe that action X is a clear example of class struggle, but I can challenge you by looking at the evidence to see whether your interpretation is plausible, given the status of the evidence. I also argue that all histories are provisional in the sense that no one can give an exhaustive account of any past action, given the limited state of the evidence and the historians inevitably limited grasp of context as well as distance from the past. But provisional merely means limited and subject to refinement; it does not make all readings of the evidence equally valid, or equally unreliable. (Carl Trueman, Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of History)
I think that this best presents my ethos towards history and culture as it regards accounting for them and understanding. Couple that with my distinct dismissal of the validity and general usefulness of master narratives and I believe that you’ll arrive at a general sense of where it is I am coming from. Because the thin line between a narrative and a master narrative is the difference between truth and spin.