How do I get balance in my essay while still having a definitive conclusion?

Having a definitive, consistently-argued view is one of the most important features of a good history essay. However, a good essay will also consider other perspectives. Rather than viewing the task of balancing perspectives with your personal argument as a difficult task that might detract from the strength of your argument, instead try to think about ways those opposing views could help shape your argument, making it more sophisticated by adding nuance. Having a think about the wording of a question is always a good place to start; history questions are often not as black-and-white as you might think, and an examiner will be impressed by the independence of thought shown by students if they engage fully with the question and explore its intricacies, which automatically means that you are engaging with other perspectives. Let’s have an example to demonstrate this. In the question “‘The USSR remained politically and socially stable in the years 1964-1982 despite the policies of the Brezhnev regime’. Assess the validity of this view”, there is an immediate binary of views presented: 1. The USSR remained politically stable 1864-1982, or 2. It did not. However, a student fully engaging with the question will recognise a third element: whether this stability/instability was despite Brezhnev’s policies, or perhaps because of them. By engaging with this part of the question as well as the first, more obvious part, the student demonstrates nuance and a willingness to balance up a variety of viewpoints. You must come to a conclusion and argue it from the beginning, but holding this nuance in mind. For example, one perspective may be that the USSR did remain politically and socially stable, not despite but because of Brezhnev. You are therefore engaging with both parts: 1. The USSR did remain stable, and 2. This was not despite but because of Brezhnev. This view would be outlined in the introduction, demonstrating confidence and an awareness of opposing views. The first paragraph would then be explaining part of the opposing case, e.g that the USSR was not politically stable, but this paragraph will be concluded with a few sentences deconstructing the validity of this view, perhaps by explaining that while it may be true it may not be significant compared to other things, and why, e.g that dissidence was not significant compared to Brezhnev’s conservative policies-therefore adding in the nuance that is was due to Brezhnev, not despite him that stability remained. The second paragraph would tackle the USSR’s social stability in a similar manner, and the third (if you have time) may tackle either or both of these in a slightly different way; for example one paragraph may address social problems such as negative social trends like alcoholism, and another may address the social and political aspects of the “nationalities” question, i.e how the USSR treated their satellite states. All paragraphs will end with a brief deconstruction of why the original argument still stands, and the conclusion will sum this up, ending on the same conclusion as was put forward in the introduction. A considered, nuanced, and balanced essay is thus achieved.