Philosophers and Historians were once revered as the most learned of men (yes, up until recently, women would not have been considered historians). Perhaps one of the reasons the discipline of History has been in decline is because historians have an identity crisis. Since Herodotus, historians have been arguing with each other. If these arguments were limited to controversies in the field, that would probably lead to greater stature. But alas, historians have all too often felt the need to argue “who is ”qualified” to do history, rather than encouraging its place and use in society and actively encouraging the public to understand its’ value. Because history is an “art” – subjective and nuanced, it is hard to define and even harder to “credential”. Diminishing the ethereal intellectual aspect of “History” (capital H) by actually getting one’s hands dirty in menial tasks of ‘Digital History’, ‘Public History’ or worse by getting pregnant was definitely considered a threat at times by the Academy. (Burton, Gerda Lerner’s books, Alvardo or Hartman)
Ronald Grele asks an excellent question, Whose Public? Whose History? Do “academicians” have the right to control the discipline? Who is the public to whom the “academy” – represented by the American Association of Historians – addresses? What is this “Public” history when compared with traditional History? As so often happens with newcomers and minorities, Grele blames the victim “:
“but the debates over public history have not been taken seriously enough or have been defined in much too narrow a framework, so that these issues have not received the attention they deserve. This is the case for two reasons. First, those of us who currently work in the field have not clearly defined what it is we do, why we do it, and why it is an alternative to other forms of historical effort. Second, the debates have taken place in a historical vacuum” (Grele, p.41)
Grele claims that “Historians have always had a public”, but defines the public as the “‘broad, generally educated lay public’ by and large the literate middle class.” Some people argue that both (historians & the middle class) are disappearing. (Fukuyama) Public History has served as a unique role to convey historical ideas and preserve the artifacts of the past to general society, interpreting history where it lies, so to speak. Grele wants to prove the professional standing of ‘Public History’ and its credibility. (p. 45-46) He does his best to present another argument that attacks and divides the discipline itself in order to create space for a “specialty”. (p.47) He compares the structures of academic history which support critical debate and even radical thinking and then finds the Public History deficient. “Public History is caught up in role of creating a “public identity”, a consensus that everyone can accept and like children’s stories, is good entertainment, but not always factual or a framework for creative policy.
Denise Meringolo in Museums, Monuments and National Parks approaches the analysis of Public History from a more historiographic perspective analyzing why the field emerged the way it did. Meringolo effectively describing ‘Public History’ as a natural evolution and expansion that arises from the distinctive conditions of National Park Service and the expanding bureaucratic needs of government policy makers, as well as the need to preserve, protect, and interpret local treasures. New ‘fields’, like Public & Digital within the larger discipline of history, although often treated as ‘stepchildren’, have provided new and expanding employment opportunities for historians because of their ability to identify uniquely applicable skills, They have also impacted and changed the nature of the history that is being created. (Rosenzweig, Open Source). Therefore, careful documentation and understanding of specific tools, perspectives and historiography of each of these new sub-disciplines is essential. Recognition, programs and partner associations are “significant milestones”. (Meringolo, pxv) This structure helps other historians to focus attention on the content and contributions of a public perspective. These new forms give us a deeper understanding of the past – even if that understanding is presented in “field” terminology of ‘techno geek’ or “lay terminology’ of the general public. The real goal of public history is the same as History to create an understanding of the past and how the past continues to impact our present. Meringolo applies History to Public history. She concludes that the early practitioners, Horace Albright. Jesse Nusbaum, Verne Chatelain, contributed both specialized skills but also the ability to shape the values of History to adapt and serve Public space demands of tourism, preservation and recreation. (Meringolo, p. xxvi-xviii )
Dictel and Townsend in their 2008 Survey observe the economic power and expansion of the field, but discovered that even the practitioners did not really understand or identify with the title of Public Historian. (since Meringolo’s book was published the same year, I wonder if it would have had any impact on these practitioners?) I believe this study demonstrates the concept of the power of legacy beliefs and is an indicator as to why the practice of Public History is so crucial. We are a culture in the midst of dramatic change and we need desperately to broaden the understanding of change over time and bring to bear the lessons of the past. Newer methods have challenged the legacy belief of the discipline (reflected in Grele) that only the ivory tower will enable the intellectual distance to interpret the past without bias. However it is the newer methods that are expanding our perspective by allowing the inclusion of common experience to inform the interpretation of the past. We historians need to recognize that we too must change over time and that the most successful adaptations appear to be inclusive, rather than exclusive.
Notes:
Burton, Orville Vernon. “American Digital History” Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, Summer 2005 206-220. Alvarado, Alice (2012) “Left Out: Women’s Role in Historiography and the Contribution of Mary Ritter Beard,” Saber and Scroll: Vol. 1: Iss. 2, Article 10. Available at: http://digitalcommons.apus.edu/saberandscroll/vol1/iss2/10. Hartman, Mary S. Clio’s Consciousness Raised. Harper & Row, 1974.
Dichtl, John and Townsend, Robert B. “A Picture of Public History: Preliminary Results from the 2008 Survey of Public History Professionals.” AHA Perspectives in History September 2009
Grele, Ronald. “Whose Public? Whose History? What is the Goal of a Public Historian? Source: The Public Historian, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Winter, 1981), pp. 40-48 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the National Council on Public History Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3377160 Accessed: 21-01-2018 21:08 UTC
Fukuyama, Francis. “The Future of History: Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class?” Foreign Affairs Vol. 91, No. 1 (JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012), pp. 53-61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23217147
Meringolo, Denise D. “PROLOGUE A New Kind of Technician In Search of the Culture of Public History” in Museums, Monuments, and National Parks Book Subtitle: Toward a New Genealogy of Public History University of Massachusetts Press. (2012) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vk1kt.4
Rosenzweig, Roy.” Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past.” The Journal of American History Volume 93, Number 1 (June, 2006): 117-46 a.
