Sam Wineburg in “Why Historical Thinking is Not About History” states, “The Internet has obliterated authority”. p.14 I agree the internet has contributed to the decline of authority and more significantly an “anti-intellectualism”. When one was faced with ‘reading books’ to gain knowledge, the individual chose the books and their use of time carefully. There was also a basic agreement that a common core (pardon the pun) of cultural literacy and history needed to be acquired. The ‘felt need’ to remember public names, facts and dates is completely erased. “Ask Siri” or “Google it” never seems to raise the question of who wrote the script for Siri or the entry we read. Even more important, the question of “why did this entry appear first” is not usually asked either.
While “facts” might always have been subject to ‘interpretation’, there were sources which were given authority or credence. Now a multitude of alternative explanations can be raised instantaneously and we exist in a political climate that confuses philosophy with character. What “we believe or want” always receives some kind of validation from the web; whereas critical thinking takes time, investigation and may not provide simple gratifying answers. ‘Founding Myths’ where “the Good Guy always wins”, may validate a position or make a group feel powerful or just; but often distort the reasons the ‘Good Guy’ was in conflict. To “counter” these trends; we have to move away from the fight! Rather than utilizing ‘polar debate’ or ‘authoritarian’ traditions, civic culture requires the development of “the questioning mind”. As Sam Wineburg indicates, this is the skill developed by ‘Historical thinking’.
A huge shift for historians is to take our ‘smoke and mirrors’ methodology and display it before and more prominently than our interpretations. ‘Scientific Method’ has been able (to this point) to effectively distill the core elements of a process or element, which because of the ‘repeatable’ process brought its own authority. The discourses of “the Arts” have relied on authorities rather than teaching their processes, because the volumes of material, effort and physical realities of access to sources limited their use. Digital tools makes access possible. It is possible to scale projects to promote a more accurate understanding of how accurate interpretations can be made. Utilization of historical methods in a few steps can debunk the “Feel Good” rhetoric that obscures the complex history of problems we face.
Wineburg’s “Digital Toolbox” is history’s ‘scientific method’. The worldwide web brings images and resources to the palm of our hands. Asking a few questions can help us distill the purposes of the messages we are examining. Sharing questions can defuse political vehemence and bring the public into the analytical conversation. We may all learn there that most of us are “good people”.
Wineburg, Sam. “Why Historical Thinking is Not About History.” History News 71, no. 2 Spring. 2016.
