There is an interesting discussion among fellow public historians to clearly define their profession, as demonstrated in the NCPH article “What is Public History?” However, these professionals debate whether or not such a clear cut definition of this field can exist. This lack of a clear definition is illustrated in the Corbet and Miller article, “A Shared Inquiry into Shared Inquiry.” There is no set methodology for public historians; it is ever growing and changing as the situation requires. In this article the authors describe the novel method of working collaboratively with the public to create a successful historical exhibit; successful meaning the public not only enjoyed the exhibit, but also discerned the historians’ broader message of the exhibit as a whole. In other words, not only would the general public see the artifacts that they associated with their own shared memories of events, but also grasped the larger historical significance of said events in the larger historical context. The article sheds light on this problem of not only giving the public what they want, but also getting the historical message across to the audience. The problem with working with the public, as the authors discovered, is the public’s desire for a more personal history, one that is locally centered, that they can relate to. The historian’s objective however, is to relate that personal experience to the larger historical context of the local community and nation at that time.
As seen in Rosenzweig and Thelen’s book, The Presence of the Past, the general public desires a more familial knowledge of their past, with little concern for the big picture. Their study showed that while the lay public did actively pursue historical knowledge it was limited to their own desire to identify with their own ancestral past. The results of their study show the need for public historians to relate the public’s personal history with that of the larger historical context of the time. As Corbet and Miller’s article demonstrates, the lay public actively pursues those artifacts in exhibits that kindle their memories of a particular time and/or event. The challenge for the public historian is to encourage the public to go beyond their own personal history to see how it fits into the larger historical context of the time. According to Rosenzweig and Thelen’s research, the general public has a rather disconnected view of their national history. It is the job of the public historian to accurately and informatively engage the public to identify their personal past in the grander scheme of history thereby illustrating to them the tangible quality of history that they neglect to recognize due to their prejudice of “Capital H history.” This prejudice stems from inadequate classroom teaching of history in their youth. In other words, the problem with today’s lay public is that they have a poor understanding of “Capital H history” due to their poor experiences with classroom/textbook historical teachings in their youth. If today’s high school history teachers took on a more “hands-on” approach to history, more people could have a better appreciation for history that goes beyond their own personal history to that of the larger schemes of community, ethnicity, state, national, and world history. “Capital H history” would no longer be a list of “irrelevant” dates and names of long ago people and places, but something that individuals could relate to their own historical identity which they would then appreciate. The argument of these readings is that history needs to feel more personal to the audience it is being disseminated to in order for them to learn and appreciate the knowledge being presented to them. The public audience wants to feel a personal connection with the history they are presented with, not just hard, cold facts. As the Corbet and Miller article and Rosenzweig and Thelen book demonstrate, Americans learn more (or aspire to learn more) from a history they can relate to that is demonstrated through first hand accounts and personal artifacts, then when it is espoused from second hand scholarly research that has no personal touches that illustrate the human quality of the history that is being presented.
PWG Bridal Show- February 8, 2009
15 years ago
4 comments:
I agree fully with your discussion of Rosenzweig and Thelen's findings. It seems much easier for people to relate and engage with their own personal and family histories than to connect directly to their national or even community histories. And it is through their own personal experiences and histories that they have the ability to identify with the larger picture.
And isn't it interesting that even though museums and historical sites are listed as the second most common way to engage with the past, it is partly because people relate these museum exhibits and historical sites to their own personal experiences and personal histories?
I too agree with Nicole’s discussion of Rosenzweig and Thelen's findings on why people have disconnected on the bigger picture of Public History. The explanation given in the reading seems to be valid. People always seem to be interested in subjects in which they can relate to directly. This explains the reasoning on why people seem to engage more on areas of their own personal lives than to try and find connections to their national and local histories.
Kristen in her response to Nicole’s blog makes a good point when she stated that when people connect to their own personal experiences and histories have the ability to identify with the larger picture of Public History. When I read this it made a clear picture because people will always want to learn more when it becomes personal. When a connection is built on the past history is no longer being learned it is being lived. Public History is to me is history that can be lived as well as learned.
Public History though museums and other historical sites help to engage the public with their past. When history can be seen, heard, read, and interpreted by people in museum exhibits and historical it helps them to develop personal experiences which can lead to an understanding of their own personal histories and ultimately their public history.
As I was reading your blog, I couldn't help but note, as others have, that interest in public history has direct ties to personal interest and personal history. Rosenzweig and Thelen discuss this quite thoroughly through their case study in Presence of the Past.
Public History would seemingly have to be strongly influenced by the public opinion and it would make sense that the public would be interested in subjects that would relate to ther family history or their own personal interests. The question perhaps becomes how difficult is this in fact for the Public Historian.
Post a Comment