In 1989, a group of professionals from the worlds of historians and museums met in Indianapolis to brainstorm on better ways to connect academic historians and a larger public curious about history. This led to a survey which was conducted in 1994, and during which about 1500 Americans were questioned over the phone about their relation to history, events that have marked their lives, or ways they feel most connected to the past. A book eventually came out of his research, The Presence of the Past. Popular Uses of History in American Life. In a six-chapter long analysis, the authors present the results of their survey, largely quote their respondents and try to make sense of the information they collected.
The core of this study revolves around one central idea: the notion of popular historymakers versus professional historians. The former being a category of people that do not follow the academic path to construct their history, relate to or interpret the past. The research shows that people feel most connected to the past in family gatherings, or when listening to friends or relatives witnessing about historical events they lived through. People also would rather visit museums or historic sites than read books or watch movies on the subject. In addition, the respondents held a dual opinion on scholars or professors. On one hand, professors are thought to be rigorous in their research, reading primary sources and interpreting them. Therefore, what they state is very closely to what can be gathered from listening to eyewitnesses, or visiting certain places. On the other hand, however, some respondents consider professors to be easily opinionated and, therefore, wanting to defend one thesis to the exclusion of all the others.
The respondents of the survey seemed all to be interested in the past, and driven by a desire to relate to it, and use it in their lives. However, one wonders at time what kind of past the book and the respondents are referring to. Indeed, they did not seem deeply interested in conventional history, or a more general history. What these respondents were saying, is that they would use pieces from their own past, or stories from their families, or even sometimes their culture or heritage, and use that to construct their own history or future. What is described in the book feels at times as uniquely personal and often too self-centered. Yet, one wonders if this is really what the authors of the survey were trying to express. Moreover, is this really the only way people relate to history? Does everything have to be connected to them? Are they only interested in events or facts that they can associate to themselves, their present and their future? The message conveyed by this book feels two-sided. It is on one hand almost comforting to see that people are still interested in history, even though they usually do not keep a positive memory from institutional history classes. However, how is one supposed to comprehend this too often egocentric approach to the world’s history?
The six main chapters of this book, which describe the results of the survey, would not make much sense without the Afterthoughts. More accurately, they would leave a bitter and confused taste in the reader’s mind. After studying those chapters, they would just stare at the book, wondering what to do now; what it all means. The Afterthoughts bring additional information, some deeper analysis of what has just been presented in a very abrupt and condensed way. Roy Rosenzweig, for instance, elaborates on how important it is to find a collaborative terrain where professional historians and those “popular historymakers” could meet. What is most important in that article is related to the risks emerging from the study: a privatized past, and forgetting to embrace the world’s history in a larger way. History is not limited to personal histories, even though those stories are all important. There are larger structures at stake also; political or economic powers and interests, for instance. It is important to find a common ground, to reach what Michael Frisch calls “shared authority” (quoted p.181), which would lead to a better understanding and respect between both types of history makers. History cannot and must not be reduced to what can be immediately used by individuals; it must not become a product that people consume for their sole benefit. But history also should not remain enclosed in an academic world, alienating larger audiences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
You bring up an important point about "egocentric" history. A casual glance at Ph.D. dissertations or history books in general makes it readily apparent that historians concern themselves with topics they can relate to. In one sense, all history is autobiographical, because it is your own knowledge and experience which is responsible for determining how you interpret sources. It should come as no surprise then, and it should not be lamented, that amateur historians are almost solely interested in learning about what directly relates to themselves, what defines THEIR identity. I think the authors would point out that "we" professional historians have to latch on to this popular, personal interest in history and try to make sense of larger questions of identity.
I think you are right about the Afterthoughts section at the end of the work. Without this component of the study much what is explained in the first six chapters seem very disjointed and almost confusing. After I read your post it made me wonder how they could have incorporated much of the information from those pages into the rest of the work. As explained at the beginning the authors split up the chapters in the book and then chose to write seperate afterwards and it appears as if the work almost suffers due to that decision.
"People also would rather visit museums or historic sites than read books or watch movies on the subject."
I found this portion especially encouraging about how Americans perceive and learn about history on their own. Simply put, movies on historic events are so ridiculously inaccurate that it gives little wonder to why so many have a skewed perception of popular events in our nation's past. Even books can sometimes have a slanted message. But to know that individuals are leaving their living rooms and actively seeking monuments, museums, and exhibits speaks volumes as to the formerly misunderstood appreciation of history by the common person.
I agree with you about how much the personal history concept was pushed. At times the concept that people were very interested in their own personal history did seem to be driven home very hard, considering the amount of times it was mentioned in the text. I personally think a good paragraph or two discussing this phenomena would have been essential. Of course, like Michael said, this does follow the idea that people in general can become very involved in something they can find common ground with. However, the author's do make some concessions in discussing particular groups that seemed to demonstrate a desire to move beyond their immediate family. Such groups as African-Americans and evangelical groups were described as making an effort to connect more with the history of their community. although this does raise questions of what communities they meant. Was this more on the local or national level ?
Your post brought up a question I had been mulling over. Who responded to this survey? Was it only the people who go to museums, monuments, parks, etc? How many people got the survey and didn't care to answer it? How skewed were these results? Does history really play that big of a role?
Post a Comment