Public History Readings

For Tomorrow's class, our professor asked us to read a journal article by Alan Brinkley entitled "Historians and Their Publics" found in a special issue of The Journal of American History on The Practice of American History. In it, Brinkley discusses the ways that historians have lost touch with the public and the ways that they have continued to maintain influence. He discusses how few works by historians ever reach out to a general audience, and that this is because in the academic world there is no reward for doing so. The complex and often dry language of many historians discourages non-academic readers from delving into these academic works. In addition, the specialization and fragmentation that has occurred in the historical profession over the last 30 years has lead experts to write about subjects that are not as interesting to the general public. Brinkly goes on to discuss the conflict of how to create a history that is user-friendly to the general public, without losing its academic rigor. He concludes with a warning about the important of historical knowledge for the general public and insists that historians must find a way to bridge the gap between the academic and non-academic worlds.

We were also required to read the first part of Ian Tyrrell's book entitled Historians in Public: The Practice of American History, 1890-1970. While not as engaging as Brinkley's article, in his first chapter, Tyrrell discussed many of the same issues that were discussed in Brinkley's article, though I am not sure that he is as optimistic about the position of historians as is Brinkley. In his second chapter, Tyrrell begins to dig into the issues and progression of American historiography. The text is slightly confusing, but shows a general trend of specialization and conflicts between academic historians and politicians. It discusses numerous journals and associations that emerged over time, first separating from the general public and then from one another by specific category.

The progression is very concerning for me considering that I would like to teach history at the college level and would like to be able to supplement the textbook with various articles and excerpts from monographs, but fear that students would really struggle for understanding within much of the opaque writing of many academic historians. Another concern that I have is that if those who are most qualified to be giving the public information about history are failing to do so, where are everyday readers getting their historical knowledge from? Should we really trust journalists, writers, and television personalities to be the only sources of history accessible to the public?