Week 2: What is Public History?

There is a common theme present in the readings about the nature of public history and the importance of mediation between professional and personal/amateur history. Though public historians, in a simple and misguided explanation, must make academia’s history accessible to the public, their role proves to be much more complex and difficult. The readings focused on the many conflicts that arise between the histories of academia and of the public. Though the articles presented common approaches to working with the public and understanding their needs, it seemed as if public history remains a complex, trial and error field. The Corbett and Miller article focused on public historians having to share power and control of history with the public. In the same article, they discussed the problems of focusing on one demographic. Though Corbett and Miller discussed numerous instances of collaboration and shared controlled, they continuously struggled with full collaboration and reaching the goals of the exhibits. As the Rosenzweig and Thelen article and chapters from Glassberg illustrated, public historians must be aware of the public’s interests and the mediums in which history is effectively presented to them. Despite differences in their arguments, the article and chapters illustrated the immense interest the public has in history. In their survey, Rosenzweig and Thelen noted how amateur historians, or the general public, considered more activities to be history than the professional, or academic, historians. All the readings emphasized this idea in some way. It seems to be the overall problem between academic history and personal history (that of the general public). From personal experiences, history as presented in books and some professors was aloof, making it difficult to understand even in a classroom setting. I can sympathize with the public’s disinterest and aversion toward the exclusive histories of academia. After reading through Rosenzweig and Thelen’s exploration of what history means for Americans, I am curious on how public historians are to address the numerous interests of the public. I am also intimidated by the notion of sharing power, control, and responsibility with the public. I find it intriguing that public historians focus more on the needs and interests of the public, rather than exclusively researching topics of interests to themselves, the ‘trained’ historians. From the articles, it seems that the collaborative effort between historian and public results in a more accessible, relatable history. If done correctly, the collaboration can result in thought provoking dialogue. Corbett and Miller shared many instances where errors in sharing control and authority affected the overall success of exhibits to a specific audience. I look forward to learning more about sharing history with the public in a way that interests them and creates opportunities for discussion.