It is not easy to form a definition for public history. This week’s readings prove that there are different views about public history, but none of them offers a concrete definition. The article on the National Council for Public History (NCPH) website, aptly labeled “What is Public History?” attempts to resolve the issue, however, concludes with nothing definitive. Corbett and Miller’s article, “A Shared Inquiry into Shared Inquiry” describes the skills necessary for a public historian, but also does not provide a formal definition. Furthermore, the chapter from Rosenzweig and Thelen’s, The Presence of the Past, offers information about what the public views as history, but again, no definition. Therefore, it is necessary to address that any definition of public history needs to be as adaptable as the field itself.
Appropriately, the NCPH article provides the most usable definition for public history describing it as “a movement, methodology, and approach that promotes the collaborative study and practice of history; its practitioners embrace a mission to make their special insights accessible and useful to the public” (http://www.ncph.org/WhatisPublicHistory/tabid/282/language/en-US/Default.aspx). In other words, public historians need to provide the necessary access, be skilled historians, as well as possess interpersonal skills to interact with the public. In Corbett and Miller’s commentary to the NCPH, they disagreed with the given descriptions of public history as a movement and approach. If public history is not a movement or an approach then, is it a method? Greg Smoak, Associate Professor of History at Colorado State University, suggested that public history is in fact not just one method, but several actually used to engage the public.
The public is the topic of both Corbett and Millers article and Rosenzweig and Thelen’s chapter. While the authors of both readings describe the public’s role differently, what is clear is that not only do public historians have something to share with the public, but also the public has a role in returning the past to the professionals. Public historians study, document, collect, interpret, present and preserve the public’s history. While doing this though, they must interact and engage with the public in ways that other historians do not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jennie Amy, I find it interesting that you found the NCPH definition of public history the "most usable." It seems that none of the historians who were quoted from Cathy Stanton's article felt that the definition met the needs of public historians. Why did you think it was usable?
ReplyDeleteI really liked what you said about how the public has "a role in returning the past to the professionals." I think that point it spot on! Too often the public thinks the things in their attics are just personal artifacts, not "history." I think they are wrong. One thing I learned from meeting Eddie at the History Protocol is that without people willing to share their artifacts and mementos, there are no exhibits or archives. Great job on pointing out that the public has just as much of a responsibility in preserving history as professionals do.