|
Stonehenge
(Click on image to see full photo and explanation) |
Contents
What is Public History?
In the previous topic, we considered definitions of Public History. It is very likely you found that if we cast too simple or sweeping a definition then public history ends up being all and any form of history other than that intended for all but the most narrow of academic audiences.
Professor Clark sought to influence public views of the past and his work was widely read by the public, but he always wrote and spoke from the position of academic historian.
Conversely, too specific or exclusive a definition can lead to some types of history being cast out of the Public History camp. For example, if we insist that public history must be history written or prepared by the public then we may find ourselves rejecting as Public History commissioned corporate histories, commercial heritage theme parks and semi-fictional TV history programs.
However, the commissioned corporate history may well be of interest to employees and customers of the business firm concerned. (For example, see Stephanie King's Gone to Gowings.) A heritage theme park may play a major role in educating (or mis-educating) the public about the past, as might also a popular TV program on a historical theme. To dismiss such historical productions from the Public History camp on account of a narrow definition based on how the history was produced is to reject important opportunities to interact with public understandings of the past.
The exchange of views provided by the Public History List shows that there are many who describe themselves as Public Historians who would disagree with an exclusive definition. Their central argument is that they, as professional historians, are producing history on themes of public interest for public consumption. Direct public involvement in its production may not be possible.
You might like to pay a visit at this point to the History Factory.
Is this public history?
In their introduction on their home page, they describe themselves as
Any comments? Make your comments on the Forum. Access the forum through the Communicate link, see panel on left
Who
owns the past? The use of the words, "production" and "consumption", suggest that Public History is a commodity, something that can be owned. And, something that can be owned can also be bought and sold - and stolen.
The simple answer is yes.
And herein lies a matter of particular concern to the Public Historian. Information presented about the past is invariably the expression of a point of view, or a discourse. There can, of course, be many points of view, or discourses, but not all may enjoy equal opportunity of exposure.
Dominating discourse
Michael Wallace discusses the question of dominating discourses in the context of the history of American public history. He focuses especially on the politicisation of American public history, on how the public presentation of America's past has become bound up with a conservative political discourse, namely the hegemonic discourse of American political culture.
Read
Michael Wallace, 'Visiting the Past', in Presenting the Past, ed. Susan Benson, pp137-164, in your book of readings.
You may like to test Wallace's comments on the lack of Black History at Colonial Williamsburg by visiting the Williamsburg Internet site.
This is not to discount Wallace's basic observation of the dominant white middle class discourse of such places. Colonial Williamsburg is responding to its critics and attempting to present discourses other than the original Rockerfeller-endorsed viewpoint.
In an ideal world, all voices have their place and all should be heard in Public History - Black and White, Rich and Poor, Male and Female, Aborigine and Settler.
Life, and Public History, is never so simple.
Even in communities where one might expect to find a broad consensus of opinion, differing views of the past will be found. However, the public acceptance of these differing views, or competing discourses, is not always easily attained. Weyeneth writes on how political events, including a murder, from earlier this century still divide the community of Centralia, Washington.
Read
Robert R. Weyeneth, 'History, He Wrote: Murder, Politics and the Challenges of Public History in a Community with a Secret,' Public Historian, Vol. 16, No. 2, Spring 1994, pp. 51-73.
You might also via the Internet access Centralia through its high school.
Can you find any mention of the events covered by the article on any Webs-site in Centralia?
The basic arguments made by both Wallace and Weyeneth for the public history scene in the United States of America are equally applicable to Australia. We may not have the Daughters of the American Revolution but we do have a National Trust whose ideological perspective on the past may not be all that different. We may lack a Colonial Williamsburg, but it may be that Sovereign Hill, in an Australian context, is providing a similar cultural re-assurance. We will explore these issues later in this subject.
Gender,
class and race discourses It has been a long standing criticism of traditional forms of History that it is written from a male perspective - and usually a white middle/upper class male perspective at that. Can the same criticism be leveled at Public History?
Anderson offers a good review of the situation in Australia concerning the presentation of women's public history, together with some thoughts on future possibilities.
Read
Margaret Anderson, 'In search of women's public history: Heritage and gender', Public History Review, Vol. 2, 1993, pp. 1-17. (In your Readings book.)
 |
Aboriginal gargoyle, Australian War Memorial.
See Flowers and gargoyles for further explanation. (Click on image to see full photo and explanation) |
Fair dealings on matters of gender representation in Public History, as well as proper attention to class and race, are issues upon which all who consider themselves public historians would be in agreement. When, for example, we consider pioneer history, a common theme in many Australian communities, we ought to consider the different stories of men and women, rich squatter and poor selector, incoming settler and displaced Aborigine. To do less is to ignore, even deny, important elements of the story of that community. It is true that the result is likely to be a history of competing discourses rather than of harmonious consensus. But, hopefully, in the blending of those many voices will be found the Public History of that community. Good Public History should reflect many voices not just the loudest voice.
Voices But, on this matter of voices, where do we draw the line? Who should be given the opportunity of contributing to the conversation? Historical understandings provided from the perspectives of gender, race and class are now readily accepted as legitimate contributions to Public History. As is migrant history, urban and rural and so forth.
Can we consider though a Gay Public History?
Wotherspoon argues the case for a Public History based on sexuality. Central to his case is that the gay community identifies itself as just that - a community. If we can accept the history of a town or a class as the Public History of a "community", why not then the history of a community based on its sexuality? Do you agree?
Read (This reading can be obtained from the supplementary booklet of readings, HST209 Supplementary Readings, which may be purchased through the Bathurst campus Coop Bookstore.)
Garry Wotherspoon, 'From private vice to public history: Homosexuality in Australia', Public History Review I, 1993, pp. 148-159.
Public History
Definition | Access the forum through the Communicate link, see panel on left |
Tutorial Topic for this week: At this point, you might like to reflect on your understanding of Public History in terms of the concept of discourses, voices and community as discussed in these notes and in our readings. Is an agreed acceptance of shared community an essential ingredient of Public History? Can we have a Gay Public History? How like American Public History (as outlined by Wallace) is that of Australia?
Finally, who do you think owns the past in Australia?
Post your thoughts and responses on the Forum.
| Access the forum through the Communicate link, see panel on left |
MediaWatch
As a member of the HST209 class, it is expected that you will make at least one contribution to Media Watch. Media Watch is where you report on matters reported in the media that are of interest to public historians. You are encouraged to report on local developments as well as those of national and international importance.
Students are welcome to post MediaWatch contributions from this week onwards on the Forum.
| Access the forum through the Communicate link, see panel on left |
CLICK HERE FOR ROBIN'S BOOKMARKS - This page provides links to websites of special interest to Public Historians. Get in the habit of checking it for new listings. You can provide URLs for this page as well.
