It is an interesting idea. It seems to me that as historians, we seem to dwell more in the past. Very rarely do we venture into the what may happen in the future. Economists, in contrast, create models for the future. I would like to see more historians do what we do best, look into the past, but then use what we know to project into the future. Politically speaking, a lot of current political issues (health care, gay rights, etc.) can be compared to issues that past administrations have faced (social security, civil rights, again etc.). I understand the point that Ezra Klein makes about money. Most of the issues currently being worked through revolve around the budget. A country that is so much in debt has to conscious of where it spends its money. To that extent, I understand involving economists and think that its an excellent idea. But I also think that those of us who study history can and should take a more active role in making policy.
Since the 1970's the field of history has moved away from the traditional Great Men and War focus, and shifted, as Justin Fox mentions, to more cultural topics. Race, gender, sexuality, and ethnic studies are all vitally important, and still need to be looked at. But I don't want us to have thrown out the baby with the bathwater and eliminated the possibility that our voices will be heard when it comes to making important policy decisions.
So how does this play into museums? I think that, whether as historians or as museum professionals, it is our job to help educated the public about those decisions that have been made in the past, and how those impact what is being examined today. If the general public doesn't have a basic understanding of the background of these topics, how can they make an informed decision when they choose those who will represent them? Whether its explaining the process itself, as the State Historical Society in Iowa does with their wonderful exhibit on the caucus, or another museum that highlights the history of the GLBT community in the United States, we can help people see the connections between the past and the present. Are you up for the challenge?
Here is a video of the Iowa State Historical Society's Caucus Exhibit. Enjoy!
Here is a video of the Iowa State Historical Society's Caucus Exhibit. Enjoy!
You know, this is a constant discussion among my fellow grad students. Overall, I do agree that historians should take a larger role in politics. People should be encouraged to make informed decisions. While not the only reason, I think that the backlash of the culture wars has made many historians wary of entering the political arena. It did not go well, as you remember.
ReplyDeleteI do have some reservations about making predictions for the future like economists do. Building models that overgeneralize to try to make human behavior predicatble doesn't seem like the best idea. However, ignoring the present and future has also made many historians irrelevant to many average people. Well, there's that and then the whole part where many historians come out on the unpopular side of popular opinion on a lot of issues. (I'm not arguing that ALL historians have the same opinions. They're just often trying to be more balanced than black and white on issues.) I do think that historians should step up. Complaining that history isn't valuable to the average American and that people skew history to their ends isn't enough. Historians have to be vocal if they want to keep what they see as poor history from being the only story in the public arena.
Clarissa,
ReplyDeleteGood comments, and I very much agree. Are you familiar with the Center for the Future of Museums? http://www.futureofmuseums.org/ They actually work with trained futurists to forcast "not predict" the future of the field. They have a blog, and its a pretty interesting read. They focus more on the brick and mortar side of history and less on the study of it, but they still come up with some pretty interesting stuff.