Interacting with the public

Much of your focus as a history major is on academic history–reading historical monographs, analyzing primary sources, learning the narrative of events that led to a war or new invention or a major social shift.  Too much time focusing on the work of professional historians might tempt you to think that historians just do history for other historians and so doing bad history will only affect a small group. But that is simply not true. There are several ways historians interact with the public at large. For example:

In history classes

While it is much easier to appreciate the necessity of, say, medical research in our daily lives, the reality is that historical scholarship is just as important because it is foundational to individuals’ identities, worldviews, and the collective consciousness of larger groups. Crucially, individuals’ worldviews inform their political opinions and choices; the consequence of such decisions, especially in democratic republics, is the adoption and promulgation of policies, ranging from domestic issues to foreign policy. Getting the story and analysis right is, therefore, a massive responsibility. Perhaps the most important “public”  which historians engage are their students. Most state and private universities require some type of history class for graduation, and historical surveys tend to garner the highest enrollments. These surveys are useful because they offer both a long-term and broad perspective to students. To carry all of this off, however, historians must be master synthesizers, integrating economic, political, social, and cultural histories into the classroom. At the same time they must be specialists, since they are also expected to perform their own research (contributing to our larger store of knowledge) while familiarizing themselves with the major primary and secondary sources in their area of expertise.

Through organizations

Upon first blush, specialization may seem needlessly obscure and, admittedly, sometimes the purveyors of such knowledge can come off as pedantic. Specialization, however, serves an important societal purpose. Most importantly, the insights and facts established by specialized monographs are the foundation for what students ultimately end up reading in their textbooks. By amassing a number of these monographs we are able to offer specific facts and craft larger narratives about certain issues. Historians are sometimes called upon to testify in court when context is needed trying a case, and their scholarship can also become central to a written court brief. Sometimes their expert knowledge can make the difference as in the recent SCOTUS decision Obergefell v. Hodges. The court’s majority decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out that social and legal aspects of marriage have changed over time, and to buttress this point he cited amicus briefs submitted by the two most important historical organizations in the U.S.: The American Historical Association and The Organization of American Historians. Additionally, lawmakers and executives at all levels of governance often consult historians when trying to understand specialized topics, or when they are wrestling with how to combat long-standing issues.

the internet (Social media, podcasts, etc.)

One of the gratifying aspects of becoming a historian is that you will over time begin to piece together your own worldview and opinions – all of which will continue to evolve. And, since historical training promotes specialization and persuasive argumentation, historians are well-positioned to extend those arguments to the broader public. While some historians subscribe to the notion that their job is to produce scholarship and then allow it to diffuse to the public via incorporation into textbooks and curricula, it seems fewer and fewer historians believe in such traditional notions. Over the last few years with the explosion of social media, blogs, and podcasts, historians have seized upon the opportunities inherent in these platforms. So, while many rightly decry “fake news” stories spread on social media, historians and other academics are busy doing their best to flood newspapers, the Twittersphere, blogs, and the airwaves/podwaves with expert opinions.

The list of new sites and podcasts is truly expansive, but one stands out. The Washington Post, realizing that people were thirsting for expert opinions in the wake of the 2016 election, hired a couple of historians to launch the blog “Made By History,” which solicits thoughtful op-ed pieces written by historians. They started in 2017 and just expanded their staff in 2019. Another important tool that historians have utilized recently is the vaunted Twitter thread. Since so many primary sources are freely available online and Twitter also allows you to add photos of documents, many historians have used Twitter to try to educate or correct popular misconceptions. Efforts by historians have been crucial to correcting the media and helping to foster informed debate. Recently, one popular historian went on NPR’s morning show to say that in her research she found no evidence that women used contraception or abortion services in the nineteenth century, and Lauren MacIvor Thompson, a specialist in female reproductive rights, responded with a Twitter thread and several links to point out how laws, such as the Comstock Law of 1873, made it impossible for women to speak forthrightly about these issues so euphemisms had to be employed. MacIvor Thompson’s thread went viral and NPR quickly posted a correction. MacIvor Thompson’s expertise was quickly recognized, and she was then asked for an interview by The Atlantic for a piece on suffragists and the birth control issue.