This week, ending in February 23 2017:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
What does graduate studies in Medieval History look like? How are the courses structured? Who are the main scholars I would read?
Why do we consider publication to be the end all/be all of academic history?
I understand that publication is how we keep the ideas flowing within the academy, and that it is a professional expectation. But it seems like the majority of important historiographical content remains accessible to only a very small audience; namely those members of the public who are highly interested in the given topic, or those visiting and residing within the ivory tower. Not only does this prove a disservice for the historian, but a disservice to their field.
Take for example the major changes in the field of slavery and race in New England over the past decade. While within the academy this knowledge has been spreading like wildfire through undergraduate and graduate coursework; the vast majority of the public still considers slavery to have been a purely southern institution. Or, perhaps even worse, some that are aware of it tend to think of northern slavery as being a more humane than its southern counterpart. Or that newly freed blacks were openly accepted into society.
The traditional way has been to integrate this new knowledge into the public mindset through the training of history teachers for the primary and secondary levels. Yet the social science departments have continued to face budget and personnel cuts, as well as School Boards (and now an Education Secretary) dead set on producing a popular history curriculum that undoes decades of work by masters in the field. (I'm pointing at Texas here)
Getting to my point:
The pursuit of knowledge has been boiled down to a profit formula, and in essence has placed academic history behind a paywall few can honestly afford. The traditional ways of history, and of projecting history onto the public, have been dying for years. Historians need to embrace new avenues of publication, of engagement, of bringing their research and ideas to the public via the modalities they are most comfortable and familiar with. We, as historians, need to embrace social media and the digital age if we are to maintain and recover the discipline.
Otherwise, what is the point? To declare the latest groundbreaking work to a small circle of colleagues? To allow popular myths to persist, no matter how damaging they are to the mending of society? Or to rot away inside the ivory tower, much like the tomes and parchment we're obsessed with?