NOTE: Here is the update of this week thinking about the extension history. Understand that this text was written there over a year now. It is part of a personal reflection on the role of the historian in the city. Incomplete, this reflection is being organized and development. Other texts are likely to follow ...
On January 27, 2010 died of a historians Americans the most influential of the second half of the twentieth century, Howard Zinn. Born August 24, 1922, Zinn has served as bomber pilot during World War II before returning to the U.S. and obtaining his Ph.D. from Columbia University and eventually become a professor of political science at Boston University (a position he held between 1964 and 1988). His principal work is A People's History of the United States , appeared for the first time in 1980.
Today, several later editions, this book has sold nearly two million copies in the U.S. alone (1). The book focuses primarily on the history of the people through his struggles and trials, such as those of daily exceptions, threw a shock wave through the community of historians (who did not very well received book) and in the general population. The interest of this book, especially at the time at which it was written (the late 1970s, the dawn of the Reagan years), is his "new" approach to the history of the United States: from the poor and the voiceless, he tried make a history.
course, his book has weaknesses of a historian point of view: the sources are sometimes biased, the findings are predictable, the book is highly partisan, the method supported by constant reference to sources is sometimes deficient. The author does not yet have never hidden. He was aware of a work to do and believed that militant action is necessary just to counter the historiography glorifying that was wall to wall in schools and universities. To do this, so he wrote a book in prose effective and direct, full of examples that illustrate his point and leads the reader to ask real questions. For me it is a book, notwithstanding its position, which certainly raises discussion and debate and may indicate real unknown aspects of the history of the United States. His direct style is a fantastic support and examples eventually passionate player who would have had, starting with little interest in the subject. It's a pretty impressive achievement.
Zinn's story takes us on another path, therefore, is it possible or even desirable given the role of historian for that of "popular teacher", is it possible for a historian to work extension without running afoul more of these academic colleagues?
How to understand the dichotomy historian / popularizer? Working for nearly 10 years in mediation / interpretation / extension, I communicate on a regular basis in history, a way to captivate an audience as much as possible for him to understand certain realities of the past. And in recent years, I ask myself these questions.
I think these are roles that are partially incompatible, and that are regrettably misunderstood. In short, the academic historians (read "scholars") and those who are working to connect the story to a wider audience (the " extension "), continues role diametrically opposed. The first attempt to explain, all shades, the deep problems that arise in this or that event or situation that extends a short or a long period in time. He also directed generally to an audience that has references in common with him and can understand a text through a set of "codes" typical to the profession.
At its opposite, the "popularizer" was to address a general audience. To be included, it must assume that his audience does not have the codes to decipher his message well, not not have references to locate it in time or even to certain nuances that would otherwise be implicit about it.
In a way, we could even argue that the "popularizer" is not history. Breaking with the search for a great Truth, he is content to present a truth ; action to provide for a non-initiated request to make choices and sometimes wrenching one can certainly say that the historian does longer history, but heritage. A sort of "heritage value" of the past. For simplicity, wealth is an understanding of our collective memory, often associated with events or objects in a more or less distant past and is formatted to be useful to future generations. In the act of "popularize" the historian seeks to make himself useful to the individuals to whom it is addressed, it seeks to create meaning.
In history, the foundation's work "popularizer" is that of historian. The historian returns to the sources. He consults, analyzes, dissects them and finally managed to deduce or construct a sense, a speech, an explanation to a specific problem dealing with a situation our past. It uses scientific codes, a method of research and dissertation. And transmits its Truth peers who are able to decode the message in an acceptable manner. But this knowledge, it remains at this level, may eventually be lost. The historian must blame the adviser. The city had asked her somehow. So it make to society the fruits of his research. But it must automatically decode the keys included in our original message to be understood by the greatest number. This requires a different approach, a different vocabulary and a special dressing. The historian who decides to popularizer of the hat is a different job (but completely necessary and complementary) to work in scientific research. It uses different techniques. And who better than the historian to present its results. It is more likely to make the necessary choices and informed decisions to present accurate research. But it is a world quite different codes to appropriate ...
There is a little lower link to the website of Harper Collins editor that allows you to search for even A People's History of the United States and view it online. Other editions are available online for viewing and the book is still very well in bookstores, both in English (Harper Collins, 2003) in French edition (Agone, 2003).
0 comments:
Post a Comment