History of Public History

This is intended to provide a baseline description of the history of public history as a field to provide contrast for later analysis of my datasets

Though history has always been addressed to a public in some fashion, public history as it is referenced today came about in the 1970s. At different times, historians have had different publics, ranging from the literate lay public, to the generally educated public, to the highly educated public of academic peers that history is understood to appeal to now. The 1960s saw a boom of social activism, and in response to the perceived biases of traditional history on the grounds of racism, sexism, and class bias, a new local history movement flourished. It was community based, more focused on heritage history, and comprised largely of non-academics who interacted with their public more than the academy.

Public history as the discipline known today as a popular graduate program emerged out of this disparity of trust between the community and historians. In the 1970s, there was a desire to produce research and history for and in conjunction with the people. They were both the focus of the historical work and its audience, and the work done reflected this. There was to be a new focus on oral history, on the study of memory and heritage, and on local community history.

Additionally, public history as a field sought to address the rampant unemployment problem in the academy. Historians were not finding work inside or, especially, outside the academy. As a result, several historical academics thought it prudent to begin training historical students in with a more diverse skill set, and to set about slowly changing the public consciousness from viewing historians as limited in utility to standard employees for a range of fields. Beginning in the 1970s it was already becoming more commonplace for government and public agencies to consult with historians when devising policies, but the goal of public history programs would be to take this even further. Museums, public and private corporations, the media and more would slowly begin to hire historians as important consultants for their work. Their skill set, methodology, knowledge, and philosophy would be beneficial to all kinds of work. Historians could inform policy makers on historical relationships, and could both advocate for and interface with the public who has historically grounded concerns.

In 1976 Robert Kelly and G. Wesley Johnson started their Public History program in UC/Santa Barbara to address those two central concerns: the public perception and resulting employment of historians, and the growing desire for community and local centric history that was interactive with the public. In 1978 the first issue of the Public Historian was published, and with the National Council on Public History's creation in 1979 a tradition of defining it as a separate field was cemented. Each of the early iterations of Public History programs had a focus on practical work, involving internships interacting with he public through government, private, and media roles to continue the integration of history into work and historians into the workforce.

In this way, one of the initial arguments for public history as a separate field was to view it as a history from below. The 1960s also saw the rise of women’s history, queer history, and labour history among other forms of history from below. They all involved a different methodological approach as well as cultural focus – they viewed the development of society and culture from the perspective of a non-dominant group, and viewed history as a development from the individual in their relationship within society. This set it apart from previous “Great Man” systems of history that had long dominated the academy. But despite this idea of public history being a history from below and grounded in social history, “Public history … remained largely ignorant of so-called community history projects” (Grele).

In my modern education of public history, community projects, local and oral history, and history with non-traditional subjects as the focus is the bread and butter of public history, but in the early 1980s this was not the case. Initially there was not a focus on community or union work, which would very much have been the purview of traditionally understood public history. It is unclear whether public history suffered from a methodological disconnect, in which public history projects were continuing on without the academic branding and so were not being discussed by its academics. Also possible is that the focus of public history was more narrow than its initial advocates stated, and that it took many years – if it has evolved at all – to think of “publics” rather than a singular “public” as its focus for discussion.

Works

Cole, Charles C. “Public History: What Difference Has It Made?” The Public Historian 16, no. 4 (1994): 9-35.

Dean, David. “Introduction.” In A Companion to Public History, edited by David Dean, 1-12. New Jersey: Wiley, 2018.

Dean, David, and John C. Walsh. “Some Reflections on Public History in Canada Today.” International Public History 2, no. 2 (2019).

Grele, Ronald J. “Whose Public? Whose History? What is the Goal of a Public Historian?” The Public Historian 3, no. 1 (1981): 40-48.

Kelley, Robert. “Public History: Its Origins, Nature, and Prospects.” The Public Historian 1, no. 1 (1978): 16-28.

Weible, Robert. “Defining Public History: Is It Possible? Is It Necessary?” Viewpoints, Perspectives on History, March 1, 2008. https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/march-2008/defining-public-history-is-it-possible-is-it-necessary#note1