Public History?

I have to admit I was a bit nervous coming into this week’s readings. This was the first set of readings that could decidedly be called Public History. Do I read them differently than books from my other classes? Instead of worrying about that I just jumped right in.

I think Tyrrell’s piece made the biggest impression on me this week. Granted, it was the longest piece we had to read but I believe there was a lot to chew-on between the covers. In essence, Tyrrell gave a history of historians and their interactions with the “public”. Throughout the book, he made reference to Peter Novick’s, That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession and Historians in Public had a very similar feel. Both books presented a comprehensive account of the central figures and movements within the field. To a certain extent, Historians in Public can be seen as complimentary work to Novick while at the same time being an extension. Public Historians have grown out of the professionalization of history.

Though I found myself struggling to get through sections of Historians I believe Tyrrell’s book to be the perfect introduction to this semester of work. Before we begin a semester of analyzing and parsing what it means to be a “public historian”, we are presented with a framework to understand the evolution of the field. Using his historical account, a pattern of conflict between “public” and “academic” history becomes apparent.

I’m not sure if this book will go down as the most exciting read for the semester, I know it will prove invaluable as we progress through the course. I mean Professor Bruggeman chose it to be our first book.