The "joke" is simple though, and I've always found it quite profound: we notice those things which directly concern us and our type, and have no interest in those things which don't. For historians and educators, this is a truth that in our bad moods leads us to self-righteous gloomy pronouncements about people's selfishness, but 1) this makes us far less winsome, hurting the fields, and 2) we are hypocrites: I've never met a historian who does not have some historical topics that he respects but in which he cannot muster much interest.
The key is to unpackage each criterion: direct concern and our type. The fact of the matter is those two can change, and quite dramatically. The better we understand how we form in our minds what concerns us and what doesn't, and who are like us and who are not, the better our history will be. Closely related, we need to recognize that bridging gaps of interest and identity often comes down to artistry: the Wars of the Roses are of interest to many because of Shakespeare, and the Crimean War because of Tennyson. And of course who apart from American historians and numismatists would have been able to recognize this Founding Father before 2015?
| Alexander Hamilton says do not throw away your shot to reach the maximum number of people with your historical work. |
No comments:
Post a Comment