Navigating Politics in Public History Practice
United States National Museum Photographic Laboratory
United States National Museum Photographic Laboratory
The intersection of public history and politics is strikingly evident in current events. Recent debates surrounding Confederate monuments, for instance, highlight how historical memory is contested terrain, mirroring the struggles for representation discussed by Hayward and Larouche in the context of African American museums.
Politics is woven into the very fabric of public history. It is impossible to separate them completely. Public history is not just about dusty archives and forgotten facts; it is about how we tell stories about the past, and who gets to tell those stories. And those choices are inherently political. Think about it: who decides what gets commemorated, what stories are told in museums, what historical narratives are presented in textbooks? Often, it is those in power, and their perspectives inevitably shape the way the past is presented. So, even if public historians try to be objective, the very act of choosing what to highlight and how to frame it can be a political act.
What role does politics play in public history?
Politics is deeply intertwined with public history, influencing how we understand and present the past. Because public history involves interpreting and sharing historical narratives with the public, it’s inherently susceptible to political agendas. Those in power often shape which stories are told, which figures are celebrated, and how events are framed, reflecting specific values and interests. History itself isn’t a neutral ground; different groups hold varying interpretations of the past, often tied to current political and social debates. Public historians must navigate these contested narratives, striving for balance and acknowledging diverse perspectives.
Moreover, public history plays a key role in shaping collective memory and national identity, which political actors frequently leverage to legitimize actions and promote particular visions. Even funding for public history institutions can be politically charged, impacting the projects undertaken and the interpretations presented. Ultimately, public historians face ethical challenges in balancing accuracy and objectivity with the potential political impact of their work, especially when dealing with sensitive or controversial topics.
Can public historians engage in political activism, yet maintain professional objectivity and remain committed to ethical practice?
The question of public historians engaging in political activism while remaining objective and ethical is a complex one. While some argue that complete neutrality is impossible and that historians have a responsibility to inform public discourse, others caution against the potential for bias and loss of credibility. Arguments for engagement often highlight the importance of historical context, advocating for history itself, and amplifying marginalized voices. Conversely, concerns arise about maintaining scholarly rigor, avoiding biased interpretations, and the potential conflict between the roles of historian and activist. Ultimately, ethical engagement hinges on transparency about personal perspectives, rigorous adherence to historical methodology, respect for diverse interpretations, and a clear distinction between interpreting the past and advocating for present-day agendas. It’s a delicate balancing act requiring careful consideration and constant self-reflection.
What is an appropriate level of political engagement in public history?
The “appropriate” level of political engagement in public history is a complex and contested issue with no easy answer. It’s a balancing act, and what’s considered appropriate can vary depending on the context, the historian’s role, and the specific historical issue at hand. Hayward and Larouche suggest that activism focused on historical preservation, interpretation, and representation can be a legitimate and valuable form of public history practice. Murphy and Owens-Murphy suggest that in the face of politically motivated attacks on historical truth, public historians may need to be more assertive in challenging misinformation and advocating for inclusive and accurate historical narratives
Jeff Hayward and Christine Larouche, “The Emergence of the Field of African American Museums,” The Public Historian 40:3 (August 2018): 163-172.
Brian Murphy and Katie Owens-Murphy, “Public History in the Age of Insurrection Confronting White Rage in Red States,” The Public Historian44, 3 (August 2022): 139–63.