Oh dear I’m not feeling at all well.
I’ve just read an article “What Drives History?” by Jeremy Black, Professor of History at the University of Exeter. In it he argues that historiography doesn’t pay enough attention to public interpretations of history. This is view that I have a lot of sympathy for. In addition I think that examining public history (or archaeology) isn’t just useful in itself, but it could help students see the relevance of theory to their pre-university experience of history. At the moment there’s a tendency for theory courses to bludgeon students into submission with “proper” history or archaeology. If you work from the public understanding of historical process then you can build a bridge across to more academic theory by showing how theory isn’t important because it’s a higher plane of existence, but because it’s a useful tool for interpreting the world we’re in and the data we have. So I seem to be in agreement with Prof. Black. This bothers me deeply.
Why?
Well, it’s because the article appears on the Social Affairs Unit’s blog. The Times describes it as “…driving its coach and horses through the liberal consensus scattering intellectual picket lines…” Before I know it I’ll be quoting the Daily Mail with approval.
Nevertheless it is a good and thought provoking piece.
Other things to look for include The thing from the birdbath at Snail’s Tales, which turns out to be a rotifer, which is simply a beautiful creature.
…and this ongoing tale at Let Me Draw You A Map, disturbs me deeply.
