Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Week 2 reading post
In Glassberg’s chapter titled “sense of history”, there is an interesting connection between the academic goals of an institution and the goals set out by the author over public history. The author’s main point of the chapter seems to occur around a theme he labels as a “sense of history” which explores how people develop their own unique view of history that depends on different elements such as their background, their location, and where they grew up. The author then presents the question of who can attribute to history and looks at the different accounts used to tell history at that time period on a public level. The author separates the telling of history into three separate categories that include politics, popular culture and place and gives examples of how history is told in different views depending on what agenda the teller is pursuing. The author is convincing in his argument that history told to the public is different depending on who is the narrator such as in his example of a national park in Mesa Verde (17), Glassberg argues that in the end the park ranger under little supervision has full control over what story the audience hears about the national park and the people who resided there. Glassberg’s presentation on location is persuasive because he argues that location makes a difference on what story is told and that everyone is biased towards a certain view depending on their environment. One weakness in the chapter over place and placelessness is that for the intended audience, there is possibly too much emphasis on the psychological sphere, but the author does do a good job of presenting how there are different types of views depending on the person and the environment he/she grew up in depending on economical statuses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
History does rely on the Narrator, which we all know can be good and not so good. But, the thing about history is you are privileged to get various viewpoints, whether you agree or not. This extends to Public History, which addresses the very personal sense of history. Yes, this does create certain biases that eventually emerge. The sense of history makes individuals “that much more” unique and allows others to look at places differently. I enjoyed this chapter.
ReplyDeleteI was also a touch skeptical when Glasberg cited psychological research to motivate his theory of place and placelessness. However, I agree with you that ultimately he was persuasive because he provided such a well rounded account of how place plays its role in identity formation and can have sweeping effects for psychology, sociology, economics, history, and politics. Although I did have some problem digesting his theories. Glasberg made the point that place can be vital for identity even in cases where the place is in constant flux like the metropolis or the for nomads following work, he argues that American culture is increasingly placeless. Needless to say I had some difficulty parsing out whether physical places were lynch-pin to identity as suggested by the heavily cited psych studies, or if Americans as a culture are moving away from physical spaces towards virtual ones or simply larger, less defined regions. Any thoughts???
ReplyDeleteYes, I noted Glasberg's use of non-historical sources to explain place and placelessness, but to respond to Warren, humans are heavily influenced by their surroundings, and the people whom surround them. Whether this be a physical locale, or virtual, the distance of the connection has changed, but not the connection. Lauren is right that the intended audience (public historians) would be likely to not have a significant background in psychological theory, but what Glasberg says makes sense (at least to me). This is the second time I have read this chapter for a class, and I have wrestled with the National Park Service's methodology for narrating public history, as I said in class - you cannot just make stuff up. But the differences inherent to the stories due to the storyteller are, I believe, the most interesting because it creates a fluidity in the historical interpretation for both the docent and the visitor.
ReplyDelete