While reading Letting Go? I find myself intrigued by an idea that most historians understand, but one that the general public does not always seem to grasp; the internet has everything but in having everything, the internet is not always correct and certainly does not always provide a complete story. Even some seemingly reputable sources (ie. Newspapers) often have an agenda of their own that taints the information that they put out. The public, in general, expect the nearly impossible from museums; to give completely unbiased views yet maintain a multitude of different viewpoints. The web 2.0 has added to both the ability to accomplish this as well as the difficulty of such an undertaking. Although the web 2.0 has facilitated the ability for many people to add to the narrative of history, it has also opened a new role for the public historian as an expert that can differentiate between sources with solidly researched information and those sources that are closer to opinion presented as fact. In this there are pitfalls that must be avoided. The public is, in general, often drawn to the stories that we have been told, good or bad, of what and how things happened. Deviating too far from this traditional narrative can put public historians in a position of being more augmentative than as an authoritative voice on the subject. Letting Go? introduces the thought through Matt Fisher, who explains the dominant viewpoints when he says, “Introducing different prospectives is vital, but simply criticizing or undermining dominant or authoritative viewpoints is ultimately limited.”[1]I find this interesting in that many of us look at situations in history, and due to its controversial nature, are asked to argue one thing or another but rarely stop long enough to think of whether or not arguing against past indiscretions is actually useful to anyone. Many of these arguments were not only carried out at the time but also tend to either bore or infuriate a large number of people that are less read on the situation and only know the traditional narrative.
[1] Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski, Letting go?: sharing historical authority in a user-generated world, (Philadelphia, PA: Pew Center for Arts & Heritage, 2011), 49.
I agree that museums should be a place to introduce different perspectives and I also agree that it is also lost on most people outside of the history field. I know I have had experiences with people just copying and pasting wikipedia links and googled knowledge on my face book page. I find this frustrating as well and do agree that some interactive or web based experience could help bridge that divide amongst historians and the regular public. In the end I think it will have to be up to the individual on whether they choose to use it or not. This is life as we know it and some people choose to not to change. I especially agree with you on the unrealistic idea and notions the general public have on museums to give unbiased reviews when they don’t even give that to the museums themselves.
Another subject we didn’t really touch on in class is funding. Most of these highly interactive museums are expensive to maintain. That money often has to come from somewhere. The Federal Government can pick up the bill in some of the larger ones for sure, but smaller ones often have to “bend” to a sponsor of some kind. It is mighty difficult to get funding from CocaCola and do an exhibit on diabetes in America….
I think the last section of your post is very relevant today. I feel like historians are asked to “take sides” (not that it’s a bad thing) and argue a controversial topic. I find that, for me, it’s more beneficial to examine both sides of the argument and figure out the whys, hows, and impacts with consequences the issue has rather than only argue one side. Gaining multiple perspectives in the history world is great, but by only looking at that one perspective without context will only lead to more questions. Maybe the useful thing to do is find out where the alternative perspective fits in to the larger more familiar narrative and balance that with challenging information. Who knows. At this point I feel like I’m just rambling.
Not rambling at all… I agree. I find that people often want to embrace alternative views of history but refuse to look at the traditional narrative and use that to place it in its proper spot. If you want to break the rules, you have to have a complete understanding of the rules and how they can be broken first.