Historian: What’s in a Name?
There is a certain antagonism between ‘popular’ history and
the academy. On the one side are traditionally trained academic Historians who
have studied for a minimum of seven years and then continue working and publishing
to be considered an academic ‘Historian’. One the other are the large numbers of people
who engage with historical study beyond the academy: including ‘popular historians’ historical biographers, history
bloggers and historical fiction writers who often have extremely detailed
research but have no traditional academic training.
Some Historians who studied
and invested time and money into academic training are dismissive of ‘popular
historians,’ especially those claiming rights to the title Historian. Certain popular historian's names are considered by-words for all things WRONG with popular history: ‘an insult
to academic history,’ a curse word not to be uttered in proper historical
circles. Conversely, popular historians, writers and those who work on history
but haven’t ‘climbed the academic ladder’ often feel strongly that their work
is just as historically valid and are just as deserving of the title Historian.
So, what is in the name Historian? Popular historians, bloggers
and fiction writers are pivotal in raising public awareness and affection for
the subject that has been struggling within schools. It is impossible to deny
the importance of these individuals and their incredible hard work. The depth of
knowledge of writers such as Susan Higginbotham is equal and beyond that of
some academics and so it seems not only unfair but unrealistic to deny they are
historians. However, considering the specialist nature of academic history it
also seems unrealistic to deny the special status of academic Historians.
It is easy to forget that academics spend much of their time
teaching, lecturing, supervising students, fighting for funding, attending conferences
and much more: what time is left is spent on research. Furthermore, their
research is, if not ‘of different calibre’ then often of a different nature to
the research undertaken by bloggers, authors and popular historians. The
primary goal of a non-academic writer is to un-cover ‘the truth’ of history to
the extent that this is possible and normally within areas of public interest,
whereas, an academic historian’s work has to engage with historiographical
theories and methodological study alongside these questions. A Historian needs
to account for the way they undertook their research, what theories and
approaches they used and influenced their work. All of this being closely
scrutinised in peer reviews, seminars and conferences when they present these
papers to fellow academics who will question not only the results of the work
but the theories and historiography of the research. This knowledge and
understanding of post-structural theory or linguistic difference naturally
alters the depth and validity of the research and so it is understandable that
members of the academy may feel their work is depreciated being compared to
that of a popular historian, blogger, or author.
It is clear to me at least that BOTH academic Historians and historians who engage in history
through blogs, fiction, or even popular biographies need to be valued and
respected as they both bring something important to the table. The lack of
respect I have seen some Historians give to ‘popular historians’ during
discussions saddens me. After all, in the modern economic climate where every
penny universities gain has to be quantified in its financial and societal
benefits are rather short sighted to dismiss the value and wide-spread impact
‘popular’ historians have. Any academic who has attempted to gain funding for a
project will easily be able to recall how much emphasis is placed upon ‘wider usefulness
and applicability beyond the academic’. However,
this is also part of the problem; after all, the costs of becoming an academic
historian must now be close to £100,000. It therefore, must be heartbreaking to
dedicate that time and money and be ‘lumped in’ with bloggers who might not
have any historical training.
Both sides have valid arguments, and as a
student of history and fan of history outside studies I have great sympathy for
both sides, and I don’t think there is any easy compromise. Many would argue popular
writers of history are often too quick to call themselves historians and there
does seem little respect or understanding from those who haven’t studied at a
post-graduate level of the very different nature and dedication of academic
history. Therefore, it is unsurprisingly that academics feel under-valued. Ironically
however, the dismissive attitude many academics take to more popular forms of
history and as importantly those academics who bridge the gap between popular
and academic history only widens the problem. Until some level of appreciation on both sides
is gained and a wider appreciation of the differences but also common goals and
passions within history there is always going to be a level of conflict.
