Hi all!
I'm sure we've all been asked, "Oooh, what's public history?" before and I'm sure most, if not all of us, have read various definitions of public history. But as I start writing my master's thesis, applying for jobs, and generally trying to have a life I wonder at just how different our definitions of public history are. How would YOU define public history? What is the purpose of studying public history?
When I'm talking with non-historians (my students or their parents) I say that public history "is fun, non-textbook history" and then elaborate that it aims to engage and spark the interest of the general public more than other forms of history. Do you agree? Why or why not?
~Mai (being super philosophical here)
I never thought to look Public History up on Wikipedia, but I think it offers a good description. I'll add more later, but for now, I leave you with this quote from the Wikipedia entry:
ReplyDelete"...public history proves resistant to being precisely defined."
I think Public History is difficult to define because it is as varied as the public it serves.
ReplyDeleteTo me, public history is history designed for mass consumption. It must appeal to the non-historian as much as the historian.