Emerging from the cocoons
A recent article in The Economist claiming that historians do little to engage the wider public provoked a stir online. #00#|9*+6'.1%- examines the Twitter reaction
Rarely have Twitter historians quite so unanimously agreed. When 6JG|'cQnQmKUV (@TheEconomist) recently tweeted a link to an article by its ‘Bagehot’ columnist with the statement “Historians are isolated in professional cocoons, fiddling with footnotes rather than bringing the past to light for a broader audience”, the gloves were off.
Cue a cacophony of tweets: some like that of history teacher 5CrC 5KnCgWglKC (@SaraSinaguglia) asserting it was “simply not true”, with others far fiercer – and cruder – in their criticisms. Indeed, it was perhaps the case that many of the historians who took exception to the article didn’t actually read beyond the headline.
Those who did, however, offered some valuable critiques, such as the long and widely applauded thread by 4QbGrV 5CWnFGrU (@redhistorian) who began by acknowledging that, while Bagehot was “correct about the importance of history and the urgency of a more historically informed public debate”, the article erected “a series of straw men in its attack on academic history”. Among many other points, Saunders noted, “‘Fiddling with footnotes’ isn’t a distraction from big new ideas: it’s how they begin.”
Others wondered if Bagehot was just as guilty of living inside a ‘cocoon’, with
,WUVKn %JCmpKQn (@monarchomach) – who has done much to promote the study of public history – asking whether anyone at The Economist had recently “been in a bookshop, watched the TV or heard of the public history projects in universities”.
Meanwhile, #lGZCnFGr %lCrkG (@AC_NavalHistory) sought to give Bagehot the benefit of the doubt, tweeting the response: “We are trying to be loud and proud about it… but I’m sure if you don’t follow any [historians] then perhaps you could get the impression we don’t.”
In a further rebuke, originally submitted as a letter to The Economist but not published, /KrK 4WbKn (@MiriERubin) helpfully drew attention to the global success of Radio 4’s
In Our Time, explaining how the format of the programme depends on the contributions of expert academics, “who offer hours of preparation that ends up in 43 elegant minutes of radio time”.
Certainly, The Economist got its wish if it sought to draw historians into a fiery public debate. In the words of 0KcQFGmWU &GmGVrKWU (@Nicodemetrius), “If historians are in a cocoon, then Twitter is the silk thread connecting them to the world.”
Anna Whitelock is the head of history at Royal Holloway, University of London
The Economist Iot its Yish if it sought to draw historians into a fiery puDlic deDate