Is something "wrong" with history?

For class today we were asked to write on a few questions:

First, do you agree with Tyrrell and, to some extent Brinkley’s, observation that something is “wrong” with history? Second, do you see yourself as being the kind of audience that the historians in the readings are trying to reach? Outside of academic settings, are the works of academic scholars your first resort in trying to understand the past?

The most prominent question seems to be is there actually something wrong with history?  Alan Brinkey, in his article, Historians and Their Publics, addresses primarily, the issue of audience and if historians are reaching this intended audience.  In this way, he judges the usefulness or success of history based on whether it impacts audiences.  Brinkley's article is exploratory; he seeks to understand the importance of history and how it has changed as concerns the audiences who attempt to learn its lessons.  For Brinkely, history only matters insofar as it intrigues audiences, and not just those of the academic world. He provides a powerful example of the erasing of history in Czechoslovakia , followed by a powerful quote by Milan Kundera: "The struggle of man against power, is the struggle of memory against forgetting."  History is completely about what it can do for people who have lived it and are trying to recall it for themselves.  History has to mean something for its audiences so they will remember their pasts. For Brinkley then, it seems that there is only something "wrong" with history when it does not reach broad audiences.

On the other hand, for Ian Tyrell, in the preface to his book: Historians in Public: The Practice of American History 1890-1970, there are many ways in which history can be "wrong."  Tyrell provides a sort-of thesis for his compilation of essays: "In this book I will argue that the threat to history is a recurrent, exaggerated, and often misunderstood one and that history has adapted to and influenced its changing publics more than the profession is given credit for, though not evenly and not always in ways that are readily apparent" (2).  Tyrell supports multiple ideas about what is "right" with history: He sees the importance of the common historical myths, those things that everyone should know about history--"collective memory," but also sees why history has tried to focus in more on the particular rather than the general.  In his view, the arguments against history involve too much focus on the paticulars, however.  He lists three ways in which this occurs: 1) dangerous multiculturalism and cultural fragmentation 2) academic specialization 3) professionalization of  history and distance from the public.Thus for Tyrell, the problem with history, similar to Brinkely is that history is not reaching audiences as it should.

I think Tyrell and Brinkely agree on more than just audience, however.  In his article, Brinkley made a comment that isvery similar to the thesis that Tyrell provided: "But history plays a continuing and central role, whether we like it or not, in the way individuals and societies view themselves and shape their actions.  It has enormous power, even if not the prescriptive power htat some attribute to it.  Historians have, therefore, if not an obligation, then at least an opportunity to help society use that power resposibly" (1029). Brinkely, like Tyrell, argues that history HAS adapted to its audiences. Perhaps we now have the problem of what is "wrong" with history because historians have tried so hard to reach their audiences. It seems the public seeks the interesting details rather than the overarching history which has been traditionally commonplace, and both authors think that what is wrong with history is that it has a responsibility to educate the public beyond what they desire to learn.

I can see myself as part of the audience to which history is trying to adapt.  In fact, it was looking at history through particular, unique details that first alerted me to my passion for history.  In my 11th grade required US History class, one day while we were discussing the American founding, my teacher stood up in front of the class and wrote "George Washington was a traitor" on the whiteboard.  We all sat there in shock.  That statement was so far from what we had been taught all throughout school. George Washington is THE American hero. But as my teacher explained, during the American Revolution, the colonies were still not free from England, and thus, Washington, as the commander of the rebel army, was a traitor to his home country.  It was this assertion, and the idea that there are 'secrets' to history--things that are not part of the historiography--that can be discovered that sparked my love of studying history.

Today, I still seek to understand history through the unique details and perspectives. I, like many others, have recently discovered the John Adams miniseries which originally aired on HBO. I found the story fascinating because John Adams is not the traditional founding father, nor the one whose praises are sung most often. I learned more about the founding through that miniseries, though I have studied it intensively throughout my college career, because it prompted me to consider the common information in a new light.

That being said, in order to find details stirring, one must have a good deal of knowledge about the commonly understood version of the story.  In this way, I do agree with Tyrell that history needs to cover more than just the specifics. I also agree with Brinkely that historians need to find a way to make history come alive for audiences beyond details that may not be representative.  Further, I agree with them both that perhaps what is "wrong" with history has come about through history's efforts to be interesting. But how can history strike the necessary balance between intriguing details and necessary historiography?