History is an interesting field. There are a wide variety of practitioners, some on the “inside”, some on the “outside”, and some, to some degree, with one foot in both (some overlapping occasionally, and some on a regular basis). But, the inside/outside thing is a matter of perspective. People work in certain circles, and from within those respective circles “inside/outside” does not mean the same thing. Each may tinker with the same ball of clay, but that’s not to say that they work the clay in the same way.
With this in mind, the struggle over how to deal with the future of the Civil War varies with perspective. If there are differences on how to approach the subject, it isn’t necessarily that the “outsiders” want to get on the “inside”, with the other side. Rather, the objection may be better defined as differences in opinion regarding the philosophies of approach… “how to approach, or how not to approach”… or… “I think there’s more to the approach than what’s being considered”.
What drives this brief post are considerations from various folks (seen and unseen… in open and closed social media discussions) who are questioning and/or being critical of the layout of the upcoming The Future of Civil War History: Looking Beyond the 150th, to be held in Gettysburg in March. The title of the March program is a lofty one, and addressed by about 100 program participants, many of whom are employed within academic institutions, followed next by representatives of the National Park Service (and I’m clearly a bigger fan of the NPS – as a consumer and a volunteer – for it’s frontline engagement with the general public). That seems like a lot of weight behind credibility, but… are there holes in the program/agenda? To have such a beefy title, it seems to be implied that there’s much to consider. Yes, they do cover much, but… if there is much to be considered, are there missing components? Some of us have argued that there are, and for this, some might question our motivations. The concerns are not motivated as some might suggest, but rather, come as a genuine interest for the future of Civil War history, in which blogs certainly play a part. Let’s ramp that up even more… there is no reference to digital or electronic impact in any of the presentations. Yes, blogs do fall in this area, but in that the concerns are raised by some bloggers doesn’t mean that the same are so narrow in focus.
Blogs fall within the larger classification of “interpretive platforms in new media”. Personally, I’m very interested in innovative uses of interpretive platforms in new media, and that’s inspired within me after having cycled through two graduate programs, back-to-back. Yes, I blog, but I have also ventured into other areas that might come under these platforms. The “innovative use” angle ranges from blogs and Websites, to interpretive signage (not so much a tool of new media, but there’s potential via new media for static signage) and satellite-engaged interpretation (most especially for sites that do not/or cannot employ signage). Employing these platforms, what can be done (while thinking outside the box and beyond traditional content delivery) that might be seen as innovative and will better serve the audience? Can innovation lead to improved dissemination of content and an improved public grasp (without being bored to death) of underlying theory? I know… it sounds like the public historian in me is emerging from an otherwise obscure side of me, and that’s not surprising considering my few years in the museum field, and work as a historically clad interpreter, from time to time. While it appears that engagement with the public (public history) will be addressed to some degree, and seemingly more on the one-on-one/person-to-person level (with, what appears to be a psychosocial approach to public engagement, but under the “Civil War Memory” theme… a topic I’m considering for another day), but again, what about the future potential of digital/electronic platforms?
I’ll close by saying… this is not emerging simply as a matter of bloggers reacting to the agenda of the March program. In fact, it’s not a new discussion. Some of us (you might call us “history practioners, who practice when time allows”) have been talking about theory and practice in what spare time we have, for well over a year, and it’s not unusual for us to ask why certain things aren’t being discussed or employed. The discussion phase continues, but I suspect there’s more significant things to come. It’s not a matter of “if”, but “when”.
Harry Smeltzer
January 14, 2013
“…there is no reference to digital or electronic impact in any of the presentations.” That’s what I find so odd. And I’m not just thinking blogs, but the myriad of websites (including databases and digital archives) out there that serve as delivery systems for Civil War history. Surely there are credible folks – like those at GMU – who could have been persuaded to participate and speak on topics digitalis, no? With a conference title like that, and a claim to draw from across “the Civil War Community,” whatever that means, I think an objective mind would have to go “hmmm….” at this ommission.
Robert Moore
January 14, 2013
I agree, and as we can see, there are folks from GMU going, but… alas, no discussion about the digital stuff. I’m also reserved when it comes to GMU (I’ll withold the specifics for now, but it might relate to my hesistation coming from my TechComm background). I also have an upcoming post about my reflections (six years after initially reading it) on the book Digital History. I think, in retrospect, and after almost five years of blogging now, there are some things that weren’t covered, that couldn’t be anticipated, especially in social interaction in blogs, for example.
Harry Smeltzer
January 14, 2013
Would you believe I pulled out my copy of Digital History from the closet just minutes before reading your comment? I read the book even before I started the blog, actually in anticipation of starting my “project.” I don’t know that they were thinking about blogs to any great degree. An update to that book would be great. Heck, maybe the surviving author could even talk about it at a conference or something. Nahhhh….
Robert Moore
January 14, 2013
How ironic is that?! I also read the book before starting the blog… and actually the summer after I finished my M.A. in History, and before I started my M.S. in TechComm. I used it initially, and then sat it aside before I wrote my thesis for TechComm. It was of little or no help at that time, and I think my experiences (after only one year) in blogging put me in a position in which I started doubting the relevance of the book, or at least the section on blogging.
Vince (Lancaster at War)
January 14, 2013
I think an interesting possibility is the mass customization of history. Although the same narrative them would be the same, the mix of content–examples, anecdotes, etc–would be “optimized” to maximize engagement. Imagine your interest in different topics could be sensed (or stated explicitly) and content dynamically adapted based on that information. Or, imagine a Gettysburg tour tailored to highlight special information about people or topics with which you identify–a focus on people from your hometown or college or topics related to your occupation.
Robert Moore
January 14, 2013
Hi Vince,
Thanks for commenting.
Exactly. Wouldn’t it be great to customize tours to that level?!
I think there’s a great number of possibilities. The most difficult part might be keeping-up with the technological advances along the way. On the other hand, there’s some technology that needs additional work before hitting the streets. Back in 2008-2009, I was even looking at the possibilites of augmented reality (AR) in tours. Pretty awesome concept, using a pair of glasses to incorporate interactive functions while touring a battlefield (just as one example).
Luke Davis
January 14, 2013
Regarding this question of going forward, will the next generations even care? How many people under 40 do you see at CW events and tours? I have a 19 year old in college, and history is not something the schools have been stressing in this last generation. So I wonder, regardless of how it is preserved and presented, in 150 more years will this in depth type of history matter to people who communicate in “140 characters or less?” Or will it be largely ignored and forgotten by the increasingly pop culture obsessed citizenry?
Robert Moore
January 15, 2013
Thanks for commenting, Luke,
I’ve actually seen a fair turnout of under 30/under 20s at Sesqui events. The programing has been more encompassing and engages the youth, especially those under 13.
As far as keeping this generation and the next engaged… I think this ties back into the use of interactive technologies. Battlefield touring aps are just the tip of the iceberg, as I see it. The hook is in the technology, and the method of information delivery, and I think the battlefield aps show that there are a good number onboard with the need for more technology.
Luke Davis
January 15, 2013
I totally agree there, technology is the hook. I hope the next generation does embrace its heritage, and takes advantage of the work being done by the more ‘visionary’ historians like yourself and other bloggers. The effort must be made anyway, keep up the good work! You have gained one more twitter follower here in in the home of the 21st OVI…Thanks
Robert Moore
January 16, 2013
Thanks again, Luke.
I agree. There’s a great deal of potential in technology, but I also think some kids have been attracted by the traditional as well. The collector’s cards have been a big hit.
Thanks for the kind words. Glad to have you as a follower!