As Harry pointed out a few days ago, this blog was reviewed by Kelvin Holland in the July issue of America’s Civil War (see page 66). It’s a flattering review and I thank Kelvin for taking the time to write it for ACW. I think he does a fine job hitting on my objectives. Thanks again Kelvin!
The review also mentions my thesis, which ended up with a different title and took a slightly different direction than I had anticipated. As the review points out, my original title was “Blogging as Historians: Using New Practices on the Web to Sustain Authority and Counter the Distortion and Dilution of Historical Knowledge.” The new title is “Blogging as Historians: Considering Interaction, Authority, and New Practices for the Web.”
The change reflects a shift in my understanding of the traditional position of the historian and the role of the historian within the new space that is the Web. Granted, there is “mis-history” on the Web, and as people continue to turn to the Web as the source of information, this is a problem for historians who seek to expand and advance our understanding of history. The countering of that “mis-history,” however, is not a matter of “virtually combating” those who are placing mis-history on the Web. Instead, the objective (in my opinion) of historians on the Web (at least those who want to balance the history that resides in that space) should be to counter the mis-history by placing solid historical information (that has undergone the rigors of historical analysis) on the Web. More importantly, historians need to take advantage of the affordances offered by the Web, from non-social interfaces (Tier 1 interaction) to social interfaces (Tier 2 interaction). In both cases, the objective is to take advantage of the interaction to more effectively (as opposed to print media) convey information, knowledge, and concepts. As I’ve mentioned before, the intergration of these features into the practice of delivering historical material is enough to justify a science cognate within degree programs (thus, breaking from the traditional idea of being tied to the arts and humanities and leading to the thought of a Master of Science in History).
Additionally, the thought of “sustaining traditional authority” really doesn’t work in the new space that is the Web. The idea of traditional authority is largely compromised by the read-write environment of blogs. Authority takes on an entirely different meaning in the environment of the Web (and most especially Web 2.0). To get a taste of what I mean, read Roland Barthes’ ideas on the meaning of authorship. In many ways, I feel that Barthes’ ideas on authorship and authority are realized in blogs.
All-in-all, after just under a year and a half of blogging, and as I have mentioned before, this experience of blogging has been more than just a soapbox for posting my ideas on the Civil War and digital history on the Web. It has also been a tremendous learning experience when it comes to me grasping an understanding of the future of the Web as part of historical practice. I think the potential is much greater than we realize, and that’s incredibly exciting.
Cenantua's Blog 
Sherree Tannen
May 14, 2009
Robert,
Congratulations on this much deserved recognition! I was hoping that you would share some of the ideas from your thesis with your readers, and you have done that here (or at least you have started)
I am intrigued by the following two comments you make:
“The change reflects a shift in my understanding of the traditional position of the historian and the role of the historian within the new space that is the Web”, and;
“Additionally, the thought of ‘sustaining traditional authority’ really doesn’t work in the new space that is the Web. The idea of traditional authority is largely compromised by the read-write environment of blogs”.
At some point (if you have the time and the inclination) I would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts concerning these topics. Thanks.
Sherree
cenantua
May 15, 2009
Sherree,
I’ll see if I can answer in a “nutshell,” though I feel like I might miss an important point or two by trying to create a synopsis. The two points are actually tied together. The matter addressing authority in my thesis almost took up an entire chapter.
First, I think the idea of the traditional historian is largely based on one-way information delivery, many times in static print (except for the matter of making the text of the narrative interactive with a potential reader), the impact of the text (as compared to what we now know about what is possible in the Web) is very limited. There is greater potential with texts and other interfaces on the Web. Delivery of historical information, knowledge, and concepts on the Web requires more knowledge of the interfaces and how they work (user-centricity… though non-social interfaces are different than social interfaces). Likewise, to reach the larger audience that is available through the Web, I think historians need to write for the larger audience (as opposed to, for example, writing as academians for academians). While there are exceptions, I think that historians are still, largely being taught how to present under the traditional framework. As our culture looks largely to the Web for information, I think there is a need to become more dynamic in skills of presentation and the ability to reach the largery audience that is available through the Web.
As historians are largely taught under the traditional framework, I also believe that several features of Web 2.0 challenge a traditional idea of authority. I’ll see if I can tackle that in another comment.
Sherree Tannen
May 15, 2009
Thanks for replying, Robert. This really is fascinating.
The Web is anything but static, as you have stated. In fact, the availability of information on the Internet is incredibly fluid, as is the quality of that information, and this can be both a strength and a weakness in writing and presenting history, I would think. For example, as I prepared to write to you again, I read again the piece on Roland Barthes that you linked to (and that I know of obliquely through one of my sisters who got her Masters in feminism and studied Barthes, and her orals were in French, too!!) Then I googled “art for art’s sake”, which was one of the prevailing theories of literary criticism when I was in school, and I must say, times have certainly changed. (One critic described the theory of “art for art’s sake” as dog @#%$.) Ok. Let me regroup and google some more and get back to you! Hopefully the history of literary criticism won’t change in the next couple of hours.
My point is that with voluminous amounts of information available to both the writer and the reader of history, a static text truly is almost obsolete, in many ways, it would seem. So if I understand this part of what you have said correctly, I agree with you. Also, I think that a true grasp of this idea offers great potential for writing and disseminating historical works in the future.
cenantua
May 15, 2009
Sherree, Yes, the Web is anything but static, but throwing-in the matter of the various forms of interaction and working directly (especially within compressed time of Web 2.0) with the human element makes it even more so. I have to say that this “stuff” has become a passion on par with my passion for Civil War studies.
Now, all of this said, I think we need to reconsider “authority” and “authorship.” Again, without fumbling too much and in a much more confined space than that of my thesis, I’m going to give a shot at creating another synopsis.
I think the traditional sense of “authorship” led people to come to an understanding of the “author” as a point of “authority” (noting that the word “author” is in all three of the key words here). Authoring works led to an untouchable and/or unreachable status. Often, this also meant unchallengable. Materials were delivered by an author in a package (the artifact) in one-way delivery. Conclusions were made and presented to the reading public for digestion. Writing for the Web is very different, especially when the reader also becomes the writer. Not only is the author (now, in some sense reduced from the author status to the status of writer) reachable, but he/she can also be challenged. I would even offer that he/she is also more “human.” As I originally mentioned, I think that blogs are Barthes’ theories realized. The traditional author is, in fact, “dead.” Yet, everyone has become or has the potential of becoming a writer.
What’s even more fascinating about this is the blog post and the idea of the “artifact.” A blogger writes a post, but it does not stand alone (the sole artifact, as in the case of a print book or article). Readers make comments and impact the post; the combination of the post and the comments (not to mention the very discourse) are now the artifact. There are so many ways that this challenges not only our ideas of traditional writing, but also reading traditionally.
Sherree Tannen
May 15, 2009
Robert,
When I said “that with voluminous amounts of information available to both the writer and the reader of history, a static text truly is almost obsolete, in many ways,” –that should read with voluminous amounts of CHANGING information. I wouldn’t correct that typo, except it is critical to the point I am attempting to make–ie, that we truly are in a new universe with the Internet, as you and I have discussed before. And in that new universe, what we believe to be real and true can change in a nano second with the discovery of new information. The Web is fluid, creative, and non linear, in many ways–sort of like being afloat in a sea of ideas, at its best; and bogged down in sinking quicksand, at its worst, or maybe lost in a black hole in space. Sherree
cenantua
May 15, 2009
Yes, I agree. I think the idea of “changing” is even more interesting when we consider the compression of time in, for example, discourse in blogs.
I think there is something about information being presented in non-linear fashion that is more conducive to learning than linear presentation. Then too, I think “bursts of information” and/or thoughts are more stimulating than protracted prose. We’ve talked about hyptertextual thought before, and isn’t that actually non-linear? So, are we truly non-linear creatures who have been forced to think (in the linear sense) in the box for too long?
cenantua
May 15, 2009
Sherree,
Two additional thoughts; both I believe lend some humanistic features to our use of what some might see as an otherwise cold and clinical idea of technology.
When speaking of “artifacts” and compressed time in discourse, I have a quote that I think applies to what is going on… “moving through me as I move.” The quote comes from an essay in a book that I really enjoy (First Person). The author of this essay writes about writing digital poetry and how she hopes her poetry impacts the reader. However, I think it can be applied to a great number of digital encounters within Web 2.0 (and may be a major part of Web 3.0).
I also like the idea of “thinking as I write.” Speaking of this, I believe that when I make this part of my practice in blogging, it is sometimes misunderstood as “writing conclusively.” I think this happens because some people read what I write under the traditional mindset of reading. They don’t understand that I am working toward a point (though this might not necessarily equate to a “terminal” point of understanding) and not always writing to make a conclusive point.
Sherree Tannen
May 15, 2009
“So, are we truly non-linear creatures who have been forced to think (in the linear sense) in the box for too long?”
Robert,
You are brilliant.
My answer to that question is unequivocally, Yes! Now not only has technology caught up with the truest, highest, and best parts of our nature (in my humble opinion); technology is also fostering the growth of that nature. It is also fitting that the technology of the Web really began to expand at the end of an old century and the beginning of a new. (Although thinking in terms of “centuries” could be seen as an artificial, imposed construct. The Indigenous concept of time is cyclical in nature, rather than, well, linear) What I am trying to say is that we need new eyes with which to see our rapidly changing world, and thinking on the Web is helping us to develop those eyes. I think you have hit upon that idea, and many others, in a significant way here. Have a great afternoon, Robert. Thanks for the conversation. I guess you could say that I am an engaged reader. Sherree
cenantua
May 15, 2009
Thanks Sherree! This is an interesting exchange that I am enjoying a great deal. Interesting also that your background is in English and the Technical and Scientific Communication program that I just completed actually sprung out of the English Dept. at JMU. At the core of both is the ability to promote effective communication. That’s one of the reasons why I entered the TSC program, to sharpen my skills (in alternative forms) at communicating history (the other reason was to establish another set of skills in order to find a different track of employment). Of course, on the communicating history idea, I never would have imagined that it would have taken the course that it did… it’s all good!
Sherree Tannen
May 15, 2009
“They don’t understand that I am working toward a point (though this might not necessarily equate to a “terminal” point of understanding) and not always writing to make a conclusive point.”
Perhaps this is how the writing of history should take place: an historian studies his or her subject; gathers all of the data; immerses himself or herself in the data; and then begins to write with no end point in mind. Maybe then the elusive “truth” would be revealed, without the weight of theory prohibiting the uncovering of that “truth”. (I know how subjective the idea of truth is. I can’t think of another word, though. Also, this conversation is developing along non linear lines, as if to illustrate the points we are discussing lol)
cenantua
May 15, 2009
Maybe. Now we just need to find a way for blogging to be recognized as fulfilling requirements of tenure!