This week’s readings, whose titles I will abbreviate to “Personalism and Professionalism” and “Preserving the Postmodern,” provided an interesting contrast on the development of public history as a professional trade. The first reading by focusing on the move from traditionalist, ‘personalist’ cultural movements by women possessed with the ideals of republican motherhood struck me as a little off balance. Although I can see how traditionalist movements guided by cultural bias and personal agendas to recapture a bygone era are misuses of historical artifacts which exist as cultural capital to all the American public. I got the sense that there was little mention of the ways in which professionalization helped women’s traditionalist movements to catch up with modern history scholarship.
“Personalism to Professionalism” characterized the shift in the trade of public history from all a women led movement to a field of male professionals, and also states that other women’s historical societies (such as the APA) had to step in line with the restoration policies of Appleton’s SPNA. Yet, many of these organizations (such as the DAR) still exist and get funding. So is this simply a throwback to cultural agendas motivating historical preservation through some lost personalism? Or, did these organizations professionalize and get with the program of historical accuracy. If this is not the case that seems fine, but part of this story is missing. I felt like this article was simply a nice, neat whig-history of the triumph of male, rational, historical sense over female, emotive historical narratives, am I making a mountain out of a mole hill?
“Preserving the Post-Modern” was an interesting take on the debate between preservation and restoration. Obviously restoration might fall prey to idea of editing history to fit a current cultural bias or historical narrative to create a sense of “personalism.” However, I feel that a social constructivist, relative approach to the immaterial and impossible to pin down past isn’t terrible useful for public history. I agree that a certain post-modern sensibility of the ways in which modern society constructs its past into a narrative in dialogue with the present keeps public historians academically honest. But while we’re being honest why don’t we just make the mission of the history museum manifest throughout.
Whether its exact restoration (if possible) or merely preserving the rich and detailed historical narrative of a site, chose a method and stick to your guns. Accusing others engaged in restoration as constructing the past doesn’t completely invalidate the historical research and findings used to create a restoration. Nor does preserving the historical site in its totality of historical change lack merit also, the academic historian’s work is to illuminate the value of their project towards historical understanding without making value judgments about different forms or presentations of historical artifacts as valid or not.
"Choose a method a stick to your guns." I like that. I kept thinking something along those lines as I was reading. I understand that debate and healthy discussion is essential in this field, but some of the comments quoted in the articles seemed almost catty. As you pointed out in class today, the reconstructionists have done their research. They can back up their actions with facts. Restoration and preservation both have a place in the field of historic presentation. I also agree that the "Personalism to Professionalism" article was missing a few important things. I understand that he was trying to illustrate the history of the preservationist, but it doesn't stop when the males 'take over.' What happened next? When did women come back in the picture? I'm curious as well.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting take on the Personalism to Professionalism article. I didn't see it the same way. First, some "personalist" womens historical organizations survived, I think, largely through the process we discussed in class: membership dues and a well defined, organized leadership. Some have changed their orientation to a more professional model and some have not. Second, I don't feel that the author was making such a strong value judgement as you suppose. I got the feeling that he was presenting personalism and professionalism as two different historic preservation strategies that each had advantages and disadvantages, not a straightforward whig history narrative of progress and male professionalization.
ReplyDeleteFair enough Barrett, I just felt like there was more about the pros of professionalism and the cons of personalism. I dropped the whig bomb which can seem kind of hardline, but this is the problem with post-modern history scholarship, just representing the historical events leaves us little room for value claims. "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; The point is to change it."
ReplyDelete