My thoughts on the readings for week 2

David Glassberg articulates a convincing argument that the ways in which individuals interpret history are so diverse that any attempt to classify an expression of historical consciousness, be it a museum exhibit, historical festival, public monument etc, as displaying a coherent “narrative” is simplistic. While the curator, festival overseer, or architect might design their project to communicate a particular narrative or theme, the public that experiences the end result may derive meanings utterly different from the intellectual thought process that led to the project’s creation. This goes well with Corbett and Miller’s explanation of “shared inquiry” as a process of shared intellectual authority between designer and receiver, along with their examples of museum exhibits in which the designer’s intended “message” was either missed or reinterpreted by those viewing the exhibit. In light of this reality, Glassberg suggests that the “task of the historian in these situations may be more to create safe spaces for local dialogue about history and for the collection of memories, and to ensure that various voices are heard in those spaces, than to provide an original interpretation of the past” (pages 13-14). I do not doubt the accuracy of these author’s observations regarding the futility of trying to communicate a cohesive narrative through a historical project that is shared with a public audience, but it somewhat disturbs me nonetheless. Coming from an academic background which drills into us the importance of narrative and, especially, “argument” in essays and presentations, how can these skills translate into presenting for a public forum which does not necessarily look for or place value in these fundamentals? Of what practical purpose is academic training in the world of Glassberg’s non-interpretive “safe spaces?” I have a feeling that these might be issues we will be examining all semester, but there’s no harm in hearing each other’s thoughts on it now.