Read on Twitter
History involves interpretation, theories and the projection of our own experiences onto the past. But, crucially, history is an empirical exercise with a reasonably-high burden of proof tested against the crucible of critique. Without this, it’s simply the whims of the powerful.
This is why many historians (e.g Guldi & Armitage) talk of “speaking truth to power”. There are so many claims made about the past in popular culture (and what might be called “public memory”) that we need people who take those claims to task, based on an empirical foundation.
This is why history can’t be done by popular vote, any more than atmospheric chemistry or palaeontology can be done by asking people for what they think the “right answer” is. It is also why the “average opinion” is irrelevant: this might tell you about public memory...
...but it won’t answer any historical questions for you, mostly because the vast majority of people simply do not have access to the empirical basis on which to answer those questions. That’s why we have specialists in society. This isn’t to say specialists should sit in ivory...
...towers (in fact I’d argue they have an ethical duty not to do so), nor is it to say that specialists agree or are above challenge (they do not and are not). But if you want a serious empirical discussion about the past, then it needs specialists who know their stuff.
This is why, as history teachers, engaging with specialists is part of the job. It also is why specialists need to see they have a public service to play in talking to and supporting history teachers.
History is not a science. But it’s also not a free-for-all. Its questions are not best handled by the wisdom of crowds.
