The Public Trust

As I was reading this week's texts, I began to compile a list of verbs to answer the question, "what is the functionality of an historical exhibit or artifact?"

• to remind
• to emphasize
• to caution
• to interpret
• to persuade
• to eulogize
• to celebrate
• to arouse emotion

We could go on and argue that any verb is necessary or not necessary for an exhibit.  Linenthal and Englehardt's History Wars' "Anatomy of a Controversy" chapter, explains that when President Harry Truman created the National Air Museum in 1946, its purpose was "to memorialize the national development of aviation; collect, preserve, and display aeronautical equipment of historical interest and significance..." (1996, 21). So when national museums started to produce exhibits that 'stirred the pot' by questioning heroism and giving voice to forgotten or silenced groups, public history controversies arose. 

During my list making, I hesitated at writing down, "commemorate" when I got to Linenthal and Englehardt's passage on "commemorative membrane: "Artifacts like the Enola Gay, however, tend to establish a 'commemorative membrane' around exhibit space within which the language of commemorative respect is often expected to dominate" (1996, 20).  Are exhibits expected to just commemorate events? What about shedding new light on something the public thinks they know a lot about?  

What are the responsibilities of a public historian to its public audience?  Ken Yellis writes that "no museum visitor should ever have to ask and which, if they are asked, make it guaranteed that the visitor experience will be unsatisfying at best: Why are they doing this? What kind of exhibition is this? And my personal favorite: Have I seen this exhibition before?" (11 of 16).  Thus, the public's relationship with historians could be one of trusting that new exhibits will be always uncovering new information and interpreting old stories in new ways...How do we do that?  I think the answer lies in our 4th pillar of "Public History" - Immediate.  Make history more than relevant to visitors to help them understand history and your perspective.

Rosenzweig and Thelen's Poplular Uses of History in American Life, builds on this notion that the public needs a multi-level exhibit, to both inform and spin something they may have learned in their 10th grade 20th c. American History class into something "immediately" relevant to their current life.  I think their study's use of family time as history in the making is a great way to make history "immediate" to the public.  Almost everyone can identify with some level of family identity and making connections through story telling or oral history (in my family, this is often disguised as gossip around the kitchen table) to link personal history to a larger context.  Perhaps over conversations with grandparents, someone could find out about a family member who was involved in WWII or even the bombing of Hiroshima.  Using a family tree makes history relevant and immediate and can capture that sought after public trust.