Three Flavors of Public History: Passive, Active, and Provocative

Public history isn’t a monolith, which is a nice reminder as we’re only a week away from the summer term at Johns Hopkins. Public history, as I teach it, has evolved into a spectrum, a landscape with different approaches, each with its own strengths, weaknesses, and potential impact. As a public historian who’s spent years navigating this terrain, I want to lay out three distinct flavors of public history: the passive, the active, and the provocative (or radical, if you prefer).

Passive Public History: The Institutional Gatekeeper

This is the public history you’re probably most familiar with. It’s the museum with dusty exhibits, the historic house tour led by a guide in period costume reciting a well-worn script, the textbook that skims over uncomfortable truths. It’s often tied to institutions, funded by governments or wealthy donors, and tends to prioritize preservation over provocation.

Why it’s Passive: It prioritizes preservation and the transmission of established narratives. Its representatives rarely challenge audiences to think critically or engage with uncomfortable truths.

• Strengths: Passive public history can be excellent at preserving artifacts, documents, and historic sites. It can provide a basic level of historical knowledge and offer a sense of continuity with the past.

• Weaknesses: It often shies away from controversy, glosses over difficult truths, and caters to a narrow, often privileged, audience. It can feel stale, irrelevant, and disconnected from contemporary issues.

Active Public History: The Entrepreneurial Storyteller

This is where things get interesting. Active public historians are the innovators, the risk-takers. They’re not content with just preserving the past; they want to bring it to life, to make it relevant and engaging for a broader audience. They might work independently, start their own organizations, or collaborate with communities to tell stories that haven’t been heard.

Why it’s Active: Its practitioners go beyond simply presenting facts. They engage audiences, invite dialogue, and use innovative methods to make history relevant and accessible.

• Strengths: Active public history is dynamic, innovative, and responsive to community needs. It can tackle controversial topics, challenge dominant narratives, and spark meaningful dialogue. It’s often more accessible and inclusive than passive public history.

• Weaknesses: It can be less stable financially, reliant on digital monetization (such as on TikTok or YouTube), grants or donations (such as Patreon). It might struggle to reach the same level of institutional recognition or resources as established institutions.

Provocative Public History: The Radical Changemaker

Now we’re entering the deep end. Provocative public history, sometimes referred to as radical public history, isn’t afraid to ruffle feathers. It confronts the injustices of the past head-on, challenges power structures, and actively seeks to dismantle oppressive narratives. It often uses unconventional methods like street theater, social media campaigns, or direct action to engage with the public.

Why it’s Provocative: These examples directly confront power structures and dominant narratives. They aim to spark debate, inspire action, and even disrupt the status quo. They might be controversial, but they are often the most effective at bringing about meaningful change.

• Strengths: This approach is powerful, disruptive, and can spark transformative social change. It amplifies marginalized voices, challenges the status quo, and demands accountability for past wrongs.

• Weaknesses: It can be polarizing and face backlash from those who prefer a more comfortable version of history. It might struggle to find institutional support or funding.

Which Flavor is Right for You?

As you can see, these different flavors of public history offer a wide range of possibilities. There’s no single “right” way to practice public history. The most effective approach depends on your goals, audience, and the specific historical context.

But by understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, you can make informed decisions about how to best use your skills and resources to engage with the past and create a more informed and equitable future.