There is an excellent book called “That Noble Dream” by Peter Novick I had to read in grad school.  It sounded terribly boring as it was to cover the notion of objectivity in the historical profession.

In actuality this book was fascinating.  It chronicled the history of historians, particularly American historians since the end of the Civil War, and attempted to explain why they wrote and thought about history so differently in various decades.  Novick used the concept of objectivity to explain this development.  For instance, at times of national crisis such as the Second World War, objectivity could be reasonably set aside in some cases by historians for the “greater good” of what people needed to hear; conversely, after Watergate and Vietnam many historians saw the exact opposite as being what people needed to learn.

But I digress.  One of the major developments that Novick points to is the “professionalization” of historians.  Prior to the Civil War historians tended to be found among the leasured upper class males who enjoyed chronicling their perspective on times.  After the war (and largely influenced by changes in German universities), American historians began to see the need to professionalize their field.  This, of course, required degrees.  So people started to go to school to earn a PhD in history, thereby cementing them as a reputable scholar and one worthy of being read and taken seriously.  Why is this useful?  Well, because much like the GAO, historians would vet themselves – if some aspiring historian was simply writing baseless opinions, they would never be acceptedby the community.  This cycle ensures quality, but it can also insulate a group and slowly push their other views (Republicans love to say professors are all liberal nutcases) into accordance with each other.

This process has continued up to today.  But here’s my point (finally) – I really see this professional barrier being erased in many areas of information and intellectualism.  What got me thinking about this?  Wikipedia.  As a teacher I had told my students not to use Wikipedia because the authors weren’t professionally accredited, etc.  But if you think about it, why can’t people post things they know?  Many professors know a lot about a small field, but not that much else.  Wikipedia has been shown to be at least as accurate, if not more so, than published encyclopedias, simply because people got involved in it and vetted it for themselves.

Another example – blogging.  More and more people get their news and information from the internet, which is much less highly “policed” than print, TV, and (informed) radio.  [Note: Almost everyone involved in other forms of media have degrees that link them to such communities!]  People can learn all sorts of things from the web, true or otherwise.  This has some interesting consequences.  Is there a greater chance of information being incorrect?  Yes.  Anyone can write anything on the web, but a newsprint reporter has to answer to an editor, who must answer to a publisher, etc.  But… are there more choices and is there more diversity on the web.  Also yes, and resoundingly so.

Madison reminds us that everyone has interests.  We operate under certain parameters that link with our personal needs, etc.  Well, the same is true with media and history.  Publishers require revenue and they aren’t going to allow just anything to be published.  Thus the unprofessional web can offer more opinions, perspectives, etc.  However, what about the circle of professionals themselves?  They also have an interest and herein lies the crux of the argument (or whatever this is) – they have an interest in preserving their professionalism.  If anyone can be a journalist or a historian, then why go get a degree to say that you are?  People are breaking down those doors each day with their access to information and ability to disseminate their views to others.  It will be interesting to watch what happens to the restrictions of professionalism as well.