The editors of Bachmannalia lost all pretense to being creative years ago, but they did have some potentially interesting ideas last night that they would like to share with the electronic world.

(1) “Names” – A book idea that would catalog several instances throughout history where the name of something was essential to how it played out.  For instance, during the debates over the Constitution, the supporters of the new document seized upon the name “Federalists” despite the fact that those who opposed the proposed system were more federalist than its supporters.  The American people, perhaps more in line with the opponents, who had to settle for the name “Antifederalists,” felt that they were federal-types and bought into the new idea.  Significant name?  Yes.  Of course, I can’t think of any more off the top of my head, so we’ll see how far that goes.

(2) “Bathroom Graffiti” – This was a coffee-table book idea I had years ago.  Simply travel around and chronicle, through pictures, some of the choicest graffiti in bathroom stalls.  I think it would work.

(3) “Crowd Word” – Huh?  Well, it is an installation idea that I could in no way actually produce, even if I had the skills to make the figures look realistic.  But basically the idea is this: take over a room and create a bunch of real-sized sculptures of figures doing everyday things.  The “artsy” part would be to have the various figures line up when the viewer stands at a certain point in the room so that certain things painted on all the figures that look “normal” on the figures actually all line up to spell out a certain message.  Does that make sense?  You know, like a woman’s purse would be part of it, and someone’s hat, etc.  Anyway, it would spell something “provocative” at least in an artsy way – in other words, not at all.

(4) “Coffee Spill” – Hang translucent balls from the ceiling with a giant figure spilling a mug of coffee, so the balls would be the coffee in mid-spill.

Anyway, I’m an artist I guess.  Don’t steal my ideas.

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.

For all of you who enjoy law/politics and history, you should check out Don Fehrenbacher's "The Dred Scott Case."  Fehrenbacher was a historian by trade (he completed David Potter's seminal work on the antebellum period, "The Impending Crisis") and he does a fine job of describing the development of legal theory as it related to slavery over the course of time.  As someone who primarily studied the social history of slavery in college Fehrenbacher's work really helped me to comprehend the ways judges in the North and South distilled the prevailing attitudes and currents of the day into "legalese."

You should also read it because, as this blog has noted before, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney is a toolbag.