History’s Not History

by Willy Dintenfass

As the world we live in becomes more and more technology driven, enthusiasm for the future mixes with a certain kind of unease. “What is our role in this new world?” people ask, and judging from Paul Arthur’s talk at the Center last Friday, academics are no exception.

Arthur, a professor at Curtin University in Australia who is teaching at Rutgers this semester, is primarily interested in historical practices performed on computers, or as he refers to it, “digital history.” Taking the impact of poststructuralist theory and technological advance as a starting point, Arthur traces various paths available for the field of history in digitally mediated environments. Working in an interdisciplinary mode, he uses literary theory, game theory and cultural studies in tandem with historical practices to raise questions about and suggest approaches for how best to use digital technology to for historical research and presentation.

The presentation on Friday, “Database History – New Designs on the Past” was heavy on questions. Some dealt with broader issues related to digital environments: are we moving away from narration as our dominant form of interaction and comprehension? Others focused more specifically on digital history: to what extent is digital history transformed by the database? How can the field of digital history be extended beyond the realm of interactive learning? What kinds of historical studies lend themselves to digital exploration? Arthur gave clues here and there–-for example, a link between oral histories and digital presentation-–but many questions went unanswered.

During the Q&A session, another question began to emerge: what is the role of the historian in digital history? One commenter seemed to get at the general tone in the room when he suggested that the term “digital history” would shortly be retired, once general excitement over the inclusion of computers/the internet into the discipline subsides. Arthur was fairly willing to allay nervousness about the future role of the historian. The best path for digital history to take, he argued, is to use technology to build on a disciplinarian foundation. As databases grow larger and more comprehensive, an expert – i.e., the historian – will still be needed to determine which paths through and patterns in the information are productive. Furthermore, databases actually privilege certain kinds of information, so part of a historian’s role will be to counteract that process.

While this line of discussion may have a calming effect on worried historians, I was a little disappointed with it. Certainly if the term “digital history” refers only to the simple equation of history plus computers then we can expect it to fall out of fashion quickly. However, the term could also suggest a progression in the field of history, one that takes as its basis what is singular and unique about the digital – which I would argue is not simply its ability for storing large amounts of information. The field of digital history could deal with how to reconcile linear modes of historical analysis with non-linear digital formats. Or it could address how to do the history of right now, when a majority of primary sources are online, and therefore prone to change without notice or outright disappearance. These strike me as complicated and rich areas for exploration, and Paul Arthur has enthusiastically grappled with some of these issues elsewhere. While his presentation at UWM covered a lot of ground, I would have liked to hear a little less about how to maintain the discipline’s old roles, and a little more about what new roles might be.