Reflection on Ludmilla Jordanova's History in Practice

Ludmilla Jordanova's History in Practice touches on some of same issues that are seen in most books dealing with the nature and practice of history, but deals with them in distinctive and original ways. Her three goals of the book are to provide an up-to-date overview of important issues in the discipline, to locate history in the context of other related disciplines, and to "sketch in what historians actually do and how and why they do it." Basically it is a mediation on history's place in and contributions to the intellectual life of our new century. For this reason the postscript and the opinions of Jordanova on the discipline of history are very clear-cut making it very easy to agree with the opinions brought fourth.

For instance, I find it very interesting when Jordanova talks about how most historians write and study history because there is this " spirit of passionate enthusiasm for the study of the past". Jordanova talks about a sympathetic identification along with myopia that comes along from the intimate involvement with one's object of study. This is what makes the discipline of history such a vast subject filled with so many different specialization's and areas of interest. It is these diverse sources and approaches that makes history holistic, which is the underlying goal of the discipline. History allows one to go back into the past and answer the questions of where "we" came from. Where "we" represents each historian that is making studies about his/her heritage. Since historians are interested in their own past it is very important for other historians to be aware of generalizations.

Generalizations and bias' are to be accepted when scholars reveal their personal visions. But it is also made mention that in order to study an event one does not necessarily have to agree with it. Rather, Jordanova says, historians should, "responsibly, unsettle their audiences, provoking them to think harder and deeper about the human condition." It is very important for historians to view things differently because this is what makes history so important it is the idea of discussion and interpretation. Those historians are able to research something and examine it from an internal interest while setting a base for other historians to critique and work from. Historians should foster informed debate about the past, and encourage people to think critically about what evidence does and does not reveal.

In addition, The heart of this section is on public history, in which Jordanova defines history quite broadly. "Public history [she asserts] is popular history," intended for a mass audience, and it includes not only periodicals and books written for the general public, but museums, documentaries, historical fiction, and public memorials. Since historical understandings are an important part of public discourse, it is important for historians to serve publics beyond the walls of the academy. "If I have one wish for the future of the discipline, "Jordanova writes, "it is that it embrace the possibilities for which 'public history' stands as a shorthand." Historians are best qualified "to demonstrate to the public how fatuous and dangerous the crude moral polarities are that are so often invoked in history's name." Reflecting her advocacy of public history, Jordanova says she is writing primarily for general readers and students. However, the book will provide an extremely valuable overview of the current state of the profession for those planning to enter it.

In conclusion, after much reading and thinking about Jordanova's ideologies regarding the discipline of history are very similar to the way in which I believe the subject of history should be run. I study history for the fact that I find such a great interest in the lives of people from the past. I also like the fact that history is just jam-packed with so many different views, because people have such different ways of looking at the way the world works. I really enjoyed Jordanova's book and couldn't agree with her more on the subject of "public history." I believe there really should be more history for the general public collaborating with museums and media programs. This is the reason we have the History Channel today, I appreciate the fact that history has become so easy to access. Historical knowledge is truly a social constructor.