Essay for 10/9/2012

I think that by looking at Glassberg’s conclusion to Sense of History with the topic of technology in mind, we can see that it truly is a double-edged sword. Glassberg writes that “as the marketplace through which we interact with the world becomes more impersonal, we want our histories to become more intimate, with an emphasis on the particular that just might keep us from becoming overwhelmed.”  Technology can, on one hand, be blamed for making the world a colder, more anonymous place. On the other, it can be utilized in a variety of creative ways that allow us to connect even more with history: films, websites, interactive exhibits, and mobile apps. Technology deprives us of some more traditional forms of connection, but thrusts upon us a million more ways to communicate. Glassberg writes that we feel the need to “impart a manageable scale to the flow of experience.” Technology helps us do this by letting us personalize our interaction with history. This is what history means to you, for you. It’s your own little chunk of the big picture. But technology is also a huge culprit in creating that unwieldy “flow of experience.” It bombards us with demands for our attention. Thus, technology can connect us in unimaginable ways, both to our history and each other, but it can also leave us feeling more isolated than ever.

Glassberg also writes that people want to become “embedded in a narrative that is theirs, real and true.” Through today’s technology, we can not only find our place in the narrative, but help create it. James Sparrow writes about the September 11 Digital Archives and its ability to “radically democratize access to historical materials” and “explode the narrative.” We can actually make history today by deciding what materials are worth preserving and volunteering them up for digital posterity. In this sense, technology is nothing short of astounding. However, Sparrow also addresses a lack of sense of place online, of the feeling of being nowhere and anywhere at the same time. This, combined with the sheer immensity of information available online, can make for a disorienting experience.

Wallace also talks about the “bewildering array of different interpretations available” through the mass media today. He also discusses how “new technology permits more ‘personalized’ encounters.” This can be a great thing for encouraging reluctant spectators to interact with history. However, “the societal consequences might be unfortunate. It would mean an erosion of public space.” If we can get our historical information online, watch historical films and play pseudo-historical video games from the comfort of our living rooms, there’s less of a reason to look to public spaces for history. And if we do venture out to the actual museum, if we’re busy using technology while we’re there, are we missing out on the human element? Will we be discussing the exhibits with our friends or family, or will we be glued to our personal listening devices? Will we bother to ask questions of the docents? Are there not still people for whom at least part of the appeal of a museum visit is an ESCAPE from technology, just for an afternoon? From the incessant beeps and ringing and clicking and flashes of modern life?

One of the themes reiterated by our guest speakers on Tuesday was an emphasis on the process of engaging people. They want to get conversations started in communities and engage people with landscapes, places, and other people. And while technology can help us reach out to people, I think the challenge will be using this technology to build community and not replace it. It can’t be a surrogate for conversation, it needs to be a catalyst. People obviously love that going online gives them the feeling of participation, of making their opinions heard. But we shouldn’t let technology replace actual, real-life participation. I think those who use technology in public history need to make sure that what they are encouraging is an engaging conversation, not just a drive-by commentary.

Disclaimer: I am the last person in the world to be advocating the importance of engaging conversation. I think self-checkouts at grocery stores are the greatest thing ever because that’s one more person I get to avoid talking to.