The Relevance of History [antikvár]

Introduction m SÉ This book suggests that historians are faced today with two alternatives: either they establish the relevance of their subject or the study of history will decline. The reader, whether he is an historian or not, may be surprised by such a suggestion. For he appears to be surrounded by evidence that history is thriving. More history books than ever before are being bought, and some are best sellers; increasing numbers of people are deriving pleasure from our historical heritage, visiting monuments, museums, stately homes, and so on. Historical presentations on television enjoy great success; the same medium shows a seemingly endless number of historical films. Of course, very little of this amounts to serious historical study. But more seriously, history is widely taught in our schools and universities. A great many people have 'O' and 'A' level passes in the subject, and there are large numbers of history graduates. History seems to be part of the established order of things. Taken altogether, this surely is a very satisfactory state of affairs for the professional historians : the academics who practise history in our universities. But being part of the established order of things is no guarantee of immunity from decline, especially in an age of rapid change. No one should be more aware of this than historians. Recently there has been a growing demand from young people - the age-group which society has been unprecedentedly eager to educate -that their education should be 'relevant' : that is to say, it should have a clear and immediate bearing upon their current interests and aspirations. This demand is part of a general challenge to 'the establishment' and a manifestation of what is loosely called 'the generation gap'. Not surprisingly, academics generally have reacted unfavourably to it on the traditionally hallowed grounds that an academic subject is studied 'for its own sake'. Professional historians, by both nature and training a conservative group, advance this argument, and direct particular criticism at those T.R.H.-1* I