To what extent do historians own history?

Though in previous decades and even centuries historians may have appeared to hold a monopoly over
the production of historical literature, this has never been the case, particularly in regards to the present
day interpretation of the discipline. History is no longer owned by historians as demonstrated through
the discussion presented within Source A, a reproduction of Eric Foner’s 2002 article ‘Who Owns
History? Rethinking the Past in a Changing World,’ which deliberates over to what extent historians
can claim ownership of the discipline, particularly in recent years when “the globe [has] been roiled by
debates over history,” along with the arguments presented by Hayden White within his text “The
Historical Imagination,” which demonstrates the post-modernist perspective that all history is
essentially fiction, and the debates and controversy surrounding David Christian’s concept and book
‘Big History’. Through these works and debates, it is clear that historians do not own history, due to, at
least in part, these three significant factors – the expansion of historiographical thought and ideas
through the Linguistic Turn and the introduction of social history, the increasing accessibility of
historical sources and record through expanding archival technology and the role of money and
patronage, the latter of which demonstrates what does in fact own history – money and demand, as it
influence what history is produced and published.

The linguistic turn and the introduction of social history has had a significant transformative impact
upon the discipline of history, as through perverting not only the supposed central aims and ideals of
history, but also the basis upon which the legitimacy of a historical producer – historian or otherwise –
should be assessed. Though as stated within Source A “Historians view the constant search for new
perspectives as the lifeblood of historical understanding.…” it is still evident within the works of almost
any historian that their own perspective is considered to be paramount, a perspective formed through
their unique political, cultural and philosophical background and upbringing. Though today not many
historians would claim total historical objectivity, if historians did not genuinely believe that they were
correct and “essentially true”, then why would they seek to have their works published, for example
Hobsbawm stating that he “strongly defend[s] the view that what historians investigate is real.”
Through the linguistic turn, the belief in “historical truth,” which Source A defends, has been disrupted
and transformed, as according to prominent post-modernist Hayden White within his work “The
Historical Imagination,” the work of a historian is “in essence nothing more than a literary text.”
Therefore, if all history is essentially works of fiction, defined more by the personal agendas and
perspectives of their producers than by fact, then why are only a select few of producers under the title
‘historian’ allowed to produce history? Also, despite again Source A proclaiming that “perspective [is]
the lifeblood of historical understanding,” due to the hierarchical nature of society, traditionally
historians came from a very specific and privileged background, thus reflected through the overall
inclusions of similar “Great Men,” and omission of women, lgbtq+, non-white races and other
minorities perspectives and experiences from history. This is articulated within John Vincent’s ‘The
Intelligent Persons Guide to History’, whereby he explains that “History is deeply male. History is
essentially non-young. History is about the rich and famous, not the poor. History favours the articulate,
not the silent.” The introduction of social history and the bottom-up approach however has reversed
this trend. Though many academic historians also undertake these studies, the introduction and
newfound interest in social history allowed for its expansion into the “uncharted waters” of class, ethnic,
feminist and LGBTQ+ histories, and by extension, the expansion of history producers from these areas,
dedicated to “giving a voice to the voiceless,” many of whom do not ascribe to the label of ‘historian’.
According to Source A, “history is regularly rewritten in response to… new political, social, and cultural
imperatives,” and this is reflected through social history, as it has enabled history itself to become and
remain more relevant within the lives of more people, resulting in more people engaging within the
historical process. This is further enabled through, within recent decades, the greater accessibility and
variety of historical sources and records.

The accessibility of historical sources and records has had a critical impact upon expansion of
historiography away from the ownership of historians, as ordinary individuals are enabled with the
opportunity to research, study and formulate their own histories and present them through a multitude
of different mediums. According to Source A, “History always has been and always will be regularly
rewritten, in response to new questions, new information, new methodologies.” This fact, along with
the introduction of new archival technology is a significant reason as to why history can at least no
longer be considered to be owned by historians, as in the modern age it is a lot easier for an ordinary
individual to gain access to historical sources, works and evidence, and to produce works of similar
historical merit. For example, an individual does not need a PHD (traditionally required to be considered
a historian) in order to access google (or google scholar) and find a plethora of reliable sources and
accounts that aid them within their own research. This is why many individuals who do not have a
background within history or a PHD, such and ex-rugby player and radio presenter Peter Fitzsimons
have earned such success within the historical discipline, without being considered a “historian.”
Fitzsimons history books on Australian history, such as ‘Ned Kelly,’ ‘Gallipoli’ and ‘Kokoda’ have not
only received critical and commercial acclaim, but also demonstrate the shift away from historians
owning history, as his bestselling books outsell those produced by ‘legitimate’ historians. Along with
this, Fitzsimons books also ascribe to the, according to Source A “commonly accepted professional
standards that enable us to distinguish good history from falsehoods…” such as meticulous research, a
strong reliance upon verifiable evidence. This demonstrates that these traits are not solely embodied by
historians as alluded to by Source A, and can be exhibited by ordinary, non professional individuals,
particularly those with a passion for the area. Along with this, some historians in fact, such as Bill
O’Reilly and David Irving, do not abide by these “professional standards,” producing works, such as
within the case of O’Reilly, that present so many historical inconsistencies and inaccuracies that
Washington Post columnist George Will stated that he “pollutes history and debases the historians
craft.” Therefore, it is evident that through the expansion of methodologies, new information and
technology that is readily available for ordinary individuals, it is clear that historians no longer can
claim a monopoly over the historical discipline, as history is produced by non-professional individuals.

The role of money and patronage within History is not a new phenomenon, however it further asserts
the lack of ownership historians can logically claim upon the discipline of history. According to Source
A, it was stated by the President of the American Historical Association Charles Francis Adams that
history should not be left to “the journalist and the politician,” however that does not discount the fact
that significant and power individuals throughout history, such as politicians, can have a critical impact
upon the writing of history through patronage, whereby they essentially “own” historians and seek to
implore them to produce histories that are beneficial to their own agenda through offering financial and
social success. This issue of a historian’s agency, and to what extent a historian even owns their own
histories has been put into question since the ancient historians, whereby the works of Tacitus would
have been supported by a wealthy patron, in his case Vespasian as evident within the prologue of his
‘Histories,’ whereby it states “My official career, owed its beginning to Vespasian.” Thus the works of
Tacitus sought to benefit his benefactor, through shaming and discrediting the Julio-Claudian dynasty
to legitimise Vespasian’s claim to power. This phenomenon is also evident today, clearly demonstrated
through the influence of the concept of ‘Big History,’ as expounded within David Christian’s book of
the same name, which utilises a macro-historical methodology to explain the overarching themes and
events within World History, as it is supported both socially and financially by the multi-billionaire
tech giant Bill Gates. Through Bill Gates patronage, enabling ‘Big History’ to infiltrate the education
system and gain significant kudos and international influence, it is evident that in many instances the
historians do not own history, rather than money and influence. This is evident not only through
patronage, but also through analysing the works that actually get published. Publishing companies do
not sell history books in order to educate a population, but moreso to make a profit, and thus will always
seek to publish works that satisfy public demand and interest. Thus, it can be inferred that not only does
money own history, but also the general public, as they “vote with their dollar” to influence publishers
and historical producers to create works that satisfy their interest.

Therefore, through the role of money and patronage, expanding methodological and technological
capabilities and the introduction of social history and the linguistic turn, it is evident that todays
historians do not in fact own history, but are instead they themselves “owned” by money and public
demand. Thus it is evident that though historians may have previously held a monopoly over the
production of historical literature, today, as suggested by Source A, “Who owns history? Everyone and
no one.”