Dear Aji,
First of all, thank you for using the Google Answers service. This
question is very interesting, since it has several possible answers,
like any good question in humanities and social sciences.
For better or for worse, media had changed tremendously in the past
150 years or so, and so had the science of history. What a historian
in the 19th century considered as a valid source, might not be
considered today as a valid source, and vice versa. History today
accepts sources such as personal narratives, that were treated as
"rubbish" in the 19th century but today are essential to our
understanding of cultures with very little written material (for
example, when researching African history).
However, in the post-modern and post-totalitarian age, we are also
fully aware that each source, including "neutral" and "objective"
sources such as the media. For the professional historian, all media
tools are "subjective" on one hand, but on the other, all media tools
are valid, as long as one bears in mind that they are "biased".
Another difference is the disrespect for some mediums within the media
(for example, comics, see Pascal Lefèvre & Dierick Charles, 1998),
which does not exist today. That means, that the historian in the 19th
century may have regarded a novelty, whose not all tools are
"historic". Today, we treat even comic strips as history (see Lefèvre
& Charles, 1998). Furthermore, a future historian would find benefits
in our many modern tools of media, which are also analysed today but
were not analysed in the 19th century - Internet, popular TV shows, TV
news, ads, graffiti, urban legends, emails, song lyrics, new religious
doctrines, cinema, etc.
The availability of tools means that every piece of information has to
"fight" for it's place in our consciousness, like Luckmann and Berger
have already maintained in 1967. The consumerism in current society,
like the ruling powers of the 19th century, set the main agenda.
However, it may be (I am not sure about that) that today there is more
chance for alternative voices to be heard (see:
http://www.indymedia.com). I am also not sure whether it's a good
thing or not - some publications cast doubts, for example, on the
existance of the Jewish Holocaust, an event that took place only 60
years ago (1941-1945). "Real" historians would not fall for that, but
begginners might, especially in an age where everything is "equal".
The future historian, even more remote from the events of the 1940s
than the contemporary one, might fall for that more easily.
The 19th century historian couldn't have used media in the same
approach as today because of other technological developments.
Archiving is today much more developed than in the 19th century. The
futuer historian could browse through different publications, for a
specific word or graphical component, and find aid for his or her
research. The 19th century historian, if they used media at all and
did not regard it - like many of their contemporaries - as "non
history" - had to sit in the library for hours, sceening information.
They still probably would not find what the future historian would.
However, some aspect of the work are not changed. Historians now and
then are interested in telling a story. In compiling pieces of
information about an event from different aspects. The future
historian have more tools to do that, and more experience to know
sometimes that the media is biased. The work, however, is basically
the same.
Sources
=======
Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. 1967. The Social Construction of
Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor books, New
York.
Pascal Lefèvre & Dierick Charles, Forging a New Medium, The Comic
Strip in the 19th Century, VUB University Publishers, Brussels, 1998,
214 pages (illustrated), ISBN 90 5487 206 3.
Media & Communications History -
http://www.missouri.edu/~jourss/mediahis.html
JHistory - an academic discussion list on the history of media. I
think you'll find here many people willing to assist you, if it's not
for your homework - http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~jhistory/
Media History - Media History (abstracts archived by MLA) journal
I searched through my books and also on the Internet, on the question
of media and history.
I hope that helped. If you need anything else, please contact me. |
Clarification of Answer by
politicalguru-ga
on
26 Jul 2002 00:40 PDT
Dear Aji,
Thank you for you clarification to the question. Future historians
will be able to use 1990s media as reliable history sources, but with
several reservations:
(1) The number of publications - is much higher and contains much more
sources. That helps, of course, the historian. The media technology is
improved and the types of mediums are also greater.
(2) Historians are more and more aware that media has its own agenda
and is always biased, even with what seems to be "objective" media.
That is an important point. However, when using 19th century radical
press, one is also aware of its tendencies and biases. So, in other
words, media is going to be a useful tool for the future historian.
To understand that, we need to look at the role the media plays in our
society. Except for the obvious role, providing information (or
entertaining us), we (or the future historian) can learn a lot from
media. We can learn about social trends, about what was deemed
"important" at that time, about socio-linguistic trends (changes and
currents in the usage of language), etc. I'll give you a provocative
example - a historian going over late 1990s media would find many
articles on the Viagra. He'll find much less on much more common
medical problems, that are also causes of death, but in the Third
World: AIDS, Maleria, TB, lack of proper nutrituion. He may conclude,
that in that period, the sexual satisfaction of middle aged Western
men was more important issue than the death of people in Africa.
I hope that clarifies a little. Don't hesitate to contact me again if
you need any further clarifications.
|
,
0 Comments
)