What is the purpose of the historian in todays society??

As a student of history I have often wondered how much impact we have in the world today, if any at all. It is interesting to see just how much we actually use history in our lives without even realising it.

(when referring to 'Wood' or 'Champion' I refer to the historical citations noted at the end of this post if you wanted to read their articles too)

The purpose of historians can be perceived differently by each individual person. Some refer to historians as storytellers; others would perceive historians to be data collectors and trained professionals who have duties to provide explanations of the past. Surely one of the main aims of any historian is to educate and attempt to explain events of the past rather than simply recite stories. There is method and theory behind being a historian and I fully agree with Champion when he states the aim of the historian should be ‘to recover what has been lost’. We are constantly attempting to piece together history that does not always appear to fit together; our job essentially is to fill in the gaps to create a complete picture. Wood argues ‘if historians began doubting that there was an objective past reality that they were trying to recover and began thinking that what they did was simply make up the past and write something akin to fiction, then they were not just clearing the grounds for new kinds of approaches and subjects but were actually undermining the ground for any sort of historical construction at all.’ I agree with Wood’s argument and believe we as successful historians have duties to the public to be more than simply storytellers otherwise we are restricting the progress of history.

I do not fully agree with Champions statement that the ‘activity of being a historian is artistic rather than scientific’ , I believe there has to be some element of science within history because without it we would not be able to date certain artefacts, for example without the use of radiocarbon dating, we would not be able to determine what era an artefact had descended from as well as we can with the use of such scientific methods. However, I do also agree that there is also an artistic element to being a historian too, as without imaginative suggestions to particular gaps in history, we would not be able to piece together different explanations as well as what we would if we solely relied on scientific methods. Wood has noted that ‘Social science, especially anthropology and ethnography, enabled some historians to reconstruct from riots, rituals, and other kinds of popular nonverbal behaviour in the past the beliefs and attitudes of the masses of ordinary men and women who left no written record’, also supporting the suggestion of history being scientific as well as artistic. This could also provide explanation as to why some people are interested in specific types of history, for example residents of Hull and Grimsby possibly have an interest in the history of the fishing industry, whereas residents of Barnsley and Doncaster possibly have more of an interest in their local history of mining, because it involves them indirectly or in some cases directly.

Champion goes on to discuss ‘there is a variety of ways of representing history’ and I agree with this. There are so many different categories of history that affect people, this could range from personal history, family, local and regional history which leads onto the bigger picture of national and world history. Other ways of representing history come in the forms of museum exhibitions, radio programmes, television documentaries, public lectures, and battle re-enactments. It could even be something as small as a family heirloom or discovering your own family tree. However, I would consider movies to be pure entertainment; I do not think they should be seen in a historical manner as the viewer could very rarely, if ever, learn anything truly educational from them, as many contain numerous anachronisms, giving the audience misconceptions. I do, however, believe the movies may encourage some viewers to find out more about the historical age depicted in them, so they do indirectly still serve the purpose of engaging the public.

I agree with Champion’s argument of history should engage the public, and also agree that history that does not do this is not serving its purpose regardless of the intended audience. However, I believe history is constantly engaging with the public in more ways now than ever before. Champion discusses there has been such demand for history ‘that entire new channels have been launched’, surely this stands as proof the public are already engaged with history and want to learn more. New ways of accessing history, such as interactive websites and hands on museum exhibitions, are also attracting a wider range of audience; however, I do think there are very fine lines between history and entertainment but in several cases believe the two work well together. Television documentaries, for example, give the audience a visual impact some would struggle to get from a book with the same information. Children are able to remember particular historical events and characters from history books, admittedly these usually come in the forms of leaders, for example Richard the Lionheart, Julius Caesar, the Vikings and Alexander the Great. These particular people are memorable to children because they are entertained by the stories and history behind them. In general books always have some form of entertainment purpose, which is why people continue to read.

History has become more of a public interest in recent times because historians have begun to focus on the history of the people, rather than the history of great leaders and the ancient civilisations, as described in Wood’s article ‘historians began concentrating on ordinary folk and marginal people: the poor, the oppressed, and the silent.’

Wood argues ‘there has always been a tension between critical history and memory, between what historians write and what the society chooses to remember’ implying myth and legend are still current themes within history, for example, when studying the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms people choose to read about the legends of King Arthur and Camelot rather than focus on the true history of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles in the same way people studying the Vikings would probably read Beowulf, and so this is where the perception of historians being just storytellers may derive from.

Champion suggested the ‘killing of history is the consequence of political correctness’. This implies historians are becoming more limited to what exactly they can say and comment on, however, this is surely going to hinder the progression of discussion and debate concerning history. Champion further states ‘A commitment to objectivity, it seems, may compromise the pursuit of the truth’ which suggests that some historians may refrain from being entirely truthful as they are more concerned to remain objective so as not to offend anyone. I believe we should declare the truth, regardless of whether or not it offends, surely the truth is what the public needs as well as other historians, so their studies and research can progress further.

Wood argues that ‘Our perceptions and explanations of the past should not be directly shaped by the issues and problems of our own time’. People use history on many levels and in different aspects of their lives, for example, discovering your family tree. I am a descendent of a family of fishermen, shipbuilders and dockworkers, and this inspired me to study maritime history at university, however, this may also have been due to the local and regional history of Hull and East Yorkshire inspiring me to take an interest in the history directly surrounding me.

Historians should provoke and be involved in debates, as this is another way of engaging an audience. It is always useful to be aware of the thoughts of others with opposing viewpoints as this helps the development of the discovery of history advance. It also encourages people to have a deeper understanding of history by requiring them learn more about it so they can go on to discuss it. It is interesting to see opinions develop differently, even after studying the same texts. This shows that individuals understand history in various ways. With regards to historians being involved in political debates, I believe every person has the right to be involved. I also believe historians have the ability to convey that we can learn from past events of history, and so definitely support the historian becoming involved with political debates.


History already is a significant part of people’s lives without them realising. It is taught throughout a person’s academic life, leaving them with the ability to analyse sources, solve problems, provide explanations in a logical manner and be critical of other work. People continue to use these basic life skills throughout their working life. This is also reflected in Champions argument, stating ‘with a sufficient range of historical knowledge students will be well equipped with understanding and skills to participate effectively in the world around them.’

In conclusion I believe historians should be able to educate the public and continue to keep them interested and engaged with something that is constantly around them. I think history is a very important part of our lives and I believe in order to move forward we must first look back to make progress, possibly to avoid history repeating itself or to improve our current situations. My opinion and personal experience of the purpose of the historian and the purpose of the history is summed up in Champions article rather than Wood’s, particularly when he states ‘Good history is history that is honest-it is also history that is critical, informed, engaged and committed. It should expose tyranny, celebrate achievement, condemn crimes, explain prejudice, describe sacrifice, honour victims, commemorate the dead, but most importantly, provoke debate.’

Champion, Justin, ‘What are historians for?’, Historical Research, 81 n. 211 (2008) pp.167-88


Wood, Gordon, ‘The Purpose of the Past: Reflections on the uses of History’, Historically Speaking, 10 n. 1 (2009) pp.2-6

I would love to hear your opinions on this topic! :)