Academic versus Popular History

Historian Quanderings: Some rants and random thoughts I'm chewing on...

When I entered my graduate program, I was struck by the almost hostile tone in academia towards ‘popular history’ and ‘popular historians’. To my dismay, they are looked down upon, considered sensationalists, and/or not legitimate historians (This was not overtly taught, just something I picked up on through conversation). I struggle with the dichotomy of the two camps.

Popular history, what I once just adoringly knew as history, is what captured my passion for the past. It’s what launched me into spending decades researching and learning about the Middle Ages. It’s what led me to apply for grad school. Popular historians have been men and women I’ve looked up to and wanted to follow in their footsteps. Yet, in academia, they are not as esteemed as “academic historians.” Which is odd to me, considering most popular historians I’ve read either have masters or Phds under their belt. They’ve spent a lot of time within the same university halls, learning the same methods and skills that historians who make their careers in academia have. It has been a bit disenchanting.

It also speaks about the readership as well. To accuse popular historians of ‘dumbing down’ history to appeal to the general audience of the public is a bit offensive. We—and I still identify in this group as well as the academic group since I reside in both—are just as intelligent as the ivory tower residents. We may not know the terminology or the ongoing internal academic debates over nuanced subjects of the past, but we very much want to learn those things and have a seat at the table. We don’t need anyone to dumb things down for us. Nor do we simply want the sensational propaganda of popular history. We want the nitty gritty, substantive interpretations of the past as much as the graduate student does.

I understand there are differences between a popular history book geared toward an audience with only an introductory level of knowledge on the subject compared to an academic book geared toward other academics who are highly knowledgeable on the topic and can therefore go deeper into a subject. However, I wish there was a way to bridge the gap. Create a more inclusive environment for all those who enjoy history. A shared table for all, regardless of label and experience.

Is there a way for a historian (academic or popular) to write something that appeals to both? Something that contributes to the academic conversations, but also educates and engages with those not in academia? I think it’s possible and I believe there are historians doing just that. But who? Please share your thoughts and recommendations below!

Another random thought in a similar vein…I recently discovered that one of the books I’ve been using for my 12 Centuries in 12 Months series was written by a medieval historian who was not well liked in academia. He published a book in the 90s critiquing other medieval historians on how their personal bias and perspectives influenced their interpretation of history. It caused quite a stir. Does his reputation affect the legitimacy of his history?

The book of his I reference has been in print since it was published and widely accepted. He’s also known for having a readable quality to his writing, creating a bit of a bridge for non-academics (similar to the one I desired above). But is it frowned upon to reference work by a historian who isn’t well liked? Does his reputation taint the reputation of other historians who associate with his work? Again, food for thought and I loved to hear your opinions!