Politics, Technology, and the Historian

While corporate scandals, such as CEO John Thain spending $35,115 on a toilet for his office in 2009, have been in the news during this recession, it seems many Americans do not expect similar issues to arise within institutions that preserve and disseminate intellectual information, such as the Smithsonian. At least, I hadn't thought about it until reading this article from the American Historical Association. Until he resigned in 2007, Lawrence M. Small was secretary of the Smithsonian Institution's board of regents for eleven years. Along with many other poor decisions, Small engaged in "lavish expenditures such as a $13,000 conference table, two $2,000 chairs, and $31,000 for upholstery during renovations of Small's office at the Smithsonian. Small also received over $1 million in reimbursement over a six-year period for use of his home for Smithsonian-related activities." Small's resignation and 'legacy' resulted in the need for a new, trustworthy secretary. The author of this article, Lee White, argues a historian should hold this position, instead of a scientist. Scientists have disproportionally held the secretarial post in the past, and I agree with White that a historian is a wiser choice. While it has no bearing on how corrupt they are, I think the training a historian endures allows them to accomplish the tasks of a Smithsonian secretary more effectively than a natural scientist. Politics are a powerful portion of history, so historians have deeply analyzed and reanalyzed various political environments in various times and places. This understanding best prepares the historian for such a position in the intensely political world we live in today.

Another article I read from the same AHA page mostly considers the impact of technology on history and information through other works. The article was written in 2007, and as the editor ponders this question: "Will the advent of better handheld e-book readers that can hold dozens of books portend the death of the old-fashioned book or the printed journal?", I became acutely aware that I was reading from my Kindle. This article was published only five years ago, yet I just read it on my Kindle Fire, a now popular e-book device that also integrates applications (apps) and the internet (essentially transitioning it into a tablet). And considering the fact the editor anticipates e-readers storing "dozens of books", it is clear that even the writer discussing the quick growth of technology and the resulting impacts could not imagine the widespread devices we use on a daily basis, or fully comprehend the immediacy of technological effects. My Kindle Fire has the capacity to store thousands of books. At the moment, my brain is struggling to let this contrast between the expected and the surpassing reality sink in, and this is coming from a person who works with technology and readily assumes its perpetual and brisk change.

While most of the other points the editor mentions seem to be old news now, the editor does contrast linear reading with different methods of online reading. I hadn't given this much thought before, but what if linear reading becomes a traditional way of learning, or becomes obsolete? It seems my generation has largely embraced new forms of technology; tablets and smartphones (including the explosion of Apple products) are immensely popular. Even though I am fascinated by technology, I was initially skeptical of e-books. I thought there would be a disconnect in my comprehension when using an electronic device to read, since it lacks pen to paper contact and the navigation throughout the book is so different (but still a linear progression). I actually acquired my Kindle from my Grandma as a graduation gift, in part because she enjoys her Kindle so much. This certainly demonstrates the influence of technology and its ability to transcend generational differences. Now that I've owned a Kindle for a few months, I'm beginning to prefer my Kindle over paper books. I definitely prefer the Kindle editions of the historical monographs I've been reading for graduate school. I am able to work through e-books much faster, since I can quickly type notes within the book, and if I'm not sure of the meaning of a word, I can simply rest my finger on the word and the definition pops up. I am able to stay immersed in my reading with my Kindle, while I am easily distracted when constantly cycling through the monograph I'm reading, my notepad for notes, and my laptop for Google/Dictionary. So, if tablets, e-readers, and even smartphones (with their apps/internet access) continue to increase in popularity, will the way we read and learn eventually shift away from a linear progression? The possibilities for different ways of absorbing information using the internet and technology are endless. As our society becomes increasingly digital with new techniques for dissemination, will analog forms such as history books and physical museum exhibits coexist or become obsolete? What will we see next? Or should we (most likely) waste our time guessing?