Opinion: The Challenge for Historians and Educators in the Digital Age

The first experience that some of us had in courses of Historiography, the process by which the collection and dissemination of history are carried out, was to read and analyze first-hand accounts of people who had an essential role in the process of forging the world we have now. For those who attended history classes before the digital age, printed texts such as the letters detailing the explorations and conquests by Hernán Cortés, or the various writings of Walter Raleigh,  were the primary sources for understanding European influence on the American continent during the era of colonialism. Studying that time is easy in terms of source selection because the percentage of the population that could read and write was minimal, and the work of scribes and the printing press were expensive. These were resources accessible only to the affluent classes or people who could procure patrons. That is why the works written at that time are few in comparison to those at the beginning of the twentieth century, in which the proportion of people with the ability to write was much higher, the printing press had become a generalized resource, and the press already existed as a communicative power of significant influence.

We jump 100 years into the future, and the situation is very different: the production and reading of content is wholly democratized, the access to primary education is a right, and anyone who has an internet connection and the ability to read and write can upload their content in public spaces such as social media networks, websites, blogs, videos, podcasts and more. There is a difference in having perhaps 100 to 200 works of historical records in colonial times to a few thousand to hundreds of thousands between the post-industrial period and the beginning of the twentieth century. Today, we have so many people recording instances of historical occurrences at the same time that galaxies could be filled with the content.

How to sort so much information? How to hierarchize, decide what is essential as a record, and what is not? How do you preserve this information, put it in context, and disseminate it? How does the meaning and relevance of the historical record change now that millions of people are writing the story daily?

Teaching it under this new context is also a challenge. Before the digital age, there were methods and resources closely linked to the sources of history to communicate it in a classroom; today, teachers can use everything from the analysis of modern songs that went viral to the impact of meme semiotics. Thanks to this flexibility of sources, the record, its divulgence, and the teaching of history have ceased to be a one-sided process but, instead, have become an interactive dialogue. To understand this process, we need to talk about two of the essential tools of historiography, namely, the record and its analysis.

The distance between the record and the analysis

As for opportunities to record history, we are better off now than ever, thanks to all the digital publishing platforms we have today, but what about the distance between the record, the reading, and the analysis that make up the historical perspective? If we talk, for example, about “General History of the Things of New Spain” by Bernardino de Sahagún or “From London to Ladysmith via Pretoria” by Winston Churchill, we talk about works that have been read and analyzed by experts in historiography, sociology, anthropology, and even literary criticism. The time in which a historical event or personal experience was recorded, disseminated, and analyzed represented a much more extended and more instrumental period in forming a historical perspective. The notion that a past event, as such, is not meaningful now, but after the subsequent judgment of future generations has become a cornerstone in our understanding of history as a concept and discipline of study.

Today, that distance no longer exists. Figures as important as congressmen or presidents no longer wait years to have a compendium made of their political decisions and discussions about their historical relevance or how they affect or benefit the society they serve. Instead, we are told every day if they participated in a rally in favor of reproductive rights, if they are going to authorize a “tariff increase,” or if they ate a taco bowl at mealtime. This information is in digital public spaces where people can have an opinion on the spot whether or not they agree with a pro-reproductive-rights policy agenda, whether a surprise increase in the cost of public transportation is fine with them, whether the taco bowl is enjoyable, or whether eating it serves to minimize the weight of racist political decisions. But is this history? Or is it a compendium of personal experiences and real-time perceptions? What’s the difference between them? Is it a valid criterion for discerning between what is relevant as a historical fact and what is not?

The relationship between personal experience and historical events

History is the discipline that makes use of various sources and academic methods to collect and disseminate a set of collective events that have influenced the formation of the world we live in now. Historiography is the process by which this collection and dissemination are carried out. But the situation becomes complicated when history and historiography coexist in the same space-time dimension.

If we return to colonial times, it is easy to talk about the historical significance of Hernán Cortés’ personal experience upon stepping for the first time on the soil of the Aztec Empire; no other envoy of European powers had done so before. This was the first instance of the tragic contact between the two civilizations, and it formed part of the intent to colonize an entire kingdom. Every word he wrote about this event was invariably going to be part of an important historical document. The personal experience of Cortés is an integral part of the historical moment of the invasion and conquest of Tenochtitlán.

More than 500 years later, a man shares his opinion about the Millennial generation and Generation Z through TikTok. The content of his message is not outstanding. His perspective is very similar to that shared by many of his age so that even the New York Times does not even bother to find out his name when they post a note about the phenomenon which he provoked. “Millennials and Generation Z
have Peter Pan syndrome; they never want to grow,” the man says, who argues that the vision and efforts of generations after him do not understand the steps for a sustainable system change. This is one individual’s viewpoint, but such personal discourses can also be part of a historical event if they go viral.

Today, history is no longer just about being the first to do something or making a discovery or being a prominent public figure with decision-making power over how the present takes place. It is also about being part of that random moment that becomes viral content and gets connected with social, political, and economic issues that define our present. It is also about generating a short, concise, and attractive term such as OK Boomer, popularized by the reaction of younger generations to the video. This massive intergenerational response in the social media not only represents the personal experience and perspectives of millions of members of Gen Z and Millennials but it also represents a historical moment in which an individual commentary mobilizes a global reaction and calls to attention issues of high collective interest, such as the dangers of climate change denial, the global financial crisis, or the huge economic and social justice imbalance among the various socio-economic classes, as well as other problems.

The phrase and its significance have sneaked into spaces that spark an historical interest in the making of political decisions, such as in the New Zealand parliament, where 25-year-old lawmaker Chloe Swarbrick used the term, “OK Boomer,” to respond to an older member of the parliament, who tried to interrupt her speech about the urgency of confronting the environmental reality in which we live. This democratization of narratives that spin history influences the new generations who have combined high use of digital resources with growing social awareness. This has resulted in the construction of history through many voices, not just one.

The historian’s work in a democratized historical present

At this point in the historical course, it is impossible to talk about history without mentioning the digital spaces, which no longer only serve to record events but also to provide the platform and impetus. We had previously indicated that there is no longer a distance in terms of time between the recording, reading, and the analysis of important historical events. This new panorama obliges social content moderators and historians to develop a critical sense like never before to select, discern, and spurt out both context and significance from all the information that our historical present weaves.

“The internet is pushing us, in good and bad ways, to realize that the official version of events should not always be endorsed and accepted without question,” said Jenna Wortham, a New York Times columnist, in 2016. The cultural journalist made an essential point about how the historical perspective is constructed and revised with the tools we currently have. Historians can now update the record much faster by considering more diverse sources that offer a complete view of historical moments.

The omissions and incomplete data in historical records are a common occurrence. Before the digital age, it could take years before these were detected and corrected; nowadays, this might be done in days or even hours. This process can occur thanks to an approach to the discipline of history that considers both historical facts and the melting pot of human experiences within that historical moment. It is both these factors that build a complete historical perspective.

The historian’s job in the digital age is to understand the conceptual difference and symbiosis between these two elements, so that he or she can navigate them and make a coherent and accurate record that is based on the testimonies that make up a historical moment and are unified into a single content, through which we can understand the chronological realities that are already part of the past and lend context to our present.

Disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The viewpoints expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and official policies of Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey.

Sofía García-Bullé

Share

This article from Observatory of the Institute for the Future of Education may be shared under the terms of the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0