Who is a historian?

[emhafe]

Perhaps this debate has come up here before, but I'm intrigued what people have to say. It seems that the title "historian" can cause friction in some cases of its usage. For example, an alum of my undergrad (who has been out of school for at least ten years), offered to come speak about her career as a historian. The department was torn on allowing her to speak--she had no formal education in history, having studied English, but did go down a career path that involves turning oral histories into books. 

 

Is there a point at which a person can (safely) consider themselves a historian? Or have we all just become too wrapped up in titles? Personally, I tend to think that a person holding a PhD in history is a historian or a person trained in the field of public history. It seems almost insulting to people who went through years of training for someone who doesn't have much to call themselves a historian.

 

Just curious what people think!

[jayray11]

I was discussing this with some peers in my MA program recently. I don't think there's really a "right" answer, but I like the distinction between amateur, popular, public, academic, etc. This can give a frame of reference for your training and experience while still respecting that historian is not a title distinguished by a professional license and has room for various types.

Edited March 25, 2015 by jayray11

[Cpt Jo]

In France, historian is only used for people with a solid training in history and an official position. Secondary school teachers are "professeurs d'histoire", not "historiens".

Those who have trained by themselves or are working outside academia are called "érudits". Popular writers who have published history books are called with a bit of disdain "vulgarisateurs" ("popularizators") by academics.

[spellbanisher]

Anyone can be a historian, but some are more historian than others. 

Edited March 25, 2015 by spellbanisher

[ToomuchLes]

Im digging spellbanisher's answer

[Cpt Jo]

Im digging spellbanisher's answer

Which is a very diplomatic answer.

[twentysix]

I don't know if formal training is a necessity to be a historian (I absolutely despise "an historian"). In my opinion anyone who follows the general procedures of properly and ethically using sources can be a historian. Of course anyone who has received any level of degree in History will (read "should") be capable of doing this. But I think that non-degree holders are capable of producing quality work and that makes them historians as well.

 

That being said, lots of people produce work that is absolute shit and are in no way shape or form historians despite having written a book.

Edited March 27, 2015 by twentysix

[Malfunction1986]

All I know is that I hope we can all keep our definition broad enough for the inclusion of EP Thompson. Otherwise...

[kotov]

I don't know if formal training is a necessity to be a historian (I absolutely despise "an historian").

 

"an historian" makes me want to punch people. The h-deletion only occurs if you use the "an" in the first place; the h-deletion wouldn't naturally occur anywhere else, so it's "a." 

 

That linguistics minor comes in handy makes me super anal-retentive.

[twentysix]

"an historian" makes me want to punch people. The h-deletion only occurs if you use the "an" in the first place; the h-deletion wouldn't naturally occur anywhere else, so it's "a." 

 

That linguistics minor comes in handy makes me super anal-retentive.

 

So many people write "an historian" including people with impressive PhDs...

I still despise it.

[knp]

Is 'istorian a normal way to pronounce historian in British English, or some forms of it? It would seem an affectation from Americans (my American friend who insisted on spelling 'while' 'whilst' drove me around the bend), but could it be normal in British spelling? My familiarity with British pronunciation regarding Hs does largely come from the bit in Danny, Champion of the World where Roald Dahl/the narrator spends a page or two talking about how the constable drops/adds Hs differently than people with different accents do, though, so I know very little of this.

[Chiqui74]

Is 'istorian a normal way to pronounce historian in British English, or some forms of it? It would seem an affectation from Americans (my American friend who insisted on spelling 'while' 'whilst' drove me around the bend), but could it be normal in British spelling? My familiarity with British pronunciation regarding Hs does largely come from the bit in Danny, Champion of the World where Roald Dahl/the narrator spends a page or two talking about how the constable drops/adds Hs differently than people with different accents do, though, so I know very little of this.

No, in British English the H is nearly always pronounced, so 'istorian is not correct in that case. I have no clue how 'an historian' came to be but it drives me bonkers.

[jmu]

No, in British English the H is nearly always pronounced, so 'istorian is not correct in that case. I have no clue how 'an historian' came to be but it drives me bonkers.

 

I use an historical in oral presentations when a historical might be ambiguous to someone not listening intently (i.e., they might hear ahistorical.) I try to change it in writing but it sometimes slips.

Edited March 31, 2015 by jmu