Deciphering the “Subjective Good”

             Viewing public history through the lens of isolated communities is revealing. Here it is much more difficult to understand the common good, that is, the subjective history that speaks to a greater portion of the isolated stakeholder than it alienates. Using modern concepts of interpretation, that is, exploring the past via engagement with the subjective individual can help us better understand the subjective good within an isolated area. By contrast against a common good limited to the authoritarian interpretation of what is historically important, the subjective good seeks engagement with all individuals via group participation making the public into partners in efforts to revive a community’s history.

                The latter represents public history in its purist form. Whereas interpreters bypass any notion of instruction, seeking instead to gravitate the individual spirit toward an object, public historians working in the community have an opportunity to employ similar methods in reconstructing history itself. Of course the latter requires sharing authority which implies giving up authority.  For the educated scholar working with (and in most cases for) the layman consumer, this requires a radical separation from ego, bias, and personal expectations. This, I admit is difficult to do. This I say historians must do.

Consider the benefits of deciphering the subjective good. By finding consensus between the researcher and the consumer, far fewer parties would be alienated. Equal partners are far more willing to support the project, cooperate with the process, and accept the end result than the inherently disenfranchised. All historians should concern themselves with answering all questions that arise from research including those that might diverge from their presentation of facts.  Deciphering the subjective good provides another avenue to that end.