Bret Devereaux

Academic monasticism is, it seems to me, a bad organizational culture holdover from the days when most academics were from the leisured classes (or retained by them) and thus could afford a fashionable disdain for the economics of the profession, on account of being rich. 10/21

But I suppose the more serious-sounding rejoinder is then 'why not write for the public but in a more rigorous, hard-nosed sort of way? Why not write a book on the topic with enough pages and footnotes to really be very complete and break new ground and so on?' 11/21

And my answer is: Yes, I am doing that. I am working on my narrowly tailored, extensively over-footed book project (very, very slowly). I also write academic articles (also slowly). But the reach of that sort of thing is narrow, too slow to come out and we all know it. 12/21

So you want to write the 'traditional media' article because that is a way (not the only one) of at least engaging the broader chattering classes instead of just other academics (convenient, since the chattering classes control both our funding and most broader policy) 13/21

But the demands of such writing are tricky: on the one hand you need to supply all of the necessary background information because you simply cannot be sure that your audience knows any of it. On the other hand, you have tight word limits (1200 is common). 14/21

Which in practice means you can develop one example to a moderate depth, or name-check a few examples at almost no depth. There isn't generally the option of writing a rigorous 15,000 word essay, but in only 1,200 words. 15/21

But the alternative, it seems to me, is to abandon the battlefield entirely to folks without our training or knowledge. I'd rather it be trained historians trying to package a useful historical argument in 1,200 words than the writers at Buzzfeed or Cracked. 16/21

Because the fact is, someone is going to write about <topic> in any case. The question is if they come to that topic with any historical exemplars (exemplars here taken very broadly) in mind and the degree to which they actually understand those exemplars deeply. 17/21

After all the original point of doing history was the (correct) supposition both that 1) learning the methods of historical analysis can improve an individual's thinking and that 2) historical exemplars offer a sound basis for thinking about the future. 18/21

Or, as Thucydides puts it (because of course): "if it [his work of history] be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the understanding of the future, which in the course of human things... [19/21]

...must resemble it, if it does not reflect it, I shall be content." Trying to bring some pocket-sized history, done by a professional, to the public in the places and in the format (like the 1200 think piece) they consume is not shabby or unserious. 20/21

If the argument is *bad* then write your response (ideally in the same publication) explaining why. The public could use to see historical debate done well. But don't look down your nose at the endeavor, because in the last accounting, it is what keeps the lights on. end/21