Several problems here.
But, first can I say that I think most local and family historians do a
really great job and deserve support and encouragement because it's a
hobby to them and most don't get any funding or official encouragement.
I think the main problem is that many local historians are not that
interested in the wider picture and in how typical or different a
particular place or community is. Nor are many interested in social
theory and trying to fit historical developments into wider social
milieux.
To take a related example we've all met family historians who think that
their great-great Aunt Martha was unusually in being 6 month pregnant
when she wed, whilst any demographic historian will tell you that if it
was wasn't the norm it was quite common.
I think the challenge facing people in academia is to get local,
community and family historians to think about how their work relates
to the world as whole and to look not just at the specific but at the
general as well.
I know that the Local Population Studies Society has done much to try
to get support from family historians but has simply not made much
progress.
Well it's 12:16 and I've promised myself the afternoon off.
So happy x-mas to everyone and don't over eat.
David
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:08:22 +0000 Brian Read <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
# David Gatley wrote
# >
#
# >
# > Also I wonder how well local historians are organised. I'm a solitary
# > chap myself but I guess most local historians are interested only in
# > small communities and therefore don't mix. Although most do a really
# > great job.
# >
# > Organisation may not be that easy. Or, am I wrong.
#
# The problem for local history (local) societies is not organisation, it's
# finding volunteers to do the necessary work. I am a member of several groups
# interested in local history. The national ones seem to manage OK but in my
# experience (and I once researched and published a book on a Society going
# back to 1895) a large majority of members refuse to take an active part in
# the running of the Society. If the Society can find a keen secretary and a
# treasurer, it will probably get along nicely, despite the apathy of many
# members.
#
# An interesting insight into the way a society was run in the early part of
# the 20th century came when I discovered that the Secretary, who was a London
# civil servant, used the clerks in his Whitehall office to address the
# envelopes to about 300 members by hand. His successor in the 1920s was an
# official for a large oil company. He too used his employer's resources for I
# noticed that all the carbon copies of his correspondence was an paper
# watermarked with the company's logo! I doubt whether he had pinched the
# paper and taken it home to do the work. Perhaps he was using the firm's
# typists and dictating the correspondence in the firm's time. (In those days
# few executives would soil their fingers by using a keyboard).
#
# I think the problem probably boils down to the fact that many people refuse
# to pay more than a relatively small annual subscription to a local society.
# They expect others to do the work without payment. A solution would be to
# offer a secretary and treasurer an honorarium (sometimes a euphemism for a
# small salary).
# We see an example of the way a small organisation can be managed in the way
# parish councils are run. A small rural parish will pay its clerk a few
# hundred pounds.
#
# Brian Read
---------------------------------
David Alan Gatley (Dr),
School of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Staffordshire University,
Stoke-on-Trent,
ST4 2XW
Telephone 01782-294780 (Office)
01782-415340 (Home)
Fax 01782-294760
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/sociology
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/census
-------------------------------
Please note: The views expressed in this message are those of its
author, and not necessarily those of Staffordshire University.
|