Here are some general comments on Carl Becker’s famous speech“Everyman His Own

Historian,” which was delivered to the American Historical Association in 1931.

In reading any piece, you always should look at the context and the audience. When,
where, and why are useful Ws to keep in mind. Doing so will potentially unpack the larger
message. In the case of Becker, you read a speech delivered in 1931 at the American
Historical Association. Just this bit of information gives you a lot of leverage.
Who was his audience? Fellow professional historians, which is funny considering his
argument that everyman is his own historian.
With this in mind, what was his purpose? Why did he write what he wrote? Clearly, he did
not need to explain what history is to a roomful of professional historians, but instead
wanted to implore his audience to write history that is meaningful to a broad range of the
general public. Professional historians then and now are apt to write narrow, specialized
books that are only read by a handful of specialists. Becker clearly was reacting to this.
“Such research, valuable not in itself but for some ulterior purpose,” he explained, “will be
of little import except in so far as it is transmuted into common knowledge. The history
that lies inert in unread books does no work in the world.” Historians, in sum, must write
meaningful works of history.
Clearly, Becker wanted his audience to understand that history is important to everyone,
and that everyone to some degree uses history in daily life. More broadly, history is
important to society as whole. This is why myths and stories of the past are ubiquitous in
all times and places. As Becker defined it, history is a) the stuff that happened, and b) “the
memory of things said and done,” or, the memory of the stuff that happened. The first
type is objective, the second relative. He clearly was most interested in the memories of
the past, or the relative nature of history. What, then, does all of this have to do with the
practice of history?
Becker was well attuned to the fluid and relativistic nature of the writing of history. As he
observed, “the form and significance of remembered events, like the extension and
velocity of physical objects, will vary with the time and place of the observer.” This means
that each generation will raise different questions and study the past in a way that is
relevant to its own needs and interests. Not surprisingly, in 1931 economic history was all
the rage in the United States. In more recent years, the study of women and various ethnic
groups has been pronounced as history departments have trained a much more diverse
range of historians. In other words, new memories have been created about the past. (As
a side note, a good number of you seemed a bit too focused on personal memory and
missed this major point…that history also involves collective memory, or memories, and
that Becker’s major concern was historical writing, or the memories of the past generated
by historians). What else did Becker get at?
It is obvious that he wanted to obliterate any vestige of respect that remained at the time
for the so-called “scientific history,” which was pioneered by a famous German historian
during the 19 century named Leopold Van Ranke, who posited that the historian simply
th

needs to excavate the archives and find all of the facts. While Ranke’s empiricaland
archival approach is important, Becker attacked its pretensions to “scientific
objectivity” -- as illustrated by his argument that historians must sift through the “facts,”
affirm some and not others, and importantly, construct a narrative with them. In other
words, historians give the facts meaning via the power of the imagination. History must be
based on evidence, and clearly some arguments are better than others, but it is important
to remember that the writing of history is an interpretive art.
By exploding the “scientific” history, Becker urged historians to adopt new approaches to
the study of the past…indeed, he and some other historians at the time were considered to
be part of the New School in that they were forging new approaches and topics. Becker’s
mentor, Frederick Jackson Turner, revolutionized U.S. history with his Frontier Thesis, and
opened the door to the study of Western and environmental history. Charles Beard was an
early pioneer in economic history. To frame it another way, Becker was urging his fellow
historians to use the power of the imagination to create innovative ways to think about the
past, or, to create new “memories of the things said and done.” Were Becker alive, I think
he would be pleased with how diverse and ever-evolving historical studies are now,
particularly given the focus on groups that long were marginalized in the history books.
With all this in mind, the speech can be viewed as a bit relativistic, though in all reality
Becker would argue that some historical arguments are more valid than others. Evidence
matters.
In closing, the year also might be important to consider. What was going on in 1931 other
than the worldwide depression? I’ll let you guys think about that one.
Here are some general comments on Carl Becker’s famous speech“Everyman His Own
Historian,” which was delivered to the American Historical Association in 1931.
In reading any piece, you always should look at the context and the audience. When,
where, and why are useful Ws to keep in mind. Doing so will potentially unpack the larger
message. In the case of Becker, you read a speech delivered in 1931 at the American
Historical Association. Just this bit of information gives you a lot of leverage.
Who was his audience? Fellow professional historians, which is funny considering his
argument that everyman is his own historian.
With this in mind, what was his purpose? Why did he write what he wrote? Clearly, he did
not need to explain what history is to a roomful of professional historians, but instead
wanted to implore his audience to write history that is meaningful to a broad range of the
general public. Professional historians then and now are apt to write narrow, specialized
books that are only read by a handful of specialists. Becker clearly was reacting to this.
“Such research, valuable not in itself but for some ulterior purpose,” he explained, “will be
of little import except in so far as it is transmuted into common knowledge. The history
that lies inert in unread books does no work in the world.” Historians, in sum, must write
meaningful works of history.
Clearly, Becker wanted his audience to understand that history is important to everyone,
and that everyone to some degree uses history in daily life. More broadly, history is
important to society as whole. This is why myths and stories of the past are ubiquitous in
all times and places. As Becker defined it, history is a) the stuff that happened, and b) “the
memory of things said and done,” or, the memory of the stuff that happened. The first
type is objective, the second relative. He clearly was most interested in the memories of
the past, or the relative nature of history. What, then, does all of this have to do with the
practice of history?
Becker was well attuned to the fluid and relativistic nature of the writing of history. As he
observed, “the form and significance of remembered events, like the extension and
velocity of physical objects, will vary with the time and place of the observer.” This means
that each generation will raise different questions and study the past in a way that is
relevant to its own needs and interests. Not surprisingly, in 1931 economic history was all
the rage in the United States. In more recent years, the study of women and various ethnic
groups has been pronounced as history departments have trained a much more diverse
range of historians. In other words, new memories have been created about the past. (As
a side note, a good number of you seemed a bit too focused on personal memory and
missed this major point…that history also involves collective memory, or memories, and
that Becker’s major concern was historical writing, or the memories of the past generated
by historians). What else did Becker get at?
It is obvious that he wanted to obliterate any vestige of respect that remained at the time
for the so-called “scientific history,” which was pioneered by a famous German historian
during the 19 century named Leopold Van Ranke, who posited that the historian simply
th

needs to excavate the archives and find all of the facts. While Ranke’s empiricaland
archival approach is important, Becker attacked its pretensions to “scientific
objectivity” -- as illustrated by his argument that historians must sift through the “facts,”
affirm some and not others, and importantly, construct a narrative with them. In other
words, historians give the facts meaning via the power of the imagination. History must be
based on evidence, and clearly some arguments are better than others, but it is important
to remember that the writing of history is an interpretive art.
By exploding the “scientific” history, Becker urged historians to adopt new approaches to
the study of the past…indeed, he and some other historians at the time were considered to
be part of the New School in that they were forging new approaches and topics. Becker’s
mentor, Frederick Jackson Turner, revolutionized U.S. history with his Frontier Thesis, and
opened the door to the study of Western and environmental history. Charles Beard was an
early pioneer in economic history. To frame it another way, Becker was urging his fellow
historians to use the power of the imagination to create innovative ways to think about the
past, or, to create new “memories of the things said and done.” Were Becker alive, I think
he would be pleased with how diverse and ever-evolving historical studies are now,
particularly given the focus on groups that long were marginalized in the history books.
With all this in mind, the speech can be viewed as a bit relativistic, though in all reality
Becker would argue that some historical arguments are more valid than others. Evidence
matters.
In closing, the year also might be important to consider. What was going on in 1931 other
than the worldwide depression? I’ll let you guys think about that one.