Rebecca Onion, Blogger, Slate.com
Proposal Type: Roundtable
Abstract: As a history blogger for Slate.com, I run a blog that posts interesting or provocative documents once a day, along with a bit of interpretation. I’ve been running the blog since November 2012, as well as the blog’s Twitter feed, @slatevault.
The blog was explicitly conceived to exploit the inherent shareability of the “right” kind of historical document. Since the advent of Web 2.0, the achievement of virality (“shareability”) has become a primary goal of content producers. While many digital history projects funded by educational institutions or government agencies are meant to serve a long-term educational purpose (popularity being an auxiliary concern), my particular interest lies in the type of historical content that, like my own blog posts, attempts to insert itself into the everyday circulatory system of the Internet.
Marketing professor Jonah Berger has pinpointed the emotions that cause New York Times articles to hit the mostemailed list: anger, awe, and anxiety. Those whose livelihoods depend on enhancing transmissibility of web content have seized upon this affective palette in shaping content. History that goes viral is weird, enraging, sad (but not too sad), or wondrous.
Virality draws from a complex interpersonal dynamic between Internet users. If, as some have argued, virality is about performativity and self-fashioning (so that a shared link telegraphs “I am the kind of person who would share something like this”), the rapidly growing mass of data about history that goes viral is a unique opportunity to see what kinds of historical topics and treatments function as markers of identity in the digital space.
Seeking: I would love to hear from possible co-panelists who work in public history online and who think a lot about virality and popularity. I perceive the panel as functioning less as a “tips and tricks” session, and more as a meditation on the influence of virality on the types of topics that we pick for public presentation in online contexts. What happens to ambiguity, for example, when virality is a selective factor? How do objects that call for multiple layers of interpretation, not quite suitable to a headline or to Twitter display copy, fare on the social Web? What about unpopular perspectives, or histories at the margin of the known and familiar?
I think the panel would work best as a roundtable, though as a person who has never attended NCPH, I would love feedback from more experienced attendees who could help me figure out whether it should actually be a “structured conversation” or a working group.
Related Topics: Digital, Civic Engagement, Memory
If you have a direct offer of assistance, sensitive criticism, or wish to share contact information for other people the proposer should reach out to, please get in contact directly: Rebecca Onion, rebeccaonion[at]gmail.com
If you have general ideas or feedback to share please feel free to use the comments feature below.
It seems to me that there are several topic proposals that could work together as a panel. I have to say that I particularly like the way you are framing this as a discussion on virality. It might be cool to think about it as a working group that could produce some sort of paper or blog post after the session, sharing your conversation more broadly. Otherwise, I think a roundtable style session in which you bring together public historians who work in a variety of formats and can talk about their approaches to getting “looks” could be very useful and interesting.
I love this idea and wonder if it could be tied to thinking about Rosenzweig and Thelen’s classic The Presence of the Past, because it would seem that you want to complicate notions of “good” history (educational, serious, intellectual) and “bad” history (emotionally affecting, popular) in ways that resonate with their work. Maybe a working group that includes people who are talking about virality in more theoretical terms with public history practitioners discussing what it means to think of public history virally and interactively would work best? This would also make for some great blog posts.
It strikes me that Dana Allen-Greil, who managed digital projects for the National Museum of American History for ten years and is now doing the same for some other DC museums could be a terrific person to involve in this conversation. The tension you suggest between the components of virality and the complexity of the subject matter addressed seems a particularly ripe field for discussion.
I, too, love this idea and the self-reflexive thinking that it includes. I wonder if there is some interesting potential here between your emerging proposal and the other one listed here that has to do with developing “history communicators.” Effective “history communicators,” as framed by that proposal, would need insight into the sorts of issues you are raising here, certainly.
If you are looking for possible other thoughtful co-presenters in a panel format such as Denise suggests, I might put forward the name of Cyrus Forman, who formerly managed the Twitter feed at the African Burial Ground (National Park Service), which now has an incredibly large # of followers (82k).