A really interesting session on Encyclopedias in American Studies — yes, they are proliferating — took place on Sat. at the American Studies Association Conference in Washington, DC. The panelists were Miles Orvell (Encycl. of ASA), David Gerstner (Queer Encyc.), Simon Bronner (Encyl. of Am. Folklife), and moderator Cecelia Tichi. I found their comments on organizing knowledge a fascinating counterpoint to the way in which archives and museums gatekeep, update and arrange collections.
As you would expect, the panel reflected deep ambivalence about the authorizing implications of encyclopedic activities (jeez, Diderot never sweated that one), but nevertheless they went ahead and tried to represent both a picture of knowledge at the start of the 21st century and some of its dynamism.
The issue of making oneself conscious of priorities, theories of culture and everyday practices is one highly applicable to the field of public history. Good exhibitions and collecting policies thrive on this sort of self-scrutiny, and we can build on how others have gone through that process in assembling encyclopedias for the various fields. I use these sometimes to check on how our exhibitions at the New-York Historical Society, and sometimes collections interpretations dovetail with new work in the field.
I particularly appreciated how the panel noted that encyclopedias in the field differ from Wikipedia in many ways, but importantly in their determination to somehow address ideas and theory. Philosophy, epistemology and theory are customarily weak in Wikipedia entries but one needs to have that habit of mind to function well with the foundations of both archiving and public history.
For me, it was revealing to realize that encyclopedia editors are much like major collectors, assembling knowledge in a sampling that is meaningful, and reflects a taste and time. The problem of fixing knowledge at one point may be partially addressed by users such as ourselves realizing that these volumes are launching points for a dialogue about organizing knowledge.
A note on publishing: the most curious factoid to emerge from the panelists’ astute commentaries was that publishers have been having a vogue for reference works because markets for monographs have greatly diminished but library budgets for encyclopedias, etc. have remained strong. Thus these works have in all three cases above been commissioned by publishers for profit. Amusingly, Simon Bronner noted that publishers have inquired about mining his Encyclo. of Am. Folklife for its urban folklife to make a recombinate product assembled from the larger version for a niche market. Meanwhile, the Am. Studies Encyclopedia is dealing with the vicissitudes of commerce by having its contents now online under the control of the ASA, taking the product from commercial publishing to non-profit distribution and updating. (Joining ASA gives you entree to the every-expanding corpus of the Encyclopedia.).
Very interesting! You know, it never fully occurred to me until now that encyclopedia-writing is definitely a form of public history, a very important form. And I can see how the very existence of such a thing as a “Queer Encyclopedia” might be seen as problematic in terms of “authorizing” a field that in some ways defines itself against traditional notions of authority.
In our Creating Digital History class, we recently read David Weinberger’s great book “Everything is Miscellaneous” — he’s got a PhD in Philosophy, and went on from there (somehow) to become a bona fide Internet Guru. He’s definitely contributing to the “dialogue about organizing knowledge” — in a techno-populist and techno-utopian way that I must admit I’m a sucker for. The argument of books like that would argue that Wikipedia’s very lack of fixity (so often derided by librarians etcetera) is exactly what makes it more authoritative in this poststructuralist age, when we’ve supposedly learned that knowledge isn’t fixed.
Thanks, Kathleen, for a really interesting post. I can confirm from my own participation on NEH review panels that encyclopedias (especially those with on-line components) are alive and very well, and they really do constitute an important form of public history and require many of the skills that public historians need to cultivate (solid scholarship, ability to communicate complex information in an understandable way to a broadly defined audience, and a balanced presentation). I would also second Amanda’s endorsement of “Everything Is Miscellaneous”, a really thought provoking book on authority and descriptive standards that most archivists in particular would benefit from reading. Surprised that it has received so little attention in the professional literature.