Historikerne mellem erindring og historie

The article discusses the historian's responsibility towards society and the relationship between the scholarly community and the public. Firstly, the traditional notion of popularization is dismissed as unsatisfactory: even where it is kept simple and presented in short sentences, ordinary people and the media are not satisfied with professional historians' versions of history. This is not because they are not interested in history, but because their interest is not structured by the priorities of the professional historian. Secondly, it is suggested that Pierre Nora's concept of lieu de memoire (memory site) provides a much better understanding of the mechanics governing the often frustrating 'clash of cultures' between professional historians and the public sphere. Even if memory (emotional, political, absolute) and history (rational, universal, provisional) in Nora's theory seem worlds apart, they interact at the memory sites (key events, persons, institutions, and artefacts) that are so prominent in public history. Last but not least, a number of proposals for more efficient interventions by historians are presented. These include a clearer consciousness of the different roles historians play when interacting with the public - whether as expert, critic, or storyteller. Furthermore, a plea is made for a stronger recognition of the need for the retelling of old stories. Professional historians tend to focus on what is new and controversial, but the rules of the game of memory sites call for an appreciation of the need for continuous retelling. However, this retelling is never a mechanical reproduction of established truths or prejudices, but should be seen as so many opportunities for telling the public better stories - meaning better researched, less biased, and more promising stories.