I recently read that the Ohio Historical Society is changing its name to the “Ohio History Connection” in an effort to appear more inclusive, accessible, and less “stodgy.” Its director, Burt Logan, was quoted in an article about the name change summing up the rationale for the change thusly: “The name change is not a panacea, but it sends a signal to a broad audience that we have entered a new day.”
I hope for their sake that the name indeed sends the signal they are wishing to communicate and engages new audiences. Certainly there is a lot of meaning attached to a name, and perhaps it is time cultural heritage organizations take a closer look at how the public they are attempting to serve views those names. I will not criticize name changes that are designed to reflect contemporary service organizations that are saddled with antiquated titles in general, (see The Society for the Preservation of New England’s Antiquities becoming Historic New England) but the pessimist in me sees these moves as somewhat akin to a church changing its name to a “Life Center.” Is it the name or the product that people are not finding compelling? I admit that I am troubled by the fact that names like “Historical Society” are so dimly viewed by much of the populace.
I don’t believe it is necessarily issues of accessibility that are at the root of the less than stellar image of many historical organizations, and tend to think more blame lies in the “stodginess” associated with study of the past in our fast-moving modern society. Some of that is our fault as historians for not paying adequate attention to the public in our work. If a tweak of institutional title will make history cool to people, though, more power to the “Connections,” “Experiences,” and other amorphous organizations that will soon populate the cultural landscape. But despite all the right reasons being given, moves like the Ohio Historical Society’s feels more like desperation than inspiration to me. We’ll all be watching with interest to see if mere semantics will actually cause people to become more involved with cultural heritage organizations.
In the meantime, I would encourage us all to pay more attention to what people actually want from us and remind everyone that basic awareness of what we do and the role it plays in a healthy society is the key to the future of our profession. After all, if antiquated or confusing names were the only barrier to success I don’t think we’d still have a United Negro College Fund, a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or even an East Carolina University. Clearly, a name is only part of the problem, and a tangential one at that.
JMB