Car buffs and academics may as well live on different planets when it comes to writing automotive history. Yet they need each other to counterbalance their weaknesses.
That’s my takeaway from John A. Heitmann’s essay in the latest issue of Automotive History Review (2020). In an editor’s note he sheds light on this important topic. I’d like to sketch his analysis and add some of my own thoughts.
Car buff writing dominates the automotive history field. From my perspective that can be a good thing because it gives the field much more visibility with the general public than the academic press ever could. However, Heitmann rightly points out that the downside of car buff writers is that they tend to present “well-worn tales repackaged with little if any critical analysis and a reexamination of the evidence” (2020, p. 2).
Heitmann goes on to argue that car buffs often “consider the need for context and meaning to be nothing more than malarkey.” Yet they may also recognize how academic historians can provide legitimacy. Thus, the car buff writer may hold the academic at “arm’s length.”
Academics can see the forest better than the trees
In contrast, the academics are more rigorous when it comes to documenting sources, understanding their own biases and providing context. That said, scholars may lack detailed industry knowledge. Heitmann adds that car buffs “are frequently more fun to be around than historians.”
To that last point I would add that car buff books can be more engaging than those from the scholarly press, which can lack appealing page designs and breezy narratives.
Reading Heitmann’s essay gave me one of those, “Ah, ha!” moments. He displays a great deal of nuance in analyzing dynamics that I had only been able to articulate in a vague way. I also came away with a lingering question: What could be done to help bridge the gulf between car buffs and academics?
Heitmann is a retired professor, so it makes sense that his essay primarily focuses on encouraging academics to draw more heavily on the practical knowledge of car buffs. I’d second that motion! In the mini-reviews that I’ve written about scholarly histories, I often point out basic errors that car buffs could have easily caught.
I would nevertheless argue that the bigger problem is the car buff media. It’s not just that they crank out automotive histories which lack context. In all too many cases, car buff writers can perpetuate inaccurate ways of interpreting history. And with the rise of the web, the 24/7 demand for content has arguably resulted in more factual errors being accepted as common wisdom — or what I more pointedly call groupthink.
Why Indie Auto emphasizes media criticism
Heitnmann seems hesitant to criticize specific car buff media and authors. This is surprising to me because robust feedback is a core aspect of scholarly discourse. I’d suggest that the relative lack of mechanisms for giving feedback to the car buff media contribute to its continued weaknesses.
This is why Indie Auto places a fair amount of emphasis on media criticism. The point isn’t to poke anyone in the eyes, but rather to increase the caliber of historical analysis.
I get that my car buff colleagues may find this inordinately nerdy and even cantankerous. Perhaps it would help to note that my background includes earning a doctorate and spending roughly two decades in policy research. But then I’ve also been utterly fascinated by cars since I was five years old. This is why Indie Auto was developed with the idea that automotive history can be both intellectually rigorous and entertaining.
Heitmann’s essay gives me an analytical framework to explain what I’ve been intuitively trying to do — which is to synthesize the best qualities of academics and car buffs. Of course, Indie Auto is a bootstrap effort with a tiny readership. What’s needed is for the bigger media outlets to move in this direction.
NOTES:
I have only sketched the outlines of Heitmann’s essay, which is worth reading in full. The Automotive History Review is behind a paywall, but an electronic membership to the Society of Automotive Historians is only $20. You may find this a worthwhile investment even if you are a car buff rather than an academic.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Heitmann, John A.; 2020. “Editor’s Note.” Automotive History Review (membership in Society of Automotive Historians required). Spring, No. 61, p. 2.
Be the first to comment