The Public Philosopher comes to town

The Public Philosopher starts on Radio 4 tomorrow, the tagline being: ‘Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel questions the thinking underlying a current controversy’.  Change ‘thinking’ for ‘history’ – or even just add ‘historical’ – and you have the pitch for The Public Historian.  But would it ever happen?

Radio 4 listeners clearly like their history and historical perspectives, explicit and implicit, are to be found everywhere (for example, the amazing interview with Konstanty Gebert in One to One on the underground press in Poland, in which he discussed comparisons with journalists in Arab spring countries, or Chris Stringer’s highly engaging recollections on The Life Scientific).  So audience interest probably wouldn’t be an issue.  But what about the academic side of things?  Would historians be keen to take on the mantle of The Public Historian, even if the intention was no more radical than to ‘look for the past behind the present’ (the tagline of The Long View)?  Or is the term ‘public history’ too contested, too misunderstood, too elusive or even too restrictive in this country?