The book we read for this week was Freeman Tilden's, Interpreting Our Heritage. I think this book provided a strong base for a lot of what we have been discussing in our recent class meetings. On a side-note, this book was entertaining to read mainly because of its publication date (1967 for the revised edition). The focus within most history courses is to read some of the latest literature so it was illuminating to read a book with a first publication date of 1957. I know I originally posed this as a side-note but in thinking about it more, this had great significance to understanding this book. What Tilden provided was a way in which we used to and, in some ways, still interact with historic sites. Tilden wrote at length about the role the interpreter can contribute to the experience a visitor has with the site. Tilden saw the interpreter as the medium between site and visitor but he also believed there was a place for the visitor to make their own understanding of history.
The shortcoming I found with Tilden was how sites should cater to the comfort of the visitor (going back to the readings we had about reenacting slave runaways). Tilden doesn't seesites as being a space in which to challenge the visitor and truly question history. I believe part of his stance has to do with the context in which he's writing. He was writing in the 1950s and historical analysis has become more critical in presenting a more robust account of history. But, I also think Tilden has resonance. There should be a space in which visitors can make history for themselves. To a certain extent, don't trained historians do something similar? I still find myself thinking historical sites do need a certain element of 'feel good'. A visitor should leave educated but they should leave with a sense of pride.
Handler and Gable's (H&G) chapter about their ethnography of Colonial Williamsburg was the most charged of all three readings. H&G began their research with a belief they would find revisionist history abound at Colonial Williamsburg. They believed the shifts in social history during the 1970s had finally made a lasting impact on how history would be presented. They believed they would find greater examples of marginalized people taking a bigger role as historical actors. Because the new social historians, who were on the ground floor during the 1970s, were now in administrative positions, they believed Colonial Williamsburg would present a richer historical narrative. This was not the place they found. According to H&G what they found was, "a place that downplayed class conflict, denigrated those who complained about their lot, and celebrated upscale consumerism." (p. 221) H&G presented a disconnect between the historians and the interpreters who are on the "front lines."
I hate to keep feeling like a broken-record but H&G left me with an important question of definition. This is the same question I keep coming back to, 'what should a historical site be?' H&G saw a binary between a site being a place for escapism or a place where visitors really wrestle with historical questions. I am reluctant to think most people want a place which is going to challenge them. In the example of a place like Colonial Williamsburg, H&G believe it to be a place where people want to experience an antiquated way of life. A place where electricity doesn't exist and where you churn your own butter as opposed to going to your local mega-mart. People want to see where we've come from and how we have advanced. While I don't see people jumping for the chance to be challenged, I do see the need for challenging topics. Without such topics, we only perpetuate the standard narratives which limit the range of historical actors.
Finally, we read Patricia West's chapter from Domesticating History. The chapter we read focused on the establishment of the Orchard House house museum which was the childhood home of Louisa May Alcott, and the setting for Alcott's novel Little Women. While I saw H&G's reading to be the most charged, West's reading was the most dynamic. West contrast Orchard House to other house museums and this was how her selection was so dynamic. According to West, most house museums were established to honor an individual of historic significance. Orchard House differs because it was not venerating a political icon but an author and her novel. This was important because the social roles of women in society were shifting at the time of the museums establishment. The museum became a reflection of a historical moment and dealt with changing social structures. The establishment of the museum felt like a proto-new social history. The central players in the historical narrative were a marginalized group whose story now has historical resonance. It was almost surprising to see a site be established under those conditions in the early twentieth century.
As I said at the beginning, this week's reading focused on interpretation and how visitors are to interact with a site. This is an issue we need to consider as public historians. How do we want the public to interact with the work we do? But, what I think is more important is making sure we find a way to do 'good' history and pass that along to the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment