What is exactly

What is exactly ‘wrong’ with interpreting the past in order to make it more accessible and interesting to the visitor? Illustrate with reference to an actual example of a heritage site.

Nick Sherriff

Interpreting the past or heritage as it has come to be known has now become big business with almost every town and city boasting a museum or heritage centre. Modern society has a seemingly insatiable appetite and interest for the past, Urry (1990) concurs remarking, ‘It seems that new museums are opening every week.’ Although this may well be a relatively recent phenomenon as a survey of 1750 museums showed that half had been started after 1971. Lowenthal (1985) further added ‘A Britain addicted to Mark Girouds’ evocation of the Victorian cult of chivalry, to William Burge’s neo-Gothic architecture, and to the film Excalibur, would soon be appointing a curator instead of a Prime Minister.’ Such an avid preoccupation may suggest a need for escapism from ones modern life as Dann (1945) suggests,

“Today a great deal of time and energy is dedicated to looking backwards towards capturing a past which in many ways is considered superior to the chaotic present and the dreaded future.”

Such vociferous and ever increasing interest according to Sharpley (1994) developed eventually into the Heritage Industry. However Hewison (1987) believes that this interest is in fact nostalgia, which has given rise to the development of the Heritage Industry, a condition that Lowenthal (1985) sees as either attracting or affecting most levels of society. The job of interpreting the past, less your own imagination, is the task of the Heritage Industry; although whether the industry portrays an accurate representation will be discussed later in the essay.

The question itself centres on what can be considered a Marxist approach, which implies that unless the past is interpreted in a certain acceptable, somewhat scholarly manner then it is somehow less authentic or is diluted. Whilst the post-modernist, more populist view sees the somewhat less academic slant often favouring experiences rather than objects as actually adding value for the visitor. Both perspectives will be examined in terms of interpretation with reference to a visit to Buckland Abbey in Devon in May 2000.

Deciding whether a particular interpretation of the past is ‘wrong’ relies on understanding or defining what Heritage actually is or should be. The Chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF), Lord Charteris suggested it is ‘Anything you want.’ Hewison (1987) flippantly remarked that this could mean anything you want as long as you put the word heritage in it and to a point he is correct, especially when the definition from the first National Heritage Conference is examined,

“That which a past generation has preserved and handed on to the present and which a significant group of the population wishes to hand to the future.” (1983)

Thus, anything can be heritage providing it has a supporting majority but this relies heavily on a collective will interested enough in heritage in the first place and begs questions of what is a significant group and who actually does the rubber stamping giving the go-ahead for such groups? This does seem to allow for a degree of cultural choice, which was given further credence by the NHMF (1980) who suggested,

“Let heritage define itself. We wanted requests for assistance from those who believed they had a part of the National Heritage worth saving.”

However this could also sound hegemonic with the great and the good passing judgement on what is actually classed as heritage and is (in their eyes at least) worth saving. Thus a definition of what actually heritage is seems to be unclear at best and may be considered typical of the malaise that appears to be sweeping the industry. Therefore it should be of no surprise to find such oddities as Frontierland (Disney), Crinkley Bottom, and the Robinhood Experience seemingly bundled together with what may be considered the more traditional heritage sites like museums, castles and country parks.

The Marxist sees such divergence within the industry as almost the hijacking of heritage, and through capitalism and competition forces heritage into the business of entertainment in order to achieve audience target figures to justify their existence. (Hewison, 1987.) Such entertainment becomes the overriding factor and via the rose tinted gaze of nostalgia (Lowenthal, 1998) affects the factual interpretation. Thus for Hewison such interpretations are merely pandering to the whims of ‘what sells’ creating a pastiche of information and a populist history. The alternative to the more populist interpretation is what, to depict a holistic, a warts and all, history? But who would want to see Buckland Abbey’s abuse of the working classes and hear the racist slaver tales of Sir Francis Drake, moreover who would pay to see it?

The Marxist may suggest that populist interpretation without academic backbone is merely ‘myth,’ not necessarily untrue but containing elements of truth and a great deal of historically accurate and factually tested material, but for Hewison this is transformed into a touchstone of local and national identity. This notion is exemplified at Buckland Abbey with Drake’s Drum, on its own just another object from the past. However, wrap it in a mythical story ‘ of mysteriously beating when England is in danger’ and it becomes for Lowenthal (1985) more identifiable than the actual facts. This notion comes greatly to the fore when sites such as Tintagel in Cornwall famous for the Arthurian legends and the Robin Hood Experience in Nottingham are examined; both have their truths so distorted that the academic interpretations could be lost forever, although their popularity and appeal are probably as a result of such half truths. Thus interpretation can create myths that although factually incorrect make for fantastic entertainment.

For many the truth is often not only erased but also conveniently left out or bent to the order of the day. The Marxists see such a selective memory as a safe gentrification of history or a dubious vision of the past denying a voice to the minorities whose struggle gave us the present we enjoy. (Harris, 1985.) Whilst this is academically true it makes the preconception that the visitor is avidly seeking scholarly correctness and fails to cater for playful non-serious behaviour with the encouragement of a relatively unconstrained togetherness. (Urry, 1990) A visitor to Beatrix Potter’s Hilltop Farm in the Lake District exclaims, ‘This is how I always imagined it!’ That Scotland, rather than the Lake District, had inspired Peter Rabbit is for Lowenthal (1998) beside the point. Also visitors to the new Albert Dock in Liverpool he suggests, find no fault with the ‘heritage kitsch’ moreover visitors have come for a good time not a history lesson.

“Lack of hard evidence seldom distresses the public at large, who are mostly credulous, undemanding, accustomed to heritage mystique, and often laud the distortions, omissions, and fabrications central to heritage reconstruction.” (Lowenthal.1998, p249.)

It is worth noting that the heritage industry is under no obligation to offer proper academic history, a task that may well be considered the remit of the Education Department. At Buckland Abbey there are omissions such as Drake the slaver and Drake the pirate, although it could be argued for reasons not of sanitisation but in order not to sensationalise. It could be suggested that not marketing Drake as a pirate, buccaneer and a slaver may be detrimental in terms of the Abbey’s marketing ability and popularity. This does appear as if the Abbey is trying to distance itself from the more vulgar heritage sites that may well glamorise such notorious characters and deeds. The historical working class employees at Buckland Abbey were also noticeable by their absence, the kitchens and beautiful gardens devoid of the labour and toil that must have been required to run them, many rooms led to locked doors or blocked stair cases. Not so much adding value but sweeping, the less interesting or more unpleasant reminders of our forefathers, under the carpet. It seems that Buckland Abbey and probably others in similar situations are caught in a catch twenty-two, vilified if they leave out parts of history and held in contempt if they glamorise it.

Actual blame is directed at the capitalist system’s independent museums; the enemy within; who Hewison suggests see heritage as just another part of leisure and not part of traditional education and social welfare. Whilst altruistic in ideal, when and how one partakes of such social welfare is unclear, surely an activity engaged in during ones time off work (leisure time) must be entertaining especially if you have to pay for it and as Urry (1990) suggests, cannot an experience that is enjoyable be also educational. It does seem as if the Marxist critics want to turn the complete industry into a university and as approximately only 20% of the populous attend university this may well be rather elitist and somewhat of a contradiction for the Marxist. Buckland Abbey did provide activities for children and did have an educational room set aside for school parties, which from a casual observers perspective did seem enjoyable for them. Although the Marxist would probably argue that even this is used as a marketing tool to increase visitation in an increasingly pluralist market.

In summary the Marxists seem to suggest that their interpretations are somehow more valid than any other, however this reeks of elitism and the Victorian notion of rational recreation. It is easy to criticise when only a theory is being defended and it may be doubtful as to whether the Marxists could deliver a more plausible heritage than anyone else. Surely the Marxist interpretations could equally suffer from over emotional sentiment, lamenting after those working class heroes of struggles gone by.

As to whether any interpretation is inherently ‘wrong’ the answer is ‘no’ as long as the public are not being duped or at least are party to such fabrications. Creating illusions of the past or adding value can bring history to life where bald facts signally fail to do so. However, there are omissions in many interpretations but as to whether this is hegemonic or another clever marketing tool is debateable. The Heritage Industry is like any other business and caters for the consumer and shareholders, why then should it cater for social welfare or education. However, such is the vastness and complexity of the heritage industry that a description should be that of a continuum, with entertainment at one end and factual education at the other. Criticism may be aimed at the industry itself that may be guilty of what could be seen as failing to adequately categorise its heritage sites. Although dividing the industry into academic or fun is too simplistic and fails to see that heritage can be both educational and entertaining at the same time. Finding the correct blend of content and enjoyment could be the crux for greater success within the industry. Finally it must be acknowledged that whatever interpretation people are expected to see is not necessarily what they will see.

Bibliography

Adorno, Theodor W. 1989. 'The culture industry reconsidered (1967)', in S.E.

Bronner & D.M. Kellner (eds), Critical Theory and Society: A Reader, Routledge, New York.

Fowler, P 1989. 'Heritage: A Post-Modernist Perspective' In D. Uzzell (ed) (1989) Heritage Interpretation Volume 1. Belhaven Press: London.

Geertz, Clifford. 1963. 'The integrative revolution: primordial sentiments and civil politics in the new states', in C. Geertz (ed.), Old Societies and New States, Aldine, Chicago.

Gellner, Ernest. 1983, Nations and Nationalism, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Harris, D. 1985.

Hewison, R. 1987. The Heritage Industry: Britain in a climate of decline, Methuen: London.

Lowenthal, D. 1996. The Heritage Crusades and the Spoils of History. Cambridge University Press; London.

Lowenthal, D. 1985. The Past as a Foreign Country. Cambridge University Press; London.

Rumble, P. 1989. 'Interpreting the Built and Historic Environment'. In D. Uzzell (ed) (1989) Heritage Interpretation Volume 1. Belhaven Press: London.

Sharpley, R. 1994. Tourism, Tourists and Society. St Edmundsbury Press: Suffolk.

Urry, J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: leisure and travel in contemporary societies, Sage: London

Uzzell, D. 1989. Heritage Interpretation Volume 1. Bellhaven Press: London.

References

Harris, D. 1985. On the Heritage Industry. [online]. Available from: http://www.harris8.freeserve.co.uk/htage.htm [accessed 01 May 2000].