Local vs National Influence on Historical Discourse

In her book The Uses of Heritage, Laurajane Smith argues that an ‘Authorised Heritage Discourse’ or AHD exists, which prioritises national frames of reference over those of local communities. This essay will attempt to evaluate whether this is indeed the case, examining in turn the impact of local heritage practices, the idea of the AHD, and the way in which the nation-state uses public historical discourse to reinforce its own agenda. With a particular focus on heritage discourse, the essay will agree with Smith’s theory that national frames of reference overshadow local community in shaping public historical discourse, but will identify a recent trend in scholarship and community groups that aims to centre the experience of historically overlooked communities.

One notable way in which local community can be seen to shape public historical discourse is through the medium of heritage tradition. Viewed as a practice rather than as something static, heritage can be regarded as a form of social and cultural action, a tool in the creation of local community – as Rodney Harrison writes, we can interpret it ‘not [as] something imposed from above, but something that people create and use actively to maintain the connections between themselves and other places and things.’[footnoteRef:1] There is some evidence to support this viewpoint, with Harrison himself pointing to customs such as the annual Boxing Day tug-of-war between the Bull Hotel and the Feathers Hotel in Ludlow town centre, a relatively new ‘tradition’ which draws in hundreds of people each year, thus fostering a sense of local community.[footnoteRef:2] While Laurajane Smith agrees in part with this idea of heritage as a cultural process, however, her notion of the Authorised Heritage Discourse more prevalent in Western society is one which focuses on physical things rather than such intangible practices. With the focus of our public history being on the grand and material, more value, she argues, is assigned to national narratives than local community histories, and thus the experiences of the elite are prioritised over those of minority groups.[footnoteRef:3] Local community traditions and experiences are only significant in shaping the history of a small circle around them, and as forms of local history tend to be more often stories and songs as opposed to stately homes and castles, their impact on public historical discourse can often be minimal. In fact, as the historian Iain Robertson identifies, even in the few cases where heritage and strong public historical narratives ‘from below’ can be found, they most often relate to ‘expressions [..] or memory of resistance amongst the dominated’, and thus still constitute a response to national narratives rather than holding significance in their own right.[footnoteRef:4] Overall, therefore, the idea of this ‘bottom-up’ local model of heritage seems outweighed by the wealth of evidence that public historical discourse remains at its core something controlled by national elites. [1: Rodney Harrison, “What is Heritage?,” in Understanding the Politics of Heritage, ed. Rodney Harrison (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009): 38. ] [2: Harrison, “What is Heritage?,” 37.] [3: Laurajane Smith, The Uses of Heritage (London: Routledge 2006), 93.] [4: Iain J.M. Robertson, “Heritage from Below: Class, Social Protest and Resistance,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, ed. Brian Graham and Peter Howard (Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group): 144.]

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

There is far more evidence to support the argument that national frames of reference hold more weight than local community in the shaping of public historical discourse. Smith’s aforementioned concept of the Authorised Heritage Discourse is something which ‘takes its cue from the grand narratives of Western national and elite class experiences’, tying public history to larger national narratives and thereby devaluing the experiences of minority groups and communities.[footnoteRef:5] The heritage ‘canon’ as represented by the list of World Heritage Sites is divided into two tiers, as Smith identifies, with those that tie into grand national narratives being described as ‘buildings and monuments’ and places of importance to more marginalised communities being referred to as ‘man-made sites’, the implication of this choice of language being that such sites are less inherently historic.[footnoteRef:6] This acts as a significant counter to the statement that local community is more important than national frames of reference in shaping public historical discourse. However, in the past this argument has been criticised by the British Marxist historian Raphael Samuel, who believes that the heritage discourse has in fact acted to democratise the past by placing more emphasis on the lives of ‘ordinary’ people.[footnoteRef:7] Samuel’s argument is not entirely convincing, though, as it seems overoptimistic in its estimation of this emphasis and perhaps owing to his political stance is keen to reject the connection between heritage and Conservative political interest, thereby overplaying the role of the general public in the creation of public history. Another example of the way in which the national is prioritised over the local in the field of public history is the tourist industry. As Dean MacCanell argues, at the heart of tourism in the Western world is a process which frames local culture as something to be consumed by visitors – a process which inevitably results in the subordination of local communities.[footnoteRef:8] A nation’s tourist industry thrives on public historical discourse being focussed on the grand and aesthetic, as tours of a stately home inevitably bring in more economic revenue than local oral history could. Overall, although the arguments of historians such as Samuel serve as a reminder that the national does not have absolute dominance over the local, the evidence that national frames of reference overshadow the local in the shaping of heritage discourse is strong. [5: Smith, The Uses of Heritage, 93.] [6: Smith, The Uses of Heritage, 97.] [7: Raphael Samuel, Theatres of Memory: Volume I, Past and Present in Contemporary Culture (London: Verso, 1994), 160.] [8: Dean MacCannell, “Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Visitor Settings,” American Journal of Sociology 79, no.3 (1979): 592.]

Some historians have gone further in their arguments that national frames of reference overshadow the local, arguing that it is not just academics and elites but the nation-state itself which shapes public historical discourse, for example in order to control its population. Graham, Ashworth and Tunbridge argue that a sense of nationalistic heritage is created by governments as ‘a primary instrument in the [..] creation and subsequent nurturing of a national identity’.[footnoteRef:9] Pieces of government legislation such as the US National Historic Preservation Act can serve as support for this viewpoint, as the Act urges that the nation’s history must be preserved as a living part of public life in order to ‘give a sense of orientation to the American people.’[footnoteRef:10] Public history can therefore be seen to be distinctly nationalistic by nature, as the heritage industry would not fulfil its purpose if it were otherwise. Christopher Tilley agrees with this position, writing that ‘precisely because they objectify and solidify culture museums and monuments have always been part of the process of nation-state building’, and that the establishment of national museums has been fundamental in the creation of a unified national identity in newly emergent nation-states, for example following decolonisation around the world.[footnoteRef:11] This argument can be supported by the case study of post-colonial Kenya, in which monuments and museums sprung up following its independence in an attempt to create a new sense of national identity. The neglect of Swahili cultural tradition in these new heritage sites gives still more credence to the idea that the heritage of marginalised local communities is neglected in the formation of public history from a national point of view.[footnoteRef:12] It is important not to completely write heritage off as a tool of the nation-state, however, with some forms of public history such as historical re-enactments and period dramas reflecting the interest and influence of the general population on the discourse of public history. As Jerome De Groot has identified, while re-enactment societies are really only the realm of a small group of enthusiasts, they represent to an extent a transfer of power back from the elites to the amateurs, and provide a counter to the argument that national governments have complete dominion over public historical discourse.[footnoteRef:13] Nevertheless, the vital role of the nation-state in the shaping of the heritage narrative is clear. [9: Gregory John Ashworth, Brian Graham and John E. Tunbridge, “The Uses and Abuses of Heritage,” in Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An Introductory Reader, ed. Gerard Corsane (London: Routledge, 2005): 27.] [10: “National Historic Preservation Act 1966,” US National Park Service, accessed Oct 21, 2020, https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/nhpa1966.htm. ] [11: Christopher Tilley, “Introduction: Identity, Place, Landscape and Heritage,” Journal of Material Culture 11, no. 1-2 (2006), 17.] [12: Sabine Marschall, “The Heritage of Post-Colonial Societies,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, ed. Brian Graham and Peter Howard (Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group): 355.] [13: Jerome De Groot, Consuming History: Historians and Heritage in Contemporary Popular Culture (London: Routledge, 2016), 117.]

So far, this essay has shown that national frames of reference tend to overshadow local community in shaping public historical discourse. However, it would be remiss not to acknowledge the recent trends in scholarship that are attempting to rectify this. Sheila Watson uses the case study of a museum in Great Yarmouth to illustrate the fact that steps are being undertaken to democratise the so-called ‘theatres’ of public history. In consulting the people of Great Yarmouth over their visions for the new displays rather than purely focusing on the external perceptions of the town, the museum helped to shape and be shaped by a sense of local community identity.[footnoteRef:14] Laurajane Smith’s case study of Castleford in West Yorkshire also serves to support this idea, with the Castleford Heritage Group attempting to shape public historical discourse through the creation of community memories and experiences. However, the case identified by Smith ties into the idea presented by Robertson earlier that local narratives tend to be linked to ideas of oppression from above, as she writes that the sense of public history or heritage in Castleford must be identified as dissonant because it is ‘a heritage associated with trauma and community distress’, due mostly to the Thatcher Conservative Government’s treatment of the mining communities.[footnoteRef:15] This idea that local public histories are only relevant as they relate to the accepted discourse is one which multiple groups are attempting to change. For example, York’s Alternative History Group has hit back at the way in which the authentic history of the people of York has been obscured by the narrative that they are ‘merely the grateful recipients of ‘their freedom’ from monarchs’, and has emphasised the need for alternative histories.[footnoteRef:16] With change being pushed for not merely by experts and academics but also by such community groups, the aspiration of a more democratic public historical discourse which is shaped by rather than obscuring local narratives seems closer than ever before. However, it currently remains an idea which resides mainly in the field of academia and of specific historical enthusiasts, and therefore has little influence over the public historical narrative as a whole. [14: Sheila Watson, “History Museums, Community Identities and a Sense of Place,”, in Museum Revolutions: How Museums Change and are Changed, ed. Simon J. Knell, Suzanne Macleod, Sheila E.R. Watson (London: Routledge, 2010): 170.] [15: Smith, The Uses of Heritage, 237-239.] [16: Helen Graham, “A Cozy Duvet City – Why York Needs Alternative Histories,” The Guardian, Jan 16, 2013, accessed Oct 19 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/the-northerner/2013/jan/16/york-heritage-radical-walks-history-luddites-rowntrees-clifford-s-tower. ]

Overall, therefore, the evidence presented in this essay most strongly supports the narrative set forth by Laurajane Smith and her peers that it is national frames of reference and not local community which are currently most significant in the shaping of public historical discourse. However it has also highlighted the fact that, through the work of groups such as York’s Alternative History Group alongside historians such as Sheila Watson, there are indications of a move towards a more inclusive public historical narrative; one which is shaped by a tapestry of experiences from marginalised communities that our heritage discourse has traditionally overlooked.

SOURCES

1. Graham, Helen. “A Cosy Duvet City – Why York Needs Alternative Histories.” The Guardian. January 16, 2013. Accessed October 19, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/the-northerner/2013/jan/16/york-heritage-radical-walks-history-luddites-rowntrees-clifford-s-tower.
2. US National Park Service. “National Historic Preservation Act 1966,” US National Park Service, Accessed October 21, 2020. https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/nhpa1966.htm.
3. Ashworth, Gregory John, Brian Graham and John E. Tunbridge. “The Uses and Abuses of Heritage.” In Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An Introductory Reader, edited by Gerard Corsane, 26-37. London: Routledge, 2005.
4. De Groot, Jerome. Consuming History: Historians and Heritage in Contemporary Popular Culture. London: Routledge, 2016.
5. Harrison, Rodney. 'What is Heritage?' In Understanding the Politics of Heritage, edited by Rodney Harrison, 5-42. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009.
6. MacCannel, Dean. “Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Visitor Settings.” American Journal of Sociology 79, no. 3 (1979): 589-603.
7. Marschall, Sabine. “The Heritage of Post-Colonial Societies.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, edited by Brian Graham and Peter Howard, 347-364. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group, 2008.
8. Robertson, Iain J.M. “Heritage From Below: Class, Social Protest and Resistance.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, edited by Brian Graham and Peter Howard, 143-159. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group, 2008.
9. Samuel, Raphael. Theatres of Memory: Volume I, Past and Present in Contemporary Culture. London: Verso, 1994.
10. Smith, Laurajane. The Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge, 2006.
11. Tilley, Christopher. “Introduction: Identity, Place, Landscape and Heritage.” The Journal of Material Culture 11, no. 1-2 (2006): 7-32.
12. Watson, Sheila. “History Museums, Community Identities and a Sense of Place.” In Museum Revolutions: How Museums Change and are Changed, edited by Simon J. Knell, Suzanne Macleod and Sheila Watson, 160-172. London: Routledge, 2010.