How should NCPH commemorate the past and help shape the future of federal preservation policy? (Part III)
31 March 2015 – Michelle Delaney
Editors’ Note: In 2016, the National Park Service will mark the 100th anniversary of its founding, and the National Historic Preservation Act will have been in effect for 50 years. These two landmark moments come just two years after the National Museum of American History quietly marked its own 50th anniversary in 2014. A Working Group at the National Council on Public History 2015 Annual Meeting in Nashville will serve as a collaborative forum for planning a scholarly symposium to mark these important events. The symposium will take place in March 2016 during the NCPH Annual Meeting in Baltimore. This post is directed to participants in the working group, but all blog readers are invited to comment.
Greensboro lunch counter program at the National Museum of American History. Photo credit: Image courtesy of Michelle Delaney
Thanks to your comments, our working group team has much to consider and prepare for the session. We look forward to meeting in person to move ahead with plans for the 2016 symposium, intended to address how NCPH should commemorate the past and consider the future of federal cultural preservation policy.
This blog post is our third and final post to guide our work in Nashville. Comments are due by April 6. (Part I & Part II can be found here.)
Certain key themes have resonated throughout the blogs and comments, which we can expand in Nashville. Many posts were directed toward new options for professional development and collaborations and how to engage in dialogue across our collective interests and current needs in federal cultural practice, public history, and historic preservation. Three dominant themes for further discussion include:
Multi-vocal narratives: How do we delve into the untold stories and voices and utilize a collaborative approach with peoples who have traumatic histories with institutions? How do we decolonize historic preservation and expand public history?
Discussion of Critical Race Theory as it relates to historic preservation: By placing advocacy at the center of our practice rather than as an afterthought, it allows for the development of sites of conscience raising where people can challenge themselves to be better citizens and neighbors and have a renewed investment in their nation’s history.
Innovation: Focus and identify interconnectivity among various professions, institutions, and communities and create opportunities to reconnect and empower new relationships between scholars, educators, and local communities, with new ways of working together in the digital age.
As we prepare for our meeting in Nashville, please answer these TWO questions in the comments section below:
First, and most important: Please make suggestions for our Nashville agenda. What would you like to discuss and how would you like discussion to go? What can we reasonably expect to produce by the end of our Working Group session?
Second: Please make suggestions about the format of our 2016 Symposium. What kind of environment do you think would be most productive?
Right now, there are two proposals on the table:
The symposium might approximate an “un-conference,” in which final sessions are created on-the-spot. In this scenario, we still might consider how to frame questions and goals ahead of time.
The symposium might have a more formal organization. We could organize discussion panels around several themes, which we have started to outline in our pre-conference discussion. In this scenario, we would want to identify one or two presenters who would address challenging questions. We can structure these as informal “lightning” sessions in which panelists and audience members share how they have encountered the themes and models of practice. A final, facilitated session would allow for summary and the creation of an action plan.
We welcome additional suggestions as well as modifications on these suggestions. See you in Nashville!
~ Michelle Delaney, Consortia Director for the Humanities, Office of the Under Secretary for History, Art, and Culture, Smithsonian Institution
Moving backwards from 2016: I would like to see a symposium that combines the two approaches mentioned above. In a format that allows for audience participation, I would like to learn about parks that are already moving in the direction our themes suggest. I would also like to see unconference “pop-up sessions” that are organized geographically to allow networking (the real strength of pop-up sessions) among parks, other public history institutions, and academic training programs. I think this mixed approach would raise the profile of outstanding programs and deserving public historians within the National Park Service and also offer a valuable networking opportunity for others who want to follow in that direction. Obviously this assumes a lot about geographic participation and over-all willingness, but with a year to plan and promote it could be possible.
At Nashville, I would like the discussion to continue around format but also to identify an overarching goal for the symposium. What would we like the take-away to be from attending in 2016? a show-case? collaborative initiatives? a white paper? An ongoing committee to match collaborators/parks? Beyond this I would also like to identify what the role of the working group is moving forward towards contributing to the symposium.
Agree with Dan! I like the idea of fusing the two symposium models to have both formal elements as well as pop-ups, and discussion groups within presentations. Perhaps a presentation from a few diverse panelists on a theme/ topic/ question/ challenge (how to engage underserved audiences in urban areas? how to foster discussion on controversial histories among diverse groups? co-creating narratives and sharing authority in storytelling? moving the dial past planning and into action?), a discussion question and the participants break into groups to discuss. A facilitator at each session will pull all the threads together and guide a concluding discussion. I would like to move beyond simply sharing out successes (and keep in mind that we want to open the conversation beyond just NPS sites), and put the focus of the panelists presentations on overcoming/ addressing challenges, and hopefully working toward identifying opportunities, and possibly even best practices.
Also agree that leaving NCPH 2015, we want to identify what the goal for the 2016 symposium will be and its overarching theme, as well as clarify roles for the work group. Perhaps we can identify some central questions/ themes/ topics we want to explore to begin soliciting for panelists.
I agree with Dan and April that we should utilize both formats in 2016. The formal sessions will get the discussion going and establish a place for those interested to gather. But then pop-up sessions will allow our most creative participants to contribute in ways none of us would have imagined. Each has a purpose and is likely to have a good outcome.
For Nashville, I think we might want to commemorate what the NPS has done in the past 100 years. How events like the Great Depression allowed the NPS to turn lemons into lemonade with WPA construction, FWA art works, etc. And how the National Parks provide a place for all citizens to spend their leisure time within their budget. Congratulate them for creating passports that children all over the country have participated in. So I think we need to thank the NPS for all they have done.
But we don’t want the NPS to rest on its laurels so I think we need to establish a set of positive and negative goals. What no longer works and should be left behind? How can the NPS reach a broader audience in the 21st century through new media? What can the rest of us do to ensure that NPS gets the resources to continue to grow and serve? The NPS needs support – so how do us non-NPS people help the park system to grow and succeed? So I would like to see one 2016 working group on the role of non-NPS staff in assisting NPS with the goals that come out of the other working groups. They can’t do it alone.
I agree with everything that Dan, April, and Pam have said. I really like the idea of combining the formal and informal into one conference. I think one of the most important aspects for the conference is that there be spaces of dialogue rather than spaces of instruction. Maybe along with the sessions we have “free style” themed sessions where people can present ideas and experiences around a theme and then attempt to build a “best practices” list out of that session for that particular topic. I also really like what April said about having facilitators that “facilitate” rather than just guide the questions. I would like all of the panels to have purpose and to have something that is produced from them. With that said, I also agree with Dan that we need to decide what is going to be the take-away from the symposium. I think this will be a big discussion but I do not think that a collection of published articles is useful and tends to sit on the shelf unused. I would like to see a dynamic, user friendly product.
For Nashville, I agree that we need to leave with the structure, overarching theme, and future plan figured out. Because the next year will go by very fast we need to come up with a “Next Steps” list of what needs to be done and how it is going to get done.
I agree with the ideas for both Nashville and 2016. I think coming out of Nashville with a strategy for the symposium is important. Perhaps this is over-reaching, but I think it would be great if we could come out of the symposium with a document that would re-cast our nation’s conceptualization of of what historic preservation means and is practiced for the 21st century. I believe that we need to have “history” and culture at the root of preservation, rather than simply aesthetics (though that should continue to be a significant component).
Facilitated dialog for the symposium seems to be a nice fit. I think it is really important, however, to seek out and include participation–even presentation–from representatives of marginalized groups.These perspectives need to be at the table from the start if we want to evolve a preservation policy that embraces all Americans. Perhaps a goal for Nashville would be to identify groups or individuals to whom we should reach out.
I know we were asked to address in our last blog post how we thought our NCPH meeting could be organized, but I had a few concerns I wanted to address instead concerning the summation of the primary issues that our blog discussions have raised so far. I do not think that the most salient point is included in that summation. I agree that the issues cited are important issues that continually need to be addressed. Historic sites as a whole do not sufficiently interpret the histories of historically marginalized or subaltern groups, and modern historic preservation approaches make it sometimes difficult or impossible to preserve important sites related to the histories of those same groups. However, I do not think the basic problem in modern historic preservation is that its philosophy inherently tries to reinforce white dominance (even if it does do that). The basic problem is simple: there is very little “history” in “historic preservation.” I can offer two short demonstrations of this. A few years ago I was working on a conference presentation with a preservation consultant, and we began to discuss our interests in preservation. Her response was “I care about the envelope.” I know she was speaking about the building envelope, but I wanted to respond in a metaphoric sense by asking, “But what about the letter? That is where the meaning can be found.” Meaning did not seem to matter to her. Secondly, I was recently talking with a director of a preservation foundation about the place of history in the activities of his foundation. He highlighted their historic plaque program, which involves placing plaques on buildings that include the date(s) of construction, who lived in the houses, and information about their professions. He said that that program proves the importance of history in their activities. I didn’t want to be confrontational, but I wanted to say that the plaque information is comprised of facts but not history, since the meaning or significance of the facts is never even touched upon. So, if innovation in the field of historic preservation is needed, we need to put history back in historic preservation through cross-disciplinary training and the development of mechanisms for discussion across the fields and professions of history, architectural history, public history, and historic preservation.
I have been struggling with this problem in my teaching of historic of preservation over the last few years, and I found a few scholarly works that address similar (although not necessarily identical) concerns, such as those by Andrew Hurley and Daniel Bluestone. Perhaps in the symposium next year we can include discussion groups (with us as facilitators) about some of these scholarly writings by having people preregister for the symposium and assign them short readings to prepare for the conference.
I am looking forward to our discussions next week.
Thanks for that comment Kenneth! You just elegantly nailed down the hitherto nebulous and disparate strands of my dissatisfaction with historic preservation. I have always felt a strange conflict that I love history and loath many history museums, I cherish historical investigation and sharing the past – but despise old houses that are magically endowed with heritage. I feel that history organizations are at their best when they function as community centers using history as a lens for understanding the present, rather than stuffy conservators of “cultural” artifacts to be revered.
As a professional coming out of graduate school, I have come to accept the canon of preservation as the confines of my career and a challenge. I can always make the argument for preserving something that non-historian preservation professionals overlook, but it doesn’t mean that it will be accepted by other non-historian professionals in our field. As a result, I shade towards education and interpretation as the real avenues for inspiring and educating visitors – animating materials with narrative to provide visitors with that crucial “orientation” in time and place.
I do believe, however, that the issue is more closely tied to the white male hegemony which under-girds preservation law and policy than you let on. And I’m sure we will say more about that next week…
I like Pam Henson’s suggestions about looking back at NPS’s first 100 years, as well as looking forward to its mandate in the 21st century and how it not only might reach broader audiences but perhaps also capture more of the “multi-vocal narratives,” which Michelle Delaney cited in her introduction to this forum.
However, I am also somewhat apprehensive about relying very much on “un-conference” sessions that would “pop up” in Baltimore. My concern is that unless these sessions are very skillfully moderated, they may not be particularly productive. I tend to prefer sessions that are more formally organized, and structured; if planned and facilitated well, these types of sessions may allow for networking, creative brainstorming, and audience participation—all of which were cited as desirable outcomes for the less-formal pop-up sessions.
Not to be redundant, but I would like to see more of a discussion about how critical race theory (and also that of the intersection of class and ethnicity in general), defines the selection process of which physical structures receive National Register of Historic Places status or become worthy of other private or public memorialization designations. Obviously, the NPS has been moving in a positive direction in both identifying and marking “bottom-up” sites, stories, and places over the past several decades, but I think there is still room to grow in this respect. For example, while slave quarters are starting to become more recognized and designated, it is the lack of physical integrity that, at least in the past, could often stand in the way of successful designations, even if the stories had ample integrity. An example of this conundrum lies in this anecdote—While it is amazing and highly significant that Carver Court, the African-American segregated company housing designed by Louis Kahn in 1942 for Lukens Steel Co. in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, was deemed eligible for the National Register in 2013, it also brings up the question of the countless other physical structures not designed by renown architects which still may be considered to be unique constructions of buildings, albeit typically with limited available materials or resources.
In regards to the symposium for 2016, I like the “unconference model” (which I guess we are approximating), but the other ideas do sound intriguing. I like the thematic discussion panel approach, which is basically how we broke out into sub-working groups near the end of our panel discussion last year in Monterey. But the one to two person lightning-round approach mentioned here is both an intriguing and entertaining way to get the audience involved. Creation of an action plan or an unofficial statement is always a good option, as at the very least it can provide a summary of the discussion, and at the most a forum to move forward.