Ashley Bouknight

HIST 7993: Summer 2013

Dr. Thelen

Reflective Essay

Over the last three weeks, our Maymester class explored the methodology and impact of

the engagement between “history” and the “public”. Through various readings, class

discussions, guest speakers, and site visits, we were able to see what people extracted from

current historic narratives and how they used this information in their own lives. As a practicing

public historian, the information gained from the visitor study research and this course proved to

be invaluable in identifying ways to share authority with the public to foster meaningful

dialogues, build partnerships to encourage multiple perspectives to current historic narratives,

and co-create experiences with the public which may lead to more civically engaged audiences.

To understand how historians can make stronger connections between the public and the

past, it became essential to learn how people frame stories and how they connect with them. In

Presence of the Past Popular Uses of History in American Life, David Thelen and Roy

Rosenzweig note the five ways in which people digest the information of a story: people look for

the direction of a pattern, measure the pace of development, try to figure out if new

developments made things worse or better and for whom, note any obstacles that could change

outcomes and if any factors might speed up this outcome, and how long this journey could take.1

The inner-dialogue that takes place while individuals process a story is similar to the dialogues

used to understanding any past event. However, understanding the event, as we have learned

1 Presence of the Past Popular Uses of History in American Life, 54-55.

1

through this course, is not the sole reason that events or stories are remembered. In order for

people to truly connect with the past, they need to find ways to insert themselves in the story to

relive an experience and have the ability to serve as agents of change. When individuals are

given agency in past events, the process in which people use history moves beyond merely

digesting the story to becoming a personal, meaningful experience. No longer will people only

focus on the patterns, outcomes, and obstacles of the events, but will attempt to understand how

the event affects their relationships, their identity, their legacy, and their ability to possibly make

a difference in the world.

As we learned that history is constructed out of an individual’s need to make sense of the

world around them, it is equally as important to note the need of people to come as close to the

“truth” in order to apply it to their own lives. Through the research conducted in visitor study

surveys in the United States and Canada, it is evident that the public usually seeks at least one of

the four types of “truths” in order to understand and/or confirm their experiences: forensic truths,

experiential truths, dialogic truths, and healing truths. This search for truth, while not always

successful, is an example of a person’s desire to come as close to the “real thing” and it also

reveals the relationship and level of trust between the person and the sources. This process of

personal reflection and the search for truth is a prime example of how history making is always

in the present. 2

While individuals seek to make the process of making history as personal as possible, it

now becomes necessary for public history practitioners to let go of their assumed authority to

2 Roy Rosenzweig and David P. Thelen, The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life, New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.

2

create true dialogical experiences that embody reciprocity and flexivity between them and the

public. 3 Understanding how the public engages with the past allows history professionals to

move away from “information dumping” in which guests are passive onlookers and create

meaningful experiences where visitors become active participators. During the second week of

class discussions, our class was joined by Ellen Rosenthal and Barbara Franco who provided a

great deal of insight on sharing authority with the public. Both Rosenthal and Franco discussed

the new methodology of historic institutions to create spaces of “shared authority” in which

dialogues are the main tool in the transfer of information.4 Their presentation on authority

echoed the discussion in Letting Go in which the author encourages more fluidity in the content

provided but reminds historians, particularly those in museums and historic sites, that it is our

job to provide context and boundaries for the information presented to guide an individual’s

experience.5 While it was initially thought that visitors did not want this type of guidance, the

visitor studies done in the United States, Canada, and Australia confirm that people want some

type of boundaries during their museum/site experiences.6

This conversation on authority led to discussions on the importance of interpretation

delivery and style. Rosenthal noted that individuals go to historic sites for various reasons and

that the staff of sites should be aware of this idea. She also stated that, “conversations are both

3 Ellen Rosenthal and Jane Blankman-Hetrick, “Conversations Across Time Family Learning in a Living History Museum,” Gaea Leinhardt, Kevin Crowley, and Karen Knutson., Learning Conversations in Museums, Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002.4Also see“ Introduction,” Bill Adair, Benjamin Filene, and Laura Koloski, Letting Go?: Sharing Historical Authority in a User-Generated World, Philadelphia, PA: Pew Center for Arts & Heritage, 2011.5 Mary Theresa Seig and Ken Bubp, “The Culture of Empowerment: Driving and Sustaining Change at Conner Prairie,” Curator (April 2008), 2096 Presence of the Past; Canadians and Their Pasts, Paula Hamilton and Paul Ashton, “At Home with the Past: Initial Findings From the Survey,” Australian Cultural History, 22 (2003), 5-30.

3

the product and process of interpretive engagement” and that “guests need to ultimately be in

charge of their own experiences.” When sites focus on creating conversations rather than

“giving lectures,” guests are able to better share their needs and maximize their potential to

digest more information that may foster learning during or even after their visit. Franco suggests

this fluidity of information between sites and guests becomes easier to obtain when sites view the

public as active partners in the interpretive process.7 To achieve this type of interaction, authors

Mary Theresa Seig and Ken Bubp suggest ways in which historic site/museum staff members

can learn to apply various dialogic methods in their own interpretation style. This may include

understanding various learning styles, learning how to read body language clues, or even

becoming more aware of culturally sensitive topics. Historians should remind their staff, and

sometimes themselves, that the goal of the interaction between them and the public should not be

on a specific outcome but on “responsive understanding.”8 This need to truly understand visitor

needs and allowing them to participate in the interpretive process can be summarized in a quote

by William Butler Yates that Rosenthal shared during her presentation: “Education is not the

filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.”

While historians are encouraged to make connections with the public, the speakers

(Northup, Rosenthal, and Franco) as well as many of the course readings suggest the value of

building partnerships between institutions to allow for stronger and more creative interpretive

planning processes and potentially allow for the insertion of various counter cultures into

mainstream historic narratives. In the article by Jessica Gogan on the Andy Warhol Museum,

institutional collaborations were essential in the success of exhibitions, particularly those that 7 Barbara Franco, “Decentralizing Culture: Public History and Communities”8 Seig and Bubp, “The Culture of Empowerment”, 211; Patricia Romney, “The Art of Dialogue,” Pam Korza, and Barbara Schaffer Bacon. Cultural Perspectives in Civic Dialogue: Case Studies from Animating Democracy, Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts, 2005.

4

were deemed controversial in nature.9 Allowing partnering organizations to handle the larger

issues associated with exhibitions alleviated a great deal of the pressure off of the home

institution.

Based on the information received during this course, one of the greatest achievements

that can result from co-creating experiences with the public is to create more civically engaged

audiences. However the key to creating this type of audience depends on an institution’s

willingness to embrace notions of civil engagement themselves. As we have learned, people

reflect on historic events in a personal way and often attempt to find spaces in the story in which

they can make a difference. In order for individuals to align themselves with cultural

institutions, they must see ways in which that institution’s values mirror their own. In “Learning

Community: Lessons in Co-Creating the Civic Museum,” David Thelen emphasizes the need for

museums to evaluate their levels of civic engagement in their interpretive style and content.

Thelen encourages sites to “challenge” themselves to reach levels of “deeper community

engagement.”10 Reaching the public in a deeper, more genuine way will help to minimize, if not

erase, the distrust many communities have with organizations and institutions. Allowing the

public to have a real voice would essentially mean historic institutions would be giving up their

right to have the “last word”. This, by far, will be the biggest challenge for most sites to face as

they have historically been accustomed to holding all of the authority in compiling narratives of

the past.

9 Jessica Gogan, “The Andy Warhol Museum,” Pam Korza, and Barbara Schaffer Bacon. Cultural Perspectives in Civic Dialogue: Case Studies from Animating Democracy, Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts, 2005.10 David Thelen, 2001,. "Features - Learning Community: Lessons in Co-Creating the Civic Museum - On the Cover and Pages 56-59: Cranbrook Academy, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., 1943", Museum News. 80, no. 3: 56, 68.

5

With the course now complete, I have found that many of the concepts covered in the

course to be helpful in my future work as a public historian. One of the first ideas that resonated

with me was the varying methodologies that can be used to gather museum visitor information.

Reading Presence of the Past was helpful, but actually conducting my own interviews with my

friends and family truly opened my eyes to how people viewed the past. For the informal

interviews, I chose to combine methods from both the United States survey with those of the

Canadian survey to see if I would receive more information. I decided to interview two African-

American individuals from different age groups and with varying education levels to see the

differences in experiences within a specific minority group. The first interview was done with

my mother, an African-American woman in her late sixties having only a high school diploma.

The second interview was with my best friend, an African-American male in his late twenties

working on his fifth year of an undergraduate engineering degree. For many of the questions

regarding the importance of photographs, museums/historic sites, holidays, and history

films/television programs their responses were generally the same. They both trusted

photographs and museums/historic sites as legitimate resources about the past and were both

somewhat trusting of films and television programs. Each named Thanksgiving and Christmas

as important holidays that helped them connect with people about the past. The most surprising

result of my interviews revealed that they felt most connected to the pasts of their families and

communities, neither mentioned race. The second surprising result of my interviews was the

level of detail given in the interviewee’s responses when asked follow-up questions. For

example, when asked to give examples of the types of films/television that they watched, my

mother listed documentaries on commonly known African-Americans and events such as Martin

Luther King, Jr. and Roots. My friend, on the other hand, listed these same topics but also other

6

topics, such as the history of America’s drug wars, education in the black community, and

sexuality in the black community. In regards to holidays, my friend also added Juneteenth to his

list of most important holidays. Although the survey was brief, the responses suggest that

generational and/or education levels influence how individuals associate with past events. With

my research focused primarily in African-American history, these preliminary findings are

helpful as it sheds light on the possible division lines within the culture and will aid in the

creation of interpretive material that will reach these various groups.

While our class did not cover this topic as much as I would have liked, I appreciated the

references to privilege in the readings. In the Browne and Korza article, I was excited to read

their commentary that privilege and class are not necessarily the same concept. A person’s

privilege could easily refer to the amount of power a person brings to the discussion or a certain

level of knowledge. Normally, I am always aware of any racial connotations surrounding my

research, but I had not fully considered that an individual’s privilege in society plays an

important role in how dialogues commence. I often became extremely frustrated in class during

discussions on race. I strongly believe that many of my classmates who have never worked in

the public history field were naïve to think that race wasn’t a factor in museum decision making.

I strongly believe that many of them, as well as many professionals in the field, should spend

more time evaluating their privilege before discussing museum visitor theory or starting a public

history project in the field. For example during the presentations by Rosenthal and Franco, I was

very troubled by many important details that were omitted as neither individual emphasized the

point that while shared authority is a great, it is equally as important to understand the extent of

power that the dominant party holds during the creative processes. While Conner Prairie was

7

able to make sweeping changes, it was primarily because they did not have a board of directors.

Interesting enough, the historians eluded to this idea in their articles but the idea was only a

minor detail in their presentations. I found this method to be extremely problematic particularly

during the public forum when local museum professionals began asking questions in their

attempt to find and hopefully apply the “best practices of the field” to their own institutions. Not

acknowledging their privileges in the situation and with the public not having read the articles to

understand the context of the culture in which these changes were made could have given these

individuals false hope in their efforts to make interpretive changes. As I have been working with

African-American communities over the last six years, understanding the privileges of all parties

involved in the history making process is crucial as tense feelings are usually present one side or

the other. The community history project that I have been working on in South Carolina for the

last two years is a true example of this tense process. The project involves a large government-

funded entity trying to make a mends with the local African-American community by installing

an exhibition on their grounds chronicling the history of the oldest black educational institutions

in the capital city. With the project being funded by a wealthy alum of the school whose wishes

do not always align with the school’s alumni foundation, voices are overlapping and many in the

African-American community are very angry with the results of the project. In several of the

very few public forums that were held regarding the project, many of the alumni felt that the

government entity only entered into a partnership with the foundation for publicity and was not

willing to enter a sincere relationship with the black community. I wish I had taken this course

before beginning the project as I am sure the outcome would have been less explosive.

8

The most enlightening experience of the course was the visitor observations done at The

Hermitage: Home of President Andrew Jackson and The Country Music Hall of Fame. During

our visit to The Country Music Hall of Fame, there was less diversity in the demographics and

we agreed that we saw far less interaction between guests despite the “high-end” nature of the

exhibit designs compared to the historic site. We rarely saw guests speaking to each other and if

they did it was to say, “Ooooo! Look at those boots!” This could also be due to the fact that the

music was incredibly loud and overlapped frequently. The abundance of text, artifacts, and

technology may not have left guests any room to reflect on what they had just seen. Many people

didn’t even read the texts, but only looked at the objects and moved on. Despite the lack of

overall engagement by guests, the moment that most captured my attention was during my first

few minutes in the museum inside the Patsy Cline exhibit. I was able to observe two female

friends watching a video of Ms. Cline singing a soft melody and the women started swaying and

then they embraced for several minutes. They shared a laugh (possible after a short conversation

which I could not hear) and left the exhibit. The women were still partially embracing as they

left. This was a great example of how people take stories of the past and connect them to their

own histories to create meaningful moments in the present.

During our visit to The Hermitage, I was able to see a wide range of visitor reactions to

the interpretation as guests were visibly more engaged with the site and each other. Although

guests used audio sets for self-guided tours, they still found time to stop and talk about the

panels. One guest, presumably with her husband, stopped in front of a map and after they each

listened to the audio tour prompt began a discussion on the order in which the states entered the

union. They spent a great deal of time at this location and just before moving on she stated,

9

“Interesting… [there is] so much of American history that I do not know.” I also noticed many

of the younger couples skipped the gallery, but spent a few minutes at the Rachel and Andrew

mannequins, some even embracing for a few seconds before heading to the mansion. This area

was omitted, for the most part, by older guests as they spent most of their time in the center

inside of the museum gallery. In regards to the staff, we noticed that many individuals who were

not working interpretation had a strong understanding of the site’s history and could give

impromptu tours to guests. This was evident as I watched both the front-line staff and a member

of security giving history sound bites to guest that stopped to ask questions.

The most fascinating moment during my observations was when Liz and I spoke with the

leader of a foreign exchange group. We had listened to the man give a great talk on the

interpretative materials in the hallway that we assumed he must be a history teacher. During our

short interview with the gentleman, we learned that he was a Methodist minister from Illinois

who regularly serves as an American guide to Chinese doctoral and post-doctoral students

several times a year. He said that he was using history and historic sites to illustrate themes of

power in American society to the students. He also noted that these themes of power could be

viewed through the lenses of religion to show the students examples of people who understood

that change requires courage and wisdom. Even though the entire group was atheist (as this was

the culture in China), the minister noted that the students were very receptive to this method of

teaching as they possessed a “refreshing form of atheism” because it was rooted in logic and

curiosity, and not hate. We also learned that he had been a psychology and history major in

college which accounted for his excellent grasp of the topics at the site.

10

The goal of this field work was to attempt to gain some perspective of how visitors were

engaging with not only the site, but also with each other. While the class initially believed that

by collecting information from a living history site and a “traditional history museum” we would

be able to see a wider range of responses regarding how people interact with subjects of the past,

we all found that the two sites needed to be judged separately on their own merits as each site

was created to generate two very different outcomes. This made collecting information from

each site very difficult and almost impossible to do at The CMHF. At The Hermitage, we were

able to speak with guests and staff while allocating equal time to observe guests. At The CMHF,

we did not have access to the interpretive staff and the lack of conversations among guests did

not provide a very fruitful experience either. However, after visiting both sites, we were able to

see some patterns in visitor attendance and engagement. These visits provided some information

on the level of engagement among visitors at “open-air museums” like The Hermitage versus

more “traditional museums” like The CMHF. I have already begun to relay this preliminary

information to my colleagues at my home institution in order to encourage the administrative

staff to conduct more in depth visitor studies in the future.

While conducting observations at The Hermitage, I became fascinated with the amount of

time visitors spent reading the panels on slavery located in the visitor center hallway. I noticed

that even though guests continued to wear their audio equipment and rarely engaged in

conversations with each other in this area, they spent more time at these panels than the museum

gallery and carriage exhibit combined. These individuals would even skip the wall cases

containing President Jackson ephemera that were positioned in between the window panels. This

observation led me to revisit a visitor study that was done on our site in 2012 by a graduate

11

student from Brown University on guest reaction to the topic of slavery in the site’s

interpretative material. Although the survey was conducted on a smaller scale, the results

mirrored my observations as most guests who were interviewed stated that issues of slavery and

cotton were the primary conversations starters among their groups. The topic of slavery was also

listed as one of the top three topics that most interested guests. Based on this information, I

realized that it is important for The Hermitage to embrace the controversy as people want

realistic interpretation and to come as close to the “truth” as possible. As I reviewed the visitor

survey, I revisited the Brown University’s truth committee report on slavery to find ways in

which The Hermitage could create partnerships and commit to sincere truth finding. I was

thoroughly impressed with Brown University President Ruth J. Simmons’ commitment to telling

“‘factual information and critical perspectives’” so that people could “discuss the historical,

legal, political, and moral dimensions of the controversy in reasoned and intellectually rigorous

ways” in order to “to provide intellectual leadership and foster civil discourse on this important

national issue Brown’s own history.”11 I also appreciated the university’s acknowledgement that

“retrospective justice is a messy and imperfect business, and societies and institutions that

undertake it should do so with humility and a clear-eyed recognition of the inadequacy of any

reparative program to restore what was taken away.”12 I was also interested in the idea that

discussing the past and the history of how individuals attempted to erase this past was just as

important. Recommendations of the committee included installing plaques acknowledging the

schools involvement with the slave trade, hosting forums on the institution of slavery and the

college’s involvement with the system, allocating additional funding to research on slavery and

crimes against humanity, enforcing codes of ethics regarding monetary gifts to the school, and

11 Brown University, Slavery and Justice, Providence, RI: Brown University, 2007, 80.12 Ibid, 82.

12

revising policies on the naming of memorials on the grounds. Three key concepts that I pulled

from this report and its recommendations from the committee that could be beneficial to my

home institution are: acknowledgement, dialogic truth telling, and creating environments where

all parties are civically engaged. While it may be a challenge, I’m sure that, with time, The

Hermitage could move towards incorporating some of these similar suggestions into their own

strategic plan to reflect the type of experience many of our guests are expecting.

Overall, this course has caused me to pay closer attention to how I craft exhibits and draft

interpretive materials. I am now more focused on developing desired outcomes for guests that

are realistic and reflective of various personalities. This experience has also led me to see that I

may spend too much time on “counter narratives” and often forget that the accepted narrative

have their place as well. As I move forward and began embarking on new projects in the field, I

am excited to have the opportunity to utilize these new tools as I ultimately feel more prepared to

engage with the public in a more meaningful way.

13