Frames of Analysis of Heritage Tourism Critical Discourse Analysis

The problems of unproblematic history We have seen that a number of disciplines (scholarly or professional communities) regularly investigate the realm of heritage tourism. – What is less clear is how we can usefully absorb and inform our own work by being aware of other disciplinary approaches to the study of heritage tourism. What I believe you will have seen if you read Laurajane Smith’s first chapter is that it is not possible to simply compile a bibliography of all the writings upon the subject and then come to an understanding of what is true, or good, or appropriate in heritage tourism, or in the broader field of heritage studies in which historic preservation (as it is called in the United States) is our focus in this major at the University of Mary Washington. As a student of heritage it is important to recognize different disciplinary approaches, including: – methods of constructing proof – Definitions of what is appropriate and not appropriate for study – Important writings that validate the approach by showing how useful information and conclusions can be reached by applying the methods and definitions. These have been called paradigms of a discipline, but might as easily be called the “frames of analysis.

Modernism and Post-Modernism Modernism as an intellectual force sought truth in social analysis through the use of scientific metaphors and quantitative analysis. Modernism was a positivistic analysis believing that all behaviors have a materialist basis and thus could be modified by changing the conditions. Post-Modernism as an intellectual force strongly rejects the absolutism and reductionism of modernist conclusions, and asserts that the materialist base is really a social construction. At the most extreme this position is hyper-relativistic.

Denying Heritage Intended to shock us. More than one interpretation of past Assertion of manipulation for control Consensus denies validity of alternate interpretations

Critical Discourse Analysis Developed by Norman Fairclough (1989) Links the study of power (control) with language use. Discourse – Interpretations spoken as descriptions, where the proof is not questioned. In an argument or debate the positions are given as true. – In competing discourses the same anti-government guerrillas could described as either "freedom fighters" or "terrorists.“ Discourse according to Foucault is related to power as it operates by rules of exclusion. – Discourse therefore is controlled by objects – what can be spoken of; – Ritual – where and how one may speak – and the privileged, who may speak

Naturalizing Heritage As Dominant discourses (heritage) are repeated they become internalized, what Smith and others would call “naturalized” by which Smith means accepted as correct without question. “Particular practices, sections of society, such as bodies of expertise, areas of policy development, public employees, community groups... Have particular discourses internalized within them that help them to shape social life and particular behavour and practices. Critical Discourse Analysis –an analysis of the social and political context of that discourse.... In legitimizing and naturalizing the ideologies and range of cultural and social assumptions... discourses can have a persuasive power in maintaining and legitimating hierarchies of social relations.

Discourse of monumentality and heritage Naturalizes the national (as opposed to the regional) discourse Substituted aesthetic and romantic discourse about the object for the discourse about the actions or individuals. International heritage development sought to naturalize the discourse of monumentality to world heritage. – Key role of the Venice Charter. Burra Charter (Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance) Significance deemed to be inherent in the fabric of the building. – Revisions to expand community participation in conservation “works to compromise that participation... it has not altered the dominant sense of trusteeship of expert authority over the material fabric.”

Authorized Heritage Discourse Focuses attention on aesthetically pleasing material objects, sites, places, and or landscapes that current generations must care for... And to forge a sense of common identity based on the past. Defines the legitimate spokespersons. – Vagueness of “the past.” – Subject to judgment of experts, historians and archaeologists. Leaves those descendants of producers of past outside interpretation. Heritage is innately valuable. Heritage is symbolic representation of identity. – Heritage excludes competing discourses and is something that is engaged passively.

How Authorized Heritage Discourse impacts the public Public conceptualized as empty vessels. Discourse that mass tourism reduced heritage to simple entertainment. Heritage phase has transformed heritage into a product for consumption in the marketplace. Obscures the sense of action or critical engagement on the part of non-expert users of heritage.

Dissenting discourses Community participation Greatest challenge has been through indigenous peoples. – More profound than simple ownership of materials of past. When challenging discourses focus on materiality they obscure the issues of social and political marginalization. Tend to be top-down, not bottom up discourse.

Other Frames Management Assessment Stakeholders