William Carruthers, FRHistS is Lecturer in Heritage and Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Essex
Reading the Big Think responses, what struck me the most is that they are thoughtful and pragmatic in the face of what has become an increasingly difficult and precarious operating environment.
As someone who teaches and works with heritage and its practitioners, I don’t find that very surprising. The students I work with are reflective about what heritage might be; the same is true of many heritage practitioners with whom I’m in contact.
By and large, people in heritage are also engaged with debates about the field’s (at-times problematic) history, and know full well that, while dealing with such issues, heritage finds itself in turbulent political and economic times. The Big Think responses tally with that experience, and I find them encouraging in terms of a future heritage that is less fixed in its attributes, and more engaged in the places where it’s embedded. People and practitioners want different heritage futures.
People and practitioners want different heritage futures
Conserving at all costs?
That said, the survey – despite the hope it seems to offer – also seems indicative of the headwinds that such work faces. This point is most clear in responses regarding the sustainability of heritage. Here, respondents indicate a cautious awareness that heritage is either changing or needs to change: they’re in favour of repurposing heritage sites if necessary, and even slightly favour the closure of heritage places if required.
In this sense, the respondents echo much recent work in heritage studies, which questions the fixity of the things that the field has tended to conserve. In contradiction, however, respondents seem loathe to support the idea of “fewer, better-resourced sites” as a solution for heritage’s sustainability issues, pointing to the continued professional imperative to conserve at all costs.
…respondents seem loathe to support the idea of “fewer, better-resourced sites” as a solution for heritage’s sustainability issues, pointing to the continued professional imperative to conserve at all costs.
This is a contradiction, however, that itself is not all that surprising. In practice, much heritage work remains that of conservation and education about the sorts of sites and objects that have long been the field’s focus. Arguments over changes to the ICOM definition of a museum – ultimately finalised in 2022 – revealed the fissures that have arisen around such work in recent years, and suggested that any change in accepted purpose was likely to happen gradually rather than all at once.
The Big Think responses reflect the vexed back-and-forth of this situation: 54% of respondents prioritise professional expertise in terms of decisions around what is preserved, rather than letting public opinion help guide that choice too. That is a stark split, and indicative of the passion with which such topics are currently discussed. In a context, however, where respondents are also aware of the acute economic pressures facing their work, perhaps it’s not all that surprising that this split has been revealed: the financial risk of not changing is as great as the financial risk of changing conservation work wholesale.
…if there is to be change in heritage (and I think that there will be), then it will be gradual and piecemeal…
Gradual change, not revolution
Perhaps the point, then, is this: if there is to be change in heritage (and I think that there will be), then it will be gradual and piecemeal, but nonetheless driven by the sorts of attitudes revealed by the responses here.
Put simply, the future of heritage – or, more likely, future heritages – lies with the students and practitioners who work in the field today, alongside the communities that they are increasingly and willingly engaged with. Financial sustainability, the short-term thinking of project work, and long-standing conservation practices make a wholesale switch to different ways of heritage thinking difficult, as the responses here indicate.
Some form of change, however, is clearly not inevitable. Given the slight uptick in sector positivity evidenced by the Pulse Monitor responses, hope for an increased array of heritages seems viable.
