Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Place, Preservation, and the Public Historian


Almost by definition cities are in constant flux.  Given this fact how is it possible to document the history of cities?  And, what is the value of doing so?  The readings for this week, Beyond Preservation by Andrew Hurley and The Power of Place by Dolores Hayden, can help us answer these questions.

In Beyond Preservation Andrew Hurley, a historians an veteran of public history endeavors in the St. Louis, Missouri area, tries to resolve a problem that is manifest in many American cities: how can one foster preservation of distressed urban landscapes without also inviting gentrification and population turnover?  Preservation, as it has been practiced since the late twentieth century, has generally been an economic development strategy.  Developers took an interest in restoring run-down gold coast districts in the hopes of luring the well-healed back to the city in the years after suburbanization.  The resulting historic districts, for example Boston’s Beacon Hill and Philadelphia’s Society Hill, were often sterile.  They attempted to tell one story (usually an elite one) and presented a unified appearance that covered up the diverse and contested nature of the urban past.  To make matters even more problematic, preservation often led to the displacement of existing communities, as poorer residents were forced to flee in the face of surging rents and property assessments.

Despite the troubling track record of preservation, Hurley is not prepared to give up on it.  For Hurley the answer to saving preservation is interpretation.  By constructing interpretations of neighborhoods through public historical and archaeological work, it is possible to endow neighborhood inhabitants with a sense of belonging and ownership.  In turn, a community revived in such a way will be amenable to preservation, but on their own terms.  The case studies presented by Hurley reveal that the projects that result from a fusion of the preservationist impulse and a “bottom-up” historical sensibility are far different, and far more true to the past of the cities and their existing social reality. 

Drawing on Dolores Hayden’s experience leading a Los Angeles non-profit of the same name The Power of Place is also concerned with the interpretation of urban landscapes.  However, Hayden is less concerned than Hurley with harnessing the power of interpretation for preservationist ends and more interested in public historical projects for their own sake. 

Towards this end, the first part of Hayden’s book provides an introduction to the concept of place and the social construction of place.  Following Henri Lefebvre, Hayden discusses the production of urban places through social and environmental operations.  As Hayden sees it the task of the public historian lies in making manifest the constructed nature of place and explicating the numerous ways different people have contributed to it.  Like academic historians interpret texts with an eye toward documenting the complexity of causality and the contingency of events, public historians (as well as public artists) must aim to interpret urban landscapes in a way that recovers the complexity and inclusiveness of the processes that produce all of its parts, from houses and commercial spaces to infrastructure like roads and streetcar lines.

Of the two authors I find that Hayden lays out the more promising agenda.  By highlighting the constructed nature of place, as Hayden recommends, public historians can present urban history as a process that continues in the present.  On the contrary, making preservation and “stability” part of our agenda, as Hurley supports, seems to leave public history vulnerable.  There is too great of a risk of history becoming heritage, therapeutic rather than challenging.  To his credit, Hurley is well aware of the risks and diligently points out the potential for danger in his case studies, but he has not convinced me that the risks are worth it.  

Until Next Time,
J

No comments:

Post a Comment