framing theory: towards a critical imagination in heritage studies

This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]On: 04 October 2014, At: 11:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of HeritageStudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20

Framing theory: towards a criticalimagination in heritage studiesEmma Watertona & Steve Watsonb

a Institute for Culture and Society, University of Western Sydney,Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC, Sydney, New South Wales,2571, Australia.b Business School, York St John University, Lord Mayor’s Walk,York, YO31 7EX, UK.Published online: 10 May 2013.

To cite this article: Emma Waterton & Steve Watson (2013) Framing theory: towards a criticalimagination in heritage studies, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19:6, 546-561, DOI:10.1080/13527258.2013.779295

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2013.779295

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13527258.2013.779295

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2013.779295

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Framing theory: towards a critical imagination in heritage studies

Emma Watertona* and Steve Watsonb

aInstitute for Culture and Society, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, PenrithSouth DC, Sydney, New South Wales 2571, Australia; bBusiness School, York St JohnUniversity, Lord Mayor’s Walk, York, YO31 7EX, UK

(Received 6 August 2012; final version received 20 February 2013)

Heritage theory has developed piecemeal over the last 30 years, with littleprogress made in fully understanding the way the subject can or should be theor-ised. This paper identifies some of the main sources of theory in heritage, as wellas the approaches and perspectives that have been formulated as a result. Theseare framed on the basis of their disciplinary origins and can be viewed as theoriesin, theories of and theories for heritage. As frames through which heritage cancurrently be examined they are still employed in relative isolation from eachother and we suggest, therefore, a way by which they might be considered ascomplementary, rather than competing approaches in order to provide impetusfor the development of a critical imagination in heritage studies.

Keywords: heritage theory; affect; non-representational theory; experience;practice

Whatever happened to the heritage debate? Given the absence of theoretical ‘noise’surrounding the field, one could certainly be forgiven for wondering what the out-come had been and where it might be discovered. This dearth could be read as anindication that the scope of heritage studies has now been delineated, that itstheoretical canon has been established and that textbooks, monographs and journalarticles variously reflect and advance a framework that has been edging forwardover the last 30 years or so with at least some semblance of agreement. For us,however, this silence is rather more suggestive of a state of comfort within heritagestudies, and the carving out of niches within which particular concepts and framesof reference have settled, there remaining unchallenged and less productive thanthey might otherwise be. The technical focus inherent to much thinking and pub-lishing within Western heritage perspectives is a primary example. Inevitable thoughit may be, given its roots in the materiality of the past and associated imperativesof conservation, interpretation and display, we nonetheless find ourselves in a situa-tion where it is hard to drag the locus of debate into potentially more fruitful areas.

But it is not simply that theory has gone to sleep over the last few years. Morethan that, it seems that some theoretical debates, such as those concerned with‘big concepts’ such as identity, authenticity or dissonance have not adequatelyaddressed the nature of heritage itself, either as a concept or a practice (thoughthere are exceptions: see Smith (2006), Crouch (2012), Harrison (2012) for harder

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

International Journal of Heritage Studies, 2013Vol. 19, No. 6, 546–561, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2013.779295

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

conceptualisations of the term). Part of the reason for this is that such conceptswere often not properly theorised before they were applied and disseminated in thefield. This is not to say that supporting disciplinary theory from the wider academyshould not be applied in heritage studies; rather, it is that these theories need to befully interrogated and adapted prior to their adoption. For this reason, we argue thatthere is now a strong need to be more explicit about theoretical perspectives.Indeed, heritage studies could only benefit from some critical reinvigoration, even ifthat means injecting doubts about the ontological quality of much that passes forheritage and its research.

But there is scope only to do so much in an article of this length. Happily, wefind ourselves in good company, as our paper is situated within a special issuedevoted to the theme of critical heritage studies. We also have the luxury of point-ing to already existing, and carefully nuanced, articulations of the concept itself,such as that developed by Smith (2006) in Uses of Heritage and Rodney Harrison(2012) in Heritage: Critical Approaches. What we propose to do, therefore, is pro-vide a historicising of some of the major theoretical approaches that have beenapplied to the concept, whilst simultaneously pushing debate towards developmentsin broader social and cultural thinking. This process cannot, of course, be com-pleted here; rather, our brief explorations set out only to establish something in thedevelopment of heritage theory making. Ours is thus a speculative account, onewithout reference to specific bodies of data or developed case studies. Some of theinadequacies we point to will be taken up by other contributors to this issue. So tooare some of the conceptual questions we raise. A fuller theorisation of the Westernderivation of the term ‘heritage’, for example, is offered by Tim Winter, and like-wise, Rodney Harrison and Denis Byrne provide explorations that deepen ourunderstanding of heritage itself (this issue). Still, we are aware that what we claimhere could be read as an over-promise, a suggestion that as an alternative to thepiecemeal we are seeking grander narratives, and even a single unified theory. Tothe contrary, all we seek is to advance debate and create some clarity andcoherence.

But what do we mean by theory? Clearly, if we are to address the myriad waysthat it has impacted upon heritage, then a broad view of what constitutes theory isimplied. As such, we will be looking here at ideas, constructs, concepts and levelsof abstraction that are theoretically informed without necessarily constitutingfully-fledged theories in themselves. To adopt a narrower view would be to lose thevariety of ideas that have developed around heritage and which now need to besifted and sorted through. In keeping with this broad view, we refer to what we calla critical imagination, an approach that pays due respect to – and draws from – anumber of disciplinary sources of theory, and which distinguishes between therange and purpose of various theoretical interventions in order to apply themusefully in appropriate contexts.

Accordingly, in this critical imagination, we use existing and emerging theory toconstruct frames though which heritage can be viewed in its various guises: theoriesin, of and for heritage. In proposing them, our purpose is not simply to express thevariety of theory available in heritage studies, but also to explore the extent of anypossible articulations between these frames and their disciplinary origins. In chartingtheir development, we have the benefit of a rough chronology, but the overlaps areat least as significant as the sequencing. Of more interest, then, are the touchpointsand linkages between them, as it is here that theory might be usefully developed in

International Journal of Heritage Studies 547

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

ways that respect the various contributions made in recent years. With this in mindthen, our intention is not to create a unity of perspectives but, rather, a context foradvancing theory, a creative and exploratory agenda that disrupts assumptions aboutwhat heritage is or might be and replaces them with questions about what theorycan do, and how. In a sense, what we hope to achieve is to decentre notions of her-itage itself and look more closely at other knowledge and theoretical interventionsthat energise and mobilise it, make it significant in its wider setting and make itimportant.

Theories in heritage

Theories in heritage form our first frame, which centres most squarely on the‘objects’ of heritage themselves. These were some of the earliest to develop in thefield and the closest, in terms of explanatory scope, to the material culture to whichthey refer. Unsurprisingly, this is reflected in the disciplines most often traced to theunderpinnings of these perspectives, such as archaeology, art history, architectureand anthropology. Much has been written that traces the influences of these disci-plines, such as an overriding emphasis on materiality, assumptions around innatevalue and rooted concerns with the modalities of heritage management (Smith2006, Waterton 2010). Given that a significant body of secondary literature alreadyexists, we seek here to add to that by bringing into focus some of the similarlyinclined contributions from fields such as tourism and museology. For example,matters of conservation, visitor management and interpretation were an initial focusfor Tilden’s (1957) influential account, perhaps the most formative of such contribu-tions, which set the scene for a literature on interpretation and visitor managementthat not only expressed its educational orientation, but also its managerial frame-work. From there, ideas formed around practical matters and problems that werethere to be solved with correct method or management technique, preferably backedup with a case study or two. Texts reflective of this sort of approach include Moore(1994), Swarbrooke (1995), Hall and McArthur (1998), Leask and Yeoman (1999),Shackley (2001) and McKercher and du Cros (2002), with perhaps Harrison (1994)offering the most comprehensive account of heritage and heritage tourism from analmost purely managerial perspective. Here, heritage was only briefly examined at aconceptual level, before the discussion moved on to matters concerned with visitormanagement and profit margins. Where theory was employed, it was done so tofacilitate meaningful encounters between the material of heritage and its intendedaudience through education and interpretation, an orientation perhaps most oftenlinked with Uzzell (1998, p. 235) and his themes-markets-resources model.

In terms of theorising, this frame rests upon an uneasy relationship between theverities of operations management and deeper conceptualisations of heritage. Whatemerged from this tension was a concern that revolved around what might consti-tute ‘good practice’ in terms of management and display, and often included foraysinto marketing, finance, human resources, hospitality, catering and retailing. Theo-ries in heritage continue to flood the field today, especially so within specificallytourism-focused thought, were concerns with effective heritage management, andthe means of achieving it, remain paramount. People, often imagined in isolationfrom their social contexts, are in this frame seen as consumers, tourists or, morevaguely, visitors. Understanding engagements with heritage thus equated to definingtheir ‘profile’ as consumers, with theories of segmentation constructed in order to

548 E. Waterton and S. Watson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

better understand their needs, alongside elaborate taxonomies based on theirbehaviour and motives as ‘cultural’ tourists (see McKercher and du Cros 2002).

For us, these theories in heritage are of short- to medium-range significance,used to explain and elucidate facets of heritage as found and experienced. They areusually sourced from outside the field and applied within it, such as the manage-ment modalities discussed above, which are often supplemented by other material-focused perspectives borrowed from fine art, art history and architecture. Within thisframe, theory has held an instrumental quality; rarely have these approaches ques-tioned heritage at an ontological level, for example. In establishing this orientationto material culture and the past, they pose problems to be solved by managing heri-tage in a way that addresses the issues raised. Such theories are operationally rele-vant and easily categorised as applied – theory that can be shared with practitionersor which might be held to challenge them in ways that are useful or developmental.

While our review may seem somewhat disparaging to this point, we are mindfulthat these approaches have problematised conceptualisations of heritage in a numberof influential ways. And so while we remain less sure about their ability to ade-quately handle the fuller conceptualisations of heritage imagined by more recentscholars, there are strong lessons to be learnt. For example, it is from here, perhapsmore than anywhere, that we have come to question the assumption that visitors as‘recipients’, largely passive, to whom communication is directed and for whomproducts are designed and encounters controlled. Likewise, we have come to thinkabout the potentials and possibilities for a heritage that is commodifying, or over-commodified. This in turn brings on charges of inauthenticity, a shallow, trivialeclecticism and an overconcern with materiality, the dramatic and the visual.Processes of selection might thus be discerned that have criteria drawn more fromthe imperatives of effective marketing than genuine engagements with the past.Such thinking dwells, therefore, on those features within heritage that areconsidered problematic in some way or which draw into question its conventionalcharacterisation as a good thing. Here, we have the seeds of a critical turn in thefield. Indeed at this level, theories in heritage might be said to be ‘dealing’ withthe problems generated by heritage at an operational level, reflecting on itsmisdemeanours and rectifying its excesses.

Some of the key concepts developed as a consequence have become part of the‘fabric’ of heritage theory, where they remain extremely relevant. Authenticity, iden-tity, commodification and community heritage all emerged as the field developedconceptually through the 1980s and 1990s, and have been variously revisited since.The issue of authenticity, for example, is related both to issues of provenance inheritage objects and also to early concerns about the trivialising effects of tourism(Boorstin 1962). It has even been institutionalised in the context of ‘world heritage’and UNESCO (see Labadi 2010, for a recent and critical account). In heritage tour-ism, and with impetus from a variety of sociological accounts (MacCannell 1973,1976; Cohen 1988, Bruner 1994, Wang 1999, Reisinger and Steiner 2006), authen-ticity is read either as missing or fugitive, and thus a much sought after value inheritage or the source of much fruitless conjecture. Likewise, the concept of ‘com-munity’ has sustained interest in political, conflict and post-colonial contexts. Thesecontexts in themselves have become a focus of interest within heritage, along withother issues such as identity and dissonance (Littler and Naidoo 2005, Smith andWaterton 2009, Waterton and Watson 2011).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Theories of heritage

Theories in heritage remain influential and successful in understanding heritage as asystem of production and a method of display, but one beset with problems thatneed to be addressed before it can be successful in organising the way the past isunderstood in the present. As such our second foray, a historicising frame ofheritage, takes up some of this incompleteness by working back to the heritagedebates of the mid-1980s to late 1980s in the UK, where there emerged the viewthat heritage had become an ‘industry’, feeding on the nation’s past and abjuringany concern about its future. This was a historically informed and culturally signifi-cant commentary that moved thinking about heritage away from its objects towardsits social and cultural context and significance. The work of Lowenthal (1985,1998), Wright (1985), Hewison (1987) and Samuel (1994) was key to this examina-tion, especially as theirs were offerings that drew from historical and cultural stud-ies perspectives. Their collective view of heritage as a cultural phenomenon had acritical edge to it that began to disrupt the shorter range theories in heritage. In thiscontext, Lowenthal offered up a crystallisation of the heritage debate as an ‘antiheri-tage animus’, while Samuel, at more or less the same time, attempted to defend itas an historically grounded expression of subaltern values and popular culturalresponses. It is these broad, encompassing and abstracted attempts to explain thewhole phenomenon, with an awareness of its ideological underpinnings that makesthese theories of rather than in heritage.

Inevitably, such approaches tend to reflect the dominant theoretical movementsof their time: Western Marxist structuralism, post-structuralist/post-modernism, con-structivism and post-colonial theory. Drawing on a structuralist approach, for exam-ple, one that was inherently critical, linked as it was to the influences of theFrankfurt School and the emergence of Western Marxism in post-war social science,heritage came to be seen as one of the many manifestations of base–superstructurerelations. Post-structuralist influences saw analyses of heritage emerge in discursive(often Foucauldian) and ideological terms, alongside all kinds of other objects,moments and instances which were framed as texts that could be read. Using theprecepts of semiotic theory, the representational practices employed in heritagecame to be understood as things that could be deconstructed to reveal deeper mean-ings, as well as saying something about the processes of encoding such meanings.Thus, theories of heritage were – and continue to be – concerned with questioningthe representation of meaning, especially hegemonic meanings, about a past thateffectively validates a national present or re-inscribes it with essentialisms when itmight be considered to be under threat from economic restructuring, changing socialattitudes or the nation-negating effects of globalisation.

There is thus much to be gained if we were to work our way back into thesetheoretical positions. Reinvigorating an engagement with semiotics as a method ofaddress and analysis, for example, would allow us a fresh look at the ‘symbolicpractices and processes through which representation, meaning and language oper-ate’ (Hall 1997, p. 25, emphasis in original). Meaning, a perennial issue for heritagetheorising, thus becomes deeper even than language, in that once the code is under-stood, it reveals connections that are not immediately apparent but latent until, inan act of consciousness, the surface meaning is breached (deconstructed) and linkswith the social world made. In this vein, emerging theories of visual culture,applied to heritage, have drawn attention to its cultural context and unlocked some


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

of the ‘secret’ cultural work it does (Watson and Waterton 2010). Here, there is afocus upon how heritage objects come to be sanctified as such, intertwined with thevarious modalities of display linked with museum visiting and tourism (Hooper-Greenhill 1995, 2000, Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998).

While the role of heritage as an economic resource in regeneration and tourismremained a focus of concern, milestone publications by Graham et al. (2000),Harvey (2001) and Smith (2006), all which can be located within our frames ofheritage, helped to locate heritage as a social and cultural process – something morethan a collection of things or, indeed, resources. From here, it became important toknow how its content and values were transmitted and understood, what it obscuredand what could be revealed by analysing and interpreting its manifestations. Heri-tage, as Smith (2006) put it, is characterised by a singular, dominant discourse, onethat reflects concerns about identity, nationhood and the creation of social cohesionin the face of potentially conflictual readings of the past. Her ‘Authorised HeritageDiscourse’ has since become, in its effects, a theory of heritage and the way itworks as a cultural phenomenon, with the value of such an analysis in heritagestudies linked to its understanding of the representational role of heritage objectsand, consequently, the cultural work they do in constructing meaning. The resultantcombining of representational theory with discursive analysis is distinct from theo-ries in heritage, because of its attempts to encompass and explain heritage as asocial and cultural phenomenon. Semiotics, discourse analysis and the separation oftext and meaning, surface and structure, have given impetus to studies of represen-tation in visual culture (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998, Hooper-Greenhill 2000, Crouchand Lübbren 2003, Schirato and Webb 2004, Waterton 2009, Watson and Waterton2010). And the political nexus of heritage, as a discourse about the social world,has also called into question some deeply held but rather cosy notions of commu-nity heritage that trumpet inclusivity whilst maintaining a professional, and ulti-mately political, status quo (Waterton 2005, Smith and Waterton 2009, Watertonand Watson 2011).

Theories for heritage

Representational theories have increasingly been called into question over the lastdecade and, as with most paradigms, the challenge has emanated from questions itseems unable to answer. These are questions that move beyond the privileging ofthose positions prioritised by theories of heritage, which include, to borrow fromTicineto Clough (2010, p. 223), ‘political-economic power, cultural difference,semiotic chains of signification and identity and linguistic-based structures of mean-ing making’. In fact, these are questions that ask us about our very being, and whathappens to our bodies, ourselves? In other words, they are questions that ask: howhave we changed, what is different? Perhaps these are new questions, but we arenot so sure. Instead, we think of them as those that have been with us for sometime, downplayed by a field scrambling to sort through disparate views on the con-struction of heritage and its place within wider social and political practices. Attheir core, they are questions about the role played by the personal, the ordinaryand the everyday, within spaces of heritage, whether they are physical, discursive oraffective. In many ways, they extend out of much earlier work on the anthropologyof emotions, some of which has found its way into the heritage literature via thework of Smith (2006, 2011), Bagnall (2003), Macdonald (2009) and Byrne (2013,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

this issue), with the latter, in particular, dovetailing with the approach presentedhere. Collectively, what this literature reveals is that while representations ofheritage do undeniably complex work, there is further ‘work’ ongoing in ourengagements – bodily work – that exceeds those textual and visual registers.

These, then, are questions that at a base level are guided by an attempt to‘recalibrate the relationship between (cultural) theory and ‘science’ (Papoulias andCallard 2010, p. 30), or, in other words, move away from a theoretical fascinationwith ‘the ostensibly infinite analyzability of cultural representations (of place, race,sex, etc.) over and against what is merely ‘natural’ or biosphysical’ (Saldanha 2010,p. 2414). Like before, these are observations that can be traced to earlier anthropo-logical literature emerging in the 1980s, in particular John Leavitt’s work on mean-ing/feeling, mind/body, culture/biology (1996, p. 532), which retraces emotion assomething that is ‘socially and symbolically produced, expressed and felt’. Theseare issues that are germane to a re-theorisation of heritage, too, as they add to thetheoretical sophistication already developing around the production of, and our usesas agents within, heritage spaces. Perhaps, the most difficult challenge brought bythese questions is the concomitant need to unpack notions of ‘practice’ and‘process’. Indeed, once these terms become nestled amongst our general way ofthinking about heritage, we have to acknowledge that they are difficult to pin down,methodologically and conceptually. We know heritage through our experiences butit is no longer quite so easy to write ‘it’ down or formulate clear impressions ofwhat it does – what it circulates, what it produces. Consequently, we need toenlarge our thinking by bringing into the mix a means of capturing the embodiedstate beyond, but along with, discourse, thereby including the ‘sensual, haptic,corporeal and kinaesthetic’ (Cromby 2007, p. 96).

Several theoretical approaches have emerged that can help to fill out thesespaces and address such shortcomings. For example, mobilities theory (from sociol-ogy) and actor–network theory (ANT) (from the natural sciences and sociology)have both played parts in the development of theories for heritage, though affect(originally from psychology, but developed in social theory and latterly culturalgeography) has been much more influential for our own thinking. All three can beparcelled together in a variety of ways, but are captured here primarily because oftheir collective critiques of representational thought, a shared appreciation of thecomplexity of practices and a broadly relational view. There are also more distantbut no less important influences. Deleuzian explorations of living, life, expressionand experience, feelings and emotions, and the new relationalities that emerge fromthe uncoupling of action from preexisting cultural contexts shifts the focus of atten-tion onto performativity as a description of the emerging dynamics of subjectiveengagements with things, space and time. As David Crouch has expressed it:

[…] the idea of performativity positions our practices, actions, relations, memories,performative moments as emerging contexts too. These many facets of being alive,and affected, commingle in a fluid, part open, part limited manner. (2012, p. 21)

Here, Crouch offers a perspective on heritage that disrupts its conventional position-ing as a thing separate from other experiences and stirs it back in with being humanand living, so that it emerges from the feelings of being, becoming and belongingin the flows and complexities that characterise life. What heritage theory can do inthe light of this thinking is critically imagine how existing ideas might be modified


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

or adapted in a theoretical environment that very obviously goes beyond the textualand the representative in defining its scope.

Both mobilities theory and ANT have made their presence felt within recent her-itage publications, though of the two mobilities theory, strongly influenced by ANT,has taken firmer root (but see Byrne et al. 2011, Harrison 2011). This, we suspect,is due to its associations with the work of John Urry and the consonant field oftourism. Mobilities theory’s credentials as ‘non-representational’ are rooted in therelationalities of bodies and objects and conjoined metabolisms of bodies and space,so that the pulses and rhythms between them are discernible in the shifting mobili-ties of urban life (Lefebvre 2004, Edensor 2011). In focusing on the movement ofobjects and people through places and spaces, over time, mobilities theory wouldseem to offer opportunities for understanding heritage as the result of dynamicintersections of people, objects and places, interfaces of the social and spatial thathave the potential to make sense of heritage as an instantiation of such movements,especially where culture is blended with this dynamic as a result of governmentaldesires to assemble tourism potentialities in specific locations (Sheller and Urry2004, p. 3; see also Sheller 2011). An early expression of the application of mobili-ties theory in heritage tourism was provided in an important collection of essays byBærenholdt et al. (2004). Here, both a medieval castle and a sandcastle on thebeach form focal points of their study, with the latter, particularly, perfectly evokingthe spatial and temporal performativities that are central to mobilities theory:

Anticipated by expectant and impatient children, constructed with engagement andeagerness the castle rises as the masterpiece, the high spot of the day. For a couple ofhours the castle is centre stage for the performance of play, and the applause of anadmiring audience. It is the centre for this happy moment of pleasure and joy. As theafternoon arrives the sea rises and slowly erodes the fortifications. The family leaves.Waves roll gently on the shore and at the end of the day no trace of the performanceof the day is left. All is washed away and the castle only towers in the memory of thefamily, on the celluloid pictures brought home, and the anticipation of the next day onthe beach. (2004, p. 3)

As Bærenholdt et al. (2004) go on to argue, there are few global fluidities moreapparent than the physical movement and motivations associated with tourism, andthe places that are created in this flux are often focused on culturally significantobjects and locations (Coleman and Crang 2002, Crang 2011, p. 211).

Like mobilities theory, ANT provides a situational and embodied perspective onsocial action, with its focus on the interactions of both human and non-humanparticipants or ‘actants’ in the creation of meaning (Law 1986, Latour 2005).Though originally conceived as the social and physical interdependencies that createmeaning in science and technology, actor networks can now be understood as anyarray of individuals, groups, objects, artefacts and intangibles that combine to makea field of activity around their conjunctions. In short, both humans and non-humanobjects have the potential to ‘act’ and have agency. What is most striking about thisapproach is its specific usage of the term ‘theory’, which points to ‘what to study’rather than how to understand (Jóhannesson and Bærenholdt 2009, p. 16). Its signif-icance in the field of tourism provides its most visible link with heritage, withrecent explorations of its value there likely to be influential (Van der Duim et al.2012). Interest from a heritage point of view comes from the variety and heteroge-neity afforded to actants, which combine to create the network that is knowable as


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

heritage, or heritage tourism, or a museum. Actants can range from a museum arte-fact or collection, to the building in which such objects are housed, to other similarbuildings, to the institutions that sustain them, to the casual visitor to the evanescentattentions of a child on school trip, glimpsing briefly the contents of a glass case.

Although undeniably sharing a number of theoretical positions with those can-vassed above, our own particular bent – a focus on affect – is more firmly situatedbeneath the banner of ‘more-’ or ‘other-than-representational’, chosen because itseems to adequately sum up attempts ‘… to cope with our self-evidently more-than-human, more-than-textual, multisensual worlds’ (Lormier 2005, p. 83). Here,in addition to mobilities and ANT, researchers both inside and outside of the fieldhave started to think through the ways in which more elusory everyday practicesand processes intersect with the cultural world. These sorts of approaches gesturetowards the centrality of feelings, emotions and affect, and echo the language ofphenomenology by foregrounding concepts such as performance and embodiment.Largely influenced by the work of cultural geographers such as Crouch, Latham,McCormack, Pile and Thrift, these loosely labelled ‘non-representational’approaches become theories for heritage in part because of their attempts to renderunderstandable ‘that whole realm of human life that is outside consciousness’(Amin and Thrift 2002, p. 28). As theories they are therefore available for heritageto be taken advantage of to advance the study of heritage beyond its previousparadigmatic confines whilst remaining independent of it and separate from it. Non-representational theories do not seek to become theories of heritage as this is notrequired of them but they may be used for heritage as an extraneous source oftheoretical and explanatory motility.

To suggest that these musing are the product of only very recent thinking wouldbe misleading, as they in truth erupt from the turn to emotion that occurred in geog-raphy, cultural studies, philosophy, sociology, gender studies and psychology atleast as early as the mid-1990s (Thien 2005). Indeed, talk specifically of an ‘affec-tive turn’ has been with us since 2001 and the Affective Encounters conference, butemerged earlier still, albeit more implicitly, in the academic company of KathleenWoodward’s (1996), Lauren Berlant’s (1997) and Nicholson’s (1999) broader mus-ings about emotion and intimacy (see Koivunen 2000, Gorton 2007). The philo-sophical workings of affect can be turned back further still, rippling through thelikes of Baruch Spinoza, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, before being translatedinto English and added to by social theorists such as Brian Massumi (2002). Thus,if Foucauldian thought provided a philosophical backbone for theories of heritage,with theories for we find Spinoza’s attention to expression itself, the noun, inconcert with the expressive (the adjective, the signifier) and the expressed (the verb,the signified) (Günzel n.d.) as particularly influential.

As may become obvious, our reflections upon this frame are somewhat differentto theories in and of, as it is here, more than anywhere, that we stake our futureintentions. We are, in a very real sense, positioned within the cut and thrust of itscontinuing theoretical development. What we would like to draw from this broaderdebate is a consideration of affect that works for heritage and takes into account theintensity that moves between bodies and places, registering as feelings and emotion.But this should not be read as simply a matter that is specific to a person, or peo-ple, at all, for affect is not confined to the individual or the body (see Blackmanand Venn 2010, Manning 2010). Rather, it transmits, moves, circulates, flows,incorporating a range of things, places and technologies in its movements (Lorimer


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

2008). Here, the issue of context – social, cultural, political – is brought morefirmly into play, the sum of which obliges us to rework our understandings ofrelation to others, human and non-human (Blackman and Venn 2010).

For us, this means piecing together an already developed interest in representa-tion and context with a developing acknowledgement of the role played by practiceand sensation (after Lorimer 2008). Thus, although to date our own work has fore-grounded the ‘representational’, we have been conscious to also highlight its per-formativity and mark representations out as just one possibility of many for theexpression of heritage engagements. What we mean by this is that representationsperform and in so doing influence our affective selves (Waterton 2013). Differentpeople will inevitably respond differently to a particular heritage site – some mayfeel pride, connected, pleasure, others exclusion and rejection, and others still bore-dom – but these feelings, their affects, may in part be framed by the way that siteis conjured and evoked discursively, visually or popularly. Bodies moving throughinteractions with heritage are changed, and some (though not all) of the felt affor-dances generated hold significance. Theories for heritage, we argue, should thus beframed in terms of practice and performance, with the latter collecting together bod-ily movement with broader notions of performativity as developed by Judith Butler.As Gibbs (2001, p. 1) has powerfully argued, this is because ‘[b]odies can catchfeelings as easily as catch fire: affect leaps from one body to another, evoking ten-derness, inciting shame, igniting fear’ (see also Deleuze 1992, p. 625). It is throughthis sort of conceptualisation that we hope to remain mindful of the performativityof language, whilst also taking the next logical step after Smith’s (2006) well-citedexplanation that heritage is a social and cultural process, visceral and instinctive.

We do not wish to delve too deeply into the development of a theoretical vocab-ulary of ‘affect’ (much has already been written elsewhere) but, in advocating anunderstanding of heritage devised at the moment that we are doing it, we inevitablynod to the particular rendition of affect that comes from Deleuzian-Spinozan devel-opments within the humanities and social science (see Saldanha 2010). When puttogether, this style of thinking conceives of a messier, complex world caught up ina continuous process of composition (Thrift 2003, p. 2021). It takes particularaccount of the precognitive and non-cognitive – the intuitive, habitual and biologi-cal (Thrift 2009) – as a basis for capturing and explaining that ‘half-second delay’between action and conscious sensation (MacPherson 2010, p. 5). Affect, in thistheorization, is considered transpersonal, fluid and mobile, and, importantly, always‘inexpressible: unable to be brought into representation’ (Pile 2010, p. 8). Simplyput, this is because ‘the skin is faster than the word’ (Massumi 2002, p. 25, cited inMcCormack 2003, p. 495).

From here, affect becomes something akin to atmosphere – invisible but sensedwithin and between our bodies, as feelings, and understood and expressed, as emo-tions: while the three (affect, feelings and emotion) are interrelated and all worktogether, they are never quite the same (McCormack 2010, p. 643; see also Ander-son 2006). While these three modalities may imply a focus on the individual, a farstronger focus for this style of thinking lies with human interaction, and the bound-aries that are afforded for such, within everyday life. Affect, then, plays a role inthe realisation of space every bit as much as it plays a role in the realisation ofidentities and meanings. Thus, in the context of a museum exhibition or a heritagelandscape, both places that have been successfully theorised as those that produce,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

sustain or transgress a range of sociocultural practices and beliefs, affectual andembodied relations are also being formed and performed (after Holloway 2006).

Like our ‘theories of’ frame, this is a grasp of the world guided by post-structuralistthinking and coupled with a foregrounding of present moments, ‘the now’ and all itscomplexity. But there is care to be taken in this foray. For one, we do not want toencourage a move towards the personal and every day at the expense of wideranalyses. Nor, for that matter, should a focus on ‘affect’ mean an abandonment of‘emotion’ and ‘feeling’. This is where our reading of affect seems to depart from thework of Thrift and forges closer bonds with that of feminist scholars such as Thien(2005) and Sharp (2009). Theirs is an account very much guided by a resistance towhat may be an unintentional, though very real, slippage towards an ‘unmarked,disembodied, but implicitly masculine subject’ (Jacobs and Nash 2003, p. 275; seeTolia-Kelly 2006 for a similar discussion). Thien (2005), for example, worries that animplicit binary is at work here, subtly prising apart a masculinised ‘affect’ from afeminised ‘emotion’. For Sharp (2009, p. 78), the issue is that bubbling beneath ourcontemplation of ‘the personal’ lies the risk of distraction away from other pertinent,collective concerns and politics. Both are concerned by the push towards atranshumant and distanced model, preferring instead that politics of position and thepolitics of power remain central to enquiries. This is particularly important when thefocus of affect is seen to be embodied to the extent that it is a physiological rather thana social phenomenon. Can we really encompass this within a theory that seeks toexplain social action, politics and the exercise of power? The inner states of affectneed a social context not just a subjective one, and thus this theory for heritage, forour money at least, needs to remain connected with some of the theories of heritage.

In a similar vein, Tolia-Kelly’s concerns about ethnocentrism need also beacknowledged, so that the reality of ‘affect’, however, we conceive of it, isinformed by and inflected with power and social positioning. This debate is bothsummarised and advanced in Crang and Tolia-Kelly’s (2010) account of the affec-tive register of national identity and heritage sites, which charts the way thatembodied responses, feeling and sentiment, rather than the cognitivity of civicknowledge production, are implicated in the inclusion and exclusion of people fromheritage experiences. The point here is that if the intuitive and the embodied aretheorised too loosely, inclined as they are towards an almost universalist conceptu-alisation of affect, then all bodies would appear to be the same, contextually andhistorically ‘western’, occluding issues of marginalisation and difference (Lees andBaxter 2011, p. 116). All too often, as Lorimer (2008) points out, people appear tofloat free, with no allowances made for imposed subject positions and attendantcapacities to affect and be affected. As a consequence, such approaches tend toassume that the engaging body is that of a mobile citizen, ‘freed of fear and con-cerns over racial and/or sexual attack … and indeed, free of the chains of childcare,work and the economic constraints to roam’ (Tolia-Kelly 2006). But the bodies thatvisit and engage with heritage will never be undifferentiated. Rather, each body thatgets caught up in the networks of affect that circulate the field will arrive, comingleand depart carrying a range of burdens, including those linked to desire, expectationand ability (Sharp 2009).

Working from a politics of affect, then, comes with an acknowledgement thatwe cannot hope to capture heritage adequately by focusing solely upon its material-ity or its discursive construction; nor, for that matter, will a kind of embodiedbiological reductionism alone account for our engagements with it. What we have,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

rather, is a theoretical approach that aims to undo the bracketing put together bytheories in and theories of, and extract the long-forgotten ‘embodied’, ‘extra-discursive’ and non-cognitive or precognitive responses of a sort more easily drawnfrom everyday experience and practice (Latham 2003, p. 2001).

A cautious conclusion

Our introduction felt resolute. When we began this we knew where we were going:now we are less certain and more cautious. We strongly believe that our core princi-ple is sustainable – that theory ought not only be a prerequisite, but should beinformed by, and respectful of, its predecessors, some of which have been outlinedin this paper. But how to proceed from here? Cautiously, we think: but we knowwhat we want, which is to explore the possibility of using our frames to configure acoherent basis for the development of what we call a critical imagination. Clearly,there is a need to articulate what these varied theoretical positions enable heritagestudies to do. Do they, alone or in combination, raise new questions to be asked, ordo they provide new answers to existing questions? We believe that they do both,and in so doing oblige us to reset the agenda for heritage research by recognising thelimitations of existing concepts and theorising, and by demanding that those whoresearch and write in the field are clear about their theoretical antecedents, their dis-ciplinary authorities and their intentions in drawing these matters to our attention.

Serious theory building needs to go somewhere; it needs to do something.Clearly we have work to do, but what we can suggest is that there is value in eachof the frames outlined here, and that none is redundant. Furthermore, there may bevalue in examining the ways in which they might combine, or the possibility thattheories in heritage might be revivified through the frame of theories for heritage.Indeed, Knudson and Waade (2010) have already gone some way towards achiev-ing this in their recent revisiting of authenticity in the light of emerging theory inRe-investing authenticity: tourism, place and emotions. We also strongly suspectthat much might be gained from actively positioning representational with more- orother-than-representational theory in order to examine the way that they might artic-ulate theoretically and in practice (see Lorimer 2005). It may be, for example, thatthere is a hitherto unexplored route from the non-representational to the representa-tional and back again through a closer understanding of social practice and perform-ativity, in a way that is analogous to a route from precognitive to cognitiveresponses and from affect to the expression of emotion. All this remains to be seen,but there is enough to suggest complementarities between these theoretical positionsrather than succession or competition.

So what can a critical imagination in heritage theory actually achieve? Well, inspite of our already expressed caution, we are actually quite clear about this. A crit-ical imagination in heritage will enable it to elucidate its cases, its examples ofthings, and its material, social and cultural concerns from clearly articulated disci-plinary bases that can be interrogated for what they offer to our understandings, notjust as shadowy and poorly delineated themes, but as nuanced and active thinking,reflective of both new ideas and established canon. Our theoretical scope should beexpanded, in order to take account of thinking in those disciplines that can providetheories for heritage, and it should permit us to critically examine and re-examinetheories in and of heritage.

We noted at the outset that our ambition is limited and that we are not seekingunifying theoretical narratives. What we did set out to find is value in the touch


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

points, complementarities and correspondences between the array of concepts,‘-turns’, trends, sources and positions that now make up what has become a com-plex theoretical spectrum. We also suggested that an agenda might also be to decen-tre existing notions of heritage, and examine knowledge and sources of theory thatmake it interesting and important in its contemporary cultural settings. Decentringheritage might seem an odd thing to do in heritage studies, but we think there ismuch to be gained not only from looking beyond its things, but also beyond its rep-resentations and the discourses that use it, to encompass other relationships it mighthave with lived experience. The next step, therefore, is to use a broader range oftheory to rework the field in a way that advances not only the study of heritage, butthe very nature of that enquiry itself, by reformulating our scope, looking beyondour field of study and reinvigorating our methods. This will give us an agenda andthe forward momentum we need to explore the meanings of heritage in its encoun-ters and its moments of engagement, and to map its intensities in a wider culturalworld. This, for us, is the critical imagination in heritage studies.

Notes on contributorsEmma Waterton’s current research explores the interface between heritage, identity, memoryand affect, and a range of Australian heritage tourism sites. She is author of Politics, Policyand the Discourses of Heritage in Britain (2010, Palgrave Macmillan) and is currentlywriting a book, with Steve Watson, on the semiotics of heritage tourism.

Steve Watson researches and writes on representational practices in heritage and heritagetourism, and explores the connections between these and the emotional and affectivedimensions in experiences of heritage in European contexts. His interest in Spanish travelwriting is concerned particularly with the affective and cognitive elements in theconstruction of touristic imaginaries.

References

Amin, A. and Thrift, N., 2002. Cities: reimagining the urban. Cambridge: Polity Press.Anderson, B., 2006. Becoming and being hopeful: towards a theory of affect. Environment

and Planning D: Society and Space, 24 (5), 733–752.Bærenholdt, J.O., Haldrup, M., Larsen, J., and Urry, J., 2004. Performing tourist places.

Aldershot: Ashgate.Bagnall, G., 2003. Performance and performativity at heritage sites. Museum and Society, 1

(2), 87–103.Berlant, L., 1997. The Queen of America goes to Washington City. Essays on sex and citi-

zenship. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Blackman, L. and Venn, C., 2010. Affect. Body & Society, 16, 7–28.Boorstin, D.J., 1962. The image: or, what happened to the American dream. New York, NY:

Atheneum.Bruner, E., 1994. Abraham Lincoln as authentic reproduction. American Anthropologist, 96

(2), 397–415.Byrne, D., 2013. Gateway and garden: a kind of tourism in Bali. In: R. Staiff, R. Bushell,

and S. Watson, eds. Heritage and tourism: place, encounter, engagement. London:Routledge.

Byrne, S., Clarke, A., Harrison, R., and Torrence, R., 2011. Networks, agents and objects:frameworks for unpacking museum collections. In: S. Byrne, A. Clarke, R. Harrison andR. Torrence, eds. Unpacking the collection: networks of material and social agency inthe museum. New York, NY: Springer, 3–28.

Callon, M., 1991. Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In: J. Law, ed. A sociology ofmonsters: essays on power, technology and domination. London: Routledge, 132–161.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Cohen, E., 1988. Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,15, 371–386.

Coleman, S. and Crang, M., 2002. Grounded tourists, travelling theory. In: S. Coleman andM. Crang, eds. Tourism: between place and performance. New York, NY: BerghahnBooks, 1–17.

Crang, M., 2011. Tourist: moving places, becoming tourist, becoming ethnographer. In: T.Cresswell and P. Merriman, eds. Geographies of mobilities: practices, spaces, subjects.Andover, MA: Ashgate, 205–224.

Crang, M. and Tolia-Kelly, D., 2010. Nation, race and affect: senses and sensibilities atnational heritage sites. Environment and Planning A, 42 (10), 2315–2331.

Cromby, J., 2007. Towards a psychology of feeling. International Journal of CriticalPsychology, 21, 94–118.

Crouch, D., 2012. Meaning, encounter and performativity: threads and moments of space-times in doing tourism. In: L Smith, E. Waterton and S. Watson, eds. The culturalmomemt in tourism. London: Routledge, 19–37.

Crouch, D. and Lübbren, N., eds., 2003. Visual culture and tourism. Oxford: Berg.Deleuze, G., 1992. Expressionism in philosophy: Spinoza. New York, NY: Zone Books.Edensor, T., 2011. The rhythms of commuting. In: T. Cresswell and P. Merriman, eds.

Mobilities: practices, spaces, subjects. Aldershot: Ashgate, 189–204.Gibbs, A., 2001. Contagious feelings: Pauline Hanson and the epidemiology of affect. Aus-

tralian Humanities Review [online]. Available from: http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-December-2001/gibbs.html [accessed 11 February 2012].

Gorton, K., 2007. Theorizing emotion and affect: feminist engagements. Feminist Theory, 8(3), 333–348.

Graham, B., Ashworth, G.J., and Tunbridge, J.E., 2000. A geography of heritage: power,culture and economy. London: Arnold Hodder.

Günzel, S., n.d. Immanence and deterritorialization: the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze and FélixGuattari, [online] http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContGunz.htm [page consulted 18December 2012].

Hall, S., 1997. The work of representation. In: S. Hall, ed. Representation: cultural represen-tations and signifying practices. London: Sage, 13–74.

Hall, C.M. and McArthur, S., 1998. Integrated heritage management. London: Stationary Office.Harrison, D., ed., 1994. Manual of heritage management. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.Harrison, R., 2011. Consuming colonialism: Curio dealers’ catalogues, souvenir objects and

Indigenous agency in Oceania. In: S. Bryne, A. Clarke, R. Harrison and R. Torrence,eds. Unpacking the collection: networks of material and social agency in the museum.New York, NY: Springer, 55–82.

Harrison, R., 2012. Heritage: critical approaches. London: Routledge.Harvey, D., 2001. Heritage pasts and heritage presents: temporality, meaning and the scope

of Heritage Studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7, 319–338.Hewison, R., 1987. The heritage industry: Britain in a climate of decline. London: Methuen.Holloway, J., 2006. Enchanted spaces: the séance, affect and geographies of reason. Annals

of the Association of American Geographers, 96 (1), 182–187.Hooper-Greenhill, E., 1995. Museum, media, message. London: Routledge.Hooper-Greenhill, E., 2000. Museums and the interpretation of visual culture. London:

Routledge.Jacobs, J. and Nash, C., 2003. Too little, too much: cultural feminist geographies. Gender,

Place and Culture, 10, 265–279.Jóhannesson, G.T. and Bærenholdt, J.O., 2009. Actor-network theory/network geographies.

In: R. Kitchin and N. Thrift, eds. International encyclopaedia of human geography.Oxford: Elsevier, 15–19.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B., 1998. Destination culture: tourism, museums and heritage. Berke-ley, CA: University of California Press.

Knudson, B.T. and Waade, A.M., eds., 2010. Re-investing authenticity: tourism, place andemotions. Bristol: Channel View.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-December-2001/gibbs.html

http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-December-2001/gibbs.html

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContGunz.htm

Koivunen, A., 2000. Preface: the affective turn? In: A. Koivunen and S. Paasonen, (eds).Conference proceedings for affective encounters: rethinking embodiment in feministmedia studies. Turku: University of Turku, School of Art, Literature and Music, MediaStudies, Series A, No. 49.

Labadi, S., 2010. World heritage, authenticity and post-auhenticity, international and nationalperspectives. In: S. Labadi and C. Long, eds. Heritage and globalization. London:Routledge, 66–84.

Latham, A., 2003. Research, performance, and doing human geography: some reflections onthe diary-photograph, diary-interview method. Environment and Planning A, 35, 1993–2017.

Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Law, J., ed., 1986. Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Leask, A., and Yeoman, I., (eds)., 1999. Heritage visitor attractions: an operations manage-ment perspective. London: Thompson.

Leavitt, J., 1996. Meaning and feeling in the anthropology of emotions. AmericanEthnologist, 23 (3), 514–539.

Lees, L. and Baxter, R., 2011. A ‘building event’ of fear: thinking through the geography ofarchitecture. Social and Cultural Geography, 12 (2), 107–122.

Lefebvre, H., 2004. Rythmanalaysis: space, time and everyday life. London: Continuum.Littler, J. and Naidoo, R., eds., 2005. The politics of heritage: the legacies of ‘race’. Lon-

don: Routledge.Lorimer, H., 2005. Cultural geography: the busyness of being ‘more than representational.

Progress in Human Geography, 29, 83–94.Lorimer, H., 2008. Cultural geography: non-representational conditions and concerns.

Progress in Human Geography, 32, 551–559.Lowenthal, D., 1985. The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lowenthal, D., 1998. The heritage crusade and the spoils of history. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.MacCannell, D., 1973. Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in social settings.

American Journal of Sociology, 79 (3), 589–603.MacCannell, D., 1976. The tourist: a new theory of the leisure class. New York, NY:

Schocken.Macdonald, S., 2009. Difficult heritage: negotiating the Nazi Past in Nuremberg and

beyond. London: Routledge.MacPherson, H., 2010. Non-representational approaches to body-landscape relations.

Geography Compass, 4 (1), 1–13.Manning, E., 2010. Always more than one: the collectivity of a life. Body & Society, 16,

117–127.Massumi, B., 2002. Parables of the Virtual: movement, affect, sensation. Durham, NC: Duke

University Press.McCormack, D., 2003. An event of geographical ethics in spaces of affect. Transactions of

the Institute of British Geographers, 28 (4), 488–507.McCormack, D., 2010. Remotely sensing affective afterlives: the spectral geographies of

material remains. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100 (3), 640–654.

McKercher, B., and du Cros, H., 2002. Cultural tourism: the partnership between tourismand cultural heritage management. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Hospitality Press.

Moore, K., ed., 1994. Museum management. London: Routledge.Nicholson, L., 1999. The play of reason. From the modern to the postmodern. Buckingham:

Open University Press.Papoulias, C. and Callard, F., 2010. Biology’s gift: interrogating the turn to affect. Body &

Society, 16, 29–56.Pile, S., 2010. Emotions and affect in recent human geography. Transactions of the Institute

of British Geographers, 31 (1), 5–10.Reisinger, Y. and Steiner, C., 2006. Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of Tourism

Research, 33 (1), 65–86.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Saldanha, A., 2010. Skin, affect, aggregation: Guattarian variations on Fanon. Environmentand Planning A, 42, 4210–4227.

Samuel, R., 1994. Theatres of memory. London: Verso.Schirato, T. and Webb, J., 2004. Understanding the visual. London: Sage Publications.Shackley, M., 2001. Managing sacred sites. Padstow: Thompson.Sharp, J., 2009. Geography and gender: what belongs to feminist geography? Emotion,

power and change. Progress in Human Geography, 33 (1), 74–80.Sheller, M., 2011. Cosmopolitanism and mobilities. In: M. Nowicka and M. Rovisco, eds.

The Ashgate research companion to cosmopolitanism. Aldershot: Ashgate, 561–589.Sheller, M. and Urry, J., 2004. Tourism mobilities: places to play, places in play. London:

Routledge.Smith, L., 2006. Uses of heritage. London: Routledge.Smith, L., 2011. Affect and registers of engagement: navigating emotional responses to dis-

sonant heritage. In: L. Smith, G. Cubitt, R. Wilson, and K. Fouseki, eds. Representingenslavement and abolition in museums: ambiguous engagements. London: Routledge,260–303.

Smith, L. and Waterton, E., 2009. Heritage, communities and archaeology. London:Duckworth.

Swarbrooke, J., 1995. The development and management of visitor attractions. Oxford:Butterworth-Heinemann.

Thien, D., 2005. After or beyond feeling? A consideration of affect and emotion ingeography. Area, 37, 450–456.

Thrift, N., 2003. Performance and … Environment and Planning A, 35, 2019–2024.Thrift, N., 2009. Understanding the affective spaces of political performance. In: L. Bondi,

L. Cameron, J. Davidson, and M. Smith, eds. Emotion, place and culture. Aldershot:Ashgate.

Ticineto Clough, P., 2010. Afterword: the future of affect studies. Body & Society, 16, 222–230.

Tilden, F., 1957. Interpreting our heritage. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North CarolinaPress.

Tolia-Kelly, D., 2006. Affect – an ethnocentric encounter? Exploring the ‘universalist’ imper-ative of emotional/affectual geographies. Area, 38 (2), 213–217.

Uzzell, D., 1998. Interpreting our heritage: a theoretical interpretation. In: D. Uzzell andR. Ballantyne, eds. Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation.London: The Stationary Office, 11–25.

Van der Duim, R., Ren, C., and Jóhannesson, G.T., 2012. Actor-network theory and tourism:ordering, materiality and multiplicity. London: Routledge.

Wang, N., 1999. Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research,26 (2), 349–370.

Waterton, E., 2005. Whose sense of place? Reconciling archaeological perspectives withcommunity values: cultural landscapes in England. International Journal of HeritageStudies, 11, 309–326.

Waterton, E., 2009. Sights of sites: picturing heritage, power and exclusion. Journal of Heri-tage Tourism, 4, 37–56.

Waterton, E., 2010. Branding the past: the visual imagery of England’s heritage. In:E. Waterton and S. Watson, eds. Culture, heritage and representations: perspectives onvisuality and the past. Aldershot: Ashgate, 155–172.

Waterton, E., 2013. Heritage tourism and its representations. In: R. Staiff, S. Watson, and R.Bushell, eds. Heritage tourists in dialogue. London: Routledge, 64–84.

Waterton, E. and Watson, S., eds., 2011. Heritage and community engagement: collaborationor contestation? London: Routledge.

Watson, S. and Waterton, E., 2010. Reading the visual: representation and narrative in theconstruction of heritage. Material Culture Review, 71, 84–97.

Woodward, K., 1996. Global cooling and academic warming: long-term shifts in emotionalweather. American Literary History, 8 (4), 759–779.

Wright, P., 1985. On Living in an old country: the national past in contemporary Britain.London: Verso.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

1:41

04

Oct

ober

201

4

framing theory: towards a critical imagination in heritage studies

Documents