Geography, Historical Geography and Heritage Studies: Some Further ReflectionsAuthor(s): John E. TunbridgeSource: Area, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 316-317Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20002764 .

Accessed: 09/06/2014 23:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.48 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 23:32:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

316

Comments Discussion arising from papers in Area

Geography, historical geography and heritage studies: some further reflections John E Tunbridge, Department of Geography, Carleton University, Ottawa,

Ontario, Canada KIS 5B6

I read Hardy's (1988) thoughtful comments in this journal on heritage studies with

considerable interest and substantial agreement. They provoke several further points,

however, concerning the nature of heritage and the role of geographers in general with

respect to it. These comments are written from a Canadian-based international per

spective, rather than the more specifically British standpoint that is Hardy's principal

concern. First, the degree of conservative/radical polarisation Hardy describes over the legiti

macy of heritage studies is not necessarily accurate outside of Britain, and not

altogether justified even on the British scene. While heritage conservation has unques

tionably served to promote the interest of elite social groups, there has been an aware

ness of resulting social injustice for some time past. It has been interesting to observe

the gradual evolution of heritage thought in Canada (interactively with other countries)

during the 15-odd years that my own research has been concerned with it; I contend

that evolution rather than polarisation is the constructive approach to heritage con

cepts, and if Hardy's call to historical geographers advances a socially-positive

evolution I will be the first to applaud. Social injustice over heritage has two clear

dimensions: whose heritage is recognised as such, and who benefits from the recog

nition. In Canada the awareness of' vernacular heritage ', that of the common people,

was firmly established by the 1970s, even if its conservation may have been rather

sanitised; indeed it is questionable whether the concept of area conservation, much in

vogue a decade ago, would make much sense without acknowledgement of the support

ive role of (commonly) humble structures in providing a context for the more imposing

heritage buildings. Canada's thinking has tended to follow that elsewhere, notably in

Britain; and the National Trust for Scotland's ' Little Houses ' scheme comes to mind

as one example of explicit British acknowledgement of the heritage of the humble

(Tunbridge 1981). My experience of the Mary Rose museum, by the way, was that it

was very much an expression of the vernacular heritage of the times; in any case it is

difficult to see how a vessel which had ignominiously foundered without the enemy's intervention could be a convincing symbol of ' cultural hegemony, nationalism and

partriotism' (Hardy op cit, 334). In my experience, contemporary museums on both

sides of the Atlantic are distinctly less vulnerable to charges of elitism or nationalism

than the radical school suggests; and while Hardy is not subscribing to the radical

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.48 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 23:32:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Comments 317

position he implies a rather uncritical acceptance of such charges. As to who benefits from the recognition of vernacular heritage, there can be no dispute that the elite are normally much better able to exploit its residential and commercial potential; but

during the 1980s conservation organisations have begun to confront the problem of socioeconomic displacement through the gentrification (sensu lato) which they have, perhaps unwittingly, promoted (Gaudet 1987). While the conservative/radical dichotomy that Hardy describes rings true enough, the degree of polarisation of perspective does not.

Related to this, the question of whose heritage is being conserved and marketed is an issue which was broached in the international context several years ago (Tunbridge 1984; Western 1985), and the perspectives thereby generated should be brought into focus with Hardy's comments. The class discord is thus broadened to include the cultural dimension: there are many instances worldwide where a jarring cultural dis cord may occur between the heritage conserved and the perspective of minorities (Canada and Britain not least) and, more serious still, the perspective of majorities (most former colonies), which may have serious political implications for the country in question (most obviously, South Africa).

Finally, and most importantly: without in any way disputing Hardy's recommen dations for the role of historical geographers in heritage interpretation, all geogra phers have a strong reason for concern with the heritage movement, quite irrespective of its legitimacy. Whether true history or fabrication, whether the projection of class/ cultural aspirations are of national and universal significance, heritage is above all an explicitly geographical phenomenon the significance of which we should be monitor ing more consistently, from an essentially dispassionate perspective with no necessary requirement upon us either to advocate or condemn. Perhaps most particularly, one cannot teach or write meaningful urban geography without checking the conse quences of heritage exploitation for theories of housing, retailing or anything else we may have inherited from earlier decades. Likewise, however, rural and recreational geography can no longer be understood without reference to the heritage dimension. In the many years I have been involved with the geographical significance of heritage conservation and exploitation, I have not to my recollection found it necessary (though it has sometimes been desirable) either to endorse or to escape deception by ' heritage studies '.

In summary, I would heartily endorse Hardy's message to historical geographers but would point out that the evolution of heritage into a less class-oriented concept is already under way; the related cultural-discordance problem has already been identi fied, though by no means resolved; and that all geographers must take note of the spatial and environmental impacts of the heritage industry, whatever its credentials. Cer tainly, however, they might do so with particular diligence as the work of historical geographers hopefully nudges it closer to becoming a balanced and universally acceptable geographical phenomenon.

References Gaudet C (1987) ' Part of the solution ' Canadian Heritage 13, 14-19

Hardy D (1988) 'Historical geography and heritage studies ' Area 20, 333-8

Tunbridge J E (1984) ' Whose heritage to conserve? Cross-cultural reflections upon political dominance and

urban heritage conservation' Canadian Geographer 28, 171-80 Tunbridge J E (1981) 'Conservation trusts as geographic agents: their impact upon landscape, townscope

and land use ' Transactions 6, 103-25

Western J (1985) ' Undoing the colonial city? ' Geographical Review 75, 335-57

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.48 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 23:32:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions