Heritage vs. History?

This blog post examines the discourse surrounding heritage and history and whether the two terms could, or should, be considered equal. It is inspired by the Open University's ‘Open Learn’ module ‘What is heritage?’. 

History and heritage can be viewed as both distinct fields, but complementary to the other's mission. Tosh’s The Pursuit of History highlights the role of the historian as building up evidence of the past, examining it, and piecing together what is believed to have happened based on what we see. For the likes of Cobb, the historian must be “endlessly inquisitive and prying” to achieve this. Heritage is a sector reliant on nostalgia and historical significance being attributed by local and national bodies. History, by comparison, can be viewed as less regulated and open to wider debate. 

For Patrick Wright in On Living in an Old Country (1985), heritage has distinct political undertones. The ‘museumification’ of the United Kingdom, to him, was a deliberate attempt by the Conservative government to revive patriotism from the Second World War. Heritage - at least on the large scale - is reliant on what Smith calls an AHD (an authorised heritage discourse). Museum funding being granted by government bodies suggests an element of bias in what will be recorded. For example, it is in the benefit of the government to ensure core elements of society like the success of the Second World War are seen for generations to come. It enables a collective identity to develop, and as Bourdieu and Passeron (1990) argue, a form of ‘cultural capital’ to develop too. Increasing interest in the past through heritage enables governments to influence collective idealism. 

Comparatively, history attempts to pick through bias and interpret what and why is happening. Despite this attempt to be analytical, many academics within the University environment receive funding through student loans, research grants, and external funding. Despite a large government influence, there are a plethora of historical investigations ongoing. Not all of these are concerned with the major historical changes of our society, such as War. Gender, war, social changes, political changes, economic developments, and non-written histories can all be studied. While the majority of historical research will not see promotion to the public through initiatives like museums or centres of learning, they will be engaged in discourse within the academic community. 

Despite history and heritage having different audiences engaging in them, ultimately, they support the importance of an appreciation for the past. Often, the promotion of heritage has been viewed critically by those in the historical world. Hewison’s The Heritage Industry (1987) suggests a bell-jar developed through the growth of museums and could distract. To overcome this, they implore the development of a critical culture to “engage in a dialogue between past and present.” (Hewison, 1987, p. 144) While Hewison remained critical of heritage as having political undertones, Raphael Samuel dismissed this in his three-part study Theatres of Memory (late 1990s). To Samuel, the public's engagement in the past enabled an understanding of a wider social transformation and not just top-down events. As such, heritage is made up of both what is directed by the government and how people push for their past to be maintained. Over time, history has supported heritage to be reached on a wider scale, and heritage has enabled history to engage more people both critically and in passing. 

Nostalgia is a powerful tool. Many scholars, including the likes of Hewison (above) and Lyndal Roper, have used nostalgia as a tool to understand how individuals react to events. For Roper, it offers insight from the witch trials of the early modern period as experienced in the eighteenth century, a way for people to relate to the past, to understand fear. (Roper, “Witchcraft, Nostalgia, and the Rural Idyll in Eighteenth-Century Germany”, Past and Present, 2006). Using feelings enables those in the heritage sector to get people interested - people romanticise the war for a variety of reasons, including ‘greatness’. Therefore, they can ensure heritage as a sector is well-received, and supported.

Heritage on a large scale is often organised through bodies such as Historic England, the National Trust and English Heritage. These are often conferred power by the state (through parliament), and then they can conserve the sites and areas they control. Across the country, the National Trust cares for many former country houses and keeps them in repair. They raise money to continue their work through memberships and charging admissions. Yes, by charging, they may exclude some from understanding the heritage of the country (both of the upper classes who lived in them, but also those who worked within the homes too). But, through their work, they ensure these sites continue to exist and educate those who want to visit them. Like everything, it may have some bias (a benefactor who gives the site may not be studied as extensively, and a positive image may be promoted), but it does perpetuate important cultural capital. 

So, should history and heritage be considered the same? The short answer is not really. History is the study of the past through sources and the development of interpretation. Heritage seeks to take a site, object or space, and apply some understanding to it, conserve it and make it an active dialogue between the present and past. While history can be considered, at times, in dialogue, this is to a lesser extent. History is more precise; heritage is perhaps more populist and inherently biased by who funds it, who decides what is relevant, and who narrows the evidence to make it palatable and engaging. In some ways, heritage can be thought of as a public history - a way to move away from the privileged academic and to place the past back in the everyday people’s hands. Therefore, in light of the post above, they cannot be considered equal, but heritage uses history to support aspects of conservation and education.