Week 6: Historic Preservation – Beginnings

This week’s reading address historical questions concerning historic preservation. Both Nolan and Lindgren focus on historic preservation as it relates to the academics and public history. Nolan focuses on styles of historic preservation/restoration relate to the academic theories of modernism and post-modernism. Whereas, Lindgren focuses specifically on personalism versus professionalism.

Nolan (1998) discusses preservation versus restoration. Discrepancies in strategies for preservation suggest there’s a lot of confusion about what history constitutes. Specifically, concerning “legitimacy of privileging one person or period over another, and over the currency of scientific interpretation of “truth” in non-academic contexts” (Nolan, 1998, p. 253). Presenting history will always be tricky because it will solely depend on how the story is told. Honestly, I feel that there will always be something challenging about a historic tale or presentation. Museums, as well as other historic sites will continue to spark discussion of the way the history of a person and/or period is presented. Nevertheless, this is good because it will get people to have a discussion and hopefully hear the other side of the story.

Lindgren (1996) discusses the transition from personalism to professionalism. Initially, preservation was an all women’s movement and eventually transitioned to a male dominated field. “During the progressive era, men were entering the preservation fielding greater numbers and slowly moving its focus from the well-established interests of Bush and other women” (Lindgren, 1996, p. 42). Personalism is a perspective that embodies “old-time buildings and historic sites as ones that embodied home values, family ties, and face-to-face community” (Lindgren, 1996, p. 42). I think personalism in historic societies still exist, perhaps on a smaller level. Professionalism made the field of historic preservation official; contributed meaning to the business and scientific thought adopted during the progressive era (Lindgren, 1996). Personally, I felt the article reviewed males becoming dominant in an initially woman’s field as though males brought professionalism to something that was simply personal to women.

I believe the discussion of historic preservation having an important role in academics of public history is persuasive and valid. When I entered the Doctoral program for Information Studies, I desired to look into historic library records and other materials. Historic preservation becoming entering professional was a great blessing for me and my historic research. For example, accession books which would show circulation records of libraries prior to computers. Though, I felt a bit of bias for the women of personalism, I understand the depth that Nolan and Lindgren place on historic preservation in academics.

Reference:
Lindgren, J. (1996). A new departure in historic, patriotic work: Personalism, professionalism, and conflicting concepts of materials culture in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Public Historian, 18(2), pp. 41-60.

Nolan, J. & Buckman, T. (1998). Preserving the postmodern, restoring the past: The cases of Monticello and Montpelier. The Sociological Quarterly, 39(2), pp. 253-269.