14 C O N T E X T 1 3 3 : M A R C H 2 0 1 4 VALUING HERITAGE frequently it is conflated with expert evaluations of historic significance, rather than with the values that the population might gain from the historical environment by and for themselves. I will highlight some of the general insights that can be gleaned from cross-disciplinary research on social value, and consider the implications for heritage conservation and management. Studies demonstrate that contemporary meanings are by no means restricted to the official histories surrounding monuments. The ways in which communities come to understand historic places may be rooted in oral history, folktales and spiritual associations, which often sit outside official narratives. Social practices play an important role in the production of meaning and memory, including community festivals; ritual and ceremonial activities; everyday practices; recreation and leisure; and memorial events. Furthermore, historic buildings, monuments and places play an important role in terms of people’s sense of identity, place and belonging. However, they are often subject to multiple, at times competing, claims. In part this is due to the diverse values that communities invest in places, as well as the nature of group identities, which involve an exclusionary element, a sense of ‘them’ and ‘us’. An added complication is the dynamic and changing nature of social value, which creates an even more complex landscape. Above all, recent research convincingly demonstrates that many aspects of social value are of an intangible nature, or at the very least have a selective and indirect relationship with historical fabric.The materiality of historical places is often important in terms of social value, but this does not necessarily accord with expert judgements about its historical value and material authenticity. Indeed authenticity has been shown to be a product of specific, culturally mediated relationships between people, objects and places. What of the ramifications of this research? Obviously in conserving and managing particular heritage places, generalisations are no substitute for specific evidence, but it is possible to make a number of broader points. At a practical level, it is clear that identifying who values a place and why they do so is not straightforward. The manifold forms of practice, engagement, meaning, memory and identity involved are unlikely to be obvious in the fabric of a place, or readily apparent to an ‘outside observer’ engaged in a cursory appraisal. Specific methodologies need to be employed to gain a greater understanding of social value.Various techniques have been used, including oral histories, site visits with community representatives, and collaborative mapping. Standard sociological and anthropological methods have also proved to be very useful, such as individual and group interviews, participant observation and focus groups. While such methods might seem resource intensive, rapid forms of ethnographic assessment have been developed and successfully employed, for example by the US National Parks Service. Inevitably such methods only produce a snapshot of a dynamic situation, but with regular review they offer a more systematic body of knowledge to inform decision-making. Attention to social value also raises wider issues relating to expertise and authority. As noted above, forms of historical, archaeological and architectural expertise have long underpinned heritage conservation and management, not surprisingly given the emphasis on historic value and authenticity of fabric. Of course expert judgement in these spheres may also be based on partial evidence and be subject to changing understandings over time. However, assessment of social value requires additional forms of expertise of a sociological and anthropological nature. Furthermore, while the social value of particular historic buildings, monuments and places can be subjected to expert evaluation, it also requires collaboration with the communities which attach significance to those places. In such contexts, the relationship between expert professional judgement and the values of wider communities of interest is reframed, especially with the rise of community-led initiatives, such as local listing and community asset management. Community-based identification and management might seem an effective way to address social value, but they must be appropriately resourced and facilitated. Furthermore, while in principle they empower communities, such an approach can privilege those with high levels of social capital, over and above disenfranchised communities and minority groups. Therefore, the most productive approach to addressing social value arguably lies in forms of collaborative work involving both professionals and members of relevant communities. In practice, it is likely that professional and public opinions, while oppositional in some contexts, are just as likely to be complementary (for instance, in terms of overlapping concerns with authenticity) and thus to enrich one another. Finally, social value raises questions about the fundamental premises of conservation. The modern conservation movement focused first and foremost on the preservation of historic buildings and monuments for future generations. However, in recent decades the benefits of the historic environment for contemporary populations have become a mainstay in wider political and economic debates about conservation. Here, its role in promoting identity, belonging, wellbeing and social capital currently receives as much, if not more, prominence than traditional conservation values, such as historical value or special architectural interest. Yet while all values are ultimately historically and culturally situated, for many heritage professionals the new emphasis on contemporary value and benefit introduces a dangerous element of subjectivity, transience and instrumentalism. It also contributes to a fundamental tension between the idea of heritage as something that is fixed, tangible and of the past on the one hand, and something that is mutable, intangible, and very much of the present on the other. Until this fundamental tension receives greater discussion and some kind of resolution, the relationship between social value and the conservation of the historic environment is likely to remain contentious and ambivalent. Further reading Erica Avrami, Randall Mason and Marta de la Torre (eds) (2000) Values and Heritage Conservation, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles Denis Byrne, Helen Brayshaw andTracy Ireland (2003) Social Significance: a discussion paper, New South Wales National Parks andWildlife Service, Hurstville English Heritage (2008) Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance Chris Johnston (1994) What is SocialValue? A discussion paper, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra Siân Jones (2004) Early Medieval Sculpture and the Production of Meaning, Value and Place, Historic Scotland, Edinburgh John Pendlebury (2009) Conservation in the Age of Consensus, Routledge, London, 2009 Siân Jones is professor of archaeology at the University of Manchester. She has just completed an Arts and Humanities Research Council-funded project calledValuing the Historic Environment: a critical review of approaches to social value.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=