Steven Lubar @ Temple University "Record, Preserve, Document, Shape: Talking About the Public Humanities"

Temple University Libraries recently hosted a talk with Dr. Steven Lubar as part of their Beyond the Page series.  The conversation, facilitated by Temple’s own Dr. Seth Bruggeman, centered on the idea of public humanities, the challenges facing contemporary museums, and the role of technology vis-a-vis museums and public humanities.   

As Bruggeman observed, Steven Lubar has had an “incredible influence on how Americans understand the past” and the ability to make accessible to a broad audience complex problems and ideas.  He spent 22 years at the Smithsonian Institute’s National Museum of American History, developing some of their most significant exhibits including Engines of Change (1986), The Information Age (1990), and America on the Move (2003).  He has written several books and many essays dealing with American history and material culture, including History from Things: Essays on Material Culture (1993).  In his current role as Director of the John Nicholas Brown Center for Public Humanities and Cultural Heritage at Brown University, Lubar is helping shape the next generation of historians and museum personnel.   

Bruggeman described Lubar’s influence on him as a young student – through an essay in which Lubar put for the idea that “technology is politics by other means” – which sparked his interest in material culture studies.  He went on to add that Lubar “has remained on the forefront of writing about technology and how it shapes what historians do and how we can use it to reach broader and broader public.”  In his discussion Lubar focused a great deal on the ways in which technology can be employed in the field of public humanities.  

The conversation began with the question:  What does “public” mean and why do we care about it?  Lubar described the notion of “public” disciplines as those that initiate and rely on conversation, that invite audience participation, and which break down traditional notions (and sites) of expertise.  He described the field of public humanities as “public history plus” – a broader, more inclusive program of study that incorporating elements/concerns of an array of disciplines that serve the public, including history, anthropology, archeology, folklore studies.  It is part-public history, part-museum studies, and part-some other things which in combination reflect the evolving needs and concerns of twenty-first century museums.  Lubar observed that the museum and the way that people think about history are constantly changing and that students need to be prepared for the challenges ahead.  The public humanities field provides the flexibility necessary to meet these challenges, accommodating a diversity of fields, technologies, and interests. 

Referencing a recent New York Times article on digital technology and the humanities, which suggested that the “next big idea in language, history and the arts [is] data,” Lubar discussed the role of technology in the field of public humanities.  He described “digital” as a “tool” suggesting that it is “another way of doing your work” which fosters new ways of thinking.  Further, the use of technology is not something that should be avoided because it is mechanical or difficult, but used as another tool for understanding and outreach.  That the field of public humanities accepts and uses new media and digital technology seems to be one of its greatest strengths, creating a generation of individuals comfortable with using technology as a tool.   

Lubar described a community history project by Brown students which employed flicker to display photographs and solicited responses from community residents to build its archive on the Fox Point neighborhood.  Here, technology (along with more traditional oral history techniques) was used to create a collaborative exhibit which explored the evolution of a neighborhood in relation to the University.  Further, the “Faces of Fox Point” exhibit was developed as a workshop for local middle-school students, introducing them to oral history and photography “as documentary sources” and allowed them to add their own work to the exhibit.  In the “Faces of Fox Point” we see how technology can be used to democratize curatorial input and expertise, engage its audience through participation, and invite conversation between scholars, students, and the community.  It also suggests It reflects the best aspects of the public humanities and also suggests a broadening of the idea of what museums are and what they can do.

Norwich Calling

Students in the School of American Studies at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, U.K. were asked, “What does America mean to me?”  Their responses provide a glimpse of perceptions of the United States abroad and also pushed me to examine my perceptions of my country.       

Reading an outsider’s perspective of one’s country is always difficult.  It is especially so when your country is the U.S.  One is keenly aware of the negative, often bemused, international perception of the U.S.  I would argue that we’ve done much to earn this reputation.  However, regardless of one’s personal feelings the initial response to these perceptions is often defensive.  Moving beyond knee-jerk reaction, I found that I agreed with my peers on many points.  Their responses were often critical of the U.S. and many of them note the disparity between American ideals and image and the political, economic, and social realities of the nation.  I especially agree with the oft-repeated notion that America is difficult to define.  From a vantage point within the United States, I can say that I have difficulty pinning down the essence of America.

What follows is a summary of the key themes that emerged from the nineteen group responses crafted by the students of UEA.  Though I have quoted directly from several of these responses, I have attempted to synthesize the contributions of many individuals into a unified voice.  I invite UEA students to contact me via the comments section if they feel I have misinterpreted or misrepresented their assertions, and also to comment generally on my response to their responses.  Further, I invite UEA students to provide additional information regarding the characteristics of their class.  I am curious to know more about the demographics of their group (age, sex, gender, etc.) and how they feel this might shape their perceptions of the United States.  

Several themes emerged in the student responses to the question, “What does America mean to me?”  Several students described the U.S. as difficult to define, marking it as an almost imaginary place constructed through media and consumer products.  Some pointed to the power and the fallacy of the American Dream.  America was described as a “land of contradictions,” a “concept rather than a country” and “constantly reinventing itself.”  Here a self-created American myth – which includes notions of equality, liberty, justice, rugged individualism, meritocracy, self-creation, and economic prosperity – informs and overwhelms reality.

They described the U.S. as a superpower whose global reach is political, economic, and cultural.  It dominates the global stage, while relying on, and often exploiting, other nations to further its goals.  As one group observed, “America absorbs other cultures before regurgitating and manipulating them to conform” to its own goals.  The U.S. regards itself as an ideal society and forces others to adapt while “protect[ing] its own interests and [obscuring] its own fragilities.” 

Many cited the contradictions between American ideals and the social, economic, and political reality of life in the United States.  Issues of race in America, specifically the oppression of African-Americans, was cited as a chief example of American hypocrisy and the failures of the American experiment.  Also noted was a selective forgetfulness of the more troubling aspects of the nation’s past.  The country’s physical size and geographic and cultural diversity was cited as both strength and a weakness, and Americans of were perceived as unified by a shared national identity.  Patriotism and individualism were identified as traits essential to American identity, and success and wealth marked as important goals. Many students noted the power of American symbols, institutions, and iconography to evoke the American Dream and mythos and unite the nation’s diverse population.  Examples include the American flag, the “Star-Spangled Banner,” Superman (the ur-immigrant), cowboys and the American west, the Statue of Liberty and the New York skyline, Hollywood, and Barack Obama. 

Many pointed to the power of the media in shaping perceptions of America and some of the ideas discussed by the UEA students were shaped by media representations of the country.  The U.S. was characterized as a producer and exporter of culture and these cultural products – literature, film and television, music, and corporate brands – were characterized as transmitters of imagery and values of the U.S. and important tools in decoding American identity.  American film and television programs were described as “inescapable” and, along with corporate entities like Starbucks and McDonalds, are synonymous with America, presenting an image of America based on capitalism, consumption, and materialism. Disney films are cited as symbolic of the American world view and further illustrate the power of American cultural products to transmit ideology.  Further, these products were perceived as often overshadowing those of individual nations and act as a homogenizing influence. (I would suggest that many feel that “Americanization” is a threat to the diversity of the United States.)  What emerges here is a sense of cultural colonialism on the part of the U.S. 

One group “found it difficult to comprehend how America has such a limited knowledge of the ‘outside world’ whilst also having such a detailed knowledge of their own country.”  I would agree with the assumption that Americans have a narrow perception of the outside world.  To say this is to admit that I, as an American, have a limited understanding of the world beyond our borders.  My response to the question, “What does the U.K. mean to me?” would be woefully lacking (and would be derived from a combination of sources that included, in no particular order; Elvis Costello, Ricky Gervais, The Up series, Ealing comedies and Hammer horror films, and Bob Hoskins).  Perhaps this is because of our relatively short history, or our size and our relative geographic isolation.  Or maybe it is because of some ingrained, and misguided, notion of American exceptionalism.  It is not sufficient enough explanation to observe that it is very likely that many Americans lack a detailed knowledge of their own country beyond their immediate region.  We derive our perceptions about our country from many of the same sources that the UEA students describe.  We, too, are sold and believe the American myth.           

I agree with many of the perceptions and criticisms outlined in the responses of the UEA students.  Our principles are often at odds with our actions.  We do practice a kind of cultural colonialism (not to mention economic and ideological colonialism).  We are susceptible to our own mythology.  As a nation we are by turns myopic, self-absorbed, and apathetic.  On the global stage we are alternate between isolationism and imperialism.  I agree that our diversity is our greatest strength.  And that American patriotism is a unifying force, but it can also be destructive when it becomes nativistic or jingoistic in tone.  I agree to some extent that American democracy has become distorted in the twenty-first century and that, depending on the day and who you ask, American’s generally believe they live in some kind of democracy.  I agree that the U.S. is a nation of great contradictions and, despite our wealth, one of great disparity.  That said I am optimistic that the U.S. can act as a force of good in the world, that we have the capacity to recognize our errors and change for the better, and that our political system at its best is responsive enough to facilitate these changes.  It is also a place of great opportunity, but I also recognize that as a middle-class white male I have greater advantages, more opportunity, and can afford to be optimistic

That said, I cannot explain Sarah Palin beyond acknowledging her popularity as a testament to the diversity of opinion in America and the power of the media to shape perception and create celebrity.  And it is my great regret to report that Thurston Moore, with Sonic Youth or without, is not as revered as he should be.

Eastern State Penitentiary

Covering eleven acres of Fairmount Avenue, between 20th and 22nd Streets, the Eastern State Penitentiary is one of “America’s Most Historic Prison[s].”  Designed by John Haviland, the fortress-like structure of the original penitentiary complex opened in 1829 and was considered upon its completion in 1836 an “architectural marvel.”  Recalling the castles of Europe, Eastern State’s design employed the symbolic weight of old world oppression to discipline the citizens of the new world city of Philadelphia.  To those outside its walls, the penitentiary’s architecture posed “a harsh physical threat,” serving as a psychological deterrent for the community.  [This satellite image of the prison gives a sense of the prison’s size and scale, illustrating the way it dominates the landscape and the neighborhoods that surround it.]   

Inside, the prison’s panoptic design and innovative punishment practices became models for prisons around the world.  The impulse behind the prison’s design and practices was reform, its development and construction an extension of “a controversial movement to change the behavior of inmates through "confinement in solitude with labor.”  Interaction with guards and fellow inmates was kept to a minimum.  Solitary confinement and social isolation were used to spur reflection and reform of those housed there.  The thick walled cells further isolated prisoners from each other and the outside world.  In other words, ESP put the penance in penitentiary.  Over time, the methods and design changed and ESP came to reflect the practices and conditions of the twentieth century prison and criminal justice system.  Overcrowding, violence, abuse, and racial segregation were characteristic of life inside Eastern State in the years before its closing in 1971.

ESP is extremely open and accessible and can be experienced in a variety of ways.  There is the standard audio-tour with takes visitors through from one end of the complex to the other, charting the history of incarceration in America and the history and use of Eastern State over the course of its 142 year history.  Once visitors have completed the “official” tour they are invited to wander the prison and accessing site-specific information included audio-device.  This seems a departure from the typical audio-tour experience and is one way in which visitors can “invent” their experience of Eastern State (though this invention/improvisation is, admittedly, limited to sites designated by designers and curator).  Those that want to learn more about specific aspects of the prison’s history and use can participate in special tours dealing with prison life, escape attempts, and the penitentiary’s architecture.  Several cells house video programs, while others are given over to art exhibits and installations dealing with the history and use of the prison are interspersed throughout the sprawling complex.

Narrated by Steve Buscemi, the audio-tour uses the voices and recollections of guards and inmates to craft its linear narrative of ESP’s history.  Sound effects and music are also used throughout the tour.  The best of example of how these different elements work together to create the visitor experience is in Cell Block 4.  Visitors enter Cell Block 4 from the panoptic center of the prison.  Former guards and inmates describe life at the prison in the years before its closing in 1971.  These recollections are paired with photographs (identified by printed quotations) depicting the prison experience.  As the narrative progresses, the visitor is drawn down the hallway and, eventually outside.  The setting, stories, and photographs give visitors a sense of life inside ESP (you ARE inside).  Further, the audio-tour directs the visitor’s attention, moving them through space and time.

ESP manages to be both entertaining and educational.  The information, and the ways that it may be accessed by the visitor, is almost overwhelming.  Accessing and digesting it all would require several visits.  ESP was designated as a federal historic landmark in 1965 and ceased operation in 1971.  Surviving years of neglect and attempts at demolition and commercial repurposing, ESP opened for daily tours in 1994.  It has become one of Philadelphia’s chief tourist destinations and most recognizable landmarks.  It is worth noting that ESP’s annual Halloween fundraiser (know today as Terror Behind the Walls) played an important role in funding subsequent development of the historic site.  I think this provides an interesting model for the ways entertainment attractions can be used to support more rigorous historic preservation and educational efforts.