Framing Theory Towards A Critical Imagination in Heritage Studies

International Journal of Heritage Studies
ISSN: 1352-7258 (Print) 1470-3610 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20
Framing theory: towards a critical imagination in

heritage studies
Emma Waterton & Steve Watson
To cite this article: Emma Waterton & Steve Watson (2013) Framing theory: towards a critical
imagination in heritage studies, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19:6, 546-561, DOI:
10.1080/13527258.2013.779295
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2013.779295
Published online: 10 May 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1007
View related articles
Citing articles: 12 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjhs20
Download by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP]
Date: 26 November 2015, At: 03:05
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 2013

Vol. 19, No. 6, 546561, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2013.779295
Framing theory: towards a critical imagination in heritage studies

Emma Watertona* and Steve Watsonb
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 03:05 26 November 2015
Institute for Culture and Society, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith
South DC, Sydney, New South Wales 2571, Australia; bBusiness School, York St John
University, Lord Mayors Walk, York, YO31 7EX, UK
(Received 6 August 2012; nal version received 20 February 2013)
Heritage theory has developed piecemeal over the last 30 years, with little
progress made in fully understanding the way the subject can or should be theorised. This paper identies some of the main sources of theory in heritage, as well
as the approaches and perspectives that have been formulated as a result. These
are framed on the basis of their disciplinary origins and can be viewed as theories
in, theories of and theories for heritage. As frames through which heritage can
currently be examined they are still employed in relative isolation from each
other and we suggest, therefore, a way by which they might be considered as
complementary, rather than competing approaches in order to provide impetus
for the development of a critical imagination in heritage studies.
Keywords: heritage theory; affect; non-representational theory; experience;
practice
Whatever happened to the heritage debate? Given the absence of theoretical noise
surrounding the eld, one could certainly be forgiven for wondering what the outcome had been and where it might be discovered. This dearth could be read as an
indication that the scope of heritage studies has now been delineated, that its
theoretical canon has been established and that textbooks, monographs and journal
articles variously reect and advance a framework that has been edging forward
over the last 30 years or so with at least some semblance of agreement. For us,
however, this silence is rather more suggestive of a state of comfort within heritage
studies, and the carving out of niches within which particular concepts and frames
of reference have settled, there remaining unchallenged and less productive than
they might otherwise be. The technical focus inherent to much thinking and publishing within Western heritage perspectives is a primary example. Inevitable though
it may be, given its roots in the materiality of the past and associated imperatives
of conservation, interpretation and display, we nonetheless nd ourselves in a situation where it is hard to drag the locus of debate into potentially more fruitful areas.
But it is not simply that theory has gone to sleep over the last few years. More
than that, it seems that some theoretical debates, such as those concerned with
big concepts such as identity, authenticity or dissonance have not adequately
addressed the nature of heritage itself, either as a concept or a practice (though
there are exceptions: see Smith (2006), Crouch (2012), Harrison (2012) for harder
*Corresponding author. Email: e.waterton@uws.edu.au
2013 Taylor & Francis
547
conceptualisations of the term). Part of the reason for this is that such concepts
were often not properly theorised before they were applied and disseminated in the
eld. This is not to say that supporting disciplinary theory from the wider academy
should not be applied in heritage studies; rather, it is that these theories need to be
fully interrogated and adapted prior to their adoption. For this reason, we argue that
there is now a strong need to be more explicit about theoretical perspectives.
Indeed, heritage studies could only benet from some critical reinvigoration, even if
that means injecting doubts about the ontological quality of much that passes for
heritage and its research.
But there is scope only to do so much in an article of this length. Happily, we
nd ourselves in good company, as our paper is situated within a special issue
devoted to the theme of critical heritage studies. We also have the luxury of pointing to already existing, and carefully nuanced, articulations of the concept itself,
such as that developed by Smith (2006) in Uses of Heritage and Rodney Harrison
(2012) in Heritage: Critical Approaches. What we propose to do, therefore, is provide a historicising of some of the major theoretical approaches that have been
applied to the concept, whilst simultaneously pushing debate towards developments
in broader social and cultural thinking. This process cannot, of course, be completed here; rather, our brief explorations set out only to establish something in the
development of heritage theory making. Ours is thus a speculative account, one
without reference to specic bodies of data or developed case studies. Some of the
inadequacies we point to will be taken up by other contributors to this issue. So too
are some of the conceptual questions we raise. A fuller theorisation of the Western
derivation of the term heritage, for example, is offered by Tim Winter, and likewise, Rodney Harrison and Denis Byrne provide explorations that deepen our
understanding of heritage itself (this issue). Still, we are aware that what we claim
here could be read as an over-promise, a suggestion that as an alternative to the
piecemeal we are seeking grander narratives, and even a single unied theory. To
the contrary, all we seek is to advance debate and create some clarity and
coherence.
But what do we mean by theory? Clearly, if we are to address the myriad ways
that it has impacted upon heritage, then a broad view of what constitutes theory is
implied. As such, we will be looking here at ideas, constructs, concepts and levels
of abstraction that are theoretically informed without necessarily constituting
fully-edged theories in themselves. To adopt a narrower view would be to lose the
variety of ideas that have developed around heritage and which now need to be
sifted and sorted through. In keeping with this broad view, we refer to what we call
a critical imagination, an approach that pays due respect to and draws from a
number of disciplinary sources of theory, and which distinguishes between the
range and purpose of various theoretical interventions in order to apply them
usefully in appropriate contexts.
Accordingly, in this critical imagination, we use existing and emerging theory to
construct frames though which heritage can be viewed in its various guises: theories
in, of and for heritage. In proposing them, our purpose is not simply to express the
variety of theory available in heritage studies, but also to explore the extent of any
possible articulations between these frames and their disciplinary origins. In charting
their development, we have the benet of a rough chronology, but the overlaps are
at least as signicant as the sequencing. Of more interest, then, are the touchpoints
and linkages between them, as it is here that theory might be usefully developed in
548
E. Waterton and S. Watson
ways that respect the various contributions made in recent years. With this in mind
then, our intention is not to create a unity of perspectives but, rather, a context for
advancing theory, a creative and exploratory agenda that disrupts assumptions about
what heritage is or might be and replaces them with questions about what theory
can do, and how. In a sense, what we hope to achieve is to decentre notions of heritage itself and look more closely at other knowledge and theoretical interventions
that energise and mobilise it, make it signicant in its wider setting and make it
important.
Theories in heritage
Theories in heritage form our rst frame, which centres most squarely on the
objects of heritage themselves. These were some of the earliest to develop in the
eld and the closest, in terms of explanatory scope, to the material culture to which
they refer. Unsurprisingly, this is reected in the disciplines most often traced to the
underpinnings of these perspectives, such as archaeology, art history, architecture
and anthropology. Much has been written that traces the inuences of these disciplines, such as an overriding emphasis on materiality, assumptions around innate
value and rooted concerns with the modalities of heritage management (Smith
2006, Waterton 2010). Given that a signicant body of secondary literature already
exists, we seek here to add to that by bringing into focus some of the similarly
inclined contributions from elds such as tourism and museology. For example,
matters of conservation, visitor management and interpretation were an initial focus
for Tildens (1957) inuential account, perhaps the most formative of such contributions, which set the scene for a literature on interpretation and visitor management
that not only expressed its educational orientation, but also its managerial framework. From there, ideas formed around practical matters and problems that were
there to be solved with correct method or management technique, preferably backed
up with a case study or two. Texts reective of this sort of approach include Moore
(1994), Swarbrooke (1995), Hall and McArthur (1998), Leask and Yeoman (1999),
Shackley (2001) and McKercher and du Cros (2002), with perhaps Harrison (1994)
offering the most comprehensive account of heritage and heritage tourism from an
almost purely managerial perspective. Here, heritage was only briey examined at a
conceptual level, before the discussion moved on to matters concerned with visitor
management and prot margins. Where theory was employed, it was done so to
facilitate meaningful encounters between the material of heritage and its intended
audience through education and interpretation, an orientation perhaps most often
linked with Uzzell (1998, p. 235) and his themes-markets-resources model.
In terms of theorising, this frame rests upon an uneasy relationship between the
verities of operations management and deeper conceptualisations of heritage. What
emerged from this tension was a concern that revolved around what might constitute good practice in terms of management and display, and often included forays
into marketing, nance, human resources, hospitality, catering and retailing. Theories in heritage continue to ood the eld today, especially so within specically
tourism-focused thought, were concerns with effective heritage management, and
the means of achieving it, remain paramount. People, often imagined in isolation
from their social contexts, are in this frame seen as consumers, tourists or, more
vaguely, visitors. Understanding engagements with heritage thus equated to dening
their prole as consumers, with theories of segmentation constructed in order to
549
better understand their needs, alongside elaborate taxonomies based on their

behaviour and motives as cultural tourists (see McKercher and du Cros 2002).
For us, these theories in heritage are of short- to medium-range signicance,
used to explain and elucidate facets of heritage as found and experienced. They are
usually sourced from outside the eld and applied within it, such as the management modalities discussed above, which are often supplemented by other materialfocused perspectives borrowed from ne art, art history and architecture. Within this
frame, theory has held an instrumental quality; rarely have these approaches questioned heritage at an ontological level, for example. In establishing this orientation
to material culture and the past, they pose problems to be solved by managing heritage in a way that addresses the issues raised. Such theories are operationally relevant and easily categorised as applied theory that can be shared with practitioners
or which might be held to challenge them in ways that are useful or developmental.
While our review may seem somewhat disparaging to this point, we are mindful
that these approaches have problematised conceptualisations of heritage in a number
of inuential ways. And so while we remain less sure about their ability to adequately handle the fuller conceptualisations of heritage imagined by more recent
scholars, there are strong lessons to be learnt. For example, it is from here, perhaps
more than anywhere, that we have come to question the assumption that visitors as
recipients, largely passive, to whom communication is directed and for whom
products are designed and encounters controlled. Likewise, we have come to think
about the potentials and possibilities for a heritage that is commodifying, or overcommodied. This in turn brings on charges of inauthenticity, a shallow, trivial
eclecticism and an overconcern with materiality, the dramatic and the visual.
Processes of selection might thus be discerned that have criteria drawn more from
the imperatives of effective marketing than genuine engagements with the past.
Such thinking dwells, therefore, on those features within heritage that are
considered problematic in some way or which draw into question its conventional
characterisation as a good thing. Here, we have the seeds of a critical turn in the
eld. Indeed at this level, theories in heritage might be said to be dealing with
the problems generated by heritage at an operational level, reecting on its
misdemeanours and rectifying its excesses.
Some of the key concepts developed as a consequence have become part of the
fabric of heritage theory, where they remain extremely relevant. Authenticity, identity, commodication and community heritage all emerged as the eld developed
conceptually through the 1980s and 1990s, and have been variously revisited since.
The issue of authenticity, for example, is related both to issues of provenance in
heritage objects and also to early concerns about the trivialising effects of tourism
(Boorstin 1962). It has even been institutionalised in the context of world heritage
and UNESCO (see Labadi 2010, for a recent and critical account). In heritage tourism, and with impetus from a variety of sociological accounts (MacCannell 1973,
1976; Cohen 1988, Bruner 1994, Wang 1999, Reisinger and Steiner 2006), authenticity is read either as missing or fugitive, and thus a much sought after value in
heritage or the source of much fruitless conjecture. Likewise, the concept of community has sustained interest in political, conict and post-colonial contexts. These
contexts in themselves have become a focus of interest within heritage, along with
other issues such as identity and dissonance (Littler and Naidoo 2005, Smith and
Waterton 2009, Waterton and Watson 2011).
550
Theories of heritage
Theories in heritage remain inuential and successful in understanding heritage as a
system of production and a method of display, but one beset with problems that
need to be addressed before it can be successful in organising the way the past is
understood in the present. As such our second foray, a historicising frame of
heritage, takes up some of this incompleteness by working back to the heritage
debates of the mid-1980s to late 1980s in the UK, where there emerged the view
that heritage had become an industry, feeding on the nations past and abjuring
any concern about its future. This was a historically informed and culturally signicant commentary that moved thinking about heritage away from its objects towards
its social and cultural context and signicance. The work of Lowenthal (1985,
1998), Wright (1985), Hewison (1987) and Samuel (1994) was key to this examination, especially as theirs were offerings that drew from historical and cultural studies perspectives. Their collective view of heritage as a cultural phenomenon had a
critical edge to it that began to disrupt the shorter range theories in heritage. In this
context, Lowenthal offered up a crystallisation of the heritage debate as an antiheritage animus, while Samuel, at more or less the same time, attempted to defend it
as an historically grounded expression of subaltern values and popular cultural
responses. It is these broad, encompassing and abstracted attempts to explain the
whole phenomenon, with an awareness of its ideological underpinnings that makes
these theories of rather than in heritage.
Inevitably, such approaches tend to reect the dominant theoretical movements
of their time: Western Marxist structuralism, post-structuralist/post-modernism, constructivism and post-colonial theory. Drawing on a structuralist approach, for example, one that was inherently critical, linked as it was to the inuences of the
Frankfurt School and the emergence of Western Marxism in post-war social science,
heritage came to be seen as one of the many manifestations of basesuperstructure
relations. Post-structuralist inuences saw analyses of heritage emerge in discursive
(often Foucauldian) and ideological terms, alongside all kinds of other objects,
moments and instances which were framed as texts that could be read. Using the
precepts of semiotic theory, the representational practices employed in heritage
came to be understood as things that could be deconstructed to reveal deeper meanings, as well as saying something about the processes of encoding such meanings.
Thus, theories of heritage were and continue to be concerned with questioning
the representation of meaning, especially hegemonic meanings, about a past that
effectively validates a national present or re-inscribes it with essentialisms when it
might be considered to be under threat from economic restructuring, changing social
attitudes or the nation-negating effects of globalisation.
There is thus much to be gained if we were to work our way back into these
theoretical positions. Reinvigorating an engagement with semiotics as a method of
address and analysis, for example, would allow us a fresh look at the symbolic
practices and processes through which representation, meaning and language operate (Hall 1997, p. 25, emphasis in original). Meaning, a perennial issue for heritage
theorising, thus becomes deeper even than language, in that once the code is understood, it reveals connections that are not immediately apparent but latent until, in
an act of consciousness, the surface meaning is breached (deconstructed) and links
with the social world made. In this vein, emerging theories of visual culture,
applied to heritage, have drawn attention to its cultural context and unlocked some
551
of the secret cultural work it does (Watson and Waterton 2010). Here, there is a
focus upon how heritage objects come to be sanctied as such, intertwined with the
various modalities of display linked with museum visiting and tourism (HooperGreenhill 1995, 2000, Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998).
While the role of heritage as an economic resource in regeneration and tourism
remained a focus of concern, milestone publications by Graham et al. (2000),
Harvey (2001) and Smith (2006), all which can be located within our frames of
heritage, helped to locate heritage as a social and cultural process something more
than a collection of things or, indeed, resources. From here, it became important to
know how its content and values were transmitted and understood, what it obscured
and what could be revealed by analysing and interpreting its manifestations. Heritage, as Smith (2006) put it, is characterised by a singular, dominant discourse, one
that reects concerns about identity, nationhood and the creation of social cohesion
in the face of potentially conictual readings of the past. Her Authorised Heritage
Discourse has since become, in its effects, a theory of heritage and the way it
works as a cultural phenomenon, with the value of such an analysis in heritage
studies linked to its understanding of the representational role of heritage objects
and, consequently, the cultural work they do in constructing meaning. The resultant
combining of representational theory with discursive analysis is distinct from theories in heritage, because of its attempts to encompass and explain heritage as a
social and cultural phenomenon. Semiotics, discourse analysis and the separation of
text and meaning, surface and structure, have given impetus to studies of representation in visual culture (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998, Hooper-Greenhill 2000, Crouch
and Lbbren 2003, Schirato and Webb 2004, Waterton 2009, Watson and Waterton
2010). And the political nexus of heritage, as a discourse about the social world,
has also called into question some deeply held but rather cosy notions of community heritage that trumpet inclusivity whilst maintaining a professional, and ultimately political, status quo (Waterton 2005, Smith and Waterton 2009, Waterton
and Watson 2011).
Theories for heritage
Representational theories have increasingly been called into question over the last
decade and, as with most paradigms, the challenge has emanated from questions it
seems unable to answer. These are questions that move beyond the privileging of
those positions prioritised by theories of heritage, which include, to borrow from
Ticineto Clough (2010, p. 223), political-economic power, cultural difference,
semiotic chains of signication and identity and linguistic-based structures of meaning making. In fact, these are questions that ask us about our very being, and what
happens to our bodies, ourselves? In other words, they are questions that ask: how
have we changed, what is different? Perhaps these are new questions, but we are
not so sure. Instead, we think of them as those that have been with us for some
time, downplayed by a eld scrambling to sort through disparate views on the construction of heritage and its place within wider social and political practices. At
their core, they are questions about the role played by the personal, the ordinary
and the everyday, within spaces of heritage, whether they are physical, discursive or
affective. In many ways, they extend out of much earlier work on the anthropology
of emotions, some of which has found its way into the heritage literature via the
work of Smith (2006, 2011), Bagnall (2003), Macdonald (2009) and Byrne (2013,
552
this issue), with the latter, in particular, dovetailing with the approach presented
here. Collectively, what this literature reveals is that while representations of
heritage do undeniably complex work, there is further work ongoing in our
engagements bodily work that exceeds those textual and visual registers.
These, then, are questions that at a base level are guided by an attempt to
recalibrate the relationship between (cultural) theory and science (Papoulias and
Callard 2010, p. 30), or, in other words, move away from a theoretical fascination
with the ostensibly innite analyzability of cultural representations (of place, race,
sex, etc.) over and against what is merely natural or biosphysical (Saldanha 2010,
p. 2414). Like before, these are observations that can be traced to earlier anthropological literature emerging in the 1980s, in particular John Leavitts work on meaning/feeling, mind/body, culture/biology (1996, p. 532), which retraces emotion as
something that is socially and symbolically produced, expressed and felt. These
are issues that are germane to a re-theorisation of heritage, too, as they add to the
theoretical sophistication already developing around the production of, and our uses
as agents within, heritage spaces. Perhaps, the most difcult challenge brought by
these questions is the concomitant need to unpack notions of practice and
process. Indeed, once these terms become nestled amongst our general way of
thinking about heritage, we have to acknowledge that they are difcult to pin down,
methodologically and conceptually. We know heritage through our experiences but
it is no longer quite so easy to write it down or formulate clear impressions of
what it does what it circulates, what it produces. Consequently, we need to
enlarge our thinking by bringing into the mix a means of capturing the embodied
state beyond, but along with, discourse, thereby including the sensual, haptic,
corporeal and kinaesthetic (Cromby 2007, p. 96).
Several theoretical approaches have emerged that can help to ll out these
spaces and address such shortcomings. For example, mobilities theory (from sociology) and actornetwork theory (ANT) (from the natural sciences and sociology)
have both played parts in the development of theories for heritage, though affect
(originally from psychology, but developed in social theory and latterly cultural
geography) has been much more inuential for our own thinking. All three can be
parcelled together in a variety of ways, but are captured here primarily because of
their collective critiques of representational thought, a shared appreciation of the
complexity of practices and a broadly relational view. There are also more distant
but no less important inuences. Deleuzian explorations of living, life, expression
and experience, feelings and emotions, and the new relationalities that emerge from
the uncoupling of action from preexisting cultural contexts shifts the focus of attention onto performativity as a description of the emerging dynamics of subjective
engagements with things, space and time. As David Crouch has expressed it:
[] the idea of performativity positions our practices, actions, relations, memories,
performative moments as emerging contexts too. These many facets of being alive,
and affected, commingle in a uid, part open, part limited manner. (2012, p. 21)
Here, Crouch offers a perspective on heritage that disrupts its conventional positioning as a thing separate from other experiences and stirs it back in with being human
and living, so that it emerges from the feelings of being, becoming and belonging
in the ows and complexities that characterise life. What heritage theory can do in
the light of this thinking is critically imagine how existing ideas might be modied
553
or adapted in a theoretical environment that very obviously goes beyond the textual
and the representative in dening its scope.
Both mobilities theory and ANT have made their presence felt within recent heritage publications, though of the two mobilities theory, strongly inuenced by ANT,
has taken rmer root (but see Byrne et al. 2011, Harrison 2011). This, we suspect,
is due to its associations with the work of John Urry and the consonant eld of
tourism. Mobilities theorys credentials as non-representational are rooted in the
relationalities of bodies and objects and conjoined metabolisms of bodies and space,
so that the pulses and rhythms between them are discernible in the shifting mobilities of urban life (Lefebvre 2004, Edensor 2011). In focusing on the movement of
objects and people through places and spaces, over time, mobilities theory would
seem to offer opportunities for understanding heritage as the result of dynamic
intersections of people, objects and places, interfaces of the social and spatial that
have the potential to make sense of heritage as an instantiation of such movements,
especially where culture is blended with this dynamic as a result of governmental
desires to assemble tourism potentialities in specic locations (Sheller and Urry
2004, p. 3; see also Sheller 2011). An early expression of the application of mobilities theory in heritage tourism was provided in an important collection of essays by
Brenholdt et al. (2004). Here, both a medieval castle and a sandcastle on the
beach form focal points of their study, with the latter, particularly, perfectly evoking
the spatial and temporal performativities that are central to mobilities theory:
Anticipated by expectant and impatient children, constructed with engagement and
eagerness the castle rises as the masterpiece, the high spot of the day. For a couple of
hours the castle is centre stage for the performance of play, and the applause of an
admiring audience. It is the centre for this happy moment of pleasure and joy. As the
afternoon arrives the sea rises and slowly erodes the fortications. The family leaves.
Waves roll gently on the shore and at the end of the day no trace of the performance
of the day is left. All is washed away and the castle only towers in the memory of the
family, on the celluloid pictures brought home, and the anticipation of the next day on
the beach. (2004, p. 3)
As Brenholdt et al. (2004) go on to argue, there are few global uidities more
apparent than the physical movement and motivations associated with tourism, and
the places that are created in this ux are often focused on culturally signicant
objects and locations (Coleman and Crang 2002, Crang 2011, p. 211).
Like mobilities theory, ANT provides a situational and embodied perspective on
social action, with its focus on the interactions of both human and non-human
participants or actants in the creation of meaning (Law 1986, Latour 2005).
Though originally conceived as the social and physical interdependencies that create
meaning in science and technology, actor networks can now be understood as any
array of individuals, groups, objects, artefacts and intangibles that combine to make
a eld of activity around their conjunctions. In short, both humans and non-human
objects have the potential to act and have agency. What is most striking about this
approach is its specic usage of the term theory, which points to what to study
rather than how to understand (Jhannesson and Brenholdt 2009, p. 16). Its significance in the eld of tourism provides its most visible link with heritage, with
recent explorations of its value there likely to be inuential (Van der Duim et al.
2012). Interest from a heritage point of view comes from the variety and heterogeneity afforded to actants, which combine to create the network that is knowable as
554
heritage, or heritage tourism, or a museum. Actants can range from a museum artefact or collection, to the building in which such objects are housed, to other similar
buildings, to the institutions that sustain them, to the casual visitor to the evanescent
attentions of a child on school trip, glimpsing briey the contents of a glass case.
Although undeniably sharing a number of theoretical positions with those canvassed above, our own particular bent a focus on affect is more rmly situated
beneath the banner of more- or other-than-representational, chosen because it
seems to adequately sum up attempts to cope with our self-evidently morethan-human, more-than-textual, multisensual worlds (Lormier 2005, p. 83). Here,
in addition to mobilities and ANT, researchers both inside and outside of the eld
have started to think through the ways in which more elusory everyday practices
and processes intersect with the cultural world. These sorts of approaches gesture
towards the centrality of feelings, emotions and affect, and echo the language of
phenomenology by foregrounding concepts such as performance and embodiment.
Largely inuenced by the work of cultural geographers such as Crouch, Latham,
McCormack, Pile and Thrift, these loosely labelled non-representational
approaches become theories for heritage in part because of their attempts to render
understandable that whole realm of human life that is outside consciousness
(Amin and Thrift 2002, p. 28). As theories they are therefore available for heritage
to be taken advantage of to advance the study of heritage beyond its previous
paradigmatic connes whilst remaining independent of it and separate from it. Nonrepresentational theories do not seek to become theories of heritage as this is not
required of them but they may be used for heritage as an extraneous source of
theoretical and explanatory motility.
To suggest that these musing are the product of only very recent thinking would
be misleading, as they in truth erupt from the turn to emotion that occurred in geography, cultural studies, philosophy, sociology, gender studies and psychology at
least as early as the mid-1990s (Thien 2005). Indeed, talk specically of an affective turn has been with us since 2001 and the Affective Encounters conference, but
emerged earlier still, albeit more implicitly, in the academic company of Kathleen
Woodwards (1996), Lauren Berlants (1997) and Nicholsons (1999) broader musings about emotion and intimacy (see Koivunen 2000, Gorton 2007). The philosophical workings of affect can be turned back further still, rippling through the
likes of Baruch Spinoza, Gilles Deleuze and Flix Guattari, before being translated
into English and added to by social theorists such as Brian Massumi (2002). Thus,
if Foucauldian thought provided a philosophical backbone for theories of heritage,
with theories for we nd Spinozas attention to expression itself, the noun, in
concert with the expressive (the adjective, the signier) and the expressed (the verb,
the signied) (Gnzel n.d.) as particularly inuential.
As may become obvious, our reections upon this frame are somewhat different
to theories in and of, as it is here, more than anywhere, that we stake our future
intentions. We are, in a very real sense, positioned within the cut and thrust of its
continuing theoretical development. What we would like to draw from this broader
debate is a consideration of affect that works for heritage and takes into account the
intensity that moves between bodies and places, registering as feelings and emotion.
But this should not be read as simply a matter that is specic to a person, or people, at all, for affect is not conned to the individual or the body (see Blackman
and Venn 2010, Manning 2010). Rather, it transmits, moves, circulates, ows,
incorporating a range of things, places and technologies in its movements (Lorimer
555
2008). Here, the issue of context social, cultural, political is brought more
rmly into play, the sum of which obliges us to rework our understandings of
relation to others, human and non-human (Blackman and Venn 2010).
For us, this means piecing together an already developed interest in representation and context with a developing acknowledgement of the role played by practice
and sensation (after Lorimer 2008). Thus, although to date our own work has foregrounded the representational, we have been conscious to also highlight its performativity and mark representations out as just one possibility of many for the
expression of heritage engagements. What we mean by this is that representations
perform and in so doing inuence our affective selves (Waterton 2013). Different
people will inevitably respond differently to a particular heritage site some may
feel pride, connected, pleasure, others exclusion and rejection, and others still boredom but these feelings, their affects, may in part be framed by the way that site
is conjured and evoked discursively, visually or popularly. Bodies moving through
interactions with heritage are changed, and some (though not all) of the felt affordances generated hold signicance. Theories for heritage, we argue, should thus be
framed in terms of practice and performance, with the latter collecting together bodily movement with broader notions of performativity as developed by Judith Butler.
As Gibbs (2001, p. 1) has powerfully argued, this is because [b]odies can catch
feelings as easily as catch re: affect leaps from one body to another, evoking tenderness, inciting shame, igniting fear (see also Deleuze 1992, p. 625). It is through
this sort of conceptualisation that we hope to remain mindful of the performativity
of language, whilst also taking the next logical step after Smiths (2006) well-cited
explanation that heritage is a social and cultural process, visceral and instinctive.
We do not wish to delve too deeply into the development of a theoretical vocabulary of affect (much has already been written elsewhere) but, in advocating an
understanding of heritage devised at the moment that we are doing it, we inevitably
nod to the particular rendition of affect that comes from Deleuzian-Spinozan developments within the humanities and social science (see Saldanha 2010). When put
together, this style of thinking conceives of a messier, complex world caught up in
a continuous process of composition (Thrift 2003, p. 2021). It takes particular
account of the precognitive and non-cognitive the intuitive, habitual and biological (Thrift 2009) as a basis for capturing and explaining that half-second delay
between action and conscious sensation (MacPherson 2010, p. 5). Affect, in this
theorization, is considered transpersonal, uid and mobile, and, importantly, always
inexpressible: unable to be brought into representation (Pile 2010, p. 8). Simply
put, this is because the skin is faster than the word (Massumi 2002, p. 25, cited in
McCormack 2003, p. 495).
From here, affect becomes something akin to atmosphere invisible but sensed
within and between our bodies, as feelings, and understood and expressed, as emotions: while the three (affect, feelings and emotion) are interrelated and all work
together, they are never quite the same (McCormack 2010, p. 643; see also Anderson 2006). While these three modalities may imply a focus on the individual, a far
stronger focus for this style of thinking lies with human interaction, and the boundaries that are afforded for such, within everyday life. Affect, then, plays a role in
the realisation of space every bit as much as it plays a role in the realisation of
identities and meanings. Thus, in the context of a museum exhibition or a heritage
landscape, both places that have been successfully theorised as those that produce,
556
sustain or transgress a range of sociocultural practices and beliefs, affectual and

embodied relations are also being formed and performed (after Holloway 2006).
Like our theories of frame, this is a grasp of the world guided by post-structuralist
thinking and coupled with a foregrounding of present moments, the now and all its
complexity. But there is care to be taken in this foray. For one, we do not want to
encourage a move towards the personal and every day at the expense of wider
analyses. Nor, for that matter, should a focus on affect mean an abandonment of
emotion and feeling. This is where our reading of affect seems to depart from the
work of Thrift and forges closer bonds with that of feminist scholars such as Thien
(2005) and Sharp (2009). Theirs is an account very much guided by a resistance to
what may be an unintentional, though very real, slippage towards an unmarked,
disembodied, but implicitly masculine subject (Jacobs and Nash 2003, p. 275; see
Tolia-Kelly 2006 for a similar discussion). Thien (2005), for example, worries that an
implicit binary is at work here, subtly prising apart a masculinised affect from a
feminised emotion. For Sharp (2009, p. 78), the issue is that bubbling beneath our
contemplation of the personal lies the risk of distraction away from other pertinent,
collective concerns and politics. Both are concerned by the push towards a
transhumant and distanced model, preferring instead that politics of position and the
politics of power remain central to enquiries. This is particularly important when the
focus of affect is seen to be embodied to the extent that it is a physiological rather than
a social phenomenon. Can we really encompass this within a theory that seeks to
explain social action, politics and the exercise of power? The inner states of affect
need a social context not just a subjective one, and thus this theory for heritage, for
our money at least, needs to remain connected with some of the theories of heritage.
In a similar vein, Tolia-Kellys concerns about ethnocentrism need also be
acknowledged, so that the reality of affect, however, we conceive of it, is
informed by and inected with power and social positioning. This debate is both
summarised and advanced in Crang and Tolia-Kellys (2010) account of the affective register of national identity and heritage sites, which charts the way that
embodied responses, feeling and sentiment, rather than the cognitivity of civic
knowledge production, are implicated in the inclusion and exclusion of people from
heritage experiences. The point here is that if the intuitive and the embodied are
theorised too loosely, inclined as they are towards an almost universalist conceptualisation of affect, then all bodies would appear to be the same, contextually and
historically western, occluding issues of marginalisation and difference (Lees and
Baxter 2011, p. 116). All too often, as Lorimer (2008) points out, people appear to
oat free, with no allowances made for imposed subject positions and attendant
capacities to affect and be affected. As a consequence, such approaches tend to
assume that the engaging body is that of a mobile citizen, freed of fear and concerns over racial and/or sexual attack and indeed, free of the chains of childcare,
work and the economic constraints to roam (Tolia-Kelly 2006). But the bodies that
visit and engage with heritage will never be undifferentiated. Rather, each body that
gets caught up in the networks of affect that circulate the eld will arrive, comingle
and depart carrying a range of burdens, including those linked to desire, expectation
and ability (Sharp 2009).
Working from a politics of affect, then, comes with an acknowledgement that
we cannot hope to capture heritage adequately by focusing solely upon its materiality or its discursive construction; nor, for that matter, will a kind of embodied
biological reductionism alone account for our engagements with it. What we have,
557
rather, is a theoretical approach that aims to undo the bracketing put together by
theories in and theories of, and extract the long-forgotten embodied, extradiscursive and non-cognitive or precognitive responses of a sort more easily drawn
from everyday experience and practice (Latham 2003, p. 2001).
A cautious conclusion
Our introduction felt resolute. When we began this we knew where we were going:
now we are less certain and more cautious. We strongly believe that our core principle is sustainable that theory ought not only be a prerequisite, but should be
informed by, and respectful of, its predecessors, some of which have been outlined
in this paper. But how to proceed from here? Cautiously, we think: but we know
what we want, which is to explore the possibility of using our frames to congure a
coherent basis for the development of what we call a critical imagination. Clearly,
there is a need to articulate what these varied theoretical positions enable heritage
studies to do. Do they, alone or in combination, raise new questions to be asked, or
do they provide new answers to existing questions? We believe that they do both,
and in so doing oblige us to reset the agenda for heritage research by recognising the
limitations of existing concepts and theorising, and by demanding that those who
research and write in the eld are clear about their theoretical antecedents, their disciplinary authorities and their intentions in drawing these matters to our attention.
Serious theory building needs to go somewhere; it needs to do something.
Clearly we have work to do, but what we can suggest is that there is value in each
of the frames outlined here, and that none is redundant. Furthermore, there may be
value in examining the ways in which they might combine, or the possibility that
theories in heritage might be revivied through the frame of theories for heritage.
Indeed, Knudson and Waade (2010) have already gone some way towards achieving this in their recent revisiting of authenticity in the light of emerging theory in
Re-investing authenticity: tourism, place and emotions. We also strongly suspect
that much might be gained from actively positioning representational with more- or
other-than-representational theory in order to examine the way that they might articulate theoretically and in practice (see Lorimer 2005). It may be, for example, that
there is a hitherto unexplored route from the non-representational to the representational and back again through a closer understanding of social practice and performativity, in a way that is analogous to a route from precognitive to cognitive
responses and from affect to the expression of emotion. All this remains to be seen,
but there is enough to suggest complementarities between these theoretical positions
rather than succession or competition.
So what can a critical imagination in heritage theory actually achieve? Well, in
spite of our already expressed caution, we are actually quite clear about this. A critical imagination in heritage will enable it to elucidate its cases, its examples of
things, and its material, social and cultural concerns from clearly articulated disciplinary bases that can be interrogated for what they offer to our understandings, not
just as shadowy and poorly delineated themes, but as nuanced and active thinking,
reective of both new ideas and established canon. Our theoretical scope should be
expanded, in order to take account of thinking in those disciplines that can provide
theories for heritage, and it should permit us to critically examine and re-examine
theories in and of heritage.
We noted at the outset that our ambition is limited and that we are not seeking
unifying theoretical narratives. What we did set out to nd is value in the touch
558
points, complementarities and correspondences between the array of concepts,

-turns, trends, sources and positions that now make up what has become a complex theoretical spectrum. We also suggested that an agenda might also be to decentre existing notions of heritage, and examine knowledge and sources of theory that
make it interesting and important in its contemporary cultural settings. Decentring
heritage might seem an odd thing to do in heritage studies, but we think there is
much to be gained not only from looking beyond its things, but also beyond its representations and the discourses that use it, to encompass other relationships it might
have with lived experience. The next step, therefore, is to use a broader range of
theory to rework the eld in a way that advances not only the study of heritage, but
the very nature of that enquiry itself, by reformulating our scope, looking beyond
our eld of study and reinvigorating our methods. This will give us an agenda and
the forward momentum we need to explore the meanings of heritage in its encounters and its moments of engagement, and to map its intensities in a wider cultural
world. This, for us, is the critical imagination in heritage studies.
Notes on contributors
Emma Watertons current research explores the interface between heritage, identity, memory
and affect, and a range of Australian heritage tourism sites. She is author of Politics, Policy
and the Discourses of Heritage in Britain (2010, Palgrave Macmillan) and is currently
writing a book, with Steve Watson, on the semiotics of heritage tourism.
Steve Watson researches and writes on representational practices in heritage and heritage
tourism, and explores the connections between these and the emotional and affective
dimensions in experiences of heritage in European contexts. His interest in Spanish travel
writing is concerned particularly with the affective and cognitive elements in the
construction of touristic imaginaries.
References
Amin, A. and Thrift, N., 2002. Cities: reimagining the urban. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Anderson, B., 2006. Becoming and being hopeful: towards a theory of affect. Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space, 24 (5), 733752.
Brenholdt, J.O., Haldrup, M., Larsen, J., and Urry, J., 2004. Performing tourist places.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bagnall, G., 2003. Performance and performativity at heritage sites. Museum and Society, 1
(2), 87103.
Berlant, L., 1997. The Queen of America goes to Washington City. Essays on sex and citizenship. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Blackman, L. and Venn, C., 2010. Affect. Body & Society, 16, 728.
Boorstin, D.J., 1962. The image: or, what happened to the American dream. New York, NY:
Atheneum.
Bruner, E., 1994. Abraham Lincoln as authentic reproduction. American Anthropologist, 96
(2), 397415.
Byrne, D., 2013. Gateway and garden: a kind of tourism in Bali. In: R. Staiff, R. Bushell,
and S. Watson, eds. Heritage and tourism: place, encounter, engagement. London:
Routledge.
Byrne, S., Clarke, A., Harrison, R., and Torrence, R., 2011. Networks, agents and objects:
frameworks for unpacking museum collections. In: S. Byrne, A. Clarke, R. Harrison and
R. Torrence, eds. Unpacking the collection: networks of material and social agency in
the museum. New York, NY: Springer, 328.
Callon, M., 1991. Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In: J. Law, ed. A sociology of
monsters: essays on power, technology and domination. London: Routledge, 132161.
559
Cohen, E., 1988. Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
15, 371386.
Coleman, S. and Crang, M., 2002. Grounded tourists, travelling theory. In: S. Coleman and
M. Crang, eds. Tourism: between place and performance. New York, NY: Berghahn
Books, 117.
Crang, M., 2011. Tourist: moving places, becoming tourist, becoming ethnographer. In: T.
Cresswell and P. Merriman, eds. Geographies of mobilities: practices, spaces, subjects.
Andover, MA: Ashgate, 205224.
Crang, M. and Tolia-Kelly, D., 2010. Nation, race and affect: senses and sensibilities at
national heritage sites. Environment and Planning A, 42 (10), 23152331.
Cromby, J., 2007. Towards a psychology of feeling. International Journal of Critical
Psychology, 21, 94118.
Crouch, D., 2012. Meaning, encounter and performativity: threads and moments of spacetimes in doing tourism. In: L Smith, E. Waterton and S. Watson, eds. The cultural
momemt in tourism. London: Routledge, 1937.
Crouch, D. and Lbbren, N., eds., 2003. Visual culture and tourism. Oxford: Berg.
Deleuze, G., 1992. Expressionism in philosophy: Spinoza. New York, NY: Zone Books.
Edensor, T., 2011. The rhythms of commuting. In: T. Cresswell and P. Merriman, eds.
Mobilities: practices, spaces, subjects. Aldershot: Ashgate, 189204.
Gibbs, A., 2001. Contagious feelings: Pauline Hanson and the epidemiology of affect. Australian Humanities Review [online]. Available from: http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/
archive/Issue-December-2001/gibbs.html [accessed 11 February 2012].
Gorton, K., 2007. Theorizing emotion and affect: feminist engagements. Feminist Theory, 8
(3), 333348.
Graham, B., Ashworth, G.J., and Tunbridge, J.E., 2000. A geography of heritage: power,
culture and economy. London: Arnold Hodder.
Gnzel, S., n.d. Immanence and deterritorialization: the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze and Flix
Guattari, [online] http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContGunz.htm [page consulted 18
December 2012].
Hall, S., 1997. The work of representation. In: S. Hall, ed. Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage, 1374.
Hall, C.M. and McArthur, S., 1998. Integrated heritage management. London: Stationary Ofce.
Harrison, D., ed., 1994. Manual of heritage management. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Harrison, R., 2011. Consuming colonialism: Curio dealers catalogues, souvenir objects and
Indigenous agency in Oceania. In: S. Bryne, A. Clarke, R. Harrison and R. Torrence,
eds. Unpacking the collection: networks of material and social agency in the museum.
New York, NY: Springer, 5582.
Harrison, R., 2012. Heritage: critical approaches. London: Routledge.
Harvey, D., 2001. Heritage pasts and heritage presents: temporality, meaning and the scope
of Heritage Studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7, 319338.
Hewison, R., 1987. The heritage industry: Britain in a climate of decline. London: Methuen.
Holloway, J., 2006. Enchanted spaces: the sance, affect and geographies of reason. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, 96 (1), 182187.
Hooper-Greenhill, E., 1995. Museum, media, message. London: Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E., 2000. Museums and the interpretation of visual culture. London:
Routledge.
Jacobs, J. and Nash, C., 2003. Too little, too much: cultural feminist geographies. Gender,
Place and Culture, 10, 265279.
Jhannesson, G.T. and Brenholdt, J.O., 2009. Actor-network theory/network geographies.
In: R. Kitchin and N. Thrift, eds. International encyclopaedia of human geography.
Oxford: Elsevier, 1519.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B., 1998. Destination culture: tourism, museums and heritage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Knudson, B.T. and Waade, A.M., eds., 2010. Re-investing authenticity: tourism, place and
emotions. Bristol: Channel View.
560
Koivunen, A., 2000. Preface: the affective turn? In: A. Koivunen and S. Paasonen, (eds).
Conference proceedings for affective encounters: rethinking embodiment in feminist
media studies. Turku: University of Turku, School of Art, Literature and Music, Media
Studies, Series A, No. 49.
Labadi, S., 2010. World heritage, authenticity and post-auhenticity, international and national
perspectives. In: S. Labadi and C. Long, eds. Heritage and globalization. London:
Routledge, 6684.
Latham, A., 2003. Research, performance, and doing human geography: some reections on
the diary-photograph, diary-interview method. Environment and Planning A, 35, 1993
2017.
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Law, J., ed., 1986. Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Leask, A., and Yeoman, I., (eds)., 1999. Heritage visitor attractions: an operations management perspective. London: Thompson.
Leavitt, J., 1996. Meaning and feeling in the anthropology of emotions. American
Ethnologist, 23 (3), 514539.
Lees, L. and Baxter, R., 2011. A building event of fear: thinking through the geography of
architecture. Social and Cultural Geography, 12 (2), 107122.
Lefebvre, H., 2004. Rythmanalaysis: space, time and everyday life. London: Continuum.
Littler, J. and Naidoo, R., eds., 2005. The politics of heritage: the legacies of race. London: Routledge.
Lorimer, H., 2005. Cultural geography: the busyness of being more than representational.
Progress in Human Geography, 29, 8394.
Lorimer, H., 2008. Cultural geography: non-representational conditions and concerns.
Progress in Human Geography, 32, 551559.
Lowenthal, D., 1985. The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lowenthal, D., 1998. The heritage crusade and the spoils of history. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
MacCannell, D., 1973. Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in social settings.
American Journal of Sociology, 79 (3), 589603.
MacCannell, D., 1976. The tourist: a new theory of the leisure class. New York, NY:
Schocken.
Macdonald, S., 2009. Difcult heritage: negotiating the Nazi Past in Nuremberg and
beyond. London: Routledge.
MacPherson, H., 2010. Non-representational approaches to body-landscape relations.
Geography Compass, 4 (1), 113.
Manning, E., 2010. Always more than one: the collectivity of a life. Body & Society, 16,
117127.
Massumi, B., 2002. Parables of the Virtual: movement, affect, sensation. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
McCormack, D., 2003. An event of geographical ethics in spaces of affect. Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers, 28 (4), 488507.
McCormack, D., 2010. Remotely sensing affective afterlives: the spectral geographies of
material remains. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100 (3), 640
654.
McKercher, B., and du Cros, H., 2002. Cultural tourism: the partnership between tourism
and cultural heritage management. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Hospitality Press.
Moore, K., ed., 1994. Museum management. London: Routledge.
Nicholson, L., 1999. The play of reason. From the modern to the postmodern. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Papoulias, C. and Callard, F., 2010. Biologys gift: interrogating the turn to affect. Body &
Society, 16, 2956.
Pile, S., 2010. Emotions and affect in recent human geography. Transactions of the Institute
of British Geographers, 31 (1), 510.
Reisinger, Y. and Steiner, C., 2006. Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of Tourism
Research, 33 (1), 6586.
561
Saldanha, A., 2010. Skin, affect, aggregation: Guattarian variations on Fanon. Environment
and Planning A, 42, 42104227.
Samuel, R., 1994. Theatres of memory. London: Verso.
Schirato, T. and Webb, J., 2004. Understanding the visual. London: Sage Publications.
Shackley, M., 2001. Managing sacred sites. Padstow: Thompson.
Sharp, J., 2009. Geography and gender: what belongs to feminist geography? Emotion,
power and change. Progress in Human Geography, 33 (1), 7480.
Sheller, M., 2011. Cosmopolitanism and mobilities. In: M. Nowicka and M. Rovisco, eds.
The Ashgate research companion to cosmopolitanism. Aldershot: Ashgate, 561589.
Sheller, M. and Urry, J., 2004. Tourism mobilities: places to play, places in play. London:
Routledge.
Smith, L., 2006. Uses of heritage. London: Routledge.
Smith, L., 2011. Affect and registers of engagement: navigating emotional responses to dissonant heritage. In: L. Smith, G. Cubitt, R. Wilson, and K. Fouseki, eds. Representing
enslavement and abolition in museums: ambiguous engagements. London: Routledge,
260303.
Smith, L. and Waterton, E., 2009. Heritage, communities and archaeology. London:
Duckworth.
Swarbrooke, J., 1995. The development and management of visitor attractions. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Thien, D., 2005. After or beyond feeling? A consideration of affect and emotion in
geography. Area, 37, 450456.
Thrift, N., 2003. Performance and Environment and Planning A, 35, 20192024.
Thrift, N., 2009. Understanding the affective spaces of political performance. In: L. Bondi,
L. Cameron, J. Davidson, and M. Smith, eds. Emotion, place and culture. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Ticineto Clough, P., 2010. Afterword: the future of affect studies. Body & Society, 16, 222
230.
Tilden, F., 1957. Interpreting our heritage. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina
Press.
Tolia-Kelly, D., 2006. Affect an ethnocentric encounter? Exploring the universalist imperative of emotional/affectual geographies. Area, 38 (2), 213217.
Uzzell, D., 1998. Interpreting our heritage: a theoretical interpretation. In: D. Uzzell and
R. Ballantyne, eds. Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation.
London: The Stationary Ofce, 1125.
Van der Duim, R., Ren, C., and Jhannesson, G.T., 2012. Actor-network theory and tourism:
ordering, materiality and multiplicity. London: Routledge.
Wang, N., 1999. Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research,
26 (2), 349370.
Waterton, E., 2005. Whose sense of place? Reconciling archaeological perspectives with
community values: cultural landscapes in England. International Journal of Heritage
Studies, 11, 309326.
Waterton, E., 2009. Sights of sites: picturing heritage, power and exclusion. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 4, 3756.
Waterton, E., 2010. Branding the past: the visual imagery of Englands heritage. In:
E. Waterton and S. Watson, eds. Culture, heritage and representations: perspectives on
visuality and the past. Aldershot: Ashgate, 155172.
Waterton, E., 2013. Heritage tourism and its representations. In: R. Staiff, S. Watson, and R.
Bushell, eds. Heritage tourists in dialogue. London: Routledge, 6484.
Waterton, E. and Watson, S., eds., 2011. Heritage and community engagement: collaboration
or contestation? London: Routledge.
Watson, S. and Waterton, E., 2010. Reading the visual: representation and narrative in the
construction of heritage. Material Culture Review, 71, 8497.
Woodward, K., 1996. Global cooling and academic warming: long-term shifts in emotional
weather. American Literary History, 8 (4), 759779.
Wright, P., 1985. On Living in an old country: the national past in contemporary Britain.
London: Verso.

Framing Theory Towards A Critical Imagination in Heritage Studies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Framing Theory Towards A Critical Imagination in Heritage Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Heritage Studies

ISSN: 1352-7258 (Print) 1470-3610 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20