Discussion: Inclusivity in historical interpretation: Who has access and who is erased?

Abstract

The discussion of ‘authenticity’ in living history has been one of the main themes since the conception of contemporary historical interpretation. Our quest for authenticity should, in my opinion start with a thoughtful discussion: What goal do we want to reach through living history? What does ‘authenticity’ mean in living history? And, in which context does ‘authenticity’ matter? We need to have frank conversations about this. Do we consider historical interpretation an academic endeavour? Or a set of phenomenological experiences through which we can gain a deeper understanding of the past? In which case we should be very critical why people are included or excluded. Does skin colour really matter when experimenting with historical baking techniques? Or why am I, an able-bodied white woman, not questioned about my place in the community when my height (around 1.85 m) would be an extreme statistical anomaly. Historical interpretation is, on one hand, a mental exercise, consisting of a phenomenological experiment, where striving for inclusiveness will add to our understanding of the past. On the other hand, there is the educational context, where we use visual shorthand to convey information. Here a tension arises; we should not discriminate our interpreters based on sex, ethnicity or disability, however, historically speaking they might not have been present or equally present in the situations we are showing. This brings us to a difficult position. These are themes we need to question together; the answer will vary per individual, institution, marginalised group, and the specific context. (by Vera Bos). Moderator: Jess Sha