Historical Narrative, an Effective Niche

Storytelling has always been an essential way for cultures to keep their unique memories and to maintain their identities. Human experience is both contained in, and disseminated by, the creation and maintenance of narrative. Though western written histories have been widely regarded as the most academically valid (and therefore the only “acceptable”) form of narrative in modern cultural memory-keeping, as the people of the global majority sieze opportunities to speak for themselves, oral traditions and other ways of maintaining identity and making a resurgence into the mass consciousness. In the age of social media dominance, storytelling has taken on new life, and has regained a more prominent role in social interaction. Cultural heritage sites have always been uniquely positioned to capitalize on this resurgence- not just through harnessing new technologies, but more importantly, through reminding their audiences and stakeholders that they as individuals are the repositories of memory for their communities – and for the human condition at large. Cultural heritage organizations are especially equipped to connect these lofty ideals to the everyday experiences of the people with whom they interact.

Creating effective narratives is essential for a cultural institution. Whether the aim is to effectively serve the community through allyship or representation, or the aim is to tell the organization’s own story, well-crafted narrative is the bridge between the individual and the collective. Narratives that are inwardly-focused are often crafted in support of an organization’s work through strategic planning or pursuance of funding and sponsorship, while those that are created for audience interpretation can determine the success or failure of an institution to serve its mission and constituency.

Collective memory and the stories that groups use to maintain identities do not exist in a vacuum; therefore narrative creation should never occur in isolation, or without collaboration. Whether the story being curated and shared relates to the inner workings of an institution, or whether it is an interpretive effort created for the public, multiple stakeholder voices must be considered, included, and uplifted. While I believe that certain voices with particular expertise or lived experience should carry more weight on a case-by-case basis, it should be a rare occurrence for a single voice to dominate any story’s creation process.

At my core, I am a storyteller. My niche is facilitating the creation of meaningful, impactful narratives that allow audiences to explore on a personal level. In other words, narrative formation is a translation tool-it is the bridge that connects institutions with people, and individuals with one another, through clear and concise language. My work over the past thirteen years has centered on collecting and sharing different varieties of narrative to serve multiple missions. Sometimes, the stories have been directly experienced through programming, including specialty themed tours at historic sites, new K-12 education field trip programs, and adult education programs. I have also had the opportunity to help shape a more wide-ranging or high-level vision for an organization, as a member of a strategic planning committee, or as the team leader in creating an Interpretive Master Plan, beginning with the audience feedback and research phase.

It is my joy and purpose to work at coalescing and creating narratives that serve both the internal organizational aims of an institution as well as their outward-facing, community-oriented interpretive efforts, in a digital age where complex and inclusive stories are more important than ever. Though he was writing in a less-inclusive time, many of Freeman Tilden’s principles for interpretation can continue to be adopted and adapted in a discipline that is increasingly (if belatedly) diversity-focused. The industry has necessarily expanded and evolved, but Tilden’s succinct expression from his seminal work Interpreting our Heritage (1957) remains relevant. Namely, “The story’s the thing!”*

*The most critical piece examining Tilden’s work in recent years comes from Dr. Anne Mitchell Whisnant, formerly a consultant to the National Park Service. While I find many of her ideas valid, I disagree with her fundamental argument that Tilden’s writing is fixed (much like her direct criticism of Tilden’s first principle) and immovable, unable to be interpreted and adapted outside of the place and time in which it was written. Rather, I find Tilden’s ideas far more fluid and adaptable to current progressive interpretation efforts, and I believe there is a way to continue to use his principles with continually complex and diversifying narratives by evolving the principles as we use them. At times I feel Whisnant falls victim to the fallacy of counting only particular sources or interpretive methods as academically valid, rather than acknowledging other ways of knowing, remembering, and sharing as equally valid. In sum, I agree that Tilden cannot be venerated as he was in the past – without question or adaptation – but too I believe that his work is not entirely useless. The book still contributes relevant principles and techniques to the interpretive efforts of organizations and individuals, with some adaptation. https://interpretingourheritage.com/case-statements/anne-mitchell-whisnant-case-statement/