Defining, Constructing, and Communicating Heritage at a "Living History" Museum: The Case of the Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village
The Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village, an open‐air, living history museum, provides a case study of how heritage is defined and presented. Drawing on David Lowenthal’s conception as heritage as a social construction and Diane Barthel’s idea of “symbolic bankers”, this paper explores how the Villag...
| Published in: | Inquiry@Queen's Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
Queen's University
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/inquiryatqueens/article/view/7188 |
| Summary: | The Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village, an open‐air, living history museum, provides a case study of how heritage is defined and presented. Drawing on David Lowenthal’s conception as heritage as a social construction and Diane Barthel’s idea of “symbolic bankers”, this paper explores how the Village has defined heritage and who has been involved in its definition. This paper will argue that the Village uses heritage to promote the cultural identity of the Ukrainian community while simultaneously strengthening Albertan pride and ‘nationalism’ through recognizing diversity and multiculturalism, but excludes the heritages of First Nations peoples and the other settler nations. The paper then evaluates the effectiveness of the Village’s attempts to portray history and communicate heritage considering the first‐person method of interpretation used and the involvement of the Alberta Government. The paper finds that the limitations of first‐person interpretation and the economic goals of the Alberta Government have led the Village to a position where it risks the trivialization of Ukrainian cultural meanings and the simplification and sanitization of Alberta’s historical narrative. |
|---|