I'm British- Historic Enviroment Professional view

[BAJR Host]

by Kenneth Aitchison, Head of Professional Development at the Institute of Field Archaeologists.

He writes here in a personal capacity.

Gordon Brown likes to talk about “Britishness” and its importance in contemporary society. His interest in Britishness is very definitely not founded on chauvinistic beliefs that British people are in some way privileged and unique, or that we are better than others, but in that it can support the one identity that everyone living in or connected to this country shares.........

read on here

http://kenny.aitchison.typepad.com/kenny...itish.html


So what do people think? Is he right ... and what does it mean or matter.

Do we increase and expand our views... and as he says

"We are moving on from the days when we presented ourselves to the rest of the world as being petty and divided, preciously fighting turf wars over matters that were of no consequence to anyone outside our charmed circles – although, for now, there are still some that will not participate, and choose to follow their own, non-participatory paths. These self-centred and self-serving individuals will find themselves increasingly sidelined and irrelevant as our professional structures transform, update and evolve to address the needs of our workplaces and of ensuring the public benefits from our work."

Who is being described as "self-centred and self-serving individuals " I would love to know, as only by knowing can this be discussed.

I agree that we have to see the wider picture, to cooperate and combine strengths rather than bicker and let personal feuds impact on professional integrity... Gawd forbid that institutions would let individuals views stand in the way of forward thinking and committed change, and it would be wrong to see a group or groups misuse identity to further their own petty fiefdoms. Individuality is part of Britishness however, so perhaps a cooperation between individuals and groups is the best way forward indeed. A bit like the IFA and CBA (big groups) working with BAJR (individuals) all playing on strengths, and supporting each other as best they can, to give a true sense of Britishness and inclusion.

Any thought?

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Real Job]

This is rather a worrying (albeit muddled and contradictory) piece. Kenny's central idea is that "Our work is ultimately for the public benefit..." and that this means that 'we' should cease from being "disinterested technicians", by promoting the idea of... well, yes, the idea of what exactly??? Some kind of shared identity, er, but not nationalistic...er, er...

The idea that a "shared British identity" can be meaningfully distinguished from 'chauvanistic beliefs' or 'patriotism' as Kenny claims is problematic. The shared sense of community he referes to is based on the nation state and will end up reinforcing the idea of the nation state. In the face of escalating warfare and global warming, I'm not sure that a greater support for nation states is a positive thing.

Even if it can, is it right to promote such a thing? It is certainly arguable that what is needed in Britain today is less focus on supposedly shared values, and more focus on the ever-widening gap between rich and poor. Unless we recognize such a division, its hard to do anything about it, which is why nationalism has been traditionally promoted by the Right and eschewed by socialists, anarchists and others on the Left.

I'm surprised an archaeologist of Kenny's standing should so easily re-hash this (New Labour?) 'sense of community' stuff, when, once you get past the "Oh, what a pretty cathedral"-stage, a glance at our 'shared' heritage reveals so much division: roundhouses versus villa, hovels versus castle, slave ships and workhouses versus mansion. Oh, and the trenches at Ypres. Which of these exactly "has the potential to strengthen the sense of community", Kenny?

In short, Kenny is asking all of us to intervene politically in the way that HE thinks is best. Whats especially sinister is the way in which - lest we forget - a senior member of the IFA is willing to tar all those of us who feel uncomfortable about his vision as "self-centred and self-serving individuals". Sound rather Stalinist, that... to the gulags with them!!

[BAJR Host]

As Stalin says....
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."

and

"Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."




It would be interesting to see ideas of the Heritage Profession and how they have changed over 20 years through Thatcherite and Blairite and now Brownian political philosophy.

Am I Scottish or British.. and what defines me? My individualistic sense of past or a shared past defined by those who know best?

This is an interesting debate to have.... and it may be good that Kenny has opened it.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[BAJR Host]

Any other thoughts people...

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[drpeterwardle]

I am not actually sure what Kenneth Aitchinsin is driving at with statements such as

"although, for now, there are still some that will not participate, and choose to follow their own, non-participatory paths. These self-centred and self-serving individuals will find themselves increasingly sidelined and irrelevant as our professional structures transform".

Similarly he talks about the historic environment being a fragile and finite resource while this is true about archaeological remains it is certainly not the case when considering the historic environment as a whole. For example take conservation areas - they are growing in both numbers and size. The definition of a conservation area is also evolving as each one is preserved and enhanced as pleasant places.

As for the notion of being British, Scottish, a Fifer and a Raith Rovers fan I am not sure what he is driving at. Stark's Park holds 10,000 people and there are only 400 season ticket holders.

Gordon Brown’s Britishness speech made to the Fabian Society I think was actually saying that we don’t have an identity of British but in fact we need one and hence a British national holiday. He was suggesting that there was nothing wrong with Patriotism. His speech suggests that Britishness is about fair play, freedom and citizenship with responsibilities.

He argues that voluntary civic duties are a key part of Britishness which he would like to promote. He wants history taught as a narrative not dates and facts. Good.

He argues that “For two centuries Britain was defined to the world by its proliferation of local clubs, associations, societies and endeavours - from churches and trades unions to municipal initiatives and friendly societies.” He followed a similar theme at the party conference when he also said:
As the Scotsman put it:

“Tracing his journey from Kirkcaldy's schools to Edinburgh University, he recalled the schoolmates who did not accompany him, not for want of talent but for lack of money and aspiration. "The reason I am here - the real reason I am here - is that I want their children and their grandchildren, whom I also represent, to have all the chances that were not available to my school friends when we were growing up," he declared.”

That statement had a resonance with me till I thought about what he was actually saying. It was certainly true in the 1930s but was it actually true in 1969 when Gordon Brown went to University. I can accept that a small percentage of the pupils at this School went to university- but this was the time of golden opportunity with good state grants being available.

I am also not sure how history will help reduce social division, as Kenny suggests, in places like the Lang Toun where 15% of the households have incomes of less than UKP100 per week. A far cry from the 1980s when the town still had a pit and was prosperous or the 1960s when Gordon Brown was at School. This was an era when miners could afford 4 bedroom houses.

In the case of Kirkcaldy recent history will divide people when they remember the miners strike and the shutting of a profitable pit by a distant government in London in 1987. A pit that was to have employed 2500 men for 150 years.

Up the road in Burntisland the ship yard was doing well until they were constructing the Ohrmazd paid for by the British Government as aid for Pakistan. The specifications were changed and the ship was late which caused the yard to lose money and then it went into liquidation. Again a remote government in London was to blame.

Then there is the issue of the oil…..

The area does now, of course, have call centres and heritage, for example from the Heritage Trust’s website: - "responsible for the search for King Charles I's baggage ferry, the 'Blessing', which sank off Burntisland in 1633. There is a special website devoted to this fascinating treasure hunt” …

http://www.kingcharles-wrex.co.uk/history.htm

Kenny tells us to stop being impartial – the inference being we should produce biased narratives from a specific political perspective. This is a slippery slope. He also says that:

“increasing our shared ability to influence and support politics, policy and social change.”

The inference is that we are not an academic discipline particularly not a scientific one and in fact we are an environmental political movement.

So on balance I disagree with what Kenny and Gordon Brown are saying. Freedom of thought and action are very much part of Britishness.

I think what I rebel against most of all is the notion that I must remember that ultimately I work for the public benefit stewarding change. Personally I work to earn money – I am a professional. As I think more about this article I think it is moral high ground simplicity. The Historic Environment has a real value. It has a monetary value as evidenced by increased house prices in conservation areas.

Ultimately is there anything wrong with protecting the historic environment not for some altruistic or sentimental reason but in order to make money?



Dr Peter Wardle

Gordon Brown speech to the Fabian society can be found on;

http://fabians.org.uk/events/new-year-co...ess/speech

Kirkcaldy is the town in “Fife, Scotland, the UK, Europe, The World, The Universe” that Gordon Brown grew up in and now represents. Gordon Brown supports the Local Football Team Raith Rovers.

[John Walford]

I am struck by an irony in all this waffle. Mr Aitchison would have us believe that archaeologists should be helping to strengthen a sense of place, thus rooting and uniting communities. Yet how often are field archaeologists themselves actually able to live long term as part of a community, and develop roots in one place? My job has taken me backwards and forwards across the country over the past few years and the luxury of settling down somewhere with a secure, long term post remains a pipe dream at present.

"Hidden wisdom and buried treasure, what use is there in either?" (Ecclesiasticus ch20 v30)

[BAJR Host]

I may ask Kenny to comment on this article... perhaps he would be wiling to discuss it?

This would be one for the IFA as well.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Paul Belford]

I feel that Peter Wardle has missed the point of Kenny's piece completely, which, in Kenny's own words, is a discussion of how the "historic environment has the potential to strengthen the sense of community and provide a solid basis for neighbourhood renewal".

I don't wish to be drawn into the specifics of Peter's points about various locales in Scotland, but I would like to take issue with two of the general comments he makes.

Firstly Peter says that "he (Kenny) talks about the historic environment being a fragile and finite resource while this is true about archaeological remains it is certainly not the case when considering the historic environment as a whole"

Well to begin with I would suggest that many standing buildings are particularly vulnerable to destruction, especially those that are not listed or otherwise protected by statutory mechanisms. Smaller, vernacular buildings, and buildings of the last 100 years or so, are particularly vulnerable. Once gone, they are lost forever. Landscapes too are under continuous threat, regardless of the presence or absence of Conservation Area legislation. And, incidentally, how do you 'enhance' a conservation area? - by putting up new railings, hanging baskets, so-called traffic calming, imitation cobblestones, etc. etc. - thereby destroying the very ambience you are trying to preserve! Even small changes, like new street lighting or road signage, uPVC double glazing, television aerials and so-on, can be quite detrimental to the sense of place.

Secondly, and, more worryingly, is Peter's assertion that he "work(s) to earn money – I am a professional." Frankly, I call your bluff! If money was your sole motivation for working then you would not have chosen to be an historic environment professional. Somewhere along the line you developed an interest in "the past" and decided to pursue it. Otherwise you might be working for an oil company, or in the financial markets at the Stock Exchange. If you are truly a professional then the acquisition of money shouldn't be your only objective (regardless of your specialism - be it law, architecture or forestry). I find particularly offensive the implication in this remark that you can only be a professional if you are in it for the money. Many of our colleagues working for local or central government, for example, are thoroughly professional and are certainly not in it for the money.

Peter has failed to understand the concept of value. Yes, the value of the historic environment can be measured in financial terms. But to measure it [u]only</u> in financial terms is completely wrong. When he asks...

"Ultimately is there anything wrong with protecting the historic environment not for some altruistic or sentimental reason but in order to make money?"

...my answer would be "yes", if your only motive, your sole motive, is to make money. This is not to say that making money is wrong. Certainly money can be made through protecting the historic environment, and in fact large parts of our historic environment [u]can only be preserved</u> by ensuring that they do in fact make money themselves (for example the conversion of former textile mills to apartment housing or other economically viable uses).

But there will always be some elements of the environment (historic or otherwise) that have no monetary or financial value but do have social and cultural values which are equally important. And which society as a whole agrees are worth preserving. Why, for instance, don't we pave over Hyde Park and turn it into housing? Because its value as an aesthetic, social, cultural and environmental amenity far outweighs any amount of money that could be made from selling it off. As taxpayers we agree to support the work of English Heritage. As individuals we may chose to join the National Trust. We may disagree with the Common Agricultural Policy for many reasons, but we can acknowledge that subsidy of farming in upland areas (for example) has retained historic landscapes and ways of life which enrich us all and provide that important sense of place.

Ultimately, Peter's position seems to lead us towards a place that I certainly don't want Britain to become.

[Chris Jones]

This thread appears to have highlighted the diversity among the archaeological profession. It is a good debate to have with regard to how the historic environment contributes to identity and a sense of place, as we rationalise our argument for conserving and enhancing the past. There is also the distinction between making money and the right to earn a living. If you want to make money, then you have that right, but I also have the right to express the opinion that I find it morally wrong to try and make money out of any conservation based profession. The right to earn a living and stable employment .... that is entirely different and a fundamental right for all. I think all archaeologists are in theory contributing to conserving and enhancing the historic environment, whoever they work for. It's all about backing up our fundamentally held beliefs that the historic environment is worth looking after, in the short and long term.

[drpeterwardle]

To answer a few points:

The point I make it that archaeologists seem to regard Historic Environment and Archaeology as meaning the same thing. Archaeology is but one component of the Historic Environment. To my mind using the opening statement of PPG16 "fragile and finite" to cover the whole HE is misleading.

For example "And, incidentally, how do you 'enhance' a conservation area? -

A very basic quesation for a HE professional it is the basis for permission to be granted in a conservation area. I take the point about preserving the historic integrity of a place.

"hanging baskets" are a good example of what most would see as an enhacement but most conservation officers would not.

However modern conservation is not about fossilisation.

Ok so if we say all old buildings are part of the historic environment we have to ask how old do they have to be? 1 year, 10 years, 30 years? So in fact houses I help build 35 years ago in 1973 are eligble for listing. But whatever the cut off date the historic environment is increasing in size. This is not to say some elements are not under threat or are being lost far from it. (This is something I discussed at the BAJR conference).

Pauls says
"Frankly, I call your bluff! If money was your sole motivation for working then you would not have chosen to be an historic environment professional. Somewhere along the line you developed an interest in "the past" and decided to pursue it. Otherwise you might be working for an oil company, or in the financial markets at the Stock Exchange."

Funnily enough I earnt more on MSC schemes as a new graduate than I would have done working for an oil company which was my career alternative. I have also worked in the City and in IT.

The job I do now is not one anybody would do for the love of it.

There is no doubt that the HE does contribute to a sense of place - but this is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is how the historic environment and history contribute to a sense of Britishness.

So for example are there building types which are recognisably British? There are some which are the same throughout the UK such as railway stations, pill boxes and other structures of the modern era. There is also Georgian Town Houses especially those designed by another famous son of Kirkcaldy Robert Adam.