EMOTIONAL HERITAGE

Emotional Heritage brings the issues of affect and power in the theorisation of
heritage to the fore, whilst also highlighting the affective and political consequences
of heritage-making.
Drawing on interviews with visitors to museums and heritage sites in the
United States, Australia and England, Smith argues that obtaining insights into
how visitors use such sites enables us to understand the impact and consequences
of professional heritage and museological practices. The concept of registers of
engagement is introduced to assess variations in how visitors use museums and
sites that address national or dissonant histories and the political consequences of
their use. Visitors are revealed as agents in the roles cultural institutions play in
maintaining or challenging the political and social status quo. Heritage is, Smith
argues, about people and their social situatedness and the meaning they, alongside
or in concert with cultural institutions, make and mobilise to help them address
social problems and expressions of identity and sense of place in and for the present.
Academics, students and practitioners interested in theories of power and affect
in museums and heritage sites will find Emotional Heritage to be an invaluable
resource. Helping professionals to understand the potential impact of their practice,
the book also provides insights into the role visitors play in the interplay between
heritage and politics.

Laurajane Smith is Director of the Centre for Heritage and Museum Studies,
at the Australian National University, Canberra. She is Founding President of the
Association of Critical Heritage Studies, the editor of the International Journal of
Heritage Studies, the cogeneral editor of Routledge’s Key Issues in Cultural Heritage
and is best known for her previous book Uses of Heritage (2006, Routledge).
EMOTIONAL HERITAGE
Visitor Engagement at Museums
and Heritage Sites

Laurajane Smith
First published 2021
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2021 Laurajane Smith
The right of Laurajane Smith to be identified as author of this work
has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Smith, Laurajane, author.
Title: Emotional heritage : visitor engagement at museums and heritage
sites / Laurajane Smith.
Other titles:Visitor engagement at museums and heritage sites
Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2020. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020010318 (print) | LCCN 2020010319 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781138888647 (hbk) | ISBN 9781138888654 (pbk) |
ISBN 9781315713274 (ebk)
Subjects: LCSH: Museums—Psychological aspects. | Cultural property—
Psychological aspects. | Historic sites—Psychological aspects. |
Museum visitors—Interviews. | Museums—Political aspects. | Cultural
property—Political aspects. | Historic sites—Political aspects. |
Museums—Social aspects. | Cultural property—Social aspects. | Historic
sites—Social aspects.
Classification: LCC AM7 .S635 2020 (print) | LCC AM7 (ebook) | DDC
069—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020010318
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020010319
ISBN: 978-1-138-88864-7 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-88865-4 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-71327-4 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
ALISON DRAKE, MBE, MA
1950 –2019
CONTENTS

List of figuresix
List of tablesx
Acknowledgementsxi
List of abbreviations xiii

Introduction 1

PART I
Heritage, politics and emotion 17

1 Critical realist heritage studies: agency, reflexivity and

materiality19

2 Reconsidering heritage and identity: the politics of

recognition and the affective practices of heritage 38

3 Registers of engagement 62

PART II
Methods and quantitative findings 83

4 Methods 85

5 Overall findings and national comparisons 111

viii Contents

6 Genres of museums and heritage sites: comparisons 141

7 Demographic variables and visitor responses 161

PART III
Emotional heritage: themes and performances 175

8 Reassessing learning: changing views and deepening

understanding177

9 Performing reinforcement and affirmation: ‘it just

reinforces a lot of the stuff I think’ 196

10 Emotional banality and heritage-making: the banality of

grandiloquence revisited 218

11 Intergenerational communication and connection 240

12 Heritage and the politics of recognition 259

13 Heritage, privilege and the politics of misrecogntion 285

Conclusion 304

References311
Index331
FIGURES

8.1 Visitors engaging with the interview interactive in the Getting

In exhibition, Immigration Museum, Melbourne 190
9.1 Bronze statue of a stockman, titled ‘The Ringer’, with saddle
over shoulder and bridle in hand outside of the Stockman’s
Hall of Fame, Longreach, Queensland 204
12.1 Montpelier train station, James Madison’s Montpelier, restored
to the period of segregation 277
13.1 James Madison’s Montpelier, with the wooden frames of the
slave quarters 291
TABLES

4.1 Sites in England: genre, numbers interviewed and year of

interviews88
4.2 Sites in Australia and the United States: genre, numbers
interviewed and year of interviews 92
5.1 Visitor occupations per nation 113
5.2 Visitor ethnicity and overseas tourist frequencies per nation 114
5.3 Reasons for visiting 117
5.4 What does the word ‘heritage’ mean? 118
5.5 Whose history or heritage are you visiting here? 122
5.6 Are you part of the history represented here? 122
5.7 Is there any aspect of your personal identity to which this
exhibition speaks to or links? 124
5.8 How does it make you feel to visit this place? 125
5.9 What experiences do you value on visiting this place? 128
5.10 What does being here mean to you? 129
5.11 Are there any messages about the heritage or history of
Australia/America/England that you take away from this place? 131
5.12 What meaning, if any, does an exhibition like this have for
contemporary Australia/America/England? 135
5.13 Is there anything you have read/seen/heard today that has
changed your views on the past or the present? 136
6.1 Visitor ethnicity and overseas tourist frequencies per genre 143
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are literally thousands of people to thank. I am most grateful to all the 4,502
people who generously stopped and allowed one of the members of the various
research teams or myself to interview them. I am also grateful to the directors of the 45
institutions (see Chapter 4) that allowed me to survey their visitors and to the
staff who agreed to be interviewed. The Australian Research Council funded the
Australian and American phase of the project (FT0992071); the Research School
of Humanities and the Arts, the Australian National University, provided fund-
ing to transcribe interviews. The English data was variously funded by the Arts
and Humanities Research Council, Knowledge Transfer Fellowship (1807 Com-
memorated), the British Academy and the University of York. I want to thank the
members of the 1807 Commemorated project, in particular, Geoff Cubitt, Kalliopi
Fouseki and Ross Wilson. The majority of the interview transcriptions was done
by Pam Ward, although Kalliopi Fouseki and Ross Wilson transcribed the ‘1807
Commemorated’ material.
Thank you also to those who read drafts of various chapters, in particular, Alex-
andra Dellios, Scott Poynting, Kate Bowan, Paul Pickering, Rachael Coghlan and
Diana James, and of course, any errors are my responsibility. Drafts of many of the
chapters have been delivered at numerous seminars and conferences around the
globe, and I thank the audiences of these for their feedback. The long-suffering
people at Routledge and, in particular, Heidi Lowther, Katie Wakelin and Molly
Marler dealt so understandingly with the lengthy delays to this book. Thank you,
Bruce Pennay, for your support and encouragement.
I am, as always, indebted to Gary Campbell. Gary has had input into this project
from the very start, helping to develop the interview schedule, undertaking inter-
views and working as my coding companion in the various mammoth stages of
xii Acknowledgements

coding and recoding of the data. He has critically read various drafts and discussed
ideas and concepts with me. Without his support and input, this book would most
certainly not have been written.
Finally, this book is dedicated to the memory of Alison Drake, teacher, activist,
inspiration, a force of nature and friend.
ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations used as prefixes to visitor interviews:

AWM Australian War Memorial, Canberra

BECM Breaking the Chains, British Empire and Commonwealth Museum,
Bristol
BC Burton Constable, historic house, England
BH Brodsworth Hall, England
BM Inhuman Traffic:The Business of the Slave Trade, British Museum
BMAG Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery
CH Country House study, 2004
EI Ellis Island, New York City
F The Star-Spangled Banner: The Flag That Inspired the National Anthem,
National Museum of American History
H Hermitage, Tennessee
HH Harewood House
IL Youngstown Historical Center of Industry and Labour, Ohio
IMM Immigration Museum, Melbourne
ISM International Slavery Museum, Liverpool
JANM Japanese American National History Museum in Los Angeles
JMM James Madison’s Montpellier,Virginia
LH Lanyon Homestead, Australian Capital Territory
LR Stockman’s Hall of Fame & Outback Heritage Centre, Longreach,
Queensland
MADE Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka
MK Mt Kembla Heritage Centre
MLD London, Sugar and Slavery, Museum of London Docklands
NCM National Coal Mining Museum, Wakefield, England
NCRM National Civil Rights Museum, Memphis, Tennessee
xiv Abbreviations

NCWHM National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum, Oklahoma City

NHM Nordic Heritage Museum, Seattle
NMA First Australians Gallery, National Museum of Australia
NMM National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London
OMG Old Melbourne Gaol, Australia
PM Mashantucket Pequot Museum, Connecticut
RH Rouse Hill House and Farm, Sydney
RS Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, Pittsburgh
SJM Slavery at Jefferson’s Monticello: Paradox of Liberty, National Museum of
American History
TM The Lower East Side Tenement Museum, New York City
TN Temple Newsam, historic house, England
TP Tolpuddle Martyrs Museum, Dorchester
U Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park
VH Vaucluse House, Sydney
W The Price of Freedom: Americans at War, National Museum of American
History
WC Museum of Work and Culture, Woonsocket Rhode Island
WH Wilberforce House
Y Yellowstone National Park

Additional Abbreviations
AHD Authorised Heritage Discourse
NMAH National Museum of American History
RoE Registers of Engagement
INTRODUCTION

The day following the American Independence Day, 5 July 2012, was blisteringly
hot in New York City, and I was standing on the forecourt of the Ellis Island
National Museum of Immigration watching visitors come and go. I watched as a
woman, and who I assumed was her daughter, enter the museum to exit a short
time later. The older woman sat on one of the benches overlooking New York
Harbor, while her daughter returned to the museum. I approached the woman to
ask if I could interview her. Having agreed, she told me she was 97 years old, that
she had lived in New York City all her life, but that this was her very first visit to
Ellis Island. She was not much interested in the museum displays, she explained;
rather, she had chosen to sit looking out at the water because she was ‘waiting for
her father’. She went on to quickly state that I was not to think she was crazy, senile
or anything, but that her father, whom she had loved and respected very much, had
passed through Ellis Island in 1901, and the island had been a very important site
for him. She had never been to the island, but now, despite the heat, thought it was
time to come, as she repeated, to ‘wait for her father’.
The interview finished, I was walking away to ponder approaching yet another
visitor to interview when I realised that I was crying. I was having a strong emo-
tional response to what I had just heard. During the thousands of interviews I have
conducted with visitors to museums and other sites of heritage across three differ-
ent countries, I have had many people break down and cry or become speechless
with emotions too complex to voice, and this was the one interview that had
reduced me to the same state.
My encounter with this woman highlights several central issues that I explore
in this book. First, it illustrates that museums may be used in quite active and com-
plex ways by visitors; indeed, it suggests that the people we call ‘visitors’ may use
museums and other sites of heritage in diverse ways that escape those traditionally
identified in the literature. Second, it hints that the fascination with education and
2 Introduction

learning underlying much of the literature and policy practices in heritage and
museum studies may be missing a rather complex point about how the public uses
such places. Third, it indicates that emotion may be a key aspect of visiting. While
I, then age 50, was quite emotional in response to what the woman was saying to
me and the issue of mortality that she obliquely raised, the woman herself at 97
was quite calm as she contemplated her mortality and remembered her father. She
was concerned only that I understood what she was trying to communicate to me
about what she was doing at Ellis Island and that I would not dismiss her as ‘crazy’.
The point for her, it seemed, was that she wanted to demonstrate to me, but perhaps
also to herself, that through her contemplation of her father – waiting for him – she
was calm. Being calm, as well as taking the opportunity to contemplate and remem-
ber, was central to the meaning of her visit.
Why do people visit museums and heritage sites? On the surface, this is a rela-
tively simple question and is addressed as such in academic discussion, policy and
practice.Two core assumptions have traditionally framed responses: people come to
either learn or to recreate. Both assumptions tend to define visitors as relatively pas-
sive consumers of curatorial or interpretative messages, and they tend to foreclose
the possibility that other things may be occurring during individual and collective
visits to such places. This book seeks to move beyond those limitations and reports
the findings of 4,502 interviews with visitors to 45 different history and culture
museums and heritage sites in the United States, Australia and England. Sites for
interview were chosen either because they offered narratives of national history or
dealt with dissonant and contested histories, addressing what Simon (2011) referred
to as ‘difficult knowledge’. In the context of this book ‘museums’ and ‘heritage
sites’ (buildings, archaeological sites, etc) are all theatres of memory and places of
heritage-making, and I draw no real theoretical or analytical distinction between
the two. However, for practical purposes ‘museums’ refer either to the individual
institutions listed in Chapter 4 or, more generally, to those institutions who define
themselves as such and collect and display artefacts associated with human history
and culture (i.e. the research has not engaged with science museums). To be clear,
I am not talking about all types of heritage sites or museums, but more specifically
about those sites of heritage-making that deal with social history.
The research aimed to find out what sort of memory and identity work people
undertook while visiting different genres of sites in the three different national con-
texts and whether there were national differences evident. The interview schedule
was designed with a set of core open-ended questions that would allow people to
raise organically issues that were important to, or made sense to them, rather than
using predominantly closed questions that tested the researcher’s assumptions. This
has resulted in an extensive qualitative database. Mixed methods research, using both
quantitative and qualitative analysis, has been undertaken to verify aspects of the
findings and to provide depth and nuance. There is a long history of research within
heritage and museum studies that examine how museums or other heritage sites
construct a sense of the past and define its meaning for the present and social aspira-
tions for the future. This study looks at how people undertaking the act of visiting,
individually and collectively, engage in the same process.The focus is foremost on the
 Introduction 3

visitor and how they are constructing the meaning of their visit, and less so on the
museum, exhibition or site as such, though I do make a distinction between genres
of sites. This is not to say that curatorial and interpretive content is not important, as
the findings suggest particular genres of sites elicit certain responses, but rather to ask
what does visiting do. My starting assumption was that people as visitors have agency
and are not passive audiences for curatorial and interpretive messages. If visitors have
agency, it follows that it might be useful to consider and explore the partnership in
meaning-making between museums/heritage sites and their visitors. My focus is
thus on the neglected side in this partnership of meaning-making. Museums and
heritage sites do not have social impact without their audiences; there is an interre-
lationship between the work that museums and heritage sites do in constructing and
telling stories and histories and how they are then understood and used by visitors.
It is generally understood that not all visitors will necessarily take away the curatorial
or interpretive message that staff intend, but what does this mean? What meaning is
being taken away, and what social impact or consequence does that have?
These are the core issues that instigated the research; I wanted to know what
heritage-making people, as visitors, were engaged in at different sites; how they
used those sites in their heritage-making and what the social consequences of this
might be. Thus, my focus was not to cover the well-trodden ground of analysing
exhibition content and curatorial intent and their assumed impact on visitors, but
rather, how people used whatever it was they understood themselves to be visiting.
Many assumptions are made about what people do and do not do at sites. Research
that has tended to focus on science museums has suggested it is largely learning
(Falk and Dierking 1992, 2000), while research from the Smithsonian Institute has
argued it is about reinforcing entrance narratives and expectations (Doering and
Pekarik 1996; Pekarik et al. 1999; Pekarik and Schreiber 2012). There were two
overall surprises for me arising from this research.The first was the degree to which
visitors chose not to engage in learning and the second was the degree to which the
visit was predicated on emotionally investing in the meanings people both brought
with them to the site and then reinforced during the visit. While some visitors did
indeed engage in learning, as Pekarik and Schreiber (2012: 495) found, “only visi-
tors already attuned to seeking these experiences are likely to find them”. Indeed,
while learning was a particular discourse that visitors themselves used, often about
groups other than the one with which the visitor themselves identified, it was
not something with which most visitors chose to engage. Visitors often used the
language of learning to lend authority to the heritage meanings they were them-
selves re-creating or performing by their visit, but these meanings were not learnt;
rather, they were brought to the site they were visiting for validation. As Doering
and Pekarik (1996) found, what they defined as a person’s ‘entrance narrative’ was
most frequently authenticated and reinforced by a visit. Similarly, this study has also
found that people, as visitors, most frequently engaged in various performances
of reinforcing their existing beliefs, feelings, knowledge and understanding – they
were emotionally investing in their prior commitments. A range of strategies could
also be deployed to maintain these narratives if they were challenged or otherwise
jeopardised by curatorial or interpretive content.
4 Introduction

I have noted that visitors, and indeed museums and heritage sites, are engaged
in ‘heritage-making’. This draws on the idea that I have previously developed, that
heritage is a process, an act of using the past to help make sense of the present and
resource aspirations for the future (Smith 2006). Heritage is something that is done
rather than possessed; it is an action and an intent rather than a ‘thing’ or a ‘site’.
Macdonald (2013) has referred to this process as ‘past presencing’. In the first part
of this book, I develop my previous arguments to theorise heritage as an emotion-
ally charged action, or what Wetherell (2012) defines as an ‘affective practice’, to
performatively use the past to construct meaning in and for the present – in other
words, to engage in heritage-making. I have also interchangeably referenced muse-
ums, individual exhibitions and places traditionally referred to as ‘heritage sites’ as
‘sites’. I draw no real distinction between museums and heritage sites, as both are
theatres of memory (Samuel 1994) and sites of heritage-making. I have also, prob-
lematically, used the word ‘visitor’, a term that tends to imply a fleeting or distanced
encounter with items that many ‘visitors’ perceived as their heritage. I discuss this
unsatisfactory term in Chapter 3, and although I continue to use it, I do so with
an understanding that visitors make choices and are active participants in the social
and political meanings that they cocreate with museums and heritage sites and that
these performances have social consequences outside of the ‘visit’.
In developing the idea of the performative nature of heritage, the study identi-
fies several different heritage performances in which people engage. These perfor-
mances were identified both through quantitative and qualitative analysis of the
interview data. The quantitative analysis was important, as analytical attention can
often be arrested by the complexity and affective qualities of some responses and
uses of sites, such as the woman’s use of Ellis Island. The quantitative analysis illus-
trated not only the breadth of responses but also the frequencies in which they
occurred, illustrating what may be referred to as ‘performances of reinforcement’
to be most common. However, the qualitative analysis allowed not only for the
identification of different forms of these performances but also an assessment of
their consequences. The performances are elaborated in more detail ahead; how-
ever, each performance has its particular resonances and affective qualities. One of
the key issues emerging from the data is that heritage sites and museums are places
where people choose to go to feel and to be emotional and that these emotions are
then used to justify, inform or sometimes challenge the meanings people bring with
them and take away from their visit:

I don’t go to museums for education; I can read material on the internet

and in books, I come for emotional reasons. Coming for education makes
no sense.
(NCRM61: male, 55–64, retired health care, African American)1

Understanding the emotional content of the visit reveals the complex ways in
which visitors react to curatorial messages and the sites themselves. Part of my
goal is also to attempt to untangle the suites of affective/emotional responses and
 Introduction 5

to explore how they impede or facilitate visitor engagement and the role these
responses play in framing the moments of heritage-making in which visitors were
immersed. To facilitate this, I develop the idea of ‘registers of engagement’. This
concept attempts to identify the different modes, scales and intensities with which
different visitors engage with museums and heritage sites. The educational and
learning literature often stresses that deep engagement is more significant than
shallow engagement, arguing that the deeper the engagement, the more likely it
is that learning will occur, where learning is measured as some form of change or
deepening of understanding (M. Smith 2018). However, at least in the context of
museums and heritage sites, this interrelationship is not so straightforward as has
been assumed.Visitor engagement can range between very shallow, to the point of
banality, to the very deeply emotionally and cognitively engaged. However, shallow
engagement can do as much important cultural and political work as deep engage-
ment can, and while deep engagement can generate intense emotions, it does not
necessarily follow, however, that this will lead to critical insight for the visitor.
Chapter 3 develops the idea of registers of engagement, and the concept is offered
as a heuristic device to help understand and measure the personal, social, emotional
and ideological contexts and consequences of the performances of heritage-
making that visitors undertake. It needs to be noted that the measurements of inten-
sities and registers of engagement were not derived against an arbitrary scale, but
were all measured relatively within the range of engagements found within the data-
base. As such, the specific modes and intensities of engagement may be specific to
the dataset; however, the concept offers a way of understanding how visitors interact
with sites without either predetermining or dismissing that the interaction is framed
by learning or leisure/recreation. In short, the aim is to broaden the conceptual map
about not only what meanings visitors construct but also how they actively do so
and what the social and political consequences of these practices might be.
Four overall heritage performances are identified in the data: these are per-
formances of reinforcement, intergenerational communication, recognition and
misrecognition. Additionally, practices or engagements with education and learn-
ing also occurred, although these instances were the least frequent, and I return
to this issue. People could engage in single or multiple performances during
any one visit; however, performances of reinforcement were dominant. Learn-
ing, when this occurred, did so alongside heritage-making performances, except-
ing that the performance of misrecognition worked to actively preclude learning,
while performances of reinforcement were more passively antithetical to learning.
It is important to note that the terms reinforcement, confirmation or their syno-
nyms were not used in the interview schedule. However, these terms commonly
occurred when people talked about the meaning of the visit or the messages they
took away or how the site made them feel and so forth. This performance of
reinforcement was found across all genres of sites in all three countries, and inter-
viewees reported that their visit was often about reinforcing not only what they
already knew, but more importantly, what they already felt about particular topics
and issues and their contemporary relevance.
6 Introduction

What was reinforced could be either progressive or conservative readings of

the past and its meaning for the present; nonetheless, there was a range of complex
nuances across different performances of reinforcement.Within the performance of
reinforcement, a particular performance of affirmation can be singled out; this is a
performance that tends to seek validation of progressive/liberal values and mean-
ings and is far more emotionally complex than the kinds of performances that
reinforce national identity and ideologically conservative heritage meanings that
were frequently encountered at national museums and sites (Chapter 9). A point
to stress here is that different performances tended to mobilise different registers of
engagement. Further, different emotional registers or ‘signatures’ underlie different
performances, and certain performances tended to dominate at particular genres
of site. For example, at museums and heritage sites that discuss the histories of
immigration or labour, the performances were often focused on intergenerational
communication and displayed critically and emotionally engaged elements of the
registers of engagement. At national sites, overall, the registers of engagement (as a
relative measure across the entire database) were often deeply engaged celebrations
of reinforcement of nation. Genres of national or dissonant sites also generated their
emotional tenor and associated performances (Chapter 6). For instance, at house
museums, engagement was often quite shallow and based on emotions of comfort
that, overall, produced politically conservative acts of reinforcement. Conversely,
sites commemorating war histories were often emotionally ‘flat’ and less intense
than other national sites while reinforcing values and narratives of historical grati-
tude and nationhood. On the other hand, sites of Indigenous culture and history,
for example, tended to see a higher frequency of emotionally and cognitively com-
plex performances of recognition.
National comparisons between the United States, Australia and England identi-
fied some differences in performances or their specific meaning to a visitor. How-
ever, the similarities between the nations outweighed the differences (Chapter 5).
Where differences were most notable was both across the different genres of site,
not only between the categories ‘national’ and ‘dissonant’ sites but also across the
specific genres of sites within these two categories. In short, sites of national story-
making tended to be dominated by performances of reinforcement, or of mis-
recognition when curatorial or interpretive interventions challenged performances
of reinforcement. Other performances of intergenerational communication and
recognition could also occur. At sites of dissonant history, performances of inter-
generational communication and recognition were notable, while misrecognition
was far less frequent than at national sites. Reinforcement also occurred at dissonant
sites, but more often as politically progressive ‘affirmation’.
Important differences also emerged across visitor demographics. The visitor
profiles recorded at most sites in the study tended to be dominated by visitors
from politically dominant ethnic groups within the three countries (i.e. Cauca-
sian American, Anglo-Australian, White British, to use the descriptors commonly
employed in the three countries), with high educational attainment and holding
‘higher’ socially valued occupations (Chapter 5). Overall, and in particular, at sites
 Introduction 7

of national narratives, domestic visitors from dominant ethnic identities tended to

be relatively cognitively uncritical and emotionally invested in and engaged in rein-
forcement. Overseas tourists, less invested in national narratives, tended to be a little
more critically engaged than domestic visitors from dominant ethnic backgrounds.
Those from non-dominant ethnic backgrounds and, to a less clear extent, those
from dominant ethnic backgrounds but with low educational attainment were, in
general, on the register of engagement, undertaking even more emotionally and
intellectually critical heritage work, which tended to (but was not confined to)
emphasise politically progressive content. In effect, there are two additional under-
lying performances: a performance of privilege, which sometimes was conscious
and self-critical, but on the whole was not and a performance undertaken in the
context of marginalisation and misrecognition, which was innately more critical
and self-conscious. These two performances underwrite and inform the four per-
formances discussed previously, as performing privilege could underpin not only
performances of reinforcement but also intergenerational communication and mis-
recognition (but, by definition, not recognition). While the performance based on
experiences of social exclusion could underlie reinforcement (although this tended
to underpin this performance as affirmation), it also informed intergenerational
communication, recognition and, on occasion, misrecognition.
Janes argues that museums as institutions, to which we may add heritage sites
sanctioned within the authorised heritage discourse (AHD), are keepers of the
status quo. He notes that there is a persistent “tacit silence that surrounds” this role,
which has yet to be successfully challenged by the cosmopolitan interventions of
new museology (2016: 230). Scholars and practitioners within both new museology
and the critical heritage studies movement have called for critical accountability in
addressing the social and political consequence of museums and heritage sites. Any
consideration of or attempts to challenge the regulatory role of museums/heritage
sites in maintaining the status quo cannot, however, ignore how people, as visitors
or audiences, use such sites. The interrelationship between heritage/museological
professional and academic practices and the practices of people visiting work
together to create heritage meanings that have material and social consequences.
One of the significant performances that visitors undertook, especially at national
museums, was the maintenance of and intergenerational inheritance of privilege
(Chapter 11). This performance was casually and often unconsciously reinforced
but was nonetheless actively defended when challenged (Chapter 13). It is also
based on emotions of comfortable self-assurance and, most importantly, indiffer-
ence. The affective state of indifference was reinforced to placate the fear of ambi-
guity and change that could occur when visitor self-assurance in their own social
experience was jeopardised by cognitive dissonance toward curatorial and interpre-
tative attempts to challenge the status quo.
As numerous studies identify, visitors to museums and heritage sites framed
within the AHD consistently and overwhelmingly fall within socially privileged
demographics (see Black 2012: 17f; Kinsley 2016; Chapter 5). The idea that visit-
ing museums and other sites of heritage is an expression of Bourdieu’s concept of
8 Introduction

acquiring and demonstrating cultural capital is well established in the literature, yet
considering how visitors construct their sense of self and social place by their visits
is often not given due consideration in assessing the regulatory role of museums.
In part, this is because of the idea of Foucauldian governmentality that has framed
much of the debate about the role of museums in regulating the conduct of citizens
(see, in particular, Bennett 1995). The idea of governmentality, wherein particular
technologies of government or forms of knowledge are used to regulate or govern
conduct, establish those being governed as ‘subjects’ of regulation, which leaves little
room for the agency of those subjects to either resist or acquiesce to such govern-
ance (Smith 2004). This is not to say that museums and heritage are not part of the
processes of governing and regulating conduct and citizenship – simply that this
conceptualisation tends to downplay the agency of those defined as the subjects of
governance.The point to stress here, however, is that people as visitors do engage in
the regulation and maintenance of the status quo – that is, they may acquiesce to or
resist it. More importantly, they may even reassert it if they perceive the museum/
heritage site is not living up to their expectations or fulfilling their role in the per-
formance of reinforcement. The performance of privilege I am identifying can be
situated in the historical development of museums as erudite national institutions
and the development of authorised heritage as emblematic of national identity.
These developments speak to particular forms of social experience and identities
that tend to attract certain visitor demographics and not others. Thus, the perfor-
mance of privilege is not surprising, given the dominant demographic of national
museums and heritage sites framed by the AHD. It is a performance of preserving
the status quo, which is continually reenacted by the interrelationship between
museums/heritage sites and their communities of visitors.
The more critical performances, which push back at the regulatory role of
museums/heritage sites, are found most consistently at sites of dissonance and
from visitors from non-dominant ethnic backgrounds at either national or dis-
sonant sites and are far more self-conscious and complex performances than the
performance of privilege. It is these performances that have most to offer critical
debates about the responsibility and critical role that museums and heritage sites
could and can play. Overall, they illustrate the importance of engaging with a range
of emotional responses to the past and their use in the present. There is often a
hesitation to engage with emotions, and in particular, emotions that are defined as
nostalgic, a hesitation that is particularly pronounced by the political left (Bonnett
2010). This hesitation misunderstands the role affect/emotions play in cognition
(Ahmed 2004a; Wetherell 2012). Further, it also misunderstands the breadth and
range of emotions such as nostalgia that, as Smith and Campbell (2017a) have
argued, can take both progressive and reactionary forms. Rather than eschewing
the emotional, the critical performances identified here, which are often but not
uniformly informed by social exclusion, illustrate how particular affective states
and empathetic and imaginative skills work to inform identity, make judgements
and foster critical reflection on the present and the development of aspirations for
the present and future. Importantly, they also illustrate that not all performances of
 Introduction 9

reinforcement are about ensuring the status quo and that in affirming the history
and experiences of social diversity, museums/heritage sites can play a vital role with
visitors in imagining equitable and just presents and futures.
To illustrate the range of performances that visitors engaged in, and in this case,
how critical performances can underpin the use of museums/heritage sites, it is
useful to explore one quite complex visitor response to the question: ‘Are there
any messages about the heritage or history of America that you take away from
this museum?’The visitor, a woman, visiting the National Civil Rights Museum, in
Memphis, with her 12-year-old son, identified as a postal worker who was active
in her union, and described herself, when I asked for her ethnic affiliation, as Black
American. In her response, she references an exhibit that in 2012 was encountered
early within the gallery titled ‘Strategies for Change’ and which contained, among
other objects, a display case with a Klu Klux Klan hood and gown:

It really is, just the history of it is so, to know – you know, [. . .].2 And me
being a union president and things, it puts me on focus. And being a parent,
a parent of young kids, and a young parent, it just puts me on focus as to my
kids. When I first brought my youngest son here, he’ll be 13 next month,
and we walked through [where] the Klu Klux Klan clothes were, I think he
may have been about four. And when we came through my first thought was,
‘What are white people doing in their head because they know what they
did to us?’ I mean, just honestly. And I’m looking around ’cos I’m astonished
at that, and then, when my son walked upon the Klu Klux Klan he said, out
loud, as kids do, ‘Momma, whose pyjamas are those?’ and everybody turned
and looked at me, and I was like, ‘Those aren’t pyjamas.’ I said, ‘I’ll tell you
about them’, and you know they’re [white visitors] waiting for my answer,
so we keep going, and I’m like reading this stuff to him, saying, ‘And this is
what they did to black people and this is what. . . ’ and he burst out again,
‘Who’s black, mama?’ And I said, ‘Oh my God’, and I looked at him, and you
know I saw this [white] guy watching and I’m like [pause] ‘You’re black’.
And he was like, ‘No I’m not. I’m not black. I’m yellow.’ And I said, ‘Okay’,
and I remember what my pastor said: ‘You don’t know you’re poor until
you’re told you’re poor.You don’t know you’re black until you’re told you’re
black.’ He never knew he was black. So, you know, I’m like, Wow. So, when
I bring him here, he learns more, and we come every year ’cos I have family
down here.
(NCRM53: female, 45–54, postal worker, Black American)

This visitor engaged in a range of performances. First, she was using the museum
to remember and commemorate her own experiences in the civil rights move-
ment, and with this remembering comes a reinforcement of her political and social
values – this is a form of progressive self-conscious reinforcement, or affirmation,
which was particularly strong at museums of labour, immigration and civil rights.
At sites or exhibitions that represented consensus national narratives, what was
10 Introduction

remembered was often less personal, but still strongly held emotional commitments
to master narratives of nation and citizenship. Nationalising narratives were fre-
quently maintained and reinforced even in contexts where the curatorial message
aimed at destabilising and challenging them.
This was her and her younger son’s fourth visit to the museum, and she was
using this and previous visits to pass on familial history and political values to
her son. How museums were used as arenas for intergenerational communication
and socialisation of children was significant. In this instance, the son was learning
from his mother, supported by the museum, about familial history and values as
well as about the history and relevance of the civil rights movement. Museums
and heritage sites of all genres were used as cultural tools in the passing on of
familial memory, knowledge and values. In some instances, the performance of
visiting and where you visited was also something parents taught their children.
For instance, visiting presidential houses or stately homes in all three countries was
largely something people from a particular ethnic and socioeconomic background
did and were engaged in passing on to their children – that is, the visit itself was
a statement of belonging to a particular ethnic and class group. Further, children
learned the appropriate affective state required for certain types of sites, such as
reverence, pride, self-esteem, comfort and so forth. In many instances, what was also
learned or communicated to children at national sites, dominated as they were by a
particular demographic, was the overall performance of privilege.Thus, a nuance of
intergenerational communication at certain sites was the communication or pass-
ing on of inherited privilege. Seeing people ‘like yourself ’ at certain sites was part
of, and integral to, performances of reinforcement and variants of intergenerational
communication. Conversely, performances of recognition often relied on visiting
sites where one might expect to encounter people unlike oneself.
The visitor had expressed, through the interview, discomfort at the presence
of white visitors. In most cases, a desire to visit places where a visitor would see
people like themselves was expressed by politically dominant ethnic groups such
as Anglo-Australians, White British or Caucasian Americans. However, the reasons
this visitor at the Civil Rights Museum is expressing distress at the presence of peo-
ple unlike herself is more complex and tied to the politics of recognition. I draw, in
Chapter 2, primarily on the work of Nancy Fraser to define the politics of recogni-
tion as part of pragmatic negotiations over not just social and cultural identity, but
the redistribution of resources. Heritage, moreover, is implicated in the way claims
for recognition and counter-assertions of misrecognition are made and legitimised
or delegitimised. Performances of recognition and misrecognition occurred across
all genres of site. Some visitors talked explicitly about their visit to heritage sites
that were not their own as a statement or act of recognition. Other visitors cited
self-respect and saw their visit to sites of their heritage as an assertion or claim
for recognition. Sometimes visitors from hegemonic groups engage explicitly in
recognition of themselves as the inheritors of privilege (this was particularly done
at Indigenous sites) and in varying ways used their visit to certain sites to negoti-
ate what that may mean both for themselves and other members of their society.
 Introduction 11

Others used museum displays as a form of ‘social barometer’ to assess the extent to
which wider society was offering recognition or misrecognition of themselves and
people like themselves.
The visitor, however, was engaged in a form of self-recognition. To understand
her discomfort, we need to appreciate that she is passing on social and familial
memories of not just discrimination, but of the civil rights movement’s continuing
struggles to overcome prejudice to her son, and thus, creating self-recognition of
his place in US society. As Judith Butler notes, one of the problematic aspects of
recognition is that it can “inscribe injury into identity and makes that a presup-
position of political self-representation” and, as she goes on to warn, injury cannot
then “be recast as an oppression to be overcome” (Butler and Athanasiou 2013: 87).
The mother was reacting against this possibility; she was uncomfortable about the
presence of whites in the museum because of the opportunity of misrecognition
of self that their presence presented for her son. She did not want established ideas of
recognition of African Americans to prevail; she did not want injury to be part of
his self-recognition. As she noted earlier in the interview, being at the museum
made her “feel good to know that there was a history for us to move forward”
from (NCRM53). In effect, she is using this museum to offer self-recognition as
a point from which to continue struggles for equity. However, the public arena of
the museum opens up, for her at least, greater risks of misrecognition. One of the
enduring ideas about museums is that they are safe places to explore complex topics
(Gurian 1995, quoted in Cameron 2005: 214). For some, as this visitor illustrates,
museums are not safe.
They can also be unsafe places for people who are confronted with a curato-
rial message that they find cognitively dissonant, and that challenges their entrance
narrative, sense of self-assurance and privilege. Visitors used various emotional
responses to render an unsafe or challenging museum/heritage site ‘safe’, to reaf-
firm indifference and thus continue to reinforce their entrance narrative and per-
formance of privilege while making the concurrent choice not to learn. Several
strategies were used by visitors to extricate themselves from the emotional impact
of cognitive dissonance that ranged, on the register of engagement, from the passive
to the very active. These registers tended to lead to performances of ‘misrecogni-
tion’ that actively facilitated the maintenance of privilege and indifference at the
expense of acknowledging the validity of social justice claims.
But what of the issue of learning? To couch the visitor to the National Civil
Rights Museum as a ‘learner’ and to say she was herself engaged in ‘learning’ is pat-
ronising. She was engaged in a range of performances: reinforcement that affirmed
her commitment to the civil rights movement, “it put her on focus” as she noted as
both an activist and as a parent; intergenerational communication, in this case, the
passing on of values to her son; she was also asserting the validity of her self-esteem
and recognition of identity as activist, mother and Black American. Yes, she used
the museum as a tool for the education of her son, but to characterise her visit as
about her ‘learning’ is to misunderstand the complexity and nuance of what she
was doing. The dominant tendency both within the literature and public policy to
12 Introduction

identify what visitors do, or at least what they ‘should’ be doing, as learning simpli-
fies the social and political work that visiting does.
The idea that visits should be a learning, or an educational experience, was, it
must be stressed, often identified by visitors as a reason for their visit. However,
when prompted to explain, the educational value tended to be largely discussed
in relation to children or about groups of people other than that to which the
visitor belonged, or as something that they felt they should be doing, even if they
acknowledged that they were not. If learning is measured as a change of view or a
deepening of understanding (Hooper-Greenhill 2007a: 31), the interview question
‘Is there anything you have seen, heard or read here today that has changed your
views about either the past or present?’ aimed to get a sense of what it was visitors
might have learned. However, only 18% of visitors said yes their views had changed,
while the remainder said no, often nominating that the visit had reinforced their
views. The frequency of those who said yes dropped to 10% at some national sites
and increased to as much as 35% at certain dissonant sites. Of those who said yes,
most were nominating they had gained more, but often minor information, rather
than changing what they thought or felt. However, when a significant change or
deepening of understanding occurred, learning was often triggered by intensely
felt emotions combined with empathy that on the registers of engagement was
both deep and entwined with imagination. Witcomb’s (2015) arguments about a
‘pedagogy of feeling’ are important, as argued in Chapter 8, for addressing the edu-
cational mandates of museums/heritage sites and reviewing both the purpose and
practices of their role in adult education. However, in addressing issues of social jus-
tice and diversity, museums/heritage sites must address and destabilise performances
of misrecognition and conservative reinforcement. Acknowledging and engaging
with the emotional repertoires that are invoked when histories and experiences of
social privilege are challenged is vital in facilitating changes of views and under-
standing. So too is the role of empathy. This complex emotion and skill, measured
as a register of engagement, could be shallowly experienced, which subsequently
led to the maintenance of indifference, but as deeply experienced and entangled
with imagination, sincerity and compassion played a vital role in helping visitors
work through difficult knowledge and the negative emotions this triggered. Muse-
ums/heritage sites have the potential to be useful arenas to work through difficult
emotional issues not only to inform or facilitate education but importantly to also
engage in social debate. However, the emotive quality of debates about nation, citi-
zenship, diversity and inequity require recognition and the engagement of strategies
to acknowledge and constructively utilise and engage with emotional repertoires.
The study, it must be stressed, has its limitations. I am not making claims that
the findings and performances identified here are universal. The research must be
understood as having been undertaken at specifics sites, times and national contexts.
For logistical reasons, it is confined to Anglophone and Western contexts (but see
Zhang 2020). Additionally, if the reader is looking for a seamless research project
with entirely like-to-like comparisons, you will be disappointed. The research was
undertaken over a lengthy period, often responding to presented opportunities to
 Introduction 13

undertake interviews, and there are some variations in the amount of data collected
at some sites, and comparisons between the three nations and genres are by no
means one-to-one. The comparisons have acknowledged limitations, and Chap-
ter 4 details explicitly how and why the study was done so that its limitations, and
how they may affect the findings, are made clear. Nonetheless, the study points to
the diversity and consequences of how people undertaking the practice of visiting
different types of heritage use and emotionally invest in the meaning of the past
for the present.
The first part of the book outlines the theoretical framework and concepts
that I use in the study. Chapter 1 outlines the idea of heritage as performance and
responds to some of the dominant theoretical debates in critical heritage studies to
clarify my position and conceptualisation of heritage and to stress the point that,
fundamentally, heritage is about people and their social context. Chapter 2 deepens
the argument about the performative nature of heritage by drawing explicitly on
debates over the politics of recognition and debates over the nature of affect and
emotion. I draw on the politics of recognition to extend my arguments about the
political nature of heritage but also to inform the performances of both recog-
nition and misrecognition discussed, respectively, in Chapters 12 and 13. Chap-
ter 3 develops the idea of registers of engagement as well as defines some of the
core terms, such as ‘visitor’, used in the study. Intensity, valence and conservative/
progressive tendencies to interact with various modes of engaging, such as ideology,
embodiment, remembering/forgetting, imagination, scope, time and so forth to
produce registers of engagement that underpin and frame the various performances
of heritage-making are elaborated.
Part II of the book details the history of the study, the sites at which interviews
were undertaken and how and why the study was done (Chapter 4) as well as
detailing the quantitative analysis. Chapter 5 describes the demographics of the
interview population and details the descriptive statistics generated to describe the
range of responses. Markers are identified that underpin or express the four specific
heritage performances of reinforcement, intergenerational communication and
recognition/misrecognition. The chapter also undertakes comparisons between
the three countries. While there are differences between the three nations, most
notably the deeper personal connections made by Americans to their heritage and
the tendency of the English to be more overt in expressing their cognitive disso-
nance, there are far more similarities. Chapter 6 continues quantitative comparisons,
cross-tabulating the categories of national and dissonant sites and specific genres
within each of these categories to the descriptive statistics outlined in Chapter 5.
While certain registers are not necessarily confined to specific genres, nonethe-
less there are registers of engagement that dominate at specific genres of site, and
this tends to be consistent regardless of national contexts. This result underpins
the identification of the types of performances of heritage-making that occur
or dominate at different genres of site. Chapter 7 compares demographics to the
results for each interview question and identifies the underpinning critical perfor-
mances informed by social inequity/exclusion and the less reflexive performance of
14 Introduction

privilege and nation-making.What may be defined as a clinical variation in critical-

ity and reflexivity emerges, as far as those from dominant ethnic backgrounds are
over-represented at the banal and uncritical end of the spectrum. Overseas tourists
overall and those of dominant ethnic backgrounds and low educational attainment
at dissonant sites – that is, those less invested in nationalising narratives – tend to
occupy the middle ground, while those from non-dominant ethnic backgrounds
tend to occupy the more critical and reflexive end of the spectrum. In short, what
Wertsch (2007, 2012) defines as conservative national narrative templates has the
most power in framing the collective and individual remembering of those whose
social and historical experience it most represents.
Part III of the book details the qualitative analysis of the four specific herit-
age performances. Chapter 8 address the issue of learning, identifying what the
‘language of learning’ does for both heritage professionals and visitors and how
this counterintuitively works to facilitate conservative performances of reinforce-
ment. The chapter, however, also enumerates the emotional repertoires that facili-
tated learning and the consequences of this for developing pedagogies of feeling.
Chapter 9 details the range of performances of reinforcement, identifying both
socially and politically conservative performances and those of progressive affir-
mation. The analysis is continued into Chapter 10 in a specific analysis of house
museums to examine in depth the political consequences of these performances in
each of the three national contexts. Chapter 11 analyses the range and diversity of
performances of intergenerational communication. This performance has a range
of variants and expressions from the ‘imagined conversations’ with absent family
members to reflections on self-worth and family identity to the communication of
values, identities and affective practices of visiting to younger generations. Chap-
ter 12 develops the argument that heritage is implicated in the politics of recogni-
tion and outlines how different forms of recognition are played out at museums/
heritage sites. In particular, the idea of ‘self-recognition’, as either the inheritor of
privilege or inequity, is argued to be foundational to the initiation and negotia-
tion of claims and counterclaims for recognition and redistribution. Chapter 13, in
detailing the performance of misrecognition, outlines the range of ways in which
people attempted to preserve their entrance narratives and self-assurance in their
social experiences. These performances tended to occur at national sites where
specific curatorial or interpretive interventions had occurred to national narra-
tive templates or entrance narratives (Doering and Pekarik 1996; Wertsch 2012).
These were instances where visitors made active choices not to learn and to deny
the advocacy and utility of the interpretive material before them. Performances of
misrecognition were not a form of ‘disengagement’, however, but rather an active
engagement and defence of performances of privilege and reinforcement.
Overall, those who visit museums/heritage sites are active agents in heritage-
making, even when being quite passive on the registers of engagement. They are
also agents in the roles cultural institutions have in maintaining or challenging the
status quo. Heritage is about people and their social situatedness, and the meaning
they, alongside or in concert with institutions such as museums, galleries, libraries,
 Introduction 15

archives and heritage sites, make and bring forward to help them address social
problems and expressions of identity and sense of place in and for the present.
If heritage is to be understood as being more than artefacts or places, as being a
performative process of making meaning for the present, then this book is a plea
for scholarship and professional practice to address how people outside the herit-
age professions make and use heritage. If the agendas and debates for facilitating
social change and activism in critical heritage studies and new museology are to be
realised, engaging with how and why people use heritage – however defined – is
vital. Certainly, in focusing on the materiality of heritage (as museum artefacts or
collections, as sites, buildings etc), heritage meanings and social values appear easily
definable and contained. Nonetheless, those meanings and values are themselves
mobilised by people as they use the past to make sense of the present – this process
is messy and complex – and recognising this is important for understanding the
social and political phenomenon of heritage.

Notes
1 See Chapter 4 for an explanation of the descriptors, but note that occupation and ethnic
identity are self-described by the interviewee and not attributed by the researcher.
2 Denotes material excised from the quote for brevity.
References
1 As does Elder-Vass (2010: 11), I stress Bhaskar’s earlier work, rejecting the spiritualist
turn taken in his later work.
1 Website accessed 15 February 2019.
1 Anon, 2007 Exhibitions in Yorkshire, Country Life, May 17, www.countrylife.co.uk/
out-and-about/theatre-film-music/exhibitions-in-yorkshire-40141. Accessed 11
March 2019.
2 This material has not been previously published.
3 Material from this phase of the collection has not as a whole been previously pub-
lished, although data from specific sites such as the Stockman’s Hall of Fame and the
Old Melbourne Gaol have been published (see Smith 2012a, 2012b, 2017a) as has
material from the immigration museums (Smith 2017b), and some material from the
labour history sites has been drawn on (Smith and Campbell 2017; Smith 2020), while
other publications draw on aspects of the data to discuss issues of empathy and recog-
nition (Smith 2016, 2017b, respectively), the responses of children (Smith 2013) and
affect and emotion (Smith and Campbell 2016).
4 Parks Australia (2013–2019) Cultural Centre. https://parksaustralia.gov.au/Uluru /
do/cultural-centre/. Accessed 13 March 2019.
5 In the 2009 round of Future Fellowships funded by the Australian Research Council,
research assistants were excluded. The idea was that the grant would concentrate on
the ‘fellow’. This exclusion was revised in later rounds of the grant program.
6 A message also reinforced by the museum’s website, see NPS http:/ /www.nps.gov/
elis/index.htm. Accessed 19 March 2019.
7 Ethics clearance was obtained for the English data through the University of York,
my then employer, and through the Australian National University for the data col-
lected during 2010–2017. The Smithsonian Institution also required additional eth-
ics clearance before granting permission to interview, and permits were obtained to
interview at both Yellowstone National Park and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. It
should be noted that it was not the intent to interview people under the age of 18;
however, children were interviewed often as part of a family group, or when they
approached the interviewer and permission was sought from a parent or grandparent
accompanying the child (Smith 2013).
8 In all the interviews undertaken, I have only had one interviewee complain about the
interview schedule to the museum or site at which I was interviewing.The complaint,
to one of the 1807 exhibition sites, was about this question: the interviewee complain-
ing that despite the use of numbers, they found this question insulting.
9 In England, the intention was to record only the first half of the postcode.
10 This schedule has also been used as is or was added to by Waterton (2011), Zhang
(2016, 2020; see also Zhang and Smith 2019), Coghlan (2017, 2018) and Dudley
(2017, 2019).
11 A much longer list was used in 2004 and the ‘1807 Commemorated’ data but was
recoded down to this list.
12 This was not a requirement for ethics clearance in England at the time but was required
by the Australian National University. Although information sheets were offered to
each interviewee, many visitors declined to take one, and those that did seemed not to
read it.
13 One interviewee in fact chose to respond in Spanish and another in French. Both were
translated and included in the analysis.
14 Office for National Statistics, see https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/201601
08030321/www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/labour-mar
ket/soc-2000-and-ns-sec-on-the-lfs/index.html. Accessed 21 December 2019.
1 See Chapter 4 on the definition of ‘significance’ used in this chapter.
2 The variables ‘where travelled from?’ and ‘first visit?’ were not recorded during the
study of museums and house museums responding to the 2007 bicentenary of Britain’s
 abolition of its slave trade. Thus, the data presented here is from the 2004 data and the
2007 ‘Work and Play’ data recorded at house museums and labour history sites and repre-
sents 917 interviews.
3 The coding notes that the visitor was reflecting on contemporary issues not what those
issues were.
1 Tourists accounted for 19% of those interviewed at Ellis Island; 29% at the Lower East
Side Tenement Museum; 23% the Immigration Museum, Melbourne; 13% at the Japa-
nese American National History Museum and 0 (of 14 visitors) at the Nordic Heritage
Museum.
2 All frequencies were bellow or well below the 18% of the overall sample so that overseas
tourists/expats accounted for 16% at sites of war commemoration, 14% at other national
sites, 7% at house museums, 6% at labour sites, 5% at the halls of fame and 2% atYellowstone.
3 At Immigration sites ‘to think about’ or ‘to explore’ collectively constituted 25% of
responses, 22% at enslavement legacy sites, 29% at labour sites, 19% at Yellowstone, 10% at
halls of fame and between 0% and 6% at all other genres.
4 The breakdown of ‘aide to national memory’: Immigration 32%, Indigenous 25%, houses
29%, war commemoration 33%, halls of fame 28%, ‘other’ national 24% and legacies of
enslavement 19%.
5 In Table 5.3, this selection was quoted within ‘other specific to the site’ and only separated
out here for the analysis of this genre. The experience of simply ‘being at’ the house was
a theme replicated in response to other questions for this genre.
1 The variable ‘new/returning’ visitor had little to no correlation to visitor responses; the
only question where it was significant was that returning visitors who also tended to be
older were less likely to choose education as a reason for visiting.While it may be assumed
that returning visitors may have deeper connections or investments with sites they have
returned to, this was not evident in the data.
2 The most marked difference concerning the question about the meaning of the word
‘heritage’ correlated to country as discussed in Chapter 5; however, responses to this ques-
tion also correlated to ethnic identity, which also was maintained across the three coun-
tries. Thus, there was both an influence from national identity as well as ethnic identity
in how people defined ‘heritage’. For example, the definition ‘family’, while influenced
by ethnic identity, does not entirely account for the degree to which it was more broadly
offered in the United States (see Chapter 5).
1 LR118: female, 45–54, registered nurse, Australian.
2 This search was very approximate and conducted through a word search through Word
documents. I had originally intended to use qualitative data management programs to do
this form of search; however, the database of interviews was too large for these programs.
3 Canadians may, however, have a different position on this; the Star-Spangled Banner is
associated with the war of 1812, the history of which is quite differently remembered in
the two countries.
4 Enterprise bargaining is a negotiation between employers and employee bargaining rep-
resentatives (usually a union) to agree on workplace conditions and relationships.
1 Sydney Living Museums, Vaucluse House, https://sydneylivingmuseums.com.au/vau
cluse-house. Accessed 17 July 2019.
2 Andrew Jackson’s Hermitage, https://thehermitage.com/. Accessed 4 December 2019.
3 James Madison’s Montpelier,The Life of James Madison, www.montpelier.org/learn/the-
life-of-james-madison. Accessed 9 December 2019.
4 At labour sites, the narrative of ‘hard work’ would be used to negate the need for organ-
ised labour, as it was hard work that would ensure achievements and better pay. At immi-
gration sites, the narrative of hard work was used to justify the status of the visitor or the
visitor’s ancestors as legitimate migrants while negating the legitimacy of contemporary
migrants. For example, this visitor talked about the hard work of his grandmother and
what she had achieved, noting, “My grandmother came when she was 16, alone, not with
anybody else, and she was a cleaning lady in Tacoma, [there were] thousands of people that
 were willing to do something like that to make a better life for themselves. Where today
nobody would even think of doing something like that” (NHM7: male, 55–64, pastor,
Scandinavian American).
1 The building is an example of renaissance revival architecture, having been completed in
1876 for use as the state of Victoria’s Customs House, see: https://museumsvictoria.com.
au/longform/customs-house/.
2 Stolen Generations refers to those Indigenous children forcibly removed from their fami-
lies under various State parliamentary ‘protection’ acts (Wilkie 1997; Read 2014).
3 After decades of debate, the Uluru climb was permanently closed in October 2019; for
further details see ‘Please don’t climb Uluru’, Parks Australia website, https://parksaus
tralia.gov.au/uluru/discover/culture/uluru-climb/; and McGrath (2016).
1 Mount Vernon is a house museum and plantation associated with President George
Washington.
2 A temporary exhibition on display at the time of the interview about the history of
Afghan Cameleers in Australia.
3 ‘Afghan’ refers to a range of ethnic groups and cultural identities whose members drove
camels across the arid Australian interior and thus played an invaluable role in opening up
the Australian ‘frontier’.While some of these groups went back to their country of origins,
others remained ( Jones and Kenny 2010).
4 A ‘driza-bone’ is a brand of long waterproof coat worn by stockworkers in parts of rural
Australia. The ‘floppy hat’ refers to the felted hats, often referred to by the brand ‘Akubra’.
Both garments are strongly associated with the outback image.
5 The idea that Australia ‘rode on the sheep’s back’ references the historical importance of
the agricultural sector to the Australian economy.
6 See Australian Bureau of Statistics, www.abs.gov.au/census; also E. Hunt, 2017, Barely
half of population born in Australia to Australian-born parents, The Guardian. www.
theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jun/27/australia-reaches-tipping-point-
with-quarter-of-population-born-overseas
7 See www.parksaustralia.gov.au/uluru/do/we-dont-climb.html. This includes statements
by Traditional Owners and video footage explaining the significance of Uluru and a
request to respect Anangu law and culture. These messages were also reiterated at the
cultural centre (see Chapter 3).
8 Originally a newspaper comic character, ‘boofhead’ is an Australian term for someone
who is a little slow on the uptake and does good-natured but silly things.
1 See, for example, Mzezewa, T. June 26, 2019, ‘Enslaved People Lived Here. These Muse-
ums Want You to Know’, The New York Times; Knowles, H. September 8, 2019, As planta-
tions talk more honestly about slavery, some visitors are pushing back, Washington Post;
Brockwell, G. August 8, 2019, Some white people don’t want to hear about slavery at
plantations built by slaves, Washington Post; see also September 4, 2019, The New York Times
Magazine.
2 See also Slavery at Jefferson’s Monticello: Paradox of Liberty at www.monticello.org/
slavery-at-monticello.
Abercrombie, N. and B. Longhurst 1998. Audiences. London: Sage.
Abram, R. J. 2007. Kitchen conversations: Democracy in action at the lower east side tene-
ment museum. The Public Historian 29(1): 59–76.
Ahmed, S. 2004a. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. London: Routledge.
Ahmed, S. 2004b. Affective economies. Social Text 22(2): 117–139.
Ahmed, S. 2008. Sociable happiness. Emotion, Space and Society 1: 10–13.
Aikawa, N. 2004. An historical overview of the preparation of the UNESCO international
convention for the safeguarding of the intangible heritage. Museum International 56(1–2):
137–149.
Aikawa-Faure, N. 2009. From the proclamation of masterpieces to the convention for
the safeguarding of ICH. Intangible Heritage. L. Smith and N. Akagawa (Eds.). London:
Routledge.
Akagawa, N. 2014. Heritage Conservation and Japan’s Cultural Diplomacy: Heritage, National
Identity and National Interest. London: Routledge.
Albert, M.-T. 2013. Heritage studies – paradigmatic reflections. Understanding Heritage: Per-
spectives in Heritage Studies. M.-T. Albert, R. Bernecker and B. Rudolff (Eds.). Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Alivizatou, M. 2012. Intangible Heritage and the Museum: New Perspectives on Cultural Preserva-
tion. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Ambrose,T. and C. Paine 2018. Museum Basics:The International Handbook. London: Routledge.
Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined Communities. London:Verso.
Anderson, B. 2009. Affective atmospheres. Emotion, Space and Society 2: 77–81.
Anderson, B. and P. Harrison Eds. 2010. Taking Place: Non-Representational Theories and Geog-
raphy. London: Routledge.
Anderson, M. 2002. Oh what a tangled web . . . politics, history and museums. Australian
Historical Studies 33(119): 179–185.
Anderson, P. 1983. In the Tracks of Historical Materialism. London:Verso.
Anderson, S. and E. H. Gurian 2018. Museopunks Episode 31: Are Museums ‘Safe Spaces for
Unsafe Ideas?’ www.aam-us.org/2018/11/15/museopunks-episode-31-are-museums-
safe-spaces-for-unsafe-ideas/.
Anon. 2010. Our Story: The Australian Stockman’s Hall of Fame and Outback Heritage Centre.
Longreach: Stockman’s Hall of Fame.
Appleton, J. 2007. Museum for ‘The People’? Museums and their Communities. S.Watson (Ed.).
London: Routledge.
Archer, M. S. 1995. Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Archer, M. S. 2000. Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Archer, M. S. 2007. Making our Way Through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S. 2012. The Reflexive Imperative in Late Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Arnold-de Simine, S. 2019. The stories we tell: Uncanny encounters in Mr Straw’s house.
International Journal of Heritage Studies 25(1): 80–95.
Ashton, P. and P. Hamilton 2010. History at the Crossroads: Australians and the Past. Sydney:
Halstead Press.
Ashworth, G. J. 2009. Do tourists destroy the heritage they have come to experience? Tourism
Recreation Research 34(1): 79–83.
Ashworth, G. J., B. Graham and J. E. Tunbridge 2007. Pluralizing pasts. Heritage, Identity and
Place in Multicultural Societies. London: Pluto.
Atkinson, W. 2016. Beyond Bourdieu. Cambridge: Polity.
Attwood, B. 2017. Denial in a settler society: The Australian case. History Workshop Journal
84: 24–43.
Augoustinos, M. and D. Every 2007. The language of ‘race’ and prejudice: A discourse of
denial, reason, and liberal-practical politics. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26(2):
132–141.
Augoustinos, M. and D. Every 2010. Accusations and denials of racism: Managing moral
accountability in public discourse. Discourse and Society 21(3): 251–256.
Augoustinos, M., A. Lecouter and J. Soyland 2002. Self-sufficient arguments in political rhet-
oric: Constructing reconciliation and apologizing to the stolen generations. Discourse and
Society 13(1): 105–142.
Autry, R. 2017. Desegregating the Past: The Public Life of Memory in the United States and South
Africa. New York: Columbia University Press.
Azevedo, F., J. T. Jost and T. Rothmund 2017. ‘Making America great again’: System justifi-
cation in the US presidential election of 2016. Translational Issues in Psychological Science
3(3): 231–240.
Bagnall, G. 2003. Performance and performativity at heritage sites. Museum & Society 1(2):
87–103.
Balloffet, P., F. H. Courvoisier and J. Lagier 2014. From museum to amusement park: The
opportunities and risks of edutainment. International Journal of Arts Management 16(2): 4–18.
Banks, P. A. 2017. Ethnicity, class and trusteeship at African-American and mainstream muse-
ums. Cultural Sociology 11(1): 97–112.
Baird, M. F. 2017. Critical Theory and the Anthropology of Heritage Landscapes. Gainsville: Uni-
versity of Florida Press.
Barbalet, J. M. 2001. Emotion, Social Theory, and Social Structure: A Macrosociological Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barnwell, A. 2019. Convict shame to convict chic: Intergenerational memory and family
histories. Memory Studies 12(4): 398–411.
Batson, C. D. 2011. Altruism in Humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bauer, A. M. and S. Kosiba 2016. How things act: An archaeology of materials in political life.
Journal of Social Archaeology 16(2): 115–141.
Bauman, Z. 2001. Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Cambridge: Polity.
Bayne, S. 2015. What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and
Technology 40(1): 5–20.
Beggs-Sunter, A. 2015. Contested memories of Eureka. Ethos 23(4): 8–10.
Belohlavek, J. M. 2016. Andrew Jackson: Principle and Prejudice. New York: Routledge.
Bendix, R., A. Eggert and A. Peselmann Eds. 2013. Heritage Regimes and the State. Göttingen
Studies in Cultural Property. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.
Bennett, T. 1995. The Birth of the Museum. London: Routledge.
Bennett, T. 2015. Thinking (with) museums: From exhibitionary complex to governmen-
tal assemblage. Museum Theory. A. Witcomb and K. Message (Eds.). Chichester: Wiley
Blackwell.
Bennett, T., F. Cameron, N. Dias, B. Dibley, R. Harrison, I. Jacknis and C. McCarthy 2017.
Collecting, Ordering, Governing: Anthropology, Museums, and Liberal Government. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Bennett, T., S. Savage, E. Silva, A. Warde, M. Gayo-Cal and D. Wright 2010. Culture, Class,
Distinction. London: Routledge.
Berger, S. Ed. 2020. Industrial Heritage, Culture and Regional Identity in Regions/Cities Undergo-
ing Structural Transformation. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Berlant, L. 2004. Introduction: Compassion (and withholding). Compassion: The Culture and
Politics of an Emotion. L. Berlant (Ed.). New York: Routledge.
Berlant, L. 2008. Thinking about feeling historical. Emotion, Space and Society 1: 4–9.
Berlant, L. 2011. Cruel Optimism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Bhaskar, R. 1978. A Realist Theory of Science. Hassocks: Harvester Press.
Bhaskar, R. 1989. Reclaiming Reality. London:Verso.
Bickford, A. 2010. Identity and the museum visitor experience. Curator: The Museum Journal
53: 247–255.
Biesta, G. 2004. Education, accountability, and the ethical demand: Can the democratic
potential of accountability be regained? Educational Theory 54(3): 233–250.
Biesta, G. 2009. Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with
the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability
21(1): 33–46.
Biesta, G. 2012. Giving teaching back to education: Responding to the disappearance of the
teacher. Phenomenology & Practice 6(2): 35–49.
Biesta, G. 2013. Interrupting the politics of learning. Power and Education 5(1): 4–15.
Biesta, G. 2015. Freeing teaching from learning: Opening up existential possibilities in edu-
cational relationships. Studies in Philosophy and Education 34: 229–243.
Billig, M. 1995. Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.
Black, G. 2012. Transforming Museums in the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge.
Bloom, P. 2016. Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. London: The Bodley
Head.
Bojesen, E. 2018. Passive education. Educational Philosophy and Theory 50(10): 928–935.
Bonnell, A. and M. Crotty 2008. Australia’s history under Howard 1996–2007. The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science 617(1): 149–165.
Bonnett, A. 2010. Left in the Past: Radicalism and the Politics of Nostalgia. New York: Continuum.
Bonnett, A. and C. Alexander 2012. Mobile Nostalgias: Connecting visions of the urban past,
present and future amongst ex-residents. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
38: 391–402.
Bounia, A., A. Nikiforidou, N. Nikonanou and A. D. Matossian 2012. Voices from the Museum:
Survey Research in Europe’s National Museums, EuNaMus Report No 5, Linköping:
Linköping University Electronic Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Braidotti, R. 2013. The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity.
Brannen, J. 2017. Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: An overview. Mixing
Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research. J. Brannen (Ed.). London: Routledge.
Brennan, T. 2004. The Transmission of Affect. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Bright, C. F., D. H. Alderman and D. L. Butler 2018. Tourist plantation owners and slavery:
A complex relationship. Current Issues in Tourism 21(15): 1743–1760.
Bright, C. F. and P. Carter 2018. Social representational communities and the imagined Ante-
bellum South. Sociological Spectrum 38(1): 24–38.
Brumann, C. 2014. Shifting tides of world-making in the UNESCO World Heritage Con-
vention: Cosmopolitanisms colliding. Ethnic and Racial Studies 37(12): 2176–2192.
Bryman, A. 2012. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Butler, D. L. 2001. Whitewashing plantations: The commodification of a slave-free Antebel-
lum South. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 2(3–4): 163–175.
Butler, J. 1990. Gender trouble, feminist theory, and psychoanalytic discourse. Feministm/
Postmodernism. L. Nicholson (Ed.). London: Routledge.
Butler, J. 1996. Performativity’s social magic. The Social and Political Body. T. R. Schatzki and
W. Natter (Eds.). Guilford Press, 113–128.
Butler, J. 1997. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. 2005. Giving and Account of Oneself. New York: Fordham University Press.
Butler, J. 2010. Performative agency. Journal of Cultural Economy 3(2): 147–161.
Butler, J. 2015. Sense of the Subject. New York: Fordham University Press.
Butler, J. and A. Athanasiou 2013. Dispossession: The Performanative in the Political. Cambridge:
Polity.
Bygstad, B. and B. E. Munkvold 2011. In Search of Mechanisms. Conducting a Critical Realist
Data Analysis. Proceedings of Thirty Second International Conference on Information
Systems, Shanghai, December 4–7.
Cameron, C. M. and J. B. Gatewood 2012. The numen experience in heritage tourism.
The Cultural Moment in Tourism. L. Smith, E. Waterton and S. Watson (Eds.). London:
Routledge.
Cameron, F. 2005. Contentiousness and shifting knowledge paradigms: The roles of history
and science museums in contemporary societies. Museum Management and Curatorship
20(3): 213–233.
Cameron, F. 2006. Beyond surface representations: Museum, edgy topics, civic responsibilities
and modes of engagement. Open Museum Journal 8: Online.
Cameron, F. 2007. Moral lessons and reforming agendas: History Museums, science muse-
ums, contentious topics and contemporary societies. Museum Revolutions: How Museums
Change and are Changed. S. J. Knell, S. Macleod and S.Watson (Eds.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Campbell, G. and L. Smith 2011. Association of Critical Heritage Studies Manifesto. www.criti
calheritagestudies.org/history.
Campbell, S. 2006. Our faithfulness to the past: Reconstructing memory value. Philosophical
Psychology 19(3): 361–380.
Carlson, M. 2017. Performance: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.
Carter, J. 2016. Out of the box and into the fold: Museums, human rights, and changing
pedagogical practices. Museums and the Past: Constructing Historical Consciousness. V. Gos-
selin and P. Livingstone (Eds.).Vancouver: UBC Press.
Casey, D. 2001. Museums as agents for social and political change. Curator 44(3): 230–236.
Cashman, R. 2006. Critical nostalgia and material culture in northern Ireland. Journal of
American Folklore 119(427): 137–160.
Castro, F. G., J. G. Kellison, S. J. Boyd and A. Kopak 2010. A methodology for conducting
integrative mixed methods research and data analysis. Journal of Mixed Methods Research
4(4): 342–360.
Chase, M. and C. Shaw 1989. The dimensions of nostalgia. The Imagined Past: History and
Nostalgia. C. Shaw and M. Chase (Eds.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Cheathem, M. R. 2011. Andrew Jackson, slavery, and historians. History Compass 9(4):
326–338.
Chen, C. 2018. Race and the politics of recognition. The SAGE Handbook of Frankfurt School
Critical Theory. B. Best, W. Bonefeld and C. O’Kane (Eds.). London: Sage.
Chin,W.Y. 2015.The age of covert racism in the era of the Roberts Court during the waning
of affirmative action. Rutgers Race & the Law Review 16(1): 1–38.
Chouliaraki, L. and N. Fairclough. 2004.The critical analysis of discourse. Critical Strategies for
Social Research. W. K. Carroll (Ed.). Tronto: Canadian Scholars Press.
Chronis, A. 2005. Constructing heritage at the Gettysburg storyscape. Annals of Tourism
Research 32(2): 386–406.
Clark, A. 2018. Friday essay: The ‘great Australian silence’ 50 years on. The Conversation
August 3. https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-great-australian-silence-50-
years-on-100737.
Clohesy, A. M. 2013. Politics of Empathy: Ethics, Solidarity, Recognition. London: Routledge.
Clough, P. T. 2007. Introduction. The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social. P. T. Clough and J.
Halley (Eds.). Durham: Duke University Press.
Coats, R. D. 2008. Covert racism in the USA and globally. Sociology Compass 2(1): 208–231.
Cobb, M. D. and J. H. Kuklinski 1997. Changing minds: Political arguments and political
persuasion. American Journal of Political Science 41(1): 88–121.
Coghlan, R. 2017. Imagined Conversations:The Powerful (and Power-Shifting) Potential of Museum
Participation. Unpublished PhD thesis, The Australian National University.
Coghlan, R. 2018.‘My voice counts because I’m handsome.’ Democratising the museum:The
power of museum participation. International Journal of Heritage Studies 24(7): 795–809.
Coles, A. 2016. Museums and freedom of speech. A Cultural Cacophony: Museums Perspectives
and Projects. www.museumsaustralia.org.au/ma2015-sydney, 38–47.
Collingridge, D. S. 2013. A primer on quantitized data analysis and permutation testing. Jour-
nal of Mixed Methods Research 7(1): 81–97.
Conn, S. 2010. Do Museums Still Need Objects? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Connerton, P. 1991. How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connerton, P. 2008. Seven types of forgetting. Memory Studies 1(1): 59–71.
Conrad, M., K. Ercikan, G. Friesen, J. Létourneau, D. A. Muise, D. Northrup and P. Seixas
2013. Canadians and their Pasts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Coole, D. and S. Frost 2010. Introducing the new materialisms. New Materialisms: Ontology,
Agency, and Politics. D. Coole and S. Frost (Eds.). Durham: Duke University Press.
Cossarini, P. and F.Vallespin Eds. 2019. Populism and Passions: Democratic Legitimacy after Auster-
ity. New York: Routledge.
Cresswell, J. W. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.
Los Angles: Sage.
Cresswell, J. W. 2016. Reflection on the MMIRA The Future of Mixed Methods Task Force
Report. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10(3): 215–219.
Cresswell, T. 2012. Nonrepresentational theory and me: Notes of an interested sceptic. Envi-
ronment and Planning D: Society and Space 30: 96–102.
Crooke, E., 2008. Museums and Community: Ideas, Issues and Challenges. London: Routledge.
Crouch, D. 2010. The perpetual performance and emergence of heritage. Culture, Heritage
and Representation. E. Waterton and S. Watson (Eds.). Farnham: Ashgate.
Cubitt, G. 2009. Bringing it home: Making local meaning in 2007 Bicentenary exhibitions.
Slavery and Abolition 30(2): 259–275.
Cubitt, G. 2010. Lines of resistance: Evoking and configuring the theme of resistance in
museum displays in Britain around the bicentenary of 1807. Museum & Society 8(3):
143–164.
Cubitt, G. 2011. Atrocity materials and the representation of transatlantic slavery: Problems,
strategies and reactions. Representing Enslavement and Abolition in Museums: Ambiguous
Engagements. L. Smith, G. Cubitt, R. Wilson and K. Fouseki (Eds.). New York: Routledge.
Cubitt, G. 2015. Displacements and hidden histories: Museums, locality and the British
memory of the transatlantic slave trade. Local Memories in a Nationalizing and Globalizing
World. M. Beyen and B. Deseure (Eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cusack, C. M. and J. Digance 2009. The Melbourne Cup: Australian identity and secular
pilgrimage. Sport in Society 12(7): 876–889.
Daigle, M. 2016. Awawanenitakik: The spatial politics of recognition and relational geogra-
phies of Indigenous self-determination. The Canadian Geographer 60(2): 259–269.
Darian-Smith, K. and C. Pascoe Eds. 2013. Children, Childhood and Cultural Heritage. London:
Routledge.
Dawson, E. and E. Jenson 2011. Towards a contextual turn in visitor studies: Evaluating visi-
tor segmentation and identity-related motivations. Visitor Studies 14(2): 127–140.
Dean, D. and P. E. Rider 2005. Museums, nation and political history in the Australian
national museum and the Canadian museum of civilization. Museum & Society 3(1): 35–50.
De Cesari, C. and A. Kaya Eds. 2020. European Memory in Populism: Representations of Self and
Other. London: Routledge.
Deckha, N. 2004. Beyond the country house: Historic conservation as aesthetic politics.
European Journal of Cultural Studies 7(4): 403–423.
Derickson, K. D. 2016. On the politics of recognition in critical urban scholarship. Urban
Geography 37(6): 824–829.
Dicks, B. 2000. Heritage, Place and Community. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Dicks, B. 2003. Heritage, governance and marketization: A case study from Wales. Museum
and Society 1(1): 30–44.
Doering, Z. D. and A. J. Pekarik 1996. Questioning the entrance narrative. The Journal of
Museum Education 21(3): 20–23.
Dresser, M. 2009. Remembering slavery and abolition in Bristol. Slavery and Abolition 30(2):
223–246.
Dresser, M. and A. Hann 2013. Introduction. Slavery and the British Country House. M. Dresser
and A. Hann (Eds.). Swindon: English Heritage.
Dubinsky, L. and D. Muise 2016. Museums as in-between institutions: Can they be trusted?
Museums and the Past: Constructing Historical Consciousness. V. Gosselin and P. Livingstone
(Eds.).Vancouver: UBC Press
Dudley, L. 2017. ‘I think I know a little bit about that anyway, so it’s okay’: Museum visitor
strategies for disengaging with confronting mental health material. Museum & Society
15(2): 193–216.
Dudley, L. 2019. Mental Health in Museums: Exploring the Reactions of Visitors and Community
Groups to Mental Health Exhibitions. Unpublished PhD thesis, Australian National University.
Dudley, S. H. Ed. 2010. Museum Materialities: Objects, Engagements, Interpretations. London:
Routledge.
Eddo-Lodge, R. 2018. Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race. London:
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Elder-Vass, D. 2010. The Causal Power of Social Structures: Emergence, Structure and Agency. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engelhardt, T. and E. T. Linethal Eds. 1996. History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for
the American Past. New York: Holt Paperbacks.
Fairclough, I. and N. Fairclough 2013. Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Stu-
dents. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Discourse:Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. 2005. Peripheral vision: Discourse analysis in organization studies: The case
for critical realism. Organization Studies 26(6): 915–939.
Fairclough, N., P. Graham, J. Lemke and R. Wodak 2004. Introduction. Critical Discourse
Studies 1(1): 1–7.
Fairclough, N., B. Jessop and A. Sayer 2002. Critical realism and semiosis. Alethia 5(1): 2–10.
Falk, H. and L. D. Dierking 1992. The Museum Experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback
Books.
Falk, J. H. 2005. Free-choice environmental learning: Framing the discussion. Environmental
Education Research 11(3): 265–280.
Falk, J. H. 2006. An identity-centred approach to understanding museum learning. Curator:
The Museums Journal 49(2): 151–166.
Falk, J. H. 2009. Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience. Walnut Creek: Left Coast.
Falk, J. H. 2011. Contextualizing Falk’s identity – related visitor motivation model. Visitor
Studies 14(2): 141–157.
Falk, J. H. and L. D. Dierking 2000. Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making
of Meaning. Lanham: AltaMira.
Falk, J. H. and M. Storksdieck 2005. Using the contextual model of learning to understand
visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education 89: 744–788.
Fetters, M. D. 2018. Six equations to help conceptualise the field of mixed methods. Journal
of Mixed Methods Research 12(3): 262–267.
Fetters, M. D. and J. F. Molina-Azorin 2017.The Journal of Mixed Methods Research starts a new
decade: Perspectives of past editors on the current state of the field and future directions.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research 11(4): 423–432.
Fleming, D. 2012. Human rights museums: An overview. Curator: The Museum Journal 55(3):
251–256.
Fletcher, A. J. 2017. Applying Critical Realism in Qualitative Research: Methodology Meets
Method. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 20(2): 181–194.
Fortun, K. 2014. From Latour to late industrialism. Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4(1):
309–329.
Fouseki, K. 2010. Community voices, curatorial choices: Community consultation for the
1807 exhibitions. Museum and Society 8(3): 180–192.
Fraser, N. 1995. From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a ‘Postsocialist’
age. New Left Review (212, July): 68–93.
Fraser, N. 1999. Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition,
and participation. Culture and Economy After the Cultural Turn. L. Ray and A. Sayer (Eds.).
London: Sage.
Fraser, N. 2000. Rethinking recognition. New Left Review 3(May/June): 107–120.
Fraser, N. 2001. Recognition without ethics? Theory, Culture and Society 18(2–3): 21–42.
Fraser, N. 2008. Rethinking recognition: Overcoming displacement and reification in cul-
tural politics. Adding Insult to Injury: Nancy Fraser Debates her Critics. K. Olson (Ed.). Lon-
don:Verso.
Fraser, N. 2010. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Fraser, N. and A. Honneth 2003. Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange.
London:Verso.
Fraser, N. and N. A. Naples 2004. To interpret the world and to change it: An interview with
Nancy Fraser. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 29(4): 1103–1124.
Frevert, U. 2011. Emotions in History – Lost and Found. Budapest: Central European Univer-
sity Press.
Fyfe, G. 2004. Reproductions, cultural capital and museums: Aspects of the culture of cop-
ies. Museum & Society 2(1): 47–67.
Gable, E. 2009. Labor and leisure at Monticello: Or representing race instead of class at an
inadvertent white identity shrine. Heritage and Identity: Engagement and Demission in the
Contemporary World. M. Anico and E. Peralta (Eds.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Gilroy, P. 1987. There Ain’t no Black in the Union Jack: The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation.
London: Routledge.
Golding,V. and W. Modest Eds. 2013. Museums and Communities: Curators, Collections and Col-
laboration. London: Bloomsbury.
Gordon-Reed, A. 2008. The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family. New York: WW
Norton and Company.
Gosselin, V. and P. Livingstone Eds. 2016. Museums and the Past: Constructing Historical Con-
sciousness.Vancouver: UBC Press.
Goulding, C. 2001. Romancing the past: Heritage visiting and the nostalgic consumer. Psy-
chology and Marketing 18(6): 565–592.
Graburn, N. H. H. and D. Barthel-Bouchier 2001. Relocating the tourist. International Sociol-
ogy 16(2): 147–158.
Graham, B. J., G. J. Ashworth and J. E.Tunbridge 2000. A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture
and Economy. London: Arnold Publishers.
Graham, C. 2017. Happiness for All? Unequal Hopes and Lives in Pursuit of the American Dream.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Grahn, W. and R. J. Wilson Eds. 2018. Gender and Heritage: Performance, Place and Politics. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Gregory, J. 2015. Connecting with the past through social media: The ‘Beautiful buildings
and cool places Perth has lost’ Facebook group. International Journal of Heritage Studies
21(1): 22–45.
Gregory, K. and A. Witcomb 2007. Beyond nostalgia: The role of affect in generating his-
torical understanding at heritage sites. Museum Revolutions: How Museums Change and are
Changed. S. J. Knell, S. Macleod and S. Watson (Eds.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Grewcock, D. 2014. Performing heritage (studies) at the Lord Mayor’s show. International
Journal of Heritage Studies 20(7–8): 760–781.
Hafer, C. L. and B. L. Choma 2010. Belief in a just world, perceived fairness, and justification
of the status quo. Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification. J.T. Jost, A.
C. Kay and H. Thorisdottir (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hafstein, T.V. 2009. Intangible heritage as a list: From masterpieces to representation. Intangi-
ble Heritage. L. Smith and N. Akagawa (Eds.). London: Routledge.
Hafstein, T. V. 2018. Making Intangible Heritage: El Condor Pasa and Other Stories from UNE-
SCO. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hage, G. 2012. White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society. London:
Routledge.
Hall, C. M. 2009. Tourists and heritage: All things must come to pass. Tourism Recreation
Research 34(1): 88–90.
Hall, S. 1999. Whose heritage? Un-settling ‘The Heritage’, Re-imaging the post-nation.
Third Text 13(49): 3–13.
Hanquinet, L. 2016. Place and cultural capital: Art museum visitors across space. Museum and
Society 14(1): 65–81.
Harrison, R. 2010. The politics of heritage. Understanding the Politics of Heritage. R. Harrison
(Ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Harrison, R. 2013. Heritage: Critical Approaches. London: Routledge.
Harrison, R. 2015. Beyond ‘natural’ and ‘cultural’ heritage: Toward an ontological politics of
heritage in the age of Anthropocene. Heritage & Society 8(1): 24–42.
Harrison, R., N. Bartolini, C. DeSilvey, C. Holtorf, A. Lyons, S. Macdonald, S. May, J. Morgan
and S. Penrose. 2016. Heritage futures. Archaeology International 19: 68–72.
Harrison, R., S. Byrne and A. Clarke 2013. Reassembling the Collection: Ethnographic Museums
and Indigenous Agency. Santa Fe: SAR Press.
Harvey, D. C. 2001. Heritage pasts and heritage presents:Temporality, meaning and the scope
of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies 7(4): 319–338.
Harvey, D. C. 2015. Heritage and scale: Settings, boundaries and relations. International Journal
of Heritage Studies 21(6): 577–593.
Hastie, B. and M. Augoustinos 2012. Rudd’s apology to the stolen generations: Challenging
self-sufficient arguments in ‘race’ discourse. Australian Psychologist 47: 118–126.
Hathcoat, J. D. and C. Meixner 2015. Pragmatisim, factor analysis, and the conditional
incompatibility thesis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 11(4):
433–449.
Haviland, M. L. D. 2016. Side by Side?: Community Art and the Challenge of Co-creativity. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Hein, H. 2006. Public Art:Thinking Museums Differently. Lanham: Altamira.
Hewison, R. 1987. The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. London: Methuen.
High, S. C. and D. W. Lewis 2007. Corporate Wasteland: The Landscape and Memory of Deindus-
trialization. Ithaca: ILR Press.
Hill, J. H. 2008. The Everyday Language of White Racism. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hirsch, M. 2008. The generation of postmemory. Poetics 29(1): 103–128.
Hirsch, M. 2012. The Generation of Postmemory: Writing and Visual Culture After the Holocaust.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Hochschild, A. R. 1979. Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of
Sociology 85(3): 551–575.
Hochschild, A. R. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley:
California University Press.
Hodder, I. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hoggett, P. and S. Thompson 2012. Introduction. Politics and the Emotions: The Affective
Turn in Contemporary Political Studies. S. Thompson and P. Hoggett (Eds.). New York:
Continuum.
Holtorf, C. and A. Högberg 2015. Contemporary heritage and the future. The Palgrave Hand-
book of Contemporary Heritage Research. E.Waterton and S.Watson (Eds.). London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Honneth, A. 2005. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cam-
bridge: Polity.
Honneth, A. 2008. Disrespect:The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory. Cambridge: Polity.
Honneth, A. 2012. The I in We: Studies in the Theory of Recognition. Cambridge: Polity.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. 2006. Studying visitors. A Companion to Museum Studies. S. Macdonald
(Ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. 2007a. Museums and Education: Purpose, Pedagogy, Performance. London:
Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. 2007b. Interpretive communities, strategies and repertoires. Museums
and their Communities. S. Watson (Ed.). London: Routledge.
Herzfeld, M. 2016. Siege of the spirits: community and polity in Bangkok. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Hutchinson, M. and A. Witcomb 2014. Migration exhibitions and the question of identity:
Reflections on the history of the representation of migration in Australian museums,
1986–2011. Museums and Migration: History, Memory and Politics. L. Gourievidis (Ed.). Lon-
don: Routledge.
Hutchison, E. and R. Bleiker 2008. Emotional reconciliation: Reconstituting identity and
community after trauma. European Journal of Social Theory 11(3): 385–403.
Illouz, E. 2007. Cold Intimacies:The Making of Emotional Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.
Iosifides, T. 2011. Qualitative Methods in Migration Studies: A Critical Realist Perspective. Farn-
ham: Ashgate.
Jagger, G. 2008. Judith Butler: Sexual Politics, Social Change and the Power of the Performative.
London: Routledge.
Janes, R. R. 2007. Museums, social responsibility and the future we desire. Museum Revolu-
tions: How Museums Change and are Changed. S. J. Knell, S. Macleod and S. Watson (Eds.).
Abingdon: Routledge.
Janes, R. R. 2009. Museums in a Troubled World: Renewal, Irrelevance or Collapse? London:
Routledge.
Janes, R. R. 2016. Museums and the responsibility gap. Museums and the Past: Constructing
Historical Consciousness.V. Gosselin and P. Livingstone (Eds.).Vancouver: UBC Press.
Janes, R. R. and R. Sandell Eds. 2019. Museum Activism. London: Routledge.
Jansen, H. 2010. The logic of qualitative survey research and its position in the field of social
research methods. Forum Qualitative Social Research 11(2): Article 11, http://nbn-resolv
ing.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1002110.
Jenkins,T. 2011. Lest we should ever be allowed to forget. The Independent, accessed 14/09/11.
Johnson, C. 2005. Narratives of identity: Denying empathy in conservative discourses on
race, class, and sexuality. Theory and Society 34: 37–61.
Johnston, R. and K. Marwood 2017. Action heritage: Research, communities, social justice.
International Journal of Heritage Studies 23(9): 816–831.
Jones, P. and A. Kenny 2010. Australia’s Muslim Cameleers: Pioneers of the Inland, 1860s-1930s.
Kent Town: Wakefield Press and the South Australian Museum.
Jost, J. T. 2006. The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist 61(7): 651–670.
Jost, J. T. 2017. A theory of system justification: Is there a nonconscious tendency to defend,
bolster and justify aspects of the societal status quo? American Psychological Association,
www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2017/06/system-justification.
Jost, J.T. 2019. A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms,
and societal applications. British Journal of Social Psychology 58(2): 263–314.
Jost, J.T., C. M. Federico and J. L. Napier 2009. Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and
elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology 60: 307–337.
Jost, J. T., J. Glaser, A. W. Kruglanski and F. J. Sulloway 2003. Political conservatism as moti-
vated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin 129(3): 339–375.
Jost, J. T. and M. Krochik 2014. Ideological differences in epistemic motivation: Implications
for attitude structure, depth of information processing, susceptibility to persuasion, and
stereotyping. Advances in Motivation Science 1: 181–231.
Kadoyama, M. 2018. Museums Involving Communities: Authentic Connections. London:
Routledge.
Kaidesoja, T. 2013. Naturalizing Critical Realist Social Ontology. London: Routledge.
Kalela, J. 2012. Making History: The Historian and Uses of the Past. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Keightley, E. and M. Pickering 2012. The Mnemonic Imagination: Remembering as Creative Prac-
tice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kelly, L. 2002. What is Learning . . . and why do Museums need to do Something About it?
Unpublished paper presented at Why Learning? Seminar, Australian Museum/University
of Technology Sydney, November 22.
Kern, F. G. 2018. The trials and tribulations of applied triangulation: Weighing different data
sources. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 12(2): 166–181.
Kidd, J. 2011. Challenging history: Reviewing debate within the heritage sector on the ‘chal-
lenge’ of history. Museum & Society 9(3): 244–248.
Kidd, J., S. Cairns,A. Drago,A. Ryall and M. Stearn Eds. 2016. Challenging ourselves: Uncom-
fortable histories and current museum practices. Challenging History in the Museum: Inter-
national Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Kiddey, R. 2018. From the ground up: Cultural heritage practices as tools for empowerment
in the homeless heritage project. International Journal of Heritage Studies 24(7): 694–708.
Kidron, C. A. 2013. Being there together: Dark family tourism and the emotive experience
of co-presence in the Holocaust past. Annals of Tourism Research 41: 175–194.
Kikumura-Yano, A., L. R. Hirabayashi and J. A. Hirabayashi Eds. 2005. Common Ground: The
Japanese American National Museum and the Culture of Collaborations. Boulder: University
Press of Colorado.
Kinsley, R. P. 2016. Inclusion in museums: A matter of social justice. Museum Management and
Curatorship 31(5): 474–490.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. 1998. Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. 2004. Intangible heritage as metacultural production. Museum
International 56(1–2): 52–64.
Kohlstedt, S. G. 2005. ‘Thoughts in Things’ modernity, history, and North American muse-
ums. Isis 96(4): 586–601.
Kohn, R. H. 1995. History and the culture wars: The case of the Smithsonian institution’s
Enola Gay exhibition. The Journal of American History 82(3): 1036–1063.
Kolesch, D. and H. Knoblauch 2019. Audience emotions. Affective Societies – Key Concepts. J.
Slaby and C. von Scheve (Eds.). London: Routledge.
Kreps, C. 2003. Curatorship as social practice. Curator:The Museum Journal 46(3): 311–323.
Kreps, C. 2009. Indigenous curation, museums, and intangible cultural heritage. Intangible
Heritage. L. Smith and N. Akagawa (Eds.). London: Routledge.
Krishnamurthy, R. 2013. Ethnic, racial and tribal: The language of racism? Texts and Practices.
C. R. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard (Eds.). London: Routledge.
Kryder-Reid, E., J. W. Foutz, E. Wood and L. J. Zimmerman 2018. ‘I just don’t ever use that
word’: Investigating stakeholders’ understanding of heritage. International Journal of Herit-
age Studies 24(7): 743–763.
Kuutma, K. 2018. Inside the UNESCO apparatus: From intangible representations to tan-
gible effects. Safeguarding Intangible Heritage. N. Akagawa and L. Smith (Eds.). London:
Routledge.
Laclau, E. 2005. On Populist Reason. London:Verso.
Lähdesmäki, T., S. Thomas and Y. Zhu Eds. 2019. Politics of Scale: New Directions in Critical
Heritage Studies. Oxford: Berghahn.
Landsberg, A. 2004. Prosthetic Memory:The Transformation of American Remembrance in the Age of
Mass Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.
Landsberg, A. 2009. Memory, empathy, and the politics of identification. International Journal
of Politics, Culture and Society 22: 221–229.
Latour, B. 2000. When things strike back: A possible contribution of ‘Science Studies’ to the
social sciences. British Journal of Sociology 51(1): 107–123.
Latour, B. 2003. The promises of constructivism. Chasing Technoscience: Matrix for Materiality.
D. Ihde and E. Selinger (Eds.). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Latour, B. 2007. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor Network Theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lawson, T. 2012. Ontology and the study of social reality: Emergence, organisation, com-
munity, power, social relations, corporations, artefacts and money. Cambridge Journal of
Economics 36(2): 345–385.
Lean, G., R. Staiff and E. Waterton 2016. Reimagining travel and imagination. Travel and
Imagination. G. Lean and R. Staiff (Eds.). London: Routledge.
Levitt, P. 2015. Artifacts and Allegiances: How Museums Put the Nation and the World on Display.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Leys, R. 2011. The turn to affect: A critique. Critical Inquiry 37(3): 434–472.
Linkon, S. L. and J. Russo 2002. Steeltown U.S.A.: Work and Memory in Youngstown. Lawrence:
University of Press of Kansas.
Little, B. J. 2019. Violence, silence and the four truths: Towards healing in U.S.-American
historical memory. International Journal of Heritage Studies 25(7): 631–640.
Little, B. J. and Shackel, P. A., 2016. Archaeology, Heritage, and Civic engagement: Working Toward
the Public Good. Abingdon: Routledge.
Littler, J. and R. Naidoo 2004. White past, multicultural present: Heritage and national sto-
ries. History, Nationhood and the Question of Britain. H. Brocklehurst and R. Phillips (Eds.).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Long, J., K. Hylton and K. Spracklen 2014. Whiteness, blackness and settlement: Leisure and
the integration of new migrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 40(11): 1779–1797.
Longhurst, B., G. Bagnall and M. Savage 2004. Audiences, museums and the English middle
class. Museum and Society 2(2): 104–124.
Lorimer, H. 2005. Cultural geography: The busyness of being ‘more-than-representational’.
Progress in Human Geography 29(1): 83–94.
Loveday,V. 2014. ‘Flat capping it’: Memory, nostalgia and value in retroactive male working-
class identification. European Journal of Cultural Studies 17(6): 721–735.
Lovell, T. 2000. Thinking feminism with and against Bourdieu. Feminist theory 1(1): 11–32.
Lowenthal, D. 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lowenthal, D. 2006. Heritage wars. Spiked, www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CAF.
htm accessed 1/06/11.
Lowenthal, D. 2009a. On arraigning ancestors: A critique of historical contrition. North Caro-
lina Law Review 87: 901.
Lowenthal, D. 2009b. Patrons, populists, apologists: Crises in museum stewardship. Valuing
Historic Environments. L. Gibson and J. Pendlebury (Eds.). Farnham: Ashgate.
Lowenthal, D. 2015. The Past is a Foreign Country – Revisited. Cambridge: CUP.
Macdonald, S. 2002. Behind the Scenes at the Science Museum. Oxford: Berg.
Macdonald, S. 2009. Difficult Heritage: Negotiating the Nazi Past in Nuremberg and Beyond.
London: Routledge.
Macdonald, S. 2013. Memorylands: Heritage and Identity in Europe Today. London: Routledge.
Macintyre, S. and A. Clark 2013. The History Wars. Melbourne: Melbourne University
Publishing.
Maddern, J. 2004. Huddled masses yearning to buy postcards: The politics of producing her-
itage at the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island National Monument. Current Issues in Tourism
7(4&5): 303–314.
Mah, A. 2012. Industrial Ruination, Community and Place: Landscapes and Legacies of Urban
Decline. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Mandler, P. 1997. The Fall and Rise of the Stately Home. New Haven:Yale University Press.
Markell, P. 2003. Bound by Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mason, R. 2013. National museums, globalization, and postnationalism: Imagining a cosmo-
politan museology. Museum Worlds 1: 40–64.
Massumi, B. 2002. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham: Duke.
Massumi, B. 2015. Politics of Affect. Cambridge: Polity.
Mata-Codesal, D., E. Peperkamp and N. C. Tiesler 2015. Migration, migrants and leisure:
Meaningful leisure? Leisure Studies 34(1): 1–4.
Mayer, J. D., P. Salovey and D. R. Caruso 2008. Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclec-
tic traits? American Psychologist 63(6): 503–517.
McCall, V. and C. Gray 2014. Museums and the ‘new museology’: Theory, practice and
organisational change. Museum Management and Curatorship 29(1): 19–35.
McCray, K. 2010. Review of identity and the museum visitor experience. Visitor Studies 13:
121–124.
McGill, A. E. 2018. Learning from cultural engagements in community-based heritage
scholarship. International Journal of Heritage Studies 24(10): 1068–1083.
McGrath, A. 2016. Conquering sacred ground? Climbing Uluru and Devils Tower. National
Parks Beyond the Nation. A. Howkins, J. Orsi and M. Fiege. Norman (Eds.). Norman: Uni-
versity of Oklahoma Press.
McNay, L. 2008. Against Recognition. Cambridge: Polity.
Menzies, I. 2019. Heritage icon or environmental pest? Brumbies in the Australian cultural
imaginary. Equestrian Cultures: Horses, Human Society, and the Discourse of Modernity. K.
Guest and M. Mattfeld (Eds.). Chicago University of Chicago Press.
Mercer, J. 2010. Emotional beliefs. International Organization 64: 1–31.
Merriman, N. 1989. Museum visiting as a cultural phenomenon. The New Museology. P.Vergo
(Ed.). London: Reaktion Books.
Merriman, N. 1991. Beyond the Glass Case: The Past, the Heritage and the Public. Leicester:
Leicester University Press.
Mertens, D. M. and S. Hesse-Biber 2012. Triangulation and mixed methods research: Pro-
vocative positions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6(2): 75–79.
Meskell, L. 2014. Protection, politics, and pacting within the UNESCO’s world heritage
committee. Anthropology Quarterly 87(1): 217–243.
Meskell, L. 2016. Heritage and cosmopolitanism. A Companion to Heritage Studies. W. Logan,
M. Nic Craith and U. Kockel (Eds.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Meskell, L., C. Liuzza, E. Bertacchini and D. Saccone 2015. Multilateralism and UNESCO
world heritage: Decision-making, states parties and political processes. International Journal
of Heritage Studies 21(5): 423–440.
Mesquita, B. and D. Albert 2007. The cultural regulation of emotions. Handbook of Emotion
Regulation. J. J. Gross (Ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Message, K. 2014. Museums and Social Activism: Engaged Protest. London: Routledge.
Minges, P. 2001. Beneath the underdog: Race, religion, and the trail of tears. The American
Indian Quaterly 25(3): 453–479.
Mishra, P. 2017. Age of Anger: A History of the Present. London: Allen Lane.
Morphy, H. 2006. Sites of persuasion: Yingapungapu at the national museum of Australia.
Museum Frictions: Public Cultures/Global Transformations. I. Karp, C. A. Kratz, L. Szwaja and
T.Ybarra-Frausto (Eds.). Durham: Duke University Press.
Morse, N., K. Lackoi and H. Chatterjee 2016. Museums learning and wellbeing. Journal of
Education in Museums 37: 3–13.
Morton, A. 2002. Emotional accuracy. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76: 265–275.
Morton, A. 2013. Emotion and Imagination. Cambridge: Polity.
Mouffe, C. 2013. Agonistics:Thinking the World Politically. London:Verso.
Mouffe, C. 2019. For a Left Populism. London:Verso.
Mulcahy, D. and A. Witcomb 2018. Affective practices of learning at the museum: Children’s
critical encounters with the past. In Emotion, Affective Practices, and the Past in the Present. L.
Smith, M. Wetherell and G. Campbell (Eds.). London: Routledge.
Mydland, L. and W. Grahn 2012. Identifying heritage values in local communities. Interna-
tional Journal of Heritage Studies 18(6): 564–587.
Nam, H. H., J. T. Jost and J. J.Van Bavel 2013. ‘Not for all the tea in China!’ Political ideology
and the avoidance of dissonance-arousing situations. PloS One 8(4): doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0059837.
Nyhan, B. and J. Reifler 2010. When corrections fail: The persistence of political mispercep-
tions. Political Behavior 32(2): 303–330.
Ochs, E. and L. Capps 2009. Living Narrative: Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Olsen, B. 2013. In Defense of Things. Lantham: AltaMira Press.
Onciul, B. 2015. Museums, Heritage and Indigenous Voice: Decolonizing Engagement. London:
Routledge.
Palmer, C. 2008. Royalty, national identity, heritage and tourism. Royal Tourism: Excursions
around Monarchy. P. Long and N. Foster (Eds.). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Parker, C. S., S. Mayer and N. Buckley 2019. Left, right, but no in-between: Explaining
American polarisation and post-factualism under President Trump. Trumping the Main-
stream: The Conquest of Democratic Politics by the Populist Radical Right. L. E. Herman and J.
Muldoon (Eds.). London: Routledge.
Pearce, S. M. 1992. Museums, Objects and Collections: A Cultural Study. Leicester: Leicester
University Press.
Pedwell, C. 2013. Affect at the margins: Alternative empathies. A Small Place. Emotion, Space
and Society 8: 18–26.
Pekarik, A. J., Z. D. Doering and D. A. Karns 1999. Exploring satisfying experiences in muse-
ums. Curator:The Museums Journal 42(2): 152–173.
Pekarik, A. J. and J. B. Schreiber 2012.The power of expectation. Curator:The Museums Journal
55(4): 487–496.
Pétursdóttir, P. 2012. Concrete matters: Ruins of modernity and the things called heritage.
Journal of Social Archaeology 13(1): 31–53.
Pétursdóttir, P. and B. Olsen 2018. Theory adrift: The matter of archaeological theorizing.
Journal of Social Archaeology 18(1): 97–117.
Pickering, M. and E. Keightley 2013. Communities of memory and the problem of transmis-
sion. European Journal of Cultural Studies 16(1): 115–131.
Pilkington, H. and N. Acik 2019. Not entitled to talk: (Mis)recognition, inequality and social
activism of young Muslims. Sociology: 1–18, doi.org/10.1177/0038038519867630.
Poria, Y., R. Butler and D. Airey 2003. The core of heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 30(1): 238–254.
Porpora, D. V. 2015. Reconstructing Sociology: The Critical Realist Approach. Cambridge: Camp-
brige University Press.
Prinz, J. J. 2007. The Emotional Construction of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prinz, J. J. 2011. Is empathy necessary for morality? Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological
Perspective. A. Coplan and P. Goldie (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Protevi, J. 2009. Political Affect: Connecting the Social and the Somatic. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Read, P. 2014. Reflecting on The Stolen Generations. Indigenous Law Bulletin 8(13): 3–6.
Reddy, W. M. 2001. The Navigation of Feeling: A Framework for the History of Emotions. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reed, A. and M. Chowkwanyun 2012. Race, class, crisis:The discourse of racial disparity and
its analytical discontents. Socialist Register 48: 149–175.
Rizzo, M. 2010. Hon-ouring the past: Play-publics and gender at Baltimore’s HonFest. Inter-
national Journal of Heritage Studies 16(4–5): 337–351.
Robinson, H. 2017. Is cultural democracy possible in a museum? Critical reflections on
Indigenous engagement in the development of the exhibition Encounters: Revealing
stories of aboriginal and Torres strait Islander objects from the British Museum. Interna-
tional Journal of Heritage Studies 23(9): 860–874.
Rojek, C. 2000. Leisure and Culture. London: Macmillan.
Roppola, T., J. Packer, D. Uzzell and R. Ballantyne 2019. Nested assemblages: Migrants, war
heritage, informal learning and national identities. International Journal of Heritage Studies
25(11): 1205–1223.
Rosenzweig, R. and D. Thelen 1998. The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in Ameri-
can Life. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rowe, S. M., J.V. Wertsch and T.Y. Kosyaeva 2002. Linking little narratives to big ones: Nar-
rative and public memory in history museums. Culture & Psychology 8(1): 96–112.
Rudd, K. 2008. Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples. Hansard extract. www.unitcare.com.
au/pdfs/Sorry_Transcript.pdf.
Russell-Ciardi, M. 2008. The museum as a democracy-building institution: Reflections on
the shared journeys program at the Lower East Side Tenement Museum. The Public His-
torian 30(1): 39–52.
Saldaña, J. 2016. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.
Samuel, L. R. 2012. The American Dream: A Cultural History. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse
University Press.
Samuel, R. 1994. Theatres of Memory: Past and Present in Contemporary Culture. London:Verso
Books.
Sandell, R. 2003. Social inclusion, the museum and the dynamics of sectorial change.
Museum & Society 1(1): 45–62.
Sandell, R. 2007. Museums, Prejudice and the Reframing of Difference. London: Routledge.
Sandell, R. and E. Nightingale Eds. 2012. Museums, Equality and Social Justice. London:
Routledge.
Sayer, A. 2000. Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.
Sayer, A. 2005. Class, moral worth and recognition. Sociology 39(5): 947–963.
Sayer, A. 2011. Why Things Matter to People: Social Science, Values and Ethical Life. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sayer, R.A., 1992. Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach. Second edition. London:
Routledge.
Sayes, E. 2013. Actor-Network Theory and methodology: just what does it mean to say that
nonhumans have agency? Social Studies of Science 44(1): 134–149.
Schatzki, T. R. 2002. The Site of the Social. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Schatzki,T. R. 2006. Introduction: Practice theory. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory.T.
R. Schatzki, K. K. Cetina and E. von Savigny (Eds.). London: Routledge.
Schatzki, T. R. 2008. Social Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schatzki, T. R. 2010. The Timespace of Human Activity. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Schmidt, P. and I. Pikirayi Eds. 2016. Community Archaeology and Heritage in Africa: Decoloniz-
ing Practice. London: Routledge.
Schoonenboom, J. 2017. A performative paradigm for mixed methods research. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, doi:10.1177/1558689817722889.
Schorch, P. 2015. Experiencing differences and negotiating prejudices at the immigration
museum Melbourne. International Journal of Heritage Studies 21(1): 46–64.
Schrauf, W. W. 2018. Mixed methods designs for making cross-cultural comparisons. Journal
of Mixed Methods Research 12(4): 477–494.
Seaton, A.V. 2001. Sources of Slavery – Destinations of Slavery: The silences and disclosures
of slavery heritage in the UK and US. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Admin-
istration 2(2–3): 107–129.
Seltzer-Kelly, D., S. J. Westood and D. M. Peña-Guzman 2012. A methodological self-study
of quantitizing: Negotiating meaning and revealing multiplicity. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research 6(4): 258–274.
Selwood, S. 2006. Unreliable evidence: The rhetoric of data collection in the culture sec-
tor. Culture Vultures: Is UK Arts Policy Damaging the Arts. M. Mirza (Ed.). London: Policy
Exchange.
Shackel, P. A. 2018. Remembering Lattimer: Labor, Migration, and Race in Pennsylvania Anthracite
Country. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Shannon-Baker, P. 2016. Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal
of Mixed Methods Research 10(4): 319–334.
Shove, E., M. Pantzar and M. Watson 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and
How it Changes. Los Angles: Sage.
Simon, R. I. 2011. A short to thought: Curatorial judgement and the public exhibition of
‘Difficult Knowledge’. Memory Studies 4(4): 432–449.
Skrede, J. and H. Hølleland 2018. Uses of heritage and beyond: Heritage studies viewed
through the lens of critical discourse analysis and critical realism. Journal of Social Archaeol-
ogy 18(1): 77–96.
Skrede, J., H. Hølleland, O. Risbøl and G. Jerpåsen 2018. Views, use and reception of visu-
alisations of development proposals impacting cultural heritage. International Journal of
Heritage Studies 24(4): 390–405.
Slaby, J. and C. von Scheve Eds. 2019. Affective Societies: Key Concepts. London: Routledge.
Smith, L. 1994. Heritage as postprocessual archaeology? Antiquity 68: 300–309.
Smith, L. 2004. Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage. London: Routledge.
Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge.
Smith, L. 2007. Empty gestures? Heritage and the politics of recognition. Cultural Heritage
and Human Rights. H. Silberman and D. R. Fairchild (Eds.). New York: Springer.
Smith, L. 2010. ‘Man’s inhumanity to man’ and other platitudes of avoidance and misrecog-
nition: An analysis of visitor responses to exhibitions marking the 1807 bicentenary.
Museum & Society 8(3): 193–214.
Smith, L. 2011. Affect and registers of engagement: Navigating emotional responses to dis-
sonant heritage. Representing Enslavement and Abolition in Museums: Ambiguous Engagements.
L. Smith, G. Cubitt, R. Wilson and K. Fouseki (Eds.). New York: Routledge.
Smith, L. 2012a. A pilgrimage of masculinity: The Stockman’s hall of fame and outback her-
itage centre. Australian Historical Studies 43(3): 472–482.
Smith, L. 2012b. The cultural ‘work’ of tourism. The Cultural Moment of Tourism. L. Smith, E.
Waterton and S. Watson (Eds.). London: Routledge.
Smith, L. 2013. Taking the children: Children, childhood and heritage making. Children,
Childhood and Cultural Heritage. K. Darian-Smith and C. Pascoe (Eds.). London: Routledge.
Smith, L. 2014. Intangible heritage: A challenge to the authorised heritage discourse? Revista
d’etnologia de Catalunya 40: 133–142.
Smith, L. 2015. Theorising museum and heritage visiting. The International Handbooks of
Museum Studies: Museum Theory. A. Witcomb and K. Message (Eds.). Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Smith, L. 2016. Changing views? Emotional intelligence, registers of engagement and the
museum visit. Museums and the Past – Constructing Historical Consciousness.V. Gosselin and
P. Livingstone (Eds.).Vancouver: UBC Press.
Smith, L. 2017a. Explorations in banality: Prison tourism at the Old Melbourne Goal. The
Palgrave Handbook of Prison Tourism. J. Z. Wilson, S. Hodgkinson, J. Piche and K. Walby
(Eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, L. 2017b. ‘We are . . . we are everything’: The politics of recognition and misrecogni-
tion at immigration museums. Museum & Society 15(1): 69–86.
Smith, L. 2020. Industrial heritage and the remaking of class identity – are we all middle class
now? Industrial Heritage, Culture and Regional Identity in Regions/Cities Undergoing Structural
Transformation. S. Berger (Ed.). Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Smith, L. and G. Campbell 2016. The elephant in the room: Heritage, affect and emotion. A
Companion to Heritage Studies. W. Logan, M. Nic Craith and U. Kockel (Eds.). Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Smith, L. and G. Campbell 2017a. ‘Nostalgia for the future’: Memory, nostalgia and the poli-
tics of class. International Journal of Heritage Studies 23(7): 612–627.
Smith, L. and G. Campbell 2017b.The tautology of ‘intangible values’ and the misrecognition
of intangible cultural heritage. Heritage & Society 10(1): 26–44.
Smith, L., G. Cubitt, R. Wilson and K. Fouseki Eds. 2011. Representing Enslavement and Aboli-
tion in Museums: Ambiguous Engagements. New York: Routledge.
Smith, L. and E. Waterton 2009. Heritage, Communities and Archaeology. London: Duckworth.
Smith, M. 2018.What is learning? Exploring theory, product and process. The Encyclopaedia of
Informal Education,http://infed.org/mobi/learning-theory-models-product-and-process/.
SOC (Standard Occupational Classification) 2000. Standard occupational classification and
NS-SEC on the labour force survey. Office for National Statistics. https://webarchive.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160108030321/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/
method-quality/specific/labour-market/soc-2000-and-ns-sec-on-the-lfs/index.html
Solli, B. 2011. Some reflections on heritage and archaeology in the Anthropocene. Norwegian
Archaeological Review 44(1): 40–54.
Song, M. and N. Hayashi 2016. Open-Air museums as mediators for intergenerational
transmission: Taking as example two ethnographic open-Air museums in Georgia and
Ukraine. Museum International 68(3–4): 157–163.
Sontag, S. 2004. Regarding the Pain of Others. London: Penguin.
Sørensen, M. L. S. and J. Carman Eds. 2009. Heritage Studies: Methods and Approaches. Abing-
don: Routledge.
Spatz, B. 2015. What a Body Can Do: Technique as Knowledge, Practice as Research. London:
Routledge.
Staiff, R. 2014. Re-imagining Heritage Interpretation: Enchanting the Past-Future. Farnham:
Ashgate.
Staiff, R., R. Bushell and S. Watson Eds. 2013. Heritage and Tourism: Place, Encounter, Engage-
ment. London: Routledge.
Storksdieck, M., K. Ellenbogen and J. E. Heimlick 2005. Changing minds? Reassessing out-
comes in free-choice environmental education. Environmental Education Research 11(3):
353–369.
Sturgis, A. 2007. The Trail of Tears and Indian Removal. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Taber, C. S. and M. Lodge 2006. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political
beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 755–769.
Taksa, L. 2019. Remembering and incorporating migrant workers in Australian industrial
heritage. Labor 16(1): 81–105.
Taylor, C. 1992. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, C. 1994. The politics of recognition. Multiculturalism. A. Gutmann (Ed.). Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Taylor, D. 2003. The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Terry, A. 2015. Family Ties: Living History in Canadian House Museums. Montreal: McGill-
Queen’s University Press.
Thien, D. 2005. After or beyond feeling? A consideration of affect and emotion in geography.
Area 37(3): 450–656.
Thompson, E. 1994. Fair Enough: Egalitarianism in Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Thompson, S. 2006. The Political Theory of Recognition: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Polity.
Thompson, S. and P. Hoggett 2011. Recognition and ambivalence. The Politics of Misrecogni-
tion. S. Thompson and M.Yar (Eds.). London: Routledge.
Thompson, S. and P. Hoggett Eds. 2012. Politics and the Emotions:The Affective Turn in Contem-
porary Political Studies. New York: Continuum.
Thompson, S. and M.Yar 2011. Introduction. The Politics of Misrecognition. S. Thompson and
M.Yar (Eds.). London: Routledge.
Thorisdottir, H., J.T. Jost and A. C. Kay 2010. On the social and psychological bases of ideol-
ogy and system justification. Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification.
J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay and H. Thorisdottir (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thrift, N. 2004. Intensities of feeling: Towards a spatial politics of affect. Geografiska Annaler
86(B): 57–78.
Thrift, N. 2008. Non-Representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. London: Routledge.
Till, C. 2015. Zizek’s critique of new materialism: Can we theorise natural subjectivity? Blog,
https://thisisnotasociology.blog/2015/03/12/zizeks-critique-of-new-materialism-can-
we-theorise-natural-subjectivity/.
Tlili, A. 2008. Behind the policy mantra of the inclusive museum: receptions of social exclu-
sion and inclusion in museums and science centres. Cultural Sociology 2(1): 123–147.
Tolia-Kelly, D., E. Waterton, S. Watson Eds. 2017. Heritage, Affect and Emotion. Politics, Practices
and Infrastructures. London: Routledge.
Tranter, B. and J. Donoghue 2008. Bushrangers: Ned Kelly and Australian identity. Journal of
Sociology 44(4): 373–390.
Trinca, M. 2003. Museums and the history wars. History Australia 1(1): 85–97.
Trofanenko, B. 2014. Affective emotions:The pedagogical challenges of knowing war. Review
of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 36(1): 22–39.
Tully, J. 2000. Struggles over recognition and distribution. Constellations 7(4): 469–482.
Tunbridge, J. and G. Ashworth 1996. Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a
Resource in Conflict. Chichester: J. Wiley.
Tunbridge, J. E., G. J. Ashworth, B. J. Graham. 2012. Decennial reflections on A Geography of
Heritage (2000). International Journal of Heritage Studies 19(4): 365–372.
Urry, J. and J. Larsen 2011. The Tourist Gaze 3.0. Los Angeles: Sage.
van der Toorn, J., P. R. Nail, I. Liviatan and J. T. Jost 2014. My country, right or wrong: Does
activating system justification motivation eliminate the liberal-conservative gap in patri-
otism? Journal of Experimental social Psychology 54: 50–60.
Vergo, P Ed. 1989. The New Museology. London: Reaktion Books.
Walkerdine,V. 2010. Communal beings and affect. Body & Society 16(1): 91–116.
Walvin, J. 2005. The colonial origins of English wealth: The harewoods of Yorkshire. The
Journal of Caribbean History 39(1): 38–53.
Waterton, E. 2010. Politics, Policy and the Discourses of Heritage in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Waterton, E. 2011. In the spirit of self-mockery? Labour heritage and identity in the potter-
ies. International Journal of Heritage Studies 17(4): 344–363.
Waterton, E. 2014. A more-than-representational understanding of heritage? The ‘past’ and
the politics of affect. Geography Compass 8(11): 823–833.
Waterton, E. and S. Watson 2013. Framing theory: Towards a critical imagination in heritage
studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies 19(6): 546–561.
Waterton, E. and S.Watson 2014. The Semiotics of Heritage Tourism,Tourism and Cultural Change.
Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Waterton, E. and R. J. Wilson 2009. Talking the talk: Policy, popular and media responses to
the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade using the abolition discourse. Discourse
and Society 20(3): 381–399.
Watson, S. 2010. Constructing Rhodes: Heritage tourism and visuality. Culture, Heritage and
Representation. E. Waterton and S. Watson (Eds.). Farnham: Ashgate.
Wells, J. 2015. In stakeholders we trust: Changing the ontological and epistemological
orientation of built heritage assessment through participatory action research. How to
Assess Built Heritage? Assumptions, Methodologies, Examples of Heritage Assessment Systems. B.
Szmygin (Ed.). Lubin: International Scientific Committee for Theory and Philosophy of
Conservation and Restoration ICOMOS.
Wertsch, J. 2002. Voices of Collective Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. 2004. Specific narratives and schematic narrative templates. Theorizing Historical
Consciousness. P. Seixas (Ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Wertsch, J. 2007. National narratives and the conservative nature of collective memory. Neo-
helicon 34(1): 23–33.
Wertsch, J. 2008a. The narrative organization of collective memory. Ethos 36(1): 120–135.
Wertsch, J. 2008b. Blank spots in collective memory: A case study of Russia. The Annals of the
American Academy 617: 58–71.
Wertsch, J. 2012. Deep memory and narrative templates: Conservative forces in collective
memory. Memory and Political Change. A. Assmann and L. Shortt (Eds.). London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Wertsch, J. and D. M. Billingsley 2011. The role of narrative in commemoration: Remem-
bering as mediated action. Heritage, Memory and Identity. H. Anheier and Y. R. Isar (Eds.).
Los Angles: Sage.
Wetherell, M. 2012. Affect and Emotion: A New Social Science Understanding. London: Sage.
Wetherell, M. 2013a. Affect and discourse – what’s the problem? From affect as excess to
affective/discursive practice. Subjectivity 6(4): 349–368.
Wetherell, M. 2013b. Feeling Rules, atmospheres and affective practice: Some reflections on
the analysis of emotional episodes. Privilege, Agency and Affect: Understanding the Production
and Effects of Action. C. Maxwell and P. Aggleton (Eds.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
221–239.
Wetherell, M. 2015. Trends in the turn to affect: A social psychological critique. Body &
Society 21(2): 139–166.
Wetherell, M. and J. Potter 1992. Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and the Legitimiza-
tion of Exploitation. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Wetherell, M., L. Smith and G. Campbell 2018. Affective heritage practices. Emotion, Affective
Heritage Practices, and the Past in the Present. L. Smith, M.Wetherell and G. Campbell (Eds.).
London: Routledge.
Wierzbicka, A. 1999. Emotions Across Languages and Cultures: Diversity and Universals. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wildt, A., 2018.The city museum as an empathic space. Museum International 70(3–4): 72–83.
Wilkie, M. 1997. Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. Sydney: Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission.
Williams, R., 1977. Structures of feeling. Marxism and Literature 1: 128–135.
Wilson, R. J. 2015. Playful heritage: Excavating ancient Greece in New York city. International
Journal of Heritage Studies 21(5): 476–492.
Wingfield, A. H. 2010. Are some emotions marked ‘whites only’? Racialized feeling rules in
professional workplaces. Social Problems 57(2): 251–268.
Winter,T. 2013. Clarifying the critical in critical heritage studies. International Journal of Herit-
age Studies 19(6): 532–545.
Winter,T. 2014. Heritage studies and the privileging of theory. International Journal of Heritage
Studies 20(5): 556–572.
Witcomb, A. 2003. Re-imagining the Museum: Beyond the Mausoleum. London: Routledge.
Witcomb, A. 2013. Understanding the role of affect in producing a critical pedagogy for his-
tory museums. Museum Management and Curatorship 28(3): 255–271.
Witcomb, A. 2015. Toward a pedagogy of feeling: Understating how museums create a space
for cross-cultural encounters. Museum Theory. A.Witcomb and K. Message (Eds.). Chitch-
ester: Wiley Blackwell, 321–344.
Witcomb, A. 2016. Cross-Cultural encounters and ‘difficult heritage’ on the Thai-Burma
Railway: An ethics of cosmopolitanism rather than practices of exclusion. A Com-
panion to Heritage Studies. W. Logan, M Nic Craith and U. Kockel (Eds.). Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Witcomb, A. and K. Buckley 2013. Engaging with the future of ‘critical heritage studies’:
Looking back in order to look forward. International Journal of Heritage Studies 19(6):
562–578.
Wright, P. 1985. On Living in an Old Country. London:Verso.
Yosef-Hassidim, D. 2016. Review of The Beautiful Risk of Education by Gert J. J. Biesta. Philo-
sophical Inquiry in Education 23(2): 222–228.
Young, I. M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Young, I. M. 2011. Responsibility for Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zembylas, M. 2018. Understanding the emotional regimes of reconciliation in engagements
with ‘difficult’ heritage. Emotion, Affective Practices, and the Past in the Present. L. Smith, M.
Wetherell and G. Campbell (Eds.). London: Routledge.
Zhang, R. 2016. ‘Value in Change’: What do World Heritage Nominations bring to Chinese World
Heritage Sites? Unpublished PhD thesis, Australian National University.
Zhang, R. 2020. Chinese Heritage Sites and their Audiences: The Power of the Past. London:
Routledge.
Zhang, R. and L. Smith 2019. Bonding and dissonance: Rethinking the interrelations among
stakeholders in heritage tourism. Tourism Management 74: 212–223.
Zweig, Michael. 2000. The Working Class Majority: America’s Best Kept Secret. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.