The attempt to retrace significant turning points in the biographies of these industrial heritage sites is one way of examining the process of making of heritage before it fixates and becomes a place that is taken for granted. To consider industrial heritage as a process implies that the approaches that are taken, those that are considered and those that are ruled out are can be enrolled as constituent parts in a larger negotiation process (Macdonald 2009a: 186).
Preservation of industrial heritage is quite often seen by scholars as well as policy-makers as a particularly urgent concern, because it has been neglected and ignored for such a long time.
Hence a historic momentum in the 1970s and 1980s of recording, and securing a selection of industrial heritage sites is part of the self-feeding collection logic whereby flaws, gaps and omissions motivates new acquisitions and engenders new priorities. This self-imposed duty is based on the acknowledgment of the incompleteness of a canon, or lists, registers and collections. The revision and/or rejection of earlier heritage paradigms only affirms the relevance of the present practice as groundbreaking given that the ground is usually historicized by the institutions themselves (Brattli 2006). In interviews many of the actors have explained to me that industrial heritage differs from the conventional and more conservative categories of cultural heritage and approaches to heritage with which they contrast their own work.
This understanding of earlier practices and practices in other places are not peripheral to the production of a local heritage, in fact it takes part in it and it was this realization that first alerted me to the metaphor of assemblage. First and foremost, I turned to assemblage to account for how materials, practices, categories and texts were enlisted from a wide variety of
sources both geographically and temporally remote from one another were enlisted as co-functioning members of the heritage assemblage. Secondly, assemblage brings to mind the raw material of industrial heritage which is the production process often understood in terms of the assembly line and it is akin to the museal enterprise of collecting, categorization, ordering and reordering. Thirdly, the advantage of the assemblage perspective in trying to make sense of the complexity of local cultural entities is that it does not stratify the local and the global in a spatial hierarchy nor does it seek to depth as the ultimate concern of cultural analysis. The strength of analysis is not proportional to how much agency can be ascribed to a single agent or discourse; rather it looks at the associations between actors at different levels without expecting a neat distribution of relative strength. Distant points can be assembled in the process and even if they only rarely end up as part of the actual heritage representation, an awareness of their role in the process is a way to supplement prevailing paradigms of heritage research which all too readily assume power and domination.
The strength of assemblage theory is that it employs a more piecemeal and careful approach to issues such as globalization. It does not care so much for the broad cultural diagnoses, but rather “minor histories that address themselves to the ‘big’ questions of globalizations in a careful and limited manner” (Collier and Ong 2005: 15). I have taken cues from notions of assemblage in approaching the industrial heritage as a complex socio-material assemblage.
Recent publications within heritage studies similarly attempts to recognize and analyze complexity in the field by enrolling the intersecting discourses, processes, materials, and experts in the fields of art, history, tourism, law, geography, archaeology, economy and planning which have a stake in the making of heritage. This approach has inspired my work with regards to variety of components, discourses, materials and actors assembling a local industrial heritage site and making it durable.
I see this as a way to complement the binary conceptualization of heritage which is ingrained in much theorization of the phenomenon which abides primarily to the view of heritage representation as a struggle for recognition; “the tendency for cultural analyses to cleave towards a conservative, categorical politics of identity” (Lorimer 2005: 83). Here heritage reflects political questions exclusion or inclusion and the incessant struggle between marginal and dominant, local and universal forms of heritage. The political reading of heritage means that meaning is derived from a larger emancipatory project in which heritage is always already a weapon in the fight for recognition. Visiting a heritage can is seen as a political statement and remembering can entail a “politicized reworking of meanings” (Smith 2006:
66). The act of interpretation is always already fraught with larger political issues which in the end seem to grant heritage studies its wider political and social relevance and legitimacy. In recent years warnings have been issued against the tendency of ideology critique to see power and domination as “mysterious containers” which make participants act in a certain way (Latour 2005: 83).
Similarly, a central point of dissent in the study of cultural heritage is how much weight should be attributed to discursive practices as hegemonic stabilizing factors. The preoccupation with ideology critique overemphasizes the stability of the form and
deemphasizes the trials and errors, the failed attempts and the numerous compromises which go into stabilizing the industrial heritage assemblage. Industrial heritage is made up of a range of components and it is difficult to ascribe the ultimate authority and explanatory power to either one of the factors politics, economy, law, technology, the market or the nation-state.
The idea that heritage ultimately entails a reproduction of hegemonic discourses has
resurfaced in a recently established research initiative called Association of Critical Heritage Studies at the University of Gothenburg. The critical heritage studies adopt a long-held view on cultural heritage as politically dubious and culturally reactionary manifestation of nostalgia for things past. Heritage it seems is always already a reflection of colonial, Western and elitist conceptions of culture. In the manifesto of critical heritage studies written in connection with the inaugural conference in 2012 the following idea of heritage was suggested:
“Heritage is, as much as anything, a political act and we need to ask serious questions about the power relations that ‘heritage’ has all too often been invoked to sustain. Nationalism, imperialism, colonialism, cultural elitism, Western triumphalism, social exclusion based on class and ethnicity, and the fetishizing of expert knowledge have all exerted strong influences on how heritage is used, defined and managed” (Association of Critical Heritage Studies 2013).
As evident in this quote, the assumption is that a kernel of hegemonic ideologies exerts considerable influence on how cultural heritage is made and to what end it is made.
Undoubtedly, heritage critique has been and still is important to compel a more diverse understanding of heritage which does not adhere blindly to the Eurocentric and elitist notions of culture as the great and the good. The problem is that cultural critique all too often is rehearsed according to a rigid, precast form which replaces the complexity of cultural phenomena with a set of uniform and hegemonic discourses. The same suspects are rounded up time after time to give the study of culture a more critical, political edge. Bruno Latour has
been critical of this tendency in social sciences and the humanities to incessantly look for the work of a hidden, dominant ideology. A point made by Latour (2005) is that actor-network theory seeks to disembarrass this narrow repertoire of critical sociology with a more comprehensive range of entities that populate the social world. The dictum of ANT is to follow the actors (materials, texts, experts, definitions, categories etc.) in order to explore how alliances are formed through stages of translation whereby common interests are enrolled and obtain stability and durability. The purpose of such a take on the social world is to flatten the field so that power and domination is not assumed a priori, but can make sense only by retracing the processes of enrolment.
Psychoanalytical, feminist, post-colonial and Marxist analyses of culture often presuppose a structure of which the actors cannot have the full knowledge. These are “structures which overdetermine the form which the assemblage of elements can or cannot take” (Vandenberghe 2002: 61). These structures are not allowed to take precedence within ANT or assemblage perspective. Instead this body of theory questions the explanatory model of elitism, ideology, nation-state or patriarchy as the necessary end-point of analysis. Latour suggests that
following the actors can be a way to prevent analysis from being cut off too soon. Why cannot sociology not only begin but “also end in wonder”, asks Latour (2005: 220). The critical view, instead of trying to make analysis sensitive to noise and avoid the “premature closure of the social sphere” invokes a set of readily available explanations – “power, domination, exploitation, legitimization, fetishization, reification” (Latour 2005: 260, 249).
Despite these important distinctions, a common denominator of assemblage perspective and critical theory is to disentangle a cultural and social phenomenon from its taken-for granted (“hegemonic”, “naturalized”, “black-boxed") constitution. The purpose of disentangling a phenomenon which has “sunk into common sense” differs (Latour 2005: 257) . The former seeks to flatten the field so that analyses can become more sensitive to multifarious and complex ways that humans and non-humans are jumbled together. The latter seeks to unravel the political and ideological underpinnings that have become obscured through the
naturalization of a particular discourse. Another central point made by Latour is that actors themselves should be allowed to deploy their own world and engage in definition and
ordering work, before any analysis can proceed to make sense of how controversies are settled or dealt with. Actors too have their own elaborate and fully reflexive meta-language” (Latour 2005: 30). This would imply that we cannot simply assume the predominance across
individual case studies of power, domination, nation-state and similar narratives that the researcher will reveal and expose.
While not a coherent methodological toolkit, the assemblage perspective – understood as a close relative of ANT - alerts us to not to assume a central authority extending across a whole and being able to co-ordinate the parts exhaustively. The question for me in working with this thesis has been how the complexity of the field can be mapped out in a way which avoids falling into dry description of events when pursuing the actors. Obediently registering associations between actors in the field could seem an attempt of sidestepping the way any account of the cultural practices engages in reinterpreting the chain of events and the meaning derived from an industrial heritage site. The author, me, is brought into the play. The process of making sense of a cultural phenomenon, while it can aspire to remain close to world of the actors, has to entail interpretative flexibility and allow for speculation and the occasional over-interpretation. Clearly, the limits of reasonable interpretation can be exceeded, but an attempt to describe the matter-of-factual accounts of instrumental action can be equally deadening.
The unease caused by ANT and the assemblage view in the humanities is that symbolic actions and ethical capacities singular to human beings are reduced to a strategic enrolment of beneficial partners in a way which reduces ethical questions to a disinterested matter-of-factly description (cfr. Vandenberghe 2002). This is particularly problematic in a field like industrial heritage saturated with the ethical commitment to redeem cultures and initiate what is
regularly understood as a belated commemoration of the heritages of ordinary working men and women. The understanding of industrial heritage employed by the heritage practitioners in this thesis is consistently one of uncovering hidden treasures and of preventing that neglected heritage is completely forgotten. It is seen as an ethical imperative of restoring objects and sites and granting them a heightened presence in a wider public, historical consciousness. In official policies the legitimacy of industrial heritage tends to be accounted for in terms of how it constitutes an anchorage for identity and belonging in the face of rapid economic and cultural development. The possession of a distinct heritage serves as the cultural affirmation of the subject or the social group. Heritage artifacts can serve as visible proof of one’s place in history and they can serve as a reassurance of rootedness, a collective self-preservation. Heritage is often promoted as “an experience of identification” (Wright 2009: xxi) and the function of “presencing absence” remains a crucial function of cultural heritage (Buchli and Lucas 2001). This understanding of the purpose of industrial heritage is
part of that elaborate and reflexive meta-language of actors that Latour refers to. It is a vocabulary which contributes to make sense of and lend urgency as well as importance to the practice. Moreover it is a reassuring device in the sense that it allows industrial heritage to be seen as an ongoing attempt to revise earlier practices and restitute overlooked dimensions of cultural heritage.
The desire to attain enhanced visibility and present in the public realm is a powerful and persistent motivation for much heritage work. The activity of making the absent present does not need to be about a plain material or monumental presence. However, the desire to commemorate a particular historical era or cultural tradition is often given a material articulation. The problem encountered by the researcher who these polemically opposed academic worldviews of flattened surfaces (ANT and assemblage perspective) and hierarchies of power (critical theory) is that a dogmatic and determined agenda of research runs the risk of favoring those elements that fit a distinct research program. While the assemblage perspective and ANT through flattening seeks to re-theorize prevailing concepts of culture which builds on the modernist metaphor of stratum (e.g. deep past and archaeology-as-excavation) (Harrison 2011), there is no sense denying that these metaphors matters a great deal in the making of heritage. And while critical theory presupposes mechanisms of exclusion there is no reason to disqualify a consideration of complexity for the sake of theoretical clarity. To provide one brief illustration of how the mess of the world may cloud theoretical presuppositions we can consider the case of Odda Smelteverk once more. We could suggest that this was a case in which a conservative material understanding of heritage executed by specialists excluded or marginalized the alternative conception of industrial heritage as immaterial lived working-class realities. This would be to assume that there exists a disparity between experts and layman which relies on the historical inertia of the institutions themselves. Otherwise we could suggest that is a flattened field where acts of assembling should be grasped not in terms of a central hierarchy but by a minutiae consideration of how the heterogeneous parts come together and are maintained as a working entity which is wholly contemporary.
Both of these descriptions are inadequate, the former because it fixates on structural and institutional production of asymmetry as a rule and the latter because it sees no deeper core;
no profound ‘inside’ only connections which are strategically assembled. A description of reality which mattered to heritage practitioners in Odda involved a slow, tedious process of making apparent the value, beauty or significance which has remained hidden, neglected,
forgotten or disregarded. The modernist dichotomy of depth versus surface assumes a particular relevance in the field and provides a clear sense of purpose; it is an abstract drive of bringing the past to presence and as such it can be seen as veritable excavation work. So while the critical view tends to overemphasize the capacity of a hierarchy to police and hold steady the boundaries of cultural value, the assemblage view runs the risk of dismissing the deep-seated, symbolic and ethical human capacities which fuels the enterprise of heritage. This inconsistency is mirrored throughout this thesis and I have made no attempt of solving this problem by adhering blindly to one distinct school of thought. I claim that valuable insights can be found in these apparently opposing paradigms of thinking without buying into to the idea that they are interpretive dogmas waged in the science wars. As soon as a theoretical regime comes with a complete vocabulary and ready-set range of opponents and preferred objects of study it will fail to stimulate wonder and intellectual friction. Elements from diverse bodies of social theory can be activated and theoretical fragments can be employed without adhering to “an entire positioned corpus of thinking” (Olsen 2010: 14).
Industrial heritage can be a way to claim cultural continuity with past generations. It can also be a platform for a creative and critical reexamination of the past. It may create an awareness of loss and signal an unequivocal break with the past. The case to case approach I have pursued in this thesis has been criticized for hindering theoretical debate and synthetic analysis (Smith 2012). At the same time it should be pointed out that by studying local processes, purposes and ambitions of heritage, the case study can prevent the premature invocation of patterns, structures and powers which overdetermine the cultural expression in question. This piecemeal approach may lead to the realization that no dominant ideology can be mobilized to account exhaustively for the multifarious local processes at hand. That is simply another way of stating that the generalization from one to the many should be carried out with caution. As I stated in the introduction we can maintain that in recent decades it has become important to safeguard vestiges of industrial culture and to deal with material excess of de-industrialization. It is a different exercise entirely to claim causality and to be able to isolate one overarching dimension which motivates the preservation strategies and ensuing events on the ground.
In chapter x I claimed that Kokerei Hansa demonstrate how it may in fact encourage forms of ambiguity and stress an emotional engagement with industrial buildings that involved careful or minimal interventions on the part of the preservationists. The texts that introduced the coke plant to visitors also included notes on preservation strategies and the compromises that
preservation had reached between securing buildings and allowing for some ruination to occur. While a heritage process always involves failed experiments, omissions and
inconsistencies there is a difference from case to case with regards to whether these failures are addressed in texts which are part of the corpus of heritage and whether the present process of making heritage is communicated or simply taken for granted. At Kokerei Hansa, the foundation in change of preservation of industrial heritage brought our attention to different preservation strategies in a way which encourages debate and reflection.
We have seen that the situation in Odda did not necessarily favor the option of letting things stay. The final listing decision does not make explicit the conflict that has characterized the site for so many years. Rather it tries to employ a set of scientific and objective criteria which attempts to detach value assessment from the political and cultural controversies and make it self-evident. The discord and long-running debate is not reflected in the final assessment of
We have seen that the situation in Odda did not necessarily favor the option of letting things stay. The final listing decision does not make explicit the conflict that has characterized the site for so many years. Rather it tries to employ a set of scientific and objective criteria which attempts to detach value assessment from the political and cultural controversies and make it self-evident. The discord and long-running debate is not reflected in the final assessment of