ABSTRACT
One particular phenomenon that has exercised critics in the last few years has been the proliferation of representations of the past that have come to be termed 'heritage'. Although it is easy to understand at an intuitive level what is meant by 'heritage', closer examination shows that it is extremely difficult to define. At root the word means 'that which comes from the circumstances of birth; an inherited lot or portion; the condition or state transmitted from ancestors' (Oxford English Dictionary), but since the 1970s it has come to be applied more concretely to cultural and natural heritage such as historic buildings and landscapes that are to be preserved and passed on for future generations (eg UNESCO 1972). All attempts to define exactly what constitutes heritage have, however, met with failure because ultimately heritage can be 'anything you want' (Hewison 1989: 15). Part of the confusion over what constitutes heritage lies in the fact that the word is applied to two different sorts of phenomena. On the positive side the word is used to describe culture and landscape that are cared for by the community and passed on to the future to serve people's need for a sense of identity and belonging. In this context, the use of the term 'heritage centre' in, for example, natural parks, covers institutions which aim to explain the different facets of the landscape and encourage understanding and care for them. These positive values of care and identity are in sharp contrast to the more negative and pejorative uses of the term 'heritage'. In this sense, as used in 'the heritage industry', the word has become synonymous with the manipulation (or even invention) and exploitation of the past for commercial ends. These are usually characterised as 'heritage rides', 'heritage experiences', or are part of theme parks. The divide between the two can be difficult to discern, although it may as a rule of thumb be possible to distinguish between those institutions which aim primarily to enable the public to understand the past and secondarily to make money or not at least lose it, and those whose prime aim is to make money and whose secondary aim, if it exists at all, is to provide an educational experience. Fowler (1989) has suggested that the presentations of the latter group can be characterised by their eclecticism, their discontinuity with the present, and their inaccuracy, parody and commercialisation. Unfortunately, because so much critical attention has been focused on 'heritage experiences', museums and other similar institutions have been tarred with the same brush, and many of their positive connotations have been forgotten. It is now time that the balance was restored.
