Reframing Preservation
I’m tired of headlines like this. Are you?
In November 2021, I participated on a panel at PastForward (the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s annual conference).
The panel centered on Reframing History, an initiative with groundbreaking research by the FrameWorks Institute for three national history organizations.
I’ve shared my PastForward remarks below, and I hope you’ll join me in reframing preservation once and for all!
I’m so excited about Reframing History I can’t stand it, because it’s exactly the type of work we need for preservation.
Preservationists have lamented the field’s image problem for decades. We’ve tried some things to address it, but nothing seems to stick.
It’s time to face our issues head-on and do what it takes to finally change how people think about our work.
Prepping for this talk, I did a quick poll [still open if you’d like to chime in] just to test some of my assumptions. I posted it on my social media feeds and in the Historic Preservation Professionals Facebook group. About 200 people responded in a few days.
Someone was kind enough to point out the poll’s inherent bias, by the way, and I apologize for that. I changed the language and will do better next time.
Nonetheless, three-quarters of respondents think preservation has an image problem, and another 16 percent think it might.
Nearly three-quarters said negative perceptions of preservation had directly affected their work.
There are the rampant misperceptions we all know about, like our being anti-everything and stuck in the past.
But of course, it’s not all just perception.
There’s some harsh realities we need to deal with, from bureaucratic hurdles and rigidity to the overwhelming whiteness of the field.
In any case, this quote from the poll about sums it up.
“[Preservation opponents] do a better job of maligning it than we do of promoting it. They control the narrative.”
It’s not all bad news.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they’d seen or made successful efforts to address preservation’s image problem. Most of the examples featured education and outreach – workshops, presentations, resources, data, success stories, etc.
But others included revising guidelines for clarity, deferring to the community at the expense of a project, and good old compromise.
Several folks are doing their own reframing, ditching the jargon, connecting preservation to other issues, and avoiding the term altogether.
So good things are happening, piecemeal, through trial and error.
But overall, we haven’t licked this problem yet.
The need to change how we talk about our work is a constant refrain.
The national Preservation Priorities Task Force recently released Issue Briefs on four pressing issues in our field: affordable housing and density; diversity, inclusion, and racial justice; preservation trades and workforce development; and sustainability and climate action.
Every one of them cites the need for effective messaging, either to counter negative perceptions or promote the issue.
Here’s another quote from the poll:
“While I have seen good examples, they often occur on a personal level. In other words, I have changed the minds of people I built relationships with and was, therefore, able to build trust and change perceptions. Can we make larger-scale persuasive arguments feel more personal and trustworthy?”
Why yes, we can! The Reframing History project is doing it right now for history, and firms like Hattaway Communications reframe many other social issues.
There’s lots of examples, but marriage equality’s a big one.
Framing was just one piece of an enormous puzzle, but it was essential.
And teen smoking.
The truth campaign started in Florida in the 1990s, and it drastically reduced teen smoking in the U.S. But now there’s vaping, so the work continues.
These are just two examples of thoughtful, large-scale campaigns that fueled meaningful change.
Think of the change we could make with a campaign like this.
Thanks to Reframing History, we’re learning how to change how we talk about history, which includes inclusion and social justice.
What if we also changed how we talk about the rest of our story: issues like development, property rights, affordable housing, climate change, and community well-being?
We live in the most individualistic society on the planet. People don’t want to be told what to do with their property. Housing is considered a commodity.
But our work is for the public good, and it takes collective effort.
We need to understand how people feel about these issues and connect with them on a fundamental level.
Reframing preservation can’t solve all our problems, but it sure can make our work easier.
Here’s another quote from the poll.
“… it's hard to save places when we spend so much effort defending preservation and ourselves from spurious attacks.”
Don’t you have better things to do with your time?
Imagine a world where preservation isn’t a four-letter word.
Where people can see what we see, or at least understand what we do and why we do it.
Where all types of people want to work in this field because they know how essential, vital, and magical historic places really are.
I want to live in that world. Do you?
Of course you do! Just fill out this quick form and I’ll be in touch.