Historic Preservation: Personalism vs. Professionalism, and Scientific vs. Postmodern

The two articles for this week discuss the interpretation of material culture associated with great white men significant in local and national history.  Lindgren focuses on the preservation of the Thomas Lee house from the 17^th century from a personal and professional perspective.  The conflict here is a microcosm of the larger trend of professionalization as men increasingly became involved in the preservation movement.  Nolan and Buckman’s article looks at the interpretations of Monticello and Montpelier as scientific versus postmodern, respectively.  I understand why the preservationists at Monticello wanted to “restore” the building and grounds, but attempting to control Monticello’s interpretation as static does not give the public much understanding of how Monticello has developed over the years.  Although Monpelier’s interpretation is more complex, I feel that this type of postmodernist viewpoint is more accurate to the property’s history.

The postmodernist view includes multiple narratives of Montpelier’s owners over the years, including the additions to the main house and changes of the landscape.  While this may confuse some visitors, this is a much more inclusive interpretation that shows the evolution of the home from Madison’s ownership until 1983.  Although Monticello has a more traditional and static history of the house, the scientific approach is not as traditional.  This trend towards scientific “discovery” of history comes when men begin to take over historic preservation from the women who had started the movement by saving George Washington’s Mount Vernon home.  Lindgren’s piece really makes this transition clear as a move from personalism to professionalism. 

Although some men practiced personalism, women overwhelmingly used this approach to preservation.  Even in the 20^th century men received training as anthropologists and pseudo-scientists, which led to a different approach to historic homes and the development of public history.  Women did not have as much access to this type of training, since women were part of this Republican Motherhood that valued the learning and appreciation of history, but not formal education in scientific preservation.  The largest issue between women and men’s approach to public history in the early 20^th century comes from differences in educational opportunities.  And while the Monticello interpretation comes from this scientific tradition that developed over the 20^th century, Montpelier’s use of postmodernism is more in line with the reclamation of multiple narratives.