Deep Interpretation Four

DEEP INTERPRETATION FIVE –

INTERPRETATION’S MORAL IMPERATIVE

Will LaPage*

Abstract:

If interpretation is grounded in moral imperatives, what arethey, how are they communicated in our interpretive policies, practices, administration,professional training, and evaluation?

Lost in chapter one of The Moral Imperative, on a flight from Austin to Albuquerque, I felt a slight tug on my sleeve accompanied by a distinctly Scottish accent:“Sorry to bother, but I just had to ask: what is a ‘moral imperative?’” Noting my frown, my seatmate, now flushed with embarrassment, apologized a second time and went back to studying the landscape four miles below. “Actually,” I stumbled, “I was struggling to come up with a simple definition. How much time do we have before landing?” I was instantly rewarded with an appreciative smile. Fortunately, just then the steward came by with the airline’s always exciting snack tray and drinks. I wondered, half out loud, why don’tthey just pass out full-color pictures of what airline food looked like in the good old days. Anyway, stewarding the passengers gave me the opening I’d been searching for.

Did you know the concept of ‘stewardship’ comes from the Stewarts of Scotland? Now it was her turn to shoot me a puzzled frown. Without waiting for an answer, I offered the thought that stewardship is a perfect example of a moral imperative because taking care of our resources is the right thing to do. In fact, the failure to provide stewardship will ultimately lead to the collapse of the communityneeding those resources. Her puzzlement dissolved into a thoughtful smile. So, if it strengthens the community, it’s a moral imperative, right? That’s when I noticed the cover of the book she was reading:The Third Reich, by William Shirer. She continued, very slowly now:So, Hitler believed he was following a moral imperative, doing the right thing, when he set out to strengthen the German community by eliminating all non-Aryans?Beliefs alone are seldom enough, I lamely replied, but I was struggling for a simple explanation. Sorry, maybe my example was a bit too simple.

For the next hour and ten minutes, Sheila and I (we had introduced ourselves by now) engaged in a rapid fire exchange of concepts in an attempt to clarify the questions of: “Whose community?” “Whose imperatives?” “Whose beliefs?”

What defines the ‘rightness’ of a thing? She asked.

I suppose it has to be ethical to be right, don’t you?”

So, there are ethical and unethical ways of strengthening the community.

What about ‘loyalty’ and ‘honor’, are they imperatives? Don’t you have to have loyalty to have ‘community’?And, what about ‘pride?’ Can you honor a community that you are not proud of?

Perhaps, but what if it’s a community of thieves and drug peddlers?You know there really does seem to be some kind of ‘honor among thieves.’

So,we must along with beliefs, we have to include ‘community’ and ‘honor’ as also being notas simple as we’d like them to be.

In practice, it gets even more complicated. Aren’t we all members of several ‘communities’ at once? For example, how can we do the right thing if the values of our work community are at odds with our family values, or our environmental values, or our human relations values?

I was actually sorry when our flight arrived ahead of schedule. Sheila and I hadn’t even begun to explore the imperatives of truth and education, and science.I like to think of myself as an educator seeking truth. While we maysubscribe to the imperative of education if we hope to see the world become a better place, we all know that there is good education, poor education, and even bad education, and the latter is rampant in the media, on the streets, and wherever hatred seeks to spread its sticky seeds. Not to mention the confusion of good and bad science.

I never got around to mentioning to Sheila that I was working on a series of articles for Legacy magazine on the, hopefully useful, idea of deep interpretation. So, now, I have to ask you: what are the moral imperatives of our profession? What do you believe are the fundamental, rock solid values that we seek to advance, that make us happy in our work, that give us a sense of value to our community? Are we in agreement on the relevant community that we seek to serve? Do we agree that our community, is not just our professional colleagues and our on-the-job connections, but includes another community of relevance, one made up of the future residents of this planet—the places, the creatures, and the people who have no voice in today’s discussions? And, do we agree that we are not simply seeking to advance appreciation for our environmental and cultural heritage? Advance does not really convey thesense of urgency, the before it’s too late misgivings,or our sense of responsibility. How about build, promote, enhance, or improve?

If we agree that a very large contingent of our relevant community is voiceless, isn’t it imperative that we provide that voice? And, if we agree that a major increase in public appreciation is essential to protect our cultural and environmental heritage for that community, isn’t it imperative that we interpret not only the heritage, but the threats to that heritage as well? So, what might be the imperatives we could grab onto in order to professionally deliver our product, and be on our way to perfect appreciation among our relevant community? If we were having this discussion face-to-face, in the confined space of an aluminum tube flying high above the Earth at nearly twice the speed of sound, our discussion would probably take the form of a hard-hitting series of questions, including:

If interpretation is the right thing to do to enhance visits and to achieve our long-term goals of preservation, why hasn’tit been universally adopted across the spectrum of delivery organizations and agencies

at every level of government?

If interpretation is the right way to preserve our heritage, why isn’t interpretive training and experience a requisite for all heritage resource administrative jobs? Wouldn’t the boss have to be on board?

If interpretation builds understanding, appreciation, and ultimately protection, why do we not have the indicators in place to prove it—to show if we are making progress? We have numerous indicators on the imperatives of the economy and public health.

If interpretation is the right thing for getting us to where we should be, why does its position in agency policies and budgets not reflect that importance? Have we already achieved perfect appreciation?

Over the past two-plus decades, many (not all) interpreters have grabbed onto such imperatives as professionalism, research, education, certification, outreach, and accreditationin an attempt to deal with these very questions. The progress has been impressive, but is it enough? What’s next in the normal evolution of the interpretive profession?

During the short time it took for me to jet from Austin to Albuquerque, the

population of America increased by several hundred. By the end of that day, we had added several thousand more, and for the year, close to half a million. During the same year, the population of actively employed heritage interpreters obviously declined on a per capita basis, and undoubtedly declined in real numbers in response to shrinking budgets.

If heritage appreciation is important to maintaining the integrity of a community, then it must grow with that community. That’s a moral imperative. And, those of us who are an essential part of that connection must take responsibility for encouraging that growth—or, at least, take responsibility for monitoring its decline. That, too, is a moral imperative. We deny our imperatives at our risk.

So, how should professional interpreters, led by NAI, grab onto that responsibility and do the right thing? Here’s my short list, in the form of a fleet of six ships. I hope you will add to the fleet with some ships of your own:

Statesmanship: Become advocates for heritage preservation in every venue you find yourself in.

Salesmanship: Become persuaders. Sell the idea that America can not afford to slam the doors on its heritage for political advantage.

Stewardship: Invite volunteers, sponsors, underwriters, friends, to share in the joy of telling the endless collection of heritage stories.

Craftsmanship: Become skilled in the dynamic field of messaging. Learn to speak Internet, but never forget how to speak tree.

Leadership: Break out of the pack. Stick your neck out. Discover how refreshing the air is up front. Become an activist. Speak out.

Partnership: Adopt the realistic philosophy that we all need help. This job is way too important to dominate the spotlight, or even seek it.

All professions, even those of public service, tend to have a narrowing effect on our outlook and interests. And yet, the very first rule of professional interpretation is relevance. Being relevant requires us to get outside the fascination of our own programs. Being relevant means putting the client first. It means listening, caring, and curiosity. The rudder on every one of the ships in the fleet is relevance. That rudder steers us toward a shared outcome, a meaningful connection: the purpose every interpretive experience.

Perhaps the noblest thing any of us can do for another person is to make them feel relevant, important, useful, needed. It is no accident that relevance is the professional interpreter’s first concern. Provoking the interest of others in their own heritage is imperative. Enlisting their supportfor the protection of that heritage is the obvious next step. Call it activism, call it enlightened self-interest, or call it a moral imperative; ultimatelyprofessional interpretation has nothing moreimportant on its plate. For me, it’s one of my core beliefs!

______

*Will LaPage is the author of Rethinking Park Protection, CABI, 2012; and Parks for Life, Venture Pub. 2007.

Belief without action is the ruin of the soul. Ed Abbey