Week Five: Shared Authority, Shared Inquiry, and Radical Roots (cont'd)

What is "Shared Authority"?

    Described by Michael Frisch in the late 1980s, a "Shared Authority" is a suggestion that "something  'is' that in the nature of oral and public history, we are not the sole interpreters. Rather, the interpretive and meaning-making process is in fact shared by definition” (Clavin, 216). Sharing Authority is not so much a technical process, but rather a personal challenge to make sense of the past through emotion and reasoning; Frisch emphasizes an connection to identity, family history, and personal experiences (Clavin, 217). 

    Part of Frisch's discussion on Shared Authority partially refers to the understanding of celebration vs. commemoration; Commemoration refers to a competitive history that result in identity issues, whereas celebrations are used in the glorification and memorialization of people and events (Frisch, 219). This idea is ultimately important in the understanding how historians may find issues in memorializing the past, understanding that sharing authority can created a narrative different from powerful actors as Frisch describes; Powerful focuses wish to push their own views and perspectives on interpretations of the past (Frisch, 224). Understanding how shared authority more so creates and evolves historical discussion is crucial to the understanding of narrative. Truthfully, it gives light to the credibility and authenticity of narrative but understanding the power dynamic of authority. 

What is "Shared Inquiry?"

"Shared Inquiry" is combative to "Shared authority," with Authority being the center and forefront of the discussion. "Shared Inquiry" directly refers to the idea of shared discussion and the mutual agreement between two parties with shared interest in a topic on a set of questions,  creating a set of mutually acceptable answers (Corbett and Miller, 18). "Inquiry" works as an opposite with authority. not being in question with historical research and narrative. It imposes a rubric that forces historians to work together and collaborate to create a mutually understood and accepted result.

    An interesting notion is the relationship between history and heritage. Historical inquiry does not involve an involvement in the narrative, whereas a heritage promotes a direct relationship with the topic. Heritage, as understood by Corbett and Miller, is stronger than history because of the emotional connection (Corbett and Miller, 23). Heritage serves as both an important factor for regional and communal history. The combination of heritage and history proves to challenges narratives, but ultimately, when done right, promotes a shared history in public and mainstream terms. 

Nicole A. Moore: "Recollections on Interpreting Slave Life and Falling into Your Purpose"

    An article written by Nicole A. Moore, "Recollections on Interpreting Slave Life and Falling into Your Purpose" explores Moore's personal account and work on reimaging slave life through public history. Moore started her work as a graduate student, understanding how slave life was represented through public history exhibits and displays, lacking any sort of personalization; Moore stated that visitors exploring historic plantations and like it shared great interest in the houses and the lives of the occupants, often walking past the ditch in the doorways and skimming the outer houses, failing to honor and learn the true history of slavery in guided tours (Moore, 487). From the initial classroom assignment, Moore began a journey to reimagine the narrative of slavery often offered in public history, meeting every visitor and student with the true nature of slavery, educating attendants of public history sites with a direct connection to slavery. 

    Moore's work directly understands the state of the recollection of slavery in public history settings. Interning at the Historic Latta Plantation in Huntersville, a suburb of Charlotte, Moore created a public history exhibit that depicted the nature of slavery from a third-person perspective, acting the role of a slave whilst creating a environment where the circumstances of slaves were accurately depicted. Her work was met with a substantial amount of backlash, including racist comments from students, visitors, and even staff members commenting on the historical accuracy of her work whilst questioning the actual need for her representation. Moore prevailed, continuing on how she wanted to "introduce visitors to the enslaved population as a community of people who created a world within a world, and who had thoughts, emotions, desires, and skills not unfamiliar to most visitors" (Moore, 487). The internship and work was not in vain, as Moore as truly began a path to remove the romanticization of the Antebellum south, truly providing visitiors with realistic expectations of slave autonomy through the presentations of living quarters, gardens, jobs, meal preparation and interaction (Moore, 491).