While the term “living history” at first
glance appears to be a contradictory term suggesting that the past might exist
in the present, in actuality living history is an educational tool which,
when properly executed in a museum setting, is a form of historic interpretation that is of great value to the field of history
as a whole. The Old Sturbridge
Village (OSV), an open-air and living history museum serves as an archetypical
example of a New England museum, which has utilized living history as a form of
historic interpretation for nearly seven decades. Since OSV opened its grounds to the public on June 8, 1946,
it has experienced success as well as setbacks in its undertakings to champion
alternative forms of historic interpretation.[1]
As a result of these trials and tribulations the mission, governance, and
programs of OSV have evolved in response to an evolution within the current scholarship of New England history, by utilizing living history to “dispel the
myth of stable, conflict-free communities”.[2]
The establishment of OSV in 1946 was the end result of a series of acts initiated by the Wells family of Southbridge Massachusetts. Following the examples set by Greenfield Village, Winterthur and Colonial Williamsburg museums, the inception of Old Sturbridge Village can be credited to the Wells brothers, Albert B., and J. Cheney, and their personal collection of historical artifacts, oddities and “primitives,” as they were referred to by A.B. Wells who took pride in his seemingly endless collection of handcrafted trinkets and baubles.[3] Heirs to the highly successful and profitable American Optical Company of Southbridge, established by their father George Washington Wells, brothers Albert B. and J. Cheney, being captains of early 20th century industry, would still remain devoted enthusiasts to the art of handcrafted items of a bygone era, a enthusiasm which resulted in their collection of handcrafted clocks, furniture, tools, and utensils representative of early 18th century New England industrial and economic history.[4]
Furthermore, A.B.’s son George and his
wife Ruth Wells campaigned for the purchase of the David Wight Farm, a parcel
of land comprising 153 acres along the Quinebaug River in Central
Massachusetts, and the relocation of the Wells family collection to this
location in order to promote the history and educational value of the
collection in an open-air museum setting. A shift in the interpretation of the
Wells Family collection which, according to historian Laura E. Abing, would
best utilize this collection of historic artifacts to illustrate that, “a
satisfying, fruitful, and well-balanced existence can still be lived by the
humblest of us even in a world of change and confusion.”[5]
 |
Photo Courtesy of Lorenzo Deagle
|
It
has been seven decades since this mission was undertaken and OSV continues its mission as, “a museum and learning resource of
New England life, [which] invites each visitor to find meaning, pleasure,
relevance and inspiration through the exploration of history.”[6] In addition to portraying agricultural and industrial practices prominent in 1830s New England, OSV has more recently created and executed interactive educational programs such as, “A
Warrant for A Town Meeting on the Poor Farm Issue.” Like many of the hands-on
educational programs employed by OSV, this activity is directed towards
visiting school groups who are instructed, while visiting the village, to seek the advice of
the costumed museums interpreters in an effort to solve a real-life social problem experienced
in early nineteenth century New England.
In the case of the Poor Farm Issue, students must determine the best
manner in which the community of Sturbridge should take care of the poor and
disabled members of the community, by determining whether the community should
employ one of two social welfare programs, the Vendue System, or the Poor Farm
System. While the Vendue System involves auctioning the care of a pauper to a family in the community, the poor farm
is a public funded program in which paupers are made to work for their
keep. While both programs contain a variety of pros and cons, it is but to the museum guest to seek out the opinions of the costumed museums
interpreters, as they are “members” of this 1830s community and are responsible for the welfare of the paupers in their community.
As a result, museums guests learn that while the Vendue program is the most cost-effective way to divide the care for a community's paupers among its citizenry, such a system is prone to abuses on the part the families who take on these paupers almost as wards. Furthermore, the poor farm program also exhibits an equal number of advantages and disadvantages, while this system would requires a substantial amount of tax payers' money in order for land to be purchased, and a farm to be established, in time this system would allow Sturbridge's paupers to support themselves rather than having them rely on assistance from the community.[7] This program has proven to be an extremely beneficial as educational tool that employs first-person interpretation, in which museums guests interact with museums interpreters, who in this case are not museums employees, but are members of an early nineteenth century New England community who are concerned for the welfare of the poor, disabled, and paupers in the community, and have a vast array of opinions regarding the best ways in which these members of the community should be cared for.
As a result, museums guests learn that while the Vendue program is the most cost-effective way to divide the care for a community's paupers among its citizenry, such a system is prone to abuses on the part the families who take on these paupers almost as wards. Furthermore, the poor farm program also exhibits an equal number of advantages and disadvantages, while this system would requires a substantial amount of tax payers' money in order for land to be purchased, and a farm to be established, in time this system would allow Sturbridge's paupers to support themselves rather than having them rely on assistance from the community.[7] This program has proven to be an extremely beneficial as educational tool that employs first-person interpretation, in which museums guests interact with museums interpreters, who in this case are not museums employees, but are members of an early nineteenth century New England community who are concerned for the welfare of the poor, disabled, and paupers in the community, and have a vast array of opinions regarding the best ways in which these members of the community should be cared for.
[1] Old Sturbridge Village: “History of Old
Sturbridge Village.” https://www.osv.org/
(accessed March 1, 2015).
[2] Scott Magelssen, Living History Museums: Undoing History Through Performance.
(Lanham: The Scarecorw Press, Inc., 2007), 39.
[3] Ibid., “The Wells Family.”
[4] Ibid., “The Wells Family.”
[5] Magelssen, Living History Museums, 13.
[6] Tom Kelleher, “An Overview Of Old Sturbridge
Village: Early History of OSV” (lecture, Staff Training, Sturbridge, MA, May 4,
2015).
[7] Tom Kelleher, “An Overview Of Old Sturbridge
Village: Options for Care of the Poor” (lecture, Staff Training, Sturbridge,
MA, May 4, 2015).
No comments:
Post a Comment