Whose Values Count?

WHOSE VALUES COUNT? CLASS, PLACE AND HERITAGE DURING WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA Adam Paterson This thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Archaeology, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide January 2015 Abstract In Australia there has been little critical reflection on the role that class plays during negotiations over cultural heritage. This stands in contrast to the United Kingdom and the United States, where research aiming to develop a better understanding of how class shapes cultural heritage practice is more common. Key research themes in these countries include identifying how working-class people participate in cultural heritage activities; determining what barriers exist to their participation and what social purpose cultural heritage has within post-industrial communities; and understanding how cultural heritage is used in negotiations over the classed meanings of place during gentrification. This thesis explores the relationships between class, place and heritage in Port Adelaide, South Australia. Once a prosperous industrial and commercial port, since the 1980s Port Adelaide has undergone slow social and economic change. In 2002, the State Government announced plans for major re-development of surplus waterfront land in order to generate profit and economic stimulation for the Port through extensive and rapid development, radically transforming Port Adelaide physically and socially. Drawing on a theoretical framework that identifies value and power as central to determining the outcomes of heritage practice, with an emphasis on Foucault’s theory of governmentality, the thesis asks: What values do different stakeholders associate with heritage in Port Adelaide? Are these values easily incorporated into heritage frameworks, especially the Burra Charter? And, are the values of heritage experts privileged over those of non-experts? The data analysed in the thesis were gathered during an ethnographic study (2009–2011) and include field notes, in-depth key informant interviews, 105 structured interviews (combining open and closed questioning), newspaper articles, flyers, permits, newsletters, emails and Heritage Council minutes. Discourse analysis was i applied to text-rich sources, and statistical analysis to closed questions from the structured interviews. A wide range of values were identified, most of which are incorporated into the Burra Charter or other, similar frameworks. Financial value, however, which featured repeatedly in the discourses of all stakeholders, was not articulated or quantified clearly by any group, including heritage professionals. Given the centrality of financial value to debates about heritage value in Port Adelaide, as elsewhere, it is argued that further consideration of the use of economic methods in cultural heritage management should be considered, especially where changes to place are driven by development interests. The thesis also presents a revised argument regarding the nature of social significance and the scale at which it is understood to exist, suggesting in this case that it exists within social networks articulated as ‘community’. External discourses have stigmatised Port Adelaide since its establishment in 1836, and many residents of metropolitan Adelaide identified the Port’s reputation as detracting from its status as a desirable place to visit or live. Wary of negative associations, the 2002 development was discursively distanced from the Port’s working-class identity. In contrast to the similar process of ‘heritageisation’—the process of making something ‘heritage’—the value of Port Adelaide to the development was not expressed in the middle-class appeal of a formerly working-class neighbourhood, rather, in the rationalised construction of modern high-rise buildings. Although class featured in negative discourses about Port Adelaide, there was some evidence that place familiarity had more of an effect on people’s attitudes toward the Port than their own socio- economic background. Finally, the analysis found that heritage professionals’ values were not privileged over those of non-professionals. It is argued that, through a complex process involving the ii use of property law and control over material resources, the State Government marginalised heritage knowledge to achieve the outcomes desired by its commercial partners. The outcome is an alternative understanding of power relations during cultural heritage management that questions the primacy of expert knowledge within spaces where governmentality operates. iii Declaration I certify that this thesis does not incorporate without acknowledgement any material previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any university; and that to the best of my knowledge and belief it does not contain any material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text. Signed: Date: iv Acknowledgements Professional editor, Rosemary Purcell, provided copyediting and proofreading services, according to the guidelines laid out in the university-endorsed national Guidelines for editing research theses. This research would not have been possible without community and student volunteers who participated in the archaeological and ethnographic field work. I would like to especially thank those volunteers who participated in research interviews and the Port of Adelaide National Trust Branch, who welcomed me onto their committee and helped me to see the Port through their eyes. Financial and in-kind support provided by the Australian Research Council: Archaeological and Heritage Management Solutions (AHMS) Pty Ltd; The South Australian Maritime Museum (SAMM) and the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources1 was, of course, greatly appreciated. The collegiality of staff at AHMS and SAMM, however, was irreplaceable. Pete and Lindl, it has been a privilege to work with you. The guidance and supervision provided by my supervisors, Associate Professor Heather Burke, Associate Professor Mark Staniforth and Associate Professor Janette McIntyre, shaped my approach to this research in very different ways. Thankyou Mark, for helping me find a beginning. Janette, your methodological advice gave me great confidence at crucial times and I cherished your inclusiveness. Heather, it is difficult to describe in 1 The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources is the government department responsible for non-Indigenous cultural heritage in South Australia. Prior to 2012 this department was called the Department of Environment and Heritage. Both terms are used in the thesis. v words the generosity of your supervision; your deep and critical thinking challenged me, repeatedly, to ‘cut through’ and develop my own critical research. Thankyou to my friends and family for putting up with overly detailed discussions of cultural heritage processes, ‘new’ theorists and the various challenges I faced. Mum and Dad, this work, like me, is in some way a reflection on each of you, I hope it sits well with you. Thamas and Matilda, my children, I thank you for helping me to see life outside of this research, your aptitude for playfulness has been a source of delight (and distraction). Above all, Cynthia, your support has been unwavering, matched by your capacity to test me and my ideas, thankyou for standing beside me on this journey. vi Contents Whose values count? ..................................................................................................................... 1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ i Declaration ................................................................................................................................ iv Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... v Contents .................................................................................................................................... vii List of figures ............................................................................................................................ xi List of tables ............................................................................................................................. xii 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Port Adelaide .............................................................................................................................. 2 Defining the research problem ..............................................................................................11 Structure of the thesis .............................................................................................................14 2 Value, identity and power ........................................................................................................16 What is value? ...........................................................................................................................18 Cultural significance ................................................................................................................19 Aesthetic value .....................................................................................................................20

Load more