First Person Interpretation: Why Does it Make Me So Nervous?

For as long as I can remember I have enjoyed throwing myself into the middle of the action.

At Disney MGM Studios with my family, I was the overly-enthusiastic kid in the audience, hand thrust into the air as soon as a volunteer was requested, smiling broadly on stage as I assisted with the presentation on creating sound effects in movies.

At sites like Colonial Williamsburg, I got a kick out of marching around behind the costumed interpreters by the armory and asking the blacksmith a million questions about his craft.

So, I wasn’t at all surprised when I read the following finding of the Colonial Williamsburg visitor study profiled by Conny Graft in her 2007 article, “Listen, Evaluate, Respond!”:

“First, guests wanted more interactive and engaging experiences…Guests wanted to see more costumed people mingle in and out of original and restored buildings. In fact, they wanted us to flood the streets with hundreds of costumed people twenty-four hours a day!"

Personally, I can totally relate to the visitors’ desire to immerse themselves in the past evoked at Colonial Williamsburg. So then why do I professionally look down my nose at the idea of costumed, first-person interpreters at "my" historic site?

In our March Roundtable we spent a lot of time on this very question and came to what may be at the heart of the conflict:

As a visitor, what we’re looking for in first person interpretation is largely ambiance--a reinforcement of the period so that we can feel transported to the past and perhaps reminded that it was a very real place inhabited by real folks just like you and me.

As a history museum professional, however, what we’re looking for in first person interpretation is high quality historical authenticity. We take great pains to ensure our volunteer docents (giving third person tours) share accurate accounts of the past; and that they understand our period and our house and our collection deeply enough to avoid broad historical generalizations of “the olden days.”

That authenticity is what scares me so much about first person interpretation. How far do we take it? Clearly the costume should be authentic, but what about the shoes? Or the hair? Or the makeup? What about the accents of Americans living in Georgetown in 1810 or appropriate 19th century vocabulary?

If done “wrong”, could first person interpretation send visitors away with a total misunderstanding of the period of the past we are trying to represent? Or would first person interpretation provide a charming, engaging interaction with the past to visitors who never asked us for a history lesson anyway?

I, for one, am still not ready to convert our institution to a living history museum…but I will think twice about the possibilities for first person interpretation at "my" site in the future.