Seeking Numinous Experiences in the Unremembered Past

Abstract

While increasing numbers of people are visiting historical sites and museums, the reasons for those visits are not well understood. An exploratory survey concerning what Americans want from their visits to such sites discovered that many tourists are motivated by more than information- or pleasure-seeking. Some indicated a quest for a deeper experience at heritage sites and a desire to make a personal connection with the people and spirit of earlier times. This impulse, termed numen-seeking, is a strong motivation for many who visit historical sites. (Heritage tourism, numen, visitor motivation, visitor experience) ********** Historical sites and museums in both North America and Europe have become increasingly popular visitor destinations over the decades, a fact prompting the observation that history has become a booming industry (Jakle 1985; Kammen 1991; Lowenthal 1985; and Mooney-Melville 1991). The return to the is also evidenced by heritage movements and collecting. Samuel (1994) describes the rise of the heritage movement in the United Kingdom, based on varieties of collecting, historical re-enactment, and retro-fashion house design and furnishing. Horwitz (1998) documents the growing numbers of Civil War enthusiasts in the United States who dedicate time and resources to battle re-enactments. Gatewood (1990) notes the proliferation of collectors of memorabilia who stockpile old records, comic books, and baseball cards. Gillis (1994:15-18) characterizes Americans and Europeans as compulsive consumers of the past who save everything because they are not sure what to save. Ironically, the interest in, or possibly mania for, history does not parallel knowledge of it. Alderson and Low (1996:23) report that visitors are poorly educated about historical sites: Visitors at today's sites no longer come with as much--or, sometimes, with any--historical knowledge. Falk and Dierking (1992) and Prentice (1993) cite studies that indicate that museum-goers have poor or uneven recall of what they have seen in exhibits. Jakle (1985), Kammen (1991), and Lowenthal (1985) provide further confirmation of this, citing research that demonstrates the sorry state of the public's knowledge of history. Given that so many visitors know so little of history, why they are such avid consumers of the past, especially when it comes to trips to museums and heritage sites, is puzzling. What is the draw of history? Generally speaking, museum professionals know relatively little about people's motivations for visiting historical sites and museums. While marketing surveys are routinely done by the big museum corporations, they are, with some exceptions, (2) demographic assessments that describe visitors in terms of their residence, age, sex, occupation, and income rather than motivational or psychographic profiles. Although probing interest in historical sites is clearly in the interest of many organizations, it is not routinely done, perhaps because of the expense for financially strapped institutions, or because many museologists are not trained to do social research. Nonetheless, historians and museum professionals have theories about visitors' interests and motivations. These appear to be based on subjective impressions rather than empirical research. Several theories are reiterated: nostalgia for a presumed simpler time, a search for cultural or ethnic roots, and anxiety about the future (Alderson and Low 1996; Dickinson 1996; Kammen 1991; Samuel 1994). A concern with cultural identity has been especially salient for Americans, according to Jakle (1985) and Mooney-Melvin (1991). Kammen (1991) dates the emergence of nostalgia to the decades following World War II, suggesting it was fueled by fears about national security and freedom, and a profound sense of cultural discontinuity. By the 1970s, the nostalgia craze was booming, as marked by an increase in the number of museums and a mania for collecting objects of all sorts. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 70 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.