DATA ANALYSIS: THE NATURE OF HERITAGE IN SELECTED GRADE 10 HISTORY TEXTBOOKS
4.1 Introduction
4.2.2 Interpretation of heritage in the conceptualisation
Table 4.1 below provides a detailed interpretation of the data captured and described in the previous section above.
Table 4.1 Interpretation of heritage in conceptualisation – In search of history. Grade 10.
Learner’s book
Indicators Signifiers/lexicons Tangible, Intangible or IN-Tangible heritage
Natural heritage -N/A N/A
Cultural heritage
-Bastille Day -Fourth of July -Haitian Bicentenary -Columbus Day
Intangible heritage
72 Symbolic-identity
heritage
-Shaka
-Toussaint l’Ouverture Intangible heritage -Voortrekker monument
-Liverpool Maritime Museum -Taj Mahal
-Elmina fortress -Monuments -Museums -Buildings -Memorials
IN-Tangible heritage
-Heroes -Ancestors
-Ex-slaves Intangible heritage
-Public holidays -Songs
-Stories -Ideas -Beliefs -Feelings
-Laager mentality
Intangible heritage
-Icons
-events Intangible heritage
Scientific- technological
heritage
-N/A
N/A Ethnological
heritage -N/A
N/A
Table 4.1 illustrates how if the lexicons arising from the descriptive data are compared with the conceptual framework, and thereby the nature of heritage representation in the textbook is clearly exposed. A glance at the Table indicates that not a single heritage lexicon is mentioned in the text that relates to natural heritage. The implication is that In search of history. Grade 10. Learner’s book does not expose learners to natural heritage as one of the indicators of heritage. This mean that heritage from the view point of the producers of this textbook is purely a cultural concept.
Even though cultural heritage is prioritised in the conceptualisation of this textbook, there is still evidence that not all the forms of cultural heritage are given equal preference. As can be gleaned from Table 4.1, symbolic-identity heritage is the form of cultural heritage that dominates the conceptualisation. This genre of cultural heritage is represented in the text by the portrayal of heritage icons in terms of places or buildings;
73
particular events and people of the past; and other resources such as songs and stories (Bottaro et al., 2005, p. 217).
Symbolic-identity heritage is also evident in the choice of examples advanced to illustrate the different heritage icons cited above. These examples are Bastille Day in France, as a symbol of victory by the French over the absolutism and oppression of their monarchy; the Fourth of July and Columbus Day which are both symbolic days in the USA, as reflections of independence and the ‘discovery’ of America by Christopher Columbus respectively; and finally the Haitian Bicentenary that commemorates the abolition of slavery on that island (Bottaro et al., 2005, p. 217). The emblematic and epithetic traits of these selected lexical examples justify the claim that this textbook conceptualises heritage as being of symbolic-identity nature.
The focus on symbolic-identity heritage in this conceptualisation comes at the expense of other aspects of cultural heritage identified in the conceptual framework, namely scientific-technological heritage and ethnological heritage. The fact that these two indicators do not feature is further indication of this textbook’s preference for symbolic- identity heritage.
Apart from the above analysis, the lexical choices applied also conjure other relevant themes and discourses worthy of analysis. These include issues of race, class, gender, and geography.
Initially, there is evidence of a portrayal of international heritage. This is seen in the fact that the icons selected as examples (Table 4.1) generally represent the different geographical regions of the world. For example, the Voortrekker monument and Shaka are representative of South African heritage; USA or North America is represented by Columbus Day and the Fourth of July commemorations; Europe is represented by Bastille Day and the Liverpool Maritime Museum of France and the UK respectively;
India is represented by the Taj Mahal; the Caribbean islands that are represented by the Haitian Bicentenary commemoration; and finally there is the Elmina fortress to portray African heritage. This representation of the different geographical spaces of the world in the conceptualisation of heritage has the effect of portraying heritage as an international concept.
74
However, with regards to gender, the conceptualisation of the nature of heritage shows evidence of bias in favour of masculinity. Although this claim could be disputed in the argument that women are implicitly represented through the use of lexicons such as ancestors and ex-slaves, the fact that masculinity is not implicitly but overtly expressed through the use of heritage icons such as Shaka, Toussaint l’Ouverture and heroes contributes to justify the claim that the conceptualisation of heritage in this textbook promotes a masculine perspective.
Continuing the theme of bias, there is evidence of disparity in racial representation within the textbook. Considering the racially diverse context of South Africa society, one would have expected a reflection of this racial diversity at the level of South African heritage. But Table 4.1 reveals a penchant towards the heritage of the Afrikaners and Zulus at the expense of the other South African groups. The following examples from the data justify this claim. The Voortrekker monument and the idea of a laager mentality used in the text as examples of heritage icons are both symbols of Afrikaner heritage whilst, the choice of the representation of Shaka is used as a reflection of Zulu heritage or to a larger extent the heritage of black South Africans. Therefore the conceptualisation of heritage in this textbook is not representative of the South African ethno-racial landscape and fails to do justice to other racial or ethnic groups within South Africa.
Furthermore, still with reference to representation of symbolic-identity heritage, I concluded the majority of the heritage lexicons applied in the conceptualisation are intangible in nature. The conceptual framework in chapter two showed that heritage can appear as tangible, intangible or it can be both tangible and intangible (IN-Tangible).
With the exception of the sub category of: Voortrekker Monument, Liverpool Maritime Museum, Taj Mahal, Elmina fortress, memorials, museums, and buildings, that show evidence of both tangible and intangible heritage, the remaining lexicons are intangible in nature. Two excerpts cited from the text suffice to show the representation of intangible heritage: “Heritage can also be less tangible, such as the songs and stories”
and “that is something that becomes symbolic of wider ideas, beliefs or feelings which are important to them” (Bottaro et al., 2005, p. 217). In the examples cited above, songs; stories; ideas; beliefs; and feelings are all aspects of intangible heritage.
75
Conversely, the Voortrekker Monument and the Liverpool Maritime Museum are IN- Tangible because of their association with intangible meaning The conceptualisation of heritage in this text therefore supports the view of the conceptual framework that heritage is IN-Tangible.
Furthermore, the choice of pronouns used in the conceptualisation of the nature of heritage also reflects the intention to portray heritage as a shared and inclusive concept.
This is evident in a repeated use of personal pronouns in the first person plural to conceptualise heritage. Moreover, these pronouns are used in their different forms, that is, subject (we), object (us) and possessive (our), as seen on the example cited in page 72 above. My interpretation of this lexical diction is an effort to discourage heritage at individual level but rather to present heritage as a shared and inclusive practice, nationally and internationally. Heritage is as a result portrayed as collective in nature.
However, this idea is contradictory considering that the text has also shown evidence of heritage to be biased in terms of gender, race, class, and to a lesser extent geography.
In these instances, some are included whilst others are excluded. The meaning of ‘we’
therefore becomes very ambiguous when there is evidence that heritage is not presented as being fully inclusive.
4.2.3 Description of heritage in case study 1 – “How and why is Great Zimbabwe