During the ALHFAM conference I attended on October 1st-3rd, a number of common themes arose out of the various (and varied) presentations I attended. Already I have spoken about the place of storytelling in living history that presenters stressed again and again. Today I want to speak about something a little different: the vocabulary that living history sites use to describe what they do and the impact that vocabulary has on programs. In particular, I want to talk about the difference between reenactors and interpreters.
To those not involved in museums and living history, the labels “interpreter” and “reenactor” may not mean much. Reenactor is the term with which the public is most familiar. These are people who, as a hobby, act out for themselves and their friends particular periods in history. Usually the period is wartime – civil war and revolutionary war reenactors are especially known for replaying famous battles. Reenactors research and re-create with careful detail their clothing, actions, and historical characters. In general, reenacting isn’t done for an audience. It is instead meant for the enjoyment and interest of the people participating. Though participants can be great fonts of knowledge, their goal is usually not to educate others as much as it is to educate themselves.
“Interpreter” is a word that people usually do not associate with museums. Usually when the public thinks of interpreters, they think of someone who translates something from one language to another. In a way, historical interpreters do the same thing. It is their job to take objects, or locations, or raw facts of history, and find a way to present them to the public in our “modern” language, literally and figuratively. In many museums and historic sites, “interpreter” is beginning to replace “docent,” especially when referring to staff members. In a living history setting, an interpreter might wear a costume or take on a historical role as reenactors do, but their primary goal is education.
At the ALHFAM Western Region conference, as at other museum and living history conferences I have attended, by far the more common word used was “interpreter.” One presenter complained that her own site insisted on saying “reenactor” on press releases, fliers, and other promotional material, and we all agreed that this was a misleading term. When the goal of presenting history – even if it’s costumed, even if it’s first-person – is to educate, interpreter is just a much more proper term. Only one presenter used “reenactor” to describe the educators at his site, and in his case, this was largely because the site’s volunteers were involved in re-enacting as well. Even in his case, though, I thought the use of the term “reenactor” was inaccurate and problematic.
So why is it so important for museums and historic sites to talk about interpreters instead of reenactors? First of all, the term is just more accurate. The definition fits within the purpose of the historic site much better than “re-enactor” does. There are also many reenactors who are not interpreters, and so it makes sense to create the division.
“Interpreter” also creates a sense of professionalism that neither “reenactor” nor “docent” does. Even if the public does not understand the word in the context of museums, it does give them confidence that museum staff “knows their stuff.” For better or for worse, reenactors are thought of as hobbyists and docents are usually assumed to be older, poorly-trained volunteers.
Finally, and most importantly, using the word “interpreter” says a lot about what a museum is trying to do. At their best, museums and the people who work there are supposed to interpret; they are supposed to translate and make clear a world very different from our own. “Reenactor” does not convey this understanding at all. With education central to its definition, “interpreter” gives us an appropriate picture of what museums and historic sites truly do.
