Confronting the Anthropocene in heritage work: an anti-oppressive methodology for improving well-being and pursuing equitable theory and practice

The Anthropocene is characterised by climate change and widespread inequity. This presents substantial challenges for mainstream practical and theoretical heritage work. These include the impossibility of permanent preservation, intentional destruction of heritage, and the need for ecological revival. To respond to these challenges and pursue equity and efficacy, heritage work needs to centre communities and move beyond remaining conceptual boundaries, such as dichotomous thinking and universalising assumptions, instead recognising heritage as part of the stories we tell throughout our lives. I introduce an anti-oppressive methodology to move beyond boundaries by centring often-minoritised worldviews and understandings of power. I use anti-oppressive theory from a range of writers as foundations for alternative approaches to heritage work. This aligns with existing attempts to seek epistemic expansiveness and contribute to social equity, but expands these by providing a structured methodology and, by using the work of non-heritage theorists as foundational, moving beyond boundaries in heritage thought. This enables the development of heritage approaches that directly pursue epistemic, political, and cultural equity. I connect these approaches to well-being requirements to show how anti-oppressive foundations support people’s well-being in myriad ways, from political agency to a sense of personal mobility. I demonstrate my methodology via five thematic frameworks: positionality, nature, time, care, and specificity. I apply these frameworks to six case studies, covering a range of heritage contexts, from World Heritage Sites to language revival projects. These case studies illustrate heritage work’s intersections with development, disaster, and colonialism, and the potential of alternative heritage approaches to benefit people. My methodology demonstrates the centrality of agency and interconnection to the well-being of communities, which can be supported by heritage work that decentralises policymaking, prioritises local understandings of place, and works to dismantle dichotomous assumptions about our relationship with nature and time. This thesis concludes with a discussion of the role and responsibility of heritage work, considering how it can engage with other fields and contribute to addressing big problems. My methodology situates heritage work in the wider world and challenges historic inequities in the field, providing ambitious and optimistic arguments for the future of heritage.<p></p>