Lowell: What to do?

I will admit that I had a hard time reading Stanton's work (The Lowell Experiment: Public History in a Postindustrial City) on Lowell, MA mainly on how she broke up her novel. That being said she did bring several valuable insights into how to create a historical site in an urban area that is still actively used and evolving. This hearkens to what we have been discussing in class, is how to create a balance between professional (publicly focused or not) historians and a public. Although Lowell is a so-called success story both as an urban park and community involved preservation, Stanton does an excellent job at showing the flaws and faults being too 'publicly' focused (i.e. pleasing the surrounding population and basically being accountable to the community). By making Lowell almost a warning against using a public opinion, there is a call for historians to man-up and take responsibility for what history is present, how it is presented and recognizing what is ignored. Lowell is an admirable experiment but there are cautions to be heard.
I am not sure if there is a solution for Lowell and similar sites. There needs to be books and essays on consequences of 'doing' history as the "Slavery and Public Historians" did. Hypothetical situations are great starting points but reality serves a better guide for ways to do and not do history. Lowell's conception and practice is perfect in an ideal world where there are no agendas and limited risks. But the reality of Lowell is one where a city is stuck in a perception that is neither true nor false, and one that is difficult to copy in another city. I'm still not sure if Stanton's book serves as a caution to public historians, a case-study almost isolated from other cases, or an optimistic approach on how to or how not to engage a public. (Hopefully I can figure that out through class tomorrow.)

I loved Stanton's explorations into how the community labels people who work and/or live in Lowell. Gaining that insight into the attitudes and opinions of 'true locals' verses visitors or professionals, gives a more tangible evidence for the problems in Lowell, what is at stake, and why/how Lowell has become what it has become.

One area where I think Stanton could have been clearer was in her discussion of Turner's liminal states. Perhaps my issues with how she uses it is simply because I learned of Turner's theory in an anthropology setting, and I don't think clearly stated how she was modifying and using his theory. There are times when she stresses one part of his ideas (like a crisis which cause a redress) to make her point but ignores or does not fully incorporate other aspects (a group reintegration into society who has retained the status quo). Stanton only flushes out the parts that work for her and leave the rest behind (even though the rest could still useful). Which can be fine but knowing a little more of Turner's (and others) works on states, she leaves something to be desired.