I've been thinking about heritage collections lately (whether archives, museum collections, or built heritage), and the problem of 'presentism' - the prevailing popular view, hard to eradicate, that these things exist primarily for us today

Our heritage does exist for us. But it isn't primarily for us - it is for all time. We are not the end of history, with a uniquely perfect interpretative perspective

Ultimately, the purposes of archives, museums etc. is not to provide a 'visitor experience' (though of course public access and engagement matters), but to conserve for all time. And that may mean restricting our access to or use of our heritage

When I visit a historic site, I often think about how future centuries may interpret it - and wonder whether the actions we take now may impede others in the future with different interpretative techniques we cannot as yet imagine

It's hard enough to convey to many people that heritage is about the present as well as the past - but in truth it is also about the future, and that's especially difficult to explain

Maybe museums should tackle this head-on, with speculative exhibitions asking artists to imagine what the site will look like, and what it will be used for, in centuries to come? Just to get people to think about this issue

Because at its worst, heritage becomes mere tourism - utterly centred on the present, a resource to be exploited by us in this moment for entertainment and gratification, with no thought of those who come after

It's almost as if we need to pivot to a sort of 'Deep Heritage' (by analogy with Deep Ecology) that doesn't focus on our needs or desires for heritage but rather on the life of heritage through time, including the unknown future - as a quasi-living being in its own right

Or maybe this is impossible with human-made structures and artefacts. But we need to do something to mitigate the focus on the present, and on heritage as a consumable resource

The paradox of this sort of 'presentism' is that, while it assumes heritage exists for the sake of the present, it also denies any value to the present itself. Hence why it's really hard to explain to people why current records have to be preserved with the same care as old ones

When archivists appeal for records of the present day, e.g. placards from BLM protests, they are often met with hilarity and ridicule: 'That isn't what archivists do!' People have an incorrigible belief that the present, unlike the past, is not fragile. But of course it is

No matter how much evidence we are presented with that the moment in time at which we stand will soon fade into the past and be recoverable only through the records we choose to preserve, we always insist that the 'now' is different, and somehow not worthy of recording

But the history of the future will only be as good as the evidence we leave behind. So record, record, record...