In the Ruins of the Cold War Bunker

by Luke Bennett

  English Heritage’s programme has contributed significantly to our understanding of the 20th-century military landscape of Britain. But it has also affirmed the existing framework of privileged expert values and knowledge – a key feature, according to Smith, of the ‘authorized heritage discourse’. While in part open to the participation of amateur enthusiasts in the early years, the end result of this heritage classification process appears to have been the reaffirmation of professional heritage: that ‘proper’ care should lie with those who have the resources, knowledge and understanding to identify the value of historically important Cold War sites, and from the vantage point of a national (rather than local) valorization and attendant set of narratives.

  The MPP criteria value a site in terms of its contribution towards Britain’s Cold War, and portray the Cold War as resolutely historic – belonging to an era that is now of ‘the past’. This rhetorical device of ‘the past’ presents these sites (and their meaning) as being too distant to be left to members of the public, and asserts a need for ‘closure’ (as psychologists might call it), expressed in a desire to categorize and stabilize the meaning of this ‘past’ and in doing so to assert the opening of formerly ‘secret and closed worlds’ (Cocroft & Thomas 2004, 2). But this is a selective and compartmentalizing approach, for by examining solely the physical remains of the Cold War, sites, objects, buildings and structures, these become singular and concrete ‘monuments’ to a national past. Local meaningfulness is played down, and the continuities between the Cold War ‘past’ and the post–Cold War present are neglected, for there are still nuclear weapons, there are still command bunkers and there is still state secrecy. In reality, only a fraction of these places have been demobilized, and opening them up for public access as strange whimsical ‘attractions’ paradoxically increases the invisibility of those facilities that remain in use.

  However, it would be wrong to portray the English Heritage approach as simplistic, jingoistic or co-opted into a politically motivated smokescreen. It also aspired to embrace public engagement and some thought as to the future lives and possibilities of these awkward places. The former leader of English Heritage’s military programme, John Schofield, frequently demonstrated a love of informal and alternative heritage in both his steerage of the programme and in his associated academic work in ‘contemporary archaeology’ (see, for example, Schofield 2005; Schofield & Cocroft 2007). Schofield reflects the modern ‘ruin lust’ (Dillon 2014) beloved of artists and urban explorers testified to in other chapters of this book, when he states that ‘it is the places without funding or conservation [that] are often the most evocative’ (2005, 11). Schofield has supported a number of ‘aesthetic’ techniques that have sought to redirect public attention away from the implicit violence that is at the heart of every now-abandoned military site. Instead, through mappings, surveys, aerial photographs, selections and assessments, the focus in such interventions has been upon an appreciative experience of the shapes, forms and materials of military remains. This represents an active – perhaps playful – and certainly less past-driven approach to the open potentialities of these places. It certainly goes some way towards complicating the interpretation of English Heritage’s operation of an ‘authorized heritage discourse’ that is solely fixated on interpretive closure and the past.

  Therefore, the position is complicated. There has been a multiplicity of meaning making even within English Heritage. By being at the forefront of assessing and listing Cold War remains, English Heritage has shown its authority and ability to demonstrate ways by which military secrets can be ‘unravelled’ and ‘disclosed’ with the power, knowledge and influence of heritage agencies and experts (Beck 2011), and linked to narratives of a British nation, national identity and Western techno-political superiority. Conversely, English Heritage has itself promoted an alternative heritage performance through which meanings are re-created, maintained or affirmed (Smith 2009), with English Heritage working in this mode alongside communities, local historians, military collectors and ‘enthusiasts’, and amenity groups as they review their own notions of heritage and identity.

  Indeed, Cold War bunkers are powerfully framed by heritage discourses produced and circulated by communities of lay enthusiasts. Since the 1960s, several ‘amateur’ bodies of interest and knowledge have been influentially involved in the discussion (and disclosure) of Britain’s Cold War sites, artefacts and ‘official’ documents. Some of these bodies focus on protecting and developing the heritage interest of specific Cold War events or sites in Britain. For example, the Oxford Trust for Contemporary History (OTCH) concentrates on the entire preservation the military areas of the Cold War air bases at RAF Upper Heyford (RAFUH). Others, such as Subterranea Britannica (often simply referred to as ‘Sub Brit’), aim to advance the preservation and protection of any man-made and man-used underground structure, object and space for the advancement of education and science for public benefit (Subterranea Britannica 2011b). Finally, there are urban exploration communities, such as 28DaysLater, UK URBEX and TalkUrbex, which operate and exist predominantly on Internet forums where members (‘urban explorers’) can read, discuss and exchange knowledge and experiences of their explorations of abandoned (off-limits) buildings. These organizations tend to support the main English Heritage discourse by foregrounding the physical properties of the sites, their ‘past-ness’ and the theme of opening up previously secret worlds and promoting their preservation.

  In particular, Sub Brit appears more than willing and capable of pursuing a collaborative dialogue with English Heritage, based upon the members’ expertise. Started in 1974 as a small and acquainted group of enthusiasts who primarily challenged the secrecy concerning underground structures, the society has grown to include over 1,000 members (Subterranea Britannica n.a.). Furthermore, the society publishes a thrice yearly magazine Subterranea and organizes annual conferences, study weekends and arranged site visits. Its online activities include a website (www.subbrit.org), which attracts 268 unique visitors per day according to Siteworthtraffic.com (2 March 2016), additional social networking channels, such as a Facebook page with approximately 4,125 followers and an online UK Site Directory which holds details of around 250 accessible underground sites. While the society was long regarded as an ‘unofficial’ group of enthusiasts (see, for example, Bell 2006), operating outside the margins of the professional or academic domain, it has been a registered charity since 2011 and ‘enjoys good relationships with other UK groups such as the Council for British Archaeology and English Heritage’ (Subterranea Britannica 2012) and various similar archaeological organizations and interest groups elsewhere in Western Europe, including the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Italy.

  In practice, and based on personal first-hand observations, collaborations with and interventions by external professionals are noticeable within the charity’s activities; for example, by inviting English Heritage executives to present at Sub Brit events and meetings. Additionally, members of the society assisted in the listing of 20th-century remains of the Defence of Britain project7. To illustrate, Sub Brit states that it aims to encourage and promote ‘the highest achievable standards of surveying archaeological investigation and recording historical research interpretation and publication’ (2011b, 4); this statement contributes to the rhetoric of archaeological science and the so-called professionalization of the discipline as well as to the ‘common sense’ view of the Cold War past as ‘merely’ being about geographical and geological issues (Hermann 2012, 106). Furthermore, in its wording the society validates the role of archaeological experts and organizations such as English Heritage as the ‘godparents’ for the distribution of power and resources of archaeological knowledge for the legislation processes of a range of cultural objects and places, including those related to the Cold War period. In its pursuit of the establishment of joint relationships, through the sense of fellowship and commitment concerning a set of principles that represent ‘good sense’, Sub Brit str
engthens and reinforces the authorized heritage discourse by promoting and encouraging ways in which sites should be conserved and managed.

  Ironically, despite the efforts of ‘outside’ bodies such as Sub Brit to stress the historical and societal importance of Cold War sites, the method of governing Cold War heritage employed by bodies of ‘experts’ such as English Heritage is heavily focused upon placing the remains within a so-called category of ‘accepted neglect’. As Cold War sites do not qualify on the grounds of being ‘old’, ‘grand’, ‘monumental’ or aesthetically pleasing’, beliefs of ‘benign neglect’ and ‘natural decay’ are used to justify the lack of heritage protection through scheduling, the designation of sites of archaeological character for state protection and active conservation legislations.

  In this context, the survival of key sites may require that they become tourism sites, in order to fund their conservation. Accordingly, over the past couple of decades several Cold War sites in Britain have re-opened their doors as ‘tourist attractions’ (Lowe & Joel 2013). These sites are mostly privately owned and often set up by individuals who feel a great sense of frustration and concern over this ‘accepted neglect’ of Cold War sites, as endorsed by dominant discourses. However, in reality, and while activating sites rather than leaving them to ruination, this subaltern discourse of ‘professional stewardship’ does not contest the existing dominant narratives, values and meanings about the Cold War; it foremost promotes, implements and affirms the dominant tropes of ‘the past’, ‘secret worlds’ and a valiant Britishness to be found within the interpretations commonly circulated by English Heritage and Sub Brit.

  Furthermore, English Heritage, Sub Brit and individual Cold War ‘attraction’ site owners all articulate the view that heritage is ‘physical’ and can be represented through the site, structures and objects on display. This belief in tangible heritage also renders the social and cultural processes and negotiations concerning heritage as fixed and self-evident. Interestingly, however, compared to the detached, ‘expert knowledge’ directed stance of English Heritage and Sub Brit, the active and personal linkages of the owners of Cold War ‘attractions’ are often the result of a highly idiosyncratic process of identity formation, such that the site and its curation become heavily influenced by their own personal, economic, political and social values, experiences and beliefs. As most sites were emptied of their contents before, or shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as part of their decommissioning, the owners’ self-referential understandings of the Cold War become embodied in the subsequent recreation of their material reality. Thus, these attractions are actively ‘made’ – they are reconstructions, selectively staged aspects of what once was, as perceived by the owners.

  While particularly keen to stage these places according to their own interpretations, these site owners seem to have little regard for the active interpretive role that visitors can play in the construction and negotiation of meanings during their site visits. As one site manager stated, ‘The main reason why people visit the site is because it’s a day out…. It is as simple as that’ (site manager 131). However, this chapter has illustrated that heritage is more than just something people do in their free time, and that it encompasses more than simply knowledge about a Cold War site, place, structure or object. Instead, heritage is something through which people, during acts and performances of ‘doing’, find and express a sense of who they are – and what they want to be – in relation to, and in negotiation with, the authorized discourse, other humans and the material environment.

  NOTES

  1.http://www.hackgreen.co.uk/

  2.http://www.secretnuclearbunker.com/

  3.http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/york-cold-war-bunker/

  4.http://86.19.29.76/RAF%20Radar%20Museum.html

  5http://www.secretbunker.co.uk/

  6.In April 2015 the heritage policy and regulation function previously operated by English Heritage alongside its management of heritage venues were transferred to a separate non-departmental public body, called Historic England. My comments in this chapter refer to both aspects of English Heritage’s former roles because my research was completed prior to 2015.

  7.The resulting database and summary of the Defence of Britain project is available here: http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/dob/overview.cfm.

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Beck, John. 2011. ‘Concrete ambivalence: Inside the bunker complex’. Cultural Politics 7(1): 79–102.

  Bell, David. 2006. Science, Technology and Culture. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

  Boswell, Rosabelle. 2011. Representing Heritage in Zanzibar and Madagascar. Addis Ababa: Organisation for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA).

  Bruner, Edward M. 2001. ‘The Maasai and the Lion King: Authenticity, nationalism, and globalization in African Tourism’. American Ethnologist 28(4): 881–908.

  Burton, Antoinette. 2003. ‘When was Britain? Nostalgia for the nation at the end of the “American Century” ’. Journal of Modern History 75(2): 395–374.

  Cocroft, Wayne D. 2001. Cold War Monument: An Assessment of the Monuments Protection Programme. London: English Heritage.

  Cocroft, Wayne & Thomas, Roger J. C. 2004. Cold War: Building for Nuclear Confrontation, 1946–1986. London: English Heritage.

  Crouch, David. 2002. ‘Surrounded by place: Embodied encounters’, in Simon Coleman & Mike Crang (eds.) Tourism: Between Place and Performance. New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 207–218.

  Dicks, Bella. 2003. ‘Heritage, governance and marketization: A case study from Wales’. Museum and Society 1 (1): 30–44.

  Dillon, Brian. 2014. Ruin Lust: Artists’ Fascination with Ruins from Turner to the Present Day. London: Tate Publishing.

  Fox, Renata. 2010. ‘Discourse and tourism: Tourism as discourse’, in M. Orams, M. Lück, J. Poulston & S. Race (eds.) Tourism & Hospitality Management 2010, Conference Proceedings. Auckland: AUT University, pp. 302–310.

  Hajer, Maarten. 1996. ‘Discourse coalitions and the institutionalisation of practice: The case of acid rain in Britain’, in F. Fisher & J. Forester (eds.) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 43–77.

  Halbwachs, Maurice. 1992. On Collective Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  Hermann, Inge. 2012. Cold War Heritage (and) Tourism: Exploring Heritage Processes within Cold War Sites in Britain. PhD Thesis. University of Bedfordshire: United Kingdom.

  Hollinshead, Keith. 1997. ‘Heritage tourism under post-modernity: Truth and the past’, in C. Ryan (ed.) The Tourist Experience: A New Introduction. London: Cassell, pp. 170–193.

  Kjeldstadli, Knut. 2008. ‘Museums and collective identity: a new concept of the “nation”?’ in Katherine Goodnow and Haci Akman (eds.) Scandinavian Museums and Cultural Diversity. London: Berghan Books, pp. 172–186.

  Lowe, David & Joel, Tony. 2013. Remembering the Cold War: Global Contest and National Stories. Abingdon: Routledge.

  Osborne, Brian S. 2001. ‘Landscapes, memory, monuments and commemoration: putting identity into place’, Canadian Ethnic Studies, 33(3) 36–77.

  Samuel, Raphael. 1994. Theatres of Memory. Volume 1: Past and Present in Contemporary Culture. London: Verso.

  Schofield, John. 2005. Combat Archaeology: Material Culture and Modern Conflict. London: Duckworth.

  Schofield, John & Cocroft, Wayne D. (eds.). 2007. A Fearsome Heritage: The Diverse Legacies of the Cold War. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.

  Schön, Donald A. & Rein, Martin (eds.). 1994. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.

  Smith, Laurajane. 2009. The Uses of Heritage (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

  Subterranea Britannica. 2011. Subterranea Britannica Trustees’ Report 2011. Online resource available at: http://www.subbrit.org.uk/docs/agm2012_Trusteerep.pdf (accessed 10 April 2012).