Drawing on a context of your choosing, you'll investigate a haunting through a protocol (adapted from Hamilton, 2000) for “letting in” ghosts. In this part of the workshop, you will name key figures in a site of your choosing, noting which figures or stories have been dominant in the site’s narrative, and which have been de-centered or disappeared.
Hauntologists usually do a little bit of ghost hunting, a little bit of digging underneath the surface. So, we made a tool that will help you decide on a focal site and do some deep thinking about the site's hauntedness.
Go ahead and click on the Google Doc. Or, just go here to download the handout.
It's a "View Only" Google Doc. So, you'll need to make a copy and then add your own content. Click on "File" > "Make a copy" > and Save to your Google Drive.
Even if you think you already have the PERFECT HAUNTED PUBLIC HISTORY SITE, we encourage you to take time to do a good olde brainstorm. It never hurts!
On the Google doc, you'll see some prompts to get you started on thinking about haunted places--or places that disrupt linear temporalities, "feel" unsettled, or have yet to respond to the violence that has transpired there.
Now, look through your list. Choose one site that you'd like to think deeply about in terms of its ghostliness.
Now, here's the hard part: Conduct a "spectral analysis" of your site. We define a "spectral analysis" as a two-fold process of examining of visible and the non-visible.
Start with an ethnographic observation of the site. On the left side of the chart, make lists of people, environments, artifacts, and activities that can be empirically observed.
Now, be the hauntologist. Look for what's not there. Look for traces, ruptures, and sensations. Go back in time. Dig deep. Call in those ghosts.
Hamilton, M. (2000). Expanding the New Literacy Studies: Using photographs to explore literacy as social practice. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 16-34). Routledge.