Illuminare:
A Student Journal in
Recreation, Parks, and Leisure Studies
Destination Ellis Island: An Examination of Place Narratives
Elizabeth E. Perry
University of Vermont
Online Publication Date: June 13, 2016
Publication details, instructions for authors, and subscription information can be found at http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/illuminare/
Articles in this publication of the Illuminare: A Student Journal in Recreation, Parks, and Leisure Studies may be reproduced if 1) Used
for research and educational purposes only, 2) Full citation (author, title, Illuminare, Indiana University, Vol. #, Issue #) accompanies
each article, 3) No fee or charge is assessed to the user. All articles published in the Illuminare are open-access articles, published and
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Illuminare: A Student Journal in Recreation, Parks, and Leisure Studies
Volume 14, Issue 1, pages 22-34, 2016
ISSN: 2158-9070 online
Indiana University, Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Studies
Destination Ellis Island: An Examination of Place
Narratives
Elizabeth E. Perry
Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources
81 Carrigan Drive
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT 05405
Abstract
Ellis Island (ELIS) is a prominent symbol evocative of America’s controversial immigration story. From
its time as an active immigration processing center to current day management by the National Park
Service, place meanings have been repeatedly and differentially ascribed to ELIS and the experience.
Shifts in the narrative between those of first-person recollections to the mythos perpetuated by those less
proximal to the experience are seen over time. Although once viewed as a cumbersome, daunting final
barrier to America, dominant narratives later have diminished this barrier aspect in favor of a positive,
welcoming, “gateway” one. Place meanings attached to and stemming beyond ELIS are indicative of
how contentious places are defined, and the attachments and power behind these definitions. In this
review and synthesis of the literature, I explore historic to contemporary place meanings attributed to
ELIS, and then frame this transition with the lens of the power of place to discuss these narratives’ onsite and beyond site implications.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Keywords: place making; immigr ation; ur ban par k; National Par k Ser vice; inter pr etation;
historic resources; cultural resources
24
Perry/ Destination Ellis Island
Ellis Island (ELIS), a past port of entry for 12
million immigrants and a current point of interest for
numerous visitors, carries a nested set of stories in its
existence, interpretation, and symbolism. As a place, ELIS
was the first federal immigration station, instituted after the
federal government recognized the growing concerns about
state-controlled immigration policies, decided to take
immigration matters under its auspices, and controlled
national-level policies and entrance requirements through
designated stations (Perec, 1995; Wright, 2008). Even before
it opened its doors as an immigration station in 1892, this
small island in New York Harbor represented the
accumulation of foreign peoples and cultures into America’s
story, as ELIS was enlarged from 3.3 to 27.3 acres over the
years prior with ballast from foreign ships (Brown, 1969;
Wright, 2008) and soil excavated to develop the New York
subway lines.
Experiences on ELIS of immigrants leaving distant
lands for life in America have been folded into the American
collective conscious (Roberts, 2006). In this way, the
definition of ELIS as a place takes on Lefebvre’s (1991)
conceptualized “representational space,” as a place
experienced and known by its associated imagery and
symbolism. Post-closure in 1954, difficult conversations
ensued around site interpretation and management by the
National Park Service (NPS). These centered on how to paint
accurately the picture of ELIS immigration experiences and
how to make these experiences accessible to the public.
Furthermore, as American society began to appreciate the
larger story of immigration to the U.S., questions have arisen
about how to utilize the structure and symbolism of ELIS as
a gateway to understanding this larger story (Cannato, 2009).
Considerations of how to interpret the ELIS
experience and the definition of ELIS as a place (Lefebvre,
1991) implicitly rely on a power in narrative and definition
(Foucault, 1976). In ascribing meaning to the place and its
narratives, the power of rule and subjugation inherent
throughout society is manifested in discourse (Foucault,
1976; Lukes, 1986): which ELIS narratives to promote,
which to de-emphasize, and how to account for context in
any shifts in narrative. Although many examinations (e.g.,
Cannato, 2009; Perec, 1995) have sought to detail the
historical conditions of immigration at ELIS, island
abandonment, and revitalization as a NPS site, these
examinations have not addressed the place meanings
produced (Davenport & Anderson, 2005; Lefebvre, 1991)
and the role of power (Foucault, 1976) in constructing these
place meanings.
Broadly, the constructs of power and place hold
significance to the definition of a space and the intent of its
interpretation or meaning (Davenport & Anderson, 2005). In
any social setting, there are differential dynamics between
actors. Foucault’s work (1976) on these dynamics is
fundamental to considerations of how the power inherent
within these relations is defined and discussed. Power is
relational; it permeates, characterizes, and constitutes the
social sphere (Foucault, 1976). It is manifested, coalesced,
and expressed through discourse (Foucault, 1976; Lukes,
1986). Whereas traditional questions focus on sovereignty
and obedience, Foucault (1976) phrases the question as one
of domination and subjugation, examining both the locus of
power and its destination and giving direct attention to the
techniques used to propagate power (more so than on the
content of the power relations/exclusions). With this basis of
the power construct, many investigations have detailed
power in immigration and tourism narratives (e.g., BarkerRuchti et al., 2015; Feighery, 2009; Hollinshead, 1999).
Fewer details are known about how power dynamics
transcend places of both immigration and tourism, such as
ELIS.
Place is a social construct that relates to aspects of
space (Lefebvre, 1991). Place-based interactions depend
upon three inter-related aspects about the production of space
(Lefebvre, 1991). Spatial practice are the ways in which
people generate, use, and perceive space (e.g., daily routines,
routes used), representations of space are the ways in which
space is conceived (e.g., signs, maps), and representational
space is the lived experience through associated images and
symbols (e.g., ideals, visions) (Lefebvre, 1991). How places
are perceived, represented, and idealized is dependent upon
the social and personal negotiations regulating the place. In
this manner, place is dependent upon power. Critical
examinations of the power dynamics shaping the production
and idealization of place are common, especially in the
context of rural tourist destinations and protected areas (e.g.,
Morehouse, 1996; Walter & Fortmann, 2003). Place is also a
sensitizing concept in immigration studies (e.g., Kordel,
2016; Pereira, 2015). Although there have been limited
Illuminare, Volume 14, Issue 1, 2016
25
Perry/ Destination Ellis Island
investigations of the differential roles of temporally
redefining place-based and place-defined tourism and power
(e.g., “golfscapes” examined in Ek & Hultman, 2008, statesponsored tourism propaganda examined in Lin, 2015), even
fewer investigations have examined these aspects in the
context of government-structured place interactions centered
on immigration and tourism. A place in which this does
occur, ELIS, also provides fertile opportunity for
examination of how these place-power dynamics may shift
over time.
Research Objective and Approach
This literature review examines the influence of
power and place on ELIS narratives. It explicitly explores
how lenses of power and place may contribute to articulating
the varied dimensions of ELIS narratives. In this review, I
have constructed the argument to elicit place, place-based,
and place-expanding narrative about ELIS and then critically
examine the shifting narratives by applying the concepts of
power and place. First, I present synthesized descriptions of
the ELIS experience while it was an active immigration
station and then how narratives changed after the station
closed and the island went through abandonment and
transformation. In these accounts, I have prioritized and
presented narratives that contribute to place definition
through the formation of representational space (Lefebvre,
1991). Second, I examine this juxtaposition of narratives
through the lens of power and place to elicit meaning about
the underlying factors present with this shift in narrative. I
have selected quotes and descriptions for this analysis that
are particularly illustrative of the power dynamics in the
ELIS place-making (Lukes, 1986).
The accounts and summaries of the history of ELIS
are numerous and extensive. Because adequate examination
of power relationships needs to consider the source
(Foucault, 1976), I purposefully sought out a variety of
sources (e.g., books, journal articles, newspaper articles). I
searched three major article databases and the university
library catalogue for pertinent sources, using terminology
such as “Ellis Island,” “immigration,” “National Park
Service,” “park designation,” “Great Hall,” “immigrant
interview,” and “visitor perspective.” This search resulted in
30 text sources that described conditions at ELIS from its
time as an immigration station through current NPS
interpretation. Upon careful examination of these sources, I
found 23 to be particularly relevant to this investigation. The
seven excluded references typically represented two source
types: chronological descriptions that echoed important dates
found in the other sources without contributing further
information or description or fictionalized narratives and
accounts of the immigrant passage. Although these
fictionalized narratives may hold intrigue for future
examinations, they were not pertinent to the application of
place and power frameworks in this investigation. Thus, the
following synthesis of literature and application of theoretical
frameworks is based on an analysis of these remaining 23
text sources. Analysis consisted of a close reading of the texts
and categorization of passages into both a priori and
emergent codes related to immigrant, visitor, management,
and societal descriptions of personal experience, placemaking, and power issues.
The frameworks provided by power discussions,
place definitions, and place attachments provide sideboards
for this investigation and means of better understanding the
connections among interpretations (Davenport & Anderson,
2005; Foucault, 1976; Lefebvre, 1991). The immigration
station consisted of a large campus that has only been
partially restored (Unsigned, 2001). To further constrain this
investigation, particular emphasis is given to eliciting the
narratives associated with the Great Hall (also known as the
main building or Registry Room), as all immigrants went
through this structure at the very least and this is the focus
area of the NPS site. Places take on new meanings as time
goes on and interpretations of ELIS as a doorway to America
and a doorway to America’s story of immigration may be an
appropriate and effective means of engagement with the
public.
Examinations of Place-making in the Ellis Island
Immigrant Narrative
The narrative of ELIS is dependent upon the point of
view. At the time of its use, primary viewpoints expressed
were those of active participants (e.g., immigrants, staff).
After its closure, more external and varied entities have taken
control over ELIS and altered place definitions with their
presence. From the immigrant perspective, four areas are
prominent in the defining of ELIS’ Great Hall: exams, name
changes, basic rights, and staff treatment. Post-closure,
Illuminare, Volume 14, Issue 1, 2016
26
Perry/ Destination Ellis Island
narratives of place definition center along a theme of disuse
and reuse: scaling the station back, contention over the
“surplus” sale of ELIS, neglecting the site altogether, and
enacting federal-private partnerships to reimagine and
reinterpret ELIS. Whereas external attitudes about ELIS as a
place during its immigration period were framed by
nativism, societal shifts toward a valuation of diversity postclosure also impacted the defining of ELIS. All of these
elements are connected to the definition of place through its
practices and tangible and intangible representations
(Lefebvre, 1991).
Documenting the Immigrant Experience at Ellis Island
Many immigrants spent only a short time in transit
at ELIS, but even short times could be unpleasant.
Immigrant descriptions of the Great Hall relate to a sense of
dislocation and confusion in the inspection process. The
disquieting and negative narratives associated with ELIS
were prevalent, associated with the medical exams and with
the questioning of name, background, and purpose.
Although about 97% of people gained admittance to the
U.S., 20% were held for at least one night (Jones, 1976) and
about 3%, or about 250,000 people, were ultimately
deported (Perec, 1995). The fear of rejection is reflected in
immigrants’ comparisons of their experience on ELIS as a
preview of the biblical Day of Judgment (Coan, 1997).
Therefore, it is with good reason that immigrants expressed
apprehension at the chalked codes written on their jackets,
signifying that an additional test or inspection would be
necessary and panic when they or members of their families
were segregated out for further examination (YansMcLaughlin & Lightman, 1997). The small staff of
inspectors conducted hasty examinations and reserved
extensive testing only for those suspected of having
deficiencies or ailments. The questioning of life details was
conducted with interpreters to relay the 30-40 initial
questions (Coan, 1997), which, unless answers were
suspect, comprised the total immigration interview.
Although short in duration, the associated imagery
and emotion of these admittance processes embody
Lefebvre’s (1991) spatial practice and representational
spaces. The routines and practices by the administrative
staff reflect the ways in which the immigration experience
was structured by codes and use of the space available at
ELIS. In the interpretation of these codes and symbols, the
participants (immigrants) have associated emotions of fear
and despair (and corresponding allegories), further creating a
place through its representational elements.
The power of the ELIS mythos and this creation of
spatial practice and representation can be seen in the
perpetuation of the story of name changes during this
interview. Almost all of the stories associated with changing
names, with one pen stroke obliterating a family history, are
false. None of the officials wrote names down (there were no
visas or records of an exact person entering) during the
questioning, nor did they have the power to change names;
responses of the immigrant were compared to the ship
manifest from Europe. Therefore, although some immigrants
answered to a name different than their given name, this
change had already happened across the Atlantic, either by
mistake or by someone voluntarily taking on a new
American-sounding name (Cannato, 2009; Perec, 1995),
taking the power and ownership of a new identity. For many
of the people emigrating from European countries, they
identified more with villages and regions than with a
nationality (Overland, 2000) and therefore were not opposed
to assuming a new nationality or name, one born of choosing
a place and identity. The myth of ELIS officials changing
names is a convenient and enduring legend because it
“emphasizes the traumatic nature of Ellis Island and the
supposed rough treatment of immigrants, as well as the
facility’s role in Americanizing immigrants, often against
their will” (Cannato, 2009, p. 403). This myth serves as a
cover for the uncomfortable fact that many immigrants
discarded their identities for ones that would assimilate better
into American society and the American ideals that inclusion
would represent (Lefebvre, 1991). It also serves as a way to
express the difficulties associated with ELIS even for those
who made it through and thus enforces the complex and at
times clandestine symbolisms that come to define a place
(Lefebvre, 1991).
In line with the Progressive Era thinking of the time
and the associated use of institutions to address social issues,
steps were taken to ensure that immigrants had basic rights
and due process. Ellis Island embodied this Progressive Era
thinking, with the federal label, the bureaucracy of the
Illuminare, Volume 14, Issue 1, 2016
27
Perry/ Destination Ellis Island
process, the elevation of the role of the expert, and the
concern for correcting ills and abuses (e.g., denying entry to
child, trade, and sex laborers) and providing for the welfare
of the people (e.g., on-grounds hospital and medicine)
(Jones, 1976; Yans-McLaughlin & Lightman, 1997). All of
these tangible plans and processes, embodying societal ideas
in physical interactions confined in a space, helped to
further shape ELIS as a place (Lefebvre, 1991). In 1922,
ELIS officials instituted the Advisory Committee of the
U.S. Bureau of Immigration recommendations, which
included much for the welfare and wellbeing of people
while on the island. Although the list was not exhaustive, it
was an attempt to try to accommodate the mainly eastern
and southern European populations with services that fit
their cultures, such as weekly Protestant, Jewish, and
Catholic religious services and services for other groups
offered when needed (Brown, 1969). Complaints about
treatment or a failed test could be argued in front of the
special board of inquiry. Immigrants mainly were able to
argue their cases when they had connections advocating for
them in the U.S. or when they were able to show that the
stress, the difficulty understanding English, or the quick
nature of an exam (e.g., for mental fitness) had provided a
false appearance of admittance-denying reasons of mental
retardation or illness (Brown, 1969). These distinctions
among groups and orderly processes for addressing
grievances provide form and structure to ELIS as a place
and imply standards of competence and performance in
spatial practices (Lefebvre, 1991).
Although these spatial practices are based in basic
human rights and dignity, they were not the only practices
that contributed to the ELIS narrative. Contradictory to
many of the progressive ideals of the time, American
nativism found an opportunity for cruel expression at ELIS
(Coan, 2011; Overland, 2000). Although increasingly
restrictive immigration policies were enacted, nativists still
saw leniency in the policies and expressed the perception
that the examinations at ports of embarkation to ELIS were
little more than a courtesy on the part of the foreign states to
the U.S. and that the mass flood of people across the
Atlantic prevented proper handling of cases and weeding
out of undesirables on either side of the ocean (Brown,
1969; Cannato, 2009). Furthermore, many nativists rejected
the idea that officials at ELIS were insensitive or required
further training, as it would be impossible for officials to
understand the variety of cultural differences expressed at
ELIS by immigrants and “[if] there is any place where an
official needs to understand human nature, it is at the various
ports of debarkation, since human nature manifests itself
daily in terms of all the diverse cultures and individual
differences of the many immigrants” (Brown, 1969, p. 191).
In this way, spatial practices that constrain a specific level of
performance and competence have also had an impact on
defining ELIS as a place (Lefebvre, 1991). This
unwelcoming side of the immigration story awaited new
Americans at ELIS and afterward (Genzlinger, 2011),
illustrating factors that played into the apprehension that
went alongside seeking a new life through ELIS’ doors and
how the hardship of the experience was seen as a positive or
negative factor, depending on the voice of the narration.
Reimagining the Island and the Immigrant Experience
Toward the end of ELIS’ life as a functioning
immigration station, the government recognized that the
campus was too large for the lessened demand. Threequarters of all immigrants to the U.S. entered through ELIS
during the station’s tenure (Yans-McLaughlin & Lightman,
1997), with the rate peaking in the 1920s but then
dramatically falling off. After this peak, the buildings were
seen as too big and maintenance too costly but it was still
deemed too much of a hassle to try to reduce footprints or
move to another site when this one was so well equipped
(Brown, 1969). Thus, ELIS limped along with minimum
renovations and repurposing of buildings (e.g., World War II
detention center for enemy aliens and suspected spies [Jones,
1976]) until 1954. By that year, there were only 200,000
immigrants entering the U.S. annually and fewer than half of
those were passing through ELIS (Cannato, 2009); the
government closed the station. The representational space
(e.g., symbolism) and representations of space (e.g., maps of
use) (Lefebvre, 1991) produced by the institution of the
immigration facility were altered and variously interpreted
post-closure.
The General Services Administration (GSA) took
control of the shuttered property and planned to offer it at
auction. However, when the bid announcements went out,
Illuminare, Volume 14, Issue 1, 2016
28
Perry/ Destination Ellis Island
not everyone was pleased with the idea that ELIS could be
sold. A vocal portion of the public, including some who had
passed through ELIS, wrote to the GSA and government
officials, protesting that the island held too much symbolism
as the gateway to America to be sold for commercial
development (Cannato, 2009). The evocative nature of this
place symbolism, stretching into protest action, attests to the
firmly rooted visions of the space and what it represents
(Lefebvre, 1991). The Eisenhower administration responded
to this plea to consider the ideals that ELIS represents by
suspending sale of the facilities within a week of its
advertisement and seeking alternatives. Although others
undoubtedly felt that selling the island and destroying the
immigration station would be acceptable (Cannato, 2009),
the backlash to the commercial proposition suggests that not
all connotations with the island were negative (by both
people who had and had not passed through ELIS) and that
Americans were beginning to associate positive meanings
and memories with ELIS (Cannato, 2009; Lefebvre, 1991).
Complicating the brewing sentiments, New York and New
Jersey both wanted to claim ownership of the island
(MacFarquhar, 1996; Pitkin, 1975). Federal administration
through the NPS would side-step this disagreement and
issue of state ownership. With other factors also at play, the
solution to designate ELIS as a national monument gained
traction and President Johnson proclaimed the site to be part
of the Statue of Liberty National Monument on May 11,
1965. This site designation provided an altered
representation of the space, formally aligning ELIS with
Lady Liberty (Lefebvre, 1991).
The period in which ELIS was an active station and
decades after also saw the turn of American society from
dominated by Anglo-Saxons to less so, with larger identity
associations and sharing of power among all peoples of
European descent and a greater melding of cultures and
peoples (Cannato, 1969; Wright, 2008). The greater
acceptance of others and recognition of the diverse cultures
that comprise America was shifting away from the idea of
the country being a melting pot and homogenization of
cultures and more of an awareness and respect for the
different elements that comprise society (Yans-McLaughlin,
1990). The idea took hold that these different elements were
valued and garnered respect; this complemented the ethnic
consciousness revival, cultural pluralism, and the theory of
contributionalism that were increasingly prevalent in the
1950s and 1960s (Cannato, 1969; Yans-McLaughlin, 1990;
Holland, 1993). These societal sentiments sought expression
in a physical form of space; ELIS was held to be an exemplar
place of such sentiment (Holland, 1993; Lefebvre, 1991).
This valuation of diversity differed strongly from
the past nativistic and melting pot sentiments (Fleegler,
2013). These past sentiments emphasized that ELIS was a
factory for manufacturing Americans with a single, sanitized
identity, as illustrated by one person at the time: “You put an
Irishman, a Ukrainian Jew, or an Italian from Apulia into one
end of the production line and at the other end – after
vaccination, disinfection, and examination of his eyes and
pockets – an American emerged” (Perec, 1995, pp. 12-13).
In a departure from these sentiments and with the increased
acceptance of contributionalism, the dismissal of the
discriminatory immigration quotas of the past in President
Johnson’s Great Society plan, the increased recognition of
rights for historically oppressed groups in the Civil Rights
Movement, and the need for America to perpetuate an image
of inclusion and welcoming to differentiate it from the
U.S.S.R. during the Cold War, the U.S. public sentiment was
ripe for a revisiting of its immigrant past and how to
acknowledge and preserve that legacy within a tangible
location (Lefebvre, 1991; Perec, 1995).
Despite the expression of these sentiments, funding
was not available for the upkeep of ELIS. The island was
repeatedly pillaged and vandalized during the 1950s-1970s
(Coan, 1997; Pitkin, 1975). Squatters and separatist groups,
including a Native American group that sought to reclaim the
island as a center for Native culture and Nixon-sanctioned
black capitalist group that sought to occupy the island as an
Eden for black capitalism (Cannato, 2009), periodically
moved onto and were forcibly removed from ELIS.
However, in the lead-up to the Statue of Liberty’s centennial,
the time had arrived when the want to preserve and interpret
ELIS as the immigration facility was met with the funding
necessary to begin the planning on how to do so for at least a
limited portion of the immigration campus (Unsigned, 2001).
Although these various times of abandonment and other uses
had the potential to redefine the ELIS narrative, the impacts
of these space-dependent practices and representations did
Illuminare, Volume 14, Issue 1, 2016
29
Perry/ Destination Ellis Island
not surpass the vision of ELIS and its immigration narrative
in the public and government’s envisioning of ELIS (Coan,
1997; Lefebvre, 1991).
With the arrival of the Reagan administration came
a desire to reimagine the role of government, shifting the
power from government-only to public-private partnerships
for many undertakings. Under this reimagining, the Statue
of Liberty – Ellis Island Centennial Commission was
formed in 1982, jointly managed by the Department of the
Interior and Lido Iacocca (formerly of Ford Motors)
(Holland, 1993). The committee raised funds for the
renovation solely through the private Statue of Liberty –
Ellis Island Foundation (also run by Iacocca), despite the
existence of other interested groups that may have directed
the representational narrative differently (Lefebvre, 1991).
Most of the funding was to restore the Statue of Liberty,
with ELIS playing second fiddle in the renovations. Despite
the unequal or unbalanced sharing of resources and power
(Foucault, 1976), the sites were intertwined even more
through this renovation program, with the language in
public communications emphasizing that the Statue of
Liberty was the symbol of freedom but that ELIS was where
this freedom was made a reality for those arriving. This
twinning thus further emphasized all space definitions of
ELIS: practice (the formal alignment agreement), tangible
representations (advertising the sites together and plans/
maps of them as a shared experience), and intangible
representations (envisioning both as an embodiment of the
American Dream) (Lefebrvre, 1991). In fact, for the
planning committee, Iacocca, and others with similarly
privileged backgrounds, “Ellis Island was increasingly
entwined with their vision of the American
Dream” (Cannato, 2009, p. 395).
envisioning of it as a final test and barrier. With the reopening of ELIS as a NPS site, many contentious discussions
about how to interpret the site also allude to the power
dynamics in how to frame stories of national and personal
significance (i.e., eliciting power dynamics through
discourse) (Foucault, 1976). In particular, four instances
exemplify power, subjugation, and sharing through the ELIS
narrative: the change in perception from a final barrier to a
first doorway, ELIS’ assumed prestige as a NPS site,
confliction in the museum structuring and Great Hall
restoration, and movement of the ELIS narrative from placebased to place-expanding.
Examining Power in Attributing Place Meanings to Ellis
Island
The coupling of ELIS with the American Dream
brushes over the fact that for many, the island was seen as a
final barrier to freedom and not as the first step into freedom.
The hardships of the experiences (real or perceived) at ELIS
were further de-emphasized as the symbology of the island
was caught up in that of what the Statue of Liberty
represented (Perec, 1995; Walkowitz, 2009; YansMcLaughlin & Lightman, 1997). A Romanian immigrant
from 1930 summarizes this dichotomy of symbolism found
in the Statue of Liberty and ELIS, by stating that when the
boat pulled into the harbor, “Everybody got to one side of the
ship to see the Statue of Liberty. There were howls and
screams and, ‘America, I love you.’ Everybody in his own
language. It was a celebration” (Coan, 1997, p. 335). When it
was time to disembark at ELIS, however, that swelling of
happiness was replaced with suspicion as to what the
different tags on clothing meant and why people were put in
separate lines, without someone communicating this in their
language (Coan, 1997). It is therefore suspect to assume that
the two monuments in New York Harbor carried a shared,
optimistic symbolism at the time or that it is appropriate to
apply that joint symbolism to the sites today, yet this joint
narrative has gained traction as a truth (Foucault, 1976).
The various place meanings attributed to ELIS, and
the changes in expressions of these place relationships over
time, may be better understood by examining power
relationships (Lukes, 1986). Power is the ability to produce
an effect (Foucault, 1976; Lukes, 1986). In the context of
ELIS narratives, there has been a shift in power over time
that has privileged society’s romantic envisioning of the
immigrant ELIS experience over the immigrants’
Given the confliction in interpretations of the
symbolic meanings of ELIS (Lefebvre, 1991), a brutal debate
ensued as to how to represent the themes in a museum at the
site and as themes to the greater public. It is in this time of
intense discussion that the idea of ELIS as the New
Plymouth Rock (not a new comparison, but one that had not
gained dominance in the past) came to be favored (Cannato,
2009; Fleegler, 2013). This comparison highlighted ELIS’
Illuminare, Volume 14, Issue 1, 2016
30
Perry/ Destination Ellis Island
role in perpetuating the story of immigration, taking in
waves of new peoples during its open period and elevating it
beyond its physical status as a dreary immigration station. It
also allowed for the greater connection of people to the
place, which was taken by some as a positive connotation of
the same, shared experiences of all immigrants to America
and was taken by others as a negative connotation, as it
implied that there was a certain equality among period of
immigrants and among reasons for arrival, be they voluntary
or involuntary (Fleegler, 2013). These debates and resulting
new analogy highlight the role that discourse plays in
creating and perpetuating power relationships (Foucault,
1976). As much as the emphasis was placed on tying the
welcoming arms of Lady Liberty to the gateway to America
through ELIS, there was strong opposition from people who
felt that a museum of immigration was not appropriate for
ELIS and would duplicate the American Museum of
Immigration at the base of the Statue of Liberty (Holland,
1993). One immigrant, for example, expressed that “‘No
immigrant was ever attracted to America by Ellis Island.
Liberty Island is a happy place of continuing inspiration, not
a depository of bad memories’ ” (Cannato, 2009, p. 380).
This signified that if the museum was to be in tribute to the
reasons why voluntary immigrants traversed the Atlantic, it
would be better represented with a presence on the island
with the welcoming statue rather than on the island with the
bureaucratic funnel. Control over this narrative and what
place better represented the immigration story, however,
was formalized into bureaucratic power structures
(Foucault, 1976; Lukes 1886).
Whatever the connotation that was placed on the
meaning of ELIS and its place in the story of America, the
voices of those who had passed through the immigration
station still echoed the pain of the past and the need to
reclaim the island as a place with at least a neutral place in
their own stories as a milestone (Coan, 1997; Foucault,
1976). For example, a gathering of Armenian-Americans on
the site expressed that “For many, Ellis Island was a sad and
disconcerting beginning to life in the United States. It is
therefore a measure of our success as Americans that we
return to this place, no longer afraid, intimidated, or
bewildered, but confident and grateful for the blessings we
have experienced in this country” (Cannato, 2009, p. 398).
This expression of the obstacle-filled, less-than-divine
experience does not echo the fanciful nostalgia of the
experience that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani
expressed at a naturalization ceremony at ELIS: “Ellis Island
is a wonderful place, it’s a sacred place, and it’s hallowed
ground in American history” (Cannato, 2009, p. 408).
Instead, it evokes a sense of boldness and bravery to be able
to revisit the site that delineated the time in which they were
in transit from their old nationality to their new, without
being yet embraced by Lady Liberty’s arms.
In the NPS administration of the site, the U.S. has
already stated that this site is worthy of national significance;
the public presumes that the story of ELIS is a national story
and the NPS enforces this idea with the establishment of the
site (Foucault, 1976; Roberts, 2012). Public interests have
shaped and continue to shape sites of this nature (Foucault,
19876; Lukes, 1986), such as the use of ELIS as a staging
ground for political and patriotic pronouncements like
President Bush addressing America from ELIS on the first
anniversary of the September 11th attacks (Walkowitz, 2009).
Public interests also shape the representations of the place
and its patriotic associations in the digital world, extending
the power of a proud narrative to a larger audience (Foucault,
1976). Beyond the physical structures, the NPS’ ELIS
website contains further means for engagement, such as the
popular digitized, searchable ELIS ship manifests, which
received 50 million hits on its first day online in 2001
(Walkowitz, 2009). The use of the site as a space
representing larger themes of national character and the very
specific investigations for individuals who disembarked at
ELIS represent a lasting question for the NPS: How to
memorialize ELIS in a way that relates the story of those
who passed through the station while not ignoring the story
of all immigrants to the U.S.?
The main building, where every immigrant
experienced their first encounters with U.S. officials, reopened as an immigration museum in 1990, welcoming
tourists through its doors (Golden, 1990). Using historic
preservation methods, the main building was restored to its
1918 appearance (Dunlap, 1987), indicating the date to
which the NPS could restore the appearance faithfully (NPS,
2005). Instead of the Great Hall, with a capacity of 5,000
people (Coan, 2011), being lined with officers asking those
Illuminare, Volume 14, Issue 1, 2016
31
Perry/ Destination Ellis Island
who enter to wait in lines and to answer questions in a
foreign language, the cavernous room is now starkly empty.
The site may appear minimalist compared to today's
standards, but in doing so, the NPS aims to better portray
the atmosphere of the area (Dunlap, 1987); they have
assumed power over the structuring of the space (Foucault,
1976; Lefebvre, 1991). The emptiness gives space for
contemplation of what people endured during their time at
ELIS, what this must have meant to their lives, and what
this means to the American story. Many visitors become
emotional (Coan, 1997). Side rooms off of the Great Hall
are used for the interpretation of immigrant experiences at
the station, such as a baggage room with luggage from 1892
-1954 and a room with items donated by families of those
who passed through during that time. An audio tour takes
visitors from room to room, chronicling the experience an
immigrant might have had in this space and asking visitors
to make their own interpretations as well. There is a brittle
realism of the exhibits, juxtaposing stories of hardship with
those of opportunity (Walkowitz, 2009). In instilling an
order and confined method of interaction with the site, the
NPS has used its power to set structure on the interpretation
of the site in line with both ELIS’ history and the NPS
mandate (Foucault, 1976; NPS, 2005).
Shifts in ELIS place narratives and the power of
interpretation also have happened accidentally. One of the
ways in which money was raised for the 1990 reopening
was the construction of a Wall of Honor on-site. For $100, a
donor could pay for the name of someone who had passed
through ELIS to be inscribed on this wall (Cannato, 2009).
Unintentionally, this wall began to tell the story of
America’s fuller immigrant history, as families paid for
names inscribed that stretched from colonial days to the
current day and well beyond ELIS’ entrance gate, distorting
and expanding the original intent of the Wall and taking
ownership of the place and process (Foucault, 1976;
Lefebvre, 1991).
Furthered by discussions around the Wall of Honor
and the need for more encompassing narratives, the NPS has
strived to interpret the story of immigration in a way that
balances the story of the place (ELIS) with the broader story
of immigration (Roberts, 2012). This balancing serves to
focus simultaneously on a place-based as well as a place-
expanding understanding and suggests recognition of the
power of multiple narratives (Foucault, 1976). For example,
the NPS project manager for the ELIS museum summarized
how ELIS serves as a gateway for everyone’s stories:
It doesn’t matter whether your family
arrived on the Mayflower or recently got
off the airplane from Honduras. Ellis
Island is a symbol of 400 years of
immigration. The story of it all is told here,
including that of Native Americans and
forced immigrations, the slaves who were
brought here against their will (Cannato,
2009, p. 405-06).
Others have also noted this balancing act by the NPS in the
museum exhibits, stating that the administration recognizes
that ELIS:
…represents a specific immigrant history,
but since visitors often see the museum as
a national history, tours and the history
described on placards are a balancing act,
trying to accommodate visitor expectations
of both a larger national narrative and a
story of their own family’s history with the
curators’ mission to tell a more generic
Ellis story (Walkowitz, 2009, pp. 144-45).
This acknowledgement of a broader story aligns with the
idea that many conditions factor into what migration is truly
voluntary. For ELIS immigrants and countless others
throughout time and conditions, “voluntary” migration
usually can only be applied to those who are neither wealthy
nor poor, are dissatisfied with some part of their life (e.g.,
economic conditions), and move with the intent to alleviate
these dissatisfactions (Walkowitz, 2009; Yans-McLaughlin
& Lightman, 1997). Visitors expect to find this fuller story of
voluntary and involuntary immigration to America but
simultaneously they expect that their personal ethnic story
will be highlighted (Walkowitz, 2009), exposing a tension
that NPS curators must navigate in line with society’s
perceptions and the site’s mandate (i.e., an acknowledgement
in the power of personal and national narratives) (Foucault,
1976).
Illuminare, Volume 14, Issue 1, 2016
32
Perry/ Destination Ellis Island
The mandate for the museum will continue to
direct that the 1892-1954 history of ELIS and of
immigration dominates the story, but other places and times
have been increasingly incorporated around this primary
story (Stakely, 2003). The NPS has identified three core
themes for interpretation at ELIS: the story of ELIS as an
immigration station, the larger story of all immigration to
the U.S., and America’s pluralistic society (Holland, 1993;
NPS, 2005; Roberts, 2012), factoring into the current
representations of the space (Lefebvre, 1991) and privileged
voices (Lukes, 1986). On-site and online, the
representations and meanings attributed to ELIS now
encompass the specific and broader story of immigration
under The Peopling of America exhibit (Roberts, 2012).
Taking into consideration the experiences of those who
were on the continent before America, those who came
before or through different entry points than ELIS, those
who came involuntarily, and those who continue to come to
America, this exhibit sets the ELIS immigrants into the
context of this larger story of immigration. Park historians
have made an explicit effort to lay bare the controversies of
immigration and connect with people who do not see their
past represented at ELIS (Roberts, 2012). The struggle
between remaining a site that is both place and time-specific
and being more inclusive is also represented in the 2012
renaming of the main building and headquarters of the NPS
site as Ellis Island: The National Museum of Immigration
(Coan, 2011). Thus, ELIS continues to remain a contentious
place defined by differential narratives and power
authorities (Lefebvre, 1991; Lukes, 1986).
Conclusion
The narrative of experience at ELIS has been
differentially expressed over the past century. These
differential expressions may be better understood by
examining them with lenses of place and power (Foucault,
1976; Lefebvre, 1991). In this literature review, I have
synthesized narratives from the immigrant to the visitor
experience and their relationships to place and power.
Considering these lenses with other contentious sites may be
an appropriate way to gain insight into place-dependent
relationships and interpretations. Further ELIS research
could include a comparative analysis of NPS interpretation
at ELIS and the Statue of Liberty or a review of how
different groups gathering at ELIS apply symbolism and
attachments to the site, furthering power dynamics in the
discourse of place-making.
Places and human relationships within them are
dynamic; place-making and related power structures are
continuously redefined and renegotiated (Davenport &
Anderson, 2005). The struggle in the identity of the place is
also reflected in the struggle in people’s attachment to the
place and belonging to the place (Davenport & Anderson,
2005). During its operation, ELIS had a sinister reputation
(Jones, 1976), born of the sole intent of the station: to sieve
out undesirables. Each generation has the ability to make its
own history and descendants may want to reclaim the history
the “Island of Hope, Island of Tears,” a site that was created
as part of an exclusionary means for their ancestors. Ellis
Island and NPS interpretation may be able to provide
opportunities for Americans to better understand their past
and the role of immigrants in shaping the history and future
of America (Golden, 1990; Holland, 1993). The cultural
landscape of ELIS encompasses all of these narratives and
provides an example of a cultural resource that has meanings
beyond the place-specific (Stakely, 2003), connecting people
to the themes of inclusion and exclusion unspooling from the
experiences of a specific set of people at a specific time and
in a specific place.
The NPS has departmentalized the story of
American immigration with the development of a series of
immigration museums across the country, each centered on a
specific set of immigration stories (Walkowitz, 2009). This
furthers the interpretation at and of ELIS in a specific
direction and from a specific authority (Foucault, 1976;
Lefebvre, 1991), piecing together place-based meanings and
themes into a quilt that covers an ever-greater breadth of the
immigrant experience. It also fits within the NPS’ Urban
Agenda goals as it looks towards enhancing the relevancy of
NPS parks, programs, and partnerships with all Americans
and especially those in urban setting like New York City
(NPS Stewardship Institute, 2015). With the mythos and
symbolism that ELIS holds for the American public and
international visitors alike, the expansion of narratives from
this specific place to a network of broader concepts again
roots ELIS as a doorway. Although doorways are
destinations and places in and of themselves, their inherent
Illuminare, Volume 14, Issue 1, 2016
33
Perry/ Destination Ellis Island
structure as a portal implies that their meaning may be
interpreted more fully as a connection between what is
behind and what is ahead, capturing the stories of those who
cross through. In both its days as an immigration station and
as a visitor attraction, ELIS serves as a doorway to
exploring new experiences and understandings.
References
Barker-Ruchti, N., Barker, D., Sattler, S., Gerber, M., &
Puhse, U. (2015). Second generation immigrant
girls’ negotiations of cultural proximity in
Switzerland: A Foucauldian reading. Journal of
International Migration and Integration, 16(4):
1213-1229.
Brown, L. G. (1969). Immigration: Cultural conflicts and
social adjustments (2nd ed.). New York: Arno
Press and The New York Times.
Cannato, V. J. (2009). A merican passage: The history of
Ellis Island. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Coan, P. M. (1997). Ellis Island interviews: In their own
words. New York: Facts on File, Inc.
Coan, P. M. (2011). Toward a better life: A merica’s new
immigrants in their own words, from Ellis Island to
the present. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Davenport, M., & Anderson, D. H. (2005). Getting from
sense of place to place-based management: An
interpretive investigation of place meaning and
perceptions of landscape change. Society &
Natural Resources, 18(7): 625-641.
Dunlap, D. W. (1987, February 25). At Ellis Island, gloomy
ruin starts to shine. New Y ork Times. New York.
Retrieved from http://
www.nytimes.com/1987/02/25/nyregion/at-ellisisland-gloomy-ruin-starts-to-shine.html
Ek, R., & Hultman, J. (2008). Sticky landscapes and smooth
experiences: The biopower of tourism mobilities in
the Oresund Region. Mobilities, 3(2): 223-242.
Feighery, W. (2009). Tourism, stock photography, and
surveillance: A Foucauldian interpretation. Journal
of Tourism and Cultural Change, 7(3): 161-178.
Fleegler, R. L. (2013). Ellis Island nation: Immigration
policy and American identity in the twentieth
century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Foucault, M. (1976). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews
and other writings. Reprinted in S. Lukes (ed).
(1986). Power. Washington Square, New York:
New York University Press. pp. 229-242.
Genzlinger, N. (2011, July 1). A welcome mat? Not always.
New York Times, p. MB7. New York.
Golden, T. (1990, September 10). Ellis Island doors
reopening, this time as haven to tourists. New Y ork
Times, p. B6. New York.
Holland, F. R. (1993). Idealists, scoundrels, and the lady: A n
insider’s view of the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island
Project. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Hollinshead, K. (1999). Surveillance of the worlds of
tourism: Foucault and the eye-of-power. Tourism
Management, 20(1): 7-23.
Jones, M. A. (1976). Destination A merica. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Kordel, S. (2016). The production of spaces of the ‘good
life’ – The case of lifestyle migrants in Spain.
Leisure Studies, 35(2): 129-140.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. (D. Nicholson
-Smith, Trans.).
Lin, C. F. (2015). Red tourism: Rethinking propaganda as a
social space. Communication and Critical Cultural
Studies, 12(3), 328-346.
Lukes, S. (1986). Introduction. In S. Lukes (ed.). Power,
New York University Press, Washington Square,
NY, pp. 1-18.
MacFarquhar, N. (1996, July 11). Fight over Ellis Island puts
history on trial. New Y ork Times. New Jersey.
Retrieved from http://
www.nytimes.com/1996/07/11/nyregion/fight-overellis-island-puts-history-on-trial.html
Morehouse, B. J. (1996). Conflict, space, and resource
management at Grand Canyon. Professional
Geographer, 48(1): 46-57.
National Park Service. (2005, November). Ellis Island
development concept plan: Final environmental
impact statement. U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service. Retrieved from http://
permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps122113/11-03-052ndEllis_Island_Development_Concept_Plan_EIS.
pdf
Illuminare, Volume 14, Issue 1, 2016
34
Perry/ Destination Ellis Island
NPS Stewardship Institute. “Urban Agenda: Call to Action
Initiative.” National Park Service Stewardship
Institute, 2015. http://www.nps.gov/subjects/urban/
Urban-Agenda.htm.
Overland, O. (2000). Immigrant minds, A merican identities:
Making the United States home, 1870-1930.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Perec, G. (1995). Ellis Island. (H. Matthews, Trans.). New
York: The New Press.
Pereira, P. (2015). Production of public space and everyday
life in a gentrified area of Lisbon. Portuguese
Journal of Social Science, 14(2): 157-175.
Pitkin, T. M. (1975). Keepers of the gate: A history of Ellis
Island. New York: New York University Press.
Roberts, S. (2006, September 14). Story of the first through
Ellis Island is rewritten. New Y ork Times. New
York. Retrieved from http://
www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/
nyregion/14annie.html?pagewanted=all
Roberts, S. (2012, February 12). On Ellis Island, examining
those who arrived before and after. New Y ork
Times. New York. Retrieved from http://
cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/on-ellisisland-examining-those-who-arrived-before-andafter/
Stakely, J. T. (2003, May). Cultural landscape report for
Ellis Island, Statue of Liberty National Monument:
Site history, existing conditions, and analysis.
National Park Service Olmsted Center for
Landscape Preservation. Retrieved from http://
www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/elis/
clr.pdf
Unsigned. (2001, September 8). Ghosts of Ellis Island. New
York Times. New York. Retrieved from http://
www.nytimes.com/2001/09/08/opinion/ghosts-ofellis-island.html
Walker, P., & Fortmann, L. (2003). Whose landscape? A
political ecology of the ‘exurban’ Sierra. Cultural
Geographies, 10:469-491.
Walkowitz, D. J. (2009). Ellis Island redux: The imperial
turn and the race of ethnicity. In D. J. Walkowitz &
L. M. Knauer (Eds.), Contested histories in public
space: Memory, race, and nation (p. 363).
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Wright, R. O. (2008). Chronology of immigration in the
United States. Jefferson, NC: McFarland &
Company, Inc., Publishers.
Yans-McLaughlin, V. (1990). Metaphors of self in history:
Subjectivity, oral narrative, and immigration
studies. In V. Yans-McLaughlin (Ed.), Immigration
reconsidered: History, sociology, and politics (p.
342). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yans-McLaughlin, V., & Lightman, M. (1997). Ellis Island
and the peopling of America. New York: The New
Press.
Illuminare, Volume 14, Issue 1, 2016