Is Heritage a Flawed Concept - Literature review Example

HERITAGE: A FLAWED CONCEPT Introduction The concern to preserve the remnants of the past is a national pre-occupation that began to flourish in the 19th century, especially in some European countries (Smith 2006). Today, heritage is largely the business of the state and the institutions upon which the determination to identify and preserve valuable relics of the past is reposed upon. Heritage is traditionally defined as something that is passed from one generation to the next because its value to society represents their beginnings and, thus, deserves preservation. The concept of heritage is dependent on several mechanisms: social mechanism that engenders collective memory so that the historical, social and cultural values ascribed to a relic of the past is accurately passed from one generation to the next, and; political or institutional mechanisms that organise the effort towards determining and identifying these relics and preserving them for posterity. These social and political mechanisms, however, are highly subjective and thus, imperfect that heritage may only be a filtered down product whose actual value had been stripped off or augmented extraneously. The concept of heritage being a product of highly subjective processes, is, therefore, imperfect one and may not be truly reflective of their true historical and social values. The Concept of Heritage The common conception of the term heritage is that it is a relic, whether a structure, place or practice, associated with the past and is being conserved by the present generation to showcase the wealth of its cultural and historical origins. The acknowledgment of this relic serves as society’s homage to the important and significant role it played in the historical, social and political setting of the past. Harrison (2009), for instance, cited the Mir Castle complex, which is located in the Republic of Belarus as an example of heritage. Built sometime between the 15th and 16th centuries, the castle’s design showcases successive cultural influences from the Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque and witnessed, nay, bore the brunt of Napoleon Bonaparte’s expansionist ambitions in the early 19th century. Aside from tangible things, such as structures and places, there are intangibles that are included within the ambit of heritage. This applies to practices, language, costumes, rituals, culture, folk songs (Smith 2009) and the like that provide a window from which the present can know and understand the past. In addition, the inclusion as cited by Harrison (2009), of the Great Barrier Reef as heritage provides an exception to the traditional concept of heritage. A 2,600 kilometre coral reef off the coast of Queensland, the Great Barrier Reef is home to a large number of species of endangered plants and animals and is presently a source of food, livelihood and sporting leisure of many, particularly the indigenous people of Australian. Social Mechanism The concept of heritage is flawed and imperfect because the mechanisms by which values are attached to relics are highly subjective. The past can only be known to the present through agents or tools that retell the exact significance or value attached to a relic. People usually rely on accounts of great historians to apprise themselves of their past. Examples of ancient great historians whose work subsists even today are Herodotus, Thucydides, Ptolemy, Thallus, and Plutarch. Historians, however, also rely on personal accounts or narratives of people or on research to gather materials. The approach of historians is inferential in nature largely using their prerogatives to either accept or reject narratives or accounts (Connerton 1989) and thus, their works are subjective in nature. In other words, the real determinant of heritage should not be historians’ accounts, but the collective memory of the people. The ability to pass on the correct historical, social and cultural values originally ascribed to a relic to future generations will depend on the accuracy of perception of witnesses and the memory skills they possess. The failure to correctly comprehend the significance of an event or a thing and the failure to commit them accurately to memory will significantly impact on the perception and appreciation of a relic’s value. Collective memory is, thus, an important term in the heritage discourse. Collective memory is defined by Wertsch (2008) as the ‘representation of the past shared by members of a group, such as a generation or nation-state’ (p. 120). It has also been argued, however, that collective memory per se does not exist: only individual memory. Straddling between these two opposing notions, Wertsch (2008) developed the distributive theory of collective memory in which memory becomes a group memory only through the interaction of individuals in a group or when agents or groups possessing memory of a specific event distribute it using instruments, such as the internet, through narratives or calendars. But Wertsch (2008) admitted, however, that these processes entail psychological and social dimensions so that the process of remembering becomes subject to the perceptual paradigm or biases of individuals. If bias is present in the shaping of collective memory and such memory is passed on to the next generation with biases of its own, heritage becomes problematic. Biases engendered by perceptual paradigms are not the only issue affecting heritage, but also deliberate and intentional suppression, for one reason or another, of cultural memory. Connerton (2008) suggested that historically, instances of suppression of collective memory by the state, society, societal factions, institutions, or by the individuals themselves occurred. For example, the French Revolution was aimed at toppling down the France’s status quo, which was underpinned by tyranny and class inequality. The victorious rebels, thus, eliminated everything that was associated with it. Connerton (1989) elaborated on this by citing the execution of Louis XVI in 1793 - a regicide that was meant to obliterate forever the institution of kingship. The implication of Connerton’s article is that some aspects of cultural memory may be lost or altered implicating a defective and inaccurate body of heritage. Political and Institutional Mechanisms The concept of heritage primarily flourished because it earned the attention of the powers that be, which decided that it was an important component to show off the richness of their cultural and social history. Smith (2006) wrote of the burgeoning interest of some European states in the 19th century to showcase to the world the supremacy of their race and identity and heritage was insinuated to be one of the ‘new devices to ensure or express social cohesion and identity and to structure social cohesion’ (Smith 2006). Monuments were thus built and legislations crafted to ensure the preservation and protection of what those states considered to be the embodiment of their heritage. This relatively new preoccupation to show off national pride soon began to infect other nations as well, such as the United States. The implication of this inauspicious beginning is that heritage is largely a concept that is inherently imbued with political elements and as such is tainted. The concern for heritage subsists to the present because the need to exhibit national pride still exists and is even augmented by economic interests. Even today, the concept of heritage is closely associated with politics and institutions. Harrison (2009), for example, noted the big influence of government on heritage. Not only is the government responsible for the preservation of relics considered part of heritage, but also on the list of relics forming part of heritage as well as the prioritisation of these relics. More telling is the fact that political and institutional interest on the subject of heritage may transcend national interest and into the realm of economics. Relics and remnants of the past are important aspects of tourism, which bring revenues to the government or institutions that house or protect them, thus, giving engendering the term ‘heritage industry.’ The implication of political and institutional vested interests integrated into the process of determining and preserving the relics of the past creates an impression that the concept of heritage is being polluted by such interests. Conclusion The social, political and institutional mechanisms that are attached, by necessity, to the concept of heritage create doubt as to the authenticity and integrity of the concept. Some scholars have gone so far as declaring the non-existence of heritage (Smith 2006; Harrison 2009). The concept is indeed, far from being ideal because all these mechanisms that are part and parcel of the concept are highly subjective polluting or diluting the true values of these relics of the past. From the process of shaping collective memory to the passing on of this memory to the next generation are fraught with subjective underpinnings that have the effect of altering or erasing the true significance of heritage. This is not helped any by the highly selective and sometimes capricious political and institutional processes that support its existence that are imbued with vested political and economic interests. Despite all these, the concept of heritage, however, is real and its value to society significant because of the window it provides to the present to look back into the past from which the present may relish with pride as well as learn important lessons from. References Connerton, P. (1989). How societies remember. Cambridge: UK: Cambridge University Press. Connerton, P. (2008). Seven types of forgetting. Memory Studies, 1, 59-70. Harrison, R. (2009). Understanding the politics of heritage. Manchester University Press. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. New York, NY: Routledge. Wertsch, J. (2008). The narrative organization of collective memory. ETHOS, 36 (1), 120–135 Read More

A 2,600 kilometre coral reef off the coast of Queensland, the Great Barrier Reef is home to a large number of species of endangered plants and animals and is presently a source of food, livelihood and sporting leisure of many, particularly the indigenous people of Australian. Social Mechanism The concept of heritage is flawed and imperfect because the mechanisms by which values are attached to relics are highly subjective. The past can only be known to the present through agents or tools that retell the exact significance or value attached to a relic.

People usually rely on accounts of great historians to apprise themselves of their past. Examples of ancient great historians whose work subsists even today are Herodotus, Thucydides, Ptolemy, Thallus, and Plutarch. Historians, however, also rely on personal accounts or narratives of people or on research to gather materials. The approach of historians is inferential in nature largely using their prerogatives to either accept or reject narratives or accounts (Connerton 1989) and thus, their works are subjective in nature.

In other words, the real determinant of heritage should not be historians’ accounts, but the collective memory of the people. The ability to pass on the correct historical, social and cultural values originally ascribed to a relic to future generations will depend on the accuracy of perception of witnesses and the memory skills they possess. The failure to correctly comprehend the significance of an event or a thing and the failure to commit them accurately to memory will significantly impact on the perception and appreciation of a relic’s value.

Collective memory is, thus, an important term in the heritage discourse. Collective memory is defined by Wertsch (2008) as the ‘representation of the past shared by members of a group, such as a generation or nation-state’ (p. 120). It has also been argued, however, that collective memory per se does not exist: only individual memory. Straddling between these two opposing notions, Wertsch (2008) developed the distributive theory of collective memory in which memory becomes a group memory only through the interaction of individuals in a group or when agents or groups possessing memory of a specific event distribute it using instruments, such as the internet, through narratives or calendars.

But Wertsch (2008) admitted, however, that these processes entail psychological and social dimensions so that the process of remembering becomes subject to the perceptual paradigm or biases of individuals. If bias is present in the shaping of collective memory and such memory is passed on to the next generation with biases of its own, heritage becomes problematic. Biases engendered by perceptual paradigms are not the only issue affecting heritage, but also deliberate and intentional suppression, for one reason or another, of cultural memory.

Connerton (2008) suggested that historically, instances of suppression of collective memory by the state, society, societal factions, institutions, or by the individuals themselves occurred. For example, the French Revolution was aimed at toppling down the France’s status quo, which was underpinned by tyranny and class inequality. The victorious rebels, thus, eliminated everything that was associated with it. Connerton (1989) elaborated on this by citing the execution of Louis XVI in 1793 - a regicide that was meant to obliterate forever the institution of kingship.

The implication of Connerton’s article is that some aspects of cultural memory may be lost or altered implicating a defective and inaccurate body of heritage. Political and Institutional Mechanisms The concept of heritage primarily flourished because it earned the attention of the powers that be, which decided that it was an important component to show off the richness of their cultural and social history. Smith (2006) wrote of the burgeoning interest of some European states in the 19th century to showcase to the world the supremacy of their race and identity and heritage was insinuated to be one of the ‘new devices to ensure or express social cohesion and identity and to structure social cohesion’ (Smith 2006).

Read More