Threats or opportunities in future heritage thinking. Leiden MOOC Week 6
Tuesday, 22 May 2018, 12:09
Visible to anyone in the world
Threats or opportunities in future heritage
thinking. Leiden MOOC Week 6
One of the most telling
lessons from the course is that 'heritage' and 'threat' are often co-defined.
In wars or revolutions (or other variations including wars of ideology or
attitude between contrasting groups) I only identify my 'heritage' when it is under
threat of extinction. This threat can be conceived as active and agentive or as
the effect of natural and everyday forces that are not confronted and in some
way seen as something into which we ought to intervene. I see these issues
underlying the concerns of Holtorf (2016).
As soon then as I sense that 'my heritage' is under threat, I
need to ask (aided by this course): By what? By whom (if it is a person or
group)?. A deeper question that precedes that is 'to whom' is this perceived as
a threat. Here 'me' would be an insufficient answer since identity can bew
conceived of as distributed in such ways that we need to look at what aspect of
identity is threatened - identifications for instance with locality, group,
gender, ethnicity, occupation, nation and do on. We need to determine whether
we see the threat arising from the agency of others, or something we conceive
as 'other' or from our failure to respond to a change that is inevitable and
where no other agency need be invoked than our own. Of course, 'doing nothing'
in relation to a perceived threat is also an option but it needs to be
conceived as an active choice - an act of omission at least.
My concern with Castle Hill throughout these exercises has
been to present that phenomenon in terms of its ontology as it might be
perceived by different stakeholders or different strands of identity in myself.
It is possible to conceive of the different aspects in competition where one
concept of the phenomenon takes hegemony over others. Thus, an interest group
may want to preserve evidence of pre-industrial mining and aim to open adits
for inspection by tourists, building on the top of the hill, facilities that
inform and create opportunities for remembrance (souvenirs, books, leaflets).
To do so would compromise the pre-Roman earth works. Hence one idea of what
Castle Hill 'means' and 'is' can threaten another.
However, that is only if we see reconstruction in terms of a
choice between alternatives from different domains and times-of-origin of the
particular facet. Reconstruction can be done (Byrne 2008) through other media
and social actions (videos, e-construction software (see Cunliffe on Palmyra),
imaginative opportunities - story-telling etc.) in ways that allow one site to
develop itself in many ways without one function compromising another. That
seems to be the purpose proposed by the Paris Declaration wherein developers
and other stakeholders are encouraged to enter into dialogue about what they
mean by both 'development' and 'sustainability' in relation to any proposed
project - of international significance. This is called 'development with a
human face'. My only concern is that sometimes it is difficult to differentiate
a face from a 'mask'.
Multiple construction of sites by partial differentiation of
its developments and multiple 'ownership' (not necessarily non-conflictual
since dialogue involves resolution of conflict) relations seems to be the key.
This too can be covered by Holtorf's (2016) idea that no one idea or ideology
of the heritage represent by Castle Hill asserts the need for 'timeless
continuity of existing forms' over the rights of other existing and
yet-to-be-proposed future forms associated with it in 'fluid continuity'. This
will integrate too awareness of ecosystems at the level of flora and fauna.
In part this means priority processes involved in the
'interpretation' of heritage over the physical phenomena of the site itself and
hence an acceptance that those phenomena are not and cannot be remade as we
suppose them to have been in the mythologies surrounding their origin. It is an
argument for keeping interpretation open to diverse practices that might assist
in the process - which must include more than those available to academic
expertise. This also means making the meaning of 'visiting' a site more fluid
too, such that visiting does not demand so great a local infrastructure that it
buries the site in necessities involved in its own maintenance. Visiting can
include the multi-media opportunities already proposed.
This means that 'doing nothing' will sometimes be a choosable
option for part of a site at least. In those cases we realise that the meaning
of a site may not be entirely the product of our human agency but that to keep
that diversity we have implements active means to prevent intervention that
comes from less thoughtful domains - at least in part.
Threats or opportunities in future heritage thinking. Leiden MOOC Week 6
Threats or opportunities in future heritage thinking. Leiden MOOC Week 6
One of the most telling lessons from the course is that 'heritage' and 'threat' are often co-defined. In wars or revolutions (or other variations including wars of ideology or attitude between contrasting groups) I only identify my 'heritage' when it is under threat of extinction. This threat can be conceived as active and agentive or as the effect of natural and everyday forces that are not confronted and in some way seen as something into which we ought to intervene. I see these issues underlying the concerns of Holtorf (2016).
As soon then as I sense that 'my heritage' is under threat, I need to ask (aided by this course): By what? By whom (if it is a person or group)?. A deeper question that precedes that is 'to whom' is this perceived as a threat. Here 'me' would be an insufficient answer since identity can bew conceived of as distributed in such ways that we need to look at what aspect of identity is threatened - identifications for instance with locality, group, gender, ethnicity, occupation, nation and do on. We need to determine whether we see the threat arising from the agency of others, or something we conceive as 'other' or from our failure to respond to a change that is inevitable and where no other agency need be invoked than our own. Of course, 'doing nothing' in relation to a perceived threat is also an option but it needs to be conceived as an active choice - an act of omission at least.
My concern with Castle Hill throughout these exercises has been to present that phenomenon in terms of its ontology as it might be perceived by different stakeholders or different strands of identity in myself. It is possible to conceive of the different aspects in competition where one concept of the phenomenon takes hegemony over others. Thus, an interest group may want to preserve evidence of pre-industrial mining and aim to open adits for inspection by tourists, building on the top of the hill, facilities that inform and create opportunities for remembrance (souvenirs, books, leaflets). To do so would compromise the pre-Roman earth works. Hence one idea of what Castle Hill 'means' and 'is' can threaten another.
However, that is only if we see reconstruction in terms of a choice between alternatives from different domains and times-of-origin of the particular facet. Reconstruction can be done (Byrne 2008) through other media and social actions (videos, e-construction software (see Cunliffe on Palmyra), imaginative opportunities - story-telling etc.) in ways that allow one site to develop itself in many ways without one function compromising another. That seems to be the purpose proposed by the Paris Declaration wherein developers and other stakeholders are encouraged to enter into dialogue about what they mean by both 'development' and 'sustainability' in relation to any proposed project - of international significance. This is called 'development with a human face'. My only concern is that sometimes it is difficult to differentiate a face from a 'mask'.
Multiple construction of sites by partial differentiation of its developments and multiple 'ownership' (not necessarily non-conflictual since dialogue involves resolution of conflict) relations seems to be the key. This too can be covered by Holtorf's (2016) idea that no one idea or ideology of the heritage represent by Castle Hill asserts the need for 'timeless continuity of existing forms' over the rights of other existing and yet-to-be-proposed future forms associated with it in 'fluid continuity'. This will integrate too awareness of ecosystems at the level of flora and fauna.
In part this means priority processes involved in the 'interpretation' of heritage over the physical phenomena of the site itself and hence an acceptance that those phenomena are not and cannot be remade as we suppose them to have been in the mythologies surrounding their origin. It is an argument for keeping interpretation open to diverse practices that might assist in the process - which must include more than those available to academic expertise. This also means making the meaning of 'visiting' a site more fluid too, such that visiting does not demand so great a local infrastructure that it buries the site in necessities involved in its own maintenance. Visiting can include the multi-media opportunities already proposed.
This means that 'doing nothing' will sometimes be a choosable option for part of a site at least. In those cases we realise that the meaning of a site may not be entirely the product of our human agency but that to keep that diversity we have implements active means to prevent intervention that comes from less thoughtful domains - at least in part.