Issues and rationale

In this section, two issues are addressed. First, the nature of the term legal and the legal status of UNESCO cultural conventions is clarified so as to demonstrate that this thesis aims at contributing to shared understanding of the World Heritage system as reflecting evolving conceptual and policy dynamics. And second, the present research is positioned within heritage scholarship in a wider sense and particularly with regard to the current debate on ‘critical’ heritage studies. In so doing, the choice of scientific literature for the theoretical framework is established.

Behind the terms legislative text and legal instrument used in this thesis is a certain notion of legality which is not concerned with the question of the binding character of international law, but with international instruments as reflections of evolving conceptual and policy dynamics. While UNESCO conventions have a certain binding status, in contrast to recommendations and declarations, the legal enforcement power at the international level is limited given the sovereignty of the nation states. To date, one hundred ninety-one states 15 have ratified the World Heritage Convention, thereby becoming States Parties to the Convention. With UNESCO having one hundred ninety-five members and nine associate 16 members, the Convention is almost universal. Article four of the Convention establishes that 17 the duty to ensure the identification, conservation, and transmission of a World Heritage property rests primarily with the State Party to which the site belongs. The sovereignty of the 18 State Party is acknowledged as well as the need for implementation on a national level for the Convention to be effective. At the same time, international instruments provide a formal 19 setting and international platform for defining concepts. A system of international decision- making and protection is established through the Convention. The World Heritage idea and related concepts that are stipulated in the Convention text and defined in the revised versions of the Operational Guidelines, but are ultimately also interpreted through the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List, are the result of a complex interplay between the international, national, and transnational level in terms of the work of non-governmental organizations. 20

The question of legality does not apply to ICOMOS as it is a non-governmental organization. 15

“States Parties: Ratification Status,” World Heritage Centre, http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/. 16

“Member States,” UNESCO, http://en.unesco.org/countries/member-states. 17

UNESCO, “Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,” art. 4, http:// 18

whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf.

UNESCO, “Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,” art. 5 and 6.1, 19

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf.

Sarah Titchen, “On the Construction of Outstanding Universal Value: Unesco’s World Heritage Convention 20

(Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972) and the Identification and Assessment of Cultural Places for Inclusion in the World Heritage List” (PhD diss., The Australian National University, 1995), 3. On a more detailed presentation of the World Heritage system, see chapter 3.6.3.

Intangible heritage is studied and used as a particular lens on the World Heritage Convention within a broader heritage discourse that has evolved over the course of time, for several reasons. When working as a Carlo Schmid fellow at the UNESCO World Heritage 21 Centre, the author repeatedly encountered remarks about the fact that World Heritage would not deal with the intangible heritage. While this statement might be valid from a legal standpoint with regard to the 1972 and 2003 Conventions, it also obscures the interrelationship between the tangible and the intangible as well as possible synergies between the two instruments. The increased interest in intangible heritage at the turn of the millennium has profoundly influenced not only the development and interpretation of international instruments, but also the debate in heritage scholarship. The recognition of intangible heritage seems to be rooted in intellectual changes in the 1990s and the rise of post-colonial criticism. The latter argues that heritage, and particularly World Heritage, is used as a vehicle for cultural hegemony. Scholars embracing an early post-colonial critique have become associated with critical heritage interventions in the early 2010s. At the time, an initiative emerged that 22 criticizes institutional, and particularly UNESCO’s attempts to theorize and protect heritage. A network of scholars and researchers based in Australia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom initiated ‘critical’ heritage studies. Heritage is understood as a social construct ruled by “conservative cultural and economic power relations” that need to be broken down and heritage rebuilt from the ground up. The critical perspective intends to integrate the interests 23 of the marginalized and excluded into the heritage discourse. Intangible heritage is part of this perspective. The notion of critical heritage studies remains however unclear. While it is undeniably important to open the heritage debate, to consider a diversity of views on heritage, and to draw attention to the marginalized and excluded, a swing of the pendulum in the other direction or criticism for its own sake cannot be the answer, as has already been noted by other

On the development of heritage scholarship between 1980 and 2014, see Lynn Meskell, “Introduction: 21

Globalizing Heritage,” in Global Heritage: A Reader, ed. Lynn Meskell, 1–21 (Malden: Wiley Blackwell, 2015). Meskell, “Introduction,” 4.

22

“History,” Association of Critical Heritage Studies, http://www.criticalheritagestudies.org/history/. A critical 23

turn in heritage studies is also portrayed by Rodney Harrison, Heritage: Critical Approaches (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013).

scholars. Change is most sustainable when it comes from within and builds on reality. While 24 the implementation of intangible heritage in World Heritage is far from being perfect, the present thesis can be seen as a contribution to understanding an institutionalized reality, that is, World Heritage, that has changed to consider the previously marginalized in terms of intangible heritage.

World Heritage-related literature often lacks a sound theoretical basis and is self- referential. Importance has therefore been given in this research to develop a theoretical 25 framework in terms of theorizing the concept of intangible heritage. Given the study of heritage draws on a variety of disciplines, such as architecture, art history, and history, and the researcher’s own multidisciplinary background in fields like archaeology, geography, cultural studies, and the interdisciplinary field of environmental planning, it was no easy task to settle on a disciplinary frame for this research. Literature speaking explicitly about cultural 26 heritage in terms of place was therefore chosen to establish the theoretical perspective. In addition, given the focus on intangible heritage as both concept and term, the expressions intangible and intangible heritage were used as selection criteria for relevant literature. They 27 emerged and spread in heritage scholarship in the early 2000s. It has to be highlighted, 28 however, that this was certainly not the beginning of the idea behind the term. As will be established later, the term points towards a holistic heritage conception in terms of approaching place beyond its materiality. In abstract terms, it links to the re-theorization of 29 materiality to consider a human component. The relationship between humans and material things has already been recognized and theorized before in other scholarship and disciplines,

Andrea Witcomb and Kristal Buckley, “Engaging with the future of ‘critical heritage studies’: looking back in 24

order to look forward,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 19, no. 6 (2013): 562–578.

On this lack in literature that deals with the intersection between World Heritage and intangible heritage, see 25

chapter 2.2.

On the field of heritage conservation or heritage studies, see chapter 3.6.1. 26

On a more detailed presentation of how the term was used to identify and analyze data, see chapters 3.4.1 and 27

3.7.

On the emergence of the term intangible heritage in scientific literature, see chapter 4.1.5.1. 28

On the theorization of intangible heritage as approach, see chapter 4.4.2. 29

without necessarily using the term intangible. In heritage-related literature, other concepts 30 linked to intangible heritage, such as associative value, memory, and traditions, had already been used and discussed before 2000. Also various national and regional contexts are 31 important for understanding the origins of the term and related expressions on an international level, as will be shown in the further course of this research. To trace the expressions’ origins and conceptual development before their spread in heritage literature would have therefore constituted a research project in its own right.32

Amongst them are, for example: Jörg Dünne and Stephan Günzel, Raumtheorie–Grundlagentexte aus

30

Philosophie und Kulturwissenschaften [Theory of space–Basic texts from philosophy and cultural studies]

(Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2006); Dolores Hayden, The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997); Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Vintage Books, 1961); Henri Lefebvre, “Space: Social Product and Use Value (1979),” in State, Space, World: Selected Essays, eds. Neil Brenner and Stuart Elden, 185–195 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009); Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960); Christian Norberg-Schulz,

Genius loci : Paysage, ambiance, architecture (Brussels: Pierre Mardaga, 1981).

On the various interpretations of intangible heritage, see chapter 4.2. Lowenthal, for example, acknowledges 31

memory and oral traditions–here understood as intangible dimensions–as part of the emerging heritage discourse. David Lowenthal, The past is a Foreign Country (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

In contrast, it is less complex to trace the idea of value. Literature dating prior to 2000 was therefore taken into 32