Ethnographies of heritage and power

Silva, Luís; Santos, Paula Mota

doi:10.1080/13527258.2011.633541

Cited by 20 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When heritage is understood as a continuous process and performance (as is the case in this article), the question of power can be perceived as determining the process of 'becoming' a heritage. Indeed, the power is not only a central matter within the realm of heritage but generative to it (Silva and Mota Santos 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Politics of tangibility, intangibility, and place in the making of a European cultural heritage in EU heritage policy

Lähdesmäki

2016

International Journal of Heritage Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Politics of tangibility, intangibility, and place in the making of a European cultural heritage in EU heritage policy

Lähdesmäki

2016

International Journal of Heritage Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The notion of 'governmentality', formulated by Foucault [22], illustrates how states design the government of territories and populations directly (as in the case of state-owned and controlled GIs) or indirectly (through a consumer movement mainly financed by public funding). OFS contribute to limiting the ownership of a community good [75], justified by scientific rationales [76]. By doing so, OFS define, conduct and limit possibilities for action [53].…”

Section: Underpinning Power Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protecting Food Cultural Biodiversity: From Theory to Practice. Challenging the Geographical Indications and the Slow Food Models

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A global expansion in public and private initiatives seeks to strengthen the link between traditional products and sustainable development by creating a niche in the market for these products. Relevant examples are the Geographical Indications and the Slow Food Presidia models. This paper compares both types of Origin Food Schemes (OFS) to disclose the main commonalities and differences in their institutionalization, and their complex outcomes on cultural biodiversity (CB), which is a major concern for the sustainability of rural communities. We used underpinning knowledge dynamics as an analytical lens through the cross-comparison of ethnographic findings collected in four case studies of origin cheeses located in France, Italy and Morocco. Our findings suggest that OFS have high potential to defend CB because of their collective and context-dependent approaches. We argue that knowledge and practices mobilized in OFS are the result of power relations and confrontations among local actors, and show how four identified tensions between different forms and types of knowledge differently shape food culture, food technique, perceptions, and representations. In conclusion, the institutional approaches, practices and knowledge dynamics compared in this analysis show six effective ways to link OFS and CB, facilitating the trajectory toward sustainable development.

show abstract

“…However, adding the European supranational layer of heritage can still be very challenging for the state heritage sector for one main reason: the EU member states and their heritage sectors have a very powerful role in the construction of heritage as an unchangeable set of traditions and values strictly defined within the national boundaries. Heritage is inherently political: it is an instrument of power that states use to build a coherent national identity (Graham, Ashworth, and Tunbridge 2000;Smith 2006;Silva and Santos 2012). Thus, in the endeavour of making 'common European heritage', EU member states and their national heritage sectors are prompted to choose sites already recognized as national heritage sites.…”

Section: The Rationale: Heritage Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designating heritage as European: between the European Union’s heritage initiatives and the nation-state

Aceska

Mitroi

2021

International Journal of Cultural Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an attempt to foster its citizens' identification with Europe, the European Union has made a great effort to identify what can be called 'common European heritage'. Many heritage initiatives, centred around the idea that heritage should be designated as European by the member states' heritage sectors, have proven counterproductive-instead of reaching their goal to construct a more stable European identity, they served as repositories of national pride and tools in the negotiation of nationalist claims of the member states. Through the empirical case of the EU's own Maastricht Treaty and the peculiar ways it became 'common European heritage' within the Dutch state heritage sector, in this paper we analyze the discursive tactics of national policy makers and the power dynamics between national and EU heritage regimes in the process of designating heritage as European. We demonstrate that even EU states with more constitutional traditions like the Netherlands maintain a powerful role in the construction of heritage as an unchangeable set of traditions and values strictly defined within the national boundaries, lacking the mechanisms to change their state-sanctioned and firmly established ways of defining heritage as 'national' and to legitimatize EU heritage narratives.

show abstract

Ethnographies of heritage and power

Cited by 20 publications

References 10 publications

Politics of tangibility, intangibility, and place in the making of a European cultural heritage in EU heritage policy

Politics of tangibility, intangibility, and place in the making of a European cultural heritage in EU heritage policy

Protecting Food Cultural Biodiversity: From Theory to Practice. Challenging the Geographical Indications and the Slow Food Models

Designating heritage as European: between the European Union’s heritage initiatives and the nation-state

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About