Situating (in)significance

Abstract

In this paper we introduce the concept of '(in)significance' as a way to think about values in heritage, and in the attribution, recording, description, assessment and categorisation practices that characterise heritage processes. Our aim is to throw light on how this concept shapes, and is shaped by, contemporary heritage practices and outcomes. We consider the history of the idea of significance, particularly as it is defined in the Burra Charter, and trace its inheritance lines in settler nation states and capitalist economic structures, and highlight its retention of concepts of heritage value as both intrinsic and culturally attributed. Using international, mainly Anglophone examples, we review a range of case studies and examples of significance and insignificance, of significance assessment in practice, and the tensions between expert, institutional or 'official' values and broader concepts of heritage and attachment. We suggest that the dual or layered concept of '(in)significance' might allow for heritage practices that interact with emotions, memory, place and things in ways that are often not possible in the context of official heritage regimes because of rigid aesthetic and conservation paradigms, as well as identity and ownership claims and deeply invested national narratives.

Saving heritage policy: The past and future of conservation in the Australian city

“…Guzmán et al 2017). Heritage policy and practice, in their reliance on dated assumptions, tend to conflate early or old fabric with cultural significance (Byrne et al 2001;Ireland et al 2020). They then emphasise the retention of early fabric over the conservation of cultural significance (Waterton et al 2006).…”

Uma ponte entre valores: políticas municipais de patrimônio, pluralidade de significados e alternativas ao Antropoceno no Sul de Minas Gerais

“…No entanto, o que tem sido destacado é que ao longo destes últimos anos se observou uma certa distância entre as discussões teóricas e as práticas de conservação e gestão patrimonial. Essa lacuna faz com que pressões burocráticas e mercantis acabem se sobrepondo aos interesses das comunidades mais diretamente ligadas aos bens listados como patrimônio, o que também se deve à inexistência de uma tipologia e de uma metodologia capaz de contemplar a diversidade e a fluidez dos valores que as pessoas atribuem cotidianamente a esses bens (FREDHEIM; KHALAF, 2016;IRELAND;BROWN;SCHOFIELD, 2020;JONES, 2017).…”

Exploring participatory heritage governance after the EU Faro Convention

“…informed views on place-making) and decide how to transform it into means of sustainable development for their territory. The Convention does not explicitly advocate that “we all are heritage experts” (Schofield, 2014, p. 2) but acknowledges that a public narrative of heritage exists side by side with that of experts and officials (Fairclough, 2012; see also Ireland et al , 2020, pp. 837–839).…”

“…They are instead used to reflect on how the notions of “heritage community” and “democratic participation” entail an interesting reinterpretation of heritage expert’s roles when facing the new forms of heritage governance (cf. Waterton and Smith, 2010; Schofield, 2014; Neal, 2015; Jones, 2017; Hølleland and Skrede, 2019; Ireland et al , 2020). The Faro Convention Network (FCN) comes to help communities interested in democratising heritage governance (see more details below).…”