Switzerland and the UNESCO Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage

Abstract

In 2008, Switzerland ratified both the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expression and the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. In a direct democracy these decisions closely involve multiple stakeholders. In this article, organizations and associations involved in the ratification process will be introduced and discussed against the background of the history of the intangible heritage convention. Next, I will address questions about particular understandings of culture and cultural concepts held by these different organizations, as well as the cultural and sociopolitical objectives or agendas they pursue through the implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. The term Volkskultur plays a particularly important role in this context since it is often directly equated with intangible culture; thus, the article discusses the implications of this equation, including the cultural and political approaches that stem from it. On March 20, 2008, the Swiss Parliament approved-by a wide majority-two international treaties: one, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions; the other, the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. The decision was subject to an optional referendum; that is, if 50,000 citizens had so requested, the ratification would have been submitted to the Swiss electorate for approval. However, since no political group adopted the referendum, the Swiss Federal Council deposited the ratification instruments at the headquarters of UNESCO in Paris after the July 10, 2008,

Untitled

“…After all, the main problem with the UNESCO project and other similar projects lies with their side effects, which is to say conflicts, encroachments, and losses, which are already numerous (cf., e.g., Mezey 2007;Mountcastle 2010;Nikočević 2012;Noyes 2006). It is precisely these unsettling (to say the least) side effects -revealed on the margins of the great UNESCO project, and even there by participants or observers speaking in low or hushed voices -that were the incentive for this text, created in collusion with a globally increasing group of texts which are concerned with the side effects and neuralgic points of the UNESCO project and similar endeavours, and address some of the following questions (cf., e.g., Bendix 2009;Bortolotto 2009;Hafstein 2007;Leimgruber 2010;Tsitsishvili 2009): What happens when people begin to perceive their everyday life or part of their lives as heritage? What role does the concept of ownership -a key problem which stems from the Convention implementation but is entirely ignored by that same Convention which makes no attempt to solve it -have within the UNESCO project?…”

Çömlekçilik (Guduculuk) El Sanatının Sürdürülebilir Turizm Kapsamında İncelenmesi: Gümüşhane Dölek Köyü Örneği

“…Somut olmayan kültürel miras kavramı; sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın güvencesi (UNESCO, 2003) ve toplumların kültürel kimliklerinin korunması için bir araç olarak görülmekte olup (Leimgruber, 2010), sürdürülebilir turizm kavramı içerisinde incelenen ve değerlendirilen bir konudur (Labadi, 2013). Önceden folklor, geleneksel ve popüler kültür vb.…”

Heritage on Demand: UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Initiative in Croatian Context

“…After all, the main problem with the UNESCO project and other similar projects lies with their side effects, which is to say conflicts, encroachments, and losses, which are already numerous (cf., e.g., Mezey 2007;Mountcastle 2010;Nikočević 2012;Noyes 2006). It is precisely these unsettling (to say the least) side effects -revealed on the margins of the great UNESCO project, and even there by participants or observers speaking in low or hushed voices -that were the incentive for this text, created in collusion with a globally increasing group of texts which are concerned with the side effects and neuralgic points of the UNESCO project and similar endeavours, and address some of the following questions (cf., e.g., Bendix 2009;Bortolotto 2009;Hafstein 2007;Leimgruber 2010;Tsitsishvili 2009): What happens when people begin to perceive their everyday life or part of their lives as heritage? What role does the concept of ownership -a key problem which stems from the Convention implementation but is entirely ignored by that same Convention which makes no attempt to solve it -have within the UNESCO project?…”