Małgorzata Ćwikła, Semantic Reflections on Cultural Heritage

Semantic Reflections on Cultural Heritage Małgorzata Ćwikła

T

he obvious is the most difficult to define. Whilst questioning the meaning of some words, one might well arrive at what Ludwig Wittgenstein refers to in his famous pronouncement on linguistic recognition as “the limits of the world” [Wittgenstein, 2000, p. 64]. Even if neither etymology nor custom arouse doubts, it can happen that the interpretation of terms in constant public circulation, terms which shape policies, entering into official documents and seemingly introducing a semantic order, is problematic. Just such a situation has occurred with ‘cultural heritage’. Despite a host of regulations on the issue of heritage, it is impossible to point to one unequivocal definition which encompasses all its forms and manifestations. Presumably this arises from the fact that the concept of heritage has been adopted in several scholarly disciplines, principally in the archaeological and anthropological fields. [Blake, 2000, p. 63] Besides this, heritage is connected with numerous aspects of social life, it underscores the identity of a given group and delineates the area of its historical influence, as well as attesting to the level of its civilisational and spiritual attainments and permitting observation of the ways in which the achievements of one’s own culture are understood in the regional and global perspective.

In seeking the particular features of heritage which will permit it to be distinguished from other accomplishments from the past which should not be forgotten in the future, it is worth pointing to the previously mentioned fact of self-reflection.

Unlike tradition, heritage does not pertain to the process by which well-defined rules of conduct and patterns of behaviour are handed down from generation to generation. It is an accumulation of certain skills which shape distinctive characteristics and, by the same token, lead to the reinforcement of regional identities. Whilst traditions may be both good and bad, appending the adjective

Culture Management 2012, Vol 5 (5)

‘cultural’ to ‘heritage’ lends it positive associations, although this postulate can be debated. What is crucial to further deliberations is pointing to another regularity typical of heritage, namely, the division of heritage into material and non-material, or intangible. In the early years of discussion on heritage, which dates from the mid-1950s, issues connected with the necessity of protecting material cultural property during armed conflicts were emphasised. In the case of intangible culture, identification processes can be recognised as a factor engendering characteristics which define the phenomenon. Paradoxically, membership of international organisations has strengthened the need to define the borders of one’s own region.

Geographically and administratively, this is an increasingly imprecise structure; its emotional value, however, is intensifying. This indisputably corresponds to intangible heritage, within which we include such factors of crucial significance to group consciousness as language, for instance.

Yet understanding intangible heritage as a tool for formulating one’s own definition suggests that it has a limited measure of influence. This perspective is augmented by the conviction that material heritage is part of the world’s reservoir of human achievement. [Lenzerini, 2011, p. 108] A change to the overall thinking as regards groups, communities and societies would have to lead to the verification of the thinking in respect of their cultural and historical identification. For a long time, it was believed that the protection of cultural achievements in their non-material dimension should take the form of their ‘preservation’ for the future generations of a given society and for their own use. In the era of globalisation, it has transpired that the younger generations are faster to absorb cultural models originating from outside than they are to open themselves up to the information passed on to them by older gen-

Małgorzata Ćwikła PhD student at the Jagiellonian University, the Institute of Culture.

Her research field is cultural cooperation, interdisciplinary creativity and performing arts management. She is working on her doctoral dissertation on theatrical coproduction in the context of cultural projects management. She published, inter alia, in Odra or Didaskalia.

erations. [Lenzerini, 2011, p. 102] So, by chance, the conditions have been created for presenting one’s own heritage in a supralocal context. On the one hand, this has led to the popularisation of hitherto unknown civilisational achievements, giving them the chance of survival and, on the other, it highlights defects in the system of protecting and managing cultural properties.

The lack of a precise definition of the term ‘cultural heritage’ hampers the demarcation of the boundaries of law. Documents ensure the visibility of heritage as a phenomenon in public debate, but they rarely emphasise its diverse nature. Another complication is the synonymous usages of the terms ‘culture’, ‘national’ and ‘cultural’, which carry various associations and are artificially reduced to a standardised interpretation. In addition, the established thinking which sanctions the equating of historical monuments and heritage unjustly condemns non-material achievements to oblivion.

During work on the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, concerns were voiced as to its overly narrow scope, which only encompassed the material dimension. It was noted at the time that the extension of the protection to non-material property such as ephemeral songs or attributeless rituals, for instance, was essential.

This demanded a different system of heritage care, one which would not be limited solely to building glass showcases, but would ensure the continuous reproduction of non-material heritage in the life of the community. It was not until 2003 that UNESCO adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. The concepts it contains were derived from the definitions articulated in the 1989 Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore.

This was the first legal instrument in the sphere of non-material heritage. Providing protection to what is intangible pertains to human rights, particularly in the guaranteeing of fundamental religious freedoms. This is connected to the spiritual and mystic dimension of the non-material heritage and to the issue of local identity in times of unrestrained urban development and degradation of rural areas. On the basis of research into cultural heritage as a factor of regional identification carried out in the Lesser Poland region, Monika Smoleń demonstrated that the local inhabitants have a sense of connection with their cultural environment. [Smoleń, 2001, p. 64] Group affiliations and the symbolism of the ‘little fatherland’ in the vicinity of Krakow create an important example

reflecting the ways in which this consciousness is shaped. It is, however, an example comprising too few elements. An analysis of attitudes towards one’s region in various parts of Poland would assuredly lead to interesting results which would reveal extreme positions. For example, just a comparison of Lesser Poland, Silesia and Lower Silesia, situated in close proximity to each other, would achieve distinct models of identification. Even if it is possible to point to a lack of similarity between separate areas, delimitating the borders between local and national heritage in Poland causes difficulties, particularly as regards history and the changes in geographical reference points. Apart from these two levels, the issue of emigration must be taken into consideration, as must the theory of cultural dissonance related to it. In a metaphorical sense, Poland’s cultural heritage in recent years has been intensively sent abroad. Despite this, to assume that it has been, and is, more fully received by the representatives of other cultures would be erroneous. For it is not only Polish culture that has been exported, but, at one and the same time, the cultural achievements of dozens of other national, ethnic and informal minorities. In Kampfabsage.

Kulturen bekämpfen sich nicht, sie fließen, a book which is one reaction to Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations, Ranjit Hoskoté and Ilija Trojanov argue convincingly that the most intensive exchange between cultures and their heritage, understood as an accumulation of practical and emotional skills developed by various groups, occurred during the Renaissance. [2007, p. 11] However, what is more crucial than a confrontation of experience is the question of the spiritual charge latent within cultural heritage as an agent in the forming of communities.

The symbolic factor associated with heritage steers the deliberation toward questions pertaining to truth. Whilst, in the case of material heritage, it is ‘originality’ which comes to the fore, the question that pertains to intangible culture is that of ‘authenticity’. The difference is ontological in nature and it is beginning to play a key role in the heritage management process.

Material heritage makes empirical use of objects in order to demonstrate its genuineness. It does not have to deal with materials, but only with the symbolism which relates to a given object in the opinion of its audience. [Kapturkiewicz, 2004, p. 215] Intangible heritage, however, is subject to the risky process of being severed from the context and group which define it. The danger appears when someone starts managing

Culture Management 2012, Vol 5 (5)

the heritage, making it a tool for the promotion of tourism, but omitting its relationship with a given community or the tradition fashioned by it. [Kapturkiewicz, 2004, p. 113] This is glaringly obvious during countless presentations of Asian culture in Europe. Performed for a foreign audience, the productions and shows are described as typical manifestations of a centuries-old tradition of artistic expression. Yet, in reality, they often consist of a collage of traditional props, simplified plots and recycled, overdrawn choreography. Such was the case in the China National Peking Opera’s production of Mei Lanfang, staged in the Peking opera convention under the musical directorship of Wang Yuzhen and performed in Europe in 2006, or in the 2009 production of Sutra, directed by Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui and advertised as an authentic production created by the monks of the Shaolin monastery. Doubts might also be aroused when, severed from the Japanese tradition whereby professional perfection is transmitted from generation to generation, butō dance is performed

by European or American artists. At this point, it is worth remarking that, with the aforementioned risk in mind, the title of Important Intangible Cultural / Folk-Cultural Property of Japan is awarded.

The introduction of such a certificate of quality is an interesting example of the protection of the authentic achievements of a given cultural group. An exact list of Japan’s protected skills was sanctioned by legislation in 1950. [Hyoki, 2011] The phrase ‘cultural heritage’ can often be encountered in Polish documents and regulations relating to cultural life. It appears in the descriptions of the activities of various institutions, ranging from the National Heritage Board, via the International Culture Centre to the National Audiovisual Institute, the aims of which answer to contemporary requirements for the digitisation and collection of electronic recordings of ephemeral aesthetics. The very names of the existing programmes dedicated to heritage suggest the way in which it is understood. They pertain to the phenomena of emigration and historical repressions and their impact on the present. Linking heritage tightly to events of significance to the nation suggests the lack of a heritage-history dichotomy. As with the reduction of heritage to monuments, such a simplification is risky and demands a change of approach. An interesting attitude to heritage can be seen in the mission statement of the National Heritage Board, which, until 1st January 2011, bore the name of National Monuments Research and Documentation Centre:

Culture Management 2012, Vol 5 (5)

Not without significance is the fact that the word ‘monuments’ in the institution’s name has been replaced with the word ‘heritage’. ‘Heritage’ permits the historical, social and emotional context within which a monument functions to be understood and, by the same token allows the need and necessity for its protection to be perceived. [Misja Narodowego… (The mission statement...)]

Heritage, then, is to be an interpretative backdrop. In the National Strategy for the Development of Culture for 2004-2013, the definition was amplified in the context of a multidimensional understanding of culture: In a narrow sense, culture is a system of actions and products, the fundamental characteristic of which is the presence of symbols that have social value and acceptance, which is to say, symbolic culture, namely religion, learning, science, the arts, recreation and entertainment and so forth. In the historical sense, culture is also the national heritage, the products and actions of a given nation which fall within the category of symbolic culture, have a common value unique and particular to a given nation, provide a sense of identification and forge bonds. [Narodowa strategia... (The National Strategy...), p. 6]

There are several aspects worth noting in this document. The first pertains to the conviction that care for the cultural heritage is a tool for moulding the regional identity of successive generations.

Heritage is understood as an enduring element of history which does not yield to change as a consequence of the action of external factors. The state is assigned the role of patron, a role which arises from the necessity of providing protection for the heritage. In the strengths listed in the SWOT analysis conducted as part of the work on the National Cultural Strategy and complied in respect of the development of culture and its management, a strong social sense of responsibility as regards caring for the cultural heritage was pointed to, as was a material and intangible heritage of enormous value and world significance. [Narodowa Strategia...

(The National Strategy...), p. 107) In addition, the Strategy attaches great importance to an analysis of examples from other countries and to the possibility of utilising tried and tested models previously implemented in the Member States of the European Union. At the same time, emphasis was given to

the fact that, besides identification at the local and national levels, a sense of affiliation to the European Community is also crucial. The adoption of a wider perspective and reflection upon European experiences leads to the indication of other concepts of heritage, including, inter alia, the audiovisual, urban, natural, industrial or rural forms.

The understanding of their own cultural heritage is different in the individual countries of Europe, which finds reflection in the formulation of cultural policies. There is a clear division between Northern and Southern Europe, a fact which is conditioned by history and custom. In the countries of the south, such as Greece and Portugal, for instance, concern for the cultural heritage has more than once outweighed commitment to creating optimal conditions for the development of contemporary art. Besides this, the conviction as to the universal nature of heritage which has exerted an influence on contemporary civilisation prevails. The north, however, leads the way in the matter of demarcating new fields of significance in terms of heritage, something which is obviously

connected with its younger history and which offers the opportunity of providing particular care for monuments other than those understood in the traditional sense. And thus, for instance, the industrial heritage is fundamental in Germany and the urban in Finland. Irrespective of the approach, this is the articulation of a broader reflection upon the footprints of the past in contemporary culture which we recognise as our own without the right to select and manipulate. In her cogitations on collective and cultural memory, Aleida Assman cites a definition of culture proposed by Yuri Lotman and Boris Uspensky, in accordance with which, it is “a community’s non-inherited memory”. [2009, p. 112] This notion excludes the possibility of an automatic transmission of collective values and memories. To paraphrase, one might say that heritage is ‘a community’s cultural responsibility’. Seemingly obvious, but, without reflection and effort, something condemned to gradual obliteration. Which would be an especially painful loss, since it would deprive cultural groups of their uniqueness.

Literature: Assmann A., Przestrzenie pamięci. Formy i przemiany pamięci kulturowej [in:] Pamięć zbiorowa i kulturowa. Współczesna perspektywa niemiecka, ed.

M. Saryusz-Wolska, Kraków 2009.

Blake J., On Defining the Cultural Heritage, „The International and Comparative Law Quarterly” 2000, № 1.

Hoskoté R., Trojanow I., Kampfabsage, München 2007.

Hyoki S., Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage in Japan: Systems, Schemes and Activities, http:// www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/00177-EN.pdf.

Kapturkiewicz A., Czy zabytek dziedzictwa narodowego musi być autentyczny? „Konteksty” 2004, № 3-4.

Lenzerini F., Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Living

Culture of People, „The European Journal of International Law” 2011, № 1.

Misja Narodowego Instytutu Dziedzictwa na stronie internetowej Instytutu, http://www.nid.pl/idm,4,oinstytucie.html.

Narodowa Strategia Rozwoju Kultury na lata 2004-2013, http://bip.mkidn.gov.pl/media/docs/ Narodowa_ Strategia_Rozwoju_Kultury.pdf Smoleń M., Dziedzictwo kulturowe Krakowa jako czynnik identyfikacji regionalnej w Małopolsce, „Zarządzanie w kulturze” vol. I, 2001.

Wittgenstein L., Tractatus logico-philosophicus, Warszawa 2000.