beverly butler-heritage and the present past

7/25/2019 Beverly Butler-Heritage and the Present Past

1/40


2/40

This PDF has been generated from SAGE knowledge. Please note that the pagination

of the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.


3/40

Brown University

2006 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. SAGE knowledge

Page 3 of 40 Handbook of Material Culture: Heritage and thePresent Past

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607972.n30

[p. 463 ]

Chapter 29: Heritage and the Present Past

We are all too inclined as Lowenthal observes to populate the past

with people like ourselves, pursuing the same aims and responding

with similar feelings, albeit dressed up in different cultural costumes

Whether the concern is with people of the past or of the present,

otherness is here reduced to the cosmetic variety of consumer choice

(Ingold 1996: 204)

My chosen point of departure for this chapter is a debate which took place between

the historian David Lowenthal and a group of anthropologists the proposition of which

was: Is the past a foreign country? This theme was prompted by a book written by

Lowenthal, which is oft-cited as the foundational text of the heritage studies canon.

Entitled The Past is a Foreign Country(1985), as Lowenthal explains, the volume takes

as its guiding metaphor the opening lines of L.P. Hartley's novel The Go-between:The

past is a foreign country. They do things differently there (Lowenthal 1985: xvi). As

such Lowenthal makes an intervention which privileges a model of the past defined

in difference from the present as the critical dynamic of his book (ibid.).The ensuing

debate saw the above participants taking on a historical approach and a memorial

approach to the past respectively (Ingold 1996: 202). In so doing, as the chair of the

debate Ingold highlights, fundamental issues, concerning the relationship between

past and present, the construal of difference, the awareness of time and the respective

modes of history and memory as modes of apprehending the past or of bringing it to

bear in the present emerge as core preoccupations (Ingold 1996: 2012).

In what follows I take these key shifts accessed by the debate as the broad critical

framework from which to review the main preoccupations of heritage studies (past,present, future) and to readdress the core question What constitutes heritage and

heritage value? My approach has been to critically rehearse the dominant explanatory
http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607972.n30http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


4/40

Brown University



models and metaphors put forward by various contributors, which, as my text illustrates,

operate across theoretical and empirical understandings of heritage, across a number

of different registers (for example, ideological, metaphysical) and across North-South

paradigms and contexts. As such, the first part, critically rehearses the historical

approach to the past in order to narrate the rise of heritage within the Western

imagination and within the academy. The second, by way of contrast, uses the

memorial approach as a starting point to chart out alternative or parallel heritages.

Writ large, this shift of focus takes me from a discussion of the past as a foreign

country to that of heritage as a powerful resource for creating a future and to the

recognition of how a fundamental reconceptualization of heritage is uniquely placed not

only to address claims about identity, ancestry and cultural transmission but to engage

with key moral-ethical issues to our times: notably, conceptualization of otherness andthe capacity for othering and, as such, core qualities of what it is to be human.

[p. 464 ]

The Historical Approach: Heritage in theWestern Imagination

Inside the Academy: Establishing theCanon

The standard means of reviewing the rise of heritage is to begin by charting this

rise in terms of the emergence of heritage as a new discipline establishing itself

within academia. This is achieved by tracing the aforementioned historical approach

in terms of formative intellectual links made by historians from the 1960s and 1970s

onwards in their critical study of the past and by mapping the increased interest in

the related studies of tradition, landscape, identity and nation to the dynamics of

nostalgia, authenticity origins, time, place (for example, Lynch 1972, Plumb 1973,Blythe 1969; see Merriman 1996 for a review). The initial focus of these authors critical

attention has typically been upon the Euro-North American academic context and upon
http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


5/40

Brown University



an historical understanding of the construction or invention of heritage in the Western

imagination. Lowenthal's canonical text The Past is a Foreign Country(1985), as the

author himself states, is influenced by these above scholarly shifts which also provided

the chief motivation for his follow-up text The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of

History(1996), which appeared over a decade later.

As previously stated, Lowenthal's specific mobilization of a model or metaphor of the

past defined in difference from the present is important. It allows him to take forward

fellow historian Plumb's (1973) pronouncement on the death of the past a death

which is understood as synonymous with the shift from a pre-industrial to an ever

increasingly industrialized, urbanized modernity in order, more specifically, to address

the subsequent resurrection and new commodifications of the past. Lowenthal'scritical focus thus engages with a certain paradox: to show how the past, once virtually

indistinguishable from the present [i.e. pre-industrial revolution], has become an ever

more foreign realm, yet one increasingly infused by the present (Lowenthal 1985: xxv).

His emphasis then is upon a certain popular turn to the past increasingly expressed in

the material objectification and preservation of the vestiges of history in the form of

monuments, museums, sites which have come to characterize a dominant Eurocentric

definition of what constitutes the heritage (ibid).

Moreover, in order to interrogate this turn to the past Lowenthal focuses upon key

epochs to emphasize how the Western imagination has become bound up in the

establishment of lines of cultural transmission and claims to ancestry across ancient

and modern worlds. His focus thus highlights what are invested as nodal points of

rupture and reinvention: the Renaissance, the Enlightenment; nineteenth-century

Victorian Britain and revolutionary and post-revolutionary America (Lowenthal 1985:

xx-xxi). In critically rehearsing this trajectory I want to place alongside Lowenthal's text

other heritage texts similarly committed to developing these themes.

Heritage Revivalism and Redemption

Returning to the above-mentioned nodal points, the Renaissance is profiled by authorsas an epoch synonymous with the often creative reclamation of the archetypes

of antiquity which subsequently infused the whole of European culture and in
http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


6/40

Brown University



so doing secured the West the acquisition of a past notably in the form of a

classical civilizational pedigree and ancestry (ibid).A potent example here is that

of the canonization of the ancient Alexandrina Mouseion/library as archetype and

ancient ancestor institution (Butler 2001a, b, 2003: see also Findlen 2000). This

act of reclamation in turn highlights core foundational features of traditional heritage

discourse. A key dynamic here is that what has become known as the Alexandrina

paradigm is underpinned by a myth of return and redemption (cf. Foucault 1964).

As such, this canonization of Alexandria can be seen as a particularization of a more

general sense in which the West invests heritage discourse as a redemptive formula

and as a medium by which to mythologize, reclaim and repossess lost pasts, imagined

homelands, ancient Golden Ages and to re-engage with roots and origins.

This wider myth of return and redemption also reveals a further core concern of

heritage discourse: that which holds in tension an initial interest in a return to the

past as a resource for intellectual, literary, metaphorical and metaphysical projects of

retrievalism and that which is concerned with heritage revivalism as synonymous with

literal, material objectification of the past. The former position sees the past invested

as a resource for spiritual/metaphysical refuge and renewal, as a quarry for ideas and

ideals and for the redemption of a lost authenticity of self/self-group. It is then with

[p. 465 ] the forward march of modernity that heritage acquires its now dominant

associations with more material substance and monumentality. As Lowenthal clarifies,

in the pre-industrial revolution period the physical remains of classical vestigessuffered a certain neglect or even destruction when mined by the West for its own

works rather than protected against pillage and loss (Lowenthal 1985: xvi).

The specific and creative reclamation of the Alexandria paradigm has thus seen

the ancient Alexandrina objectified as the point of origin and template for archival

and museum institutions from the Renaissance onwards (notably the British Museum

and Louvre; see Lewis 1992: 10) and as the icon from which the traditional salvage

paradigm of heritage loss and preservation establishes its roots (Lowenthal 1985:

67). Crucially too, this act of canonization is motivated by what is characterized as

the traumatic loss of the ancestor institution, the result, it is argued, of an originary

act of iconoclasm (ibid.).The event embeds the Alexandrina paradigm in an entropic

poetics of melancholy, nostalgia and loss which draws from Aristotelian and Platonic

philosophical models and which is also the mechanism which gives birth to the


7/40

Brown University



repetitive desire to rebuild the institution on the ruins (Butler 2003). In this wider

process of what might be best termed as the Westernization of the origins and roots

of heritage discourse the broader foundational values of the classical world as the

birthplace, for example, of universalism, democracy, civilization humanism and

cosmopolitanism are also essentialized as core heritage values (ibid.)and as key

motivations underpinning modernity's ongoing heritage crusades (Lowenthal 1996).

Heritage Enlightenment

It is with the coming of the Enlightenment that what is couched as the ongoing

relationship or quarrel between Ancients and Moderns is subsequently re-expressedas dialectic of reverence and rejection (Lowenthal 1996: xx-xxi). Lowenthal, for

example, argues that the classical tradition while remaining the font of veneration is

increasingly pitched in relationships with modernity's new loci of power and authority

(ibid.).This sees authors characterize the rise of heritage as inextricably bound up

with the rise of science, the decline of religious authority and the establishment of the

meta-narratives such as discourses of progress and rationality. Modernity and the

West as synonymous with the forward march of history, of capital and of imperial

ambition are highlighted as central to this context (see Walsh 1992). As such one can

trace the complex interactions in the construction of heritage discourse across rational,

romantic and colonial imaginations. Moreover, the crux of this interaction relates toexperiences of rupture, displacement and the concomitant traumatization of temporality

synonymous with episodes of radical change (ibid.).The effects of revolution both

political and industrial are, for example, credited with bringing crisis to notions of

identity, place and to notions of the past (ibid.).Urban migration, the creation of new

industrial landscape and ideals of nationhood and citizenship which notably the French

revolution ushers in are understood as inextricably bound up in experiences of time-

space compression which exacerbate modernity's experiences of rootlessness, rupture,

displacement and estrangement (ibid.;see also Lowenthal 1985).

Again these changes are seen to encompass both metaphysical and more literal

experiences of loss and dislocation as both epistemological certainties and

traditional modes of life are put into crisis in the face of the unprecented pace of

change and trauma affecting both real and ontological worlds (Walsh 1992; Maleuvre
http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


8/40


9/40


10/40

Brown University



term authenticusis also used to illustrate links between the notion of originality and

that of the author and authority (ibid.).Here the dynamic of the collective creative

emulation of ancient archetypes synonymous with the Renaissance period becomes

eclipsed by the construction of a science of preservation and conservation. Not only

does authenticity subsequently undergo rationalizationto emerge as an objective

absolute category but custodial authority is given to a (first amateur and subsequently

professionalized) expert culture and to an emergent practice bound up in re-inscribing

authenticity within discourses of scientific proof and as legitimated in the material

analysis, in particular, of artefacts and monuments (Lowenthal 1996: 385). Within

this context emergent canons of taste and expertise are crucial too in legitimating

the auratic quality of the art work and the concept of the individual (male) genius as

creator (cf. Benjamin 1968). It is here that a historical anti-heritage critique or intellectualmuseumopho-bia takes root and becomes preoccupied with the metaphysical

implications of the obvious [p. 467 ] inauthenticity as they see it of such domains

(Maleuvre 1999; Huyssen 1995).

As previously stated, the search for authenticity does, however, become increasingly

bound up in its territorialization as heritage. The Romantic movement's own

preoccupation with landscape, nature, the cult of the ruins, the relic and the souvenir

are crucial here, as is the authentication of vernacular architecture and settings. Here,

critics draw out the importance of the site established in 1873 by Artur Hazelius at

Skansen (Lowenthal 1985: xvii). The objective of this proto-heritage project wasto salvage local buildings, artefacts and folklore traditions which were disappearing

throughout Scandinavia owing to changes wrought by industrialization. Bolstering

patriotism was a further aim of this and related projects which are seen as indicative

of European and North American attempts to define nation heritage icons at both local

(folk life) and (elite) state level (see Walsh 1992: 957). Selecting and authenticating

national Golden Ages has seen, for example, the German Romantics privileging of

the Middle Ages, for example, as a site of redeemed culture and future utopia and

as the bedrock of German nationalism (Huyssen 1995: 19). It is with the shift into the

twentieth century that the definitions of heritage which originated from legal concepts

of inheritance as personal wealth typically handed down through family units became

aligned to a concept of public patrimony. As Lowenthal comments, not only did this lead

to people conceiving] of the past as a different realm but this new role heightened


11/40

Brown University



concern to save relics and restore monuments as emblems of communal identity,

continuity and aspiration (Lowenthal 1985: xvi).

Heritage Crusades and ReligiousMetaphors

Lowenthal's text which follows fully centres upon heritage in its late twentieth-century

transformation from an elite preoccupation into a major crusade to save and celebrate

all that we inherit from the past (Lowenthal 1996: 2). Mobilizing a powerful religious

metaphor, Lowenthal argues, heritage relies on revealed faith rather than rationalproof (ibid.).Lowenthal's thesis echoes other theorists who have similarly positioned

heritage as a form of secular religion (cf. Horne 1984; Duncan 1995). These texts

have given further critical depth to the relationship of the rise of heritage to modernity's

experience of secularization, to the reorganization of religious experience and to the

redeployment of its civilizing rituals and theological languages. As such critics draw

out how this transfer of power and authority was made to serve the ideological needs

of the emerging bourgeois and to substantiate the nation state, civic democracies and

reproduce good citizens (Duncan 1995: 78).

In the contemporary context the museum as secular shrine and sacrilized heritage

landscapes (cf. MacCannell 1978/1989)1are situated by such authors as stations

which map out a redemptive course for the performance of modernity's heritage

crusades. Horne's analysis of Europe as a great museum, for example, demonstrates

how former European pilgrim routes are now populated by tourist pilgrims armed with

travel guides as devotional texts (Horne 1984: 1). In his critical commentary on the

then Cold War ideological polarizations of context he explores how communist and

capitalist political cultures manipulate heritage in specific commodifications of power

which see them inscribe their own ceremonial agenda on the landscape and similarly

on the people (Horne 1984: 3). The patriarchal nature of heritage commodification is

also highlighted, as Horne points out, in that apart from the Virgin Mary and Joan ofArc there is an absence of female heritage figures (Horne 1984: 4). Moreover, unlike

the stated aspiration of heritage as a vehicle of humanism, Horne concludes with
http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/hdbk_matculture/fn1n29.xmlhttp://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/hdbk_matculture/fn1n29.xmlhttp://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


12/40

Brown University



the need to challenge the negative, alienating aspects of heritage tourism, which he

characterizes as synonymous with human life drained of cultural meanings (Horne

1984: 249).

Intellectual Ancestors and Heritage asCommodity

An exploration of the methodologies which underpin these texts and the emergent

critical study of heritage shows that alongside historians preoccupied with historical

conceptualizations of the past are critics who engage with the broader intellectualshifts taking place within the social sciences and draw from, among others, Marxist,

sociological, postmodern, post-structuralist and anthropological theories as alternative

explanatory models. It is, however, the Marxist-influenced critiques (which Duncan 1995

and Horne 1984 share an intellectual engagement with) that are mobilized initially by

authors to articulate more explicitly the political/ideological agendas which dominate

the rise of heritage. This genre of critique led by what one critic refers [p. 468 ]

to as the lure of polemics is regarded as as valid for the analysis of heritage vis--

visthe imperialist past as it is in the Age of Corporate Sponsorship (Huyssen 1995:

16). This early canon of ideological critiques has, therefore, done much to challenge,

problematize and politicize the assumed neutrality of culture and heritage and has beenparticularly effective in the analysis of the European and North American museum and

heritage boom of the 1970s and 1980s. (See Huyssen 1995 and Merriman 1991 for a

critical review.)

Ground-breaking papers in this canon include Marxist interpretations of heritage sites

such as Colonial Williamsburg by Leone (1973) and Wallace (1981) (see Merriman

1991: 1416). The application of Althusserian frameworks and the positioning of

heritage and cultural institutions as part of Repressive State Apparatus have

likewise drawn out the use of heritage to legitimate top down dominant ideology (see

Meltzer 1985 on the National Air and Space Museum, Washington; Merriman 1991:

16). From these critical positions the above authors show that heritage ideology isused variously to substantiate the American Dream (ibid.).These critiques were

also accompanied by a first wave of feminist critiques and texts which highlight the


13/40

Brown University



heritage culture's complicity in empire and in oppressive characterizations of race

and cultural difference (see Simpson 1996 for a critical review). The rejectionism,

pessimism and theoretical negativity of these critiques which see heritage as bad

faith, false consciousness and as social control (see Merriman 1991: 16), as a

patriarchal construct (Porter 1996) and a racist colonial enterprise thus have been

noted (Coombes 1994).

Furthermore, while these studies were to be offset by others committed to highlighting

the more positive and potentially liberating role of heritage (Merriman 1991: 17)

critics have claimed that the very bad press given by intellectuals from both right

and left, though especially perhaps the latter to heritage is linked in turn to the

aforementioned historical anti-heritage discourse and intellectual museumo-phobia (Huyssen 1995: 1819). Not only are Nietzsche and Marx's characterizations of

the past as burden and nightmare regarded as major interventions within this critical

genealogy but the Frankfurt school of critical theory has been identified as a highly

symbolic intellectual ancestor (ibid.).Critics draw out the importance of Adorno's

characterization of the deathly museal consciousness (Adorno 1981) and Benjamin's

unveiling of the quasi-religious rituals and auratic qualities of the museum space to

new intellectual explorations of authenticity and ritual agenda and in terms of critical

concerns with both the negative and more liberating aspects of technical/mechanical

reproduction (Benjamin 1968).

Heritage critiques also need to be placed in the broader context of the Frankfurt school's

radical critique of modernity. The famous characterization of the Enlightenment project

as mass deception and the complicity of its associated ideologies of progress,

objectivity, modernization, universalism in projects of totalitarianism have, as

Huyssen states, revealed how heritage and museological commodification too are

implicated in the complexities of fascism and Third International communism (Huyssen

1995: 17). It is, however, the characterization and commodification of mass culture as

synonymous with a culture industry and as ultimately bound up in the preservation of

capitalism that emerges as an ongoing critical theme (Walsh 1992: 64). For example,

the strategic choice of a book title made by the journalist/academic Hewison allowed

him to ground his specific rallying call to resist the massive commercialization and

commodification of contemporary culture in the Frankfurt school critical genealogy. As

such his The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline(1987) was a clear echo


14/40

Brown University



of Horkheimer and Adorno's The Culture Industry(1979) and is a text which has come

to symbolize the most recent revival of the anti-heritage thesis.

Hewison was one of a number of critics or heritage baiters (cf. Samuel 1994: 259)

(these included left-wing academics and media commentators) in the UK context, who

together were responsible for the production of a series of polemics which drew out

the complicities between the heritage boom of the 1980s and new forms of political

commodification inextricably linked to the rise of the New Right. Wright's On Living in

an old country(1985), for example, characterizes Britain as a society which seemed to

be making not just a virtue out of the past but a set of political principles (Wright 1985:

1). The specific focus of what has become known as the heritage debate was upon a

context of rapid change in which the growth of profit-making heritage centres, open-airmuseums, heritage attractions at an unprecedented rate saw the vast heritagization

of both rural and newly redundant urban landscapes. Again in the UK context authors

not only regarded this as symptomatic of a country in decline and of a society unable

to face the future but identified specific falsifications of history [p. 469 ] motivated by

new top-down expressions of vulgar nationalism and jingoism in which the desire

to manipulate a deep Englishness gives substance not only to rampant Europhobia

but also to a wider attack on multiculturalism and to the mobilization of an anti-foreign/

anti-asylum discourse which helped give political substance and a reality to Fortress

Europe (see Walsh 1992; Samuel 1994; Hall 2000). Concomitant analyses of European

notably German and French and US contexts drew out the same major themesand collectively have critically defined the heritage debate as a key contour of the

Euro-North American culture wars (see Sherman and Rogoff 1994; Lowenthal 1996;

Huyssen 1995).

Postmodern Heritage

Related theorizations of the above dynamics have opened up further intellectual-

political analyses by specifically positioning the heritage debate and the policies of

the new right as symptomatic of the wider postmodern condition (Walsh 1992: 61).

As Huyssen states this stages the anti-heritage debate as the latest instance of the

quarrel[specifically recast as a] battle between moderns and postmoderns (Huyssen

1995). Heritage commodification is subsequently pitched in relationships with what


15/40

Brown University



Walsh defines as the world of the post a world simultaneously postmodern, post-

ethical, post-moral (Walsh 1992: 2) and with what Huyssen further refers to as the

end of everything discourse (Huyssen 1995: 13). Here the broad characterization

emerges of postmodernity as synonymous with the New Right belief (cf. Fukyama

1992) that the capitalist West has achieved a positionof unparalleled supremacy in

both space and time, thus signalling the end of history and confidence in the assertion

that the American Dream is now a reality (Walsh 1992: 67). Authors have responded

by mapping out the more nightmarish implications of a postmodern landscape in which

the predominant motif/metaphor to emerge is that of the hyper-reality and simulated

spectacles and of the theme park (Walsh 1992: 11315).

Baudrillard, dubbed the postmodern prophet of doom, and his genre of nihilistichypercriticism are mobilized by authors alongside Eco's Faith in Fakes: Travels in

Hyperreality in the United States(1986) in order to draw out how heritage emerges as

empty-signifier exhibiting the crisis in which reality has been lost to an inauthenticity

theorized as both a dehistoricization and a simultaneous generation by models of a

real without origin or reality (Baudillard, quoted in Walsh 1992: 58) and expressed as

a collection of simulations and simulacra synonymous with the simultaneous death of

nostalgia and birth of hyper-nostalgia (Walsh 1992: 589). Moreover, this postmodern

themepark is located within a genealogy which links Skansen as proto-heritage and

as the model for Colonial Williamsburg and Greenfield Village (both of which are

understood as, mythical place[s] built on the whims and dreams of the world's greatestcapitalist, i.e. Rockefeller and Ford respectively): these latter sites, in turn, are seen as

a prophecy of postmodern heritage and as the prompt for the development in 1955 of

Walt Disney's theme park development (Walsh 1992: 957).

The motif of Disneyfication can also be linked to further theorizations of the

museal sensibility. The theorist Jeudy for example, analyses a postmodern force

of musealization in terms of its commodification of whole industrial regions, inner

cities and in terms of the self-musealisation synonymous with new technological

consumptions of self bound up in new simulation apparatus (Huyssen 1995: 30

1). For critics such as Walsh and Huyssen this critique is undertaken in order to

draw out the neo-colonizing aspect time-space compression at stake which, in

turn, is used to legitimate the superiority of one culture [the West] over all others in

space and time (Walsh 1992: 67) simultaneously re-establishing them as cultural


16/40


17/40


18/40


19/40


20/40

Brown University



a predisposition for certain aspects of the past to be incorporated within personal or

cultural history (ibid.).

Moreover, the memorialist anthropological concern with the presenting of the

past in memory is detailed further as a concern with various acts of recollection

and commemoration in which events which actually took place in the past

are represented (literally made present again) whether in writing, oral narrative,

monumental sculpture or dramatic performance (Ingold 1996: 202). This approach

highlights how so-called authentic reconstruction synonymous with the dominant

heritage forms outlined in section one far from bringing the past to bear in the present,

tends to highlight the disjunction (Ingold 1996: 203). It is here that Feeley-Harnik

privileges alternative approaches to memory (including ecological approaches)as a means to go beyond past/present dichotomies (old universalisms and new

relativisms) to engage with non-Western expressions of cultural transmission and

memory work (Feeley-Harnik, in Ingold 1996: 2134). Here, for example, she refers

to the weeping bird sound word songs of Kaluli funerals and gisaloceremonies to

illustrate alternative paradigms [p. 472 ] which, she states, evoke powerful images

of landscapes, paths and places through which, as they harden in the course of the

singing, living people reconnect with their ancestors in seen and unseen worlds (ibid.).

These practices can also be understood as alternative means of understanding a core

heritage dynamic: that of reconnecting to ancestors. As such, this can be set alongside

the aforementioned historical approach and Western meta-genealogies which incultural-historiographic terms, for example, have seen the privileging of classical

origins, Greek memory and Aristotelian concepts of culture as a means to define and

reconnect to ancestry.3

The memorialist approach is also crucial in problematizing further key concepts that

underpin the historical approach. Moreover, further core heritage motifs such as the

directionality of time's arrows and the redemptive formula are highlighted for critical

attention (Feeley-Harnik, in Ingold 1996: 21718). While Feeley-Harnik rehearses how

European past-to-present directional histories are associated with bringing particular

kinds of redemption in territorially defined states, she challenges this paradigm byarguing, I see no clear direction, no foreign country against which we might see or

measure our redemptive nativity, as it were our renewed becoming (ibid.).Here


21/40

Brown University



the Holocaust is singled out for discussion as a powerful indicator of the controversy

concerning the ability to claim that the past exists at all (ibid.).Questions of the

relative merit of evidence in terms of conventional historical data, archival documents

and the substantial convictions of people whose memories are divisible from their

flesh and blood (ibid.)are critically discussed. She argues, For North Americans and

Europeans, these are not remote questions: they are concretely embodied in people,

notably, survivors (ibid.).These discussions are placed within her wider call for an

understanding of what she terms the placedness of time (Feeley-Harnik, in Ingold

1996: 216). Here she states, The past is not a foreign or distant country; it is the very

ground on which, in which, with which we stand, move and otherwise interact; out

of which we continually regenerate ourselves in relations with others, partly through

distanciation (ibid.).Her illustrations focus upon other forms of traumatic pasts, forexample Malagasy pasts and experiences of slavery, and in so doing reject the

dominant focus on space-time relationships in favour of centring issues upon the

appropriation of land (ibid.).

A shared desire subsequently emerges in terms of how the political real operates

across these two historical and memorialist approaches. In critical support of

Lowenthal's motion, Harvey intervenes to reiterate Eric Wolf's call for anthropologists

to discover history (Harvey, in Ingold 1996: 222). She thus attempts to offer an

alternative understanding of the past and of heritage to that operating at the level of

international Expo culture which she sees as promoting a tasteful, sanitised ubiquitousdifference that we produce for ourselves, in the vicious circle of what has been

called postplural nostalgia where the innovations and changes that produce variety

have simultaneously destroyed tradition, convention and choice (Harvey, in Ingold

1996: 220). She continues, [Wolf] stressed, that he was not referring to Western

history divided into separate nations but the contacts, connections, linkages and

interrelationships (Harvey, in Ingold 1996: 2223). Harvey states her interest is rather

in how memory operates to humanise such interrelationships while also arguing the

strategic benefits of retraining a model which addresses the nature of immensurability

between the past and the present as a means to more directly address attitudes to

otherness (Harvey, in Ingold 1996: 2212). Here a study of the past and of heritage

is argued to be a means too of readdressing alternative and parallel understandings

of first contact, the extremes of foreignness and the image of absolute other (ibid.).


22/40

Brown University



Issues which have re-emerged too in the wake of 11 September 2001 and the ensuing

war against terror.

Kchler, as Feeley-Harnik's seconder, consolidates these main critical trajectories by

putting forward an alternative view which restores the past to its active engagement

in the present, not as a fictional by-product of that present, but as a constituent of the

real world (Kchler, in Ingold 1996: 2267). Here she reiterates her commitment to

defining a model of cultural transmission that can be mobilized in the shaping of the

future (ibid.).This model is subsequently placed alongside a complex therapeutics

(rather than grand narrative redemption) of remembering and forgetting and questions

concerning strategies for alternative reconceptualizations of past, present and future

and of otherness and othering (Ingold 1996: 423). Beneath these core agendasemerges a sense in which any reconceptualization of the past and of heritage beyond

Eurocentric paradigms is inextricably related to a certain humanization of the discourse

which is bound up in a contemporary politics of return, redistribution, respect and

recognition and with a complex politics of [p. 473 ] memory work. In what follows I

give detail to these dynamics.

Heritage as Memory

The above shifts of discourse give recognition to how dynamics both within andsignificantly from outside the academy have established lines of debate, action

and have influenced, if not at times dictated, the radical re-vision of heritage value.

This alternative perspective, for example, highlights how the archival compulsion

to return to origin and to revive tradition is now not only seen as symptomatic

of the profound sense of cultural loss and erosion in the Western imaginary but is

increasingly present in non-Western contexts due to the feelings of cultural loss

caused by contemporary experiences of globalization. The consequences of such

experiences are capable of framing alongside the West's invention of the past and

modernity's rise of heritage and concomitant Eurocentric urges to build lieux de

mmoire(places of memory) because there are no more milieux de mmoire(real

environments of memory) (Maleuvre 1999: 59) contemporary acts of repossession in


23/40

Brown University



which the dream to both define and repossess one's lost heritage endures, as does an

increased faith in, and calls for, culture as cure (Butler 2003).4

In this sense new investments are being made in the archive as a place of return,

diagnosis and cure and thus as a potent locus for the narrativization of traumatic

loss. One can include here, for example, the South African Truth and Reconciliation

Commission (see Derrida 2004). With a more critical edge the historical anti-archival

discourse has not only provided a mobilization of the more subversive models of

memory (from, for example, Nietzsche, Benjamin and Adorno to Derrida) to destabilize

modernity's dominant preoccupations with a stifling historicism (see Maleuvre

1999) and its archival traumas (Derrida 1996) as a searing internal critique of the

Westernization of heritage, but has seen critics raise questions about the haunting ofthe archive by those constituencies exiled, marginalized and misrepresented within this

sphere. Here, for example, case-study contextualizations take in non-Western contexts

such as China (Feuchtwang 2000a, b).

Similarly the memorialization of modernity's violent conflicts has not only witnessed the

centring of Holocaust memory within heritage discourse (Young 1993) but has seen

the definition of historical and contemporary sites of human suffering, genocide and

terror across the globe (Duffy 2001). It is here too that heritage discourse is confronted

with certain crises of the representation. The notion of the crisis of representation,

famously articulated by Adorno, Lyotard, Levinas and others following the Holocaust,has, for example, implicated the act of monumentalization as at risk of repeating the

same totalizing logic that underpinned the rationalization of the Holocaust itself (see

Adorno 1949/1973; Young 1993; Radstone 2000). These dynamics have, in turn, not

only given rise to recent interventions synonymous with the counter-monument (Young

1993) and discussions of post-memory (Radstone 2000) but in other contexts of

suffering, controversies have similarly raged over the appropriate strategies for the

objectification of memory in architectural form and the moral-ethical framing of the ritual

performance of memory work and mourning in contexts of murder (Duffy 2001). It is

here too that psychoanalytic and other theories of memory and of trauma theory have

generated a significant body of texts (Forty and Kchler 1999; Antze and Lambek 1998;Kwint 1999; Radstone 2000). These have offered an alternative means, for example,
http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/hdbk_matculture/fn4n29.xmlhttp://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


24/40

Brown University



to investigate the impulse to commemorate as part of acts of sacrifice and healing

(Rowlands 1999).

It is here, however, that the limits of memory discourse need to be brought into view.

One can argue that memory and trauma, like heritage itself, can be seen as Western

concepts and emerging from a Eurocentric base (see Yates 1978). As such, this raises

questions concerning the need to apprehend specific cultural practices in terms of

both tangible and intangible rituals, performances and commemorative strategies

in non-Western contexts of suffering. Das and Feuchtwang, for example, use the

alternative conceptualization of critical events and cataclysmic events to explore local

responses to experiences of violence in India's (Das 1995) and China's recent past

respectively (Feuchtwang 2000a, b). The challenge of moving beyond what might bedefined as a Holocaust paradigm of suffering and redemption and the problematization

of terms, such as, trauma, loss, mourning and acts of working through and closure

cross-culturally is, however, still an outstanding agenda. With the memorialization of

sites synonymous with transatlantic slavery, the Gulags, the Palestinian Nakba (the

catastrophe of 1948) and of genocide, in among other contexts, Armenia, Croatia,

Cambodia, Nigeria and Rwanda, these questions appear more urgent than ever (see

Duffy 2001).

[p. 474 ]

Heritage as Well-being

Alternative readings of Eurocentric sources have, however, successfully drawn out

debates on otherness and strategies of othering. Freud's therapeutic schema and

his preoccupation with notions of speaking cures and, more particularly, his radical

inversion of dominant memory models in order to profile the dynamic of forgetting

have provided a basis for the radical rethinking of heritage across North-South. For

postcolonial critics, for example, Freud's work not only offers significant insights into

the relationship between heritage and the unconscious but as Said (2003), Spivak

(1992, 1993) and Bhabha (1994) have demonstrated, into non-Western identity work.5

Moreover, Freud's theorizing of a disturbance of memory (Freud 1936/1984: 443


25/40

Brown University



56)

6

as an exploration of how the literalization of icons and images of the past in thepresent has the potential to access submerged and repressed memories has been re-

worked as a means to understanding the complex psychodynamics and interactions of,

among other factors, materiality, memory and persons-object relations, with the more

revelatory dimensions of heritage rituals (see Rojek 1997).

Heritage as a site of contestation, conflict and in terms of competing interpretations

of sites and monuments has also resulted in clashes in which the cultural heritage has

become a scene of violence and even death (see Layton et al. 2001 on the destruction

of the mosque at Ayodhya, India). Similarly dominant discourse on iconoclasm has

not only met its radical other in the Taliban's destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas

in Afghanistan (dubbed by UNESCO Director General Matsurra as a crime againstculture) and in other cultural fundamentalisms (Stolke 1995) synonymous with

ethnic cleansing but has been itself problematized by new characterizations of

heritage as a renewable resource (see Holtorf 2001). This shift is captured by calls to

actively and responsibly engage in renewing the past in our time rather than simply

preserve and conserve and thereby sustain the monumental vestiges left by posterity

(ibid.).The contemporary focus upon intangible heritage similarly offers alternative

conceptualizations of culture (see http://www.unesco.org/).

What has not yet been fully centred within a critical heritage discourse is a broader

cross-cultural exploration of concepts of well-being. Perhaps a concept such asheritage magic could be called upon here in order to apprehend insights into diverse

global contexts in which, for example, strategies for the prevention of shock and fear

and everyday practices which seek to bring about cure, well-being and protection

are an essentialized part of what it is to be human (see Meneley 2004). This act of

reconceptualization also holds the possibility of accessing further insight into contexts

in which people (as tourists, restorers, refugees) attempt to create narrative to reveal

and to potentially heal past suffering and engage objects and places in this process

(Scarry 1998; Hoskins 1998; Parkin 1999).
http://www.unesco.org/http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/hdbk_matculture/fn6n29.xmlhttp://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


26/40

Brown University



UNESCO and New Global ConstituenciesThese above themes define the complex, hybridized nature of dominant and alternative

heritage discourse in the contemporary global context. This is a context which has also

been problematized by Derrida in his deconstructionist reading of themajor global

culture broker, UNESCO. Derrida argues the need for UNESCO to make a conceptual

and moral-ethical break with its historical, cultural and metaphysical preoccupation

with Greek memory and Greek origins (Derrida 2002b: 40)7. He further argues that

UNESCO's origins are bound up in an Occidental ontological tradition whose violences

have displaced, among others, Egyptian, Jewish, Arabic memory (ibid.).Derrida's

point, however, is to make a claim that even at origin, in its Greek moment, there was

already some hybridization, some grafts, at work, some differential element within

UNESCO's foundational philosophies (ibid.).

It is this hybridizing force which Derrida sees as UNESCO's subversive dynamic, as it

reveals how the organization necessarily participates in an othering of its foundational

values. Derrida's final appeal is for the mobilization of a new ethics capable of re-

envisioning the institution as an essentialized part of a new internationalism (no longer

tied to exclusively Kantian universalizing values) which will open up UNESCO's logic

and its existence as a truly world institution (Derrida 2002b: 74). He sums up this

strategy in terms of a moral-ethical debt, duty, response and responsibility towardsthe archive of another to difference and to the simultaneous opening-up the self-

validating aspect of the institution to the voice of the other (Derrida 2002b: 23) and to

a remodelled future institutional cosmopolitics (Derrida 2002b: 40). Furthermore, [p. 475

] Derrida's broader discussions of cosmopolitanism and hospitality are rooted in both

refugee and asylum rights and in critical reflections on amnesty truth and reconciliation,

which he regards as an integral part of his moral-ethical project of restoring heritage

to dignity and creating a just future (Derrida 2004: 5).


27/40

Brown University



Indigenizing HeritageThis sense of heritage as a resource for defining a just future is perhaps nowhere

more pronounced and more contested than in the utilization and reworking of heritage

by new constituencies notably indigenous groups8 as a powerful metaphor by

which to express historical and ongoing grievance and injustice and as bound up

in accompanying demands not only for the restitution of cultural objects and human

remains but of human dignity justice and respect (Rowlands 2002). Contemporary

debates on cultural rights and cultural property have moved hand in hand with

subsequent attempts to indigenize heritage, to reclaim land and to reinterpret sacred

sites (see Niec 1998). This has often wielded a critical edge, confronting the heritage

culture with its own complicity in the often violent appropriation of land, artefacts

(including cultural treasures and secret sacred material), human remains and in the

scientific, cultural and intellectual colonization of other cultures (see Simpson 1996;

Fforde 2004).

Here, for example, the development of culture and ethnic-specific cultural centres and

indigenous meeting places has offered new engagements with alternative dynamics

of cultural transmission (Simpson 1996). Not only have such institutions repossessed

tradition but have witnessed a hybridization of knowledge and cultural forms that has

fundamentally problematized dominant motifs of spectator-ship, authorship, control andexhibition (ibid.).Similarly, critical reconceptualizations of ethnographic representation

have drawn out alternative strategies of cultural reciprocity in cultural spaces in, for

example, in South East Asia and the Pacific (Stanley 1998). Heritage as living tradition

and as part of expressions of local control and empowerment has likewise defined

the Vanuatu Cultural Centre (Geismar and Tilley 2003) and as a particular model of

what a true post-museum (cf. Hooper-Greenhill 2001) may represent. The strategy of

anthropologizing the West and the profiling of ethnographic methodologies have also

resulted in research into Western heritage contexts, such as Colonial Williamsburg

(Handler and Gable 1997) and London's Science Museum (MacDonald 2001).


28/40

Brown University



Provincializing HeritageOne is thus confronted with both the limits of traditional heritage discourse and its

possible futures in terms of the ability to embrace the above and other parallel and

alternative heritages. Here one can find a resonance with the postcolonial critic

Chakrabarty's (2000) assertion that the key values, concepts and paradigms that

emerged from European thought are inadequate to understand non-European life

worlds. Therefore, the future reconceptualization of a globally responsive and moral

and ethically responsible heritage studies discourse depends on the ability to address

Chakrabarty's broader project of provincializing Europe and strategizing attempts to

apprehend non-Western histories, subaltern memories and other modernities (ibid.).This is accompanied by the need to look beyond the existing or established canon

of cultural heritage texts in order to refocus our attention upon a wider scholarship

committed to further disrupting and displacing dominant heritage. The concept and

reality, therefore, of a Chinese modernity or Arab identity and heritage as a product of

these communities own long-term history not just of contact need to be considered

alongside theorists calls to provincialize the place of Europe within our understanding

of the dynamics of cultural power and influence and as a means to challenge the

presumed universalism of human and cultural values (ibid.).

Postcolonial theory, although still a shamefully under-theorized area within mainstreamheritage studies, offers a potent insight into key themes of identity, representation and

the mediation of identity. To return to the work of Spivak (1988) and Bhabha (1994),

the project apprehending the subaltern voice and the critical reconceptualization of

mimicry have done much to challenge dominant Eurocentric notions of authenticity.

As such, these critics make it clear that the intellectual must resist nostalgic desires to

reconstruct the subaltern as a lost object and to recover the pure form and redeem

the unified, true and unmediated voice of the people and instead argue the need

for a more critical, subtle line in strategies of representation and in the mediation of

identity (Spivak 1988). From this starting point both the tactical mobilization of forms of

mimicry and [p. 476 ] strategic essentialism and more metaphysical preoccupationswith Greek Jew identities are addressed and problematized by these authors (Spivak

1992)9.


29/40

Brown University



Heritage as a New HumanismThe broad shift of this chapter is a movement from the historical approach to heritage

and its focus on the past as a foreign country to that of heritage as an essentialized

resource for creating a future in the contemporary global context. The need to define a

set of new and alternative agendas, concepts, methodologies and research questions

oriented towards engaging with this context, as the above also demonstrates, is

a project still in its infancy. What is clear, however, is that this urgent need for a

reconceptualization of heritage discourse at both intellectual and operational level

is based upon alternative sets of values, critical approaches, theorizations and lived

experiences which are located outside mainstream heritage studies and, as such,remain largely unrecognized. The question of what constitutes heritage? therefore

demands a shift towards a consideration of: what are current constituencies of heritage

in the global context? How are these needs and futures to be communicated and

represented in terms of heritage values? As such, these constituencies, which notably

include displaced, diasporic, transnational, indigenous cultures and cultures in conflict,

need to be fully centred as the basis for heritage studies articulation of its own possible

futures.

As Chakrabarty argues, the failure to be responsive to lifeworlds not yet visible

within current framings would leave heritage studies in ignorance of the majority ofhumankind and, as such, it would be a redundant force (Chakrabarty 2000: 29). With

this in mind, heritage critics would do well to engage in wider calls from elsewhere

in the academy for the definition of a new humanism (cf. Said 2004), no longer tied

to the oppressive filter of Western liberalism, which is not only capable of critically

apprehending alternative conceptualizations of otherness and othering but which is

responsive to the besieged subject (Said 2003). I would argue that a resonant starting

point for remodelling heritage discourse on these lines requires the enactment of

a strategic return to the core preoccupation of heritage studies with the question of

what it is to be human. Thus alongside cultural and human rights discourse alternative

experiences and conceptualizations of personhood need to be brought into view, asdo the diverse modes of representation that being human takes. Only once these had

been fundamentally reconceptualized could one agree (cf. Ingold 1996) that heritage


30/40

Brown University



discourse is uniquely placed not only to address claims about identity, ancestry and

cultural transmission but is equipped to take on the key moral-ethical issues of our times

and to fully engage with, and assist with the definition of, emergent global heritage

futures.

Notes

1 MacCannell's text is a key part of the tourism theory canon, which also includes Smith

(1989); Boniface and Fowler (1993); Cohen (1988); Urry (1990). See Selwyn (1996) for

a review.

2 Walsh states how the heritage industry especially [has ] to shoulder the shame for

the movement towards [the first Gulf] war (Walsh 1992: 2).

3 This genealogy defines the still globally dominant salvage or container models

of heritage. For Renaissance arts of memory and the other nodal points of this

Eurocentric genealogy see Yates (1978); Samuel (1994); Forty and Kchler (1999).

4 See, for example, the contemporary revival of the ancient Alexandrina project initiated

by the Egyptian government in co-operation with UNESCO (see Butler 2001a, b, 2003).

5 All three critics have used Freud to analyse the (colonial) fantasies of the Westernpsyche and to outline potential postcolonial transformations of identity work.

6 Freud's first visit to Athens saw him experience a disturbance when his literal

confrontation with the Acropolis (repressed by Freud as an object of the imagination)

brought about the possibility of accessing the unconscious (Freud 1936/1984: 44356).

7 Other UNESCO literature includes Lacoste (1994); Mayor (1995); O'Brien (1968);

Hoggart (1978); Titchen (1996); Cleere (1995, 1996, 2000, 2001); Hylland-Eriksen

(2001).

8 See Kuper (2003) and Kenrick and Lewis (2004) for critical debates on indigenousidentity.


31/40

Brown University



9 Levinas in the pivotal post-war period issued a challenge to the dominant Greek

metaphysical position by arguing a place for the figure of the Jew within the domain

of philosophy/ethics (Levinas 1987). The possible stagings of a third position to

destabilize the GreekJew binary have [p. 477 ] engaged Spivak, Bhabha and also

Derrida (see Bennington 1992).

Web Site

UNESCO: http://www.unesco.org/.

BeverleyButler

References

Adorno, T. (1949/1973) #After Auschwitz#, #Meditations on metaphysics# , in Negative

Dialectics , trans. E.B. Ashton, ed. . New York: Continuum.

Adorno, T. (1981) Prisms , trans. S. Weber, ed. and S. Weber, ed. . Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Antze, P., ed. and Lambek, M., eds (1998) Tense Past: Cultural Essays in Trauma and

Memory . London and New York: Routledge.

Barthes, R. (1957/1992). Mythologies . St Albans: Paladin.

Baudrillard, J. (1988) #Simulacra and simulations# , in M. Poster (ed.), Jean Baudrillard:

Selected Writings . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bazin, G. (1967) The Museum Age , trans. J. Cahill, ed. . New York: Universe Books.

Benjamin, W. (1968) Illuminations , trans. H. Zohn, ed. . New York: Schocken Books.
http://www.unesco.org/http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


32/40

Brown University



Bennington, G. (1992) #Mosaic fragment: if Derrida were an Egyptian ## , in D. Wood

(ed.), Derrida: A Critical Reader . Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 97119.

Bhabha, H. (1994) The Location of Culture . London and New York: Routledge.

Blythe, R. (1969) Akenfield: Portrait of an English Village . London: Allen Lane/the

Penguin Press.

Boniface, P. Fowler, P.J. (1993) Heritage Tourism in the #Global Village# . London and

New York: Routledge.

Butler, B. (2001a) #Egypt: constructed exiles of the imagination# , in B. Bender, ed. and

M. Winer (eds), Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile and Place . Oxford: Berg, pp.

30318.

Butler, B. (2001b) #Return to Alexandria: conflict and contradiction in discourses of

origins and heritage revivalism in Alexandria, Egypt# , in R. Layton, ed. and J. Thomas

(eds), The Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property . London and New York:

Routledge, pp. 5575.

Butler, B. (2003) ##Egyptianizing# the Alexandrina: the contemporary revival of the

ancient Mouseion/Library# , in C. Price, ed. and J-M. Humbert (eds), Imotep Today:

Egyptianizing Architecture . London: UCL Press.

Chakrabarty, D. (2000) Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical

Difference . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

CleereH. #Cultural landscapes as world heritage# Conservation and Management of

Archaeological Sites 1 (1) (1995) 638 http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/135050395793137171

CleereH. #The concept of #outstanding universal value# in the world heritage

convention# Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 1 (4) (1996) 227

33 http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/135050396793139042

CleereH. #The World Heritage Convention in the Third World# Cultural Resource

Management in Contemporary Society 4 (3) (2000) 99106
http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/135050395793137171http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/135050396793139042http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/135050395793137171http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


33/40

Brown University



Cleere, H. (2001) #Uneasy bedfellows: universality and cultural heritage# , in R. Layton,

ed. P. Stone, ed. and J. Thomas (eds), Destruction and Conservation of Cultural

Property . London and New York: Routledge, pp. 229.

CohenE. #Authenticity and commodization in tourism# Annals of Tourism Research 15

(3) (1988) 37186 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383%2888%2990028-X

Coombes, A. (1994) Reinventing Africa: Temples of Empire: the Museum and its

Publics . New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.

Das, V. (1995) Critical Events . Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Derrida, J. (1996) Archive Fever: a Freudian Impression , trans. E. Prenowitz, ed. .

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Derrida, J. (2002a) On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness . London and New York:

Routledge.

Derrida, J. (2002b). Ethics, Institutions and the Right to Philosophy , trans. P. Pericles

Trifonas, ed. . New York: Rowman 8 Littlefield.

DuffyT.M. #Museums of #Human Suffering# and the struggle for human rights#

Museum International 53 (1) (2001) 1016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0033.00292

Duncan, C. (1995) Civilising Rituals inside Public Art Museums . London and New York:

Routledge.

Eco, U. (1986) Travels in Hyperreality . London: Picador.

Feuchtwang, S. (2000a) #Reinscriptions: commemorations, restoration and the

interpersonal transmission of histories and memories under modern states in Asia and

Europe# , in S. Radstone (ed.), Memory and Methodology . Oxford: Berg, pp. 5978.

Feuchtwang, S. (2000b) #The avenging ghost: paradigm of a shameful past# , in

Anthropology II, Beliefs and Everyday Life . Third International Conference on Sinology.

London: Academica Sinica, pp. 129.
http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0033.00292http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383%2888%2990028-Xhttp://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


34/40

Brown University



Fforde, C. (2004) Collecting the Dead: Archaeology and the Reburial Issue . London:

Duckworth.

Findlen, P. (2000) #The modern muses: Renaissance collecting and the cult of

remembrance# , in S.A. Crane (ed.), Museums and Memory . Stanford CA: Stanford

University Press, pp. 16178.

Forty, A. K#chler, S. (1999), The Art of Forgetting . Oxford: Berg.

FoucaultM. #Le language et l'espace# Critique 5 (7) (1964)

Freud, S. (1936/1984) #A disturbance of memory on the Acropolis# , in A. Richards

(ed.), On Metapsychology . London: Penguin Books, pp. 44356.

Fukuyama, F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man . New York: Free Press.

GeismarH. TilleyC. #Negotiating materiality: international and local museum practices at

the Vanuatu Cultural Centre and National Museum# Oceania 73 (2003) 170188

Gregory, E. (1998) H.D. and Hellenism . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

HallS. #Whose heritage? Unsettling #the heritage## Third Text 49 (2000) 112

Hand, S. (1989) Levinas Reader . Oxford: Blackwell.

Handler, R. Gable, E. (1997) The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at

Colonial Williamsburg . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Hewison, R. (1987) The Heritage Industry , London: Methuen.

Hobsbawm, E.et al., eds (1993) The Invention of Tradition . Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Hoggart, R. (1978) An Idea and its Servants: UNESCO from Within . London: Chatto 8

Windus.


35/40

Brown University



Holtorf, C. (2001) #Is the past a non-renewable resource?# in R. Layton, ed. , P. Stone,

ed. and J. Thomas (eds), Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property . One

World Archaeology Series. London: Routledge.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2001) Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture . London

and New York: Routledge.

Horkheimer, M. Adorno, T. (1979) Dialectic of Enlightenment . London: Allen Lane.

Horne, D. (1984) The Great Museum: the Re-presentation of History . London: Pluto

Press.

Hoskins, J. (1998) Biographical Objects: How Objects tell the Stories of People's Lives .

London and New York: Routledge.

Huyssen, A. (1995) Twilight Memories: Making Time in a Culture of Amnesia . London

and New York: Routledge.

Hylland-Eriksen, T. (2001) #Between universalism and relativism: a critique of the

UNESCO concept of culture# , in J. Lowen, ed. , M.B. Dember, ed. and R. Wilson (eds),

Culture and Rights . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.12748.

Ingold, T. (1996) Key Debates in Anthropology . New York and London: Routledge.

KenrickJ. LewisJ. #Indigenous peoples' rights and the politics of the term #

indigenous# Anthropology Today 20 (2) (2004) 49 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

j.0268-540X.2004.00256.x

KuperA. #The return of the native# Current Anthropology 44 (3) (2003) 389402 http://

dx.doi.org/10.1086/368120

Kwint, M. (1999) Material Memories: Design and Evocation . Oxford: Berg.

Lacoste, M.C. (1994) The Story of a Grand Design: UNESCO, 19461993 . Paris:

UNESCO.
http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/368120http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0268-540X.2004.00256.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0268-540X.2004.00256.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1086/368120http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/368120http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0268-540X.2004.00256.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0268-540X.2004.00256.xhttp://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


36/40

Brown University



Layton, R. Stone, P. Thomas, J. (2001) Destruction and Conservation of

Cultural Property . World Archaeology Series. London: Routledge. http://

dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203279489

Leone, M.P. (1973) #Archaeology as the science of technology: Mormon town plans

and fences# , in C.L. Redman (ed.), Research and Theory in Current Archaeology ,

New York: Wiley, pp. 12550.

Levinas, E. (1987) Collected Philosophical Papers , trans. A. Lingis, ed. . The Hague:

Nijhoff.

Lewis, G. (1992) #Museums and their precursors: a brief world survey# , in J.M.A.

Thompson (ed.), The Manual of Curatorship: A Guide to Museum Practice . Butterworth,

pp. 520.

Lowenthal, D. (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country . Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Lowenthal, D. (1996) The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History . London: Viking.

Lynch, K. (1972) What Time is this Place? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

MacCannell, D. (1978/1989) The Tourist: a New Theory of the Leisure Class . London:

Macmillan.

MacDonald, S. (2001) #Behind the scenes at the Science Museum: knowing, making

and using# , in M. Bouquet (ed.), Academic Anthropology and the Museum . Oxford and

New York: Berghahn.

Maleuvre, D. (1999) Museum Memories: History, Technology, Art . Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.

MayrandP. #The new museology proclaimed# Museum 148 (1985) 2000

Mayor, F. (1995) The future of the past . Paris: UNESCO.
http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203279489http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203279489http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


37/40

Brown University



McBryde, I. (1997) #The ambiguities of authenticity: rock of faith or shifting sands?

NARA conference on #Authenticity in relation to the World Heritage Convention# , in N.

Stanley-Price (ed.), Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites . London:

Unwin, pp. 93100.

Meltzer, D.J. (1985) #Ideology and material culture# , in R.J. Gould, ed. and M.B.

Schiffer (eds), Modern Material Culture: the Archaeology of Us . New York: Academic

Press, pp. 11325.

Meneley, A. (2004) #Scared, sick or silly? # in P. Antze and M. Lambek (eds), Illness

and Irony: on the Ambiguity of Suffering in Culture . Oxford and New York: Berghahn,

pp. 2139.

Merriman, N. (1991) Beyond the Glass Case: the Past, the Heritage and the Public .

London: UCL Press.

MerrimanN. #Defining heritage# Material Culture Journal 1 (3) (1996) 37786 http://

dx.doi.org/10.1177/135918359600100306

Niec, H. ed. (1998) Cultural Rights and Wrongs: A Collection of Essays in

Commemoration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights . Paris: UNESCO.

O'Brien, C.C. (1968) The United Nations: Sacred Drama . London: Hutchinson.

ParkinD. #Mementoes as transitional objects in human displacement# Material Culture

Journal 4 (3) (1999) 30320

Plumb, J.H. (1973) The Death of the Past . London: Penguin Books.

Porter, G. (1996) #Seeing through solidarity: a feminist perspective on museums# , in

S. MacDonald, ed. and G. Fyfe (eds), Theorizing Museums: Representing Identity and

Diversity in a Changing World . Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 10526.

Radstone, S., ed. (2000) Memory and Methodology . Oxford: Berg.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135918359600100306http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135918359600100306http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135918359600100306http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


38/40

Brown University



Rojek, C. (1997) #Indexing, dragging and the social construction of tourist sites# , in C.

Rojek, ed. and J. Urry (eds), Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory .

London and New York: Routledge, pp. 5474.

Rojek, C., ed. and Urry, J., eds. (1997) Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and

Theory . London and New York: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203427736

Rosaldo, R. (1989) Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis . Boston, MA:

Beacon Press.

Rowlands, M. (1999) #Remembering to forget: sublimation in war memorials# , in A.

Forty, ed. and S. K#chler (eds), The Art of Forgetting . Oxford: Berg.

Rowlands, M. (2002) #Heritage and cultural property# , in V. Buchli (ed.), The Material

Culture Reader . Oxford: Berg, pp. 10510.

Said, E.W. (2003) Freud and the Non-European . Verso: London.

Said, E.W. (2004) Humanism and Democratic Criticism . New York: Macmillan.

Samuel, R. (1994) Theatres of Memory . Oxford: Blackwell.

Scarry, E. (1998) The Body in Pain . New York: Oxford University Press.

Selwyn, T., ed. (1996) The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism .

Chichester: Wiley.

Sherman, D., ed. and Rogoff, I., eds (1994) Museum Culture: Histories, Discourses,

Spectacles . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Simpson, M. (1996) Making Representations: Museums in the Post-colonial Era .

London and New York: Routledge.

Smith, V., ed. (1989) Hosts and Guests . Oxford: Blackwell.
http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203427736http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


39/40

Brown University



Spivak, G.C. (1988) #Can the subaltern speak?# in C. Nelson, ed. and L. Grossberg

(eds), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture . Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press,

pp. 29697.

SpivakG.C. #Asked about myself# Third Text 19 (4) (1992) 918

SpivakG.C. #Echo# New Literary: A Journal of Theory and Interpretation 24 (1993) 17

43 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/469267

Stanley, N. (1998) Being Ourselves for You: the Global Display of Cultures . London:

Middlesex University Press.

StolkeV. #Talking culture: new boundaries, new rhetorics of exclusion in Europe#

Current Anthropology 36 (1995) 126 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/204339

TitchenS. #On the construction of #outstanding universal value#: some comments on

the implementation of the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention# Conservation

and Management of Archaeological Sites 1 (4) (1996) 23542

Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies .

London: Sage http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446251904 .

Vergo, P., ed. (1989) The New Museology . London: Reaktion.

WallaceM. #Visiting the past: history museum in the United States# Radical History

Review 25 (3) (1981) 6396

Walsh, K. (1992) The Representation of the Past: Museum and Heritage

in the Postmodern World . London and New York: Routledge. http://

dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203320570

Wright, P. (1985) On Living in an Old Country . London: Verso.

Yates, F. (1978) The Art of Memory . Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Young, J. (1993) The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning . New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203320570http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203320570http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203320570http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446251904http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/204339http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/469267http://knowledge.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/


40/40

Brown University



http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607972.n30
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607972.n30http://www.sagepub.com/

beverly butler-heritage and the present past

Documents