Paper short abstract:

”Heritage for All” has become a slogan in the Swedish cultural heritage field to avoid cultural heritage being a matter of a few and not accessible to all citizens. But how does the word ”all” and ”heritage” relate to each other? And how has marginalized social categories been treated when heritage is considered a concern for everyone?

Paper long abstract:

"Heritage for All" has become a slogan in the Swedish cultural heritage field to avoid cultural heritage being a matter of a few and not accessible to all citizens. But how does the word "all" and "heritage" relate to each other? And how has marginalized social categories been treated when heritage is considered a concern for everyone?

In Sweden, since 1970's, cultural heritage has been at the welfare state services. In the 1990s this service was directed to democracy, tolerance and equality. From a European perspective, the cultural heritage had similar goals. The Council of Europe talks about tolerance, acceptance and certainty. As in Sweden there is concern that the past can also be used for other, opposite ends. Cultural heritage has always produced majorities and thus minorities.

From the Indian anthropologist Arjun Appadurai risks are discussed in relationships between majorities and minorities, risks in contrast to political goals of tolerance, democracy and equality. To gain recognition as a cultural collective requires a past. The cultural heritage appears in this sense as a political resource, in itself neither good nor evil, which can be used for various purposes.