Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Kristin Kuutma
(University of Tartu)
Anita Vaivade (Latvian Academy of Culture)
Send message to Convenors
- Discussant:
-
Sophie Elpers
(Meertens Institute, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences)
- Format:
- Roundtables Workshops
- Stream:
- Heritage
- Location:
- Aula 21
- Sessions:
- Monday 15 April, -
Time zone: Europe/Madrid
Short Abstract:
SIEF is a reaccredited NGO to the UNESCO 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. How does this alignment define or, in turn, complicate our field? What kind of opportunities does it entail for SIEF? What kind of constraints does it generate? RT open for proposals.
Long Abstract:
The UNESCO 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) foresees the participation of non-governmental organisations. In June 2018 SIEF was reaccredited by the General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention. How does this alignment define or, in turn, complicate our field? What kind of opportunities does it entail for SIEF? What kind of constraints does it generate?
By default, SIEF fosters academic debate on the impact of ICH related and other policies on the ICH safeguarding processes, relying on research work carried out by its members. Many of us are substantially engaged in the critical inquiry of the negotiated or contested heritage claims and of heritage regimes generated with concurrent cultural politics that have profound social as well as economic consequences.
At the same time, we disseminate know-how on the documentation and investigation of ICH, provide expertise in community involvement, and partake in discussing ethical issues for ICH safeguarding. In other words, in the process of monitoring of the implementation of the 2003 Convention we simultaneously seek the related forums of networking, of cooperation, of exchange and acquisition of knowledge.
We propose a lively debate on the envisioned engagement with UNESCO and the ICH Convention framework as well as the assumed on-going interest in the effect produced. This Roundtable will be open for 'provocation/presentation' proposals during the call for papers.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Monday 15 April, 2019, -Fabio Mugnaini (Università di Siena)
Paper short abstract:
The unpredicted side effects of long tested scholarship and political institutions under the flag of UNESCO' ICH program, urge scholars to reaffirm the commitment to their implicit critical role, as the only way to be loyal to the IC heirs and communities and to be creditable partner to UNESCO.
Paper long abstract:
The UNESCO' ICH worldwide success, built on the strict cooperation between policy makers and experts, produced many side effects that started to call some scholars' critical attention, either at the scale of the local communities (Dylan Foster and Gilman, 2015, for instance) and to the whole UNESCO' procedural set (Hafstein 2018). Drawing on those contributions and on some examples from Italy, this proposal aims to focus on some open issues. First of all, the hardened competition among disciplinary authorities, from a wide array of academic fields, for conquering a legitimate role in ICH procedures. Secondly the interference of stakeholders that often start the process for UNESCO recognition, looking for political ends, cherishing, flattering and menacing, at the same time the academic autonomy, regardless the priorities of the involved tradition bearers' communities or groups that the promoter should represent and the expert should know, respect and defend.
Third, owing to the last-word-power that States have been awarded by ICH convention, such a distortion in the relationship between political and academic field, may be found also at the level of UNESCO's praxis. The ethnographic scrutiny of the rich open archives of its sessions, makes evident how not rarely the procedural hallmarks and principles are bypassed or reinterpreted, when not plainly ignored. Therefore scholars' critical gaze, theoretically and ethically backed and politically aware or, at least, clear, is than the only real positive support that they /we may give, either if involved in the bottom-up process, or when accredited to the top level.
Valdimar Tr. Hafstein (University of Iceland)
Paper short abstract:
UNESCO’s ICH program is an aspect of the broader infusion of folkloristic/ethnological perspectives and concepts into the public sphere. It brings to light what arguably has always been the objective of our fields: to change the way people look at their own culture and the way they practice it.
Paper long abstract:
Considering the relationship between SIEF and UNESCO’s work on ICH, I will argue that the current heritagization of social practices – for which UNESCO’s ICH program is the standard-bearer – is one aspect of the broader infusion of folkloristic/ethnological knowledge, perspectives, and concepts into the public sphere as part of modernity’s reflexivity. Aptly named “folklorization” (a concept we may consider appropriating from authenticity discourses) this process brings to light what in effect has always been the ultimate objective of our fields of knowledge: to change the way people look at their own culture, the way they define it, the way they feel about it, and the way they practice it. In this context, the SIEF/UNESCO relation is a perfect foil for discussing the relationship between research and practice in the fields of ethnology and folklore. Indeed, one way to consider the ICH program is as an aspect of the history of the discipline(s).
Robert Baron (Goucher College)
Paper short abstract:
UNESCO's ICH program relies upon "experts" while stressing community participation. While reconciling policy critique with ICH engagement is challenging, SIEF members can provide ethically grounded expertise for documentation, transmission and programs that enable cultural self-determination.
Paper long abstract:
Since its inception, the UNESCO ICH safeguarding program has relied upon "experts", while emphasizing the imperative of community participation. Mediating with communities as cultural brokers, ethnologists and folklorists are especially well equipped to facilitate access to resources, provide professional direction for documentation, cultural transmission and programming; and facilitate community cultural self-determination. We face challenges in reconciling policy critique as critical heritage scholars and involvement in ICH activities which can have substantial social and cultural impacts upon communities. While non-engagement might maintain putative academic purity, the ICH project will continue whether or not we are involved. Praxis grounded in professional expertise and ethics can contribute to cultural sustainability while expanding employment and the societal impact of ethnology and folklore.
We could imagine many ways SIEF can contribute to the UNESCO ICH safeguarding program. More substantive, ethnographically informed documentation could be a next stage beyond item oriented inventorying. We can shape documentary practices that are more technically proficient and contain community driven representational practices. Our understanding of how traditions are transmitted can be applied to teaching, mentoring and apprenticeships. SIEF can develop modes of presentation agentive for cultural groups, sustaining traditions while representing them to others on a community's own terms. We can help develop sustainable cultural tourism projects which limit damage to the ecology of traditions, informed by critical scholarship about tourism's cultural impacts. As an accredited NGO, we could evaluate applications for the ICH representative list and have a voice in policy grounded in our professional standards and ethical concerns.