Konwencja UNESCO w sprawie ochrony niematerialnego dziedzictwa kulturowego: archeologia pojęć

• Authors: Klekot Ewa

Title variants

EN

Convention on Safeguarding of Intangible Heritage: an archaeology of notions

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

The Convention on Safeguarding of Intangible Heritage arises from the need of including in the discourse on heritage the non–western ways of living the past. We could say that if the Convention from 1972 was aimed at realizing the UNESCO political agenda on the ground of the Western modern utopian project of universalism, the Convention of 2003 puts in motion the post-modern utopia of relativism, yet without renouncing the modern tools with which to realize it. According to the 2003 Convention, it is the multiplicity of value systems, and the heritage as their expressions put in the inventory, that become the assets of humanity construed as a community (UNESCO’s political objective). The multicultural character of heritage affirmed in the Convention from 2003 has an emancipatory meaning: the subaltern, peripheral value systems are given, at least in theory, the same position as the so far dominating value system of the colonizers. In a decentralized world Europe becomes a province in the same way as the rest of the world, and the Indian, Japanese or Australian perspective is equally valid as the European of American. However, the Convention on Safeguarding of Intangible Heritage, which is supposed to enhance the status of phenomena not included in the 1972 Convention, located outside the authorized heritage discourse, requires different safeguarding strategies. First, as it is a human activity that gets protection, and not at all, or to the less extend the material result of this activity, what is not valid here is the safeguarding by conservation, which is the basic strategy in the case of the objects inscribed in the World Heritage List. The crucial strategy in safeguarding of intangible heritage is education which includes the skills and rules into intergenerational transmission. The institutions and persons involved in safeguarding of intangible heritage are first and foremost required to provide suitable conditions for the future development of a cultural practice declared heritage. What is safeguarded are the living cultural traditions, and not their historical reconstructions. The safeguarding based on education can also result in broadening the group of depositaries of a practice which will become being practiced outside of its community of origin. On the other hand, a living practice will evolve and change, and of crucial importance is then the continuity of traditional system of intergenerational transmission. The article addresses several questions related to implementation of the 2003 Convention in Polish cultural context. Some heritage–related notions involved in discursive practices within the field of humanities and social sciences in Polish academic tradition are discussed, and history–related production of hierarchies within the field in Polish academia pointed at in the context of the heritage of local subalterns (peasants) and minorities. The social impact of these practices is exposed, as they have influenced both the translation of international documents and their reception, as well as the safeguarding practices. The local developments are contextualized within the international conservation and heritage studies discourse.

Keywords

PL

konwencje UNESCO; ochrona dziedzictwa; zabytek; dziedzictwo niematerialne; kultura ludowa

• Publisher: Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
• Journal: Ochrona Zabytków
• Year: 2014
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 31-40

Dates

published

2014

Contributors

author

Klekot Ewa

• dr, antropolożka, tłumaczka, Instytut Etnologii i Antropologii Kulturowej Uniwersytet Warszawski

References

• Bauman Z., Kultura jako praxis, Warszawa 2012.
• Brzezińska A.W., Reifikacja dziedzictwa kulturowego w świetle Konwencji UNESCO z 2003 roku, „Nauka” 2013, nr 1, s. 109-128.
• Chakrabarty D., Prowincjonalizacja Europy, Poznań 2011.
• Fabian J., Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object, Nowy Jork 2003.
• Kirshenblatt-Gimblett B., Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production, „Museum International” 2004, t. 56, nr 1-2, s. 52-64.
• Korduba P., Ludowość na sprzedaż, Warszawa 2013.
• Kowalski A., When Cultural Capitalization Became Global Practice: The 1972 World Heritage Convention, [w:] Bandelj N. i Wherry F. (red.), The Cultural Wealth of Nations, Stanford 2011, s. 73-89.
• Kuutma K., Between Arbitration and Engineering: Concepts and Contingencies in the Shaping of Heritage Regimes, [w:] Bendix R., Eggert A. i Peselmann A. (red.), Heritage Regimes and the State, Getynga 2012, s. 22-36.
• Libera Z., Lud ludoznawców: Kilka rysów do opisania fizjognomii i postaci ludu naszego, czyli etnograficzna wycieczka po XIX wieku, [w:] Posern-Zieliński A. (red.), Etnologia polska między ludoznawstwem a antropologią, Poznań 1995, s. 137-152.
• Lowenthal D., The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History, Cambridge 1998.
• Przyborowska-Klimczak A., Międzynarodowa ochrona niematerialnego dziedzictwa kulturalnego, „Problemy Współczesnego Prawa Międzynarodowego, Europejskiego i Porównawczego” 2005, t. 3, s. 5-21.
• Smith L., Uses of Heritage, Londyn i Nowy Jork 2006.
• Węglarz S., Chłopi jako „obcy”. Prolegomena, [w:] Burszta W., Damrosz J. (red.), Pożegnanie paradygmatu? Etnologia wobec współczesności, Warszawa 1994, s. 78-101.

Identifiers

ISSN

0029-8247