The Paradox of Value Attribution in Intangible Cultural Heritage

Introduction

Cultural heritage, a manifestation of society's cumulative knowledge, beliefs, and customs, goes beyond tangible artifacts and edifices. The preservation and interpretation of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) — traditions, rituals, stories, music, dance, and other non-physical facets of a cultural group's identity — are equally vital. This essay explores the complex process of defining and categorizing ICH, analyzes the paradox of value attribution in ICH, and assesses the effectiveness and limitations of current practices in preserving ICH. It uses the decolonization lens and the cultural iceberg model to make sense of these problems and to clarify perspectives. The case studies of the Ute Grandfather Tree, the Hikaye in Palestine, and Capoeira in Brazil are employed to illustrate practical implications.

Defining and Categorizing ICH

Understanding ICH necessitates a deep engagement with the fluidity and subjectivity inherent in cultural practices. It is an intricate matrix of accumulated wisdom, artistic expressions, rituals, and customs that ceaselessly mutate and evolve. As Lira and Amoêda (2019) suggest, the construction of ICH is an ongoing process. It is not a static catalog that can be inventoried or archived, but a dynamic entity that mirrors the rich diversity of human cultures, their identity, and their relationship with their environment. Kurin (2004) supports this viewpoint, emphasizing that ICH is intrinsically "dynamic and changing, not static and timeless" (p. 66). He further highlights the "invented" nature of traditions, suggesting that traditions are continually created and recreated in response to changing societal circumstances. Pereira Roders and Van Oers (2011) also recognize the active nature of ICH and the role communities play in its creation and recreation, highlighting the community as the primary steward and the driving force behind the sustenance of ICH. This interaction of communities with ICH underscores its fluid, ever-evolving nature.

Furthermore, studies by Deacon et al. (2004) argue that ICH does not exist in a vacuum; it is deeply rooted in the tangible world. Their work elucidates the profound linkages between the tangible and intangible elements of heritage, emphasizing that ICH gives meaning to objects, spaces, and landscapes, while the physical world shapes the ways ICH is enacted and expressed.

Yet, although these perspectives enrich our understanding, the challenge of defining ICH for preservation and safeguarding becomes evident. The effort to create universal categories for ICH can oversimplify and homogenize the immense diversity and fluidity of these practices. As Bortolotto (2011) has critically pointed out, the attempt to "list" or "classify" ICH can inadvertently lead to freezing and fossilizing these dynamic practices.

The efforts to standardize and categorize ICH for preservation and safeguarding purposes often run into difficulties. The adoption of a universal ICH framework is problematic given the cultural diversity it seeks to capture. For instance, the Hikaye, an oral narrative tradition in Palestine, is deeply rooted in a unique socio-historical context that is distinct from other oral traditions worldwide. Therefore, trying to fit it into a broad category such as "oral narratives" may result in oversimplification and loss of cultural specificity. One way to address this problem is to apply an appropriate lens. For that reason, the decolonization lens can help provide clarity.

The Decolonization Lens

Decolonization, as a theoretical and practical approach, compels us to critically examine and confront the power structures that underpin the categorization, interpretation, and preservation of ICH. This lens challenges the prevailing Eurocentric models and assumptions that have historically shaped the global heritage field, offering an opportunity to dismantle these structures and advance more inclusive, equitable, and contextually relevant practices.

The process of decolonizing ICH involves several interconnected layers (Schaepe et al., 2020). First, it requires a reevaluation of how we define and categorize ICH. As noted earlier, existing categories — largely shaped by Western frameworks — often fail to capture the fluidity, diversity, and holistic nature of non-Western cultural practices. They can also inadvertently marginalize certain forms of ICH that do not conform to these Western-centric categories. Through a decolonization lens, we can strive to establish more inclusive and contextually relevant categorizations that reflect diverse cultural perspectives and experiences.

Second, decolonization challenges the processes of value attribution in ICH, which is the core paradox explored in this essay (Eichler, 2021). Value is not an inherent attribute of ICH; it is a socially constructed notion influenced by various factors, including power dynamics, cultural contexts, and historical experiences. In many instances, the values attributed to ICH are filtered through a Western lens, which often prioritizes certain forms of heritage over others. Decolonization pushes us to acknowledge and confront these power dynamics, fostering a more pluralistic understanding of value that respects and validates diverse cultural perspectives.

Third, decolonization involves reclaiming agency in the interpretation and preservation of ICH. Decisions about what aspects of ICH are preserved, how they are interpreted, and who gets to make these decisions are often controlled by dominant groups, leading to the marginalization of other voices. Decolonization emphasizes the need to decentralize this power, giving agency back to the communities who are the custodians of the ICH (Eichler, 2021). This shift not only fosters more accurate and authentic interpretations of ICH but also empowers communities to assert their cultural rights and sovereignty.

Finally, decolonization invites a reassessment of the role of institutions in ICH preservation (Bortolotto, 2012). Museums, heritage organizations, and even UNESCO, while playing vital roles in preserving and promoting ICH, often operate within Western-centric paradigms. Decolonization encourages these institutions to critically interrogate their practices, ideologies, and relationships with communities, pushing for structural changes that align with decolonial principles.

Overall, decolonization provides a pathway to deconstruct and reconstruct the ways we engage with ICH. It prompts us to listen, learn, and respond to diverse cultural voices, challenge our assumptions, and strive for more equitable, inclusive, and respectful heritage practices. It does not provide easy solutions, but it illuminates the complexities, tensions, and possibilities inherent in the field of ICH preservation, ultimately enriching our understanding and appreciation of our shared cultural heritage.

Conclusion

ICH preservation is not merely about safeguarding traditions; it is about protecting the cultural diversity that makes our shared human experience rich and complex. However, the paradox of value attribution, the challenges of categorization, and the limitations of current preservation practices present significant hurdles. The future of ICH preservation may lie in more inclusive practices that recognize the inherent subjectivity in value attribution, the dynamic nature of cultural practices, and the need for equitable resource distribution. Furthermore, the use of innovative technologies and methods to capture the living essence of ICH — such as virtual reality or experiential storytelling — might offer ways to overcome current limitations. But perhaps most importantly, we must remember that preserving ICH is, in itself, an intangible cultural process — one that we continually shape and redefine as our societies evolve.

References

Aikawa, N., 2004. An historical overview of the preparation of the UNESCO International Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Museum International, 56(1–2), pp. 137–149.

Assunção, M.R., 2005. Capoeira: A History of an Afro-Brazilian Martial Art. Psychology Press.

Bortolotto, C., 2012. The French inventory of intangible cultural heritage: Domesticating a global paradigm into French heritage regime. Heritage Regimes and the State, p. 265.

Cameron, C. and Ross, M., 2007. From Vienna to Quebec: Shifting concepts of World Heritage, 1965–2005. In G. Fairclough, R. Harrison, J. Schofield and J. Jameson (Eds.), The Heritage Reader. Routledge.

Deacon, H., Dondolo, L., Mrubata, M. and Prosalendis, S., 2004. The Subtle Power of Intangible Heritage: Legal and Financial Instruments for Safeguarding Intangible Heritage. HSRC Press.

Downey, G., 2005. Learning Capoeira: Lessons in Cunning from an Afro-Brazilian Art. Oxford University Press.

Eichler, J., 2021. Intangible cultural heritage, inequalities and participation: who decides on heritage? The International Journal of Human Rights, 25(5), pp. 793–814.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B., 1998. Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage. University of California Press.

Kurin, R., 2004. Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage in the 2003 UNESCO Convention: a critical appraisal. Museum International, 56(1–2), pp. 66–77.

Lira, S. and Amoêda, R. (Eds.), 2019. Constructing Intangible Heritage. Green Lines Institute for Sustainable Development.

Pereira Roders, A. and Van Oers, R., 2011. Bridging cultural heritage and sustainable development. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 1(1), pp. 5–14.

Schaepe, D.M., Nicholas, G. and Dolata, K., 2020. Recommendations for Decolonizing British Columbia's Heritage-Related Processes and Legislation. First Peoples' Cultural Council, 73.

Smith, L., 2006. Uses of Heritage. Routledge.

Smith, L., 2022. All Heritage is Intangible: Critical Heritage Studies and Museums. Routledge.

Waterton, E. and Watson, S., 2013. Framing theory: Towards a critical imagination in heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(6), pp. 546–561.