Introduction: reflecting on heritage diplomacy

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q2 CULTURAL STUDIES International Journal of Cultural Policy Pub Date : 2022-12-22 DOI:10.1080/10286632.2022.2141730
Viktorija L. A. Čeginskas, Tuuli Lähdesmäki
{"title":"Introduction: reflecting on heritage diplomacy","authors":"Viktorija L. A. Čeginskas, Tuuli Lähdesmäki","doi":"10.1080/10286632.2022.2141730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cultural heritage is an essential element in transmitting values, establishing narratives of historical and contemporary connectivity, and creating subjective and collective identities and a feeling of belonging. During the past decade, the potential of cultural heritage for state foreign policy and in international heritage governance has attracted increasing interest among heritage scholars. This potential, however, remains under-researched in the broader spectrum of international cultural relations. This special issue focuses on international cultural relations dealing with cultural heritage and culture in terms of heritage diplomacy. The contributors discuss the potentials and limitations of heritage diplomacy and how it could or should be approached in theory, policy, and praxis. The aim of the issue is to critically explore the previous research of heritage diplomacy, develop its theoretical basis and scope, and thereby extend the discussion to new topics and themes. To recognize the potential of cultural heritage for international cultural relations, it is helpful to conceptualize heritage as a presentist and future-orientated process through which realities are constructed from the selected elements of the past (e.g. Ashworth, Graham, and Tunbridge 2007; Harrison 2013a; Lähdesmäki et al. 2020). In this conception, cultural heritage is not an essentialist ‘fact’ but emerges when something is narrated, defined, and/or treated as such in a specific sociocultural context (van Huis et al. 2019). The conception underlines how all heritage includes dissonances regarding the stories told through it, the ways the past is represented, and how memories are used in public spheres (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996). This dissonance is not undesirable, but intrinsic to the very nature of heritage (Smith 2006, 82; Graham and Howard 2008, 3; Kisić 2016, 25) and crucial to its potential to look to the future. In this orientation to the future, cultural heritage has an active role: it ‘does’ things when actors discuss, manage, and use heritage for different purposes (Harrison 2013a, 2013b; Whitehead et al. 2019; Lähdesmäki and Čeginskas 2022). This capacity makes cultural heritage favourable ground for political projects; different meanings are attributed to heritage in diplomatic engagements, from the material and tangible to ideational structures (see also Giulia Sciorati 2023). Critical heritage scholars have often underlined the political dimension of cultural heritage. It functions as an arena for both manifesting and negotiating (dissonant) meanings, values and identities (e.g. van Huis et al. 2019; Kisić 2016; Harrison 2013a; Mäkinen et al. 2023). It may promote established worldviews and power hierarchies but also question them by offering space for deconstructing power asymmetries and creating novel dialogic connections between people. These different approaches to cultural heritage explain its utility for diplomacy. Diverse definitions have been attributed to diplomacy in scholarship and practice. The use of terms such as ‘cultural diplomacy’, ‘public diplomacy,’ ‘new public diplomacy,’ and ‘(international) cultural relations’ reflect the development of the term throughout time. While all terms foreground the relevance of culture in diplomatic endeavours for creating (chiefly positive) engagements between states and people to negotiate mutual interests, to maintain peaceful relations and a geopolitical status quo, the concepts may diverge on understandings of the roles in, governance and aims of diplomacy (see also Dâmaso 2021, 7–8). In this issue, the contributors predominantly take one of two approaches, to frame heritage diplomacy in terms of cultural diplomacy or (international) cultural relations. Cultural diplomacy can be understood as a more traditional approach to diplomacy, which assumes that the state remains the central actor and is preoccupied with advancing its foreign policy goals and using culture for nation-branding. In contrast, (international) cultural INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURAL POLICY 2023, VOL. 29, NO. 1, 1–8 https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141730","PeriodicalId":51520,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","volume":"39 1","pages":"1 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141730","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Cultural heritage is an essential element in transmitting values, establishing narratives of historical and contemporary connectivity, and creating subjective and collective identities and a feeling of belonging. During the past decade, the potential of cultural heritage for state foreign policy and in international heritage governance has attracted increasing interest among heritage scholars. This potential, however, remains under-researched in the broader spectrum of international cultural relations. This special issue focuses on international cultural relations dealing with cultural heritage and culture in terms of heritage diplomacy. The contributors discuss the potentials and limitations of heritage diplomacy and how it could or should be approached in theory, policy, and praxis. The aim of the issue is to critically explore the previous research of heritage diplomacy, develop its theoretical basis and scope, and thereby extend the discussion to new topics and themes. To recognize the potential of cultural heritage for international cultural relations, it is helpful to conceptualize heritage as a presentist and future-orientated process through which realities are constructed from the selected elements of the past (e.g. Ashworth, Graham, and Tunbridge 2007; Harrison 2013a; Lähdesmäki et al. 2020). In this conception, cultural heritage is not an essentialist ‘fact’ but emerges when something is narrated, defined, and/or treated as such in a specific sociocultural context (van Huis et al. 2019). The conception underlines how all heritage includes dissonances regarding the stories told through it, the ways the past is represented, and how memories are used in public spheres (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996). This dissonance is not undesirable, but intrinsic to the very nature of heritage (Smith 2006, 82; Graham and Howard 2008, 3; Kisić 2016, 25) and crucial to its potential to look to the future. In this orientation to the future, cultural heritage has an active role: it ‘does’ things when actors discuss, manage, and use heritage for different purposes (Harrison 2013a, 2013b; Whitehead et al. 2019; Lähdesmäki and Čeginskas 2022). This capacity makes cultural heritage favourable ground for political projects; different meanings are attributed to heritage in diplomatic engagements, from the material and tangible to ideational structures (see also Giulia Sciorati 2023). Critical heritage scholars have often underlined the political dimension of cultural heritage. It functions as an arena for both manifesting and negotiating (dissonant) meanings, values and identities (e.g. van Huis et al. 2019; Kisić 2016; Harrison 2013a; Mäkinen et al. 2023). It may promote established worldviews and power hierarchies but also question them by offering space for deconstructing power asymmetries and creating novel dialogic connections between people. These different approaches to cultural heritage explain its utility for diplomacy. Diverse definitions have been attributed to diplomacy in scholarship and practice. The use of terms such as ‘cultural diplomacy’, ‘public diplomacy,’ ‘new public diplomacy,’ and ‘(international) cultural relations’ reflect the development of the term throughout time. While all terms foreground the relevance of culture in diplomatic endeavours for creating (chiefly positive) engagements between states and people to negotiate mutual interests, to maintain peaceful relations and a geopolitical status quo, the concepts may diverge on understandings of the roles in, governance and aims of diplomacy (see also Dâmaso 2021, 7–8). In this issue, the contributors predominantly take one of two approaches, to frame heritage diplomacy in terms of cultural diplomacy or (international) cultural relations. Cultural diplomacy can be understood as a more traditional approach to diplomacy, which assumes that the state remains the central actor and is preoccupied with advancing its foreign policy goals and using culture for nation-branding. In contrast, (international) cultural INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURAL POLICY 2023, VOL. 29, NO. 1, 1–8 https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141730
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
引言:对遗产外交的反思
文化遗产是传递价值观、建立历史和当代连通性叙事、创造主观和集体身份以及归属感的基本要素。在过去的十年中,文化遗产在国家外交政策和国际遗产治理方面的潜力吸引了越来越多的遗产学者的兴趣。然而,这种潜力在更广泛的国际文化关系中仍未得到充分研究。本期特刊关注的是处理文化遗产的国际文化关系,以及遗产外交中的文化。作者讨论了遗产外交的潜力和局限性,以及如何在理论、政策和实践中进行。本期的目的是批判性地探索以往的遗产外交研究,发展其理论基础和范围,从而将讨论扩展到新的议题和主题。为了认识到文化遗产对国际文化关系的潜力,将遗产概念化为一个面向现在和未来的过程是有帮助的,通过这个过程,现实是从过去的选定元素中构建出来的(例如Ashworth, Graham, and Tunbridge 2007;哈里森2013;Lähdesmäki et al. 2020)。在这一概念中,文化遗产不是本质主义的“事实”,而是在特定的社会文化背景下被叙述、定义和/或对待时出现的(van Huis et al. 2019)。这个概念强调了所有的遗产是如何包含关于通过它讲述的故事的不和谐,过去的表现方式,以及如何在公共领域使用记忆(Tunbridge和Ashworth 1996)。这种不和谐不是不受欢迎的,而是遗产本质的内在(Smith 2006,82;格雷厄姆和霍华德2008,3;kisiki 2016, 25),对其展望未来的潜力至关重要。在这种未来取向中,文化遗产具有积极的作用:当行动者出于不同目的讨论、管理和使用遗产时,它“做”了事情(Harrison 2013a, 2013b;Whitehead et al. 2019;Lähdesmäki和Čeginskas 2022)。这种能力使文化遗产成为政治项目的有利基础;在外交活动中,遗产被赋予了不同的含义,从物质和有形到概念结构(另见Giulia Sciorati 2023)。批判文化遗产的学者经常强调文化遗产的政治维度。它是一个展示和谈判(不和谐)意义、价值观和身份的舞台(例如van Huis等人。2019;基西人ć2016;哈里森2013;Mäkinen et al. 2023)。它可能会促进既定的世界观和权力等级制度,但也会通过提供解构权力不对称的空间和创造人与人之间新的对话联系来质疑它们。这些对待文化遗产的不同方法解释了文化遗产在外交上的效用。外交在学术和实践中有着不同的定义。诸如“文化外交”、“公共外交”、“新公共外交”和“(国际)文化关系”等术语的使用反映了该术语在整个时期的发展。虽然所有术语都强调了文化在外交努力中的相关性,即在国家和人民之间建立(主要是积极的)接触,以协商共同利益,维持和平关系和地缘政治现状,但这些概念可能在对外交中的作用,治理和目标的理解上存在分歧(另见d maso 2021, 7-8)。在本期中,作者主要采用两种方法中的一种,从文化外交或(国际)文化关系的角度来构建遗产外交。文化外交可以被理解为一种更传统的外交方式,它假设国家仍然是核心角色,专注于推进其外交政策目标,并利用文化进行国家品牌推广。(国际)《国际文化政策学报》2023年第29卷第2期。1,1 - 8 https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141730
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
59
期刊最新文献
The road to censorship: the case of digital audiovisual industries in India Inverse relationships between cultural sustainability and human rights: the counterintuitive cases of Nigerian Avu Udu dance and white-power music Rethinking ‘collective effervescence,’ post-COVID-19: what Japanese punks can teach us about crowd control Entrepreneurship at the edge? The characteristics and role of creative entrepreneurs in peripheral regions Creative and cultural hub sustainability: from theory to practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1