Pub Date : 2022-12-22DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2022.2141726
S. Groth
ABSTRACT Cultural heritage has continually been employed as a strategic resource in EU external relations and to foster cohesion between member states and pre-accession countries. In these contexts, authorized and hegemonic versions of European and national heritage have been favoured to use culture as ‘soft power.’ While diversity has been an integral part of European heritage conceptions, it is limited in scope and scale and entails exclusions against perceived foreign or peripheral aspects. As participation and community involvement gain more prominent roles in current heritage developments (e.g. UNESCO, ICH, and the Council of Europe’s Faro convention), marginalized or hybrid elements of heritage and abstract values attached to cultural heritage become more important. Based on comparative policy and document analyses of EU policy programs, the paper asks how, as part of such processes, one can observe an emphasis on value-based approaches to heritage as part of EU external relations rather than on specific contents of cultural heritage. The paper examines how EU institutions aim to integrate dissonant heritages and linkages to non-European aspects into authorized forms of heritage by employing a value-based perception of cultural heritage.
{"title":"Mainstreaming heritages: abstract heritage values as strategic resources in EU external relations","authors":"S. Groth","doi":"10.1080/10286632.2022.2141726","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141726","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Cultural heritage has continually been employed as a strategic resource in EU external relations and to foster cohesion between member states and pre-accession countries. In these contexts, authorized and hegemonic versions of European and national heritage have been favoured to use culture as ‘soft power.’ While diversity has been an integral part of European heritage conceptions, it is limited in scope and scale and entails exclusions against perceived foreign or peripheral aspects. As participation and community involvement gain more prominent roles in current heritage developments (e.g. UNESCO, ICH, and the Council of Europe’s Faro convention), marginalized or hybrid elements of heritage and abstract values attached to cultural heritage become more important. Based on comparative policy and document analyses of EU policy programs, the paper asks how, as part of such processes, one can observe an emphasis on value-based approaches to heritage as part of EU external relations rather than on specific contents of cultural heritage. The paper examines how EU institutions aim to integrate dissonant heritages and linkages to non-European aspects into authorized forms of heritage by employing a value-based perception of cultural heritage.","PeriodicalId":51520,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","volume":"60 1","pages":"23 - 33"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85859662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-22DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2022.2141727
Hanna Schreiber, B. Pieliński
ABSTRACT This paper aims to reflect on heritage diplomacy by analysing the nature of tensions in Global Heritage Regimes (GHRs) built around the World Heritage Convention and the Intangible Heritage Convention. Combining regime theory with Ostroms’ typology of goods, we claim that the process of transforming the abstract idea of ‘Heritage of Humanity’ (HoH) into an outcome in the form of a heritage list needs to mobilise heritage as diplomacy and also is the result of heritage as diplomacy. At the same time, the transformation generates tension based on the experienced delusion of (1) the expectations built upon the inclusive idea of the ‘Heritage of Humanity’ (public good) and (2) the exclusive character of heritage lists (club goods). We claim that this ‘Inclusion-Exclusion Tension’ (IET) is an inherent element of global heritage regime design and as such needs to be managed through diplomatic efforts.
{"title":"Inviting all humanity to an elite club? Understanding tensions in UNESCO’s global heritage regimes through the lens of a typology of goods","authors":"Hanna Schreiber, B. Pieliński","doi":"10.1080/10286632.2022.2141727","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141727","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper aims to reflect on heritage diplomacy by analysing the nature of tensions in Global Heritage Regimes (GHRs) built around the World Heritage Convention and the Intangible Heritage Convention. Combining regime theory with Ostroms’ typology of goods, we claim that the process of transforming the abstract idea of ‘Heritage of Humanity’ (HoH) into an outcome in the form of a heritage list needs to mobilise heritage as diplomacy and also is the result of heritage as diplomacy. At the same time, the transformation generates tension based on the experienced delusion of (1) the expectations built upon the inclusive idea of the ‘Heritage of Humanity’ (public good) and (2) the exclusive character of heritage lists (club goods). We claim that this ‘Inclusion-Exclusion Tension’ (IET) is an inherent element of global heritage regime design and as such needs to be managed through diplomatic efforts.","PeriodicalId":51520,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","volume":"102 1","pages":"113 - 129"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81278698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-22DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2022.2141728
Tim Winter
Back in 1995, I travelled to Kiev to stay with a Ukrainian friend that I had met in England. Complicated visa requirements, along with copious amounts of vodka, made it very clear that I had left Europe and entered a country navigating major social and political change in the wake of a collapsed Soviet Union. I was surprised then to hear war correspondents in 2022 describe Ukraine as lying at ‘the heart of Europe’. But in noticing that it was only ‘Western’ media outlets that used this terminology, I was reminded of how, and why, geocultural imaginaries such as Europe are contingent, fluid and constantly being remade, in this case by a military invasion and the analytics of its wider geopolitical consequence. Back in the mid-1990s, the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia meant that Europe’s frontiers were being defined around those countries located to the southwest of Ukraine, in the Balkans and Mediterranean. But then, as now, the idea of Europe was not merely geographical, but wrapped up in questions of civilisation, religion, values, and peoples. It was with such issues in mind that I read with great interest the articles presented in this special issue. Across a number of the papers we see how Europe as a concept is in constant flux and production, whether it be through webs of documentation that make up policy and bureaucracy, or through the valorisation of particular cities, the language of shared heritage oriented around certain values, or through efforts to build cultural and political ties with countries in other parts of the world. The two additional papers here nicely complement this analysis in their respective examination of China’s Silk Road engagements with Central Asia, and the role of UNESCO’s conventions in shaping ideas about heritage as a ‘public good’ at the global level. In reading the papers, I was reminded that they straddle two overlapping, yet distinct ways of approaching heritage diplomacy. The first is to frame it as a domain of practice, something that governments do as part of their ‘soft power’ strategy. Here, we can draw a parallel with those institutes for cultural diplomacy that have sprung up around the world in recent decades. Academic or think-tank, these institutes tend to view cultural diplomacy as an arm of government policy, and thus discuss it in terms of strategy, trends, innovation, or, perhaps, the loftier goals of peace and reconciliation. It is possible to think of heritage diplomacy in such ways, either as a separate, or sub field of the cultural. The second approach is to see heritage diplomacy as a conceptual framework, one that holds distinct critical purchase. Today, both terms, heritage and diplomacy, are used multifariously. This means that attempts to reduce this conceptual frame to a single sentence definition risks inadequately capturing the various ways it can be developed over time to interpret a multitude of events and contexts. Recent scholarship on diplomacy, for example, emphasises
{"title":"Heritage diplomacy; an afterword","authors":"Tim Winter","doi":"10.1080/10286632.2022.2141728","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141728","url":null,"abstract":"Back in 1995, I travelled to Kiev to stay with a Ukrainian friend that I had met in England. Complicated visa requirements, along with copious amounts of vodka, made it very clear that I had left Europe and entered a country navigating major social and political change in the wake of a collapsed Soviet Union. I was surprised then to hear war correspondents in 2022 describe Ukraine as lying at ‘the heart of Europe’. But in noticing that it was only ‘Western’ media outlets that used this terminology, I was reminded of how, and why, geocultural imaginaries such as Europe are contingent, fluid and constantly being remade, in this case by a military invasion and the analytics of its wider geopolitical consequence. Back in the mid-1990s, the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia meant that Europe’s frontiers were being defined around those countries located to the southwest of Ukraine, in the Balkans and Mediterranean. But then, as now, the idea of Europe was not merely geographical, but wrapped up in questions of civilisation, religion, values, and peoples. It was with such issues in mind that I read with great interest the articles presented in this special issue. Across a number of the papers we see how Europe as a concept is in constant flux and production, whether it be through webs of documentation that make up policy and bureaucracy, or through the valorisation of particular cities, the language of shared heritage oriented around certain values, or through efforts to build cultural and political ties with countries in other parts of the world. The two additional papers here nicely complement this analysis in their respective examination of China’s Silk Road engagements with Central Asia, and the role of UNESCO’s conventions in shaping ideas about heritage as a ‘public good’ at the global level. In reading the papers, I was reminded that they straddle two overlapping, yet distinct ways of approaching heritage diplomacy. The first is to frame it as a domain of practice, something that governments do as part of their ‘soft power’ strategy. Here, we can draw a parallel with those institutes for cultural diplomacy that have sprung up around the world in recent decades. Academic or think-tank, these institutes tend to view cultural diplomacy as an arm of government policy, and thus discuss it in terms of strategy, trends, innovation, or, perhaps, the loftier goals of peace and reconciliation. It is possible to think of heritage diplomacy in such ways, either as a separate, or sub field of the cultural. The second approach is to see heritage diplomacy as a conceptual framework, one that holds distinct critical purchase. Today, both terms, heritage and diplomacy, are used multifariously. This means that attempts to reduce this conceptual frame to a single sentence definition risks inadequately capturing the various ways it can be developed over time to interpret a multitude of events and contexts. Recent scholarship on diplomacy, for example, emphasises ","PeriodicalId":51520,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","volume":"284 1","pages":"130 - 134"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76843969","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-22DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2022.2141719
Viktorija L. A. Čeginskas, Tuuli Lähdesmäki
ABSTRACT Culture and cultural heritage have become central aspects in the European Union’s (EU) foreign policy that increasingly emphasizes dialogue and people-to-people connections as the basis for international cultural relations. This article explores 11 projects jointly facilitated by the European Union National Institutes for Culture (EUNIC) and EU Delegations in nine countries located in Europe, Africa, and South America as part of a strategic cooperation between the European Commission, the European External Action Service and EUNIC. We identify five modes of highlighting dialogue as a key element in the EU’s international cultural relations and discuss how the ideas of dialogue, cultural heritage, values, and diplomacy are entangled and interrelated in our data. The study underlines the core role of the cooperation between EUNIC and EU Delegations and shows how a dialogic approach determines the EU’s international cultural relations and at the same time interconnects its international and internal policy aims.
{"title":"Dialogic approach in the EU’s international cultural relations: joint EUNIC-EU delegation projects as heritage diplomacy","authors":"Viktorija L. A. Čeginskas, Tuuli Lähdesmäki","doi":"10.1080/10286632.2022.2141719","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141719","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Culture and cultural heritage have become central aspects in the European Union’s (EU) foreign policy that increasingly emphasizes dialogue and people-to-people connections as the basis for international cultural relations. This article explores 11 projects jointly facilitated by the European Union National Institutes for Culture (EUNIC) and EU Delegations in nine countries located in Europe, Africa, and South America as part of a strategic cooperation between the European Commission, the European External Action Service and EUNIC. We identify five modes of highlighting dialogue as a key element in the EU’s international cultural relations and discuss how the ideas of dialogue, cultural heritage, values, and diplomacy are entangled and interrelated in our data. The study underlines the core role of the cooperation between EUNIC and EU Delegations and shows how a dialogic approach determines the EU’s international cultural relations and at the same time interconnects its international and internal policy aims.","PeriodicalId":51520,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","volume":"59 1","pages":"34 - 50"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74347714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-22DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2022.2141730
Viktorija L. A. Čeginskas, Tuuli Lähdesmäki
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 attri
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
{"title":"Introduction: reflecting on heritage diplomacy","authors":"Viktorija L. A. Čeginskas, Tuuli Lähdesmäki","doi":"10.1080/10286632.2022.2141730","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141730","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 attri","PeriodicalId":51520,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","volume":"39 1","pages":"1 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81233454","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-22DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2022.2141723
Johanna Turunen, Sigrid Kaasik-Krogerus
ABSTRACT The article focuses on difficult heritage associated with three forms of structural violence in European history – the Communist and Nazi regimes and the former European colonies. We scrutinize how these three sources of difficult heritage are used in heritage diplomacy in the EU’s flagship heritage action, the European Heritage Label (EHL). On the one hand we analyse ‘diplomacy’ as principles and practices aimed at creating and maintaining peaceful and working relationships between actors both within and beyond the EU. On the other hand, we build on the related adjective ‘diplomatic’ as a tactful, delicate, and sensitive way of maintaining human relations. Our empirical data consists of interviews conducted at three EHL sites (Historic Gdańsk Shipyard (Poland), Camp Westerbork (the Netherlands) and Sagres Promontory (Portugal). We argue that unlike in the heritage of Communist and Nazi regimes, the potential for societal heritage diplomacy remains largely unrealized for colonial regimes.
{"title":"Debating structural violence in European heritage diplomacy","authors":"Johanna Turunen, Sigrid Kaasik-Krogerus","doi":"10.1080/10286632.2022.2141723","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141723","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The article focuses on difficult heritage associated with three forms of structural violence in European history – the Communist and Nazi regimes and the former European colonies. We scrutinize how these three sources of difficult heritage are used in heritage diplomacy in the EU’s flagship heritage action, the European Heritage Label (EHL). On the one hand we analyse ‘diplomacy’ as principles and practices aimed at creating and maintaining peaceful and working relationships between actors both within and beyond the EU. On the other hand, we build on the related adjective ‘diplomatic’ as a tactful, delicate, and sensitive way of maintaining human relations. Our empirical data consists of interviews conducted at three EHL sites (Historic Gdańsk Shipyard (Poland), Camp Westerbork (the Netherlands) and Sagres Promontory (Portugal). We argue that unlike in the heritage of Communist and Nazi regimes, the potential for societal heritage diplomacy remains largely unrealized for colonial regimes.","PeriodicalId":51520,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","volume":"14 1","pages":"51 - 62"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80842373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-22DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2022.2141721
Natalia Grincheva
ABSTRACT Tracing transformations in the museum agency under the pressure of the pandemic crisis in 2020, the article conceptualizes museums as dynamic ‘contact zones’ of heritage diplomacy. It explores two foundational components of a contact zone, such as building a social space for a cross-cultural encounter, negotiation and debate as well as offering a platform to address transnational concerns on the heritage decolonization agenda. Drawing on desk research, document analysis and semi-structured interviews with museum professionals, it analyses the case studies of the livestreaming bilateral museum diplomacy and metaverse live heritage pandemic diplomacy, followed by a discussion on the processes of museums decolonization that started to unfold in response to the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement. The research argues that the impact of the digitalization pressures did not only affect the ways, forms, and structures of cross-cultural communications in museums, but also moved them a bit forward in their decolonization processes.
{"title":"‘Contact zones’ of heritage diplomacy: transformations of museums in the (post)pandemic reality","authors":"Natalia Grincheva","doi":"10.1080/10286632.2022.2141721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141721","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Tracing transformations in the museum agency under the pressure of the pandemic crisis in 2020, the article conceptualizes museums as dynamic ‘contact zones’ of heritage diplomacy. It explores two foundational components of a contact zone, such as building a social space for a cross-cultural encounter, negotiation and debate as well as offering a platform to address transnational concerns on the heritage decolonization agenda. Drawing on desk research, document analysis and semi-structured interviews with museum professionals, it analyses the case studies of the livestreaming bilateral museum diplomacy and metaverse live heritage pandemic diplomacy, followed by a discussion on the processes of museums decolonization that started to unfold in response to the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement. The research argues that the impact of the digitalization pressures did not only affect the ways, forms, and structures of cross-cultural communications in museums, but also moved them a bit forward in their decolonization processes.","PeriodicalId":51520,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","volume":"70 1","pages":"76 - 93"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86193568","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-22DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2022.2141724
Cristina Clopot
ABSTRACT This article will contribute to the existing debates on heritage diplomacy. It will build on an understanding of heritage diplomacy through the lenses of decolonial thinking. The core case study is one of the main policy programmes for culture at the European level, the European Capital of Culture, which contributes to the building of a shared European Heritage. Whereas the opportunities for diplomacy work afforded by the programme itself will be considered, the analysis will mainly focus on the representation of colonial heritage in ECoC programmes. The article draws on work conducted in the EU-funded ECHOES project (European Colonial Heritage Modalities in Entangled Cities). The analysis presented will query why dissonant heritage, such as that of a colonial nature, is often left out of discussions of European heritage more generally. Lessons will be drawn on what the implications might be for advancing European heritage diplomacy and cultural policy.
{"title":"Heritage diplomacy through the lens of the European Capitals of Culture programme","authors":"Cristina Clopot","doi":"10.1080/10286632.2022.2141724","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141724","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article will contribute to the existing debates on heritage diplomacy. It will build on an understanding of heritage diplomacy through the lenses of decolonial thinking. The core case study is one of the main policy programmes for culture at the European level, the European Capital of Culture, which contributes to the building of a shared European Heritage. Whereas the opportunities for diplomacy work afforded by the programme itself will be considered, the analysis will mainly focus on the representation of colonial heritage in ECoC programmes. The article draws on work conducted in the EU-funded ECHOES project (European Colonial Heritage Modalities in Entangled Cities). The analysis presented will query why dissonant heritage, such as that of a colonial nature, is often left out of discussions of European heritage more generally. Lessons will be drawn on what the implications might be for advancing European heritage diplomacy and cultural policy.","PeriodicalId":51520,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","volume":"36 1","pages":"63 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87563120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-22DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2022.2141722
Katja Mäkinen, Tuuli Lähdesmäki, Sigrid Kaasik-Krogerus, Viktorija L. A. Čeginskas, Johanna Turunen
ABSTRACT Cultural heritage is an expanding yet contested area of EU policymaking, which has recently been identified as an instrument for EU international cultural relations. In this article, drawing from critical heritage studies and recent scholarship on heritage diplomacy, we see external and internal cultural relations as blurred and deeply entangled in EU heritage policies. Empirically, we focus on the European Heritage Label (EHL), a central EU heritage policy instrument. We explore how heritage practitioners at selected EHL sites and EU heritage policymakers understand and give meanings to international cultural relations and explain the role of cultural heritage in diplomatic endeavours. Our method is a dynamic frame analysis of 44 interviews conducted in the European Commission and at eleven EHL sites in ten European countries. The analysis identified four frames of international cultural relations in the data: relations with non-EU countries for peace and stability building, showcasing and branding of cultural heritage for foreign audiences, creating unity in Europe, and small-scale international heritage projects. These frames manifest different understandings of heritage diplomacy ranging from geoculture to shared heritage and from intercultural encounters to the use of soft power.
{"title":"EU heritage diplomacy: entangled external and internal cultural relations","authors":"Katja Mäkinen, Tuuli Lähdesmäki, Sigrid Kaasik-Krogerus, Viktorija L. A. Čeginskas, Johanna Turunen","doi":"10.1080/10286632.2022.2141722","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141722","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Cultural heritage is an expanding yet contested area of EU policymaking, which has recently been identified as an instrument for EU international cultural relations. In this article, drawing from critical heritage studies and recent scholarship on heritage diplomacy, we see external and internal cultural relations as blurred and deeply entangled in EU heritage policies. Empirically, we focus on the European Heritage Label (EHL), a central EU heritage policy instrument. We explore how heritage practitioners at selected EHL sites and EU heritage policymakers understand and give meanings to international cultural relations and explain the role of cultural heritage in diplomatic endeavours. Our method is a dynamic frame analysis of 44 interviews conducted in the European Commission and at eleven EHL sites in ten European countries. The analysis identified four frames of international cultural relations in the data: relations with non-EU countries for peace and stability building, showcasing and branding of cultural heritage for foreign audiences, creating unity in Europe, and small-scale international heritage projects. These frames manifest different understandings of heritage diplomacy ranging from geoculture to shared heritage and from intercultural encounters to the use of soft power.","PeriodicalId":51520,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","volume":"73 1","pages":"9 - 22"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89524636","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-20DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2022.2157824
G. Peruzzi, Vittoria Bernardini, Yasmin Riyahi
{"title":"Women’s statues in Italian cities. A study of public art and cultural policies","authors":"G. Peruzzi, Vittoria Bernardini, Yasmin Riyahi","doi":"10.1080/10286632.2022.2157824","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2157824","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51520,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","volume":"275 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90780928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：