[The following notes of oral exchanges at the session were taken to help identify speakers and otherwise facilitate review of audio recordings. They have not been compared to those recordings and should be understood to provide only a sense of what was said. In other words, they are not formal transcripts, and they may contain inaccuracies.]

Speakers are identified by their initials in the transcript. For a full list, click here.

Session 2: “Tangible” and “intangible” heritage

MB – Not hostile to cultural protection, but raise issues complementary to the goals. LP mentioned that the distinction between property and heritage had practical significance. Law needs to be normative – a globalizing language for conformity. But that provides language in which people are required to frame their claims; that is, the full aspiration of human goals has to fit into the slot. This may do violence to such aspiration. For example, using intellectual property law to define heritage. The goal of IP is to create an incentive system; it is time-limited [etc.]. Those goals contradict indigenous desires to assert that their culture is eternal, to refuse to make compromises; they imply that the primary goals of such peoples are commercial. On the other hand, indigenous views could reshape IP law. Therefore, attempts to protect heritage at global level leads to a procedural uniformity that threatens the goals of preserving diversity. [Return to Synopsis]
Preserving heritage using digital technology. How much stuff can a society afford to protect and manage? Digital records are very fragile; software advances quickly. We shouldn’t be complacent about digitization because the stuff won’t be able to be read in 15 or so years.
List of cultural items for UNESCO convention, which invites communities to itemize their property. But this doesn’t necessarily advance cultural preservation.
I’m Weberian: worried about what rationalization entails – what are the overhead costs of detailing heritage, when funds might be used better to advance the well-being of the culture [peoples]? [Return to Synopsis]

MC – Such as?

MB – Education, health care. These costs are not nearly as easily borne in the developing world. When funds shift to preservation, there are losses. Who’s being employed? The minority who possess cultural capital; not the ones who need help.
[This argument] recommends piecemeal approaches. The argument against piecemeal approaches is [that we should be] regarding culture as a whole. But: everything is not everything, is not the same. IP issues, issues of social justice and equity have unique valences, rules, approaches. But other issues, e.g., language protection, can best be protected by language pluralism. But objects can only be in one place and one time, so their location matters.
The challenge is to find the middle ground – just enough law to create incentives for local level people to come forward and for big people to listen to them. The concept of the shadow of the law matters – it gives the powerful a reason to negotiate with the powerless. The law gets powerful to negotiate.
[The goal is to] create a common language but one allowing for local realities, power relations, exigencies. This tends not to be favorably perceived by people in International Law because it is opposed to their uniform system, which depends for its power on its character of uniformity.

HP – I will be presenting a historical outline to cultural properties history, mainly from Japan and Korean. The state of preservation is so complex because the state has micromanaged identification, excavation, etc. since the Meiji period. It is still very tightly managed – 600 staff members, 11 divisions. Museum director is a very high position; museum network.
Why has the state intervened?
1. Nationalism. Mainly focused on emperor worship. Antiquity preservation began from a memo of Samurais who had visited the West. It recommended the use of antiquities as commodities. At same time, in Europe, there was a boom in oriental décor. [Japan was] targeting the export market.
2. Institutional. The national treasures administration has been international from the beginning. A committee to make a list of all temples and shrines for classification purposes. Documentation, museum came from England. Ranking came from France. Card cataloging came from Germany. All registered as state properties (1st one in 1897). Anthropologists and archaeologists were sent as far as Siberia, Mongolia. But Korea became the focus, because archaeologists were not allowed to disturb Japanese imperial tombs so they had to dig elsewhere. There was interest in the continent. There was a debate about who were the original Japanese. Rejected the Ainu as a candidate. Chose continental peoples, whose mythico-historical route to Japan mapped onto imperial territory. Construct of the harmony of the 5 races – pan-Asian but with Japanese on top with teleological connotations about their destiny to rule. Post-war: the emperor renouncing divine origins equaled a reaction.
In 1954, Japan was the first to come up with the intangibles category. It designated a select list of artisans – the focus now is on performance, exhibition, transmission. Korea adopted the system in 1967.
Consequences of micromanagement – over-commercialization. Sold in government shops, tourist sites, airports. As soon as something sells well, knockoffs follow immediately. The example of a knockoff artist who was made a national treasure illustrates how the market drives the cultural preservation process. [Return to Synopsis]

PO – What’s happening at UNESCO
1. Took Japanese living treasures and promoted it on worldwide scale. Document setting up what states should do to promote the effort. The first term suggested for UNESCO was “living human properties.” The first proclamation (2001) – vetting committee – agents were asked to propose examples of intangible heritages as a world masterpiece. But how does one compare an African language and cross-making in Lithuania? The committee is very politically influenced. A problem is that the state is heavily involved. In order to be accepted, you need a plan to preserve – involves the state promoting a heritage that has developed out of a more particular community. This was supposed to be program to test how the system would work, as a forerunner to an international convention. But UNESCO produced the convention in 2003 – there was no time to digest what problems arose, and the problems are now incorporated into the convention. For example, the fact of lists: a list doesn’t progress far in having positive benefit on intangible heritage. Wording was changed from protection to safeguarding. What is safeguarding? Just about everything. Cf. article 2 – [it contains] just about all the words that have been used already at the conference. Once you begin safeguarding, are you ensuring viability or are you changing?
2. UNESCO Definition [read out loud] – a mixture of definition and statement. This is a broad definition. It makes the statement that intangible heritage is re-created and provides for cultural security. The definition demands that no nomination offend against international human rights. A problem example is Ethiopia – a tribe’s dispute settlement procedure is only open to men. Is a gender-specific practice contrary to international human rights? Must demonstrate mutual respect between communities. A problematic example is the Ulster Marchers. Sustainable development – any nomination must contribute to sustainable development. The conclusion is that the convention reflects problems inherent in trying to do something in relation to intangible heritage. UNESCO neglected basic ideas, e.g., no reference to indigenous peoples. Native Americans are now considering putting together their own document. Is it possible to create an international instrument for both tangible and intangible property? This won’t happen for 40 years because UNESCO won’t change an international agreement [once it is in place]. [Return to Synopsis (definition)] [Return to Synopsis (footnote 15)]
3. Question of digital heritage.

CC – What is the advantage of signing the UNESCO convention then?

PO – [For] developing states. There is an international fund. It is all based on the World Heritage List and fund. [Recipients are] mainly third-world countries, so they don’t have much cash. Countries without major monuments but with vital intangible heritage see this as leveling the playing field. [Return to Synopsis (intangible heritage)] [Return to Synopsis (tourism)]

DL – Is a living cultural treasure allowed to die? If so, what replaces it? Does [a replacement] represent change or continuity?

HP – When one dies, he loses his title and is replaced.

RH – Is it open-ended or one-to-one?

HP – Open-ended.

DL – Before he dies, are efforts made to protect and preserve?

HP – Yes, digitalized. But the problem is, it fossilizes culture and it becomes a stage show.

DL – So the treasures are stuffed? Information is digitized and saved.

HP – Preserving tombs. Contract out technology to Nikon et al. Endoscopy into tomb.

AB – In response to PO on linguistic shift from protecting to safeguarding. This is from Japan. I had no idea that it was the people not the practice in Japan, but presumably for UNESCO it is the reverse.

HP – There are two categories: people and the practices in Japan.

MC – These are dilemmatic situations. How do you conceptualize the notion of tradeoffs in trying to protect culture? If you record, you fossilize [culture]. If you don’t record, you lose [culture]. The presentation stressed negative aspects of state involvement. But I want to ask what would happen if the state wasn’t involved? Are you, PO, criticizing in principle or are you criticizing specific actions?

HP – There is no right or wrong way. It does fossilize. Imitation creates a homogeneous culture. Regional culture and cuisine in Korea is disappearing. Local people are savvy; they are doing it strategically. They are making up new recipes and having new festivals. They are making oral fables real – e.g., Verona built a tomb for Romeo and Juliet. Local people [..] [Return to Synopsis]

MC – Are you concluding that you must create the record?

HP – The bureaucracy is growing

MC – What is the solution?

HP – There is no solution.

MC – This is the task for all of us – to figure out the tradeoffs. What do we actually want to do?

HP – The positive aspect is that there are foundations to study [the problem], and I have been the recipient of grants. [laughter]

RH – [question that I missed]

HP – Pride in heritage in Japan. Presentation of cave paintings. Funded by Getty and Japanese state.

PO – The first thing to do is to decide what we want to do: are we going to try to preserve intangible heritage as it is? If not, keep the state out. If people themselves don’t want to keep it going, how can the state do it? Can’t tell young people to stay in the village.

MC – Create a village museum and let people go to the city.

PO – If in museum, no longer …

MC – [..]

PO – If it is in museum, it is no longer intangible heritage.

MC – But it is [in a way]; at least it remains. Intangible heritage does not have to be politically correct. We should preserve offensive practices as a way to measure our progress towards rights.

AB – We don’t want to promote genital mutilation.

MC – No, you record it.

LR – CC asked what the good is [above]. Well, what’s the harm? If the terms are vague, it will be fleshed out in time. If Ethiopian women object, what better forum for them to object than through the nomination of dispute settlement? [Return to Synopsis]

NS – What is becoming clear is how profoundly contemporary all this is. At its heart, nothing is preserved here. There is a history to tangible vs. intangible. When conservation began – Athens charter of 1931, codified by Venice in 1960s – the idea was that heritage was physical and unmovable; basically, it was monuments. Now world heritage has become a beauty contest. Now, as if to exist in the community of nations, you need to exist in world heritage. This creates inflation. Distribution was unbalanced towards monumental heritage. [The category of] intangible tried to balance it. Debate then about authenticity – Nara document. Temples dismantled and rebuilt. Venice charter’s fetishization of the original fabric would reject this. This shows how profoundly there is a subtext – claiming prestige in the past is about claiming it in the present. It has nothing to do with preservation. If something is going to disappear, it will. It is the forces of transnational capitalism that are creating the debate about authenticity. It is less relevant for us to make moral distinctions about what is right or wrong, but for the journal to study – anthropologically – the process of heritage-ization. For both intangible and tangible, anyone with resources can put anything on an international list – it is purely a political act. [Return to Synopsis (on "cultural property")] [Return to Synopsis (on inflation)]

KS – It does do harm. It encourages people to petrify tradition without paying any attention to human rights. [Return to Synopsis (fossilizing)]

MC – Is it okay to have head-hunters in museum?

KS – I’m talking about living traditions.

LR – But it says you can’t violate local rights.

KS – But there is no enforcement.

LP – Then it won’t go on the list.

NS – No, that won’t happen precisely because it is so political. Genocide won’t go on the list. [Return to Synopsis (nomination process is political)]

KS – Then I don’t see the point of the convention.

CC – What about bureaucracy?

MB – So you’re saying […]

CC – Yes.

LP – The disadvantage is to encourage governments to intrude into communities with which they have had very little contact. That itself will change [the community(?)]. The problem of creating a list with representative sample – all the money and tourists go to the representative village, and the other village starts to imitate. This can actually contribute to extinction. [Return to Synopsis]

DL – What harm is there? Consequences of recognition of intangible. In Greece, [there was suggested] a tax on anyone who uses a Doric column. This is mockery, but it is interesting mockery because it asks why only indigenous people can benefit from this. The problem is that it sets up a division between so-called indigenous people and people who have to deal in static way with stuff. This distinction went out in social sciences 100 yrs ago; why revive it for UNESCO?

SK – One of the costs is the cheapening of concept of heritage. If everything is a historic site, then there is no meaning, no historic value. It is in no one’s interest to define the content of value of a site. For example, Hemingway. I was preserving Hemingway’s papers but got shut down once Hemingway became national treasure. [Return to Synopsis]

LR – UN convention of the rights of indigenous people failed – so there is no other protection for them. Therefore, indigenous is an important distinction. The human rights convention is drawn up in individualistic language. But this recognizes group rights. I am not sure that inflation really cheapens. Locals will feel proud and happy about having equal stature. This is the only way to help protect indigenous peoples. [Return to Synopsis]

LP – A carnival in Belgium was one of the first things on the list. So Europeans will get on the list. But the bureaucratic system also gives westerners an advantage.

NS – There is a whole industry of western consultants – who actually sell the value of being on this list – arguments made about raising visibility. This is just a money-making scheme, [money] usually made by consultants. [Return to Synopsis]

RH – Mediating between different positions. LR’s point about providing a resource to people; NS’s point about the culture-peddlers making the best profit. What kind of stuff doesn’t need to be protected? Rockefeller brothers is a privileged thing that doesn’t need protection. What do the empowered do with their traditions? Look at football: violent, racially exploitative, gender-obscene, its own tradition-making apparatus …

HP – Alumni money.

NS – Sustainable.

RH – Compare football to symphony orchestras. Classical music is dead. [Musicians are] playing a completed repertoire. There is probably more state money for arts outside of the U.S. Symphonies can’t survive on the free market; they use patrons instead. This is high-status tradition that, unlike football, is not self-sustainable. Discourse of intangible cultural protection: no one would put forth these as candidates to put on list. For the journal – interesting to think about traditions that no one would put on list.

MB – An intermediate case is sport-hunting. It is clearly a sustainable practice because there are enough deer. The NRA represents as part of American heritage. We may get to a point where the government is encouraging young people to hunt.

NS – On the tangible list, there are economic as well as prestige motivations for states to apply. To what extent is inscription on intangible list tied to the expectation of an economic payoff?

PO – There is nothing specific in the convention. There is a committee to accept nominations. But it is perfectly clear that tourists will follow.

AB – ‘72 convention has idea to flood tangible site with tourist dollars. Intangible too: who benefits? Consultants and the state, which manages it, will reap the benefits from the tourist dollars. This links to the discussion about IP regimes for protecting heritage. Corporations are taking traditional knowledge, owning it, and making profit (e.g., pharmaceutical industry). IPR at best is unsuccessful at protecting; at worst, it is cooption. There is a similar problem in both IP and intangible.

LR – Power is not always wearing what it may seem to be. There is a story about a guy who couldn’t return an artifact to native Americans. Instead, he brought facsimile to them. The Native Americans held a ceremony to transfer the spirit to the facsimile. [For footnote 10, continue two speakers down to DS]

MB – Given paranoia about IP rights, perhaps we can refer to Australian local-level keeping-places. You wouldn’t have to give information to UNESCO bureaucrats. You might see local solutions – people will participate only on their own terms, complying with the basic obligations of state. This could split the difference, but it requires a loosening of the convention. [Return to Synopsis]

CC – It is most effective to have it function at the lowest possible level.

DS – Does tangible property have any meaning without the intangible aspect? [This is a question] raised by LR’s story. The object that lost its spirit still has historical value. It shows a clear difference – the obvious, inextricable relation between value and object – between tangible and intangible. Tangible objects have a value to being dead, objectified. [Return to Synopsis]

DL – The story also brings up [the issue of] transfer of power. Compare it with western Christianity. The power of relics is transferred, but it is not lost to the originals; it is simply multiplied. We need to think about this in terms of conundrums in heritage – what it is ownable is looked at as more valuable.

LR – Specific discussions help. US vs. Diaz in late ‘70s. Case of statute being thrown out because the prosecution argument made it too vague.

HP – On national treasure and shamanism in Korea. In pre-modern times, one only became a shaman in three ways: inheritance, spirit possession, or the ability to dance on machetes with no blood during initiation. Most performances [now] are by good-looking young women. They don’t get designated as real shamans, but they make the money. Intangible aspects.

MB – Let’s move to lunch. About NS’s point that the journal should take a social-science distance. We should have both practical/legal and abstract/academic [perspectives].