CH ANGING VI SIONS OF H ERITAGE V ALUE

What Role Should the Experts Play?

Nei l Silbern1an
ICOMOS- ICIP
Ar e t he a i1ns of h eritage co nserva tion an<l co n1111 ercc co nve rging? Is
th e vo ice of t he h eritage expert no \v guid ed by the vox populi?T h e curr ent
ev idence for these t renJ s, long co nsidered anath e1na to heritage purists (e.g.
Petzet, 20 I 0), suggests th at an epoc h-1nakin g change in heritage pract ice is
no\v und er\vay. Th e ann oun ce n1ent of a Mc 1no ranclun1 of Un de rsta ndin g
bet \vcen th e Wo rld Bank and U N ESCO to prov ide "ve ry pos it ive inpu t
for the i1nprove 1nent of a id effec ti ve ness, and 1nake the 1nos t of cultur e as a
n1otor for soc ial J eve lop 1nent and pove rty allev iat io n , thr ough e1nploy1ncn t
and job crea tion " (UN ESCO PRE SS, 2009 ) and th e t hen1e of th e 17th
ICO MOS Ge ne ra l A sse 1nbly ,"H erit age, a D riv er of L)c ve lo p1ncn t"
(M out o n , 20 13) arc bo th clea r indi ca ti ons of a pressin g ne\v co nce rn:
th at herit age co ntribut e co th e eco no 1nic-n ot o nl y cul tura l- \vcll-bc ing
of co n te 1npo rary soc iery. N o less signi fican t is the c1np has is o n pu blic
right s anJ respo nsibiliti es in th e fo n11ula tio n of herit age po licy, o nce th e
exclusive pre roga tive of anti quarians and professio nal co nserva tors. T hi s
turn to the public as full -fledged l,erit age stakeho lders is ex pressed clea rly
by th e Co un c il of Europe 's Frainework Co nq1ention on the Value of Cultural
HeritageforSociety(2005 ) and th e efforts of U N ESCO to pro1notc t he act ive
pa rtic ipat io n- an d eco no1nic adva nce 1nen t--of rraJiri onal prac titi oners
of int angible cultur al herit age (UN ESCO Med ia Se rvices, 20 1.3 ).
Eco n o 1nic d cvc lop n1e n t \Vas ce r ta inl y n or a 1no ng th e o rig in a l
1not ivat io ns for t h e 19 11, ce n t ur y hi st o ri c prese rva ti o n and fo lkl o re
doc un1en tat io n 1novc 11lent s (Jokil eh to , 1999 ; Bendi x, 199 7). Both \Vere
aest h et ic- ideo log ica l react ions to th e rise of 1nodcrn indust ria l soc iet y
(M atsuda, 1996). A r a t i1ne \Vh en life had increas ingly beco 1nc a se ries
of ano ny1nous 1non eta ry t ransactio ns and 1nuss in11nig rat io n fro1n farn1s
co fac to ries thr ea ten ed ti n1e-h ono red life\vays and soc ial relatio ns, an
434 NEILSILBERMAN

appea l to t rad it io n t hr oug h tl1e n1onun1en ts a nd n1e1no ries so ugh t to

resto re son1e 1neas urc of soc ial h arn1on y. S ince-o r so it sec 1ned co cul tural
elites in Europe and N orth A merica-that stab le hi sto rica l sta nd ards of
signi fican ce and value \Vere needed, a profess ion al c lass of expe rts and
achnini strators \Vascrnpo \vcred to estab lish th e chr o no logica l and stylist ic
c riteria fo r t he kin ds of cu ltu ra l re11
1nant s and relics th at needed to be
save d (Jokileht o, 1999 : ch ap ters 4-8 ). See ing chc1nselves as th e sav io rs of
nat io nal an d c iv ilizational t raditi on , th e ea rly profess io nal co nservato rs
of bo th tangible and in tangible herit age assu1ned the public responsibility
to discove r, doc u1ne nt , and hono r th e legac ies of pre- 1nodc rn eras, be th ey
archit ec tura l monu1nc nt s, art ob jec ts, regio nal dialects, vo lkisch cos tu1nes,
da nc es, or fairy talcs (a1nong 1nany sources : Ashur st, 200 7, Bendi x, 1997).
Th ose iden t ified herit age ele1nen ts beca 1ne 1nodc rnit y's sy1nbo lic "ot her"
and in th e sense th at n1oderni ty \Vas perce ived to be all abo ut ch ange and
n1ove ment , th ose anti t heti ca l, pren1ode n1 heritage ele1nent s were endo \ved
\vith the see 1ning qua lity of pe rn1an en ce and ti1ne lessness.
111the 191h and n1ost of th e 20 th ce n tury, public pa rtic ipa tion in herit age
was co nside red best \vhen passive; th e un changing, elite va lues of eac h
nat ion 's cultur al heritage were seen as a cultur al vita1ni n t hat would enh ance
th e citi zen's parriotis1n o r cultur al literacy (e.g. Die t ier, 199 4 ; West , 1999;
G lassbe rg, 1990 ) . Th e d ist in ct ion bet ween l1igh and lo\v culture \Vils clear
and invi o lable; th.e cultur al ex perts, empo \vercd by increasingly co 111 plcx
bur ea ucrac ies and cultural inst itut ions guarded th e borders and det ermin ed
th e prioriti es (Lev ine, 1988) . Yet \Vith th e cco no n1ic and soc ial disruptions
of th e 1960s and th e rise of hi sto ry "fro1n-che-botco n1-up," culture \vas
recog nized a leg it itnate po lit ica l battl efield, not a fac t of natur e th at had
o nly o ne co rrec t and auth orit ati ve rea lit y (S tarn , 2002) . Th e 1972 World
Herita ge Co n ve nt ion ado pt ed a uni ve rsa lizing, glo bal perspec ti ve, yet
1n ino rity and indi genous co 1n 1n uniti es in funn er co loni al soc ieti es bega n
to assoc iate t he right co des ignate and co 11tro l th e ir own herit age places as
a demonstr ation of po liti ca l leg iti1nacy (S n1ith , 2006 ).

Ind eed th e ce lebrati on and pro tect ion of th e di ve rsity of cult ural
herita ge- rath er th an th e acce pt ance of a single curoce nrri c h erit age
stan dard-beca 1ne a token of faith (As h\vOrth , G raha1n and Tunbrid ge,
200 7) . Fo llo\ving th e lea<lo f th e envir on1ne n ta l 1nove 1nenc in instillin g
th e va lue of bio log ica l di versity in th e public co nsciousness, th e pro tecto rs
of cultur a l div ersity- thr ough varyin g notion s of "a uth enticit y" (Larsen ,
1995) and th e formalization of Int angible C ultur a l Herit age (Kir shen blatt-
G imblett , 2004 )-s i1nilarly i1npressed upon tl1e in ternational deve lop1nent
 CHANGING VISIONSOF HERITAGE
VALUE 435

co 1n1nunity th e soc io-econon1 ic value of preserving a \vide range of regional

and even loca l variants of cultur al h erit age (Band arin , Hosagrahar and
A lbernaz, 2011). And just as biological diversity \Vas pron1otecl not as an
abst ract value but the source of as yet undi scove red phan11ace uricals and the
preco nditi on for the "sustainable" hu1nan exp lo itati on of th e cnviro n1nenr ,
so too did cu lture and its tan g ible and inta ngible ex pressions beco111esee n
as t he 1ned iu1n for "sustainable" soc ial clevelopn1ent and a co rnu cop ia of
eco no n1ica lly va luab le places, co1nn1oclities, and eve nt s. Far fro n1 be ing
herrnetica lly sea led fro n1 the present, the legac ies of the pas t h ave now
beco,ne a preoccupation of conten1porary soc iety, in its q uest co dea l with
change , susta inab ility, an<l th e enh ancen 1ent of hu 1nan \velfare (Labad i
and Lo ng, 2010; Licc iardi and A1nirtah1nasebi, 20121; Barthel-Bouchier,
2012; Ga lla, 2013).

Do heritage experts have enough expertise?

So \Vhat is the proper ro le of he rit age professionals in a \,Vorl<lof

globa lizat io n , ide11t it y politics, and eco no1nic develop1nent priorities?
I would argue that despite the h eritage co 1n1nunity's curr ent rhetorical
tu rn to,vard rhe goa ls of env ironn1enca l susta inab ility, reg iona l econo n1ic
deve lop1nent , pove rty allev iat ion , soc ial cohesion, and urb an regeneratio n ,
th e h eart an d soul of herit age practice re,nains firn1ly \vedde d to the far
less inst ru1nen cal, hu1nanist ic disc iplin es of aest het ics an<l hi sto riog rap hy
(e.g. Peczet, 2010). Whil e the scnti n1ent of cultural herit age professionals
co ntributin g to and eve n driving the inipr ove rne n t of public ,vclfarc is noble,
n1uch needs co be done to equip a n ev,; gen erat io n of h eritage profess ionals
with th e con1plex expertise in d evc lop n1ent econo1nics, co 1n1nunit y
cngagc1nent, and regional plannin g chat a sloga n like "heritage as a d rive r of
<levelop1ncnt" req uires (Diduck, 1999). The si1nple fact is that n1ost ex isting
heritage laws, co n vent ions, anJ ch arters sta ndin g ar the very co re of heritage
conse rvat ion and 111 anage 1nent dea l \Vith fo nn al catego ries of significance
and sta res of physical preservation, not \vider econo1nic, soc ia l, or political
a i1ns ( Blake, 2000). Like\vise, 1nosr uni versity co nservat ion cu rricula an<l
profess ional tr a inin g deal \vith co nserva tion scie n ce, archit ec tur al and
arc haeo log ica l site 1nanage n1ent , and int erpreta tio n , \Vith , ar 1nost, o nly
a brief intr od uct ion to deve lopn1ent th eo ry, ur ba n studi es, or co 1nn1unity
cco no,ni c po licy (Avran1i, Maso n and de la Tor re, 2000).

There arc sti ll so1ne in th e herit age profession \vho sec the curr ent
soc io-eco no 1nic an d publi c-e ngage 1nent preoccupations as littl e 1norc than
a destructive fad. As fo rn1er ICO M OS President Mich ae l Pctzct put it \Vit h
436 NEILSILBERMAN

characteristic bluntne ss:

Values are here no,v <lo n1inared by those previously unrecogniz:ed

stakeholder connnunities [ita lics in the o riginal!, rninoriry gro ups,
aborigines, unspecialised professionals etc., ,vho son1eho,v ,viii rake
care that heri tagc is subsu1ned into a />r ocess tliat is inherenclydynan1ic
b) ' respondingdirectly and consu1n tly ro the evolving needsof society ac any
given ti1ne. Obv iously, it is accepted that in this ,vondcrfully dynan1ic
process the classic values of conservation ,vill perish in no tin1cand that
"1nanaging change" ,viii replace the efforts to save our cul rural heritage.
( Peczet, 20 I0: 9)

That is the reaso n why herit age co nservationists and privat e secto r
int erests have traditi onally been in1placable foes (Van Oers 2008).Bue here
is prec isely th e parado x befo re us: conservation ( i.e. "saving our cultural
h eritage"), on which th e st ructur e of the offic ializecl herit age is based, is
identified with resisting change, wh ile chan ge is the pri1nary object of the
socio-econon1ic <levelopn1ent en1braced by a gro,vin g nu1nber of h erita ge
professiona ls. An<l chis parado x is not sin1ply th eo ret ica l but poses a serious
challe nge co th e future ro le o f cu ltu ral herit age ,vithin soc iety. On the
internation al and natio nal leve ls, th e traditi o nal fo nn s and st ructur es of
herit age conservat ion (o r "safeguardin g" for intan gible herita ge ) ren1ain
i11cacc,with spec ially tr ained and officially qualific<l expe rt s 1.) adoptin g
univ ersa l criteri a fo r significa nce and va lue; 2.) catego rizing and studyin g
the phy sica l typ es; 3 .) crea tin g inv ent or ies of spec ific vessels of significance
and va lue; 4.) estab lishin g guideline s an<l codes of protection, and 5.)
protec tin g th e extant ph ysica l manife sta ti o ns that are recog nized as
"aut h enti c" or expressive of tr ad itio nal values from transformatory change .
Yer to lerance for and even encoura gen1ent of far-reac hin g chan ge lies at
the l1ea rc of th e nc\v J eve lopn1ent in1perativ e (Araoz, 2011). [ nd eed th e
idea of "h eritage and clevelo pcnent" is see n by its sup po rters not o nly as a
necessary 1natter of soc ial relevance for the heritage profession but - no less
irnport ant- as a source of fundin g a1nbitious herit age initi ative s at a tin1e
when governm ent s are slashin g th e ir cu lture budgets and wh en traditi on al
subv ention s frorn private and co rporate phi lanthr opy are h arder th an eve r
to find (Bor,vick and Baco n , 2012).

So the market-n ot co llec tive 1nen1ory,nor ars gra1ia artis-ha s beco n1e
cl1e n1ec hani s1n o n \vhich the pro 1no tion of cu ltu ral h erit age co nservat io n
increa singly dep end s. On the o ne hand there arc rhose ,vho believe rhat
herit age profe ssionals should n ever co1npro n1ise with 1narket fo rces, even
if a co 1n1n itn1enr to defen<lin g unch anging va lues aga inst th e "creative
 CHANGING VISIONSOF HERfTAGE
VALUE 437

destruct ion" of the neolibera l global econo1n y proves co be a disastrously

quixotic st rategy (Co\.ven, 2002). On th e oth er hand th e re are chose
heritage professionals ,vho sec collaboration ,vich dcvelop1nent agenc ies and
organizations to be of great 1nutual benefit, \.Vithout prec isely doc u1nentin g
or even arti culatin g \\1 hac 1neasura ble benefits th ey brin g (Silbcnn a n,
20lJ ; Labadi, 2008). Following th e 1nodel of the 2009 Me1norandum of
Und erstandin g bet\.veen UNESCO and the World Bank, so1nc heritage
professionals envision their skills and expertise as an underutili zed resource
co bring prosperity, pride, and a higl1er quality of life co inh ab itants of
ne ighborhoods, cities and regions (e.g. Ha1npton, 2005; Fe ltaulc, 2006).
Like\\1ise, ventur e capitalists, consultants, and planners sec cultural heritage
as a base for "city brandin g," "attr action creation," and inner-city real esta te
boo1ns (Rypken1a, 2012; Misiura, 2006).
But can either reliab ly prov ide ,vhat they pro1nisc? 1-le re \.Ve con1e to
son1e ce ntr al questions of cause and effect. Th e assumpti on that heritage
can be an effect ive driver of loca l and regional deve lop1nent ; chat it can
1na ke a 1neanin gful co ntributi on co the challenge of pove rty reduct ion; and
that it can regularly and reliably help rejuvenate declinin g con11nunicies
and heal serious socia l fractures is an a1nbicio us, utop ian idea l that in its
very instru1ncnt ality profoundly changes \.vhat cultural heritage is. Th e
econo1nics of heritage is a field fraught \.vich uncertainties and disagree1nents
about even th e 1nost basic 1nechods of valuation (Mason, 2008); th e ter1n
"C ultur a l Ca pita l" is itself an in1porc of rnarkec-bascd ca lculations of
investn1ent and return (Thr osby, 1999). In terms of urban regeneration, th e
proportional share in benefits of develop1nent projects by various classes of
investors and stakel1olde rs is proble1natic, if not grossly unequal (Porter and
Sha,v, 2013). Sustainable couris1nre1nains a subjectively defined \\1atchv,1ord
\.vhose real value in jobs and sti1nulation of th e loca l econo1nyoften disrupts
or disappoints chose ,vhose lives it pron1ise<lco in1prove (Case rta and Russo,
2002). And \\,hile the proble1nof gentrification 1nay dra1natica lly ra ise real
estate values, th e social cost of those rises in broken lives, de1nographi c
rcplacen1ent , and socia l disruption re1na ins unca lculated even in 1nonetary
ter1ns (Herzfeld, 2010).
Wh at we ha ve is a co ntinu ally \.vide oin g range of ta ngible a nd
intangible heritage, pacriJnoine, patrilnonio, e-i fgoedand erbgut transfor1ned
fro1nan essenti ally e1nbodied object of cultur al significance to a 1narketable
co1nn1odit y \vhose value lies at least partially in ho\.v \.veil its exploitation
sti1nulates a faster c irculation of 1noney in certain sectors of th e co1nmunity.
Con1n10 Jification is not in itself nec essarily bad and in so1ne cases can be
438 NEILSILBERMAN

a vehicle of agency and cu ltur al asserti on (Ertn1an and Willian1s, 2005).

Thu s, it is a fateful inst ru1nent al decision for the future of development-
o rient ed heri tage \vhich site s \Vill be chose n as objects for invest1nent and
\vhich \viii be resigned co ne glect and ob livion, judged by th eir re levance
for socio -economic deve lop ment. If \Vewholeheartedly accep t th e definition
of herit age as "Cultural Cap ita l" and its goa l to serve as an eng ine of
reg io nal and urb an develop1nent, wouldn't free n1arket log ic suggest that
\.Veconcentrate on protecting and pro1noting the l,ericage th at offers the
grea te st retun1 ? O r shall \.ve sea rch for a n ew path that avoids a binary
appr oac h- and the associated zcro-su1n co nflicts-bet \vee n those who
cons ider cultural heritage to be th e private preserve of co nn o isseu r exper ts
and those \.Vho sec h eritage ele1nent s as exp loitab le resou rces \vhose value
ca n be measured only in n1oncta ry gai n ?
Arc we to accep t the wisdo1n of invest1nent in pote nti a lly profitable
cultur a l t ou ri st at tr actio ns while n eg lec tin g a 1nore balanced ( yet
increa singly de-funded) public po licy of long-tcr 1n co nserva tion of the
e11tireran ge of heritage resou rces? And if only s01ne heritage resou rces prove
useful for eco n on1ic deve lopment, \.vhat sh all be clone with the rest ? S hall
the i1nperat ives of dcvclop 1n ent requir e th e triu1nph of attr ac tiv e, visitor-
at tracti ng nosta lgia ove r histo rica l reflec tion ? And if loca l co1n1nunitics,
minorities, anJ indigenous g ro up s a re e n co uraged to pro1noce th e ir ow n
herita ge for soc io-ccono rnic reaso ns, are th ey n<>tsuscept ible co the san1e
culturally corrosive 1narketin g urge (Butler and Hin ch , 2007)?
Th ese are so1ne of the prob len1atic questions to be asked, not igno red,
by herit age profess iona ls who recog nize the inevi tabi lit y of engag ing in rhe
globa lized rea liti es of the 21'' centur y. Before signin g MOUs or particip at ing
in reg io nal plan nin g initiatives, today's h erit age professionals n,u st, first
of all, have th e expe rti se to identify and assess various herit age -related
deve lop 1nent processes, who1n precisely they benefit, and whether th ey
reinforce or und ern1ine a con11nuni ty's ont o log ica l sec urity (Gr env ille,
2007). Ar e we spea kin g only of eco non1ic revita lization , in which the
generation of reven ue, nu,nb ers of jobs created, and ove rall increase in
eco n omic ac ti vity are the bench,narks of success? O r are \Ve talking abo ut
th e much quoted goa l of "social co h esio n" ? H o\v can \Vedefine it? Ho \v ca n
\Ve ,n eas ure it ? H o\v ca n \Ve estab lish th ere is eve n a link ? (Perkin, 20 10)
Th e ans\ve r is neith er si1nple no r auton1atic to any of these questions. In
fact-to th e sin1plest and 1nost co m1no nly repeate d assertio n t hat herit age
enhances local identity and pride, a rece nt repo rt by the l-Ierit age Lottery
Fund in Great Brita in suggests th at while act ive vo lunt eers in loca l
 CHANGING VISIONSOF HERITAGE
VALUE 439

herit age projcccs fee l a perso nal satisfac tion in thi s \vork, their personal
co nn ec tion co the co 1n1nu nity actua lly beco n1es less, not 1nore co nu11irre<l,
afte r Jc alin g face to face \vith hi storica l 1nisconception s and 1nass- 1narket
cu ltur al prefe ren ces of t heir neigh bo rs (Cl ark 2006). S hall 1,v e allo\.v o ur
own 1nisco nce ptions of cu ltur a l div ers ity at th e eve ryday leve l and \vishful
thinkin g abo ut the general eco non1ic be nefits deter n1ine the focus of o ur
professional efforts to safeguard tan g ible and int angible herit age?

The challenge of remembering forward

C ultur al H erit age is, alinost by defi ni t ion , th e tangible and int angible
re1nain s of urb an and rur al cu ltur es chat 1nay still be ho nored, but are no
longe r t he don1inant ones . Reg ional dec lin es and tran sfor1nat ions arc
caused by changin g eco no 1nic and soc ial co nditi o ns, shiftin g tec hn olog ies
of 1nanufactu re, ag ricultur al prod uctio n , serv ices, a nd t rade . In 1nan y
parts of th e \Vorld , the di sin tegrat ion of subsiste n ce fannin g in the face of
indu st rializat io n and urbanizatio n ha s given rise to bot h rur al depopu latio n
and th e cn),vded , poo r qua rt ers of citi es~ ften hi storic qua rte rs- by nc,v
\.vaves of rur al and fore ign in11nigrant s ( for o ne exa 1nplc a1no ng 1nany,
[)in<;:er, 2011). 1-lerit age ca n only he lp change th e status o f a region if it
co ntribut es to bring ing it fron1 a peripl1er al statu s into the 1nain st rea n1
of t he present global eco no1ny. But if herit age is used as a 1ncc h ani s1n for
1noden1i zacion, can it rea lly be co ns idered herit age at all ? Th e cruel iro ny
is chat th e prob lc1n of urba n and rur al deteri orat ion ,viii nor be so lved by
declarin g dcci 1narc d areas cultu ral land scap es or inner cit ies as priin e targets
for rehabilit at ion, but rat her by recog ni zi11g and tryin g co und erstand the
st ruct ural, hi storic al co nditi ons that h ave ca used the dec lin e in the first
place and \1/0rkin g \Vith loca l con11nuniti es to ave rt or at least soften regional
dev e lopn1en t's often destructive cu ltur a l effec ts.
Ind ee d a n in creas in g nun1b e r of int e rn at io n al dcve lop 1ne n t
age n cies, th e World Bank an1ong rh e 1n h ave recog ni zed chnt "c ultur e
n1att ers," ([)a Cos ta, 2010), espec ially in th e \Vakc of th e e nor n1o us
de1nograp hi c dis loca tion and soc ial frag1nen carion ca used by the 1nega-
projec ts of th e 201" century. Th ey have recog ni zed the great 1n iscakc in
ass u1ning that ce ntr a l plan nin g and ph ysical rehab ilit ati on of h erit age
landn1arks, 1non u1nents, and hi storic cente rs ca n unif onnl y and successfully
co n tr ibute to th e process of "d eve lopn1ent" with o ut eno nn o us soc ial
di sloca tio n and h eritage loss. Ge ntrific at io n, con11nercialization , tr ansfe r,
or e1ni grat ion of trad it iona l pop ulations-in fact 1nany of the e len1en cs chat
\vork aga inst the ca use of cultur al h erit age as a co1n1non inh erit ance-a re
440 NEILSILBERMAN

all too often th e resul t Qf ce ntr a lly plann ed <levclop1ncnt sche1nes (Scott,
1998). Herita ge dcvc lop1nent n1ay indeed h elp to 1nainr ain th e superficial
v isual presen ce of an cien t o r traditi o nal cultures, bur if th e process of
develop1nent co 1nplete ly tran sforn1s its eco no n1ic and social found at io ns
and exclu des o r igno res th e right s of "no n -n1odern " or "undoc un1en ted"
pop ulatio ns, it 1nay exace rbate, rath er th an redu ce, the gro \ving soc ial
di vide betwee n et hni c groups, re ligious com1nunicics, rich and poor- in
rural areas and in c iry ce n ters alike.
Wh e n ICO M OS Pres ide nt G ustavo Ar aoz issued hi s ca ll fo r
"to leran ce for change" (Ar aoz, 2011) th at evo ked such a host ile reac tion
fron1 traditi ona list circles in th e ICO MOS co1nn1unity, he \Vas acc used
of count eracting "t h e core ideo logy of our o rgani zatio n ," since, as hi s
predecesso r asserted , "co nservat ion does not n1ean 'n1anaging change' bu t
preserving- preserving, not alterin g and dest roy ing: ICOMOS, the o nl y
globa l int ernat ional organization fo r th e conservation of n1onun1en ts and
sites, is ce rtainl y not th e Int ernation al Co un c il o n Man aging C hange."
(Petzet, 2010: 7) But in fac r, that is th e 21'' ce ntur y rea lity, n or onl y
fo r IC OM OS, bu r for th e he rit age profess io n as a \vh o lc. Wh at docs
preservin g tangible h erit age 1nea n \vhen public funds to support stri ct
co nservati o n a re being catast rop hi ca lly restri cted, and rh e areas with
1no nurn ent s, a rchi tect ural cnse1nb les, and cul tural landscapes most in
n eed of co nserva rio n arc prec isely p laces \Vhere cco no 1nic do \vn turn ,
illegal i1nmigration , pove rty, agricultur al dec lin e, o r deindu stri alizat io n
are also th e 1nos t severe? How can \Ve rea listica lly rely on th e assum ptio n
th at publi c or private in vestn1ent poured int o th ese areas to co nserve th eir
arch itectu re or to present th e ir arcl1aeo logical sites to cultural tourists \viii
in fac t preve n t th e soc ial reac tio ns and d isloca tions th at \viii rende r th e
co 1n1nen1orat io n of these 1nonun 1en ts just anot he r cn ccrta inn1cnt venu e or
th e1ned upscale reside nt ial deve lop n1ent ? (S ilber1na n, 2007) Th at is why
l think Ara oz's soul searchin g is so in1po rtan t, co re invent - yes reinv ent
th e field of publi c her itage as a revival of peoples' sense of belonging and
particip ati on in a living cultur al con11nunity, no t ju st th e preservation or
safeguardin g of sy1n bolic herit age elen1ent s. But that requir es son1ethin g
oth er than th e two dia,nctrica lly opposed alt ernati ves of "fight deve lop,n en t
at any cos t" or "deve lopn1ent is our ne\v rationale."
Th e h e rit age pr ofessio n n1ust reflec t dee pl y and se rio usly be fo re
transfo nnin g itse lf in to an instru1nen t o f top-do wn soc ia l eng inee rin g
on a glo bal scale. Th at app lies equally to th ose who seek to perpet uate
int olerance for any ch ange what soever, or those who inca utiously acce pt
 CHANGINGVISIONS
OF HERITAGE
VALUE 441

part1c1pati on in deve lopn1ent act io ns- in th e sta nd arJ fran\e\vorks of

co1nn\odification and infr ast ructur a l inv estn1ent - th ar 1nay radi ca lly
devalue the creative, cultura l poss ibilitie s of h erit age co nservat io n an d
interpr etat io n as a shared public activity. N e\v facto rs of globa lizat ion, 1nass
1nigra tion, and sub-national identity politic s have dra1natically und ennin ed
t radi t ion al, esse ntiali zed criteria of ''s ignificance," "a uth e nti city," and
"plac e" and have led to new e1nphases on loca l, relatio nal cons tru ction
of co llec tiv e 1ne1nory in ,.vhateve r (ch anging ) fo nn it ,nay ta ke (Gr ac ia,
2003) -a nd co n11nunicy en1po,venn ent that facilitates a \Vide range of
loca lly based soc ial, cultur al, and eco no1nic act iviti es (cf. Rui z-Balleste ros
and H ern ande z-Ra1nirez, 20 I 0). Th ese do no t depend o n the delin eat ion
of herit age "propert ies" as touri st dest in atio ns or the public perception of
th e past as a "v isitor ex peri enc e."

Th e quest ion to be co nfront ed urgently at thi s crucia l n1o n1ent is nor to

discove r n1ore effect ive tec hniqu es to co nfront the forces of leve lop n\ent or
to collaborate with the1n as "drivers." It is, I believe, rath er 1no re i1npo rtanc
co reassess th e soc io-eco notnic va lue we pla ce o n the hi sto rica l landscape
and int angible traditions as the basis for co1nn1unity ,veil-b eing, \Vhecher
chat co 1n1nunity is loca l and fixed, o r a di aspo ra scatte red ac ross the \\1o rlcl
(Gu sta fson, 2001 ). Unl ess \Ve see k to under stand \.vhat kind s o f basic
changes are no\v occ urrin g co t he very co ncep t of herit age, \Ve will neve r
und erstan d \vhat is being lose or \vhat is being ga ined. There ca n be no rerun1
to th e age of hi gh culture and th e public fund s co supp o rt it. Yet \\1e 111usc
resist an un criti ca l acce pt ance of what I have e lse\vhcre c,,llcd a di scou rse
of developn1enr, a sed uctiv e folkt ale, in ,.vhich the we ll- in ten ti o n ed
technoc rat plays the her o who shield s the eco no mi c asserti ons abo ut th e
value of herit age fro1n deepe r scrutiny (Silb enn an , 20 13 ). And \Ve 1nust
avo id at all cos ts h elpin g to co nstr uct a brave new \vo rld in which cultur al
heritage-far fro1n being a dri ve r of devc lop 1nent is ju st an ex ploi tab le
ob ject in an un ceas ing sea rch for ex pan sion and profit. For in rhac \vo rld ,
eco no 1nics \\1 ill beco1ne the principle driver, crea to r, and shaper of \vhar
\ve, our childr en , and grand children \viii learn co identify as ''1-leritage."
442 NEILSILBER
MAN

References
Araoz, Gustavo F., 2011, "P reserving l-Ieritage Places under a Ne\v
Paradig1n." Journal of Cultural HeritageManagen1entand Suscainable
Develop1nentl (I): 55-60.
Ashurst, John, 2007, Conservation of Ruins. A1nsterda 1n and London:
Elsevier/Bucterworth-Heinernann.
Ashworth, G. J., Brian G rahan1 and J.E. Tunbridge, 2007, Pluralising Pasts:
Heritage,Identityand Placein MulticulturalSocieties.London and Ann
Arbor: Pluto Press.
Avran1i, Erica, Randa ll Mason a11dMarta de la Torre, 2000, Valuesand
Heritage Conservation . Getty Research ReJ>ort.Los Angeles: Getty
Conservation Institut e.
Bandarin, Francesco, Jyoti l-losagrahar and Frances Sa iler Albernaz, 2011,
"Why Develop 1nent Needs Cu lture." Journal of Cultural Heritage
Managementand SustainableDevelopmentI (I): 15-25.
Barthel-Bouchier, Diane L., 2012, Cultural 1-leritageand the Challengeof
Sustainability.Walnut C reek: Left Coast Press.
Bendix, Regina, 1997, In Searchof Authenticity: The Fonnation.of Folklore
Studies.Madison: Un iversity of Wisconsin Press.
Blake, Janet, 2000, "On Defining th e Cultural l-lcritagc." International &
Co1nparativeLaw Quarterly49( 1): 61-85.
Borwick, Doug and Barbara Schaffer Bacon, 2012, BuildingCo1n1nuniti es,
Not Audiences:The Future of the Arts in the United States. Win ston-
Salen1, N .C.: Arts Engaged.
Butler, Richard and Tho1nas Hinch, 2007, Tourisn1and IndigenousPeoples:
Issuesand lrnplications.A1nsterdan1:Elsevier /Buttenvorth-Heinen1ann.
Caserta, S ilvia and Antonio Paolo Russo, 2002, "More Means Worse:
Asyn11netric lnfonn at ion, Spatial Displace 1nent and Susta inable
Heritage Touris1n."Journal of Cultural Economics26(4): 245-260.
Clark, Kate (ed.) , 2006, Capturingthe Public Value of Heritage.London:
English l1eritagc.
Da Costa, Dia, 2010, "Introduction: Relocating Cu lture in Develop1nent
and Develop,nent in C ulture." Third WorldQuarterly3 1(4): 501-522.
Council of Europe, 2005, Faro Convention - Council of Europe Fra1newo rk
Convent ion on the Value of Cultural 1-leritage for Soc iety.
Cov,en, Tyler, 2002, C1·eative Destruction:How Globalization ls Cl-tangingche
World'sCultures. Princeton: Princeto n University Press.
Oiduck, Alan, 1999,"Critical Education in Resource and Environment al
Managen1ent: Learning and Empower1nent for a Sustainable Future."
Journalof E11viron1nental Manage1n ent 57(2): 85- 97.
 CHANGING VISIONSOF HERfTAGE
VALUE 443

Dictlcr, Michael, 1994, '"Ou r Ance stors tl1e Gauls': Archaeology, Ethnic
Nation alis1n, and the Manipul at ion of Ce ltic Identity in Modern
Europe." A1nericanAnthro/Jologist 96(3 ): 584- 605.
Dinc;cr,lclal, 20 11, "The ltnpact of Neoliberal Policies on Historic Urban
Space : Areas of Urban Renewal in Istanbu l." International Planning
Studies 16( 1): 43-60.
Ertman, Martha anJ Joan Willian1s 2005, ''Freedo1n, Equality, and the
1

Many Futures of Co1nrnodification." In Marth a Ert1nan and Joan

Willian1s (eds.), Rethinkin g Co1n1nodificat ion: Cases anJ Readings
in Law an<lCultu re: 1-7. Ne\v York: NYU Press.
Feltault, Kelly, 2006, "Dcvelopn1ent Folklife: Hun1an Security anJ Cu ltural
Co nservat ion." Jou111alof American Folklore 119(4 71): 90-1 10.
Galla, A1narcs\var, 2013, WorldHeritage. Can1bridge: Ca1nbridge Un iversity
Press.
Glassberg, David, 1990,A1nerican1-listorical Pageantry: The Usesof Tradition
in the Early Twentieth Centu1·y. C hapel Hill: Univ ersity of North
Carolina Press.
G racia, Jorge J. E, 2003, Old Wine in New Skins the Role of T·raditionin
Comrnunicarion , Knowledge, and Group Identity.Nlil\vaukee: Marquette
Unive rsity Press.
Grenville, Jane, 2007, "Con servation as Psychology: Ont ological Security
and the Built Environ1nent." International Journal of Heritage :::;cw.Lies
I3 (6): 447 -461 .
Gu stafson, Per, 2001, "Roots and Route s: Exploring th e Relationship
between Place Attach1nent and Mobility." Environ1nent and Behavior
33(5): 667-686.
Ha1npto n, Mark P., 2005, "Herita ge, Local Co n11nunities and Econo1nic
Dcvelop1ncnt." Annals of Tourism Research32(3) : 735-759'.
J;e rzfeld, Michael, 20 10, "Engage1nent, Gentrificati on, and the Neoliberal
Hijacking of History." Cu11·entAnthropology5 1(S2): S259-S267.
Jokileht o, J ukka, 1999, A Historyof A1·chitecturalConse1·vation. Oxfo rd and
Boston: Butterworth-Heinen1ann.
Kirshenblatt-Gin1blett Barbara, 2004, "Intangible Heritage as Mctaculrural
1

Production." Museu1nInternational56(1-2): 52-65.

Labadi, Sophi a, 2008, Evaluating che Socio-Econon1ichnpacts of Selected
Regenerated Heritage Sites in Europe. An1sterdan1: European Cultural
Foundation.
Labadi, Sophia and Col in Long, 2010, Heritageand Globalisation. New
York: Routledge.
Larsen, Knut Einar, 1995, Nara Conferenceon Authenticity in Relation to the
444 NEILSILBERMAN

World HeritageConvention. Paris: UNESCO, lCO MOS, ICCROM.

Lev ine, La\vrence, 1988, Highbrow/Lowbrow:The Emergenceof Culcural
Hierarchyin A,nerica.Ca 1nbridge: Harvard University Press.
Licc iardi, Gu ido an<l Rana A1nirtah 1nasebi, 20 l 2, The Econo,nics of
Uniqueness:Investingin HistoricCity Coresand Cultural HeritageAssets
for SustainableDevelopment. Washington: World Bank Publications.
Mason , Randall , 2008, "Be Int erested and Beware: Joining Econo1nic
Valuation an d Heritage Conse rvatio n." lnternational]ournalofI-leritage
Studies 14(4): 303-318.
Matsuda, Matt K., 1996, The Memory of cheModern. Nc,v York: Oxford
University Press.
Misiura, Shashi, 2006, HeritageMarketing. Oxfo r<land Burlington: Elsevier
Butter,vorth-Hcine1nann.
Mouton, Benjamin, 2013, Heritage, Driver of Development:Rising co the
Challenge. Paris: lCOMOS.
Perkin , Corinne, 20 I 0, "Beyond th e Rh etoric: Negoriaring the Policies and
Rea lising the Potential of Co mmun ity-Driven Heritage Engagen1cnc."
InternationalJou111alof HeritageStudies 16(1-2): 107-122.
Petzet, Michael, 2010, Inte111ational
Principlesof Preservation
. Berlin: Bafiler.
Porter, Libby and Kate Sha,v, 2013, Whose Urban Renaissance?: An
lnte111ati
onal Coniparison of Urban RegenerationStrategies. London:
Routl edge.
Ruiz-Ballesteros, E. and M. Hernandez-Ranlirez, 2010, "Tourisrn Th at
Ernpowcrs?:Com1nodificarion and Appropriation in Ecuador's Turis1no
Co ,nunit ario." Critique of Anth1·opology30(2): 201-229.
Rypkema, Donovan D., 2012, "Econon1ics and Histo ric Preservation."
Forum]ou111al 27(1): 46-54.
Sco tt , Jatnes C., l 998, Seeinglike a State: How Certain Scheniesto Improve
the Hu,nan Condition Have Failed.New Have n: Yale University Press.
Silbe r1nan, Neil A., 2007 "Susta inable Heritage? Public Archaeo logica l
Interpretation and the Markete d Past." ln Yann is Ha,n ilakis and Philip
Duke (eds.), Archaeo logy and Cap italis 1n. Fronl Ethics co Politics:
179-193. Walnut Cree k: Left Coast Press.
S ilberma n, Ne il A., 2013, "D iscourses of Oeve lop,n ent: Na rr atives
of C ultur a l Heritage as an Econo,nic Resource." In Russell Staif,
Robyn Bushell and Steve Watson (e<ls.),HeTicage and Tourisn1:Place,
Encounter, Engage1nent: 213-225. London: Routledge.
Smit h, Laurajane, 2006, Usesof Heritage.London and New York: Routledge.
Sta rn , Rando lph, 2002, "Authe nticity and Historic Preservat ion: Tov.,ards
an Auth en tic History." Historyof the Human Sciences 15(1): 1-16.
 CHANGING VISIONSOF HERITAGE
VALUE 445

Thro sby, David, 1999, "Cultural Capital." Jou111a l of Cultural Econo1nics

23( 1-2): 3- 12.
UNESCO Media Services, 2013, "Intangib le Cu ltura l 1-lericagc: A Force
for Su::;tainablc Dcvelop1nent." l,ttp://,v,v,v.une sco.org/ne,v/cn/incdia-
serv ices/in-focus-articles/intangi blc-cu Itu ral-heri tage-for-sustain able-
devc lop1nen t, accessed Janua ry 2, 2014.
UNESCOPRESS, 2009, ''Wor ld Bank and UN ESCO: Expanding
Opportunities for Co llaboration on Cu ltu re and Susta inab le
[)eve lopmcn t." http ://w,v,v.uncsco.org/ne\v/en/n1cdia-services/single-
v ic,v/ne \VS/ \VOr ld_ba n k_and _ u nesco _ ex paneling_ opportunities_
fo r_ co l Iabora t ion_o n_ cu Itu re_a nc.l_sustaina ble_J evc lop 1nen t/ # .
UsNB1nkqyqtU, accessed l)ecernber 31, 2013.
Van Oers, Ron, 2008, "Sleeping \Vith the Enerny ? Private Sec to r
lnvo lven1ent in World 1-lerita ge Preservation." Paper presented at
th e X'" World Congress of the Organ ization of World Herit age C ities,
Quito .
West, Patricia, 1999,Don1esticating1-listory: The Political Originsof Arnerica's
House Museu1ns.Washin gton: Sn1irhsonian Institut ion Press.