Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cultural Heritage and Social Capital: Jacek Purchla
Cultural Heritage and Social Capital: Jacek Purchla
Cultural Heritage and Social Capital: Jacek Purchla
Jacek Purchla
Jacek Purchla - art historian and economist, specialist in cul
tural heritage, urban history, and Krakow studies. He is full
professor o f humanities (professor ordinarius) and a member
o f the Polish Academy o f Arts and Sciences. He is the head
o f the Department o f Economic and Social H istory and
the unesco Chair for Heritage and Urban Studies at the Kra
kow University of Economics, as well as the head of the Centre
of European Heritage, Institute of European Studies at the Jag-
iellonian University. His research areas are urban development,
social history and art history o f the 19th and 20th centuries, as
well as the theory and protection of cultural heritage. He is
the author o f over 400 academic works, including a number of
books. Between 1990 to 1991 he was a vice-mayor of the city of
Krakow. He is the founder of the International Cultural Centre
in Krakow, and has been its director since its inception in 1991.
He is a titular member and a vice-president o f the Comité in
ternational d’histoire de l’art (c i h a ), as well as a member of
many organisations and associations, including the Europa
Nostra Council in The Hague and the Art Studies Committee
at the Polish Academy o f Sciences. Since 2000 he has chaired
the Monument Preservation Council at the M inistry o f Cul
ture and National Heritage.
Cultural heritage and social capital
Jacek Purchla
72 I Jacek Purchla
monument value (in whatever sense) is attributed will have any chance
of preservation and protection from destruction or diametric alteration.
This is why the honing and intensification o f the selection process is of
such immense significance.
The second issue is the increasing need for heritage. This is by no means
a paradox, but a logical consequence of the rapid, fundamental transforma
tions in our environment. In the face of the all-standardising force of glo
balisation and the vast rise in the economic importance o f tourism, there is
an increasing need for all forms of heritage, above all architectural and urban
monuments, of course. The potential for exploitation of heritage in tourism is
proportional to its value, but also to its legibility, visual attractiveness, poten
tial for adding tourist infrastructure, and size. For this reason, protection of
whole complexes - whether industrial, urban or rural - will be of increasing
significance. This “demand for heritage” will determine its character. From
the perspectives o f both education and information (identity) and tourism
(economy), heritage will need to conform to notions of heritage - notions
shaped by mass culture and the notions of the mass consumer. It will be
a heritage understood and treated as a “cultural product”, which means that
it will have to meet expectations bound up with the cultural product model
and not those of the monument in its traditional sense. This opposition is
of crucial significance. A cultural product is viewed from the angle of its
model and judged by how it compares with that model, unlike the monu-
ment-as-document, which is valued, above all, as a unique work. The monu-
ment-as-product may also be appreciated for its “novelty” value, even though
this is in opposition to its “antique” value (Alois Riegl). Something similar is
true of the “completeness” and "legibility”, which are also important features
of the cultural product, because they facilitate an understanding of the mon
ument. In the monument-as-document these attributes are not more im
portant than the authenticity of its form and substance. And lastly, there is
the obvious utilitarian value of the cultural product, ie the extent to which
the monument-as-product is adapted to serve all the functions expected by
the user (the tourist). The question of attractiveness is similar: a product
has to appeal to and be accepted by its consumer. In the case o f the monu-
ment-as-document-as-artwork such elements are of secondary importance
and should not impact on the form in which it is preserved. In the light of this
confrontation the most significant attributes of the monument - its authentic
substance and form - cease to be of dominant significance.
The third issue is the clear shift in emphasis from the value of the herit
age to the needs o f society. This change in the treatment o f heritage might
1 Raport o systemie ochrony dziedzictwa kulturowego w Polsce po roku 1989, ed. Jacek Purchla,
Warszawa 2009, pp. 18-20.
2 Ibidem, p. 70.
74 I Jacek Purchla
priorities, the volume of tourist traffic, the climate, and so on. And social
capital is also a fundamental instrument in developing such heritage pro
tection systems (systems in the broad sense o f the word) in these countries!
One example is the official change in conservation policy in Great Brit
ain, a country where heritage protection is a priority. The entire monu
ment protection system - from the legislation, and system of financing to
the technicalities of conservation and creating new jobs in government of
fices - is society-oriented. The emphasis has been transferred from the his
torical values to the needs and conceptions o f contemporary consumers.
Observation of mature democracies and the virtually natural care in
which they take of their heritage, drawing on tradition, suggests the hy
pothesis that Polish society is only just em barking on the stage o f pub
lic debate about the real role of historic substance in contemporary life.
Above all, this debate needs to lead to a valorisation o f local heritage by
local communities, in the form o f local government monument protection
plans, socio-economic development plans and other local bye-laws. Local
government and civil society are crucial to the creation o f a modern cul
tural heritage protection system in Poland.
In order to achieve these aims, it is vital that the state adopt a strategy for
developing social capital in the cause o f cultural heritage. Since the Polish
state has proved incapable of producing an effective system of protecting
our cultural heritage and the existing system is insufficient in legal, or
ganisational and financial terms, devolving heritage protection processes
to society is now our prim ary challenge. Social capital should be nurtured
as an opportunity both for protection of cultural heritage and for its ex
ploitation as a pro-development resource. This applies to both tangible and
intangible heritage; the latter is rapidly gaining in significance.
The strategy for developing social capital thus needs to address a broad
spectrum o f issues. These may tentatively be divided into the following
areas:
l. Harnessing social capital in the process of creating and identifying cultural
heritage. These processes are based on social bonds and collective memory,
and the products they beget include places of memory and reinforcement of
the sense of community. One instructive example of the synergetic relations
between social capital and cultural heritage is the experience o f the Podhale
region. In the society of this region there is an impressive community bond
and a high degree of awareness of the value of heritage and its significance
for local development. Poland s particular experiences in the 20th century
76 I Jacek Purchla
post-graduate study course (with Cracow University o f Economics) on
heritage management aimed at young conservators, local government of
ficials and teachers. The positive experiences this has yielded should be
better exploited in order to create a network of institutions across Poland
training new personnel in cultural heritage policy.
8. A strategy o f protecting and developing traditional crafts and skills
on the basis o f intersectoral collaboration. This should be founded on
the good practices promoted by the Folk Universities (Uniwersytety Lu
dowe), which harness the synergy between artistic circles, scientists and
civil initiatives (examples include the M ałopolski Folk University and
the Kashubian Folk University).
9. Reinforcing and stimulating cooperation between entities in various sectors:
state institutions, the education system, cultural institutions, ngos, industry,
private firms, and spontaneous networks founded on digital technologies.
10. Propagation in society of a heritage protection philosophy understood,
above all, as wise management o f the changing function and potential of
heritage. This also requires an integrated approach to the issue o f the cul
tural landscape, as an extremely complex system of interconnected vessels.
As this list shows, it is not only the form o f historic sites and systems -
which earlier thinking on heritage protection encouraged us to think - but
also their function that are currently decisive in terms o f how they can
be protected. Heritage is not m erely the sum o f historic sites or objects in
a given area. On the one hand it has a symbolic stratum connected with
its interpretation as a sacred sphere, while on the other it is also a market
product, which still comes as a shock to many. In this sense, efficient herit
age management entails finding a satisfactory answer to the question of
its accessibility and its consumers. Opportunities for spreading this new
mode of thinking about heritage as a factor in development are offered
by Poland’s membership o f the European Union, its access to eu funds,
and the reinforcement o f the role o f local government as a “guardian o f
the common good”.
In conclusion, it is vital to emphasise that our identity today is expe
riencing rapid evolution from a defensive outlook to an innovative stance.
This breeds an increasing need for us to redefine ourselves and open up to
others, so promoting the interaction between social capital and heritage
that is becoming vital for the rebuilding o f social cohesion.