Ayşegül Akın

2281830

Critical Review
In this review, I will comment on two articles: There's No Such Thing as Culture: Towards a
Reconceptualization of the Idea of Culture in Geography, written by Don Mitchell (1995), and
Invention of Tradition written by Eric Hobsbawm,(1983) written under the headings of Culture
and Tradition.

In the first article, There’s No Such Thing as Culture, writer Mitchell tries to refine the culture
concept. With a bold title, he underlines the opposition to the definitions of culture that have
been made so far. He is claiming that ‘culture’ is an incredibly slippery term, and it is hard to
define it. According to the article, there have been several attempts to make a definition of the
term culture by the cultural geographers. In the first attempt, definitions were made by referring
to culture as a superorganic thing, which underlines that culture is an entity that exists over and
beyond individuals. Zelinsky, a well-known cultural geographer, is one of the professionals that
support this idea. According to his definition, culture appears to be a superorganic entity that
lives and changes according to an indeterminate set of internal laws. Moreover, Zelinsky (1973),
argued that culture lives on its own as a kind of 'macro idea', quite apart from a single person or
his will. Assigning an ontological status to culture was abandoned later, by the introduction of
the attempt of 'new cultural geography', by denying the superorganicism definitions. By
theorizing culture as a terrain, realm, level, domain, medium, or system of signification the
reconceptualization of culture was achieved. As supporters of this concept, Cosgrove and
Jackson (1987) defined culture as 'the medium through which people transform the mundane
phenomenon of the material world into a world of significant symbols to which they give
meaning and attach value'.

By accepting all these developments, but still with a stance against it, Don Mitchell defines
culture’ as an incredibly slippery term, hard to define. According to him, both approaches have
obstructed further developments by insisting that culture has an ontological status: that it truly
exists.
 Ayşegül Akın

2281830

The Nara Document on Authenticity (1994), and Nara + 20: On Heritage Practices, Cultural
Values, and the Concept of Authenticity(2015). Both are written documents focusing on the
concept of authenticity, the major parameter for the evaluation of cultural heritage1. These two
documents, which played an important role in the development of the Authenticity concept,
discussed the basic requirements of the concept under the conditions of the period they were
published, but they also underlined its dynamism.

The Nara Document on Authenticity, which was prepared after the meeting held in Nara with
the participation of different countries in 1994 begins by stating that it has developed from the
definition of authenticity in the Venice Charter in its preamble section. Authenticity is a term
derived from the mentioned in the Venice charter, although its definition is not fully explained
and detailed. In Nara Document, the term Authenticity is explained to emphasize the diversity of
cultural heritage and to broaden the scope of the idea of cultural heritage preservation, which
must be updated with changing conditions over time. It highlighted that the world is more
exposed to globalization and homogenization pressures. Moreover, the search for cultural
identity is sometimes subject to aggressive nationalism and suppression of minority cultures.
Nara document argues that in such a world, it will be possible to clarify and illuminate the
collective memory of humanity by considering authenticity in conservation practice. Under the
heading of Cultural Diversity and Heritage Diversity, it emphasizes that the conservation and
enhancement of the world's cultural and heritage diversity should be recognized as a fundamental
aspect of human development. Therefore, this diversity should be accepted and respected by all
cultures according to the document. Every culture has different beliefs, and they express these
beliefs in a variety of tangible and intangible ways. Therefore, where cultural values conflict,
respect for cultural diversity requires recognition of the importance of the cultural values of all
parties as it was mentioned in the sixth article of the Nara Document. Furthermore, the document
suggests that every society can apply these principles without ignoring its own values, balancing
its own needs with those of other cultural communities.

1
Weiler, Katharina & Gutschow, Niels. (2017). Authenticity in Architectural Heritage Conservation: Discourses, Opinions,
Experiences in Europe, South and East Asia. 10.1007/978-3-319-30523-3.
 Ayşegül Akın

2281830

Under the heading of Values and Authenticity, it claims that, for assessing all aspects of
authenticity, it is crucial to have and understand the reliable sources of information on the values
of cultural heritage. In Article 13, it states that these sources for judgement on authenticity is
varied and may include form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions
and techniques, location and setting, and spirit and feeling, and other internal and external
factors. When we look at the content of this document, it is possible to say that it has an
important role in understanding the concept of authenticity as it states that cultural heritage
evolves over time and the scope of authenticity will evolve in changing conditions and situations
and emphasizes the importance of cultural diversity.

Despite being an important milestone in the conservation area, the Nara document has caused
some controversy. As mentioned earlier, it claims that judgments of authenticity are based on
different sources of information. But the Nara document specifies these sources as more concrete
sources. Therefore, although the document is logical in theory, it has caused some problems in
practice. Because of that, experts met again in Japan in 2014 and Published Nara +20 document
in 2015 with the aim of investigating different methods to comprehend cultural variety and
heritage. It underlines that the values associated with heritage are socially based rather than
technically or scientifically based. It also includes the new topics such as community
participation and sustainable practices in conservation. It also emphasizes the need to develop
evaluation methodologies in the conservation area with the changing world and developing
technology.