Heritage: How to remain relevant following the virus crisis?

Authors

  • Saša Srećković Ethnographic Museum in Belgrade

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2020.101

Abstract

The article states that despite the creation of the UNESCO fund aimed at International assistance by means of which State parties to the Convention for Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, inter alia, can address problems arising from catastrophes and emergencies. However, the devastating effects of the pandemic on heritage are yet to be expected. Due to the known recent circumstances, without mobility of people and their mutual contacts, and without physical access to the built heritage and museums, there will be no income for local people living in their surroundings. Another problem is related to the intangible expressions of heritage due to inevitable economic turbulences subsequent to the pandemic, and even due to the recent political turmoil caused by various related factors, such as the behavior demonstrated by different governments while facing the crisis and consequent revolts in many communities worldwide. While clear solutions for affected heritage following the crisis are still not on the horizon, we may assume that in the near future there will be an increase of interest in environmental studies. Many will reflect upon the sustainable use of resources and their relevance for heritage (such as agrarian heritage, particularly in regard to food security; traditional medicine or cultural rights and intellectual property in the same context). While there is no doubt that digital tools for reviewing (tangible) heritage will only progress over time, the question is to what extent will living experiences of heritage be affordable to people, at least in the forthcoming period. An adequate response to a global disaster will certainly integrate heritage into policies such as territorial urban/rural planning and various intersectoral activities, and examples already exist in projects funded and supported by the European Union. Despite the weakening of available resources as a result of the pandemic, heritage institutions should also increasingly allow for more democratic inclusion of communities into the issues of inventorying and safeguarding heritage, through mechanisms such as participatory mapping and the like. 

Keywords:

cultural heritage, Intangible Cultural Heritage, emergencies, pandemic, consequences, economic turbulences, response, agrarian heritage, community participation

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Apaydin, Veisel (ed.). 2020. Introduction: Why cultural memory and heritage? Critical perspectives on cultural memory and heritage: construction, transformation and destruction: 1–8. London, UCL Press.

Blake, Janet. 2000. On defining the cultural heritage. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 49 (1): 61–85.

Bold, John, Pickard, Robert (eds). 2018. An Integrated approach to cultural heritage. The Council of Europe’s technical co-operation and consultancy program: 67–79. Strasbourg, Council of Europe.

Feria, Jose M. (ed.). 2012. Territorial heritage and Sustainable Development — Conceptual basis and methodological issues. Territorial heritage and development: 3–11. CRC Press Taylor & Francis group.

Giaccardi, Elisa. 2012. Heritage and social media: Understanding heritage in a participatory culture. London, Routledge.

Howard, Patricia, Puri, Rajindra, Smith, Laura Jane, Altieri, Miguel. 2008. Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems: A Scientific Conceptual Framework and Strategic Principles. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/ap025e/ap025e.pdf (accessed: 18.12.2020).

Koohafkan, Parviz, Altieri, Miguel A. 2017. Forgotten Agricultural Heritage: Reconnecting food systems and sustainable development. London, Routledge.

La Frenierre, Jeff. 2008. Mapping heritage: A participatory technique for identifying tangible and intangible cultural heritage. International Journal of the Inclusive Museum 1 (1): 97–104.

Proschan, Frank. 2015. Community involvement in valuing and safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. Van Balen, Koen and Vandesande, Aziliz A. (eds) Reflections on cultural heritage theories and practices. KU Leuven, A series by the Raymond Lemaire International Centre for conservation: 15–21.

Riordan, Alex, Schofield, John. 2015. Beyond medicine: Traditional medicine as cultural heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies 21: 280–299.

Russel, Lawrence Barsh. 2001. Who steals indigenous knowledge? Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 95: 153–161.

Stamatopoulou, Elsa. 2007. Cultural rights in international law. Article 27 of the Universal declaration of human rights and beyond. Leiden, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publ.

Viejo-Rose, Dacia. 2015. Cultural heritage and memory: Untangling the ties that bind. Culture & History Digital Journal 4 (2): 1–13.

Whitehead, Christopher, Bozoglu, Gonul. 2017. Heritage and Memory in Europe: a review of key concepts and frameworks. Critical heritages (Co-HERE): 2–23. Newcastle University.

Downloads

Published

30.11.2020

How to Cite

Srećković, S. (2020). Heritage: How to remain relevant following the virus crisis?. Pravovedenie, 64(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2020.101