The Social and Cultural Divisions created by Preservation

Cultural and social diversity and its implications in preservation.


The social dilemma present in historic preservation is a result of history, which is the interpretation of a community and social phenomenon and written by a small group of people. This is reflected in the preservation of heritage where monuments and monumental sites are the center stage of preservation activities, vernacular architecture remains in the background. UNESCO acknowledged Cultural Diversity in Preservation only as recently as November 2001[1] when it adopted the universal declaration on cultural diversity. This declaration elevates cultural diversity to the ranks of the common heritage of humanity and necessary to human race as bio-diversity is to the natural realm. The declaration realizes that “culture takes in diverse forms through time and space and is embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up humankind.” Cultural diversity was recognized as a factor in development creating a wider range of options for everyone beyond the world of economics to include the “intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence.” The Declaration also realizes that cultural dialogues between cultures cannot exist with huge inequalities.


The West portrayed as a dominant culture.

Edward Said in his book “Culture and Imperialism” condemns the imperialists for misrepresenting the role of the imperial conquests in the shaping of their culture- “one which they continue to regard as superior to all others.” This concept is taken further by Jane Collier who contends that western law ignores the imperialistic context in which it developed and the dominated cultures that stress their preservation which stereotype the western as dynamic and the others as conservative (backward).[2] This phenomenon can be seen in most post colonial developing nations where the indigenous languages have been replaced by the colonial languages as the medium of education as well as the official language used by these governments perpetuating a continuation of the colonial thought and the viewing of the indigenous as antiquated. However, this concept is seen even at a national scale where most of the local cultures do not find adequate representation, a dominant national culture determines the national heritage at the expense of local cultures.

“The battle over the past and its future is not one which belongs to the citizens- it is a part of a modern nation-state with a monumental conception of history.” [3] Herzfeld argues that the bureaucracy tends to see the “familiar domestic spaces as monumental” as a part of nationalist thought creating what he calls “traditional neighborhoods” and “archaeological monuments” out of what, for residents, are the streets where their friends and enemies live and die. [4] He tries to distinguish between what he calls “monumental time” and “social time” and defines social time as being “the grist of everyday existence” which gives reality to events because it experiences them. He calls monumental time “reductive and generic” where events are encountered as a realization of a supreme destiny and the social experience to that of collective predictability. Lowenthal terms the “past as a foreign country” making the remains of the past irrelevant in the present space and time. Herzfeld extends this concept to relate the human aspect of the past, which he claims are “forced to live in these monumentalized relics”. He contends that this creation of an increasingly marginalized underclass living in monumentalized spaces is a result of a common Euro centric impetus. A phenomenon seen in much of the historic cities in tradition based countries. Antony Tung’s book “ Preservation of the World’s Greatest Cities”, takes the example of Cairo where this phenomenon of the marginalized underclass in a historic core of the traditional city is apparent.

“The conversion of chance into destiny displaces intimacy in favor of form. If the play of chance is what enables everyday experiences to grow from imperfection and spontaneity, destiny must ultimately render human action socially meaningless and reduce it to the status of a cipher in some immovable grand design. Materially, this reduction is enshrined in that triumph of place over time- here monuments over social experience- that characterizes ideas over propriety. In other words, the ‘undue attention’ with which the state intrudes into ordinary people’s everyday affairs is part of a reductive process. memory saturated homes are formally catalogued as historic houses, all socially experienced sense of time disappears in favor of a set of banal, bureaucratic verities…”[5]


The concept of the insider and the outsider in preservation.

The concept of the insider and the outsider in preservation- is one directly related to the issues of ownership of cultural property. The various debates and arguments in preservation are visible in the great divide between the insider and the outsider in preservation. The term “insider” pertains to groups who are included in the decision making process of preservation and the “outsider” comprises of those who are excluded from this process. The line between the two groups is not a clear one as values keep changing and also the persons attesting to these values. While ownership is one factor, various social, class and other sociological and economical factors play key roles in this determination of the constitution of these groups.

These groups have been represented in history in various forms. They were represented by the clashes between the right wing and their “status” issues and the left wing and their struggles with status deprivation. While an anxiety in the right led to its preservation, the same with the left led to demands for equalization.[6] Political scientists such as Tatalovich and Smith argue that this conflict which they term as “identity politics” are used by victim groups to elevate their social status by gaining political recognition and legal rights as groups and not as autonomous individuals. This divide between the groups is present and manifested in the manner in which they perceive themselves: the “traditionalists and the progressives”, the “conservationists and the anti-conservationists” as well as various other groups. Each one perceives a conflicting identity of what constitutes the “insider” or “outsider”. In preservation, as mentioned earlier, the insider comprised of the dominant group in a particular time and space. The reason why cultural heritage is used as a powerful exclusionary tool is because people are aware of its use as a force to bind people or break social groups.

Prof. Philip Marshall on the concept of the insider and the outsider in preservation quotes Tschudi Madsen’s definition of preservation – as the act of strengthening a fortification or stockade by adding stakes. Prof. Marshall has a different take on this quote and feels that “ instead of feeling that we need to physically intervene and insulate ourselves behind stockades, keeping out others, preservationists must engage local stakeholders, making preservation inclusive rather than exclusive”- a concept of the stakeholders in cultural heritage.

International cultures and indigenous cultures.

“Are you the keeper of the right or the wrong? That is not the ways of the Cherokee. We believe that the keeper of right and wrong is the Great Spirit or God. My grandmother used to teach me that to look back and decide “right” or “wrong” would ruin the Cherokee. That we needed to “be where we are and go on.” This is the problem with the tribe today. We are too involved in the ways of the whites, which is the way of the “right” and “wrong”. And this, according to my grandmother, is the road that leads to “nowhere”. That is a traditional Cherokee belief.” [7]

Indigenous knowledge also termed, as “traditional” knowledge is today an international concern represented by UNESCO’s 1989 Recommendations on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore, Local Empowerment and International Cooperation. This was followed in 1999 by the global assessments of these recommendations. In 2002 UNESCO started a project “Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems in a Global Society”. Various governments and nations had realized the uniqueness of inherent cultures present in their national boundaries. Various legislations in countries had been passed in different countries to protect the interests of the indigenous cultures; in America, the NAGPRA was passed to protect the rights of the native Americans to their ancestral gravesites, the scheduled castes and tribes in India were given special protection, the aboriginal interests in Australia are protected by the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Protection Authority.

“Preservation of indigenous cultures- non-western cultures extends beyond physical bounds to include much, much more.”[8] Marshall contends that the act of preservation in the context of indigenous people is “not a treatment, but a process whose workings must be considered in the greater context of non-Western worldviews… (it) is not an end goal but a means to preserve culture at large..” Indigenous people have also been known by a myriad of names such as “Indian”, “tribal”, “native”, “aboriginal”, “mixed blood” etc. These terms are widely used in legislations and viewed in different ways throughout the world. In Brazil, during the 70’s indigenous land and riches were collectively ascribed to the exclusive use of each ethnic group. The dominion was vested with the federal government but it could not be diverted for any other purpose. However, since then changes in legislation and the division of indigenous land to private owners led to lands being put into the market. Much has changed since.

Indigenous people today have to deal not only with their frontiers, as they are no longer along the borders of the “universal system” but have become partners with central institutions such as UNESCO and the World Bank.[9]However this view is not shared by all- Suswap Chief George Manuel defines the indigenous world as being a “Fourth World” [10]-one whose populations are today completely or partly deprived of the right to their own territories and its riches. Indigenous cultures are involved in the struggle to gain some autonomy and preserve their cultural heritage and identity.

“World economic policy tends to view the fourth world cultures as obstacles to economic expansion and development, or as outdated relics pushed ineluctably towards extinction in a shrinking, increasingly technological world”. [11]


Dynamic and Static cultures and their implications on the preservation process.

The concept of the dynamic and the static cultures present in preservation is generally portrayed as a debate between the eastern and western cultures. The west is generally portrayed as a static culture with a fanatical emphasis on the material conservation when compared with eastern cultures.[12] Analysis of certain practices in the east and in the west would help to continue the dialogue in both directions. The west leans more towards science and professionalism and the east on a traditional and belief oriented system. It is a common misconception that preservation in the east is more of an effort of maintenance and the focus in the west as a fight against time to continue to keep something in its particular space. No culture can be termed static until it is dead, preservation as practiced in the west due to the fact that it focuses a great deal on the material authenticity of a particular time and space sometimes loses track of those cultural ideologies present in that space and time which may cease to be valid in the present. The treatment meted out to archaeological and lost cultures may be appropriate but in the realm of the cultures, which continue to breathe, preservation based on material authenticity may not be appropriate both in the east and the west. In static cultures, a focus on material authenticity could be emphasized but in the context of living cultures, the “living” aspect – the local people need to be consulted and taken into account in preservation. The debate lies in the preservation of living and dead cultures and not in western and non-western cultures.


[1]UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity , Adopted by the 31st Session of UNESCO’s general conference, Paris, 2nd November 2001. http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/extern/gats2000/decl_en.pdf
[2] Jane F. Collier . “Intertwined Histories: Islamic Law and Western Imperialism”. Available Online: http://www.stanford.edu/groups/SHR/5-1/text/collier.html
[3] Michael Herzfeld. A Place in History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. P. 5.
[4] Ibid. P. 6.
[5] Michael Herzfeld. A Place in History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. P. 11.
[6] Raymond Tatalovich and T. Alexander Smith . Status Claims and Cultural Conflicts: The Genesis of Morality Policy. Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Indiana University . Available Online:
http://www. apsapolicysection.org/vol10_4/tatalovich.htm
[7] As quoted by Ann Maloney in the article by Ashley Montagu’s article “ Identity and Ideology”.
[8] Philip Marshall . “Snow and Fire in the Fourth World: Perspectives on Western Preservation and Hopi Cultural Preservation Initiatives,” presented at Culture, Environments and Heritage, US/ICOMOS, 2nd Annual International Symposium, Washington D.C., March 20-21, 1999.
[9] Carneiroda Cunha and Almeida, Conservation in the Amazon.
[10] As quoted in an article by Andy Thomason. Andy Thomason. “Introduction to the Fourth World” . 23 March 2003.< http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/3665/16924>
[11] Andy Thomason. “Introduction to the Fourth World” . 23 March 2003.
< http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/3665/16924>
[12] This misconception is visible in statements, which are made by Chen Wei and Andreas Aas, earlier quoted in the thesis.