Presentation Title

Transformative impacts of the ICH Convention: Notes for discussion

Abstract

In this presentation, I focus on the transformative impact of the ICH Convention. My argument will be based on its conceptual framework and operational directives, and inspired by unsystematic observation developed during my professional practice. This trajectory will suggest some perspectives to think about the evaluation of results achieved by the implementation of the Convention and point out challenges that may be faced in years to come.

UNESCO’s 2003 Convention has raised high expectations and much enthusiasm on States agents, cultural communities and academics in various countries, particularly those on the South of the Equator. After more than 13 years of hard work by various stakeholders, including State agents, UNESCO personnel and consultants, academics and evidently cultural communities¹⁾, some important aspects of these expectations have been met, particularly in fields of awareness raising about the embeddedness of knowhow, forms of expression, cosmologies, celebrations and other intangible manifestations of human creativity in most diverse lifeways; another welcome contribution has been the clear understanding of ich as a key factor in sustaining ‘senses of identity and continuity’ (Art.2,1).

The fact of putting real people in the forefront of heritage thinking and professional practice, as holders and practitioners of ich, is the most evident aspect of changes that I like to call the ‘anthropological turn’ in this field. Not just any people, but particularly individuals, groups, communities and nations that have been kept in obscurity and remained practically unknown to the world at large. This move has been a consequence of the conceptual and political choice of considering ich only what real people in their common lives (not experts) recognize as such. Another consequence is the recognition that ich is inextricably attached to real people, and the understanding that the nexus that articulates them is the necessary social significance of heritage to their holders, practitioner and supporters. Social value²⁾ associated with the contribution of ich to the promotion of ‘respect for cultural diversity and human creativity” (Art.2,1) thus becomes, for legal and political purposes, one of the legitimate pillars of Heritage Value, side by side with the cornerstones of preservation legislation and policies since the first Athens Charter, of 1931, i.e., historic, artistic, scientific or archeological exceptionality. Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to say that this Convention has been a breakthrough on heritage policies, and not only because of the novelty of its ‘intangible objects’.

The implementation of ICH Convention seems to have contributed significantly – in some cases it has indeed done so - to make heritage policies more democratic, socially responsible and also more friendly towards cultural diversity. These are core elements in the construction of mediations between States agencies and communities.

One aspect that should be pointed out here is the increasing visibility and empowerment of heritage communities, vis-à-vis preservation agencies and the public in general. This tendency is frequently associated with the creation of ONGs or with building stronger ties between local communities and civil society’s organizations, as in most nomination dossiers submitted to the IGC.

However, the effectiveness of the Convention – and consequently its strength as a driving force for positive (aimed by stakeholders) or negative (unwanted) transformation - is grounded on a challenging conceptual tension. I refer to the clash between the cold normativity of its dispositions, implemented by States Parties bureaucracies, and the heat of dynamic human lives; between the relative invariance of choices set by its negotiated conceptual framework and the flexible ‘sanction of the precedent’ that validates innovation or change, as Eric Hobsbawm once wrote (Hobsbawm 1984, 2) in contrasting ‘custom’ and the ‘invented traditions’; between the universalistic reach of the Convention and the myriads of testimonies of particular human creations targeted by it.

In terms of a glocal approach to safeguarding, the tension between the intrinsic universalism and embedded particularism of the ICH Convention produces important consequences, particularly for evaluating the effectiveness of safeguarding measures implemented in a very wide range of contexts around the globe.

Notes:

1) I use the term ‘cultural community’ with reference to local stakeholders or “communities, groups and individuals’ as in the wording of the Convention.

2) I am not using the expression as defined in Australia ICOMOS (1994).

Biography

Antonio A. Arantes PhD (University of Cambridge/Kings College) B.A., M.Sc. (Sao Paulo University, Brazil) is professor of social anthropology at UNICAMP – State University of Campinas since 1968. Is Past-President of the Brazilian Anthropological Association (ABA) and the Latin American Anthropological Association (ALA). He received the Roquette Pinto Award in recognition of his contribution to Brazilian Anthropology.

His expertise on public policies and cultural heritage was consolidated in consultancy assignments to programs developed by non-governmental, governmental and multilateral organizations such as UNESCO and WIPO. He developed significant professional experience in policymaking and management of public institutions as President of the Brazilian National Institute for Historic and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN) and of the Sao Paulo State Council for Historic Preservation (CONDEPHAAT). Under his Presidency IPHAN implemented the Department of Immaterial Heritage and the National Program for Immaterial Cultural Heritage.

He developed several academic research projects and published books, articles and technical reports about cultural heritage policies in the context of contemporary social experience and on related subjects.

He is presently the head of the working-group for the Inter-American and Caribbean Cultural Heritage Forum, involving some of the most prestigious anthropological and archaeological societies of the Americas, and of the thematic area “Cultural Heritage and Memory” of the PhD Graduate Program in Social Sciences at UNICAMP.

Extended version of curriculum vitae available at http://lattes.cnpq.br/1354195248764045