inapoi________inapoi la cuprins________inainte
Patrimoniul
cultural
Perspective interioare şi
exterioare
Pornind de la o
dezbatere publică din Suedia
Lars-Eric
Jonsson*
În Suedia, conceptul de patrimoniu
cultural nu este mai vechi de 100 de ani, dar abia în anii ’90 a devenit comun
muzeelor, arhivelor şi construcţiilor. Introducerea acestui concept
s-a datorat, pe de o parte, dorinţei guvernului şi a altor
autorităţi publice de a crea relaţii de colaborare între
reprezentanţii fiecărui sector al acestui domeniu, iar pe de
altă parte unei ambiţii a aceloraşi structuri de a construi un
nou domeniu politic.
Noţiunea de patrimoniu
cultural gravitează în jurul normelor şi valorilor comune, perspectivelor
şi obiceiurilor unei societăţi, neputând fi asimilată unui
artefact sau clădiri, ci reprezentând suportul istoriei, al
conştiinţei şi memoriei colective ale acelei
societăţi. Patrimoniul cultural este o categorie care poate ajuta la
structurarea realităţii sau poate reprezenta anumite părţi
ale acesteia.
Caracterul cel mai evident
al acestei categorii este cel de instrument în vederea îndeplinirii unor
obiective: de pildă, cel de a păstra, a conserva un fenomen şi
de a-l relaţiona unui trecut, unui eveniment, proces sau persoană,
într-un cuvânt unei amintiri susţinută sau/şi dezvoltată de
acel fenomen (un artefact sau o clădire).
Patrimoniul cultural nu
poate fi privit ca având un conţinut unic, permanent şi fix. El este
în continuă schimbare, este rezultatul alegerilor, negocierilor, chiar
conflictelor dintre diferiţii săi actori.
Utilitatea politică a
patrimoniului cultural
În Suedia s-a conferit
patrimoniului cultural şi o utilitate politică, prin folosirea lui ca
vehicul al unor principii de unitate socială, de creare a unei dimensiuni
a consensului ce defineşte naţiunea şi îi uneşte
cetăţenii. Astfel, amintim muzeele Skansen (deschis în 1891 în aer
liber) şi Nordiska (deschis în 1873), ambele din Stockholm, primul
prezentând o colecţie de construcţii din perioada
pre-industrială, cel de-al doilea găzduind artefacte şi scrieri
ce trimit la viata ţăranilor.
Exemplul cel mai
reprezentativ în acest sens îl constituie provincia Dalarna (în care
majoritatea ţăranilor este alcătuită din proprietari ai
terenurilor şi căreia îi lipsesc conflictele sociale), provincie
căreia i s-a construit o imagine idealizată de societate
ţărănească egalitaristă, păstrătoare a
vechilor valori sociale, în contrast cu societatea industrială care a
renunţat la aceste valori, la ierarhii şi la sistemul politic
specific.
Dacă acceptăm
faptul că patrimoniul cultural reprezintă o categorie în care
fenomene de tipul construcţiilor şi artefactelor contribuie la modul
în care privim un grup, o regiune sau o naţiune, influenţând capacitatea
oamenilor de a-şi aminti trecutul, atunci procesul de alegere şi
asamblare a mai sus amintitelor fenomene constituie o activitate ce trebuie
explorată cu atenţie.
Căutând răspuns la
întrebări de tipul: Cine hotărăşte ce poate deveni
patrimoniu cultural? Istoria şi amintirile cui pot fi incluse sau excluse
din patrimoniul cultural? Ce epoci sunt sau nu dezirabile?, ajungem la
concluzia că patrimoniul cultural nu este doar negociabil, ci este un
mijloc de menţinere sub control a trecutului, cu alte cuvinte o luptă
pentru putere.
O istorie a clădirilor
catalogate
În perioada în care lucram
pentru guvernul suedez am realizat o mică investigaţie asupra
clădirilor istorice catalogate din Suedia, clădiri protejate la cel
mai înalt nivel. M-am axat pe perioada ultimilor 150 de ani, căutând sa
refac istoria acelei perioade – era industrială – pe baza a ceea ce-mi
puteau comunica acele clădiri.
În cazul zonelor rurale,
rezultatul a fost un peisaj social dominat de clasele privilegiate (castele
şi conace) şi comunităţile industriale, de fermele bogate
ale secolelor XVII şi XVIII. Femeile lipseau din acest peisaj iar
muncitorii apăreau ca o nesemnificativă melodie de fundal.
La oraş mi-a fost
relevată istoria burgheziei (vilele şi clădirile
rezidenţiale ale secolului XIX, arhitectura elitei). Pe scurt, acele
clădiri spuneau povestea bogaţilor. Şi este firesc, din moment
ce doar elita putea ridica edificii care să reziste în timp atât de mult
şi care sa aibă o valoare arhitecturală atât de mare încât
să devină obiecte de patrimoniu, din moment ce chiar cei ce
astăzi activează în domeniul culturii sunt reprezentanţi ai unei
clase de mijloc înstărite.
Scopul politicii culturale
Întrebarea este dacă
ceea ce am spus mai sus devine sau nu o problemă, iar dacă da, în ce
sens? Şi susţin că este o problema din moment ce intr-o
societate democratică cetăţenii trebuie sa aibă acces la
propria istorie. Sunt conştient de faptul ca nu poţi reprezenta
trecutul unei naţiuni doar prin clădirile pe care aceasta le are în
patrimoniu, iar marile “găuri negre” de care vorbeam mai devreme sunt greu
de motivat intr-o societate, cum este cea suedeza, în care politica
culturală promovată de guvern urmăreşte “nivelarea
diferentelor sociale în ceea ce priveşte păstrarea şi accesul la
patrimoniul cultural” şi conştientizarea importantei acestei
moşteniri în societate. De asemenea, tot guvernului îi revine
responsabilitatea de a observa diferentele de clasa şi sex sau
diferenţa dintre mediul rural şi cel urban.
Acestea sunt aspecte ale
politicii culturale. Mai exista insă şi alt aspect, mai
tradiţional, al rolului patrimoniului cultural în societatea
democratică, şi anume păstrarea unităţii şi
identităţii naţionale. Am amintit despre faptul ca în epoca
industrială moştenirea culturală a trecutului a fost un
instrument în construirea şi menţinerea unităţii
naţiunii, trecutul devenind fundamentul a ceea ce astăzi numim
“suedez”. Şi astăzi identificarea individului cu naţiunea este
încă puternică, iar menţinerea acestei identificări (a fi
suedez şi a aparţine societăţii suedeze) este o parte
importantă a sistemului politic.
Contextul local
Şi intr-un context
local şi ceva mai restrâns putem căuta sensul noţiunii de
patrimoniu cultural sau de moştenire culturală.
Fenomenului de cercetare
şi preţuire a trecutului i-a urmat o mişcare populară,
centrată pe epoca pre-industrială, de evocare a trecutului
ţăranilor. În ultimii 35 de ani au mai urmat şi alte asemenea
mişcări dintre care, cea numită “sapă unde stai”
(iniţiată în anii ’70), a avut ca ţel studierea trecutului
muncitorilor în societatea industrializată, iar pentru a-şi
desfăşura activitatea participanţii s-au organizat în grupuri
individuale de studiu.
Urmare a acestor
acţiuni de descoperire a elementelor culturale lăsate ca
moştenire de clasa muncitoare putem astăzi număra în Suedia
peste 800 de aşa numite muzee ale muncitorilor, muzee micuţe,
deţinute de societăţi şi fundaţii. Asistăm astfel
la fenomenul în care clasa muncitoare a dorit sa-şi descopere şi
sa-şi înţeleagă trecutul şi valorile şi, mai mult,
să-l povestească şi sa-l arate tuturor. Graţie acestor
iniţiative avem astăzi, în Suedia, o extinsa activitate non-profit în
domeniul patrimoniului cultural, activitate legata de vechile fabrici, căi
ferate şi furnale.
Să nu uitam, totuşi,
că înfiinţarea acestor mici muzee se datorează, în mare parte,
şi puternicei poziţii pe care muncitorul suedez a avut-o în
societate. Din nefericire, la nivelul altor grupuri sociale – săraci,
vagabonzi – o iniţiativă similară este absentă, iar lipsa
unei moşteniri culturale chiar şi la acest nivel contribuie la
procesul marginalizării.
inapoi________inapoi la cuprins________inainte
previous_________back to contents__________next
Inside and Outside the Cultural Heritage
From an ongoing discussion in Sweden
Lars-Eric Jönsson*
I will
start with a short attempt to define the concept of cultural heritage. In
Sweden the concept is no older than 100 years. But it was in the beginnings of
1990’s it became a collecting concept for museums, archives and the built
heritage. Partly the introduction of the concept was due to a wish from the
state government and other public authorities to create cooperation between the
participants of the field of heritage, partly it was due to an ambition to
construct a new field of politics.
To make my
following discussion worthwhile I prefer to start at an anthropological
standpoint when defining the concept of Cultural Heritage. A common definition
of culture in this context revolves around common norms, values, perspectives
and habits. Sometimes we talk about collective consciousness and systems of
meanings and ways of organize experience. Cultural heritage is, in this
meaning, not an artefact, nor a particular building. Cultural heritage is
instead a category, as far as I understand, to which we can place or direct
certain concrete phenomenons, to help and support histories of the past, the collective
memories. We need sources and banisters to recollect, shape and give form to
memories. That is why, I think, certain phenomenons are appointed heritage.
That is why certain buildings and artefacts are given the status of heritage, a
status that is particularly suited for remembering and the telling of certain
events, persons, values or processes.
However,
this is of course not the only try to define the concept of Cultural heritage.
But I want to make my own position clear the Cultural Heritage is not a set of
buildings and artefacts but a category that might be used to structure reality,
that is, certain parts of reality. This definition will in the following serve
as a starting point.
Cultural heritage is in this meaning not a fixed substance, not
something out there in reality, ready to be heritage. It is a category whose
content is the result of choices, negotiations and perhaps conflicts between
different actors in the field of heritage. Some phenomenons seem to have
permanent status as heritage. Some is part of the heritage for shorter periods.
Further: the included phenomenons are not guaranteed certain interpretations.
Thus: Cultural heritage cannot be presented as a permanent or fixed matter.
The choice of what should be part of the cultural heritage is due to what
kind of history those who are able and who want to choose are interested in.
From this follows that it is not possible to talk about one cultural
heritage but of many that are constantly changing. In the same way as the history
of a nation, region or a town can be told and retold in many ways due to who is
telling, the cultural heritage differs due to whom is defining the heritage and
the content of it.
For example: if the heritage and the telling is compiled or told from a
gender perspective, the result will differ much from if it was told from a
ethnic perspective. And, which is well known, one ethnic heritage is not
necessarily the same as another.
Political uses of heritage
I will now proceed by treating some of this Swedish discussion, and
focusing the political and ideological use of cultural heritage, its
ideological and political utility value. The way it has been discussed and
shaped in Sweden. I want to underline that what I have to say is valid for
Sweden and not necessarily elsewhere.
One of the most traditional political aim with Cultural heritage is to
create fellowship in society, for example concerning the Nation. In Sweden this
was an outspoken purpose with the grand open-air museum Skansen (1891) and its relative,
the museum of popular culture, Nordiska museet (1873). Both are situated in
Stockholm, and were established to create and manage the sentiments for the
nation, for Sweden, in the strive for creating a homogenous state, build of a
certain measurement of consensus concerning what this nation is and what unites
its citizens.
The Nordic museum as well as Skansen was built from collections from all
of Sweden. At Skansen a collection of built environments from the
pre-industrial age was erected. At the Nordic Museum artefacts and written
memories were collected. It was particularly memories and artefacts from the
peasants that was the base of the collections.
The province of Dalarna, in the Middle of Sweden, got a certain position
as particularly Swedish. Maybe it was due to the fact that the peasant owned
their land and that the proportion of unlanded people was relatively small.
Here you couldn’t find any class-oriented conflicts as in other parts of
Sweden. A picture of Dalarna was
created with strong elements of an egalitarian peasant society, a picture that
could stand as an ideal for the rest of Sweden. A picture built from permanent
ethic and social values in contrast to the industrial society where the old
social values, hierarchies and political system were thrown away. In contrast,
the past represented something permanent, traditional and good. One should
learn from that.
This is told because I want to give you an evident example on the use of
cultural heritage. It is an example that shows the risk of the cultural
heritage used as a mean to build a picture and tell a story about something
that never was or a local relationship generalized into the concept of the
nation. It is a picture of a peasant society that in Sweden was presented as if
it was static and free from conflicts and unequalities. It is, of course, also
an example of how heritage can be uses as a mean of power.
My point is not that the individual building or artifact should
represent a false picture of its own history. My point is, that the collected
picture of the Swedish history represented in these buildings, artefacts and
memories includes a restricted part of the past and excludes other parts. It
supports memories and histories of certain social groups and excludes others.
The ideal picture is in this context in opposition to complexity. The ideal
picture as something lacking of vertical historical depth, lacking from traces
of time and social processes. In contrast to complexity where time and use is
explicitly readable.
If we accept cultural heritage as a category which can be supplied with
certain phenomenons – in our case buildings and artefacts – and at the same
time is important for how we look at the nation, region and social groups, or
has importance for peoples capacity to remember and to tell their stories from
the past, then, I want to underline, the process of choosing and composition or
assembly of heritage phenomenons become important to explore and to make
conscious.
Whose is choosing what to become cultural heritage?
Whose history is possible and desirable to tell with help from cultural
heritage?
Whose histories, memories and lifes are excluded from cultural heritage?
Which epochs are desirable? Which ones are not? The close past? The
nation’s ancient past? The present elites past? Or what?
Cultural heritage is in this sense not only negotionable. It is also in
focus for a struggle to control the past and history, in other terms a struggle
of power.
A history of listed buildings
Let me give you an example from Sweden. As I worked for the Swedish
government I carried out a small investigation on the listed historical
buildings in Sweden, that is, buildings with the strongest possible protection
in Sweden. My focus was on the last 150 years in Sweden and my question was:
what kind of picture of these years would stand out if the listed buildings
would serve as starting point for a history of the industrial era of Sweden? I
did some countings. I put all the listed buildings together. And found what?
Well, what I did not find was a woman. They were almost
completely out of the picture. A few furnaces and melting-houses, mills and
sawmills gave representation to working class men. But the overall picture was
strongly dominated by the economic elite. On the countryside you could tell a
history, based on the built environment, of the nobility and privileged
classes, that is, castles and country manors. I also found relatively high
representation of industrial communities and wealthy farms from the 17th and
18th century. In this history the working people appeared as a kind of
insignificant background.
If I laid focus on urban environments the bourgeois history appeared.
Villas and the 19th century urban environment especially elaborated residential
buildings dominated strongly. It wasn’t hard to get a view of the 19th and the
early 20th Swedish history of elite architecture, its style and changes.
Shortly, with few exceptions it was the history of the wealthy urban citizens
that was possible to tell with the listed buildings as a starting point.
To sum up: If we let the listed buildings serve as a starting point with
the purpose to tell the history of the industrial era in Sweden, we should get
a very particular story of the wealthy Swedes. The working class, the blue
collar groups or the underprivileged social segments would lack representation
or only be visual in the very periphery.
There are several plausible explanations why the listed buildings
support this picture of the history of Sweden. The most obvious and simple
explanation is that poor people could not erect buildings that lasted long
enough to be considered as heritage. However, it is my opinion that the
collected listed buildings say something about the perspectives and aims
included by the national heritage board and its officers. High architectural
form and high age are the basic criterions to list a building, these criterions
happen to coincide with the wealthy social groups of Sweden. Also, one should
never forget that the collected listed buildings are a result from a cultural
heritage sector that in Sweden were and are occupied by people from the wealthy
middle class. People like us. And what is easier and more valuable and powerful
than taking care of and show your own history?
The problem with this kind of representation is that a major part of the
Swedish people is excluded from history. The working part of the nation has no
or a very tiny part in this history. Especially the history of women is hard to
grasp through the listed buildings as well as ethnic minorities and other
marginalized groups as sick, poor and in other ways differing groups.
Aims of cultural politics
Now, the question is, if this should be considered a problem or not. And
if so, in what way? I would definitely claim that it is a problem. In a
democratic society where the citizens contribute to society in many ways, for
example through paying taxes, I would say it is a matter of importance that as
many as possible have access to their history. I am well aware that it is not
possible to cover the history of a whole nation through the built heritage.
However, the kind systematic and extensive gaps or black holes that I have
given examples of are hard to motivate in a society, that is Sweden, which have
aims in the official and governmental cultural politics including to
1)”level the social differences concerning the preservation of and
access to the cultural heritage” and to
2) strengthen the interest for and the awareness of the meaning of
cultural heritage in society.
The government also mentions the responsibility to visualize class
differences as well as gender differences and differences between urbanized
environments and the countryside.
These are the aspects of cultural politics. There are other and more
traditional aspects on the role of cultural heritage in a democratic society.
During the industrial era the cultural heritage has been an important
instrument in building nations, for the strive to create a homogenous state
built on a consensus what this state or nation is and what unites its citizens.
I have already mentioned a few words about how the past became crucial in the
building and the consolidating of the modern nation of Sweden in the 19th and
20th century. The cultural heritage and the history became a foundation of what
we today call Swedishness. This fellowship is imagined in the sense of that its
members only know and have met a few of the total amount of its members.
Despite the local and regional spheres meaning and importance, the identification
with the nation is still strong. This identification, the sense of belonging
and being Swedish, is still an important part of the political system and life.
To make a democracy work the citizens must find themselves a part of it. The
citizen must, both rationally and emotionally, understand and accept democratic
decisions. Decisions that perhaps mean disadvantages to the individual, but
from a higher and common perspective, are obviously legitimate.
In this meaning the imagined fellowship of the nation is fundamental to
the modern democracy. It is also an important and an urgent problem to the
democracies of the 21th century. Especially as many of these democracies have
chosen to move important decisions to Brussels and the European Union. In these
democratic and ad grand political senses cultural heritage is of some
importance, an importance of almost classical meaning since it has followed the
tracks of the modern and industrialized nations.
In smaller and local contexts
However, it also possible to search the meaning of cultural heritage in
smaller and local contexts. In Sweden the movement I mentioned earlier and the
meaning and use of the past has been followed by a parallel popular movement in
shape of societies of home district. This popular movement has been very much
focusing the pre-industrial era, the past of the peasant society.
During the last 35 years other popular movements has emerged. As a late-
or post-industrial equivalence to the home district movement we have seen a
movement called dig where you stand. This movement was established in the
1970-s and took aim at workers own experiences and past in the industrialized
society. To study these experiences and this past the participants are
organized in self-study groups.
As one result of this workers heritage movement, we today can score
approximately 800 so-called workers museums in Sweden. These are small museums
owned by societies and foundations. Many of these museums have been established
after the closing of the workplace. The workers have through buildings,
artefacts and memories tried to understand their own past and what they have
experienced. And they have established and institutionalised places of
affection. That is the fundamental idea. Through establishing these museums the
societies and foundations also have got opportunities to tell their histories
to visitors and tourists. Through these initiatives we have today in Sweden an
extensive local and non-profit activity in the field of cultural heritage,
activities tied to former factories, railroads, blast furnaces, etc.
Other stories
All these popular initiatives and movements deal with partly other
aspects on the use of cultural heritage compared to the grand national
projects. The popular movements deals with an aim to, through cultural
heritage, seek understanding and clarity concerning experiences, individual as
well as collective. We can also notice that these movements are active in
general local politics, for example the survival and development of the village
or community. Connected to the aims of the governmental politics of culture
these activities are of utmost importance. These activities give rise to new,
which are, former unknown tellings and stories of the past, other stories than
those connected to the listed grand heritage.
On the other hand, we must consider the fact that the Swedish industrial
worker by tradition has had a strong position in society, a position that made
all these museums possible. We still lack similar initiatives that support the
history of the poor, sick, homeless and other rejected social groups. The
absence of such groups in cultural heritage risks to contribute to the process
of rejecting and marginalisation. Differently expressed – and this I is my
final point: to find oneself in the margins of society, as a rule, is
equivalent to a non-existing position in cultural heritage.
previous_________back to contents__________next