Authenticity and heritage conservation: seeking common complexities beyond the 'Eastern' and 'Western' dichotomy
Authenticity and heritage conservation: seeking common complexities beyond the 'Eastern' and 'Western' dichotomy
复制标题
真实性和遗产保护：超越“东方”和“西方”二分法寻求共同的复杂性
DOI：
10.1080/13527258.2020.1793377
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Gao Q
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gao Q
本文通过对围绕真实性的共同复杂性的分析，挑战了所谓的“东方”和“西方”概念和方法之间的鸿沟。在过去的几十年里，人们对“欧洲中心主义”的遗产保护观念进行了重要的批评，并借鉴了“非西方”，特别是亚洲的背景。真实性一直是这一发展的核心原则和决定性因素。在一系列宪章和文件的支持下，一种强调真实性的文化特异性的相对主义方法与欧洲起源的唯物主义方法一起引入了国际政策和保护哲学。然而，对亚洲差异的宣传也导致了“东方”和“西方”遗产方法之间日益根深蒂固和无效的二分法。这篇文章揭示了两个国家围绕真实性的共同复杂性，这两个国家贯穿了这种二元论-中国和苏格兰。借鉴一些民族志项目，我们的分析确定的主题，在不同的文化背景下，真实性的经验。它有助于对遗产保护与当代社会之间不断演变的关系有更细致的理解，对全球遗产话语和跨“东方”和“西方”背景的合作企业具有重要意义。
This article challenges the claimed gulf between ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ concepts and approaches to heritage conservation through an analysis of the common complexities surrounding authenticity. The past few decades have witnessed an important critique of ‘Eurocentric’ notions of heritage conservation, drawing on ‘non-Western’, particularly Asian, contexts. Authenticity has been a core principle and defining element in this development. Endorsed by a series of charters and documents, a relativistic approach emphasising the cultural specificity of authenticity has been introduced alongside the European-originated materialist approach in international policy and conservation philosophy. However, the promotion of Asian difference has also contributed to an increasingly entrenched and unproductive dichotomy between ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ approaches to heritage. This article reveals common complexities surrounding authenticity in two countries crosscutting this dualism – China and Scotland. Drawing on a number of ethnographic projects, our analysis identifies themes that characterise the experience of authenticity across different cultural contexts. It contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the evolving relationships between heritage conservation and contemporary societies with important implications for global heritage discourses and collaborative ventures crosscutting ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ contexts.