Heritage and practices of public formation
Heritage and practices of public formation
复制标题
公共形成的遗产和实践
DOI：
10.1080/13527251003775471
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
S. Ashley
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Simon;S. Ashley
简化为最简单的术语，遗产是指当代活动，通过这些活动，过去在现在变得重要。在这方面，当我们大多数人撰写或谈论遗产时，我们指的是选择、保护和展示过去的物质和无形痕迹的机构和做法的社会框架。在这些活动中，人们会判断过去的哪些特定方面值得保存，对社会记忆具有潜在的意义。所有这一切无疑都很好理解。遗产机构及其组织的实践试图通过景观、人工制品、文本和表演来体现一个社会实体的故事和精神，无论是被定义为一个包罗万象的人类概念，还是被界定为一个特定的国家、地区、宗教或民族文化群体。此外，人们已经普遍认识到，对于任何社会实体的故事和精神来说，如何命名以及命名什么是必不可少的，必须始终被理解为在构成遗产的权力关系中受到管制（并可能受到争议）。这样的承认不可避免地带来了关注：“谁的遗产被提及？”以及“谁在为谁定义”这些显然是极其重要的问题，因为它们帮助我们抵制过于轻率、还原的民族主义，这种民族主义抑制了对我们这个超级全球化时代当代民族国家多元文化复杂性的承认。它们还可以帮助我们抵制构建普遍遗产的平等观念的企图，这种观念不仅不承认前世和今生的实质和意义的真实的差异，而且不承认构成这种差异的条件。在这种情况下，遗产惯例是承认和所有权的惯例。它们是最终根据谁可能承认或不承认自己是它们所针对的人来评估的做法。也就是说，谁可能会体验到一种归属感的故事和精神的社会实体被重新阐述通过遗产的活动（霍尔2005年）。谁的遗产被代表的问题最终构成了遗产作为一种财产关系的形式，作为一组特定的故事，歌曲，手工艺品或文本属于某人的信号。这引发了对所有权的权利和责任的关注。因此，一个人对谁有权对“我的遗产”做什么的问题的回答，将不仅基于一个人自己的生活经验，而且基于一个人作为一个有界社会性成员的铭文，这个社会性部分地通过（有时是有争议的）关于什么将被包括在其共同的过去中的话语来定义自己。
Reduced to its simplest of terms, heritage refers to the contemporary activities through which the past comes to matter in the present. In this respect, when most of us write or speak about heritage, we are referring to a social framework of institutions and practices that select, conserve and present material and intangible traces of the past. Within such activities, judgments are made as to which particular aspects of the past are worthy of preservation and are of potential significance for social memory. All this is no doubt well understood. Institutions of heritage and the practices they organise are attempts to embody, through landscape, artefact, text and performance, something of the story and spirit of a social entity, whether defined as an all-embracing notion of humankind or delimited as a particular nation, region, religion, or ethno-cultural group. Furthermore, it has become commonplace to acknowledge that how and what gets named as essential to the story and spirit of any social entity must always be understood as regulated (and potentially contested) within the power relations that constitute what counts as heritage. Such acknowledgement inevitably brings to the fore the concerns: ‘whose heritage is being referred to?’ and ‘who is defining it for whom?’ These are clearly extremely important questions in that they help us resist an all too facile, reductive nationalism which suppresses acknowledgment of the multicultural complexity of contemporary nation states within our era of hyperglobalisation. They also can help us resist attempts to construct levelling notions of a universal heritage that fail to acknowledge not only the very real differences as to the substance and meanings of past and present lives, but the terms on which such differences have been constituted. On such terms heritage practices are practices of recognition and proprietorship. They are practices ultimately assessed in relation to who it is that may or may not recognise themselves as those addressed by them. That is, who it is that may experience a felt sense of belonging to the story and spirit of the social entity being re-articulated through the activity of heritage (Hall 2005). The question of whose heritage is being represented ends up constituting heritage as a form of property relation, as signalling that a particular set of stories, songs, artefacts or texts belong to somebody. This opens concerns regarding the rights and responsibilities of proprietorship. Thus one’s answer to the question who has the right to do what with ‘my heritage’ will not only be based on one’s own life experience, but also on one’s inscription as a member of a bounded sociality that defines itself in part through the (at times, contested) discourse as to what is to be included in its common past.