Logo ACHS 112015 1200px
 bandeau720 190


Error loading Menus: You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'AND falang_content.published=1 AND falang_content.reference_id IN(101,118,152' at line 4

L’appel de proposition est clôt. Pour plus d’informations, veuillez contacter

Between the global and the local I : heritage policies (heritage changes the policies)

session 010 - Critical Heritage Studies in the UK: Future directions  -  roundtable

Organisateurs : Katherine Lloyd, Anna Woodham


What is the future of the UK and what is the role of heritage in this shifting political landscape? How have debates on heritage in the UK changed since the influential critiques of Hewison and Wright in the 1980s? How can those engaged in Critical Heritage Studies in the UK negotiate the difficult relationship between academic critique and sector relevance? How do current debates in the UK relate to and differ from those in Western and non-Western contexts?
This workshop will bring together researchers working in the field of Critical Heritage Studies in the UK to reflect on the changes in the UK-focused scholarship since the 1980s and to debate the future directions for the field. The aim of the workshop is to identify pertinent issues and challenges in the UK context and generate key research themes for future UK Chapter workshops and events.
Discussions will include, but are not limited to:
•    What is the impact of the political context in the UK on heritage?
•    What is the relationship between policy makers, practitioners and academics?
•    What does ‘UK heritage’ mean in the context of Devolution and the Scottish and European referendums
•    What are the differences between debates in the UK and other Western and non-Western contexts and what insights can be gained through cross-cultural learning/comparative perspectives from the international context?
•    What does sustainability mean in the UK context?

session 029 - At the UNESCO feast: Foodways across global heritage governance  -  régular session

Organisateurs : Chiara Bortolotto, Benedetta Ubertazzi

"With sustainable development gaining momentum as a priority of UNESCO heritage policies, an increasing number of food-related nominations are being submitted for inscription on the lists of the Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. The Mediterranean diet, traditional Mexican cuisine and the Japanese dietary culture of washoku are just some examples of this booming phenomenon.

Since food and foodways are powerful references for self-representation and identity making, the heritage vocabulary has long been associated with the promotion of local products and culinary preparations. Festivals and tourism contribute to establishing culinary districts and boosting local economies. As food consumption is intrinsically associated with market principles, economic considerations are interlinked with the food-related heritage project more than with other heritage domains. The particular stakes underpinning this field have lead to the establishment of international and interregional norms on intellectual property rights. The coordination of these instruments with international and regional norms protecting intangible cultural heritage is shaping new heritage regimes for agro-biological diversity and foodways.

In exploring the recent heritage legitimacy afforded to food-related cultural expressions by the UNESCO Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage, and in analysing the challenges and controversies shaping this field at the international level, this session will contribute to debate over the main theme of the conference, namely “What does heritage change?”. The ultimate aim of this session, however, is to investigate how the international heritage apparatus changes existing categories, principles and objectives in national heritage policies and local heritage agendas.

We invite contributions that will closely analyse how the interaction of different levels of regulations as well as of institutional and socio-cultural priorities shape global heritage policies with outcomes often unforeseen by international policy makers. Presentations focusing on Europe, Asia and Latin America are particularly welcome. What is at stake in foodways heritage promotion in these regions? What are the different priorities in terms of sustainable development, commercial interests and protection of intellectual property rights? And what is the role of minorities and indigenous people in the establishment of measures of protection of traditional knowledge and agro-food resources in these regions?

Based on a resolute interdisciplinary approach, this session brings together legal scholars and anthropologists to investigate the “creative frictions” emerging from the encounter between the international governmentality apparatus, existing juridical regulations and social uses of heritage. The combination of ethnographic and legal exploration of complex world governance aims at shedding light on the interactions of particular actor networks across multiple scales, thus allowing our analysis to go beyond the simplistic opposition between “global norm” and “local reactions”.

We invite in particular contributions on the effects of UNESCO listing of food-related elements or on the preparation of food-related nominations. "

session 037 - Subversion and heritage in contemporary Africa  -  regular session

Organisateurs : Zoe Cormack, Lotte Hughes

"This session will address the potential and limitations of heritage as a tool for leverage, empowerment and dissent in Africa.

It is widely acknowledged that heritage – the selective valuation and use of the past in the present – can be an oppressive. Heritage work in Africa has even been characterised as ‘an instrument for dictatorship’ (Peterson et al 2015:28) because it is often implicated in upholding particular narratives and political orders, imposing a singular vision onto a heterogeneous past. In contrast, this session will explore other possible appropriations of heritage, as it is constructed and deployed in the margins, or outside of, formal heritage institutions. Can heritage also be a space from which to undermine established orders, make claims for representation and inscribe different visions for the future - or is this impossible given the inherently conservative characteristics of the authorised heritage agenda?

It is particularly vital to ask these questions of post-colonial and post-conflict African countries, often characterised by continuities in top-down state heritage management that serve a narrow patriotic nationalist project from which many citizens (such as youth and minorities) feel excluded. This model is being increasingly destabilised by moves towards federalism (in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria), devolution and new legislation. In Kenya, for example, constitutional reform has enshrined new rights to cultural, indigenous and minority heritage.

Papers will challenge the myth of a unitary state as the primary mover in the use of heritage, while at the same time providing new insights into the role of individuals and autonomous groups in promoting what is a potentially subversive expression of heritage. As the apparatus of heritage expands across the continent, marginalised groups are appropriating its language and symbolism, imbuing it with new and different meanings and redeploying it to serve their own agendas. Thus heritage can be translated in novel ways. Examples include the uses of heritage and heritage narratives in indigenous or cultural rights claims, often casting heritage in profoundly different ways to state or international bodies. Or the use of heritage as a lobbying tool by civil society and in advocacy, such as recent attempts invoke the protection of heritage in opposition to infrastructural development projects and land grabbing in Sudan and Kenya.

The session cuts across several of the conference themes; in particular it addresses the call to rethink heritage policies and practices beyond elite cultural narratives. We welcome empirically grounded papers, from a range of disciplines that interrogate how and under what circumstances heritage may become a device for articulating and enacting alternative narratives and aspirations, while recognising the complexities and dark sides of apparently emancipatory processes."

session 079 - The Future of Heritage in Ontario  -  roundtable

OrganisateurJoel Konrad


"Private sector cultural heritage evaluation, protection, and management in Ontario exists at the nexus of academic theory, legislative direction, and land-use planning. Heritage work in this context follows a conservation approach to mitigate the loss of identified resources due to urban and infrastructure development. Ideally, the process balances ‘expert knowledge’ with regular and protracted engagement with government agencies, communities, and individuals to create evaluation criteria, conservation strategies, and management plans that are both meaningful and relevant. However, recent scholarship in critical heritage theory has questioned the role of the expert in the process of heritage evaluation and management and has placed greater value on affect and emotion. This development has practical and meaningful implications for the work that private sector heritage professionals do, making a reevaluation of the profession critical. Guided by the overarching question of “The Future of Heritage Practice,” this session aims to engage academics, private sector practitioners and individuals from the public sector to discuss how we might effectively address the challenges of implementing critical heritage theory within the prescriptive framework of heritage policy in Ontario."

session 107 - Heritage as contributor to policymaking -  regular session

Organisateur : Rhodri Windsor-Liscombe

"The Manifesto of the Association for Critical Heritage Studies (2011) argues for a more critical approach to heritage: heritage from below, writ large, in service of society. The integration of heritage and museum studies with those of community, development, memory, planning, public history and tourism is urged in the Manifesto, as is opening up to other disciplinary traditions such as anthropology, political science and sociology, for dialogue and collaboration on external research and policy projects. To this we would add the disciplines of science. The many issues facing the world today echo through the papers published in the International Journal for Heritage Studies in 2012 and 2013. This leads also to a call for broader issues-based research , and, by extension, practice,   within a more apposite and reflective heritage studies.


This session has the objective of discovering heritage skill and knowledge sets which can or do contribute in the broader policy environment to improved policymaking, implementation and outcomes. A non-exhaustive list of policy areas is cultural, economic, environmental, Indigenous, social and sustainability.

To achieve this objective we invite papers which demonstrate the use of:

• negotiation skills, gained through heritage practice

• heritage understanding of place and time

• heritage understanding of connections between people, things, places and values

• heritage understanding of balancing conflicting values

• heritage analytical and language skills e.g. in effectively framing policy problems

This paper session will be complemented by an identically themed poster session.


The outcome of both the paper and poster sessions will feed into the development of a strategy to assist heritage professionals contribute to broader public policymaking. This will be achieved in two following workshops. The first two-hour workshop aims to assimilate the information presented and subsequent discussion from the paper and poster sessions. The aim of the second two-hour workshop is to draft the strategy. We will prioritise particular policy areas for coordinated effort, including recommending ways and means to engage with public policy generally.

While the sessions will be ‘stand-alone’, participants in the paper and poster sessions are strongly encouraged to contribute to the strategy development workshops; equally if clashes prevent attendance at the paper and poster sessions, but you retain interest in the topic, we encourage you to participate in the strategy development workshops.

Call designed by:

Veronica Bullock

Between the global and the local II : post-colonial heritage, heritage and mobility (heritage changes the local societies)

session 013 - Are contemporary processes of migration changing the authorized heritage discourse? - regular session

Organisateurs : Sophia Labadi, Laia Colomer, Cornelius Holtorf

"There are many different kinds of migrants in the contemporary world. They include the familiar figures of refugees or undocumented migrants, associated with and suffering from exclusionary practices, poverty, silencing or repressions; skilled migrants with economic resources but lacking the tools for cultural and social integration; migrants or second generation migrants returning to their homelands and becoming "strangers" there; people moving to several countries as global nomads, etc. An increasing number of people are thus living “transit lives,” between different cultures. In the past decades museums and heritage places all over the world have begun to adapt to this challenging situation. From enlightened and exclusive institutions, promoting one version of the past and national identity, museums have had to transform themselves to remain relevant in our fast changing and diverse world. Equally, some countries are increasingly identifying and protecting heritage places, routes or landscapes that are significant to people affected by mobility such as migrants/diaspora, ex-colony citizens, modern and contemporary slaves, etc. These changes include giving greater access to collections and exhibition spaces, promoting multi-vocality in the interpretation of collections, encouraging migrants’ involvement in exhibitions through co-curation, or developing participatory methodologies among local and/or excluded communities for the definition of the significance of heritage places. This session invites papers that discuss, analyze and evaluate approaches, methodologies and the impact of programmes of museums and heritage places involving people in cultural transitions (including migrants, refugees, cross-cultural people). Basically, we are interested in investigating what happens to heritage when people’s identities are in transition due to mobility.

Issues which the session will explore include:

  • Specific museum programmes developed for migrant communities, such as language learning programmes, well-being sessions, employment schemes for migrants, etc.
  • Migrants’ critical views of museum’s programmes and collections.
  • Definition of new heritage places and museums from a migrant perspective and approach (i.e. multi-vocality and participatory policies).
  • Redefining the diverse significance and uses of mainstream heritage places in the context of globalized, dynamic and fluid cultures (i.e., the heritage of emotions applied to migration)."

session 019 - Cultural heritage and the working class - regular session

Organisateurs : Gary Campbell, Laurajane Smith, Steven High

"Many people are actively using working class heritage as a resource to reflect on the past and the present, and there is a growing tendency for the heritage of working class people to be interpreted and presented to the public in museums and heritage sites—see for example the Worklab network of museums. Working class communities and organizations also play active roles in creating a memory of their own past, and mobilizing this to sustain political action in the present. Drawing on scholarship in heritage studies, social memory, the public history of labour and new working class studies, this session will highlight the heritage of working people, communities and organizations. We particularly urge community and labour movement activists, as well as scholars committed to civic engagement who are working closely with working class communities or organizations, to submit abstracts.

Papers for this session might include:

  • Interpretation of working class communities, working life, oral history, industrial heritage or working class culture.
  • Museums and other forms of formal and informal presentation of the working class, as well as places to remember and celebrate the labour movement.
  • Papers dealing with intangible forms of labour heritage including music, art, skills, workplace experiences, oral histories, celebrations and festivals are encouraged.

We particularly welcome contributions from those—be they academics, trade unionists or working class community activists—who explicitly mount challenges to the received wisdom of the representation of "heritage" as belonging to the elite, and who foreground working class experience and self-representation."

session 025 - Patrimonialisation des savoirs médicaux: vers une reconfiguration des ressources thérapeutiques - regular session

Organisateurs : Lucia Candelise, Serena Bindi

"La circulation continue des personnes, des savoirs et des savoir-faire nous place devant des interactions multiples entre le «local», le «transnational» et le «global»; en même temps les démarches de patrimonialisation de «pratiques culturelles» se multiplient, dans un contexte de reconfiguration incessante des rapports sociaux et politiques. D’une façon générale, les connaissances et les pratiques médicales sont touchées par ces phénomènes. C’est sur cette recomposition dynamique que nous proposons de réfléchir, avec un groupe de chercheurs travaillant sur différentes aires culturelles. En cela, l’idée de cette session se situerait autour du débat lié aux processus de patrimonialisation, dans la perspective des savoirs et des ressources médicales. Ainsi, il s’agira d’interroger et de problématiser les notions, de plus en plus diffusées, de «patrimoine» et de «patrimonialisation», ainsi que celles de «local», de «global», de «globalisation» et de «traditionnel». L’apparition institutionnelle, au début des années 2000, d’un certain nombre de questionnements et de projets en rapport avec la notion de patrimoine culturel immatériel, sous l’égide de l’UNESCO, est symbolique d’une situation plus large: aujourd’hui la patrimonialisation des pratiques culturelles est un sujet central dans toute réflexion politique, culturelle et sociale, quel que soit le niveau où l’on se situe. Pour ce qui est du domaine médical, le devenir et la recomposition des médecines qui revendiquent la qualification de «traditionnelles» rencontrent et utilisent cette notion de patrimoine. A l’échelle mondiale, les démarches de patrimonialisation mises en place par des instances gouvernementales, mais aussi par des volontés de sauvegarde des pratiques ou des savoirs médicaux au niveau local, sont souvent en relation avec l'ouverture des frontières nationales et les récents mouvements de connaissances, de ressources, des savoirs et des acteurs de ces savoirs. La confrontation entre différentes approches du corps et de la maladie crée des situations d’échanges, de synergie, d’hybridation qui ont comme conséquence la construction de nouveaux savoirs ou de nouvelles techniques, mais aussi de nouvelles représentations qui leurs sont liées. Ces diverses situation rencontrent également la question de la patrimonialisation. En apportant une réflexion à différentes échelles, les interventions de cette séance traiteront des formes de patrimonialisation et de transfert de savoirs médicaux en différents continents et en différents contextes nationaux. Le but de cette séance sera d’ouvrir à de nouveaux échanges et de nouvelles contributions notre travail qui avait donné lieu à la publication commune du dossier thématique de la revue Anthropologie & Santé en juin 2013 ( et de réfléchir à comment différents enjeux autour des savoirs médicaux révèlent la complexité et parfois les dynamiques conflictuelles des démarches de patrimonialisation autant d’un point de vue institutionnel que social et culturel. "

session 034 - Labour, mobility and heritage - regular session

Organisateur : Lachlan Barber

"Recent writing in heritage studies and related disciplines has highlighted the stories and histories of working class people as an overlooked and, at times, marginalized element of the collective heritage imaginary and authorized heritage discourses (Klubock and Fontes 2009; Shackel, Smith and Campbell 2011). The heritage of work has the potential to generate powerful and at times difficult engagements with places where the nature of employment, industry and life have changed as a result of development and economic restructuring. An element of these dynamics that has not received much attention from scholars of heritage, however, is the need for people to move to earn a living. Unequal economic opportunities across scales—from the global and transnational, to the regional, to the local—incite and implicate a range of mobilities, from temporary and circular migration, to periodic absences from the home and extended daily commutes. Approaching this reality through a heritage lens may entail the destabilization of places and sites as the locus of heritage-making, opening the possibility of approaches that privilege the lived experience of workers with simultaneous and at times contradictory place attachments. As the literature on “new mobilities” has shown, mobility is an increasingly pervasive feature of economic and social life in the 21st century, but it has a history that is at times forgotten, diminished or misrepresented. Individual and community stories of the uprooting of lives, relationships and attachments to place and home that inevitably accompany work-related mobility are often held in private, as are the challenges associated with living and working in uncertain, precarious and at times unwelcoming arrangements and conditions. The principal aim of this session is to provide a basis for the generation of understandings of the heritage of mobility related to labour, work and employment. The focus will be to engage with the lived experiences of workers by sharing the stories of individuals and communities affected by mobile work. Moreover, the inclusion of papers treating various forms of work-related mobility will permit a broader discussion on how heritage could be conceptualized in research that privileges mobility (although not a privileged mobility). The session will also encourage participants to consider creative and inclusive methods for representing and rendering visible the intersection of mobility and heritage. Both empirical and theoretical papers are welcome."

session 038 - Walls, Lines, and Boundaries : Dividing Cultural Identities in Post-colonial Communities - regular session

Organisateur : Daniel Ritschel

"The session addresses the role of physical walls and boundaries in the construction of separate cultural identities. It is often said that “fences make good neighbors,” but walls and fences also serve to create physical boundaries that both divide communities and leave behind a heritage of new and divergent identities.

Two of the papers in this session (Donnan and Laurents) address the impact of the so-called “Peace Walls” erected in multiple Belfast neighborhoods after 1969. Though built to maintain security and limit violence in communities torn apart by the Northern Irish “troubles,” the ironically named "Peace Walls" have served to only reinforce and deepen sectarian divisions generated by centuries of British imperialism. The violent conflict of earlier decades has given way to the relatively peaceful co-existence of recent years, but Belfast is now a deeply divided city where the two communities are not only physically isolated, but each has its own divergent narrative of the recent conflict, and its own antagonistic identity and cultural heritage.

The third paper (Providence) looks at the construction of modern cultural identities among African and East Indian groups in Trinidad, Guyana and Suriname. The Caribbean offers a perfect illustration of how colonialism jumbled established geographical, cultural, and ethnic identities by transporting and forcibly blending different ethnic groups from different parts of the world, whose descendants are then faced with the task of establishing new collective identities within the new geographical boundaries and cultural contexts. The paper contrasts the utility of Benedict Anderson's concept of the nation as an “imagined community” with Stuart Hall's analysis of diasporic identity in terms of ethnic affiliations."

session 041 - Reshuffling of knowledge and the making of autochthonous cultural heritage: ethnographical perspectives

Organisateurs : Anath Ariel De Vidas, Valentina Vapnarsky

"Heritagization (the various means by which cultural features—either material or immaterial—are turned into a people’s heritage) has recently become, for Amerindian groups, a major means to gain visibility and recognition in the new Latin American social and political landscapes where cultural diversity is endowed with an increasingly critical role. Different forms of cultural heritagization have largely been studied elsewhere, particularly in North America. However, they are far less known in Meso- and South America, especially among Amerindian peoples. For them, the notions of what ought to be preserved or forgotten, the ways knowledge and assets are transmitted, and the regimes of historicity often seem to go against the very grain of heritagization as delineated according to Western views. Besides this issue, due to outside mediation, teachings and influence, Amerindian peoples are now transforming some of their practices into items, which are more objectifiable for the Others, implying new modes of transmission for the younger generation. The specific forms of remembrance among Amerindian minorities, therefore, display a twofold dimension. On the one hand, they are fostered within their very own localized cultural and social mould. On the other hand, they are now also, quite often, used within a globalized world as a means of reinforcing collective identities, or even new forms of indigenousness. Analyzing the patrimonial patterns that can be found during fieldwork consequently requires solving how all this is forced upon and adopted by people, but also understanding how Native actors manage, in response, to reclaim the right to handle their own cultural narratives and establish them as a source for the statement of their very own identity. These topics were at the core of the project FABRIQ’AM ( This session will be an opportunity to share the results of some analyses carried out in this project as well as to develop a comparative approach by including works from other cultural contexts. Based on a fine-grained ethnography of case studies, the contributions should analyze the processes of transformation triggered by the heritagization of cultural items in socially and culturally minorized societies across the world. The main focus will be on changes concerning the local conceptions of knowledge and transmission, of time and historicity, and of the life of cultural objects and artefacts (from the most intimate spheres to the tourist handicraft market, from the private/secret to the public domain…). Through the study of cultural heritagization, which reveals individual options, strategies of self-definition and political agendas, the ambition of this session is to help decipher how Native peoples strive to fit into modernized society and how they negotiate with different patterns of knowledge and historicity.


La «mise en patrimoine» d’éléments culturels, matériels et immatériels, devient depuis plusieurs années l’un des moyens par lesquels les groupes amérindiens recherchent une visibilité et une reconnaissance dans un paysage social et politique marqué aujourd’hui dans la plupart des pays américains par une valorisation affichée de la diversité culturelle. Les phénomènes de patrimonialisation culturelle, amplement étudiés ailleurs (surtout en Amérique du Nord) sont moins connus dans les espaces méso et sud-américains et encore moins chez les sociétés amérindiennes. Au sein de ces groupes, les conceptions de ce qui doit être conservé ou oublié, les manières de transmettre les connaissances et les savoirs, les modes d’historicité semblent bien souvent aller à l’encontre de l’idée même de la patrimonialisation telle qu’on l’entend dans le monde eurocentré. Par ailleurs, à la suite des médiations et des formes d’inculcation de schèmes formulées en dehors des sociétés amérindiennes, celles-ci transforment aujourd’hui certaines de leurs pratiques en nouvelles formes plus objectivables pour l’extérieur et qui participent de modalités inédites de transmission aux nouvelles générations. Les formes de transmission mémorielle des sociétés amérindiennes ont alors une double dimension. D’une part, elles se construisent dans une matrice culturelle et sociale locale qui leur est propre. D’autre part, elles sont aussi, pour beaucoup, désormais investies au sein d’un monde globalisé en tant que ressources mobilisables pour conforter une identité collective, voire de nouvelles formes d’indianité. L’analyse des configurations patrimoniales que l’on peut observer sur le terrain demande alors une élucidation de ces formes d’adaptation mais aussi la compréhension de la manière dont les acteurs indigènes ont su, en retour, se réapproprier un droit à construire un discours propre sur leur culture. Ces thématiques ont été étudiées au sein du projet FABRIQ’AM ( Cette session, qui se veut ouverte à d’autres contextes, sera l’occasion de présenter dans une visée comparative certaines recherches issues de ce projet ainsi que d’autres travaux réalisés sous cet angle concernant d’autres aires culturelles. Les communications s’attacheront à élucider, à partir d’études de cas finement ethnographiés, les processus de transformation suscités par «la mise en patrimoine» dans des sociétés culturellement et socialement minorisées à travers le monde. On s’intéressera notamment aux changements affectant les régimes de savoir, les régimes de temporalité et d’historicité ainsi que ceux concernant le devenir d’objets/artéfacts (de la sphère intime à l’artisanat touristique, du privé/secret au public…). À travers l’étude de la patrimonialisation culturelle, prise comme révélatrice de jeux d’acteurs, de stratégies de définition de soi et de construction du politique, l’enjeu est d’aborder les modalités de l’insertion dans la modernisation des sociétés étudiées et leur capacité à l’investir, en mettant au jour les formes de cohabitation et de composition de régimes de savoirs et d’historicité."

session 047 - Museums and Historical Consciousness : Emergent themes in theory and practice - roundtable

Organisateur : Phaedra Livingstone

"To date, very little literature explicitly explores the relationships of museums and heritage to historical consciousness, despite the overlapping concerns shared by these respective fields. This roundtable addresses the subject of museums as sites of historical consciousness by reflecting on a recent book project. Museums as Sites of Historical Consciousness: Perspectives on Museum Theory and Practice in Canada (working title, UBC Press, 2016) examines (1) ways that museums create and share knowledge about the past and operate as sites where historical consciousness is activated and constructed and (2) the diversity of Canadian perspectives on the subject. Chapters investigate museum constructs of history, calling on institutional, collective and individual forms of remembrance, while simultaneously weighing political, economic and personal motivations for teaching and learning about the past. Several notable themes emerged during the crafting of this book, such as the significance of visitor meaning-making as heritage, the dynamics of controversies and how museums address these, the rhetoric of official narratives, public trust in museums, and alternative methodologies informed by social justice and environmental perspectives. In a continual reflexive act by contributing authors, this round table will build on this recent publication, and themes that emerged within it, in order to expand the discussion on how museums, as sites of historical consciousness, can productively engage contemporary and historical social issues.

Susan Ashley, Jennifer Carter, Viviane Gosselin, Marie-Claude Larouche and Phaedra Livingstone (all confirmed participants) will discuss questions including the following: How does historical consciousness manifest in contemporary museum theory and practice? In what ways do museums foster various forms of interaction with evidence and ideas about the past? How can a greater understanding of the dynamics of historical consciousness contribute productively to contemporary social issues within museum and heritage frameworks? "

session 067 - Changing places, changing people? Critical heritage(s) of diaspora, migration and belonging - regular session

Organisateurs : Susannah Eckersley,Ullrich Kockel,Katherine Lloyd

"Much is being made of the perceived breakdown of the nation-state, which was historically configured as a “container” of heritage formations, adopting and perusing local traditions where possible but oppressing them where deemed unsuitable. Migration is seen as eroding the rigid boundaries of this configuration, potentially liberating identities and heritages in the process. This session addresses the relationship between critical heritage and redefinitions of self, other, community and place within the contemporary global reality of movement and flux. Diversity and hybridization are usually regarded positively, displacement, alienation, conflict and normative repression negatively; yet is that necessarily so? Heritage can be seen as a tool for discursively drawing boundaries of inclusion and exclusion, but who is doing the drawing, for what purpose, and what difference does that make?

Challenging conventional heritage discourses projecting heritage as sited in place(s), and/or attached to specific groups and communities, we invite contributions exploring the various, sometimes conflicting “imagined communities” of heritage by raising critical issues, such as:

  • How do ideas of place and place attachment shape or limit the positions individuals and groups may adopt? What roles do autobiography, memory and history play in shaping such ideas?
  • How are scales of identity, place and belonging exhibited or influenced differently by both heritage and politics? What transitional identities and redefinitions of self, community, other and place develop in relation to the heritage practices, mediated memories and “past-presencing” of migrants?
  • How do displaced people negotiate community and place in tension between the “here and now” and the “there and then” that shapes their heritage discourse as much as the elite discourse they are confronted with in everyday life?
  • How are contested heritage practices, discourses and associations of "authenticity" negotiated between communities, and what role do official discourses and practices play in alleviating or aggravating these contestations?
  • As displacement is becoming a common experience, what significance do "memorates" of “roots and routes” have in various socio-historical or geo-political contexts for shaping journeys of return, (re)discovery, pilgrimage or "closure" that figure in heritage tourism?
  • How compatible are notions of cultural citizenship based on parity of esteem with the coexistence of perhaps conflicting heritage discourses? Why is conceptualizing conflict as heritage so difficult?
  • Given the continued reality of multi-facetted place attachment, how may migration and displacement be turned into opportunities for re-placing communities and heritages while avoiding the trap of a shallow essentialism, and sanitization of uncomfortable heritages?
  • What is needed to make critical heritage sustainable in a social, political and economic environment in radical flux (migration, climate change, financial crisis, political upheaval and conflict)?

How do we decide which heritages should be sustained, who legitimizes these decisions, and to what extent are such questions about merely replacing one elite with the power of definition by another? We are keen to examine issues such as these from multi- and interdisciplinary perspectives combining theoretical explorations with applied concerns. Along with papers we encourage creative engagement using other formats with a capacity to capture our subject matter, such as artwork, poetry or performance. "

session 087 - Indigenous heritage in the making of new collective identities in Latin America - regular session

Organisateurs : Anne Ebert, Katharina Farys

"Indigenous heritage fundamentally characterizes Latin America: Materialized and stereotyped understandings dominated heritage conceptions since the early 20th century, when state officials, intellectuals, and artists conceived precolonial archaeological monuments (e.g., Teotihuacan/Mexico, Cuzco/Peru, Tiwanaku/Bolivia) as sites for the imagination and rooting of their national identities in a unique precolonial past. Their inscription on the UNESCO world heritage list further underlines this outstanding importance. Since the 1970s, indigenous movements reinterpreted archaeological sites and contested existing definitions in their struggles for the recognition of their perspectives. In doing so, these new political actors used indigenous heritage for new collective identifications as indigenous nationalities and thereby rejected nationalist appropriations. In the 1990s, states recognized these different collectivities, thus also accepting the new plural meanings of archaeological heritage. This pluralization of actors and meanings of archaeological heritage is paralleled by the heterogenization of the concept of indigenous heritage and now includes cultural expressions like indigenous languages, knowledge, and cultural practices branded as usos y costumbres. Most recently, indigenous heritage establishes new connections between culture and nature: Buen Vivir (Good Living), a sustainability discourse, proposes an understanding of natural environment shaped by human and non-human actors whose reciprocal relationship is guided by indigenous practices and knowledge. Indigenous heritage is thus a complex concept constituted by and subjected to dynamic negotiation and meaning-making processes shaped between the interplay of different actors. Today these include, beyond state officials, scientists, artists, local peoples, indigenous activists and international institutions, also NGOs and their employees as well as tourist agencies and travelers. While on the one hand their social practices and interactions have cultural, social, political and economic impacts on indigenous heritage spaces and practices, on the other, these make indigenous heritage crucial for the emergence and reproduction of collectivities.

Based on this conceptualization of indigenous heritage this session addresses the following questions:

  • Who are the different actors that refer to, define, contest and challenge established ideas of indigenous heritage? How are these heritage practices influenced by the personal and institutional background of these actors?
  • Which practices and knowledge are selected and reconceptualized as indigenous heritage? Which ones are considered appropriate, which ones are ignored?
  • What are the material and social consequences of these interactions between different actors and indigenous heritage?
  • Which new meanings of indigenous heritage emerge within these negotiation processes? To what extend do new actors reify dominant definitions of indigenous heritage?
  • What are the effects of the reinterpretation of indigenous heritage on the formation of new collective identities?

We particularly invite actor-oriented and empirical contributions from scholars working in anthropology and its neighbouring disciplines oriented on the study of sociocultural and historical dynamics to discuss these questions. Topics might include case studies on specific indigenous heritage spaces and practices, analysis of the politics of indigenous heritage as well as investigations on the entanglements of indigenous heritage between local practices and global configurations. In bringing these aspects together, the aim of the session is to shed light on the role of actors in the making and remaking of indigenous heritage. By systemizing these dynamics in relation to the constitution of new collective identities, the session seeks to acknowledge the heterogeneous and complex nature of sociocultural transformation processes and the creation of new cultural realities."

session 090 - Borders of heritage/ Frontières du patrimoine - regular session

Organisateur : Astrid Swenson

How do borders shape heritage and its potential for change? Despite the growth of international connections in heritage studies, national, linguistic and disciplinary borders continue to structure scholarly and practical approaches to heritage. The aim of this session is therefore threefold. First we will address which borders limit our understanding of heritage today. What are the roles of linguistic, disciplinary, religious and national borders? Which methodologies are best suited to overcome them? Or is the critical turn in heritage studies better served by not overcoming differences but simply making them more transparent: is it actually the multiplicity of approaches created by borders which offers a heuristic tool in itself? Hence, secondly we will investigate the fluidity of borders in a longer trajectory, by looking at the history of transfers of ideas, people and objects across national and cultural borders historically in different contexts. What factors helped increase flow at particular moments? How did these transfers change and transform ideas about heritage lastingly? Yet, while the growing transnational research has helped us over the last years to better understand the cross-border dimension of heritage, this has sometimes let to overlooking the physical and mental barriers to flows. Therefore the session will thirdly look at the solidity of borders, by focusing on borderlands in different geographical, linguistic and historical contexts. How have physical borders, and the performativity of the border in conflict and peace, been affecting ideas of heritage not only in borderlands, but in the centre of nations and transnationally? Is each border unique, or can commonalities be discerned in different context and times? To answer these questions, this session invites scholarly contributions from different disciplines, national academic traditions and linguistic contexts to approach borders as an object of study and as a heuristic tool for a better understanding of the role of cultural particularization versus globalization and other transnational processes relating to heritage.

session 091 - Reflecting on the mobile contact zone: Cultural diplomacy, touring exhibitions and intercultural heritage experiences - regular session

Organisateur : Lee Davidson

"International exhibitions have long been promoted for their potential to connect people, objects and stories across political, cultural and geographical divides. Recent commentators have linked touring exhibitions to cultural globalization, diplomacy and the advancement of intercultural understanding, while others have critiqued them as revenue generators driven by public appeal or as "politically-safe" forms of national branding. Very few studies, however, have attempted to empirically investigate the complex processes and contexts through which international exhibitions are produced, and thereby substantiate what they might change, and how. This session explores international touring exhibitions as mobile “contact zones” which undergo processes of transformation and reconstruction as they traverse contested museological, cultural and political terrains. This approach highlights their nature as dynamic sites of encounter, performance and interpretation. We also examine how the mobile contact zone is experienced by the actors involved, both heritage professionals and visitors. Responding to the main conference theme, an overall question that the session addresses is: what do international touring exhibitions, and the intercultural heritage experiences they facilitate, change? Do they help in developing intercultural understanding, facilitating dialogue and building bridges between cultures? We invite papers that explore these questions, with a particular emphasis on gathering in-depth empirical evidence from multiple sources and perspectives of exactly what touring exhibitions do change, and how. Our interest is in building a theoretical understanding of international touring exhibitions, as well as critiquing the role of museums in cultural diplomacy and the development of a transnational, intercultural museum practice. Related conference sub-themes include: the role of heritage in globalization and transnational processes, particularly its circulation and mobility through touring exhibitions; the "uses" of heritage in terms of tourism (the international blockbuster as tourist attraction), national identity-making and "imagined communities" as constructed through such exhibitions and utilized for cultural diplomacy. Through detailed investigation of these processes and possibilities, this session will attempt to gain a deeper understanding of their implications for intercultural heritage experiences and for the creation of touring exhibitions that fulfil their potential as spaces in which power, identity and notions of civility are performed and explored in open-minded, reflexive and constructive ways. "

session 095 - Les mémoires orales par delà les processus de patrimonialisation - roundtable

Organisateurs : Katia Fersing, Jean Corneloup

"Au-delà des logiques aménagistes, matérielles et interventionnistes qui souhaitent créer de la valeur territoriale dans un lieu, notre propos souhaite placer les mémoires orales au cœur du dispositif de développement. Celles-ci inversent les relations entre le dehors et le dedans, le centre et la périphérie, l’habitant et le visiteur, le marchand et le social. En activant les mémoires orales, une habitabilité se dessine en invitant l’habitant, par les usages socio-culturels du quotidien, à participer à l’émergence d’un art de vivre de proximité. Celui-ci se présente alors comme une ressource immatérielle qui intervient dans la fabrique du vivre ensemble, dans la définition d’un projet de développement local et dans l’attirance de visiteurs pour partager ce patrimoine sensible. Cette table ronde sera l’occasion de réfléchir et d’échanger sur les formes de mémoires orales qui participent à créer le capital culturel commun d’un territoire."

session 110 - Ephemeral sites of critical anti-modernism: Exploring the tangible and intangible cultural heritage of experimental 1970s eco-social communities - regular session

Organisateur : Steven Mannell

"The 1970s witnessed a flourishing of living experiments in space, place and community sharing broad ambitions to bring about transformed human social and interpersonal conditions, to re-envision relationships between people and the environment and ecology of their habitats, and to reject a growing mainstream vision of people as passive consumers in favour of a role as creative and adventurous agents of their own destinies. While some expressions of these experiments were non-spatial or intended as temporary events, a significant number were manifest as buildings and communities. Spatial settings include places that can be loosely described as back to the land settlements (e.g. Drop City in Colorado), urban squatter sites and districts (Christiania in Denmark), intentional experimental communities (Centre for Environmental Technology, Wales), incremental community change clinics (Farallones Institute, California), and experimental and demonstration sites (Ark for Prince Edward Island, Canada; Granada TV House for the Future, UK). These projects arose in milieux ranging from the outer fringes of the counterculture, through the Alternative Technology Movement, to government research institutes and commercial television network, and their intentions ranged from inwardly-oriented efforts at personal or small group enlightenment, through living experiments intended to demonstrate viability of alternative approaches, to public demonstrations seeking to transform societal expectations and norms. All share a critical spirit of “liberal anti-modernism,” defined by Ian McKay (1994) as “an intensely individualistic thirst for an existence released from the iron cage of modernity into a world re-enchanted by history, nature and the mysterious.” Some of these experiments remain in operation today (often in a transformed state), but many were transitory, and now abandoned. These sites offer potent challenges in the documentation, conservation and representation of cultural heritage, tangible and intangible. Heritage elements include the sites themselves, and the remnants of buildings, devices and equipment. Other artefacts and primary documents may remain on site, or may have been removed to official and informal archives. Important evidence is also available in the form of contemporary media coverage, self-publications and other public accounts. Because of the transient nature of these sites, important ephemeral heritage dimensions include personal journals, letters, photographs and films, along with oral history and lore. The conscious social experimentation means that the practices of governance, decision-making and daily life are often as significant as the artefacts and documents in the heritage value and legacy. These intangible cultural heritage dimensions extend to the vision, ethics and politics that informed and challenged the communities, along with the variations, inversions and refinements of their cultural practices over time. Many of these sites also have a body of local or international received tradition and myth—people know “of” these places, but know little for certain “about” these places. Often this received tradition is rooted in significant events or celebrations at the sites, or moments of interaction between the eco-social experimenters and the neighbouring communities; the events themselves, and the cultural memories associated with them, are another important heritage element. For the present day, these sites offer important lessons worth retrieving and considering; lessons that might inform our efforts to move toward a sustainable future. This session invites presentations of case studies, theoretical considerations, and artistic and community projects that witness, document, assess, or carry forward the spirit and cultural heritage of such sites of eco-social experimentation. Presentations might address the challenge of documenting and representing the complex of tangible and intangible elements making up the legacy of such sites; track the life of these communities over time; explore the effects of the fluidity of both communities and their physical settings; recount the shifting outside perceptions of these eco-social experiments; or assess the rippling after-effects of these experiments on the world outside the closed community."

session 111 - Mémoires, patrimoines et promotion de la citoyenneté : quels effets sociaux des institutions culturelles à caractère mémoriel - regular session

Organisateur : Vincent Veschambre

"Dans le cadre de ce que l’on pourrait qualifier de « changement de régime de patrimonialité » (Gravari-Barbas, 2014), la question des patrimoines culturels est de plus en plus étroitement associée, depuis le début du XXIème siècle, à celle des droits fondamentaux, individuels et collectifs. Définies comme ressources héritées du passé, ces patrimoines ainsi revendiqués sont volontiers pensés comme biens communs, supports d’identification, constitutifs du sujet politique (Meyer-Bisch, 2014). Depuis la fin du siècle dernier, les questions mémorielles, sont également très présentes sur la scène politique et conçues comme supports de légitimation de groupes sociaux, du côté notamment des minorités. Seront invités autour de cette table ronde des acteurs des institutions culturelles chargées de faire vivre ces droits à la mémoire et au patrimoine, au plus près des communautés et des sociétés locales. Il s’agit de faire se croiser les expériences, plus ou moins récentes, d’implication des populations ciblées, afin d’en évaluer les impacts sur les processus d’émancipation/empowerment et de démocratisation au plan local. Quelles mémoires, quels patrimoines sont ainsi promus ? Quelles populations sont impliquées ? Quels rapports au politique sont ainsi construits ? Un questionnement secondaire sera proposé aux participants : se référer principalement aux mémoires et aux patrimoines immatériels, de manière plus ou moins désincarnée, réduit-il la portée de ces actions d’émancipation/empowerment ?

Heritage-makers I: the activist vs the expert, their changing roles (heritage changes people)

session 008 - “For people then and for people now”: Approaches to heritage and shared authority - regular session

Organisateur : Elizabeth Kryder-Reid

"In exploring the broader question “What does heritage change?” this session presents work that is extending heritage policies and practices beyond elite cultural narratives. Using diverse disciplinary perspectives and drawing from case studies around the world, the presenters explore contexts in which stakeholders’ perspectives and choices have been catalysts for change, democratized knowledge, or exposed gaps in contemporary heritage practices. The case studies reveal complex and often contested paradigms of value that different groups bring to public heritage and memory practices, and at the same time they point to new approaches, strategies and methodologies that have been tools for empowering a more inclusive, shared authority approach to heritage sites and collections. These studies humanize the concept of heritage to assert the agency of diverse stakeholders in creatively and intentionally negotiating the politics of the heritage industry and profession to reframe narratives, alter knowledge production and reconfigure social relations.   The presentations trace the political and phenomenological concerns of diverse stakeholders in a wide range of contexts. For example, presenters explore repatriation claims between tribes and government-owned heritage sites in the US Midwest; contested narratives in the planned National Museum of Romanian Communism and the site of Jilava Penitentiary, a former Communist prison, near Bucharest; Native American art objects in a museum collection reinterpreted by Native artists and elders; the entanglements of nationalist politics and grassroots development of projects for cultural preservation in Kyrgyzstan; divergent and convergent meanings of a family-curated museum in Maine, and the findings of an analysis of stakeholder-defined value of cultural heritage at two contested sites in Indiana.   The goal of the session is to highlight innovative strategies for a shared authority approach to cultural heritage. Such an approach acknowledges the agency of diverse stakeholders in navigating structures of power embedded in the mainstream heritage practices and values the counter narratives they produce both with and without the support of dominant institutions. "

session 053 - L'expertise au temps de la dérégulation patrimoniale

Organisateur : Dominique Poulot


The second half of the 20th century saw the affirmation of national and international heritage administrations run by teams of experts that mutually validated each other’s knowledge and findings. The emergence of new forms of heritage, new collections and international networks related to museums, or other heritage structures, has led to the development of numerous new or reformulated specialities. In the last two decades a new ideal of heritage has gained ground, one based on communities of interpretation and localised emotions. In Europe, the Faro convention (2005, implemented in 2011) setting out the value of cultural patrimony for social development, introduced the idea of a kind of expertise specific to a given space and population. The scholarly framework that formerly validated heritage forms seems to be giving way to claims by indigenous groups, or autochthones and to be related to the affirmation of identities and memories.

 Whilst some deplore the decline of former models of “objective” expertise others approve and consider the emergence of new forms of expertise, in particular collaborative initiatives, as a positive development. Yet it would be simplistic to consider that there is a clear opposition between a top down and a bottom up expertise as there are many forms of collaboration and negotiation that connect them to each other. One might add, that as scientific as public expertise may claim to be, it is of course also conditioned by ethical, political and otherwise tactical considerations, making it also circumstantial and “impure”. On the other hand, “local” activist expertise can often be tied back to official policies that also lead to the establishment of scholarly forms of connoisseurship and heritage administration. Critical research carried out from the perspective of different disciplines on the selection processes and the preservation measures taken by commissions, associations and administrations, has revealed the variety of issues at stake in the interplay between expertise and heritage making processes.

 Institutions confronted with requests for restitutions have had to revise their traditional conception of expertise and respond to new expectations. Are we witnessing a kind of “deregulation” of heritage expertise? Can one distinguish between the expertise of countries of origin and that of countries of holding? To what extent is heritage susceptible to forms of folklorisation? How are they competing and how can this be negotiated? How can “disinterested” forms of expertise weigh in against economic and tourist driven factors? Inversely, how does local expertise, weigh up against international norms? Can these forms of expertise be translated from one field of action to another or are they mutually exclusive? 


Dans la seconde moitié du XXe siècle, on a vu fonctionner une bureaucratie spécialisée d’experts nationaux et internationaux, dont les savoirs et les conclusions étaient validés par leurs pairs. L’émergence de nouveaux patrimoines, de nouvelles collections, de nouveaux réseaux internationaux - de musées et de dispositifs patrimoniaux plus ou moins étroitement définis - a semblé décliner le champ des expertises ad hoc en autant de spécialités inédites ou reconfigurées. Mais depuis le début de ce siècle l’idéal de patrimoines liés des communautés d’interprétation, et à des émotions localisées, s’est fait jour. Parmi d’autres résolutions, la convention de Faro sur la valeur du patrimoine culturel pour la société (2005, entrée en vigueur en 2011), a porté en Europe l’idée d’une expertise propre à un espace et à une population. Ainsi l’ancien cadre savant qui garantissait naguère les formes de patrimoine semble se désagréger au profit de revendications d’autochtonie, de réclamations de droits au patrimoine, d’affirmations identitaires et mémorielles particulières.

Certains déplorent le déclin des anciens modèles d’expertise « objective » tandis que d’autres se réjouissent, à l’inverse, de l’émergence d’expertises inédites, et en particulier collaboratives. Pour autant, l’opposition d’une expertise d’en haut à une expertise d’en bas est trompeuse car il existe maintes collaborations et négociations entre les deux. D’une part, les expertises publiques, pour scientifiques qu’elles se réclament, sont aussi marquées par des considérations éthiques, politiques, sinon tactiques, bref circonstancielles et « impures ». D’autre part, les expertises « localisées » et engagées les moins susceptibles a priori d’illustrer un -connoisseurship- bureaucratico-savant sont souvent le fruit de politiques officielles destinées à les faire advenir. Les recherches critiques menées par diverses disciplines au sein des commissions, des administrations ou des associations en charge de valider des choix et des protections ont montré depuis quelques années toute les variétés de la relation de/à l’expertise et ses enjeux dans les processus de patrimonialisation.

Les institutions confrontées à des demandes de restitutions de collections ont dû réviser les anciennes expertises et répondre à la nécessité de nouvelles. Assiste–t-on à une dérégulation des expertises patrimoniales ? Y-a-t-il des expertises des pays de départ et des expertises des pays d’accueil ? Le patrimoine est-il susceptible de folksonomies ? Comment se règlent leurs éventuelles concurrences ? Que pèse une expertise « désintéressée » face aux expertises économico-touristiques ? Inversement, que pèsent les expertises locales, bien ou mal fondées, face à une norme internationale ? Y-a-t-il une traduction possible des expertises, ou s’agit-il au contraire d’expertises intraduisibles ?

session 061 - Activism, Civil Society and Heritage - regular session

Organisateurs : Ali Mozaffari, Tod Jones

"Heritage processes vary according to cultural, national, geographical and historical contexts. Since the late 1980s, the phenomenon of contestation in heritage has been increasingly recognized. However, there is still little detailed and situated knowledge about the range of actors present in contestations, the variety of strategies they pursue, the reasoning behind their choices, the networks they develop, and how, from all this, heritage has been and is constructed. More often than not, contestation appears to be essentialized as occurring between the "state" (often treated as a monolith) and the people or the community (such as certain uses of the idea of authorized heritage discourse in uses of heritage). Following this trend, much of the growing body of scholarship on heritage has tended to assume universalising theoretical positions based on limited, specific contexts, thus somewhat compromising the ability to draw nuanced and theoretical positions that take into account the diversity of contexts within which heritage is produced. This session acknowledges the emerging trends in heritage studies which take into account what may be described as relational aspects of heritage construction, such as those inspired by Deleuze, which examine heritage in terms of assemblages (Harrison 2013), Latour’s actor-network theory (Krauss 2008), or other approaches that are increasingly considering heritage as part of human, material and social flows. The premise of this session is that heritage is constructed, contested and negotiated through actions of players or actors and within traceable places and spaces (arenas) through the course of time. Of interest here are the mechanisms of heritage construction and contestation as well as the conceptual and theoretical perspectives that may drive interpretation of realities on the ground. The session is open to scholars from any field of enquiry.

We invite contributors to focus on different aspects of heritage in diverse areas to examine questions including but not limited to the following:

  • Activism is not limited to individuals. A player in heritage may be an individual, a compound player such as an NGO, or even a state entity such as a heritage organization with divergent internal perspectives. Who is a heritage activist? How do activists identify themselves?
  • How does the material turn in social sciences, with its recognition of the role of non-human actors and distributed agency, transform our understanding of contentious heritage?
  • What is the micro-politics of heritage in social movements, including preservationist movements?
  • What is the relationship between heritage and individual or collective activism? 
  • How does activism change heritage and how does heritage change activism?
  • How does engagement with media transform heritage? What are the preferred modes of communication and media for heritage and why? What does the preference tell us about the relationship between civil society, public sphere and heritage? How and why is heritage transformed into a cause?
  • How does advocacy for heritage manifest itself?
  • Where does contestation take place? And why?
  • What is the role of space and place in forms of contesting heritage? Does contestation lead to new definitions and experiences of place and space? At what scales?
  • Other questions that may explore the relationship between agency, materiality, affect and heritage will also be considered."

session 069 - La conservation des quartiers anciens et le problème de la gentrification - regular session

Organisateur : Marc Grignon

"La conservation des quartiers anciens ne se réalise probablement jamais sans être accompagnée de tensions sociales de différentes sortes. Si, dans les années 1960 et 1970, de nombreux projets ont pu être motivés par la résistance citoyenne aux formes les plus néfastes de la rénovation urbaine, aujourd’hui, on a l’impression que la volonté de conserver le patrimoine urbain aboutit presque systématiquement à la «gentrification – un terme qui ne renvoie pas uniquement à l’embourgeoisement d’un quartier, mais qui suggère en outre une forme d’appropriation de l’espace au détriment de la population en place et des commerces existants. Ainsi, au nom de la «revitalisation», du «sentiment de sécurité» ou même de la «mixité sociale» – des notions qui deviennent de plus polysémiques, appropriées par des acteurs aux perspectives différentes–, des projets de sauvegarde du patrimoine aux effets ambigus se multiplient. Plus largement, les projets de conservation des quartiers et des rues à caractère patrimonial ne se font jamais sans affecter en profondeur la vie de la population locale. Il est donc nécessaire de se questionner sur les tenants et les aboutissants de ces pratiques de conservation à partir d’exemples récents, afin de voir concrètement leurs effets positifs ou négatifs sur la vie locale et mieux comprendre leur évolution au cours des dernières décennies. Cette séance vise donc à examiner quelques cas révélateurs de projets et de programmes de conservation de quartiers anciens mis en œuvre au cours des deux ou trois dernières décennies en tenant compte des transformations sociales qui ont pu les accompagner. Est-ce que, dans le contexte d’aujourd’hui, les projets de conservation de quartiers anciens conduisent inévitablement à un processus de gentrification? Quelles sont les conditions pouvant faire en sorte que les projets soient davantage bénéfiques aux résidents et aux commerçants déjà établis dans un quartier? Quels sont les bons exemples, ceux qui devraient nous inspirer et nous guider? Quel(s) rôle(s) peuvent jouer les décideurs, les organismes de sauvegarde, les mouvements citoyens dans ce processus aujourd’hui?"

session 094 - Intergenerational Conservation about Heritage Conservation Education : The Rise, Fall, and (Necessary) Redefinition of Expert Knowledge - Roundtable

Organisateur : Christina Cameron

In response to the conference theme on “The rise and fall of the expert knowledge”, the CRCBH proposes a round table titled _An Intergenerational Conversation about Heritage Conservation Education: The Rise, Fall, and (Necessary) Redefinition of Expert Knowledge_
As recent publications have demonstrated, the role of the expert in heritage conservation is a relevant, if not to say imperative topic of discussion. On the one hand, the knowledge required to work in the field has evolved over time in response to the changes to the definition of heritage. Once exclusively associated with architects and historians, the expertise needed nowadays comes from a broader scope of disciplines including urban planning, landscape studies, anthropology, economics, and often a mixture of several. In addition, as a result of the sophisticated structure set in place over the course of the last half-century to identify, protect and enhance heritage, experts now also have to develop skills as managers since they are called to develop and implement policy.
On the other hand, however, there is growing doubt about expert authority to identify heritage and the strategies to preserve it. Although this questioning is valid, the current reflection about expert knowledge is nevertheless surprisingly silent about education and training. Yet training courses and university/college programs in heritage conservation abound, having multiplied at a rapid pace since the 1970’s. Rooted at first in architecture schools – the architectural conservation course given by La Sapienza in Rome in conjuncture with ICCROM (then Rome Centre) in 1965 being one of the earliest examples -, they are now housed in different departments and institutions worldwide. Furthermore, they address a broad scope of heritage, including the intangible, World heritage management, landscape architecture and regional planning, just to name a few.
In view of the recent emphasis in practice on communication with local communities and stakeholders and on the recognition of heritage that shifts from _the iconic, the special, the outstanding_ (Schofield, 2014), the question as to what is required for graduates to comprehend, discuss and eventually conserve heritage begs to be asked. Whereas in the past, heritage education was mainly about acquiring knowledge (of materials, architecture, history and theory), education today focuses more on developing skills such as listening, teaching and facilitating. If that is indeed the case, are university programs and training courses prepared for such a shift? Further, are there pedagogical strategies to develop this new generation of experts? And finally, does this new perspective sound the death knell to the knowledge legacy of the previous generations?
This round table will bring together protagonists in heritage conservation from different backgrounds, but more importantly from different generations, who have experience in heritage education either as educators or as students in heritage conservation. The round table would like to provide the opportunity for an open discussion about the required knowledge for heritage conservation between recent graduate/young professionals and members of previous generations who have been instrumental in setting the foundations of heritage education.

session 106 - What does the Heritage Citizens Movement change? - regular session

Organisateur : Martin Drouin

"There is no doubt that the involvement of civil society is a key element in the history of heritage. Working upstream, in line with or against the tide of state recognition, enlightened amateurs or ordinary citizens have invested time and energy in the safeguarding and enhancement of a good, a place or a practice, judged, from their point of view, as irreplaceable or remarkable. It is easy for each country or each region to find an example of a precursor, working alone or in a group, who has managed to preserve one treasure or another. Similarly, a heroic battle, whether lost or won, has often marked the local consciousness and has henceforth been referred to as the highlight of a new era or a different way of understanding heritage. The citizens movement has also helped to engage a wider audience in the heritage project. Recognition is no longer the purview of a small group of specialists; with the values-based approach, the opinion of a wider audience is eagerly sought; public consultations have broadened the debate on the local and media scenes; and heritage communities demonstrate that it is possible to give meaning and a different life to heritage. In short, the state no longer has the monopoly on heritage discourse, even if the powers conferred by national laws mean that it is still a major player. What does the Citizens’ Heritage Movement change? In view of what has been mentioned above, the answer may seem easy. Yet on the ground, the same recriminations are being tirelessly expressed. Stakeholders still summon the troops to new battles and highlight the many pitfalls to safeguarding. Tinkering, a need for urgent action, and/or volunteer fatigue doubtlessly undermine many projects. Will the movement end up running out of gas? Is it the only safeguard against indifference? If it has enabled great things and raised the awareness of a wider audience, can it also be looked at critically? Are there different trends within the movement? Can we compare the work of scholarly associations with the various friends of heritage? Behind the legitimate objectives, can there be other interests? Has the professionalization of certain groups transformed the civic roots of heritage activism? The proposed session intends, from a historic or contemporary perspective, to invoke various real-world experiences in order to overcome naive optimism about citizen involvement and explore some possible ways to understand a phenomenon which, despite its essential nature, remains little studied. We understand Citizens’ Heritage Movement in a very large extent which could include an individual trying to alert his neighbourhood to a more organized group with regular members and paid staff. In between, the movement could take a large variety of expressions. Its action is also plural reaching from activism of every sort to public education and technical assistance, and from management for the local community to touristic enhancement. As part of the session, we invite researchers to provide a critical reflection on the proposed general theme: “What does the Citizens’ Heritage Movement change?”

They could refer to studies in order to document or broaden the issue of citizen involvement, focusing more specifically on the following aspects:

  • The historical or contemporary role of the citizens movement;
  • The response and behaviour of authorities toward citizen requests;
  • The evaluation of actions taken and their sustainability;
  • The pitfalls and challenges of the citizens movement;
  • The future of the citizens movement.

Beyond the avenues mentioned, this call for contributions aims to better understand and define the citizens movement by way of a critical approach. Any other suggestion will be considered with great attention."

session 109 - "Heritage" constructions and indigeneity: Considering indigenous cultural centre design in Canada - regulare session

Organisateur : Rebecca Lemire

In November 2014, artists and thinkers including Jimmie Durham, Michael Taussig, Rebecca Belmore and Paul Chaat Smith convened in Calgary and Saskatoon for “Stronger than stone: (Re)Inventing the Indigenous Monument,” an international symposium which served to foreground the most critical issues facing Indigenous memory-making and cultural preservation today. Propositions for new types of monuments (or anti- monuments in many cases) were made that were specific to the Indigenous worldview and served to honour Indigenous people on their own terms, often emphasizing the importance of landscape, language and oral storytelling in providing a “moral and practical guide to the culture.” Building off the proceedings of this symposium, this session seeks to expand the dialogue into the architectural arena and the role that Indigenous cultural centres play in the presentation of heritage. As Luke Willis Thompson points out, it is important to remember that “The word ‘heritage’ refers to something that cannot be recovered.” Furthermore, Indigenous cultural centres are necessary precisely because of the colonial dismantling of Indigenous culture in this country. More positively, Canada has recently seen a surge in the construction of these centres as part of nation-wide Indigenous cultural revival. In many cases, such as with the Nk’Mip Desert Cultural Centre, they are outward-facing and tied to important economic rejuvenation plans. However, what does it mean when a Western form of building or institution is employed to represent an Indigenous culture? What happens when a non-Indigenous architect is chosen to construct a centre, and characterize a cultural ethos? What is most salient about the existence of these centres? This session invites papers which assess the successes and/or failures of these centres as keepers and presenters of cultural heritage (papers may focus on individual examples and not necessarily the field as a whole) as well as projects which present alternatives to this mode of cultural preservation. Artists and architects are also encouraged to apply.

session 120 - History museums, heritage and visitors - regular session

Organisateur : Raymond Montpetit

Heritage makers II: co-construction and community-based heritage (heritage changes people)

session 004 - Le patrimoine comme enjeu de la participation citoyenne à Montréal - Roundtable session

Organisateurs : François Racine, Samuel Mathieu

De l’ère du Maire Drapeau et de ses interventions autoritaires sur le tissu urbain de Montréal dans les années 1960 et 1970, à l’instauration d’une démocratie municipale dans les années 1980 sous l’administration Doré, la population est de plus en plus sollicitée dans les grands débats concernant la transformation du patrimoine urbain de Montréal (Drouin 2005). Notons l’instauration en 2002 de l’Office de consultation publique de Montréal, tribune où les citoyens peuvent donner leurs avis sur les grands projets de transformation du tissu urbain ou de bâtiments patrimoniaux. Soulignons aussi la sensibilisation au patrimoine opérée par les fondations d’Héritage Montréal et d’Action patrimoine dont nous célébrons les 40 ans de mobilisation en patrimoine. Des projets actuels de requalification d’églises (Imaginons Saint-Marc, 2012), d’espaces urbains (Clouard, Racine et Jubinville, 2014) et d’équipements publics (Abrassart, Gauthier, Proulx et Martel, 2015), montrent une volonté des intervenants d’intégrer la participation citoyenne non plus à postériori de l’élaboration des projets affectant le patrimoine bâti, mais en amont. De fait, de nouveaux exercices de concertation et de co-création invitent les citoyens à participer au processus d’élaboration des projets, il se développe donc ici un art de planifier avec les communautés locales.

Dans ce contexte, la problématique que nous souhaitons soulever est l’apport de la participation citoyenne et du développement de nouveaux outils participatifs dans la requalification d’environnements urbains patrimoniaux à Montréal. Il est important de préciser qu’en raison de l’accroissement de la mobilité spatiale et de la reconfiguration sociodémographique accélérée de Montréal, l’enjeu de la participation citoyenne est au centre de la dynamique de plusieurs quartiers de la métropole québécoise. Les préoccupations de simples citoyens sont dorénavant intégrées dans les processus de planification urbaine (Sénécal, 2012). Il faut rappeler que la démocratie participative n’est pas un phénomène nouveau car il est observé depuis les années 60 (Sintomer, 2009 ; Rosenberg, 2009).

Toutefois, dans les exercices actuels de participation, le patrimoine est utilisé comme élément d’attractivité territorial, mais également, comme une ressource (Greffe, 2003) fédérant les communautés qui s’y identifient.

Montréal est d’ailleurs de plus en plus observée à l’échelle internationale comme étant un milieu propice à la mise en place d’approches participatives dans les projets d’aménagement. Des processus comme le co-design et la coproduction sont des laboratoires vivants qui contribuent aussi à la recherche par le design (Findeli et Coste, 2007). Ces processus provenant du design social qui est lui-même issue d’approches critiques du fonctionnalisme (Blondiaux et Sintomer, 2002), propres au XXe siècle, contribuent de plus en plus à l’arrimage de la participation citoyenne aux disciplines de l’architecture, de l’urbanisme et du design urbain. Ce changement de paradigme s’est d’ailleurs largement opéré dans les années 90 (Findeli, 2003). L’objectif de la séance proposée est mieux comprendre ce nouveau phénomène participatif et d’évaluer son importance dans la réappropriation citoyenne des ensembles urbains et des bâtiments patrimoniaux. Nous procéderons à la présentation d’un cadre conceptuel de la participation citoyenne et des projets urbains axés sur des processus participatifs qui interrogent le patrimoine à différentes échelles :

•          La requalification du site de l’ancienne église Sainte-Germaine-Cousin ;

•          L’exercice de co-création : Imaginons la place Gérald Godin ;

•          Le projet Imaginons Saint-Marc ;

•          L’avenir du parc des Gorilles.

session 014 - Walking Post-Industrial Areas : A Round Table - Roundtable session

Organisateur : Steven High

In recent years, there has been a great deal of debate surrounding so-called ruin gazing and the politics of representing industrial or urban ruination. Recent years have seen photographers, artists, film-makers, urban explorers, scholars and others flood into newly deindustrialized areas to record signs of ruins and abandonment, prompting a public backlash against the hipster commodification of misery. Some have gone so far as to call the voyeuristic appeal of industrial or urban ruination a form of “ruin-porn”, urging researchers and artists to engage with the people who continue to live in and with ruination. What accounts for their invisibility? Historian Jackie Clarke suggests that new forms of working-class invisibility have emerged since the 1980s. She uses the term invisibility to “signal not total disappearance, but various forms of marginalisation, occlusion and disqualification.”

This cross-disciplinary session will explore the ethical and political stance of researchers and artists who have created memory-based audio or art walks that engage with the post-industrial transformation of our cities. How does in-situ listening and curated feeling change the experience of walking through these areas? Does it contribute to or counter the wider aestheticization of rubble into picturesque ruin? What are the underlying politics of these public initiatives? How well do these walks make visible or challenge power? In responding to these questions, participants in this round table will consider the potential of audio and art walking as critical heritage practice in the aftermath of deindustrialization.

session 018 - Empathy and indifference – emotional/affective routes to and away from compassion - regular session

Organisateurs : Gary Campbell, Laurajane Smith

We would like to propose a session, building on the one we ran at the 2014 CHS conference in Canberra, on how emotion and affect feature in the fields of heritage and museums studies, memory studies, public history, heritage tourism, studies of the built and urban environment, conservation, archives and any field of study that deals with the emotional impact and use of the past in the present.

There is an increasing interest in how emotion is a form of judgement on things that effect our lives, identity and wellbeing. This session focuses on the issue of empathy, the emotional and imaginative skill to place yourself in the subjective position of another. Significant debate has occurred within the wider social sciences that has dismissed empathy as simply a feel good way of belittling or dismissing social justice issues and thus maintain individual and societal indifference to the marginalised. Conversely, others have argued that empathy is key to overturning indifference and effecting political and social change. Overall, this session asks to what role can and does heritage, in its various forms, play in engendering empathy, and what might an examination of the ways in which heritage and empathy interact reveal about the utility or otherwise of forms and experiences of empathy? Equally, what may the study of the emotional content of heritage practices and performances tell us about the maintenance of indifference?

This session calls for 20 minute papers, that explicitly address not just the emotional content of heritage practices, but clearly explores the ways in which heritage is used in a range of contexts to elicit or withhold empathy, and the consequences this has for social debates and individual and collective wellbeing.

Papers may explore such things as:

  • the idea of empathy and its role in the expression of different forms of heritage;
  • the way empathy, or its withholding, can be used to either facilitate or closedown the extension of social recognition in heritage and museum contexts;
  • how forms of commemoration can re-assert or challenge dominant historical or heritage narratives;
  • how people using heritage sites or museums, or debating issues of historical importance, mobilise particular suites of emotional and affective responses to the past;
  • how communities or other groups who propose non-authorised versions of heritage/history utilise emotional and affective responses to challenge received narratives about the past;
  • research which critically investigates the empathetic responses of ‘visitors’ to heritage sites, museums and other forms of heritage;
  • research which investigates the role of empathy in the expression and transference of intangible heritage.

session 032 - Teaching / Learning / Living Post-Industrial Ecologies : Roundtable on Concordia's 'Right to the City' initiative - Reaserach Creation session

Organisateur : Kathleen Vaugham

In a collaborative and image-rich conversational presentation, “Teaching/Learning/Living Post-Industrial Ecologies” outlines the potentials and problematics of “The Right to the City,” a multi-year transdisciplinary curriculum initiative that brings graduate and undergraduate students from Concordia University to Montreal’s historic South West borough. Through our tethered teaching, four professors have asked, “what does it change for the university to teach/learn on-site with the residents and the cultural and natural heritages of the Pointe-St-Charles neighbourhood?’ This question will be explored from diverse perspectives in a pecha kucha-style (10 images/5 minutes each) roundtable, featuring community and academic stakeholders and students, who will reflect on what it means to learn in place, from place.

In 2015-16, its second year, “The Right to the City” united 60 bachelor, Master’s and doctoral students in four disciplines, History (Dr. Steven High), Art Education (Dr. Kathleen Vaughan), Art History (Dr. Cynthia Hammond) and Theatre (Dr. Ted Little). This initiative was supported by Concordia’s “Curriculum Innovation” program and by the Atwater Library’s Digital Literacy Project (Eric Craven), in collaboration with Pointe-St-Charles social service and community agencies such as Share the Warmth/Partageons l’espoir, the neighbourhood Y, Saint Columba House, and local cultural hubs such as the St-Charles Library and Salon Laurette. Throughout their coursework, students learned from each other and from locals, developing a myriad of creative, scholarly and community-based projects that engaged with contemporary resonances of the heritage of Pointe-St-Charles. Drawing on the concept of the ‘right to the city’ as advanced by Henri Lefebvre (1968), and the interwoven notions of environmental and social justice in post-industrial ecologies (Foster & Sandberg, 2014), this roundtable and the tethered courses it reflects have an exploratory, activist orientation as much as a research/teaching agenda.

We see this roundtable as a companion to the session, “Walking Post-Industrial Areas: A Round Table” (@ St. Columba House in Pointe-Saint-Charles), which aims to explore the impact of artistic/scholarly engagement with Montreal’s heritage in the South West borough.

session 035 - Co-production in heritage: Toward new imaginaries - regular session

Organisateurs : Bethany Rex, Katherine Lloyd, Nuala Morse

"Involving communities, visitors or the public is frequently presented as one of the major tasks of museums and heritage sites in current global movements toward new collaborative paradigms (Golding and Modest 2013; Watson and Waterton 2011). Co-production is a highly current issue, and a proposed emancipatory solution to the authorized heritage discourse, which seemingly has reached a critical juncture. Scholarship has echoed calls from communities for more direct involvement in the presentation and management of heritage and material culture. However there is also a strong critique within the literature and a sense of dissatisfaction from professionals around the gap between the well-meaning rhetoric and practical realities—its effects have more often been tokenistic than transformative. This important critique has brought to the fore the issues of power and inequality in co-production, often drawing on the imagery of the ladder or spectrum of participation (Arnstein 1969? Simon 2010). It has also tended to optimistically re-employ these same critical modes to reimagine co-production practice.

This session invites new perspectives and new approaches to co-production that go beyond these strictly critical modes. The session aims to push the debate beyond the current focus of co-production debates which view co-production as something that takes place at various levels; the recognition of co-production as inevitably messy; and as meaning very different things to policy-makers, practitioners and almost nothing to the "public." We encourage papers to get up close to the recognized issues of power, hegemony and domination, but also beyond, in a "post-critical" vein. This might include new languages, metaphors and imaginaries to address the roles, relations and stakes involved in the co-production of heritage, as well as approaches taken from a variety of disciplinary traditions. We therefore invite contributions drawing from diverse theoretical perspectives such as actor-network theory (Latour 2005; Bennett 2007), assemblage (Deleuze and Guatarri 1987; Macdonald 2009) and non-representational theory and affect (Thrift 2010; Waterton 2014).

We invite theoretical and/or empirical contributions that explore the processes and practice of co-production along different terms, to generate a richer understanding of the politics of co-production and its progressive possibilities for change. We particularly invite contributions focusing on professionals’ experiences of co-production and their shifting understanding of expertise, knowledge practices and professional identities. With these issues in mind, we invite papers along (but not limited to) the following themes:

  • how alternative framings of co-production change understandings of heritage;
  • the merging of local knowledge/professional expertise;
  • how knowledge and knowledge practices are constructed in empirical examples of co-production;
  • how professional values/subjectivities are being challenged or altered in response to the imperative to co-produce;
  • how emotion and feelings of belonging encourage co-production and/or co-management to flourish."

session 065 - Envisioning the dialogic museum through digital interventions - regular session

Organisateurs : Areti Galani, Rhiannon Mason


Digital installations and interventions have been seen as a promising ways to support and foster dialogue in museum exhibitions. How does this potential translate into practice and does it enable reflexive and critical approaches towards heritage-making?

This session aims to explore how digital installations and interventions in the context of museum exhibitions envision the notion of the ‘dialogic museum’. It particularly aims to articulate and problematize the role of digital installations and interventions that allow the capture and presentation of multiple stories and voices in the museum exhibition space as enablers of different forms of dialogue. The session position this debate in the context of exhibition-based dialogue[s] around ‘sensitive’ topics, for example, by focusing on how narratives of place, identity, belonging and migration are constructed, de-constructed and re-constructed through digital installations and interventions. However, we would equally welcome papers that deal with digitally enabled dialogue in the museum in relation to other sensitive, controversial or difficult topics.

The sessions asks:
What are the forms of dialogue that are afforded by digital installations and interventions in the museum context? Do the methods of production of digital installations and interventions (e.g. digital interpretive practice vs. digital creative practice) embody and enable different forms of dialogue? For instance, do digital installations afford a greater variety of self-reflexive and/or situated dialogic behaviours by visitors? How do digitally mediated asynchronous museum dialogues change visitors’ understanding of and relation to heritage and how? Does the digitally mediated dialogic approach suit some topics more than others? How does digital interpretation fit with the museum’s traditional institutional or curatorial voice? How might it help museums deal with ‘sensitive’ topics and controversy? What are the limits and the ethical and design challenges of digital installations in supporting museum dialogues around sensitive topics?

As the session approaches these questions through the lens of digital practice, it also encourages a critical perspective on (a) the role of the fast evolving field of digital museology/digital cultural heritage in heritage-making; and (b) the discourse around the capacity of digital interactive installations and interventions to resonate with visitors in ways that are not easily achievable through other museum media. It particularly welcomes reflections and insights around the notion of socially engaged digital heritage.

session 102 - Heritage and the new fate of sacred places - regular session

Organisateur : Luc Noppen

"While historical churches are being abandoned all over the Christian West, more and more places are growing the opposite way: pilgrimage sites are being enlarged and enhanced, whole urban districts are being developed with churches and temples boasting diverse, and often unorthodox, religious practices. Epistemologically linked to heritage, the sacred now seems to follow a path of its own, staging itself in new settings where the “religious heritage” refers mostly to common practices, however recent they may be. This new heritage-making through both spectacle and commonality, which leans heavily on the intercultural as an intangible matter, seems to leave aside the tangible side of heritage. But it has to be observed that, however intangible the practices and the communities may be, all these new or renewed sacred places are thought and made of very tangible landscapes, buildings, artefacts, and are set with urban planning rules, by-laws, legal status and tax systems. If, as it has been demonstrated elsewhere, neither the cult nor the religion can be seen as solutions to the safeguard of historical churches, is there nonetheless something to be learned for redundant churches in this new fate of sacred places? How does the legal status of these pilgrimage sites and other “Highway to heaven” in our secular society can be compared to that of former church monuments? Can the transcultural way to produce the meaning of these sacred places hold any lessons for the interpretation of old churches now deprived of meaning? This session would like to focus on Canadian examples of new or enhanced sacred places, looking at their materiality to understand how their community-making process can (or cannot) bear examples for the engendering of heritage communities that could revive the meaning of redundant historical churches."


"À travers l’Occident chrétien, de plus en plus d’églises sont fermées au culte et le recyclage ou la conversion vers de nouveaux usages sont aujourd’hui courants. Mais on n’a pas encore vu d’église reconnue pour sa valeur d’art, un « monument » au sens littéral du mot, être complètement abandonnée par le culte et ses références religieuses fondamentales à la compréhension de la valeur d’art elle-même. Bien qu’il soit maintenant reconnu que la mobilité sociale et internationale accrue défie notre vision traditionnelle du patrimoine en général, des systèmes d’interprétation et de formation sont souvent mis en place pour pallier l’absence d’une mémoire collective et de contextes communs sur lesquels s’appuie habituellement la reconnaissance du patrimoine : n’importe qui peut apprendre à devenir meunier en travaillant à la meunerie, ou fermier à la ferme, sans même avoir de connaissances préalables ou venir d’une famille de meuniers ou de cultivateurs. Mais qu’en est-il de la religion, qui donne leur sens aux œuvres d’art religieux les plus connues? Quelle est l’importance du plafond de la chapelle Sixtine pour une personne qui n’a jamais entendu parler du Jugement dernier, encore moins de Michel-Ange, sans mentionner le XVIe siècle largement eurocentré ?

Bien qu’on puisse admettre que les pratiques religieuses traditionnelles et les connaissances qui ont produit ces Gesamtkuntswerk – comme on pourrait appeler certains monuments uniques hérités de la Chrétienté, ces « œuvres d’art grandioses » – seront bientôt chose du passé, il faut questionner les moyens et les raisons mêmes de leur conservation à titre de patrimoine qui sera graduellement partagé par de moins en moins de personnes. Beaucoup plus que ces bâtiments religieux qui peuvent être réutilisés pour des fins communautaires ou autres – évidemment au prix de la perte de certains de leurs ornements ou artéfacts –, ces Gesamtkuntswerk requièrent des investissements publics importants qui devront être justifiés, et pas seulement par la réinterprétation et la compréhension de leurs valeurs patrimoniales par la collectivité. Si tous s’entendent que ceux-ci doivent rester « intacts », utilisés seulement comme monuments proprement dits, les autorités publiques devraient-elles s’impliquer dans les affaires liturgiques pour réaliser cette mission ? Sinon, qui devrait en devenir propriétaire et les entretenir ? Comment conserver leur intégrité ? Comment transmettre leur sens ?
Cette session sera l’occasion de discuter d’expériences menées à travers l’Occident et rassemblera des points de vue différents sur l’économie, l’interprétation et la conservation in situ d’œuvres d’art, notamment afin de saisir les implications juridiques, financières et sociétales ainsi que les façons de «fabriquer du patrimoine» quand cela remet en question la pertinence de monuments qu’on croyait jusqu’alors «intouchables»."

session 105 - What does heritage change? Case studies in archaeology - regular session

Organisateurs : Allison Bain, Réginald Auger

"In addressing the theme of this conference, we argue that archaeology, above and beyond the traditional goals of research and post-excavation analyses, may contribute to economic development, education and the creation of identities and communities. Our session "What does Heritage Change? Case Studies in Archaeology," is divided into two themes starting with archaeological practice through its legislation and management. Contract or commercial archaeology increasingly comprises the vast majority of archaeological practice in North America and Western Europe, and the legislation and management of buried heritage is a key part of the archaeological process, regardless of planned outcomes. Heritage sites are managed by multiple forms and branches of legislation at the local, regional, provincial/state and national levels. Competing and at times conflicting interests, poor funding and weak legislation may hinder the proper integration of archaeological heritage in the planning and management of cities, First Nations lands, outlying regions slated for development and parklands. Case studies from a variety of regions will examine and discuss some of these shared challenges while also highlighting archaeological success stories. The second part of this session addresses potential outcomes in archaeology above and beyond the tourist sector. Archaeology can be an important and, at times, contested method used in the interpretation of past communities and identities. Furthermore, as a vehicle to encourage dialogue, archaeology can be used to address disputed notions about the past, and as a powerful means of its appropriation. The diverse and multidisciplinary nature of current archaeological practices also creates opportunities to encourage education in communities facing socio-economic challenges. Examples presented in the second part of this session explore archaeology and its role in education, community building and identity."

session 118 - Un chant d'exil en terre promise - Reaserach Creation session

Organisateur : Miléna Kartowski-Aïach

En 2014, j’ai débuté un doctorat en anthropologie portant sur la jeune génération des juifs Mizrahim en Israël, originaires du Maghreb et du Moyen-Orient, qui tentent de re/construire leur identité à travers la création artistique contemporaine, très souvent engagée. Leur art est le reflet de leur militantisme et de leur désir de saisir un petit quelque chose de la culture d’origine de leurs grands parents, les figures tutélaires, venus de terres d’Islam, pays où ces jeunes israéliens ne peuvent se rendre aujourd’hui. Du silence de leurs grands parents arrivés en terre promise et désireux de « s’intégrer » au nouvel état national juif, ces jeunes artistes questionnent l’Histoire, composent des chants et poésies qui peignent un ailleurs méconnus et célébrés, dans leurs langues juives diasporiques d’origine, réapprises, parfois au prix de leur image. Ainsi ils permettent aux cultures tues de reprendre souffle. Chanter en arabe, yéménite ou persan devient une force, une source de reconnexion avec des mondes perdus, un possible franchissement des frontières qui enclavent Israël. Ces jeunes artistes affirment leurs appartenances d’origine, parfois au détriment de leur propre identité israélienne. Ils veulent rendre justice à leurs aïeux et tenter d’œuvrer grâce à l’art, à un rapprochement possible vers la paix et les palestiniens.

C’est la réalité complexe de ces artistes engagés que j’ai tenté d’approcher au plus près, leurs processus de création et leurs rêves fragiles, plus globalement de saisir leur manière de « re/créer » un patrimoine judéo-arabe dans un Israël brulant et déchiré. Ce sont leurs frontières intérieures et physiques que j’ai tenté de suivre, leurs rapports à la famille et à leur communauté d’artistes. C’est aussi mon propre patrimoine, juif et multiple que j’ai mis en scène afin d’être accepté par ceux qui parfois projettent sur l’autre rejet et exclusion, car ils en ont été les victimes.

Grâce aux outils du théâtre expérimental et anthropologique, c’est une plongée sensible au cœur des questions d’héritage et de transmission que je propose de mener ici. Comment saisir au plus près les créations engagées de ces artistes et leurs aspirations-revendications si ce n’est pas le prisme même de l’art. Cette recherche-création sous forme de performance théâtrale et musicale, est un acte engagé vers une ethnologie profonde du sensible et une tentative de traversée des idées et questions cruciales qui jalonnent cette recherche. Il est donc question d’aller au-delà d’une présentation « classique » des résultats de terrain, de transcender les mots, et de passer par un outil unique qui est celui de la création.

Le plateau sera mon espace de recherche et de création, partagé avec le public où les langues de la recherche, soit français, l’anglais, l’hébreu, le yiddish, l’arabe, la darija marocaine porteront les pas de l’enquête et me permettront d’interroger la corde sensible de l’héritage et du patrimoine chez ces artistes, mais aussi chez moi, chercheuse, artiste et fille d’immigrés, vivant en diaspora et à la frontière de plusieurs mondes.

3. Héritage – Réappropriation culturelle – création artistique

4. anthropologie, reconstruction identitaire, folklore, patrimoine, héritage culturel, théâtre-anthropologique, recherche-création

Notions of heritage I: geographical and linguistic processes of transformation (heritage changes itself)

session 007 - Challenging a discourse of difference – heritage in Asia and Europe - regular session

Organisateurs : Anna Källen, Anna Karlström

"As the interface between past and present, heritage is deeply involved in articulations of personal and group identity, working to unite and harmonize group relations and, simultaneously causing frictions, fractions and violence. Critical heritage theory reveals that values and approaches to heritage are articulated both within and across regions (such as Asia, or Europe). A vital, and as yet unanswered, question centres on the degree to which heritage in Asia fundamentally differs from those conservation regulations and practices based on European notions of time, materiality and aesthetics, which have been internationalized as a set of "standards." Attempts to challenge the European hegemony in global heritage practice has led to an overly simplistic dichotomization between "Asian" and "Western," where Europe is reduced to linearity, rigidity and permanence, and Asia spirituality and impermanence. With little serious, long-term humanistic and social science research undertaken on the complexities of Asian approaches to heritage in relation to European ones, policy-makers and international heritage programmes too often resort to this East-West dichotomy and re-establish these socially constructed (or imagined) communities in attempts to express multicultural sensitivity. Critically, a paradigm of difference and opposition undermines more robust understandings of shared approaches and inter-regional dialogue, and risks contributing to situations of conflict or violence. Securing grounded, nuanced understandings of the complex entanglements and inter-connections between heritage, its care, and its governance in Asia and Europe is therefore an urgent task. The widespread politicization of heritage today, both at the local and national levels, means a more open, intra-regional, cross-cultural dialogue around the cultural past, and its links to identity is of global concern. This session invites papers that challenge this discourse of difference. We are interested in research and debates that move beyond statements of essential difference, transcend nationalism, flesh out the complexities of regional heritage, and unpack ideas of Asian-European dichotomy. We also welcome contributions that examine, through a comparative lens, the actual foundations for valuing and approaching heritage in Asia and Europe."

session 020 - Flexible scales and relational territoriality in the meaning-making of cultural heritage - regular session

Organisateurs : Tuuli Lähdesmäki, Satu Kähkönen, Kristin Kuutma

"Space plays a crucial role in the production and meaning-making of cultural heritage. Although space has often been discussed in heritage studies, further critical analysis of the constructive and performative nature of space, in particular that of scale and territoriality, is needed in order to understand the power hierarchies and mechanisms of power in cultural heritage and in various conflicts related to its meanings, ownership, preservation and management. The idea of cultural heritage is commonly fixed to territories: heritage is often perceived and narrated as reflecting not only locally, regionally and nationally framed territorial meanings, but also those of supranational territorial entities such as cross-border or transnational regions and continents. The territorial meanings of cultural heritage are, however, situational and fluid: the territorial meanings of sites, objects and traditions recognized and labelled as cultural heritage vary in different discourses and contexts. For example, the same site, object or tradition can be defined as representing cultural heritage of different nations, depending on one’s point of view. Similarly, the same cultural heritage can be regarded as local, regional, national or supranational in different heritage discourses. Territorial definitions of cultural heritage are often intertwined with political agendas. Indeed, spatiality, scale and territoriality have a crucial role in producing, interpreting and governing cultural heritage. Usually, heritage administration, heritage politics and policies have a territorial focus and operational context. Although the geographies of heritage have raised increasing scholarly interest in the field of heritage studies, the difference that scale creates to the meanings of heritage has nevertheless been rarely investigated, as David Harvey has argued. This session aims to promote the objectives of ACHS, an interdisciplinary approach and critical exploration of power relations involved in the production and meaning-making of cultural heritage. It addresses the main topic of the ACHS 2016 conference by discussing cultural heritage as a domain of power and politics—such as identity politics—and explores how imagined or real spaces, scales, territories and territorial borders are constructed, defined and managed in the processes of heritagization, and with what effects.

The session tackles the following questions:

  • How do space, scales and territoriality influence the meanings of cultural heritage?
  • What kinds of power hierarchies, politics and conflicts of interpretation are implicated by the territorialisation of cultural heritage?
  • What kinds of territorial top-down and bottom-up dimensions influence governing and meaning-making of cultural heritage?"

session 042 - L'odyssée des mots du patrimoine - regular session

Organisateurs : Vincent Négri, Adele Esposito, Nathalie Lancret

Le patrimoine recouvre des notions et des pratiques, et désigne des objets, dont « [la] perte constitue un sacrifice et [dont la] conservation suppose des sacrifices » (Chastel et Babelon 1980). En amont de ces productions de significations et perceptions sociales, ces notions et les modes de désignation diffèrent selon les univers linguistiques, géographiques, et temporels, alors que, sous la pression d’un ‘algorithme universalisant’ (Merleau-Ponty 1969), un processus de normalisation est en cours, postulant des valeurs universelles – à l’instar de la normativité culturelle insufflée par l’UNESCO – et menaçant toute pratique alternative. La diversité des formes et des modes de production des mots du patrimoine, reflet d’univers spécifiques tend alors à être négligée, voire reléguée dans l’angle mort des langues vernaculaires ou minoritaires.
La diversité linguistique des mots du patrimoine est ainsi minorée, notamment par les États-Nations qui projettent leurs identités dans une production langagière nationale et internationale, appelée à fonctionner comme registre de référence dans lequel se jouent les conceptualisations et les désignations des objets patrimoniaux. Nourri par les concepts et les notions à l’œuvre dans les États-Nations, ce registre est repris dans le droit international ; en retour, les principes du droit international surplombent les politiques nationales du patrimoine. Ce retour questionne la traduction des lexiques patrimoniaux vernaculaires vers le français et l’anglais, et inversement.
A ces différents registres linguistiques correspond la variabilité du sens d’un mot ou d’une expression de la langue, autrement dit, des régimes d’indexicalité (Silverstein 2003, Blommaert 2005) conçus comme toutes les déterminations qui s’attachent à un mot et à une situation (Coulon 1987). Autrement dit, la portée signifiante d’un mot du patrimoine à destinée générale, globale ou universalisante est dédoublée par des significations distinctes qui varient en fonction de la qualité et de la nature de l'émetteur et du récepteur, du moment ou de la situation particulière dans laquelle le mot est émis et des différences de rationalités des producteurs. Se joue ainsi une compétition entre la maîtrise d’une indexicalité ‘officielle’ ou ‘internationale’ correspondant à un pouvoir hiérarchique de produire de la connaissance et d’agir sur le patrimoine et des usages « non-officiels » de la langue souvent mis à l’écart dans les politiques patrimoniales car relevant d’une indexicalité ‘inférieure’, alors qu’ils sont au cœur des pratiques territorialisées infranationales ou transnationales. Dans ce rapport dialectique, les mots du patrimoine sont investis de forces et de pouvoirs symboliques, symptômes des tensions pour faire reconnaître ces pratiques territorialisées comme fondatrices d’un patrimoine national, et donc, à élever le statut du langage qui les décrit.
Les contributions à cet atelier étudieront ces régimes d’indexicalité, leurs écarts et les ‘passages’ (entre un registre et un autre, entre une langue et une autre) afin d’analyser la diversité des approches, les conflits et les médiations qui se jouent autour de la définition et l’action patrimoniale.
Elles questionneront, plus particulièrement, trois types de processus qui sont à la base des échanges au sein d’une langue, ‘fragmentée’ entre régimes d’indexicalité, et à travers les langues : la traduction, la transition (le passage d’une notion à l’autre ; d'un mot à l'autre), et ‘l’intraduisible’.

session 043 - Devant l’arrêt de monde(s), derrière les ruines, sous les déchets: explorations, traces, fuites - regular session

Organisateurs : Octave Debary, Jean-Louis Tornatore

"Dans un texte majeur, « L’arrêt de monde », D. Danowski et E. Viveiros de Castro explorent le thème de la fin du monde tel qu’il se déploie aujourd’hui « dans l’imaginaire de la culture mondialisée ». Entre fiction, philosophie et anthropologie, ils déroulent la scène sombre de nos futurs d’espèce humaine devenue force géologique et autodestructrice vivant non plus sur mais dans une planète considérée comme un être vivant et une puissance menaçante (Gaïa). Si le spectre de la catastrophe est partout agité, diffère l’imagination de ce que sera le monde d’après la catastrophe : un univers terrifiant qui n’en finit pas de se consumer ne laissant qu’une fuite sans espoir aux spécimens d’humanité restante (La Route de C. MacCarthy, 2008) ; la lente mais sûre reprise ou reconquête du monde par la « nature » débarrassée de nous (Homo disparitus d’A. Weisman, 2007). La ruine absolue pour l’un, l’arrêt de la ruine ou sa transfiguration pour l’autre. Le déchet, reste d’objet, reste d’homme, voire déchet social, est dans l’errance, le mouvement. Il n’est pas à sa place, parfois n’a pas de place. Il constitue une limite incertaine entre l’être et le non-être, entre ce monde et un autre. Cette limite trace celle de la culture ; la culture se sépare de ses déchets, de ses « déchets culturels ». En ce sens, la saleté ouvre à la culture (M. Douglas). Le nettoyage et l’exclusion des déchets est une (re)mise en ordre de la culture, comme affirmation de son système et de son classement (M. Thompson). La culture maintient en vie ses productions, ses objets, et au seuil de leur non recyclabilité, les congédie comme déchets (ultimes). L’impureté est le privilège de la culture. Il s’agit de dire sa propre finitude, son risque de perte. Et de cette perte, la culture souhaite se défaire. Au centre de cette logique, le déchet permet de dire le temps qui passe et l’horizon d’une fin ; la pourriture ou la salissure est déperdition de la vie. L’eschatologie contemporaine liée au risque écologique trouve ici sa place. A force de vivre, de produire des déchets, on pollue le monde, le risque environnemental dit le risque de la culture. La ruine, elle, se tient au seuil, celui de la fin de la culture, du retour de la nature ou de la promesse d’un futur. Comment faire usages de la ruine ? Lire dans les entrailles d’une ville détruite son destin possible (Jouannais). Nous voudrions placer notre session sous le signe du mouvement radical, celui qui suppose l’arrêt de mondes, et mettre en regard la pluralité des approches qu’il suscite. La ruine est un motif contemporain associé à la ville (D. Scott). Si l’humanité est devenue majoritairement urbaine, c’est donc de la ville que viennent les images fortes de son anéantissement. Voire, la ville a commencé à se désagréger de l’intérieur, à l’occasion de petites fins de monde, arrêts d’usines par exemple, suscitant le parcours de leurs abandons et de leurs décombres, générant des pratiques, artistiques et/ou déambulatoire, l’urbex, un voyeurisme de la décrépitude, le ruin porn… Nous voudrions mettre en balance, en confrontation la perspective attendue ou redoutée de la ruine de notre monde avec ces petites ruines qui parsèment nos vies quotidiennes, sur lesquelles ces pratiques veulent attirer nos attentions. Dans quelle mesure celles-ci préfigurent-elles, exorcisent-elles celle-là ? Et puis, dans quelle mesure la ruine et le déchet n’entrent-ils pas en concurrence avec nos patrimoines, le patrimoine urbain, le patrimoine industriel ? Cet atelier est ouvert aux interventions qui interrogent le reste, ruine ou déchet, dans la construction du rapport au temps et à l’histoire. De la poubelle au musée ou à l’espace sanctuarisé, en passant par la ruine, le reste, par la manifestation de ce qu’il n’est plus et de ses diverses occurrences, permet non seulement de dire le temps qui passe mais constitue un indice de nos conceptions du futur. Sa valeur mémorielle, patrimoniale, testimoniale se construit sur les ruines de son histoire, comme sur les perspectives des catastrophes à venir. "


In a major text entitled "L'arrêt de monde", Déborah Danowski and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro explore the theme of the end of the world as it is deployed today "in the imagination of globalized culture". Using fiction, philosophy, and anthropology, they unfurl the somber scene of our future as a human species, which has become a living geological and self-destructive force no longer on but in a planet that is considered a living being and a menacing power (Gaia). While the specter of catastrophe is uniformly raised, the world that is imagined after the catastrophe varies, seen alternately as a terrifying universe that endlessly consumes itself, leaving the remaining specimens of humanity with the only option of a hopeless escape (The Road by Cormac MacCarthy, 2008), or a slow but sure reprisal or reconquering of the world by "nature", which has been freed from us (The World Without Us by Alan Weisman, 2007). It represents the absolute ruin for some and the ceasing of the ruin or its transfiguration for others.

Waste—remnant of the object, remnant of man, and even social waste—lies in the act of wandering and movement. It is not in its place, nor does it sometimes have a place. It constitutes an uncertain limit between being and non-being, between this world and another. This limit delineates that of culture; culture is separated from its waste, its "cultural waste". In this sense, dirt unlocks culture (Mary Douglas). The cleaning and the exclusion of waste is a (re)ordering of culture as an affirmation of its system and its classification (Michael Thompson). Culture keeps what it produces—its objects—alive and dismisses it as (supreme) waste when it is on the brink of not being recyclable. Impurity is the privilege of culture and concerns the enunciation of its own finiteness and its risk of being lost. Culture wants to be rid of this loss. At the center of this logic, waste makes it possible to speak of passing time and the horizon of an end; decomposition and dirt are the loss of life. The modern eschatology linked to ecological risk finds its place here. The act of continually living and producing waste pollutes the world; the environmental risk articulates the risk of culture. As for the ruin, it remains on the threshold, that of the end of culture, the return of nature, and the promise of a future. The ruin can be used to prognosticate the possible destiny of a destroyed city (Jean-Yves Jouannais).

We would like our session to focus on the radical movement that presupposes the ceasing of worlds and to compare the various approaches it raises. The ruin is a contemporary motif associated with the city (Diane Scott). Since humanity has for the most part become urban, the strongest images of its annihilation come from the city. The city has even begun to disintegrate from within during small instances of the end of the world—such as the shutting down of factories, leading people to peruse their abandonment and ruins and generating artistic and/or ambulatory practices, urbex, voyeurism into decrepitude, ruin porn, and so on. We would like to weigh and confront the expected or dreaded perspective of our world's ruin with the small ruins scattered throughout our daily lives and to which these practices seek to draw our attention. To what extent do the former prefigure and exorcise the latter? And to what extent do ruin and waste begin to compete with our heritage, both urban and industrial?

This workshop is open to interventions interrogating remains, ruins, and waste in the construction of a relationship to time and history. From the garbage heap to the museum and the sanctuarized space via ruins, remains, and the manifestation of what something no longer is and its various occurences, all this not only makes it possible to speak of passing time, but constitutes a clue to how our future can be conceived. Its memorial, patrimonial, and testimonial value is built on both the ruins of its history and the various perspectives surrounding the catastrophes to come.

session 058 - Heritage shifts in East Asia: Communication between global policies and local practices - regular session

Organisateurs : William Nitzky, Yujie Zhu

To date, there has been much scholarly discussion and critique of how ideas and policies of ‘heritage’ may be operating globally. There have also been ethnographic studies providing ‘on the ground’ perspectives. In this session, we aim to establish a bridge between local-level empirical study and global heritage discourse. By addressing ‘heritage’ in relation to processes of modernization and globalization in East Asia, we seek to investigate the dynamic communication between global heritage policies and local practices in East Asia. Rather than assuming that a Euro-centric discourse necessarily operates, we intend to explore the dialectical shifts of heritage discourse between international regimes and national and local presentations. We also wish to examine the tensions and opportunities in the process of interpreting, imagining, and practicing heritage in the East Asian context of shifting economic and cultural values.

With these issues in mind, we invite papers looking into the following themes: What are the routes and modes of transport by which notions such as heritage, preservation, museum, or authenticity – that originally emerged from Europe - travel to East Asian countries such as China, Korea or Japan? What concepts and practices do such notions meet when they arrive and how do they interact with them? How are they professionally translated and interpreted, and popularly imagined and practiced on the ground? Through what kinds of processes and practices is the global heritage system variously put into operation and transformed at national and local levels? What roles do international professional groups, including heritage experts and nature conservationists, play in shaping the activities of Asian heritage practitioners and managers – and vice versa? How are documents and decisions concerning heritage conservation made at international levels (e.g. World Heritage) transmitted to East Asia and how do local actors variously take up, negotiate, resist or ignore these in whole or part? In what ways may local heritage decision makers enlist national and international agents in order to meet their own economic and political agendas? How do international tourists and global tour operators imagine and influence heritage tourism in East Asia, and how do those variously respond?

Instead of focusing on single-site case-studies from diverse national contexts, this session engages with East Asia as an important ground for testing the global dynamics of heritage discourse in relation to the intensified mobility of concepts, objects, media and human beings. We welcome projects with inter-disciplinary approaches to deepen the insight of the complex picture of the heritage system in the era of cultural and economic globalization. By investigating the proposition that cultures are an attribute of human societies formed by transcultural relationships, our session will collectively strive to cast new light on heritage politics, memory, governance, and the complex and often contradictory association of power and culture.

session 060 - Heritage and liminality: Cross-cultural and inter-disciplinary perspectives on liminality and cultural heritage - regular session

Organisateurs : Ali Mozaffari, Nigel Westbrook

"Heritage has multiple, concurrent origins. It is performed and produced by individuals, groups and organizations, or institutions on various scales. It is a transformative process and thus closely connected to the transitional. In heritage, transitionality may be usefully conceptualized under the rubric of the liminal, which at its core anticipates change and transformation, structure-agency relationships, affect, and human experience—all significant issues in recent theoretical debates in the field. Various individuals, groups, institutions and even countries can create, attempt to control or contest liminality. Examining heritage in light of liminality can pertain to interrogating notions of transition, boundary and border zones and their manifestations and constructions as well as the actors who construct them and their possible intentions in both quotidian and exceptional times. Additionally, new insights may be drawn about understanding spatial and temporal transitions between heritage sites and landscapes and spaces of everyday life or the structure of experiencing a heritage place. In coupling liminality and heritage, the session ultimately pursues a two-fold objective: to develop a better or different understanding of heritage through the use of liminality, and to explore the potential contribution of heritage to understandings of liminality in the present. Authors are invited to analyze the relationships between heritage and liminality in their multiple forms. The session cuts through a number of conference themes and welcomes papers from multiple disciplines including geography, architecture, anthropology, sociology, tourism studies and politics. Both theoretical and case-based studies with theoretical implications will be considered. Possible topics of investigation include but are not limited to the following interrelated aspects:

  1. Time and temporality
    • How thresholds and liminal zones change over time and how is the transition experienced by various groups and/or individuals?
    • What are the temporal qualities of thresholds in relation to places?
    • What are the temporal differences between liminal zones and their immediate surroundings?
    • How, when and by whom are they constructed as thresholds?
    • How do thresholds and transitions transform in time and what are the causes for their transformation?
    • How is the question of time related to other tangible or intangible aspects of experiencing heritage?
  2. Narrative
    • What are the narratives of entering/transitioning for various groups of people?
    • How are experiences narrated on a quotidian basis and how does that narrative differ in other times?
    • At a more local scale, what are the various narratives of entering, border zones and thresholds and how do they interact?
  3. Performance
    • How, when and why are transitions performed?
    • What kind of performances and actions create, keep or dissolve a liminal state at various scales: in relation to a locale (as in entering and exiting) or in a set of intangible institutional structures that operate at multiple scales?
  4. Place
    • How is liminality created, controlled or contested in place?
    • Who are the actors (individuals, collectives or institutions) who create or resist liminality?
  5. Embodiment and concretization
    • What are the symbolic (visual, structural and other forms) markers of such zones?
    • How do they appear and how are they constructed in their settings (urban, architectural, landscape)?
    • How does historical transformation of the setting influence the construction of a liminal zone and vice versa?

A selection of papers will be considered for inclusion in an academic publication."

session 071 - Les mécanismes en œuvre dans la construction de narrations patrimoniales - regular session

Organisateurs : Denis Martouzet, Carabelli Romeo

"Le patrimoine n’est pas un donné, c’est un construit culturel et social, dynamique et itératif (Maria Gravari-Barbas). La construction patrimoniale est la construction d’une croyance à partager/imposer. Le statut d’objet patrimonial que l’ « on » (experts, élites, décideurs…) donne à un objet suppose de le saisir comme spécifique. C’est aussi l’occasion d’une saisie de la dynamique qui amène la spécificité patrimoniale, cette même dynamique qui est le terrain d’action des politiques, des prises en charge émotionnelles et culturelles de ces entités patrimoniales qui sont, en quelque sorte, spécifiques sinon spéciales. Cela est toujours à la fois vrai et faux, selon le regard que l’on y porte et selon les intentions (Vincent Veschambre) qui président au processus de patrimonialisation. Cette croyance porte sur l’entité visée mais, l’objet seul ne suffisant pas, il est nécessaire de construire cette croyance, ce qui amène l’analyse des processus et leur prise en compte comme des actes patrimoniaux, comme des entités patrimoniales. Plus concrètement, il apparaît nécessaire d’inventer une narration (Paul Ricœur) capable de mettre en place un système de récits constitutifs de cette croyance. Une croyance est une certitude plus ou moins grande par laquelle l'esprit admet la vérité ou la réalité de quelque chose. Non seulement, il y a plusieurs degrés de croyance – ce n’est pas binaire (Gérald Bronner) – mais, de plus, entrent en jeu différents types de connaissance : ce qui relève de l’opinion (Aristote), ce qui est foi (Saint-Augustin) et ce qui s’inscrit dans la démarche scientifique (Karl Popper).

Notre questionnement porte :

  • sur la manière dont s’interpénètrent et se combinent science, foi et opinion dans la construction de la narration utile à la patrimonialisation. Comment s’organisent les processus en œuvre ? Comment se rencontrent, dans les processus cognitifs et relationnels, idéologie, raison, et dimension psycho-affective et émotionnelle ? Comment se conjuguent enrôlement et engagement ? Quelles sont les évolutions récentes et en cours, voire à prévoir ou anticiper, concernant ces processus ?
  • sur la manière dont la narration ainsi construite échappe à ceux qui l’ont construite, s’autonomise et est appropriée par ceux qui n’ont pas participé à sa construction, renforçant les aspects « foi » et « opinion » au détriment de l’objectivation scientifique, comment, faisant passer un objet du statut de banal au statut de patrimonial, elle le transforme de « normal » à « exceptionnel » par la transformation – par imposition – des regards et des représentations que portent la société sur cet objet.
  • sur l’entité même de la narration en tant que telle, en tant que besoin de points de repères idéels, symboliques et culturels dans un espace matériel.
  • sur les motivations, les besoins matériels et immatériels, individuels comme sociaux, à l’origine de la construction de ces narrations : en quoi leur nature oriente le contenu des narrations ?

Les propositions de communication peuvent venir de chercheurs, quelle que soit leur discipline de référence, de spécialistes et experts, d’acteurs du patrimoine. Il peut tout autant y avoir des cas d’études spécifiques, exemplaires, de parcours de patrimonialisation révélateurs de narrations (types, structures, invariances) comme des approches théoriques, comparatives et/ou méthodologiques. On imagine comme pertinentes des communications portant sur des objets qui catalysent les activités patrimonialisantes, mais aussi sur ces processus qui rendent actif le rapport idéel, symbolique et culturel à l’espace matériel. Ce sont les processus en œuvre qui sont au cœur de nos questionnements. Aussi, les entités concernées peuvent tout autant être matérielles localisées ou multilocalisées qu’immatérielles (par exemple les conteurs de la place Jemaa el-Fna, la cuisine méditerranéenne…)."

session 085 - Vers une nouvelle lecture du patrimoine culturel. L’approche sémantique au service d’une ontologie du patrimoine - regular session

Organisateur : Abdelhadi Bellachhab

Inscrite à l’origine dans le cadre d’un projet ANR, « ANTIMOINE » , cette proposition de session suggère une vision novatrice des outils nécessaires à la constitution de savoirs relatifs aux activités humaines situées (anthropologie des territoires), savoirs élaborés à partir d'objets du patrimoine et de leur interprétation (lecture). Eu égard à la réalité caractérisant les systèmes d'informations patrimoniaux qui fonctionnent essentiellement à partir de mots-clés avec une prise en compte très limitée d'une sémantique pré-définie, l’objectif de cette nouvelle lecture du patrimoine, culturel en l’occurrence, est d’introduire du sens dans les systèmes d'informations patrimoniaux, grâce à une approche sémantique au service d’une ontologie du patrimoine, favorisant l'activité de construction et d'interprétation du sens. L'environnement s'appuie sur une base de données constituée par un ensemble d'objets patrimoniaux

Au delà des enjeux fixés pour le projet ANR, la session se veut l’occasion de mettre en œuvre un modèle sémantique, de filiation argumentativiste – à savoir la sémantique des possibles argumentatifs (Galatanu 2007) – pour rendre intelligible la conceptualisation du patrimoine et des objets patrimoniaux, et ce dans une perspective comparative. Il convient de rendre apparentes les différences de sens du patrimoine, et in fine les différences de lecture des objets patrimoniaux dans les contextes français et québécois.

À l'interface d’une ontologie sociale et du modèle sémantique adopté, d’un côté, et, de l’autre, de l'ingénierie des connaissances, un premier volet (quatre communications) des communications constitutives de cette session ont pour ambition de rendre significatives des connaissances en établissant des réseaux sémantiques calculables à partir d'associations sémantiques. Les connaissances obtenues, sous forme d’ontologie du patrimoine, peuvent alors être utilisées comme outil d'aide à la conception de systèmes d'information. L’enjeu scientifique est d'expliciter comment un modèle sémantique de langues naturelles ayant des aspects argumentatifs et cognitifs pourrait permettre des représentations de connaissance optimisées et faciles d'accès sur le plan informatique. Le deuxième volet (deux communications) de la session s’arrête aux différentes conceptualisations du patrimoine et des objets patrimoniaux du point de vue de leurs représentations dans les deux contextes étudiés – français et québécois – et les lectures qu’elles engendrent.

La rupture proposée par cette session et plus généralement par le projet ANTIMOINE par rapport à l'état de l'art est double : elle propose d'une part de faire coopérer la linguistique, la science des données et la réalité virtuelle pour structurer une base de données patrimoniale et créer de nouvelles relations entre ces données. Au delà de la portée de cette session, cette nouvelle approche sémantique pour la lecture du patrimoine participe d’autre part à la création de nouveaux modèles formels du patrimoine afin de contrôler efficacement ses structurations et (re)créations. Cette dernière ambition repose en particulier sur la possibilité donnée aux utilisateurs d'interagir avec ces données et ces modèles.

Pour ce faire, les communications s’articulent de façon à situer, d’abord, cette proposition de séance dans le cadre général du projet ANR, qui réunit quatre partenaires : une maison d’édition spécialiste dans le patrimoine (Topic-Topos), des informaticiens spécialistes de la fouille de données, des informaticiens de la réalité virtuelle et des linguistes. Ensuite, il sera question d’interroger, sur le plan sémantique, le processus de patrimonialisation en proposant un schéma de celui-ci à l’aide du modèle de la Sémantique des possibles argumentatifs. Il s’agira également d’aborder le processus de patrimonialisation dans l’optique de la création de la réalité sociale (voir l’ontologie sociale de Searle 2010), un processus perçu comme un acte déclaratif établissant des « statuts-fonctions », à savoir ceux d’un « objet patrimonial(isé) ». Toujours dans le cadre de ce processus de patrimonialisation, nous nous intéressons dans l’étape suivante, plus particulièrement, à l’objet patrimonial, d’abord comme objet artéfactuel et ensuite comme objet patrimonialisé, l’ensemble inscrit dans une perspective sémantico-conceptuelle. La session, dans son premier volet, se termine par la présentation de l’ontologie du patrimoine qui a été établie à la suite de cette nouvelle approche sémantique pour la lecture du patrimoine, et qui en même temps constitue l’interface de travail entre les linguistes et les informaticiens. Dans le second volet, qui se veut une étude comparative, les communications tâcheront d’appliquer le modèle de description proposé par la sémantique des possibles argumentatifs sur la représentation du patrimoine ainsi que sur quelques objets patrimoniaux afin de faire apparaître les différences de représentations y sont associées et les différentes lectures générées.

session 097 - Qu’est-ce que l’art contemporain fait au patrimoine ? - regular session

Organisateur : Bernard Haumont

"L’art contemporain, lorsqu’il est en relation avec le patrimoine culturel, que ce dernier soit bâti ou qu’il mobilise d’autres matériaux ou supports, tend à reconfigurer les rapports de la société à ses patrimoines et à son histoire. Il est ainsi à même d’ajouter, de modifier, de détourner ou même de transformer les valeurs historiennes ou esthétiques communément associées au patrimoine culturel d’une nation, d’une région ou d’un groupe social ou ethnique; y compris d’ailleurs en ce qui concerne les valeurs universelles prêtées au Patrimoine mondial de l’Humanité (UNESCO). Une première dimension des reconfigurations de ces rapports se tient dans les façons de voir et d’appréhender ces patrimoines, puisque le regard sur ceux-ci et la perception qu'on en a sont susceptibles d’être modifiés par les interventions artistiques qui s’en emparent ou y trouvent place. Dans ce sens, les manières de traiter et d’utiliser des matériaux historiques ou patrimoniaux pour développer un travail artistique contemporain paraissent tout aussi importantes que les résultats obtenus, puisqu’elles entraînent de facto une rencontre singulière entre une subjectivité à l’œuvre et des matériaux historiquement situés. Une seconde dimension de ces reconfigurations se rapporte à la mise en crise des identités culturelles et sociales attachées à des patrimoines, pour en souligner et renforcer les caractères ou à l’inverse leur opposer d’autres façons d’envisager leurs rapports au temps et à l’histoire, ainsi qu’à la société ou à l’un de ses groupes. Les révélations ou les ruptures prendraient ainsi place dans des processus d’artialisation, symétriques en quelque sorte des mouvements d’anthropologisation de l’art observables par ailleurs. Une troisième dimension, enfin, réside dans l’accélération des processus de patrimonialisation que des œuvres artistiques contemporaines illustrent pleinement en passant rapidement du statut d’objet culturel ou artistique à celui d’objet muséal et patrimonial, y compris pour des réalisations éphémères ou périssables qu’il s’agit alors de restaurer ou de reconstituer. Dès lors, la création contemporaine semble inverser le processus classique du choix des objets à patrimonialiser et pose de façon radicale la question : quels objets ou quels lieux ne sont pas potentiellement du patrimoine? La séance abordera principalement ces différentes dimensions, sans se priver d’élargir les questionnements qu’elles recèlent."

Notions of heritage II: new manifestations, new implications (changes in heritage)

session 002 - Le patrimoine, et après ?   - regular session

Organisateur : Olivier Lazzarotti

"Le 19e siècle aura été celui de l’invention européenne des monuments, historiques et de nature. Le 20e, plus spécifiquement sans sa seconde moitié, aura été celui du patrimoine, en particulier dans sa version mondiale, telle que soutenue par les États-Unis des années 1970. Or, en ce début de 21e siècle, de nouvelles formes de mobilisations mémorielles émergent: de la rue Champlain de Québec au quartier Xintiandi de Shanghai, de Bercy-Village à Paris à South Bank de Londres, ou bien encore aux «parcs mémoriels» des campagnes chinoises du Fujian, les notions de monuments ou de patrimoine ne rendent plus exactement compte de ce qui prend forme. Et pourtant, tous ces lieux sont bien mémoriels. Le projet de cette communication sera d’analyser ces nouvelles manifestations mémorielles, dérivant de nouveaux processus et portées par de nouveaux acteurs pour conclure à l’émergence nécessaire d’une nouvelle notion: les «mémoires-Monde». Que changent-elles? Qu’est-ce qui a changé? Pourquoi?"

session 009 - Engaging Authenticity - Research creation session

Organisateurs : Raul Matta, Charles-Édouard de Suremain

This proposal makes the case that heritage’s capacity for change may be dependent on a paradigm shift in how heritage is interpreted. With this paradigm shift in play, a question is then asked: Can authenticity be used as a design driver to resolve how best to incorporate the four pillars of sustainability in a building’s design?
The proposal begins with a discussion about the difference between using heritage reactively and proactively. It then presents a brief introduction to the evolution of the concepts of sustainable design and authenticity over the last half-century. The argument is made that the idea of authenticity as developed by the efforts of the World Heritage Committee has had a minimal impact on the general architectural community.
To maximize authenticity’s impact on the practice of architecture, a suggestion is made to change the definition of authenticity from an idea that is not a value onto itself to one that is its own value. It is then suggested to use authenticity proactively as part of the design brief mentioned above.
Engaging Authenticity: thinking of authenticity as a design driver
Heritage has changed how the architectural profession deals with historic buildings. It could also change how an architect approaches design. Yet if this change is to happen on a go forward basis, a paradigm shift in how the profession thinks about heritage may need to occur. A main objective of the session Engaging Authenticity: thinking of authenticity as a design driver is to identify whether this paradigm shift is needed to get engagement.
The question: What Does Heritage Change? has lead to the above two disparate answers. The first answer, what heritage has changed, is aimed at the institutional mechanisms and bureaucracy that have been put in place to deal with the question about how to treat an existing historic building. The second answer, what heritage could change, is directed toward the vocation of architecture and how the individual deals with a yet un-designed building. Another way to consider these two answers is that the former deals with architecture reactively while the latter suggests the relationship between heritage and architecture can be proactive. It is because of this change from the reactive to the proactive that a paradigm shift in thinking may be needed.
Reactive vs. Proactive
At the institutional level, heritage is the body of work that includes courses, degrees, standards of practice and guidelines. It is the world of the heritage elites where the authoritative heritage discourse is learned and practiced (Smith 2006). The sole purpose of this heritage is to indoctrinate the practitioner with ideas about what to do, as well as what not to do when identifying and maintaining the significance of a historic building. As such, and because of this imposed institutional rigor, the field of heritage conservation of the built environment has put a box around itself. In its desire to make itself different from the mainstream, it has also introduced a degree of alienation between itself and the rest of the profession; yet heritage thinking can also be something else.
Heritage also represents a philosophical approach about how to design. For the purposes of this brief, this philosophical approach is called heritage thinking. Heritage thinking may be applied to other problems of architecture, for example, sustainable design.
One problem humanity faces within the Anthropocene is re-establishing human kind’s relationship with itself and the natural environment. Beginning in the early 1970s there has been a great deal of intellectual effort spent to understand and then define what sustainability means and what sustainable development includes and incurs in terms of responsibilities and expectations.
The Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainability and its working definition of sustainable development lead to Agenda 21 and the paradigm of sustainable development. That paradigm included the three pillars of economic growth, social inclusion and environmental balance (Kates et al 2005); however, these three pillars alone did not reflect the complexity of current society (United Cities and Local Government 2010). To address this issue, cultural sustainability (or cultural inclusion) has been added as the fourth pillar of sustainable development.
There is no agreement about how to incorporate the four pillars in the design of a sustainable building. A relevant question is whether heritage could provide an answer to this design problem. The challenge is to get beyond the intellectual, institutional box that has been put around heritage. To do this, some of the ideas germane to heritage may have to be reconsidered. A case in point is the idea of authenticity. To appreciate why the idea of authenticity may need to be changed, one needs to understand how it is presently defined.

The World Heritage Committee has done the bulk of work around the definition, tests and condition of authenticity in the modern era. This work was done with specific reference to validating the significance (outstanding universal value) of proposed World Heritage sites as a prerequisite for including these sites on the World Heritage List.
The idea of authenticity as it applies to the heritage of the built environment was first introduced in the United States through a 1953 National Parks Service Administrative manual. In it, the term integrity was described as “a composite quality connoting original workmanship, original location, and intangible elements of feeling and association” (Stovel 2008). Over the next forty plus years, the definition of authenticity would evolve back to something similar to this definition.
The Venice Charter also introduced the word authenticity. In the Charter, authenticity is not defined but was implicitly understood by those who drafted and were expected to follow the Charter, a recognition that it was part of the lexicon of those responsible for conserving the monuments and sites of post war Europe.
“The common responsibility to safeguard them for future generations is recognized. It is our duty to hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity.” (Venice Charter 1964)
The idea of authenticity was brought forward to the World Heritage Committee in 1976/1977. The World Heritage Committee was formed to develop a set of operating guidelines for the World Heritage Convention and in particular establish working criteria for the establishment and operation of the World Heritage List. It was during the Committee’s meeting between 1976 and 1977 that the American term integrity was introduced into the discussion. The idea behind the term integrity was accepted, but its name was changed to authenticity. This work lead to the World Heritage test of authenticity that was applied to four related physical attributes: design, materials, setting and workmanship.
A watershed event in the evolution of the idea of authenticity came in 1994 with the Nara meetings. The result of these meetings was the Nara Document on Authenticity (1996) which included the intangible as well as the tangible in its understanding of authenticity. This document, along with materials resulting from subsequent meetings in Africa, Europe and America lead to the World Heritage condition of authenticity referenced in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 2005 and forward.
This brief history highlights the theoretical development of the concept of authenticity as practiced by the World Heritage Committee. The work done by the World Heritage Committee aside, the idea of authenticity has had little impact in the practical application of heritage conservation outside of the World Heritage Committee (Stovel 2008) or in architecture in general. For example, authenticity is only mentioned twice in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. In short, it has not found its entry point.

Authenticity’s Impact
The question is why has authenticity had such a minimal impact in the both the conservation and mainstream discourse? Considering authenticity as a value onto itself, one can make the argument that there is a visceral connection with the idea. It could be argued that one, if not the primary survival skill of human kind is our ability to cooperate with each other. Fundamental to idea of cooperation is the need to be truthful, credible and real, adjectives that describe the very definition of authenticity
It must be asked why has it not had more of an impact with our intellect, on the way we think and act? What is the disconnect? The premise for this session is that this disconnect exists because of how it has been defined and used. Authenticity as defined above is primarily a tool used to validate and make decisions about existing tangible and intangible creations. It is not considered a value in its own right and is assigned to the relative, dependent on context and time. It is used to ensure that the creation being considered is a genuine representative of a particular cultural value.
While a noble, this is a limited use. If authenticity is to be more of a part of the mainstream rather than a particular way to think about a specific aspect of heritage, then it must have an expanded utility. A paradigm shift in the definition and/or application of authenticity may be needed in order for it to find its entry point into the larger conversation.
Maybe this shift is not required. All that needs to be done is introduce the ideas of heritage differently, in a manner that sparks the general practice’s interests. Part of what I want to achieve in this session is to take a few steps in one direction with the hope of understanding whether that direction is appropriate or not.

Authenticity and Sustainable Design
How can the idea of using authenticity as a design driver be applied to the problem of sustainable design, and in particular the design of a sustainable building that focuses on the relationships between the four pillars of sustainability? A design brief will need to be constructed as part of the session.
The brief will set out the parameters of the problem as well as its focus. Within the design brief, the history of how authenticity has been interpreted from within heritage and the sustainable design community will be presented. An alternate definition of authenticity will then be given. It will be considered to be a cultural value in its own right (Dushkina 1995). It is this change in definition that represents the paradigm shift mentioned above. As a value in its own right, and thinking about the design brief, practitioners could use authenticity as a decision maker.
Once you open a door, you do not know who will come in. One potential rabbit hole with using authenticity in this manner is that it would inevitably lead to people asking the question authentic to what? Historically, within the field of sustainable design, this question has been answered by referring to places (Guy and Farmer 2001). But I would like to get beyond this definition because it would lead back to the World Heritage definition detailed above.
The brief will have to get the attention of practitioners. It will need “street appeal”. At this point, architects will need to be consulted to help in crafting the brief. They will have to buy into the idea, so it will have to be marketed sooner than later. Part of this idea’s buy-in will be the normal and expected give and take; however, what is not negotiable is the focus of using authenticity as a design driver. The exercise’s objective is to determine whether or not authenticity helps the sustainable building design process by linking the objectives of the four pillars of sustainability as well as resolve the tensions that exist between each pillar in the design of a building. The designs would be critiqued accordingly. I do not have an exact answer for how this would turn out, but this the point of the session.

Dushkina, Natalia. 1995. “Authenticity: Towards the Ecology of Culture”. Nara Conference on Authenticity, ed. Knut Einar Larsen. Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Publishers. Pp. 310 (in Stovel 2008)
Guy, Simon, and Graham Farmer. 2001. “Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology”. Journal of Architectural Education. 54/3 (February 2001). pp. 140-148
Guy, Simon and Steven A. Moore. 2005. Sustainable Architectures. London: Routledge
Kates, Robert W., Thomas M. Parris, and Anthony A. Leiserowitz. 2005. “What is Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values, and Practice”. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. Vol. 47, No. 3. pp. 8-21.
Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage, London: Routledge
Stovel, H. 2008. “Origins and Influence of the Nara Document on Authenticity”. APT Bulletin. Vol. 39, No. 2/3 (2008), pp. 9-17
United Cities and Local Governments. 2010. Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development. accessed August 8, 2015
Venice Charter. 1964. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites. 2nd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Venice. ICOMOS. accessed August 11, 2015

session 011 - Héritage religieux et patrimoine culturel religieux. Différences et affordances - regular session

Organisateurs : Cyril Isnart, Nathalie Cerezales

"Dans la tradition occidentale, le patrimoine culturel trouverait ses fondements «dans le concept chrétien de l’héritage sacré de la foi» (Babelon et Chastel 1994), dont la conservation des objets religieux sous l’Antiquité et le culte des reliques seraient les prémices. Posant alors le principe du «transfert de sacralité», on emprunta le vocabulaire et les techniques du premier pour construire le second, qualifiant ainsi le fait patrimonial comme le culte laïc des productions humaines. Le sacré religieux et le sacré patrimonial seraient ainsi deux modes de relation de l’homme à la transcendance (Dormaels et Berthold 2009). Mais ces analyses, porteuses d’une charge symbolique puissante, voire aveuglante, ont peut-être effacé l’autre dimension de toute religion en action: les liens, les hiérarchies, les oppositions et les coopérations que le culte établit entre les hommes sous la forme de l’héritage collectif. Les croyants forment une lignée (Hervieu-Léger 1999), se remémorent un passé (Halbwachs 1950; Assmann 2003) et se transmettent des valeurs et des objets (Grabnur 2001; Godelier 2006). Que le patrimoine culturel reprenne les logiques de l’héritage religieux est difficilement contestable, mais que sait-on au juste de l’étrange superposition qui naît lorsque advient la catégorie de «patrimoine culturel religieux»? Face à l’extension du champ patrimonial du religieux (Paine 2013), cet atelier permettra de s’interroger sur ce que la prise au sérieux de l’héritage religieux change dans notre analyse du fait patrimonial. Il voudrait ainsi analyser la spécificité et la pertinence de la catégorie «patrimoine culturel religieux» et, partant, renouveler son étude, en dépassant le paradigme du «transfert de sacralité». On pourrait distinguer trois domaines d’interrogation, qui ne sont ni exclusifs ni restrictifs.

  1. Le rôle identitaire du patrimoine religieux. Qu’il soit matériel ou immatériel, le patrimoine religieux a joué un rôle primordial dans l’identification du patrimoine culturel national et dans la construction de la nation, en Occident comme dans les territoires et les contextes post-coloniaux. Il joue également un rôle particulier dans les mouvements de résurgence communautaire et de reconnaissance ethnique. Il constitue l’un des moyens de s’identifier et de se définir, non plus seulement en tant que groupe, mais aussi par rapport aux autres. Comment la triade patrimoine/religion/identité, restée souvent impensée, se configure-t-elle?
  2. La patrimoine comme pratique pieuse. Il sera question d’interroger la patrimonialisation comme nouvelle pratique religieuse. En effet, parallèlement à la baisse de la pratique en Occident, on assiste à la naissance d’institutions confessionnelles dédiées au patrimoine religieux, à un renouvellement des usages touristiques des rites et des édifices sacrés, et à un remploi du patrimoine ancien par de nouveaux mouvements religieux. Comment évaluer ces dynamiques entre une standardisation, une déspiritualisation ou une multiplication créative des rapports au religieux contemporain?
  3. Les dispositifs du patrimoine religieux. Le patrimoine culturel religieux englobe une série de manifestations matérielles, dont l’existence est parfois indexée sur les usages touristiques, patrimoniaux, économiques ou spirituels qu’elles contribuent à créer. Il s’inscrit, comme par le passé, dans un circuit de consommation qui dépasse le cadre étroit du pèlerinage et de la dévotion. Sa spectacularisation semble être un moyen de rassembler ou d’intéresser bien au-delà du groupe de fidèles. Qu’est-ce que la présence d’un édifice, d’un rituel ou d’un objet dans un contexte non religieux produit sur ses dimensions proprement religieuses?

À l’aide d’exemples précis et de contributions (en français et/ou en anglais) issues de diverses disciplines (histoire, histoire de l’art, sociologie, géographie, anthropologie), périodes et cadres géographiques, cette session souhaiterait ainsi analyser les pratiques de patrimonialisation, de muséification, ainsi que les négociations et les (re)qualifications du fait religieux, et interroger les limites, parfois poreuses, entre religion et patrimoine culturel."

session 012 - Les patrimoines de la santé aujourd’hui et demain: Quelle ressource pour quels acteurs ? - regular session

Organisateurs : Jacques Poisat, Denis Robitaille

"La question du futur de la patrimonialisation et de son influence sur les sociétés et les acteurs sociaux est au cœur des interrogations actuelles sur les patrimoines liés aux hôpitaux et à la santé. Certes l’avenir des patrimoines des hôpitaux et de la médecine paraît aujourd’hui fort incertain. Cependant, en France comme au Québec, la sauvegarde des patrimoines liés à la santé a suscité un réel intérêt dans les trente dernières années. Les recherches que nous conduisons depuis 1989 montrent qu’aujourd’hui, dans un nombre significatif d’expériences de valorisation, le patrimoine hospitalier n’est plus considéré seulement comme collections d’objets, mais tend à être utilisé par les acteurs sociaux comme une «ressource»: ressource culturelle et scientifique, pour les historiens et les chercheurs; ressource symbolique, pour les soignants; ressource communicationnelle et managériale, pour des directeurs d’hôpitaux; mais aussi ressource citoyenne pour la société civile. La session proposée s’attachera à rendre compte d’actions culturelles qui démontrent que l’histoire et le patrimoine des hôpitaux, et plus largement de la santé, peuvent être utilisés pour faciliter la création «d’espaces de controverses» (Herreros 2004) entre professionnels (de la santé, de la culture, de la recherche), citoyens et usagers. En particulier sera analysé le projet des Augustines du Québec de rassembler le patrimoine culturel de leurs douze monastères-hôpitaux dans le monastère fondateur de l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec et d’y créer «un lieu de mémoire habité» (Robitaille 2008), qui contribue aux enjeux actuels des soins, en prolongement de leur héritage immatériel. Ce projet colossal a nécessité la rencontre, féconde et perturbante, d’univers culturels, institutionnels et organisationnels différents, qui n’ont pas toujours l’habitude de travailler ensemble, pour en arriver à une proposition mixte et diversifiée, qui associe l’histoire, l’architecture, la muséologie, l’entreprise touristique, l’hôtellerie, les causes sociales, la santé globale, etc. En lien avec le thème du congrès, ce projet illustre un changement de paradigme lorsque des continents souvent séparés se mettent au service de la sauvegarde et de la mise en valeur d’un des patrimoines fondateurs du Nouveau Monde. Fondamentalement, les Augustines souhaitent que le lieu dédié à leur mémoire soit un lieu d’accueil et de soutien pour les soignants d’aujourd’hui: un patrimoine qui prend soin des soignants. Mais comment transmettre un patrimoine hospitalier et religieux immatériel du «prendre soin» en tenant compte des contingences modernes? Cependant, les usages sociaux du patrimoine requièrent à l’évidence qu’il soit conservé et transmis. Or, les difficultés actuelles de conservation conduisent à s’interroger sur la médiation numérique proposée dans le processus de patrimonialisation hospitalière. À partir d’une étude empirique avec analyse de bases de données, un panorama des formes et des limites actuelles de la mise en ligne des patrimoines de la santé en France sera donc dressé. Dans l’immédiat, quatre communications (de six intervenants) sont prévues dans cette session. L’objectif étant d’échanger entre chercheurs et professionnels de la culture ou de la santé autour de recherches empiriques ou théoriques sur les usages sociaux du patrimoine, toute intervention en lien avec le thème du patrimoine ressource sera la bienvenue. Seront particulièrement appréciées les communications qui s’interrogeront sur l’avenir de la patrimonialisation des hôpitaux et de la santé."

session 026 - Food as heritage : uses and consequences of food as an object of cultural value - regular session

Organisateurs : Raul Matta, Charles-Édouard de Suremain

This session is committed to extending previous research collaborations on food and culinary systems as objects of political mobilization – ICA 52, 2006 (Seville); Mexico DF, 2009; ICA 54, 2012 (Vienna); Uqam, 2014 (Montreal). On this occasion, we will deepen and develop ongoing debates about the growing place of food in the cultural politics of heritage and its impacts on society, about which there is still scarce documentation.

How are food and culinary heritages constructed and how do they contribute to the consolidation of identities and economies? Its implementation shows food heritage as the result of a complex process: it combines objectives fostered by civil society and those promoted by political instances, to different degrees and for various reasons, as it engages identity, development, and markets in their relations with a diversity of food practices, produces, and crops. Within this constellation of actors and goals, food heritage can be stretched into many directions between the poles of multiple opportunities of commodification and the enhancement of the human activities that constitute it, and thus can bring both positive and negative effects on society. Against this background many questions arise:

Why should food be considered as heritage? Which are the criterion of food and culinary practices to be selected as heritage? What does food heritagization reveal about the relations between food and nation, food and region, food and community? Which approaches are suitable for studying the foundations and aims of culinary nationalisms, including the possible shifts and tensions between institutional and everyday identity politics? To what extent does food heritagization create consensus? Or, at the contrary, could it be at the center of social and economic tensions?

The session aims to foster critical reflection on the consequences and social implications of the uses of food as a resource that both shapes collective identities and supports ideologies and social claims. In other words, the transformational potential of food heritagization will be questioned.

Of particular interest is to address the relations between food heritage and local development policies, the encounter between economic requirements and opportunities (for example, through gastronomic tourism) and the safeguarding of local and “traditional” food biodiversity and practices.    

Food heritage-making and innovation-through-heritagization at the local level will be as critical as the wider effects of the globalization of heritage policies and programs. The presentations will highlight the trans-regional dimensions of food heritagization and develop examinations taking into account those excluded from heritage-making processes. Similarly, the circulation, transformation, exchange, and (re-)appropriation processes of food and culinary forms, knowledge, and policies across the world will be addressed. Finally, critical and contesting initiatives relying on food heritage-making as well as studies on the role of food in contemporary identity formation will be discussed.

The very idea of this session is to show how focusing on the particularity of food heritage – tangible and intangible at the same time, and containing a broad and flexible range in which culture, identity and markets meet to varying degrees –, allows for the rethinking of cultural heritage policies and initiatives.

session 027 - Memory and heritage: Oral Narratives and Cultural Representations of Industry, work and deindustrialization in Scotland - regular session

Organisateurs : Arthur McIvor, Steven High

Industrial heritage in Britain has tended to be romanticised in museum ‘cathedrals’ and ‘theme parks’ (like Beamish), with workers’ lived experience subordinated to the machines, buildings and physical artefacts that dominate these spaces. Here workers’ lives are more often than not celebrated rather than critically reconstructed and interpreted. The politics, class relations and struggle, violence, poverty and murkier side of working life is increasingly being neglected as the past is sanitised for public consumption in the name of positive image-building. Examples in Scotland would be the UNESCO site of New Lanark (textile mill), the Scottish Mining Museum near Edinburgh and the recently opened Transport Museum in Glasgow. This links to wider debates around deindustrialization and ‘smokestack nostalgia’(including the seminal work of Steven High) which have identified a tendency to uncritically sentimentalise the industrial workplace. In this selective remembering, the lived and

embodied experience of the people who worked in these spaces and were directly affected by deindustrialization is being airbrushed out whilst the industrial workplace sometimes appears benign, shorn of the class, gender and power relations in which it is embedded.

This session proposal pivots around oral heritage, bringing together four papers based on original unpublished research and all incorporating oral history methodology to critically interrogate narratives of work, job loss and deindustrialization. In terms of place, they focus on the port city of Glasgow and the Clydeside industrial conurbation in the second half of the twentieth century. Memory studies provide an opportunity for a refocused narrative based around the testimonies of marginalised working class, women and ethnic minority groups. Sharing authority in oral history projects can be empowering and play a role in community building. We are interested in lived experience and how the people directly affected represented, framed, interpreted and shaped their past in community movements, campaigns, protests, regeneration struggles and their emotional connection to physical heritage. This approach enables a more complex picture of the multi-layered impact of deindustrialization and

its social and cultural legacy to emerge. An oral history approach has the capacity to challenge existing interpretations of the past and how it has been represented in academic discourse and public history. The papers are from researchers based at the Scottish Oral History Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow (full paper proposals are uploaded to the conference website):

  1. Art, activism and its artefacts: Community arts and the construction of cultural responses to de-industrialization in Scotland c.1970-1990 (Lucy Brown)
  2. ‘It wis a healthy and wealthy place’: The Springburn Winter Gardens (Glasgow) as a symbol of economic decline and the conflicts of community regeneration (Andy Clark)
  3. The Material and the Immaterial: The Curious Case of Clydeside’s Industrial Leftovers (Martin Conlon)
  4. ‘Scrap heap’ stories: Oral narratives of work loss, health and the body in deindustrializing Scotland (Arthur McIvor)

session 036 - Intersecting discourses: Inflecting craft and heritage - regular session

Organisateurs : Elaine Cheasley Paterson, Susan Surette

"Russell Staiff argues that heritage discourse and practice are tightly interwoven with the theoretical legacy of the visual arts, specifically citing the shared concerns of formalism, iconography, aesthetics and modernism (“Heritage and the Visual Arts” 2015). Yet craft, as a field of knowledge, is often subsumed under the visual arts, when in fact its materialities, functionality, concerns about skill and preoccupation with the local (whether understood as geographically or politically constituted) invite an examination of its own intersections with current heritage concerns. Furthermore, craft has been associated with nationalist agendas since the inception of late-19th-century craft and heritage discourses, both linked by the writings and practices of William Morris. Diasporic, indigenous and post-colonial communities have well often turned to the preservation of tangible craft objects and intangible craft practices to define their political, social and cultural heritages. Susan Pearce has speculated that the designation and accumulation of community and national heritage objects mirror how the family constructs its own heritage through gathering and displaying valued objects, many of them crafted (“The construction of heritage” 1998). In the context of the “post-industrial” West, concerns for the futures of fine and traditional craft practices have recently been expressed in craft council policy statements in Canada and the United Kingdom and are seen in the development of ecomuseums in France, contexts in which craft heritages are tied to economic interests. This session proposes an examination and discussion of possible intersections of the narratives of craft and heritage with the goal of exploring the economic, social and cultural sustainability of craft practices. Questions that might be addressed include: ? How do heritage narratives inflect the production, marketing and consumption of craft objects? ? Are heritage narratives that privilege traditional craft skills and the idea of functionality incommensurable with contemporary craft practices and objects? ? Can North American and Western European professional craft practices along with their attendant narratives find a relevant place within heritage studies?"


Part I: Craft and Citizenship and Part II: Performing Craft

session 045 - Changing New Directions : Heritage, Architecture and the Decorative Arts - Roundtable

Organisateur : Sandra Alfoldy

Architectural historian John R. Stubbs suggests that architectural conservation is concerned with historic buildings and their sites as well as their associated accoutrements, such as furnishings and fittings. But what happens if the building itself is not seen as “historic” or even worthy of a heritage designation, much less conservation, while its site and furnishings are significant in aesthetic, cultural or social terms; in other words what happens when a building’s decorative arts trump its own fabric and design? While the moveable objects in such a case oftentimes find their way into history or art museums, this situation is particularly troubling for decorative arts attached to the building or embedded within its fabric, and for the gardens or landscape art that surround it. Such questions are even more relevant when “art” conservators are involved, since many of these objects are rendered in materials associated with the crafts, made by anonymous makers or by means of semi-
industrial processes, and as such may not be viewed as worthy of conservation. This is especially true in light of the rejection and feminization of ornament within western art discourses that prevailed throughout most of the twentieth century, in conjunction with the destruction or threats of destruction of ornamented buildings through urban renewal projects. In the cases where objects are relocated to museums, this culling process is, in itself, highly political and class contingent.
Recent decorative art and craft theory has argued convincingly that an object’s meaning is embedded within its physical, social and cultural contexts - that rather than understanding these objects as autonomous art objects, their significance is derived from their place and its function therein. Traditionally, and still today, decorative art objects have been understood to be dependent upon their architecture, even secondary to it in terms of symbolic importance. While recognizing that objects do have social lives, as do buildings, this roundtable shall focus upon the integration of the building and its decorative arts as a unit, particularly when the usual architecture/decoration value hierarchy is reversed. In order to accomplish this, the panel will consider whether decorative art theory, so important when heritage concerns were codified in the late-nineteenth centuries, can, within its current debates over a hundred years later, contribute to critical heritage studies. Participants
in this roundtable session will addresses what heritage changes for the decorative arts in the context of the twentieth century and what decorative art theory can change for heritage studies. The proposed participants bring together experience in the intersections among architecture, decorative art and craft discourse, including gender and postcolonial concerns, understanding of collection strategies and the implications of connoisseurship, knowledge of interdisciplinarity within academic institutions and implications for it in the field. This international roster of participants includes scholars, artists, curators, and museum directors, chosen to represent a range of viewpoints and experiences in the roundtable discussions.
This panel will comprise ten minute presentations based on specific case studies from each of the six-eight roundtable participants, followed by a structured discussion chaired by Dr. Sandra Alfoldy in which the audience is invited to participate.
Core questions and themes to be addressed include:

  1. What might be the relevancy of decorative art theories to heritage studies?
  2. If heritage is a symptom, what is it a symptom of in terms of the decorative arts within architectural settings?
  3. What is at stake for competing interest groups within the arts and heritage communities when resolving issues around decorative arts?
  4. Is a reconsideration of the value ascribed to the crafts and the decorative arts within an architectural and heritage context a form of decolonising art’s history?
  5. How can appropriated decorative schemes that were integrated into an architectural context and created when decorative appropriation was normative, be incorporated into current heritage programs in a way that respectively acknowledges how such appropriation is today considered problematic?
  6. How can museums concerned with heritage represent the decorative arts as processes rather than just the completed object, where process is seen as integral to understanding the object, an approach in line with the concerns of anthropologist Tim Ingold?
  7. What is the heritage relevance/value of the documentation of the decorative arts in situ, when the in situ objects no longer remain?
  8. What is the impact on heritage conservation funding when the building is secondary in value to the decorative elements?

session 068 - Heritage Futures / Utopian currents - regular session

Organisateurs : Helen Graham, Liz Stainforth

"The notion of heritage is closely linked to processes of change. In the Western context, the definition of heritage as "a contemporary product shaped from history" (Harvey 2010) highlights the extent to which our relationship with the past is being continually re-configured. However, there is a future dimension implied in this relationship that is often neglected; to paraphrase William Morris, the sense in which heritage testifies to the hopes and aspirations of those now passed away. Making the future-oriented aspect explicit is both an acknowledgement of the inevitability of change and an opening for thinking about the changes envisaged by former generations. In other words, heritage is not only a record of the past but also a history of what people imagined the future might be. These logics of the future speak directly—as utopianism always does—to different social and political imaginaries.

  • How do such temporal logics relate to alternative heritage scenarios?
  • What kind of politics is implied by ideas of "forever, for everyone" (UK National Trust slogan)?
  • What sort of imaginaries might open up political potentials for heritage and have implications for decision-making processes?
  • How might we diagnose utopian tendencies in heritage practices?

This session invites contributions on utopian currents in the field of critical heritage studies. The perspective of historical futures will be used to shed light on a range of case-based topics, as well as raising the question of our own present, and how contemporary heritage practices might hold open or foreclose possible futures. The session encourages proposals on themes including, but not limited to:

  • Heritage futures based on current practices.
  • The social and political imaginaries involved in heritage practices and writing about heritage.
  • Logics of time and the negotiation of the past and the future within heritage studies (through, for example, conservation, interpretation, participation).
  • Critical heritage approaches to the temporal politics of heritage.
  • Diagnoses of utopian currents in heritage case studies.
  • Discussions of heritage in relation to the hopes/fears of particular groups or communities of people.
  • Examples of utopian interventions oriented toward change, or alternative heritage decision-making processes."

session 080 - Religion as heritage – Heritage as religion? - regular session

Organisateurs : Ola Wetterberg, Magdalena Hillström, Eva Löfgren

Since the beginning of the 19th century religious buildings and artefacts of the West have been involved in a continuous process of musealisation. In the time-period subsequent to the Second World War, the general forces of secularisation increasingly turned religious buildings, most of them churches, into heritage and substantial parts of Christian practices into history. On a global scale (western) conservation and heritage practices have been applied on tangible and intangible expressions of religion in a great variety of cultural contexts, sometimes in a narrow-minded authoritarian way. The fact that a large number of churches in Western Europe and North America are closing has created a situation where material religious heritage awaits some form of care, publicly or privately financed. The situation also accentuates problems connected to the relationship between pastoral needs and heritage values. In the long perspective modern history has witnessed a “migration of the holy” from religion to the nation state, including a nationalised cultural heritage. Today, one may argue that secular conservation values are increasingly invested in religious buildings and artefacts. The principle theme of this session concerns the link between the religious/pastoral values of churches and its historical/heritage values.

The fact that the western world of today recognises, politically defines and legally formalises material religious heritage as a secular cultural heritage, more or less emancipated from its religious meaning and context, is a result of complex cultural and political processes. In what contexts have these processes of musealisation been expressed? Which social interests and agents have promoted the changes? How does it affect religious practice and what are the material outcomes? What are the social and political consequences of what may be described as the churches’ gradual loss of religious sanctity and their re-sacralisation as national heritage, historical testimony, aesthetic monuments and symbols of local community and identity?

The exploration of the interaction of different value spheres in church maintenance relate to a number of research fields, such as museum and cultural heritage studies including both the intertwining of religion and material culture and cases of heritage conservation practice, secularisation theory, which is now strongly affected by the debate on the validity of classical secularisation thesis of Weber, Durkheim and Parsons, memory and identity studies and the broad research field tied to the concept of intangible heritage, and research on the history and theory of professions within the heritage conservation field in which church renovation and restoration ideology have always played a crucial role. Most obviously the tension between pastoral and historical value poses a burning theological problem concerning the meaning and function of late modern religious practices.

Theoretical reflections related to ACHS could, among others, include the relationship between conservation/history and religious practices; heritage and religion as different forms of memory practices producing sacredness; the migration of holiness from religion to heritage and the nation; dissonances between religious and secular claims on heritage and religious heritage sites interpreted on different geographical scales.

session 081 - Representing intangible heritage of post-industrial waterfront zones: Politics of seeing, ways of noticing  - regular session

Organisateurs : Katarzyna Kosmala, Graham Jeffery

"While intangible cultural heritage is an important factor in maintaining cultural diversity in the face of growing globalization, there is still little appreciation of its value. UNESCO endorsed the importance of intangible cultural heritage not only as a cultural manifestation but also, and more importantly, as a wealth of knowledge and skills that are transmitted through generations. We invite paper contributions that address multiple ways of understanding, recognizing, valuing, and preserving intangible heritage and challenges associated with these processes, including the politics of development, representation of multiple stakeholders and their interests, land ownership patterns and finance capital. The session will be contextualized in particular by linking to regeneration discourse of post-industrial waterfront zones—addressing questions of how to rethink post-industrial spaces where the previous logics of their use and occupation have broken down, attending to alternative urban imaginaries that are played out through language, ways of doing and working, as well as through their actual manifestations in the built environment. The session aims to critically explore various emerging methodological approaches to regeneration, focusing on explorations and representations of intangible heritage and its value, utilizing multiple forms of engagement, through digital and other forms of mapping, oral history, archival research and testimony, interventions in public space, performance, lens-based art, and the use of social media platforms. The objective is to discuss and debate innovative ways of effective knowledge exchange across disciplinary boundaries of arts, humanities and social sciences in relation to arts-led regeneration strategies, concerning ways of valuing the intangible heritage and public engagement in the process, in particular in the context of waterfront heritage zones and port cities. We are additionally interested in questions as to how grand narratives of development and entrepreneurial cultures can influence the ways public space may be perceived, certain narratives remain invisible and inequalities perpetuated. We invite papers that focus on case studies, theoretical contributions as well as artistic interventions that address multiple ways of understanding, representing and valuing intangible heritage of post-industrial waterfront zones. We invite papers and other forms of submissions from different parts of the world to share the experiences on ways of representing intangible heritage and its value in the context of waterfront heritage zones in past industrial areas and port cities—from different expert fields, including academics, architects, artists and urbanists who are seeking to challenge and extend understandings in this area. Intangible heritage brings important questions for contemporary cities. We also invite papers that address intangible cultural heritage as a tool for re-imagining urban environment or as a lens for re-envisioning the city’s futures, in particular concerning waterfront heritage zones."

session 084 - Fashioning heritage - regular session

Organisateur : Sharon Peoples

"In endeavouring to answer the question "What does heritage change?" this proposed session, "Fashioning Heritage," will call for papers that critically examine the way in which one of the main functions of dress is to locate or position individuals and communities in space and time. The temporal realm can be conceived as personally transitioning from and through certain life stages, being culturally defined as well as conceiving gender differently by dress and textiles. Transitions are visually marked by a change in bodily representation. Christenings, circumcision rites, communion, bar mitzvahs, graduations and weddings are some of those shifts clearly associated with dress. Using the definition of dress by Mary Ellen Roach-Higgins and Joanne B. Eicher (1992), we might also include explicit body-art markings, such as scarification, as also indicating transition through rites of passage at a permanent level on the body. Space is also marked by clothes and cloth as people literally move from one space to another. From private to public, from profane to sacred spaces or undergoing diasporic processes, all can be expressed through fashioning the body in a way that articulates the fluidity of identity. While theses transition markers require different levels of literacy—a reading of patterns, motifs and colours, they nonetheless are representations and performances that can be for both insider and outsider audiences. Dress is portable, as are the skills that are required to craft bodies. As communities indeed move around the globe, it raises the questions of how does a community imagine itself. What does it require to construct its identity, both tangible and intangible, through dress practices? The aim of the session is to promote the discussion of the politics of dress and the role of the fashioned body in heritage. Thinking about heritage through fashion has been the domain of folkloric studies. However, since Jennifer Craik’s ground-breaking book The Face of Fashion (1994), there has been a steep rise in critical studies in fashion theory and interest in the politics of dress. When we write about fashion we tend to discuss individuality, as a personal act, here the intention is to discuss identity, community and relationships through clothing. This clothing may often be considered as cultural heritage items hence often locating the wearer in a particular political framework. Categorization is deeply political. In teasing out these issues, which may seem like boundaries, no doubt papers will find that there are ambiguous boundaries which unravel between the body and the cloth.

Topics to be considered are:

  • Transitional dress as narratives of change;
  • Crafting heritage and community development;
  • Inclusion and exclusion in dress practices;
  • Fragmented communities brought together through dress;
  • Social cohesion and civic engagement through dress;
  • Gender and dress."

session 096 - Reflection, selection, deflection: Rhetoric in the global pursuit of heritage - regular session

Organisateur : Felix Girke

"The constructed and political nature of heritage claims is now acknowledged across the disciplines, and increasingly even among heritage professionals. But already Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, in their seminal The invention of tradition, had proclaimed that “all invented traditions, so far as possible, use history as a legitimator of action and cement of group cohesion” (1983:12). So rather than simply diagnosing heritage as being constructed, as such (ab-)use of history, their challenge rests in the "how" rather than in the "that": how are actions legitimized by reference to the past, and how is group cohesion sustained by heritage claims? How do we decide what is worthy of conservation, and how do we frame our decisions? One answer is rhetoric, in the sense of persuasive interaction, or, in Francis Bacon’s words, “applying reason to the imagination for the better moving of the will.” The rhetorician Kenneth Burke has coined the trifecta of “reflection, selection, and deflection” as terministic screens that govern our words (1969:59). These three processes are equally active in the dynamics of heritage: out of the boundless reservoir of an imaginable past, certain items are selected to be reflections (or: representations) of a bounded identity, but are at the same time deflections from other historical items that are not made to matter (or: made not to matter) in given heritage discourses. Thus, “reflection, selection, deflection” are the guiding notions for the discussions in this session as they embody the intentionality, the creativity, and the strategy that drive heritage efforts, and point to the critical role of power. Increasingly, this relation between heritage and rhetoric is addressed by academic work (Lafrenz Samuels and Rico forthc.), and a broad “discursive turn” has been diagnosed (Harrison 2013:95-113, see esp. Smith 2006). Still, there has been no systematic attempt to articulate the position that rhetoric is not just a contingent aspect of heritage, but that there is no pursuit of heritage without persuasive and figurative interaction. There is no authenticity that has not come about through persuasive processes of authentication. What, then, is the role of rhetoric in the performance of the fundamental practices of heritage—categorizing, curating, conserving, and communicating (Harrison)? Papers are invited on any arena in which reflection, selection and deflection take place, such as heritage tourism, public debates or political agendas. Further fitting topics include the role of metaphors and other tropes, persuasive genres such as certification and authentication practices, and specific idioms of heritage such as AHD."

session 099 - «Alter-heritagization» / «alter-metropolization»? Objects, players and forms of alternative heritage production in contemporary metropolises - regular session

Organisateurs : Geraldine Djament, Maria Gravari-Barbas, Sébastien Jacquot

"The contemporary movement of heritagization, characterized by a multiple expansion (typological, chronological, spatial) of heritage and of heritage producers (local actors, inhabitants, social groups, national states, international players), nourishes also the production of alternative heritage. By this expression, we wish to focus on non-institutional, dissonant, under-recognized heritage, located on the “pioneer front” of contemporary heritage production. Alter-heritage represents, therefore, an alternative to the heritage institutional "production chain," controlled by the national state (Heinich 2009), by metropolitan leaders or corporate private groups. It also represents an alternative to the hyper-spectacular heritage sites encompassing the capital resources, the global attention and the international tourist flows (Gravari-Barbas 2012; 2014). These questions become important in a context in wich heritagization is quasi-systematically associated with gentrification (Semmoud 2005) and used by the late aesthetic capitalism (Lipovetsky and Serroy 2013). Are other, “alternative” ways for heritage and heritagization possible?

Alter-heritage can represent different types of alternatives:

  • A geographical alternative: by its location in the suburbs, away from the historic centres and the central tourist districts (Duhamel and Knafou 2007).
  • A typological alternative: by the nature of "heritagizised" objects which may hold a controversial value, such as the heritage of the housing projects of the post-Second World War years (Pouvreau 2011; Veschambre 2010; 2014).
  • A social alternative: by their reference to imagined communities and to minorities, as in the case of the heritage of immigration (Rautenberg 2007), or by the role played by non-favoured social groups in its construction.
  • A tourist alternative: by their marginal location compared to the dominant fluxes and practices.
  • A political alternative: by their own intention of being alternative; for example militant heritages (Aguilar 1982) or cultural activism (Prévot and Douay 2012), or protest practices of heritage (Bondaz, Isnard and Leblon 2012).

Alter-heritages can belong to one or more categories. They can be altogether geographic, social, typology and tourist alternatives (Jacquot, Fagnoni and Gravari-Barbas 2012). For example, heritage located at the suburbs of contemporary metropolitan regions may become, through the action of popular social categories or political groups, an activism locus, aimed at reversing the dominant stigma of the suburb. The choice of examining the metropolitan regions comes from the trend toward metropolization of culture and heritage (Djament-Tran and San Marco 2014), and from the concentration of initiatives of alter-heritagization in metropolitan areas as well as from the growing role that metropolises play in the construction of a political alternative (Harvey 2012). This proposed session on “alter-heritagization in the contemporary metropolitan regions” aims at:

  • Identifying alternative heritages, their categorizations and their promoters (social, ethnic, cultural groups; inhabitants…).
  • Analyzing the alternative terms of heritage (What does make the heritage alternative? Does the alter-heritagization imply a change in the notion of heritage itself?).
  • Analyzing the eventual relationships between alter-heritage and institutional heritage (alter-heritage can break with the institutional heritage or on the contrary, it can become an institutional one).
  • Analyzing the relationships between alter-heritage and tourism (does alter-heritage imply an alter-tourism?).
  •   Identifying heritage conflicts in which they are involved, the issues of power at stake and their relationships with metropolitan conflicts in general.
  • Analyzing the contribution of alter-heritage to the construction of a metropolitan alternative (Beal and Rousseau 2014): Is alter-heritagization a tool allowing an alter-metropolization (in what meaning?)? What does alter-heritagization change in the metropolization process?


Le processus contemporain de patrimonialisation, caractérisé par une extension multiple (typologique, chronologique, spatiale) de la notion de patrimoine et des entrepreneurs de patrimoine (acteurs locaux, habitants, groupes sociaux, États-nations, acteurs internationaux), nourrit aussi la production d’un patrimoine alternatif. Par cette expression, nous voudrions attirer l’attention sur les patrimoines non institutionnels et/ou non totalement reconnus, situés sur le «front pionnier» de la patrimonialisation contemporaine. Le patrimoine alternatif représente une alternative à la «chaîne de production» institutionnelle du patrimoine, contrôlée par l’État-nation (Heinich 2009), par les dirigeants métropolitains ou par de grands groupes privés. Il représente également une alternative aux sites patrimoniaux hyper-spectacularisés attirant les ressources en capitaux, l’attention globale et les flux touristiques internationaux (Gravari-Barbas 2012; 2014). Ces questions deviennent importantes dans un contexte dans lequel la patrimonialisation est presque systématiquement associée à la gentrification (Semmoud 2005) et utilisée par le capitalisme tardif, esthétique (Lipovetsky et Serroy 2013). D’autres voies, «alternatives», pour le patrimoine et la patrimonialisation sont-elles possibles?

Ces patrimoines peuvent prétendre à une alternative :

  • D’un point de vue géographique, par leur localisation hors des centres historiques et des central tourist districts (Duhamel et Knafou 2007).
  • D’un point de vue typologique, par leur patrimonialisation d’objets à la valeur controversée, comme c’est le cas du patrimoine des grands ensembles (Pouvreau 2011; Veschambre 2010; 2014).
  • D’un point de vue social, par leur référence à des communautés imaginées minoritaires, comme dans le cas du patrimoine de l’immigration (Rautenberg 2007), ou le rôle joué par des groupes sociaux non favorisés dans leur construction. D’un point de vue touristique, par leur situation en marge des flux et des pratiques touristiques dominants.
  • D’un point de vue politique, par la patrimonialisation et/ou leur revendication d’une alternative: il s’agit alors de patrimoines militants, à l’inverse du «classement de classe» auquel l’inscription aux Monuments Historiques a pu être identifiée (Aguilar 1982), d’«activisme culturel» (Prévot et Douay 2012), d’usages contestataires du patrimoine (Bondaz, Isnard et Leblon 2012).

Les patrimoines alternatifs peuvent ressortir de l’une ou de plusieurs de ces catégories, comme l’illustre le patrimoine de banlieue, à la fois situé en banlieue, en marge du tourisme métropolitain, patrimoine ordinaire de catégories sociales souvent populaires et porteur d’un militantisme visant à inverser la stigmatisation dominante de la banlieue (Jacquot, Fagnoni et Gravari-Barbas 2012). Le choix d’examiner les régions métropolitaines vient de la tendance à la métropolisation de la culture et du patrimoine (Djament-Tran et San Marco 2014), et de la concentration des initiatives de patrimonialisation alternatives dans les aires métropolitaines, comme du rôle croissant que jouent les métropoles dans la construction d’une alternative politique (Harvey 2012).  

Cette session consacrée à «la patrimonialisation alternative dans les régions métropolitaines contemporaines» vise à:

  • Identifier les patrimoines alternatifs, leurs catégorisations et leurs promoteurs (groupes sociaux, ethniques, culturels; habitants…).
  • Analyser la dimension alternative du patrimoine (qu’est-ce qui rend le patrimoine alternatif? La patrimonialisation alternative implique-t-elle un changement dans la notion de patrimoine elle-même?).
  • Analyser les éventuelles relations entre patrimoine alternatif et patrimoine institutionnel (le patrimoine alternatif peut rompre avec le patrimoine institutionnel ou au contraire devenir un patrimoine institutionnel).
  • Analyser les relations entre patrimoine alternatif à la construction d’une alternative métropolitaine (Beal, Rousseau, 2014). La patrimonialisation alternative constitue-t-elle un outil permettant une métropolisation alternative (en quel sens ?) ? Que change la patrimonialisation alternative dans le processus de métropolisation ?

session 101 - Beyond re-uses: The future of church monuments in a secular society - regular session

Organisateurs : Édith Prégent, Liliian Grootswagers-Theuns, Luc Noppen

"All through the Christian West, increasingly more churches are closed to worship, and recycling, or converting to new uses has become commonplace. What has not been seen yet is a church renowned for its artistic value, a “monument” in the straight sense of the word, being totally abandoned by the cult and its religious references, fundamental for the understanding of the artistic value itself. While it is now well known that the increased social and global mobility threatens our traditional views on heritage in general, interpretation and education schemes are often put in place to overcome the lack of public memory and common backgrounds on which usually relies the common recognition of heritage: everybody can learn milling at the mill, or farming at the farm, even though they have no previous knowledge or family experience of these practices. But what about the religion, that bears the meaning of the most renowned religious works of art? What is the importance of the Sistine Chapel ceiling if somebody has no knowledge of the Last Judgement, less of Michelangelo, not to say of the so Europe-centred 16th century? While we can admit that the traditional religious practices and knowledge that produced these Gesamtkuntswerk—as one could name the “total work of art” that describes some unique monuments left by Christianity—will soon be long gone, we have to question the means and the very reasons of their survival as a heritage that less and less would share. Much more that those church buildings that can be re-used for community or other purposes, of course at the cost of some of their décor or artefacts, these Gesamtkunswerk call for major public investments that will have to be justified, if not only through some kind of renewed interpretation and public understanding of their heritage values. If everybody agrees that they have to stay “untouched,” used only as monuments of themselves, should the public authorities engage into liturgy to sustain that mission? If not, who should own them and care for them? How can their integrity be preserved? How can their meaning be conveyed? This session will provide the opportunity to discuss experiments conducted through the Western World and bring together different viewpoints on the economy, the interpretation and the in-situ preservation of works of art, notably to grasp the legal, financial and societal implications and means of heritage-making when it puts into question the consistency of monuments previously thought to be "untouchable.""


"Alors que dans tout l’Occident chrétien des églises historiques sont abandonnées, de plus en plus de lieux vont dans le sens contraire : on agrandit et met en valeur des sites de pèlerinage ; on développe des quartiers urbains complets où des églises et des temples se glorifient de pratiques diverses, souvent non orthodoxes. Associé épistémologiquement au patrimoine, le sacré semble maintenant suivre sa propre voie, se mettant en scène dans de nouveaux décors où le « patrimoine religieux » réfère surtout aux pratiques courantes, aussi nouvelles qu’elles soient. Cette nouvelle manière de «fabriquer du patrimoine» tant par le spectacle que la généralité qui s’appuie fortement sur l’interculturel en tant que matière intangible, semble faire abstraction du côté tangible du patrimoine. Mais il faut observer qu’aussi réelles que puissent être les pratiques et les communautés, tous ces lieux sacrés nouveaux ou revalorisés sont composés de paysages, de bâtiments, d’artéfacts très concrets ou considérés comme tels et sont régis par des lois et règlements d’urbanisme municipaux, des statuts juridiques et des systèmes de taxation.

Si, comme d’autres l’ont démontré, ni le culte ni la religion ne peuvent être considérés comme des solutions à la sauvegarde d’églises historiques, n’y a-t-il pas quelque chose à apprendre des églises excédentaires dans ce nouvel avenir réservé aux lieux sacrés ? Comment, dans notre société laïque, le statut juridique des lieux de pèlerinage et autres « routes menant au ciel » peut-il être comparé à celui des anciennes églises-monuments ? La voie transculturelle utilisée pour donner un sens à ces lieux sacrés peut-elle nous montrer comment interpréter d’anciennes églises qui ont perdu tout leur sens ?

Cette session entend se concentrer sur des exemples canadiens de lieux sacrés nouveaux ou revalorisés, en se penchant davantage sur leur matérialité afin de comprendre comment leur méthode de « bâtir une communauté » peut (ou non) servir de modèle pour élaborer des communautés patrimoniales qui redonneraient un sens aux églises historiques excédentaires."

session 104 - Temporalité, narrativité et performativité des patrimoines sensibles: Enjeux pour la citoyenneté culturelle et l’espace public - regular session

Organisateurs : Marie-Blanche Fourcade, Jennifer Carter

"Dans le cadre de cette session, nous souhaitons faire, dans une perspective multidisciplinaire et critique, un état des lieux qui interroge doublement, à la lumière de trois axes que sont la narrativité, la temporalité et la performativité, la patrimonialisation des sujets sensibles tant sur ses rôles, ses formes et ses effets sur les sociétés qui les entreprennent, que sur sa fonction révélatrice d’un monde en changement. L’espace public laisse une place grandissante aux objets, aux lieux et aux témoignages qui incarnent des mémoires «difficiles» par rapport aux luttes sociales ou aux événements traumatisants tels que les génocides, l’esclavage, les droits autochtones et la décolonisation, ou qui font eux-mêmes les sujets de tensions et de controverses dans leur conservation, leur valorisation et leur transmission. Qu’il s’agisse de récits de vie publiés, d’expositions immersives, de documentaires historiques et sociaux, ou des banques de témoignages en ligne, les formes que prennent la patrimonialisation des sujets sensibles, ainsi que leurs effets sur les individus impliqués par ces sujets (victimes, survivants, activistes), témoignent d’une grande diversité. Plus qu’une autre déclinaison ou approche patrimoniale, les objets et les médiations de sujets sensibles bouleversent les représentations, les pratiques et les savoir-faire des acteurs culturels et sociaux en raison, d’une part, des émotions et des enjeux dont ils sont les réceptacles et, d’autre part, des visées symboliques et politiques dont ils sont porteurs. La patrimonialisation du sensible ne cesse de se transformer dans ses modalités et ses aspirations, influencée par des conditions géopolitiques, des régimes de valeurs ainsi que des usages politiques et identitaires toujours en évolution. Elle est également mue, dans une démarche portée par la notion de citoyenneté culturelle, par une conscience de plus en plus forte qu’un devoir de mémoire, de justice et d’éducation doit être accompli et traduit de manière permanente dans l’espace public, et notamment dans les institutions culturelles. La patrimonialisation englobe ainsi non seulement des visées de connaissance et de reconnaissance pour les communautés héritières des traumatismes, mais répond également à des impératifs sociaux qui sous-tendent le vivre-ensemble et les pratiques interculturelles, dont la prévention, la réconciliation, la réparation sociale, la responsabilisation et la solidarité sociale. Dans cette perspective, nous tenterons de répondre au fil de la session à la question suivante: quelle est la contribution sociale, culturelle et politique, en termes de connaissances et de pratiques, de la patrimonialisation du sensible aux sociétés qui en sont les actrices? Nous invitons, en ce sens, les participants à présenter des études de cas qui pourront alimenter la compréhension des enjeux, des mécanismes et des effets de cette forme de patrimonialisation, en portant une attention particulière aux dispositifs culturels employés, aux stratégies mobilisées et aux discours convoqués.

Plusieurs points pourront orienter la discussion:

  • Les formes de narrativité et de performativité associées au patrimoine sensible;
  • La temporalité et ses enjeux dans la médiation des patrimoines sensibles;
  • Les stratégies de mobilisation et les pratiques de valorisation des patrimoines sensibles;
  • La diversité et les caractéristiques de la patrimonialisation;
  • Le rôle des institutions culturelles et sociales dans la patrimonialisation de mémoires traumatisantes;
  • Les collaborations entre institutions, experts, communautés, citoyens;
  • Les conflits et les controverses générés par le processus et leurs effets;
  • La place des émotions et de l’affect.


Papers in this session will consider from a multidisciplinary and critical perspective a range of theories and practices surrounding difficult heritage, including its roles, forms and effects on society. Three thematic axes—narrative, temporality and performativity—will structure the session and ensuing discussions in relation to heritage-making and sensitive subject matter. We ask what the evolving forms, and forms of address, in relation to difficult heritage, reveal to us about our changing world and cultural practices. Objects, sites and testimony recalling painful memories and difficult heritage have proliferated in the public space. Whether this heritage arises from ongoing social struggles or traumatic pasts such as genocide, slavery, or (de)colonization, or is itself the subject of controversy in its musealization or conservation, its increasing presence in the public sphere belies an ongoing and evolving fascination with the spaces and forms of difficult memory. Life stories, immersive exhibitions, historical and social documentaries, and online testimonials are but some of the forms that the heritage-making of difficult subjects can take, while the impact on the communities associated with this heritage (victims, survivors, activists) is equally diverse. Perhaps more so than for any other form of heritage, both the objects associated with, and interpretation of difficult subjects pose great challenges to the practices and savoir-faire of cultural practitioners. On the one hand, this form of heritage often bears highly evocative associations with difficult memories, and on the other, it harbours significant symbolic and political meaning. The modalities of difficult heritage and its making, and the intentions underlying its curation and exhibition continue to transform in light of different geopolitical factors, value regimes, and its association with identity politics or other forms of political use. While theorizing these modalities is one of the aims of this session, it is also productive to reflect deeply, and in light of prevailing concepts of cultural citizenship, on the need for, and nature of, a spectrum of modes of memory work, justice and education in the public sphere and notably in cultural institutions. In this sense, the work of heritage-making aims not only to increase knowledge and acknowledgement of those communities affected by trauma, but responds equally to the very social imperatives that constitute the basis for vivre-ensemble and the practices of interculturality, be these prevention, reconciliation, social reparation, accountability or social solidarity. From this perspective, a unifying question of this session relates to the roles and functions of difficult heritage, and asks: What are the social, cultural and political contributions, both to knowledge and practice, of difficult heritage to society? We invite a range of contributions, from case studies to theoretical investigations, that will further a critical investigation of the many facets of difficult heritage, ranging from its modes and modalities, to the issues associated with its curation and public reception. What narrative devices or temporalities does it deploy? What engagements or performances does it invite?

The following are possible points of discussion:

  • The forms of narrative and performativity associated with difficult heritage ;
  • Temporality and the mediation/interpretation of difficult heritage;
  • Strategies for the valorisation of difficult heritage;
  • Diversity and the characteristics of heritage-making;
  • The role of cultural and social institutions in heritage practices and traumatic memory;
  • Collaborations amongst institutions, experts, communities and citizens;
  • Conflicts and controversies surrounding difficult heritage;
  • The place of emotions and affect in difficult heritage."

session 112 - Leisure as heritage: Reconceptualize heritage and leisure - regular session

Organisateur : Huimei Liu

"Extant scholarly literature has been documented on heritage and tourism. However, the strong links between heritage and leisure, a broader concept than tourism, have long been neglected. The notion of heritage has pervaded in a variety of humanities-related fields, among them is leisure, which demonstrates the lived experience of locals, and provides indispensible meanings and identity for communities and individuals. And both heritage and leisure root themselves into cultural fabrics of social lives. The engagement with heritage becomes a potential site for the exploration, creation and re-creation of identity, and is central to an understanding of cultural and leisure practices. As manifestations of culture, forms of heritage and leisure forge and articulate identities of individuals and communities, as well as regions. In the time of globalization and multiculturalism, leisure, as a cultural manifestation, provides a way to a better understanding of societies and brings together communities. More studies lay the attention on the social and political reasons behind the conservation of a traditional leisure in certain communities and the learning or exchange of leisure in migrated communities. As observed, some forms of leisure have become intangible heritage, which are conserved as a tradition, either in communities with a long history or migration communities with a divergence of cultures. However, gaps still exist between heritage and leisure studies academia. In this session, we aim to bridge the gaps and generate dialogue opportunities between these two sections. Therefore, following issues will be explored: How leisure can be viewed as heritage? How history and culture shape leisure and heritage? How traditional leisure is kept and transformed in modern society? What are the meanings of leisure to locals and how they contribute to their well-being? How leisure becomes heritage and how they jointly build communities and shape cultural and ethnic identities? How does a local leisure tradition articulate a local notion of heritage? What are the role of heritage in the leisure experience and benefits to the wider society? Also how immigrants maintain their leisure at home countries and acquire new leisure, thus build a more diverse heritage in the host countries? In addition, being a critical element of leisure, tourism and its connection with heritage are worthwhile to be explored. Topics interpreting the relations between heritage and tourism are also very welcomed. What are the motivations, experiences, benefits and satisfactions that heritage visitors have? How interpretations affect heritage visitors’ experience? How does pilgrimage tourism shape visitor’s identity? How heritage tourism helps sustainable development? This session not only continues the important discussions on heritage and tourism, but also extends to heritage and leisure."

session 116 - "Le patrimoine immatériel, ça change quoi ? Culture, économie, société " - regular session

Organisateurs : Julia Csergo, Antoine Gauthier, Chiara Bortolotto

"Le concept de patrimoine culturel immatériel (PCI) a fait l’objet de nombreux colloques et publications depuis la promulgation de la Convention pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine culturel immatériel de l’UNESCO en 2003, voire même avant. Toutefois, peu d’entre eux se sont attardés à la question de l’impact réel des systèmes et politiques mis en place pour favoriser le développement des pratiques culturelles transmises de génération en génération comme les arts et l’artisanat traditionnels, les fêtes locales, les connaissances sur la nature, l’alimentation ou d’autres formes de traditions régionales. Dix ans après l’entrée en vigueur de la Convention de l’UNESCO en 2006, il devient incontournable d’interroger, dans une perspective critique et pragmatique, l’atteinte de ses objectifs et d’analyser ses effets directs et indirects à l’échelle locale, régionale et internationale. Le Québec par exemple, où se tient le congrès, représente un terrain d’analyse porteur à travers les actions menées en vertu de la Loi sur le patrimoine culturel qui a inséré le patrimoine immatériel dans la législation interne d’un État fédéral n’ayant pas ratifié la Convention de 2003. Cette session s’adresse aux chercheurs, aux responsables d’organismes culturels, aux chargés de projets en culture, aux décideurs politiques et à tous ceux que la question du PCI intéresse. Elle vise à répondre à la question: «Le patrimoine immatériel, ça change quoi?»"

session 122 - Heritage vs ecology - regular session

Organisateur : Austin Parsons


Heritage values: the tangible effects (heritage changes the environment)

session 015 - The cultural politics of new built heritage in emerging economies - regular session

Organisateurs : Sarah Moser, Ipek Türeli

"In many emerging economies of the Global South, new urban mega-projects are strategically reviving heritage into simulacra, copies without originals, intended to sell places. We refer to these projects collectively as "New Built Heritage." This type differs from earlier constructions of heritage by canonical state institutions such as museums and ministries of culture in the way its main goal is to differentiate and market places rather than solely to shape collective identities. This session brings together papers that study the particular ways new built heritage occurs, and that analyze the purposes behind such allusions to built artefacts of the past, and also probe the effects on various users and audiences of these projects. The desire to attract foreign investment and join the global economy has led on the one hand to the adoption of placeless corporate styles, and on the other hand to the manufacturing of new built heritage. The ongoing revival of heritage is curious considering it was the relatively austere idiom of Architectural Modernism that was widely adopted by newly independent states in the decades following colonialism. Architectural Modernism signified a break with the past, and therefore, demonstrated aspirations of "modernity." It was disassociated from "empire" and colonial architecture with its appropriation of the vernacular (e.g., Saracenic in India), but still, its key ideas had emerged from European and American metropoles to be tested abroad. In the case of new built heritage projects, however, scholars are increasingly observing South-South flows of ideas, urban policies and aesthetics. Builders of new urban projects are increasingly prioritizing "local" culture and "authentic" architectural idioms, and even opting for curated simulacrum in secular projects ranging in scale from kiosks to government buildings, resorts, royal palaces, housing developments, shopping centres, and the planning of new urban areas. There has been a surge in the revival of historic styles, often from non-local sources, in high-profile public and private projects. What often results is a carefully edited version of the past that serves the agendas of the ruling elite. In this session, we aim to explore the cultural politics of this new heritage revival trend in all of its facets, scales and flows, the forces driving it, and the ways in which hegemonic narratives are being challenged or resisted.

Some of the questions our session explores are:

  • Whose heritage is being revived, by whom, and for what purpose?
  • What narratives are included in new-built "heritage" and who is excluded?
  • To what extent is the phenomenon of new-built heritage revival a strategy for empowerment? To what extent is it a strategy for domination?
  • What role does economic competitiveness play? To what extent are cities and urban projects using heritage as a branding technique to attract investment and compete in the global or regional marketplace?
  • How are nation-building efforts entangled in state-driven newly built heritage projects?
  • What role do interpretations of Islam currently play in inspiring new-built heritage in Muslim-dominated countries?

Our session examines case studies in the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Morocco, Vietnam and Indonesia, and draws on theoretical developments in several disciplines, including geography, architecture and cultural studies."

session 033 - Re-writing history in the time of late capitalism: Uses and abuses of built heritage - regular session

Organisateurs : Claudine Houbart, Stéphane Dawans, Nicolas Detry

"With his expression "ceci tuera cela," Hugo established almost two centuries ago a strong link between words and stones as transmission vehicles of human memory. We heritage experts would be inclined to consider stones as more reliable than words, what semiology seems to confirm: stones are clues, and clues are, according to Roland Barthes, tangible proofs of “what has been.” But the inspector Columbo has often shown how we can play with these clues, and Umberto Eco would easily forgive us this incursion into mass culture to agree on the idea that we can rewrite history using false justified clues, that is also, tangible heritage. Since the emergence of the restoration discipline, experts have been aware of the danger of falsification: Ruskin’s texts, Boito’s philological restoration, Brandi’s historical instance or the Venice Charter are so many illustrations of this concern. But since the 1990’s in Europe, a growing number of restoration and reconstruction projects very clearly depart from this fundamental idea. Of course, the collapse of the Soviet bloc has created a particular political context in which (re-)emerging nations attempted to (re-)build their identity through architectural symbols (leading to the writing of the Riga Charter). But more generally, this phenomenon is closely linked to the cultural context: on the one hand, the postmodern movement has deeply questioned the idea of “sincerity,” with a tendency to blur the limits between true and false and, as a consequence, between original and copy. And on the other hand, in the heritage sphere, the globalization of the debate progressively rattled European certitudes about concepts as essential as authenticity, leading to the replacement of the self-confidence expressed by the Venice Charter by a careful relativism, illustrated by the Nara document thirty years later. These contemporary phenomena have important side effects. In the context of late capitalism, heritage has become a major economic issue, especially as many cities have well understood its potentialities in terms of city branding. This could of course be seen as a positive opportunity for heritage conservation; nevertheless, a rich scientific literature has shown that tourism can deeply transform our representation of the past. The tourist is a client rather than an amateur, and his quest of authenticity is often satisfied by what the French philosopher Yves Michaud has called “adulterated authenticity,” the one from over-restored monuments, reconstructed city centres, eco-museums, and, why not, theme parks. More than authentic built remains, the “tourist gaze” shapes more and more our representation of “what has been,” and the arguments developed by heritage experts in response to globalization and identity issues are seized upon by city marketing specialists willing to meet a mostly commercial demand, sometimes tinged with dubious political motivations. What we intend to question in this session is the limit between uses and abuses of heritage and heritage discourse and more particularly whether, as suggested by Theodore Scaltsas’s inspiring paper “Identity, origin and spatiotemporal continuity” (1981), the intentions underpinning restoration and reconstruction projects affect the very essence of restored or reconstructed objects. Besides architectural history and conservation theory, we welcome contributions in the fields of sociology, anthropology, philosophy, history, political sciences, geography, tourism economy and even psychology."

session 076 - Processus artistiques exploring an urban area, its built and social environment and heritage - Research creation session

Organisateurs : Marie Kraft, Henrik Boman


Cette séance cherchera à conjuguer l’expérience sensible et empirique avec une réflexion théorique.

A partir d’une expérience sensible collective nous souhaitons ouvrir une discussion sur comment valoriser et mettre en jeu un patrimoine culturel dans le cadre de l’aménagement des espaces publics d’une ville métropole. Comment d’un côté, documenter et décrire la situation actuelle d’une ville et de l’autre, comment présenter un projet qui pourrait apporter des transformations à cet environnement?

Dans l’objectif de créer un cadre de vie où l’histoire et le contemporain cohabitent, et où le développement sera construit sur les possibilités matérielles et sociales du contexte local, une exploration du patrimoine culturel dans l’espace urbain, servira de point de départ pour une exploration des transformations de l’environnement urbain et des possibilités d’intervention. Des expériences artistiques et anthropologiques conduites dans l’espace public pourraient devenir un laboratoire pour la recherche d’une compréhension des relations entre l’Histoire du lieu, la mémoire culturelle qui y est liée et des projections dans le futur.

Nous partons de l’idée qu’une exploration collective, menée par des étrangers, peut donner une perspective complémentaire à celle des habitants et des habitués de la ville. Notre proposition est construite sur la mise en commun d’expériences menées autour de l’espace public, de l’architecture et du patrimoine culturel urbain dans plusieurs pays d’Europe par différents groupes d’artistes-chercheurs. Avec des points de départ dans différents domaines, l’archéologie, l’architecture, l’urbanisme, l’anthropologie, le design, le musée, nous proposons d’explorer un morceau de la ville de Montréal, pour nous tous un cadre urbain nouveau et inconnu. Une marche de quelques heures ne pourra certainement pas remplacer une recherche approfondie conduite sur un temps plus long, mais elle pourrait fonctionner en tant que catalyseur qui permet de déverrouiller certains blocages et d’ouvrir la voie pour de nouvelles pistes à explorer par la suite.


Nous proposons d’organiser une ou plusieurs explorations de l’espace public de la ville de Montréal. Pendant une marche de plusieurs heures dans la ville, les artistes-chercheurs étrangers joueront les guides pour un groupe de participants de la conférence ACHS et de Montréal (chercheurs, opérateurs, décideurs et habitants).

Les marches seront documentées de différentes manières par les intervenants et les participants selon leur choix (photos, vidéo, sons, textes, dessins).

A la suite de la marche urbaine une rencontre organisée dans le cadre de la conférence permettrait ensuite de présenter la documentation produite pendant la (les) sortie(s) et d’ouvrir un échange sur les projets possibles concernant l’aménagement et la mise en valeur du patrimoine matériel ou virtuel lié à l’espace public de la ville.

  1. Afin d’établir un parcours approximatif qui prend en compte des préoccupations locales, une réunion devrait être organisée au préalable entre le collectif d’artiste-chercheurs étrangers et un responsable local connaissant la ville de Montréal. Un membre de la commission de la conférence ACHS2016, un employé du Centre d’architecture, de l’Université etc.). Cette réunion de quelques heures devrait avoir lieu au minimum un jour avant la sortie.
  2. Pendant la durée de la conférence, une marche de 3 à 4 heures est organisée pour un groupe constituée de 15-20 participants en plus des intervenants artistes-chercheurs. La marche peut être répétée avec un deuxième groupe sur un autre parcours.

Selon le planning des autres séances de la conférence et afin de permettre aux participants d’assister au maximum à la programmation, si utile, la marche pourrait par exemple avoir lieu en fin de journée en intégrant une pause pour manger si nécessaire.

  1. Au moins un jour après la (les) sortie(s), une réunion permettra à l’ensemble des participants et éventuellement à toutes autres personnes intéressées, de se retrouver autour d’une rapide présentation et discussion autour de l’exploration de Montréal.

Cette réunion demande un espace avec un minimum de possibilités techniques (afficher des documents, projeter des images, faire entendre du son…). Possibilité d’accès pendant quelques heures avant la réunion (peut se faire le soir ou le matin si la salle est occupée immédiatement avant).


Afin de guider le(s) groupe(s), nous proposons de construire une base d’intervenants à partir du collectif romain Stalker, le chercheur archéologue Henrik Boman, archéologue, le collectif social La Paranza et Michele Iodice, artiste, designer et directeur de musée.

Coordinatrice - Marie Kraft.

Architecte, chercheure en Etudes urbaines, chargée de mission de projets culturels en France, Italie et en Suède. Responsable de projets et d’échanges internationales auprès de plusieurs institutions cultuelles (Institut suédois à Paris, Villa San Michele à Capri, Reims scènes d’Europe), elle mène en parallèle une activité de recherche-création autour de l’art et de l’architecture. Membre fondateur en 2001 du réseau européen Habiter, un projet pluridisciplinaire de sensibilisation à l’architecture et à la ville pour les enfants et les adultes. Depuis 2011, coordinatrice d’AMPFUL – Art makes place for urban life, projet de recherche-création basée sur des résidences d’artistes collectives dans plusieurs quartiers urbains en transformation (Reims en France, Fisksätra en Suède, La Sanità, Naples). Doctorat en coursen Etudes urbaines à l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales à Paris : Processus artistiques et développement urbain : L’art explore, documente et crée de l’espace public dans la ville, sous la direction de l’anthropologue Michel Agier. Depuis 2014 pensionnaire en architecture en résidence à l’Istituto svedese di studi classici di Roma. Quelques écrits : Des artistes dans ville, Mémoire de Master 2, Territoire espaces sociétés, Ecole des Hautes études en sciences sociales, Septembre 2012. Fransk konst och stadsutveckling (Art et urban development in France) in Att dela ett samhälle, Kulturförvaltningen, Stockholms Läns Landsting, 2011. Habiter – Nouvelles pédagogies du patrimoine, Actes de colloque, Centre culturel suédois et Institut culturel italien, 2001. 4 architectures /4 architetture, Catalogue d’exposition, Galerie d’architecture, Paris, Facoltà d’architettura Università Federico 2, Naples, 2000.

Stalker Stalker is a collective of architects and researchers connected to the Roma Tre University who came together in the mid-1990s. In 2002, Stalker founded the research network Osservatorio Nomade (ON), which consists of architects, artists, activists and researchers working experimentally and engaging in actions to create self-organised spaces and situations.

La Paranza

Coopérative sociale et culturelle constituée d’un groupe de jeunes nés dans le quartier de la Sanità à Naples, qui depuis 2011 développe des projets de mise en valeur de l’espace public et de son patrimoine historique et contemporain dont les Catacombes de San Gennaro.

Henrik Boman

Archéologue, chercheur à l’Université de Stockholm, depuis 2013 en résidence à l’Istituto svedese di studi classici à Rome. Spécialisé dans l’archéologie de l’environnement construit, il s’est intéressé à la relation entre documentation traditionnelle et numérique et plus particulièrement à la communication contemporaine de l’archéologie et de l’architecture.

Michele Iodice

Designer, sculpteur et scénographe, Michele Iodice est un artiste pluridisciplinaire inclassable. Il est l’auteur de nombreux aménagements, interventions, décorations, installations et objets, qui présentent de manières différentes une création contemporaine toujours en relation forte avec les traces de l’histoire. Il complète depuis ses débuts son activité d’artiste indépendant par un travail important dans les musees de Naples. Après avoir assuré la responsabilité du département pédagogique du Musée archéologique, il est aujourd’hui directeur artistique du pôle de musées napolitains.

Quelques projets sur lesquels notre proposition s’est basée :

- Mission Repérage(s), un élu-un artiste, est le projet fondateur du pOlau-pôle des arts urbains. Dispositif de recherche action, il a posé les bases d’une articulation « arts et villes », à travers la notion de repérage. Entre 2002 et 2005, 13 élus et 13 artistes ont fait, en duo, des parcours croisés dans 13 villes de France, au cours d’un échange d’une journée, sans témoin, sans média. Cette recherche action a donné lieu à une publication « Un élu un artiste – Mission repérage(s) » sous la direction de Maud Le Floc’h, préfacé par Jean-Louis Borloo et Catherine Trautmann, avec le conseil scientifique de Philippe Chaudoir, Editions de l’Entretemps, 2006.

- Walkscapes. Stalker has developed a specific methodology of urban research, using participative tools to construct a 'collective imaginary' for a place. In particular they have developed the method of collective walking to 'actuate territories', which for them is a process of bringing space into being. Stalker carries out their walks in the 'indeterminate' or void spaces of the city, which have long been disregarded or considered a problem in traditional architectural practice. Referring to their walking practice as 'transurbance', the group views it as a collective mode of expression and a tool for mapping the city and its transformations, of gathering stories, evoking memories and experiences, and immersing themselves with others in a place. They use this knowledge and experience to address urban planning and territorial issues, focusing especially on the interstices of the contemporary city-region. Starting with the edges of the Tiber river on the outskirts of Rome, Stalker have since used this method in many other cities including Milan, Paris, Berlin and Turin.

- Projet AMPFUL. A(rt) M(akes) P(lace F(ul) U(rban) L(ife) - L'art et vie dans la ville - s'est construit autour d'une dizaine d'artistes internationaux qui cherchent à explorer la ville, la vie urbaine et ses possibilités de création artistique. La résidence est un projet où nous proposons de nous déplacer hors de notre cadre de vie et travail habituels pour nous installer pendant un moment dans un quartier de ville étrangère. Sept artistes, Andrew Crocker, Erling Ericsson, Michele Iodice, Marie Kraft et le duo SIMKA (Simon Häggblom et Karin Lind) ont été accueilli pendant un mois à La Friche fin 2011. Nous avons laissé nos activités respectives à Paris, Stockholm et Naples, pour entreprendre la première étape de cette expérimentation commune.

Bibliographie selective

AGIER Michel, Esquisses d’une anthropologie de la ville. Lieux, situations, mouvements, Louvain-la-Neuve, Academia-Bruylant, 2009.

ASSMANN, Jan. Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies, Stanford, Stanford

University Press, 2006.

BOUCHAIN Patrick et EXYZT, Construire en habitant. Venise, Arles, Actes sud, L’impensé, 2011.

CARERI Francesco, Walkscapes: Walking as an Aestheic Practice, Barcelona, Gustavo Gili, 2003.

KRAFT Marie, Fransk konst och stadsutveckling in Att dela ett samhälle, Kulturförvaltningen, Stockholms Läns Landsting, 2011.

LA CECLA Franco, Contro l’architettura, Torino, Bollati Boringhieri, 2008.

LOFFREDO Antonio, Noi del rione Sanità, Napoli, Mondadori, 2013.

ROMITO Lorenzo, The Surreal Foil in Architecural Design 71, no. 3 (2001): 20-23.

Habiter – Nouvelles pedagogies du patrimoine, Rapport de conférence, Centre culturel suédois et Institut culturel italien, Paris, 2001.

session 077 - Industrial heritage: Toward comparative perspectives - regular session

Organisateur : Stefan Berger

In many parts of Europe and North America, but also in Australia, Japan and parts of China, regions of heavy industry, in particular regions of coal and steel industries, have been in decline since the 1960s. In many of these regions, the transition to post-industrial landscapes has provoked discussions surrounding industrial heritage, what to do with it and for which purposes. One of the most ambitious industrial heritage projects was initiated in the Ruhr region of Germany from the 1960s onward. In this session these efforts in the Ruhr will be compared with other efforts in similar regions, such as Nord-Pas de Calais in France, Asturias in Spain, Upper Silesia in Poland, South Wales in Britain, Pittsburgh in the US, Kyushu in Japan, and Newcastle in Australia. In particular the session will focus on the nexus between the attempted structural economic transformation of those regions and identity constructions. Three factors seem vital in explaining the success of industrial heritage initiatives: a) strong state traditions, b) a positive identification with the industrial past, and c) an absence of other historical identity constructions onto which to hang regional identity.

session 114 - [S’]inventer par le patrimoine: des usages d’une ressource pour ordonner les liens du passé, du présent et de l’avenir - regular session

Organisateurs : Daniel Le Couédic, Patrick Dieudonné, Lionel Prigent

"Essentiellement construite sur des questions d’aménagement et d’environnement, urbain ou non, cette session est envisagée à la croisée de plusieurs thématiques: les «communautés imaginaires», les usages du patrimoine dans le tourisme, le rapport à l’expertise. Nous proposons de décrire et d’organiser un faisceau de situations et d’exemples, qui ressortissent à une même hypothèse sur le caractère social, la nature de bien collectif et le rôle de catalyseur des transformations joué par le patrimoine.

Nous posons comme hypothèse que le patrimoine sert à inventer ou s’inventer, en suivant trois parcours:

  • s’inventer un passé, une histoire (par une référence commune qui est partagée même si elle diffère sensiblement d’une «réalité historique»);
  • s’inventer un présent (par un marketing territorial qui écrit une image, une réputation, mais aussi par la mise en œuvre); 
  • s’inventer un avenir (par l’affirmation de l’identité d’un territoire, ou un projet de développement économique adossé au patrimoine). 

Trois sites peuvent illustrer notre propos : À Brest, détruite il y a plus de cinquante ans, nombre d’habitants, d’experts et d’élus continuent d’exprimer un «défaut de patrimoine», en dépit des efforts engagés pour renouer le fil de l’histoire, de l’espoir de restituer une légitimité en instaurant des mesures de protection. La perspective de la requalification d’ateliers industriels du 19e siècle a pourtant induit un renouveau de la préoccupation patrimoniale, matérielle et immatérielle, fondée sur une histoire maritime et des objets pourtant déconnectés de la ville d’aujourd’hui. Comment un passé peut-il en chasser un autre? Comment se joue la relation entre la sélection des patrimoines (s’inventer un passé) et les cadres institutionnels ou sociaux de protection et de transformation de l’espace urbain? Liverpool, atteinte par une crise économique sévère, avait perdu nombre de ses activités. Les quais, lieux emblématiques de sa prospérité passée, étaient abandonnés et les bassins envasés. Ce sont pourtant ces lieux en déprise que la ville est parvenue à transformer en nouveaux espaces d’activités qui ravivent le passé mais projettent aussi une image renouvelée du territoire. Quels effets l’actualisation du patrimoine, les changements fonciers ou matériels induits par les formes contemporaines de sa protection, de sa réappropriation ou de sa reconversion, sont-ils à même de produire pour s’inventer un présent? L’estuaire de la Loire, entre Nantes et Saint-Nazaire, est une zone naturelle inondable, pièce remarquable du patrimoine naturel. La protection est rendue difficile par les pressions anthropiques (notamment industrielles) qui s’exercent sur le site. Organiser des activités culturelles et ouvrir cet espace à l’art contemporain a sans doute permis de catalyser une identité, en créant un lien entre les deux villes principales de l’agglomération nantaise. Au-delà des mesures de protection à portée universelle, l’activité artistique ou culturelle a-t-elle la capacité de condenser une lecture du patrimoine qui pourra soutenir les projets

session 115- The neglected landscape: How do we put Canadian interiors on the map? - Roundtable

Organisateurs : Michael Windover, Dorothy Stern

Canada is often pictured as vast territory of wilderness and wide-open spaces. Yet most of Canadian life plays out in interior spaces. These spaces dominate our daily life, frame memories, and can hold the traces of our histories. Interiors are also particularly challenging spaces for traditional heritage policy, as they are notoriously fluid, changing, and ever evolving to meet new needs and desires. Compounding the problem, the ‘designers’ of interiors—interior decorators and interior designers, not to mention amateurs and everyday users—are often underrepresented in histories of the built environment. What happens when we amplify their narratives? How might the history of interior design, and interiors generally, change the picture of Canada? What challenges do interiors pose to heritage and how do we meet them? What kinds of spaces lend themselves well to narrating histories of Canada and what stories are being told?
This roundtable brings together interior designers, planners and design historians into conversation around these questions. After a brief introduction to the discussion by Michael Windover, the group will address the questions from their area of expertise: Dorothy Stern from the standpoint of interior design education; Lois Weinthal on approaching interiors from a critical theoretical perspective; Stuart Lazear from a heritage planning perspective; and Stephanie Radu on house museums as case studies for exploring interior design history. We hope to generate a fruitful discussion that will highlight the potential of interior design in critical heritage studies.

Justice, law and right to heritage (heritage changes rights)

session 021 - Critical Heritage Studies and the Law - What Doest it Change ? - Roundtable

Organisateur : Lucas Lixinski

This roundtable session engages with the relations between critical heritage studies and the law. From the definition of heritage down to specific safeguarding programs, the law influences heritage management, and heritage studies seems to overlook that influence. It also contributes to articulating connections to cultural identity, and structures around cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue. For the most part, these relationships between heritage studies and heritage law are fraught with difficulties. The law seems to be for the most part blind to the field of critical heritage studies, and too deferential to orthodox understandings of heritage as a goal in itself. On the other hand, critical heritage studies scholars normally see the law as part of the set of authorizing practices that form the "Authorized Heritage Discourse", and that must be combated. All the while, potentials to use the law (as a language of power) to articulate critical heritage studies goals seems to be missed, and the law remains oblivious to the fact that heritage is not (or should not) be an end in itself. These tensions can be seen in examples as varied as the limitations of a state-centric approach to curbing the illicit traffic of objects, down to flawed constructions of cultural identity to serve a limited legal system that are usually attributed to "strategic essentialism", the exclusion of communities from a legal system that is too deferential to certain types of experts, or even the ways in which human rights law tools have been used by certain international organizations to promote certain heritage goals and programs. This roundtable is formed of both lawyers and non-lawyers in the field of heritage studies, all of whom engage with the law in their professional practice. It will start by asking participants to articulate their experiences with the legal system and the field of critical heritage studies, and the tensions in those encounters. It will then proceed to inquire whether relations between the two fields are possible or even desirable. The participation of the audience will be a key component of this roundtable, and we expect to leave plenty of room for a broader discussion in the room. We hope that the exchange of experiences and the open dialogue will allow roundtable speakers and audience participants to reflect on what, if anything, the law can do for the future of heritage.

session 024 - Difficult Knowledge in Public : Thinking through the Museum - Roundtable

Organisateur : Shelley Butler

The Canadian Museum for Human Rights opened to the public in September 2014. Yet this "first museum solely dedicated to the evolution, celebration and future of human rights," met serious criticism from a variety of stakeholders before it even opened its doors. These stakeholders included Indigenous and Ukrainian communities, anti-poverty activists, feminists, gay rights activists, and disabilities advocates who questioned some of the museum's key curatorial choices in framing issues of rights and their historical violation, and drew attention to ongoing injustices, close to home (particularly in Winnipeg), that the museum's narrative elides. Conflicts like these, and attempts to quell them, are increasingly common as museums across the globe take up the charge of representing histories of injustice. Yet rather than retreating into controversy-avoidance, how might these significant cultural institutions proactively turn such inevitable challenges into opportunities for learning and dialogue? Can museums' social justice mandates extend beyond proclamations about global inequities on their gallery walls, to the diverse communities on their doorsteps? What new tools and methodologies might be developed for productive, ethical engagement with the painful histories around us if we invite scholars, artists, and community members to join together with museum professionals in collaboratively thinking through the museum?   The four co-investigators of a new SSHRC Partnership Development Grant with experience both as scholars and curators, along with an associated postdoctoral fellow and two doctoral students, will open a roundtable discussion about what it might mean to “think through the museum” in relation to the “difficult knowledge” of traumatic histories and ongoing legacies of violence and conflict. In brief, in relation to this year’s ACHS conference theme: what might the heritage of difficult knowledge change, if productively curated?

session 028 - How do rights change heritage? - Regular session

Organisateur : Anne Laura Kraak

"Questions about the repatriation of cultural property, issues of access and exclusion in the World Heritage system, intangible heritage practices in conflict with human rights norms, or the ways in which the international human rights regime is interpreted as a form of cultural heritage itself: rights are now considered relevant in a broad variety of heritage situations. This is reflected in the incorporation of references to human rights in a series of key international heritage-related conventions, including the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003), the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). Moreover, the advisory bodies to the World Heritage Convention are undertaking efforts to improve the understanding of the rights dimension in World Heritage work and a wider set of debates about the role of rights in heritage practice is taking place among scholars, as witnessed by a growing amount of academic publications on the topic. These debates emerged in the context of the rise of the human rights discourse globally as well as an increased concern in the heritage sector with the ethical implications of its work. Despite this increased interest in the links between heritage and rights, it remains a highly contested area. Views vary with regard to whether the link is useful or harmful, effective or inhibiting. This is partly due to the diverse cultural contexts in which this relationship is considered. Moreover, both rights and heritage can be understood in widely different ways. For example, there are different consequences when rights are interpreted from a strictly legal perspective or when the discursive capacity to initiate debates about ideas of justice is foregrounded. In the context of this contestation, critical reflection is necessary on the appropriateness of the adoption of a global or universal framework to address issues of social justice in culturally diverse situations. This session aims to bring together researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds to critically discuss the extent to which engagement with "rights" (whether in a legal or more discursive sense) could provide a means to address issues of social justice in heritage contexts, contributes to existing tensions or perhaps does not make much difference. Contributors are encouraged to consider enabling conditions for respecting rights in heritage contexts, the pitfalls or limitations of the link between heritage and rights, and how rights are used in heritage situations "on the ground." With the overarching question—How do rights change heritage?—the session contributes to the broader theme of the conference by considering the following: when rights are linked to heritage, what does heritage change?"

session 030 - Rights-based approaches to heritage management: Possibilities and limitations - regular session

Organisateur : Bahar Aykan

"State dominance in heritage management has been a key area of attention in critical heritage studies. There is now a large body of work discussing how this dominance may result in the prioritization of national perspectives and interests over local ones and contribute to the marginalization of alternative interpretations of heritage by ethnic and religious minorities, immigrants and Indigenous peoples. Conflicts often arise between these groups and state authorities over how to manage heritage, by whom, and for what reasons. Heritage practice was rarely concerned with local participation to decision-making processes in the past. This has begun to change recently, as the rights of local people in controlling and maintaining their heritage have been increasingly recognized in the area of heritage conservation. A number of key global heritage organizations such as ICOMOS, IUCN and UNESCO are moving toward adopting rights-based approaches for a more democratic, bottom-up and conflict-free heritage management. Indigenous peoples across the globe are now effectively using the language of rights as a political tactic to manage their heritage (Logan 2013:40). This session aims to bring together research that explores the possibilities and limitations of rights-based approaches in democratizing heritage management.

It invites contributions that draw on a wide range of empirical cases from across disciplines and welcomes discussions on questions such as:

  • What do heritage rights involve? How are they translated into conservation policy and practice at a local, national and/or international level?
  • In what ways do heritage rights complement or collide with other socio-economic, cultural and political rights (property rights, freedom of religion and expression, women’s and minority rights, and so forth)?
  • (How) do rights-based approaches contribute toward a bottom-up heritage identification, protection and management? In what ways could they be put into work in overcoming state dominance in heritage management and in resolving heritage conflicts? "

session 059 - Heritage (as) justice: Negotiating rights, contesting properties - regular session

Organisateurs : Olivier Givre, Cyril Isnart

"Who owns the heritage? Although not a new one, this question challenges the taken-for-granted assumption that heritage “belongs” to its owners or beneficiaries, be they states, museums, social groups, communities, private persons, inhabitants or even humanity, for example in UNESCO’s World Heritage and its several declinations. Technically, making heritage means also to design and apply juridical rules concerning the status of selected elements, including their property rights: museums, art historians, experts, lawyers may contribute to it. Nonetheless, heritage property is a huge matter of contest. From the Parthenon Marbles claimed by Greece to human remains symbolically reburied as a symbol of past oppression and slavery, examples abound of disputes about the ways heritage “goods” were established as such, by means deemed as unfair and illegal or illegitimate. Post-colonial statements may include heritage policies from former colonial states in a continuous process of “predation.” The suspicion of “cultural theft” is still an issue between countries claiming heritage as their own, against a former ruler or a conflicting neighbour: “minorities’ heritages” (national, religious, ethnic, linguistic…) appear here as a case in point. Apart from the classical nation-state issues, heritage disputes can also emerge in more fuzzy situations of claiming heritage property (if not ownership), for example in the case of intangible heritages lacking specific legal status but possibly triggering conflicts in the “community” around their proper use, or in the case of local and private collections becoming public ones, blurring the boundary between personal and collective property. This session aims then at exploring the various ways of understanding heritage (as) justice or injustice, a potentially developing issue in a context of extensive (and globalized) use of the notion of heritage. It will welcome papers (in English or French) focusing on heritage elements submitted to claims, disputes, discontent or contradiction, and on the way claimers, stakeholders or heritage institutions deal, cope, fight or negotiate around contested heritages. A specific attention will be devoted to papers tracking back the concrete history of contested heritages, and focusing on issues such as legal/legitimate, possession/dispossession, justice/injustice. Such notions as “restitution,” “restoration” or “repair” will be of significant help, as they imply a voluntary (if not desired) returning of heritage to its presumed real owners, for ethical, juridical, political or even economical reasons. To “give back” an artefact may be a political act, by acknowledging its sometimes “suspicious” origin, but it also means to make clear the whole process of constructing (and possibly deconstructing) heritage, the multiple circulations, exchanges, negotiations, appropriations or exclusions through which it was/is made as such. It questions the blurred boundaries of heritages, in the case of multisited or plural claims, as well as the common meanings of cultural “goods,” “property” or “possession.”

Epistemologies, ontologies, teaching (how do we study and teach heritage as an agent of change)

session 001 - Le Lost Stories Projects - Research Creation session

Organisateur : Ronald Rudin

"What is involved in presenting the past as a physical object in public space? There is a significant literature by scholars in various disciplines that deals with the array of decisions that need to be made regarding which stories should be told, and how they should be represented. Nevertheless, once constructed, there is a tendency to see these objects as natural, as if they had to be built and could not have been constructed any other way. The Lost Stories project is designed to involve the public in the process of public memory and to make visible to a non-academic audience how a story about the past is transformed into an object.

The starting point is a call to the public for little known stories about the Canadian past; these are then handed over to artists tasked with creating simple historical markers on an appropriate site; finally, the artists' creative journeys are documented by way of a seried of short documentary films. These films, and other related content, will be communicated to the public by way of the project's website (currently under construction), designed to encourage critical reflection about public representation of the past.

While the long-term goal of the project is to create one episode per province, we are in a position to present the pilot Lost Story at the ACHS conference. Following a call to the Montreal public, we received the story of Thomas Widd, founder in the late-nineteeth century of Montreal's Mackay School for the Deaf. When Montreal businessman Joseph Mackay provided the land and the money for the school, Widd's name -- and his own story as one of the few deaf educators of his time -- were literally "lost." This story has now been "found" by way of a mural constructed on the site of the school by Montreal-artist Lalie Douglas, whose creative process has been documented in the 22-minute film produced by Ronald Rudin (the project's director) and directed by Montral filmmaker Bernar Hébert. The film was recently selected and screened at Montreal's Festival International du Film sur l’Art.

For the ACHS conference, we propose a session in the spirit of research-creation. In addition to Ronald Rudin's presentation of the project and its place in the context of public history practice, there would be a screening of the film, and reflection by the artist, Lalie Douglas, about the decisions that she had to make in presenting Widd to the public. We are also hoping to bring in members of the Montreal deaf community to reflect on how Widd has been presented to the public. Finally, in terms of language, while this proposal is in English, if the organizers are interested we could also present the session in French, as the film is available in English, French, and ASL."

session 017 - Maverick heritages. Ugliness, discomfort and illegality in the political and social construction of heritage - regular session

Organisateurs : Cristiana Panella, Walter Little

"With regard to the main question of the 3rd ACHS Biennial Conference, "What does heritage change?" the convenors of this session propose ethnographic evidence of contradictory spheres of value by showing how encounters between official rhetorics of heritage and borderline/illegal ethics and objects produce social change. In particular, they explore, through an inclusive approach, the social and political constructions of heritage by questioning the aesthetic dichotomies of beauty/ugliness, properness (goodness)/moral pollution, formality/informality, order/disorder, and cleanliness/dirtiness, among others, as part of the representations of heritage. They include in the discussion, those places of social memory that are outside of official local, national and international naming organizations’ considerations of heritage. Imbricated in these processes are layers of opacity and transparency, rooted in official regulations and customary and common practices, that allow for the heritagization of places and concurrent aesthetic and political negotiations of those places by the heterogeneous categories of actors at stake (tourists, vendors, local officials, residents). The first section of the session focuses on relationships between regulated places and "alien" actors. Despite most heritage sites being strictly regulated through juridical, deontological or moral norms, "unauthorized" actors (for instance, street vendors, beggars or "clandestine" migrants), if not invading and occupying the sites per se, place themselves in the public places around "heritized" places. While such actors tend to be negatively characterized by politicians, city planners and formal-sector business owners as a blight on the aesthetics of heritage sites, it is far from clear that those who visit heritage sites and those vendors sell in and near the sites conceive of such a dichotomous relationship. Such frictions generated by the co-habitation of different spheres of value configure the aesthetics of heritage spaces as complexes of social, political and economic processes. In the second section of the session, we extend our reflections on the structural contradictions imbricated in the rhetorics of beauty with regard to "heritized" objects (antiquities and ethnographic items circulating through the international market and "heritage" logos). We investigate the interrelations between opacity and transparency—the situations establishing ethical and aesthetical taken-for-granted intrinsic values in order to show that the sentiment of "beauty" and "goodness" of a given final product (objects, practices, individuals or categories) is directly proportional to the degree of opacity of production stages of products. Convenors will be pleased to receive papers fitting the parts below: Part I - The politics of aesthetical authenticity in relation to the anti-aesthetics of pollution Throughout the world there are numerous examples of the proper order and organization of places and people being inverted. In heritage sites, despite the dominant discourses of the state, UNESCO and tourism industry, the sense of objects, places and words can take on counter aesthetics and alternative meanings for political and economic reasons. Here, we explore how political and aesthetical authenticity is constructed in different heritage domains through a selective concept of aesthetical pollution. Part II - Ontologies of beauty and illegality within the clandestine art trade The construction of heritage and clandestine art trade are often mutually constituted in heritage sites. This slot focuses on the organic relationship between beauty and Illegality in art trade. Here, we question how places are affected by the aesthetics and ethics that serve to brand a place/object, leading to new negotiations of value through alternative concepts of beauty that emerge from the ways that places and objects are "heritized" and used within logics of tourism and market."

session 022 - Moving memory : Dismantling hierarchies of knowledge via experiments in curating - Research Creation session

Organisateur : Nadine Blumer

Around the globe the planning of large-scale memorial-museum projects concerned with violent histories are frequently marred by conflict, omission, and competitions of victimhood. This problem also extends to scholarship on genocide and memory. How can we create new frameworks both for studying and representing historical violence that don’t result in hierarchies of suffering? Can participatory approaches to digital humanities produce public history projects that avoid the “oppression Olympics” that pit communities of memory against one another in a perceived zero-sum game of limited memorial “real estate”? Can they instead generate productive inter-group dialogue, crosscommunity solidarities, and shared interests in social justice? “Moving memory: Dismantling hierarchies of knowledge via experimental curating” is a collaborative research exhibition about the Armenian and Roma genocides that proposes creative solutions to both museological and scholarly conflicts around commemoration of histories of violence. By bringing two distinct cases of genocide into conversation, this research-creation project will reframe a common impasse in representation and teaching about “competing” narratives of violence as an opportunity for learning. This multi-sited event traverses the spaces of gallery, online environments, and a public conversational happening. The exhibit will launch during the ACHS conference, and then run for two weeks in the gallery at Concordia’s Centre for Ethnographic Research & Exhibition in the Aftermath of Violence (CEREV), and will include two primary installation pieces and a live outdoor public event. Hourig Attarian’s installation, “Threading a map, spinning life stories: fractured memories in the archives,” integrates oral testimonies of second-generation female survivors of the Armenian genocide with a live performance piece accompanied by video projected testimonies and archival images. Nadine Blumer’s “Victimhood? A monument competition” is a museum-based game where visitors attempt to build a memorial to the Nazi genocide of the Roma by creating alliances with other Holocaust victim groups. The path into the gallery will prompt visitors to consider distinct cases of genocide in the broader historical context of modernity as an age of colonialism, racism, and nation-building. To extend the exhibit into Montreal’s cityscape and increase its public reach, curator Anique Vered will facilitate a “public-panel-relay,” a unique form that opens “Moving Memory” into a conversational happening with conference participants and passers-by, as well as with partner academic and arts-based institutions in Canada, the US, Europe, Armenia, and Australia, via live-web streaming and remote public response. By literally moving memory, this project interlinks physical, discursive, and digital spaces of representation, catalyzing the movement of ideas and historical narratives locally and transnationally, and prompting audiences to think through difficult histories in relation to, rather than in opposition to one another.

session 046 - (In)significance : values and valuing in heritage - roundtable

Organisateurs : Steve Brown, Tracy Ireland

The roundtable will explore ideas around the concept of insignificance. That is, how things are judged to be unimportant, not worthy of conservation, meaningless, or without substantive power or influence. We will examine this notion in relation to the history, theory, and practical application of significance as a concept and method in heritage. In short, we will discuss the significance of insignificance.

The notion of ‘significance’ is central to heritage conservation in many parts of the world. It is used to represent an amalgam of values and is deployed to describe what, how and for whom the institutions of heritage choose to remember and to forget.

Determining significance is a process of ascribing values – culturally constructed meanings or qualities attributed by experts, individuals and groups to a heritage object, collection, place, landscape or practice. Valuing heritage has led to practices that typically list, rank and then privilege particular values, employing concepts of thresholds and scale–such as World, national and local levels of value.

Objects, places and practices deemed not to meet thresholds established in mandated heritage regimes might be said to be insignificant. They are non-heritage in a quasi-legal sense. However there is currently much interest in approaches to heritage which challenge the authoritarian role of expertise, which are interested in personal and emotional conepts of heritage, and more broadly in how people, narratives and memories are interwoven with things, places and landscape. There is also evidence of interest in the ‘insignificant’ as a counter to the use of heritage in cementing the grand narratives of nations and the progressive histories of the ‘west’ and the ‘north’.

At the heart of these discussions around significance has been the need to make values explicit and to understand where they come from and who they benefit – the notion that values are made and constructed within particular historical, political and economic circumstances remains somewhat contentious in heritage conservation and management. Debates are polarized between positions that see values as inherent in objects, and thus able to be managed through strict adherence to principles of care and management, and the postion that there is no such ‘thing’ as heritage – where the material is intentionally de-privileged to focus on how power is embedded in the processes of heritage, such as significance assessment. This in turn leads to further debates around materiality, intangibility and values, where values or knowledge not seen as ‘embodied’ in a material form (practices, rituals, beliefs and so on) are seen as evanescent and endangered, further obscuring how intangible heritage is embodied and intertwined with the material and social world.

The roundtable will scrutinize different ways of conceiving of value, with a particular focus on how values intersect and at times conflict with one another. The trend towards defining discrete aspects of value and measuring them through particular outcomes will be critically examined and alternative approaches explored. Furthermore, the roundtable will explore the tension between institutional or ‘official’ values, and the values people produce in and for themselves; a tension that is an endemic and difficult issue across the cultural sector.

Key questions to be addressed are: How does significance assessment intersect with concepts of ethics, social justice and sustainability? How might a notion of insignificance be framed and theorised in ways that support heritage practice? Could narrative forms be used to counter values-based approaches, especially for those things (objects, places, practices) assessed as insignificant?

session 054 - Connecting to the Critical Heritage Studies Movement in the Americas: Theoretical and practical considerations, case studies, and dialogue - regular session

Organisateurs : Michelle Stefano, Felix Burgos

"Among other aims, the critical heritage studies (CHS) movement, most exemplified by the promotional efforts of the Association of Critical Heritage Studies (ACHS), seeks to push heritage studies beyond its more traditional, longstanding ‘borders’ of investigating the progress, as well as shortcomings, of the museum and heritage enterprise. Indeed, in the manifesto for ACHS, it is noted that heritage studies ought to expand to include a broader range of disciplinary (and interdisciplinary) theories and methodological toolkits as a means of achieving deeper critical engagement with the practices and implications of museum and heritage work. In this light, CHS can be argued to be a movement that strives to promote more holistic understandings of heritage that include related political, economic, environmental, and sociocultural issues.

Using the momentum built by the session, _Critical Heritage Studies in North America: Issues, Ideas and Forward Thinking_, held during the 2nd International Conference of ACHS (Canberra, 2014), this session has been expanded to further articulate the connections that can be made with respect to CHS and the variety of related theories and practices utilized in the contexts of North, Central, and South America. As CHS is beginning to gain a foothold in these regions, there are, however, traditions of heritage-related work that can contribute to enhancing and widening the scope of the CHS discourse, such as with respect to anthropology and visual anthropology, folklore/public folklore, intercultural and American Studies, to name only a few.

The session remains broad in scope so as to incorporate, as well as offer, a wide range of scholarly and professional perspectives from these geographical contexts that can strengthen CHS. Moreover, articulating these connections can also illuminate ways in which the CHS discourse can be more strongly grounded as a tool for enhancing the theoretical frameworks and methods of other, yet related, disciplines common to these research contexts, as mentioned earlier. It also serves to examine a wide range of case studies from the Americas, such as from Colombia, Peru, and the US, in order to illuminate the applicability of CHS in diverse contexts, as well as to offer alternative models for heritage work, particularly those with a focus on co-collaborative community-based projects, perspectives, and issues."

session 063 - Urban heritage: Critical theoretical and methodological perspectives - regular session

Organisateurs : Kalliopi Fouseki, Torgrim Sneve Guttormsen, Grete Swensen

"Cities are growingly being faced by social, economic, cultural and environmental challenges imposing health and social risks. Rapid urbanization, population growth, climate change are only some of the major global challenges that a 21st century city needs to respond to. The current challenging global environment has led to the development of new approaches to the concept of "sustainable city" a city that caters for current and future generation. For instance, the idea of smart city (a city that is technological, digital and interactive) and the idea of green city (a city that is environmentally friendly) has emerged to address economic, social and environmental global challenges. However, the temporal focus of such models of "sustainable cities" is narrowed down on the present and the future. Although the role of heritage, and culture in general, in forming sustainable cities is growingly emphasized, heritage still stands in the periphery. Heritage is often viewed as "something" that can benefit from wider sustainable models and projects rather than as an agent of change. In this session, we would like to introduce the concept of deep cities, a concept which refers to a city’s long-term history and heritage. The session will explore how this concept can offer new ways of thinking about sustainable cities. The underlying idea of the session is that heritage is not just "something that is subject to change," but a driver of change. However, for heritage to hold such an active role, we contend that participatory approaches in developing deep cities need to be adopted. The introduction of the novel concept of deep cities will open new research avenues for the field of critical heritage studies. By bringing together architecture, archaeology, ethnology and conservation, this session invites contributions from a wide range of geographical regions that illustrate examples where sustainable cities have been the result of the adoption of deep cities.

The session would welcome papers that discuss theoretical and methodological issues related to one of the following (or related) themes:

  • Urban environments and planning;
  • “Imagined communities” of heritage;
  • Critical sustainability perspectives on heritage and the Anthropocene;
  • Diaspora, diversity and cultural citizenships;
  • The future of heritage;
  • Participatory approaches to urban heritage.

Selected papers will form the basis of the edition of a special volume on "Urban Heritage."

session 066 - The Artistry of Heritage - regular session

Organisateurs : Andrea Terry, Carla Taunton


"This session explores artist-history exchanges in the context of heritage sites, venues and spaces, and considers recent curatorial and artistic interventions and performative strategies, such as decolonial methodologies. Drawing on disciplinary art history, this session approaches heritage sites as strategically re-deployed historic structures that function as representational signs – artifactual objects furnished with other objects that cumulatively and, by virtue of their provenance, preservation, conservation and subsequent institutionalization, validate the interpretation by reconceiving authority as so-called “historical authenticity.” Historians, curators and interpreters use the objects at hand, conducting extensive research, to offer interpretations that position the site’s representation as legitimate, credible and ultimately authoritative. While historical venues can provide visitors with experiential moments of different times and places, present-day circumstances often require recognizing, acknowledging, eradicating, reconceptualising or decolonizing perceptions and representations of the past.

Over the past three decades in North America, artists, curators and heritage practitioners have collaborated to develop contemporary art exhibitions installed within historical sites, projects referred to in related scholarship either as “museum interventions” or, more pointedly, “artist-history interventions.” As art historians, curators and practicing artists Jim Drobnick and Jennifer Fisher explain, the term “museum intervention” describes “the collaboration between artists and institutions to transform the museum from a container of cultural artifacts to a medium of contemporary work. In this practice, the museum context becomes the raw material or ‘cultural readymade’ for artistic analysis, commentary and reconfiguration” (2002, 15). Artist-history exchanges thus provide innovative ways to satisfy cravings for uniquely novel and authentic experiences and so, with the advent of Web 2.0 and social media, they foster opportunities for dynamic interaction and thus function as a strategy to entice new audiences, as identified in the 2010 American Art Museums’ report on diversity. Significantly, they also frequently implicate viewers in their own subjectivities by “tweaking” the expected conventions of installations (Stokes Sims, 12-16). While some interventions aim to reconfigure these places as destinations appealing to a global (or international) audience, others critique the policies, practices and power structures governing heritage sites. In terms of the latter, such endeavours oftentimes seek to disrupt authoritative experiences of the past, thereby re-activating heritage sites as tools to foster communal and critical reflection; these projects require deliberately strategic and calculated considerations of the degree to which the conventional representation(s) might be challenged. Accordingly, this session invites individuals engaged in the fields of visual and material culture – emerging, midcareer, and established artists and cultural workers alike – to consider, describe, and analyze how practicing artists contribute to heritage site development, programming and policies and reveal new ways to think about local, regional, national, and global histories. We invite papers that consider the following, but not limited to, artists interventions and critical engagement with historic sites (monuments, museums, and public spaces) in relation to decolonizing strategies, the living archive, artistic collaboration, and community engaged art/curatorial practice. Finally, we encourage the consideration of how projects presented draw on practices, concepts, and techniques explored decades earlier, be they “soft” (invited/commissioned) or “hard” (uninvited)."

session 075 - What does Photography Preserve? Reification and Ruin in the Photographic Heritage of a Place Called Montreal - regular session

Organisateur : Martha Langford

Photography was recognized as an instrument of heritage preservation from the moment of its inception in the early nineteenth century, when projects such as Les Excursions Daguerriennes (1841-1843), a set of Romantic engravings of monuments based on photographic documents, established the links between sight and science, memory and history, hortatory reification and ‘ruin lust’ (Brian Dillon, 2014) that this session seeks to address. This proposal is crafted in the certain knowledge that almost every session at this conference will use photographic technology as a window onto the past, present, and even the future, with very little comment on the lens itself. Our session intends a reflexive approach to the relationship between photography and heritage practices, as manifest in architectural history and theory, urbanist, environmental, and photographic studies, and as practiced by documentary photographers and conceptual artists – actors from cognate disciplines unified by their interest in the built environment and its created communities, but divergent in their emphases and confidence in the various forms of photographic representation. A focus on Montreal strengthens the dialogical structure of the session and allows for more sustained critical analysis of objectives and outcomes in the uses of photography.

Our investigation begins in the archives where neither institutional record-keeping not the redeployment of documents at the point of restoration can be considered neutral. Returning to the 1960s and the Quiet Revolution, architectural historian Nicola Pezolet (Concordia University) offers a reading of photographic documents in the Jean-Paul Mousseau archives at the Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal (MACM) and Hydro-Québec to tease out the program of nation-building in Mousseau’s mural for Hydro-Québec’s corporate lobby and the recent renewal of both the object and its embedded claims. This oscillation between then and now – ideation and outcome – animates the entire session.

In the 1970s, targeted campaigns under the banner of Save Montreal were supported by the foundation of Héritage Montréal, with activist photographies emergent at every stage. Visual artist and architect Melvin Charney (1935-2012) can now be recognized the genius loci of this moment, and with lessons for the future in his thinking about the “industrial vernacular” and incorporation of “users’ participation” (Martin 2014) in his projects. Complementary papers by architectural theorist Louis Martin (UQAM) and art historian Johanne Sloan (Concordia University) will critically examine the photographic legacies of Charney’s visionary architecture and conceptual art.

Still at this mid-twentieth-century turning-point of heritage consciousness, “What Does Photography Preserve?” will consider the use of documentary photography as a tool of heritage activism. A critical backward look is offered by two sometimes collaborating practitioners, Clara Gutsche and David Miller, who will reflect on the making of the Milton Park Series (1970-73) and the Lachine Canal Series (1985-86; 1990) – Miller photographing exteriors; Gutsche photographing the residents of Milton Park in their homes, as well as the ghostly interiors of Lachine Canal’s industrial buildings. Gutsche and Miller have staunchly kept faith with the documentary tradition, evoking Walker Evans’s idea of a “’documentary style’ … photographs which are highly structured, constructed to have the ‘look’ of neutrality, everydayness, and ‘stylelessness’ (Gutsche and Miller 2011). Perpetuating a style of photographic knowledge tied through Evans and his inspiration, Eugène Atget, to threatened disappearance – to the elegiac image of the ruin – complicates the debate staged by this session with issues of photographic singularity and aesthetics that are by no means exhausted (Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 2012). Is there slippage between activism and nostalgia, and if so, should it be considered strategic?

Crucial to this level of analysis, and pressing on issues of gender, is the cycle of installations in disused industrial and cultural spaces by the Montreal-based partnership of Martha Fleming and Lyne Lapointe – projects documented in the publication Studiolo (Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal, Artextes Editions and Art Gallery of Windsor, 1997-1998).* The presence and absence of human and non-human actors on these urban stages raises the question of photographic social performance, as a participatory form of urban activism, and brings us to the most recent project to be discussed, Pouf! Art+Architecture (Cynthia Hammond and Thomas Strickland)’s Dog Park Gallery (2010-11). Focusing on a durational art work that led directly to the preservation of a much-loved green space and dog park in a post-industrial Montreal, Thomas Strickland (Azrieli School of Architecture and Urbanism, Carleton University) will examine the various ways that photography was used to capture, represent, and make visible working-class heritage. His paper will reflect on the strengths and challenges of photography as a medium for engaging with the animal in this highly contested, postindustrial ‘wilderness’.

Ranging from architectural records, through photoconceptualism, documentary style, and appropriation to the apparently de-skilled snapshot, this session will maintain its focus on photographic mediations of heritage objects and actions, grappling with their codified expressions of values imposed and opposed in words and images.

session 083 - Critical Heritage Theory : Foundational Cores and Innovative Edges - regular session

Organisateurs : Kathryn Lafrenz Samuels, Melissa F. Baird

"The field of heritage has emerged as a key site of reflection. Influenced by shifts in the academy (e.g., postcolonial, poststructural, and feminist theories), heritage scholars are bringing increased attention to the deployment of heritage as both a conceptual category and a contested field of power and discourse. Nevertheless, significant challenges remain in communicating what comprises the theoretical and methodological toolkit of heritage studies. Scholars are still mapping out the nuances and contexts of critical heritage as a distinct theory, and grappling with what exactly heritage is and why it constitutes a valid area of investigation. This changing vision of heritage as a (quasi-)independent field of study is promising, as it brings increased attention to the political and social contexts of heritage, and how heritage engages theories of development, postcolonial theory, rights and justice, and ecology.

Reflecting on “what does heritage change” and the current state of the field—its theorists, its practices, and its promises—one critique could be that heritage studies lacks a rigorous theoretical or methodological approach. It is something of an irony that so little discussion has been devoted to the intellectual heritage of heritage studies. What theoretical foundations hold the field of heritage studies together and compose its core? What intellectual roots stabilize the field into a coherent endeavor? At the same time, what are the edges of its innovation? As a multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary arena of collaboration and intellectual ‘poaching,’ heritage studies has thrived at the edges of innovation vis-à-vis well-established disciplines. However, as with most interdisciplinary fields, this could be a strength as well as a weakness, and heritage studies stands vulnerable to criticisms of having a weak or even ‘vacuous’ core, or engaging in intellectual dilettantism. In this session we propose it is only by mapping its core theoretical strengths, embedded in a critical intellectual tradition, that we can assertively push forward in innovating along its edges.

Moreover, locating heritage studies in the critical tradition articulates with important debates on how the identity and expertise of the professional heritage scholar is being reconstituted and reimagined. This session continues those debates, and argues that such discussion is most productive when engaging heritage professionals both inside and outside the academy. After all, a major premise of critical heritage theory is to include voices from inside and outside academia, and to provide more interactive models, with mechanisms to identify theoretical and substantive insights and intervene in contemporary debates.

session 100 - L'imaginaire paradoxal des villes occidentales: patrimoine, gentrification et résistances - regular session

Organisateurs : Michel Rautenberg, Sandra Trigano, Marie Hocquet

Si la ville moderne occidentale se transforme, sous l'action des aménageurs, en écho à des utopies, des programmes de développement et des intérêts économiques, on néglige trop souvent l'action quotidienne d'habitants et d'acteurs sociaux qui s'approprient les lieux et contribuent à les transformer. Dans cette mutation de la ville, le patrimoine se trouve à la croisée d'enjeux économiques et sociaux singuliers : d'une part il est convoqué par les aménageurs et les acteurs de la gentrification et du tourisme ; d'autre part il est utilisé dans de multiples formes de résistances plus ou moins actives qui s'opposent à ces politiques d'aménagement. On pourrait croire que ces tensions qui s'exercent sur les transformations urbaines opposent deux modes patrimoniaux différents. Pourtant, dans un cas comme dans l'autre, ce sont souvent des récits assez voisins qui sont mobilisés, évoquant un imaginaire de la ville européenne largement partagé, au delà des oppositions politiques et des stratifications sociales: nostalgie de la sociabilité populaire et ouvrière, vitalité de la rue qu’on cherche à retrouver, authenticité des paysages urbains ou industriels passés etc. C'est ce paradoxe que nous souhaitons interroger dans cet atelier, à partir de présentations fondées sur des travaux ethnographiques ou historiques.


Contemporary towns are changing through the action of urban planners and engineers, responding to certain utopias, to urban development policies and economic interests, yet everyday commitment of inhabitants and various social actors who know the places and contribute to transform the towns are often neglected. In the deep mutations of urban landscapes and urbanity that we are witnessing, heritage plays a peculiar partition: on the one hand it is convoked by planers, architects and actors of the gentrification and of tourism, on the other hand it is used in the various forms of resistance for arguing against those policies. One might think that those issues on urban transformations would oppose two different ways of heritagisation. However, in each case, rather close tales of heritage are mobilized. They evoke an imagination of the European town that is largely shared, beyond political oppositions and social stratifications: nostalgia for the popular and the working class sociability, streets supposedly more lively, authenticity of former urban and industrial landscapes etc. In this session, we aim to examine this paradox, working from ethnographic or historic presentations.

session 103 - Sustainable urban heritage conservation in questions - regular session

Organisateurs : Etienne Berthold, Laurent Aubin

"The current session proposes a critical and epistemological reflection on sustainable urban heritage conservation. Recent research on the management of urban heritage following its conservation process is characterized by a growing number of studies that aim to provide an overview of how to assess the sustainability of existing practices. This dominant focus of the research has contributed to the development of indicators and approaches to sustainable development in this field. In addition, it has assisted with the implementation of policies and development strategies based on the assessment of the indicators. However, the epistemological foundations of this type of research do not achieve unanimity since its purpose is shared among various uses, both political and scientific. Increasingly numerous studies seeking to measure an aspect of sustainable urban heritage conservation - perhaps especially problems related to the quality of life in historic districts - rely on the

perceptions that the various actors (including citizens) have of urban spaces and heritage policies that frame them. In doing so, researchers significantly underestimate the study of discourses, which are nevertheless constituents of patrimonialization processes and dynamics.

This session will explore various aspects of the relations between heritage and sustainability. Contributors are particularly invited to highlight and address epistemological as well as ideological issues of research in the fieldwork of sustainable urban heritage conservation."

session 121 - Des patrimoines incarnés : les dialogues du vivant et de l'archive

Organisateur : Anne Benichou

Les arts du spectacle, les événements festifs, les rituels, les récits oraux, les savoir-faire font désormais pleinement partie du patrimoine culturel au même titre que les collections d’objets et les monuments. La Convention sur le patrimoine immatériel adoptée en 2003 par l’UNESCO vise à assurer leur reconnaissance culturelle à l’échelle locale, nationale, et internationale, ainsi que leur sauvegarde. Ces pratiques culturelles et artistiques se distinguent toutefois des objets patrimoniaux « tangibles » par leur dimension incarnée et performée. Elles engagent des corps, des gestes, des actions ; elles se transmettent entre les individus, les groupes sociaux et les générations de façon directe, d’un corps à un autre, en privilégiant l’oralité, la mémoire corporelle et kinesthésique. Cette logique de transmission relève beaucoup plus du répertoire que de l’archive. À l’inverse d’une collection ou d’un patrimoine que l’on conserve, le répertoire est rejoué, recyclé, actualisé. Il est évolutif, expansif, dynamique et encourage les combinaisons des éléments qui le constituent. Diana Taylor l’envisage comme un ensemble de gestes transmis par le corps à travers des pratiques vivantes, selon un processus pleinement créatif de répétitions et de différences (Taylor).

Cela ne signifie pas pour autant que les documents, les archives, les collections d’objets n’interviennent pas dans la transmission de ces pratiques culturelles incarnées et performées. Au contraire, les enregistrements photographiques, filmiques, vidéographiques, sonores, l’établissement de partitions, de notations ou de scripts, la conservation des costumes, des instruments de musique, des accessoires, etc. sont essentiels et instaurent une dialectique avec les modes de transmission oraux et corporels. Au-delà de leurs valeurs de témoignage et d’authenticité propres à la culture archivistique, ces corpus documentaires sont orientés vers la (re)mise en actes. Ils rendent possibles l’appropriation et l’actualisation des pratiques qu’ils documentent par de nouveaux acteurs qui peuvent les interpréter à leur manière et les transformer. La transmission de ces pratiques culturelles incarnées et performées repose donc sur un dialogue entre l’archive et le vivant. Certains parlent « d’archive vivante », d’autres de « corps archives » afin d’insister sur l’importance d’adopter une approche dialectique, au lieu d’envisager l’archive et le vivant, le document et la performance, les patrimoines matériel et immatériel en termes opposés (Schneider, Lepecki).

Ces modes de transmission qui consistent à perpétuer en actualisant sont fortement ancrés dans les communautés. Ils permettent des formes d’identification, des sentiments d’appartenance à un groupe ou à une nation. À travers les répétitions, ils transmettent des connaissances, des savoirs, des conceptions du monde ; ils confirment des ordres symboliques et sociaux, des valeurs philosophiques, politiques, esthétiques, morales ou des croyances religieuses, etc. Grâce à leur capacité de transformation, ils peuvent suspendre ces logiques de confirmation et d’adhésion et jouer un rôle émancipatoire ou contestataire. Ils ont un pouvoir d’agentivité au sens du terme anglais agency qui désigne la capacité des sujets à agir sur leur réalité sociale. Les modifications et les mutations que les acteurs opèrent permettent aux communautés de se réinventer et de s’adapter aux changements qui surviennent dans leur société et dans leur environnement (Taylor).

C’est pourquoi patrimonialiser ces pratiques culturelles incarnées et performées constitue un défi de taille. Comment les programmes de sauvegarde peuvent-ils maintenir un dialogue dynamique entre le vivant et l’archive ? Quel sens peut prendre la notion d’authenticité dans ce cadre conceptuel ? Comment ne pas amoindrir la malléabilité de ces pratiques, ni les homogénéiser ? Comment ne pas infléchir leur agentivité ?

session - Heritage and Museums II - regular session

Uses of heritage and conflicts I : political uses (heritage changes politics)

session 006 - Heritage and the late modern state - regular session

Organisateurs : Richard Hutchings, Joshua Dent

This session explores the different ways late modern states control and translate heritage, both their own and that of others. While modern governments have always played a role in the production and authorization of heritage, late modern states have unprecedented command over the heritage landscape. Coinciding with the postwar economic boom, globalization, and most recently neoliberalism, the state has come to dominate the most vital aspects of heritage, ranging from research (heritage production) to education (heritage reproduction) and governance (heritage stewardship). As such, the late modern state (1950-present) constitutes an important framework for exploring contemporary heritage environments. Aspects of the late modern heritage landscape given primacy in this session include state institutions and their bureaucracies (e.g., schools, libraries, museums, biology/natural resource management, archaeology/cultural resource management), and heritage under capitalism, colonialism, imperialism, nationalism, globalization, and neoliberalism. Contributors to this timely session are asked to speak to the following themes, in part or in whole:

  • Imagined communities;
  • Heritage in conflict and cooperation
  • Critical sustainability perspectives;
  • The rise and fall of expert knowledge;
  • Rethinking heritage policies beyond elite cultural narratives; and
  • The future of heritage.

session 031 - Patrimoines contestés : réceptions locales, discours, stratégies (études de cas en Bosnie, Irak, Palestine, Syrie, Liban) - regular session

Organisateurs : Caecillia Pieri, Vanessa Guéno

Dans le cadre d’une réflexion pluridisciplinaire croisant anthropologie, archéologie, architecture, géographie, histoire, politologie, cette séance propose des lectures empiriques du patrimoine matériel et immatériel en situation conflictuelle. Le patrimoine sera interrogé en tant que construction sociale à valeur symbolique, catalyseur d’appropriation et/ou de fabrications identitaires et objet de discours mémoriels.
Dans des contextes politiques autoritaires, et où la contestation et le conflit s'expriment sur des modes violents, le patrimoine est un instrument d'imposition et de remise en cause de la domination. C'est pourquoi il est susceptible d'être vecteur et objet de provocation, de contentieux et de violence. Il devient enjeu de légitimation de groupes antagonistes, levier d’une appropriation contestée de l’espace et du social par des pouvoirs coercitifs, que ceux-ci se situent dans la temporalité immédiate du combat ou dans le long terme du pouvoir institutionnalisé ou aspirant à le devenir.
Dans une phase ultérieure de construction étatique post-conflit, les pouvoirs en place s'efforcent, par la patrimonialisation, d'établir un compromis entre tous les acteurs autour d’idées fédératrices. Les processus de patrimonialisation appliqués à des objets ou à des réalités culturelles ou idéelles constituent une étape essentielle dans la construction des récits historiques officiels ou non et dans la formation des politiques patrimoniales. Mais entre histoire et politique, l es discours patrimoniaux et mémoriels s'érigent en concurrents.
Les espaces et sociétés présentés dans la séance ont en outre en commun, au delà de leurs spécificités , de connaître ou d’avoir connu le phénomène communautaire géré sur un mode traumatique et catégorique. Directement affecté par l’exacerbation des communautarismes fondés sur l’exclusion identitaire, le patrimoine n’est pas ce qui fait sens commun, admis à l’échelle d’une société plurielle, mais identifiant communautaire niant l'égalité de l'Autre au sein d'un même espace socio-politique.
À partir de cas d’études relatifs à la Bosnie, l’Irak, le Liban, la Palestine et la Syrie, la notion de patrimoine, sa compréhension et son instrumentalisation seront mis en perspective. La séance propose d’examiner les réceptions locales face à des situations traumatiques, les stratégies d’appropriation, d’accommodement, de contournement ou de dépassement du ou des processus de patrimonialisation. Elle abordera également la question des reconfigurations sociales, culturelles et mémorielles autour du ou des patrimoines structurants dans les sociétés de l’après-conflit ou du conflit toujours possible.

session 051 - Cultural contestation: Politics and governance of heritage - regular session

Organisateurs : Jeroen Rodenberg, Pieter Wagenaar

"Heritage practices often lead to social exclusion. As an "Authorized Heritage Discourse" (AHD) (Smith 2006) may define what is considered to be heritage, a certain set of social values can come to exclude other values. By formulating heritage policies which reproduce the existing AHD government may further such exclusion. Every now and then AHDs are challenged, leading to what political scientists like Ross (2007; 2009) call "cultural contestations" between groups. These are surrounded by strong emotions, and can take the form of veritable "representational battles." According to various political scientists (e.g. Ross 2007; 2009), government often tries to stay out of cultural contestation, for it has little legitimacy in resolving such matters. Yet, as the available literature shows, government policy is often the root cause of such contestation. And even when it is not, government, whether it likes it or not, may find itself compelled to try and mitigate it. This necessity of government intervention is frequently fuelled by the use of heritage by marginalized groups. In our view, political science pays ample attention to the ways in which cultural heritage leads to conflict, especially when heritage is used as a resource for identity formation. Yet, surprisingly enough, it has a tendency to downplay government's role (Ross 2007; 2009). Heritage studies often do acknowledge the role government plays when analyzing politics of heritage (Harrison 2010; Laurence 2010; Waterton 2010). Yet, many case-studies have a tendency to focus on cultural contestation foremost, without analyzing what goes on inside the state apparatus. In this session we focus on the role government plays in cultural contestation, trying to truly get inside the world of policy-makers. We especially welcome papers which use decision-making theories and policy analysis tools from political science and governance studies to try and understand how government deals with it, and why it prefers certain solutions to others. The papers should therefore be expressly aimed at contributing to further development of theories explaining the various roles governments play in cultural contestation."

session 055 - Politics of scale: A new approach to heritage studies - regular session

Organisateur : Yujie Zhu

"In recent decades, the growth of the World Heritage industry has necessitated the reconsideration of scale. Formerly dominated by nation-states, some influential international organizations such as UNESCO and its advisory bodies (ICOMOS and IUCN) are now taking a strong role in decision-making through policy-making and implementation. Despite the power of the transnational organization and its relation with states parties, there is a growth of regionalism and “localism” in the heritage industry. The 2003 Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention has strong support from several Asian countries and, to some extent, reflects their wills and interests. Regional organizations have sprung up in South Asia, Africa and Caribbean, promoting regional heritage identities against the hegemonic value stemming from European heritage discourse. These phenomena indicate that the power structure of the heritage industry is not fixed; rather, it refers to a process of reconfiguration and contestation along different scales. We believe the concept of “politics of scale” is crucial in critical heritage studies by tracing the “power geometries” (Massey 1996) of how heritage works. We also criticize how the European-dominant language of heritage affects local traditions, cultural practices and daily life in the form of authorized heritage discourse (Smith 2006). Although the seminal work “A Geography of Heritage” (Graham, Ashworth and Tunbridge 2000) brings the concept of “scale” to heritage studies, the concept of “politics of scale” is not yet well developed to analyze the social construction of heritage scales through socio-political contestation. Recently, David Harvey encouraged heritage studies to take the understanding of scale into account for further theorization of heritage. As he stated, “to understand how heritage works, we must examine what scale does, and how heritage and scale interact” (2015:3). In this session we echo Harvey’s call, and seek to investigate the interrelation between the re-theorization of scale and heritage. This session will not only examine scale as a fixed unit and exiting category with certain spatial boundary such as “local, regional, national and international,” but also explore how scale works as a process of “hierarchization and re-hierarchization.” We will also deploy the pluralistic meanings of “politics of scale” (Brenner 2001) to analyze the power struggle during the process of production, reconfiguration and contestation within and among heritage scales. With these issues in mind, we invite papers looking into the following themes: How scale is used by heritage institutions to legitimate their authority and produce hierarchies among scales; How heritage discourse is reinforced and affects other scales based on the power structure and uneven development between scales; How local struggles emerge to negotiate with the discourse through moving between and along scales. We encourage papers from different approaches or disciplines, since we believe the plural form of “heritage studies” makes it a multi- inter-disciplinary area that benefits from communication, collaboration or even contestation. Each discipline is embedded in one scale or many (such as individual, local, regional, national and global), and we hope the critical interaction of these approaches will generate new insights into heritage studies."

session 064 - Contested pasts: Urban heritage in divided cities - regular session

Organisateurs : Mirjana Ristic, Sybille Frank

"This session seeks to explore the role of urban heritage in mediating and contesting political conflict in the context of divided cities. We take urban heritage in a broad sense to include places left, scarred or transformed by geo-political dispute, national and ethnic division, violence and war. The case studies can include tangible spaces such as elements of border architecture, historic sites, ruins and urban traces of the conflict, and memorials; as well as intangible elements of city, including urban voids, everyday rituals, place names and other forms of spatial discourse. These can be both designated and undesignated urban heritage sites.

We seek for empirical and theoretic papers that will cover one of the following themes:

  1. Heritage at war Recent political events show that urban heritage in divided cities plays a role in the war not merely as the site of violence and terror, but the very tool through which they are mediated. The Old Bridge in Mostar was bombed out in 1993, the Nablus old town was bulldozed and demolished by tank fire in 2002, while Syrian ancient sites are still being pulverized by ISIS. We ask: Why is urban heritage so often rendered a target of the war? What is the political role of its destruction? How can urban heritage be used as a tool for political resistance?
  2. Divided heritage Urban heritage is often re-designed, re-invented and employed as an instrument of political division in the cityscape. Discrete religious heritage dominates the Greek and Turkish sides of Nicosia, urban parades invested with separate sectarian traditions are held in Belfast, streets in Sarajevo and East Sarajevo acquired different commemorative names after the war. We ask: What role do spatial remnants, practices and discourses of the past play in the demarcation of urban territories? What happens when heritage of one social group becomes “displaced” on the side of the other? How does urban heritage mediate and contest socio-spatial marginalization, discrimination and exclusion?
  3. Dealing with contested heritage The political division of the city itself often leaves contested urban heritage in the cityscape. The legacy of ethnic clashes is still visible in the cityscape of Beirut, while traces and memories of the Berlin Wall still haunt the city. We ask: What should be done with remnants of the city’s division in the post-conflict scenario? What influence do preservation and commemoration of these places have on transformation of the city’s spatial morphology, flows of urban life and place identity? In what ways can transformation of such heritage contribute to reunification and reconciliation?
  4. The everyday life of urban heritage in divided cities Common research on urban heritage often focuses on representational capacities and the symbolic role of heritage sites. We ask: How are the official discourses of history and memory embedded in these sites accepted, contested and/or transformed through their use? In which ways are new popular and unintended meanings inscribed in these sites through spatial practices around them?"

session 078 - The critical turn in perspectives on public housing as heritage - regular session

Organisateur : Imran bin Tajudeen

"This session discusses the ways in which early public housing from the 1950s to 1960s in Hong Kong, China, and Singapore have emerged recently as an arena for the critique of national, elite or dominant notions of heritage and history. The contexts of the development of public housing in the early post-Second World War era and the background to their recent reappraisal as significant sites for the edification of cultural identity or socio-political struggle provide grounds for exploration of a number of issues concerning emerging perspectives on what heritage can "do." Thus for instance, the socio-political contexts and affiliations behind the initiation or production of public housing may be narrated or rewritten today with differing emphases or silences. Alternatively, the differing opinions and narratives may also stem from differences of sentiment or opinion regarding the location of significance or value in examples of public housing—whether this is deemed to reside in architectural form or planning and physical fabric, in community and activities, or simply in the everyday. These differences have the power to frame popular understandings of the history of the interplay between civic groups and the state in the creation, regulation or reproduction of public housing and its "lifeworld," while simultaneously reflecting the prevailing assumptions in the society in question about the notion of "public housing heritage"—whose heritage is this deemed to be? Has it been discussed as belonging to the residents who shape what is at stake—that is, as a form of community heritage that is embodied—or instead as heritage that is shared across the citizens of a city in an abstract sense? Or do the discussions revolve around an even more rarefied notion of the role of state agencies behind their creation, or even specific ruling regimes? The concern of this session is thus not with any lack of acknowledgement of the category of "public housing" as heritage. Rather, the focus is upon the variability or contradictions in the articulation of their historical significance or heritage value. These inconsistencies or paradoxes may be observed in both explicit ideological contentions and in more insidious means of exclusion based on some purportedly "objective" criteria or forms of "expert knowledge" such as aesthetics, technical considerations, or significance within the nationalist narrative. The debates revolving around the significance of early post-war public housing highlight the potential of a critical inquiry into the heritage-making discourses on an ubiquitous product of architectural modernism, the apartment block and estate, to raise questions on what the very notion of "heritage" has come to signify when it is applied to a kind of mass-produced vernacular, albeit an avowedly "non-traditional" one. Does this signify a critical turn in popular (and academic) discourse/discussions about "heritage" that is no longer restricted to conventional or privileged categories of cultural patrimony, and has become the means of re-positioning the definition of identity away from elite or state constructs? How is this complicated by the very nature of the genesis of public housing?"

session 088 - Heritage and War (20th-21st centuries). From mass destruction to deliberate demolition of monuments

Organisateur : Jean-Yves Andrieux

"Since 1914-1918, the dominant image of heritage destruction by acts of war is associated with the exponential expansion of mass violence, most often practised remotely, using weapons of extreme force. From 1939 to 1945, sophisticated weaponry boosted the scale of the industrial war until the total eradication of towns. This resulted in two phenomena that have occupied the affected countries for decades: first, complex restorations on thousands of monuments; secondly, extensive reconstruction projects, that applied various doctrines and created another built heritage, recognized by international bodies as new markers of human resilience half a century after their completion. Many studies have investigated this process of destruction, these revivals and the political as well as social and sensitive consequences that ensued for the people. Observing the most recent conflicts forces one to reconsider the place of built heritage: it does no longer appear as a collateral victim, but, first, as a strategic part of war operations and, secondly, as a symbol of political messages delivered by the belligerents to the world. The Lebanese civil war (1975-1990) represented an unparalleled example to date the militarization of urban space. When the former Yugoslavia broke up, nationalistic tensions rose in the region, during the third Balkan war (1991-1999). The ethnic cleansing that moved and persecuted populations corresponded to the purification of monuments in a sort of “urbicide.” These demolitions and symbolic amputations then continued, in different places around the world, coming to a recent crescendo in the Middle East. One must acknowledge that, on the territories of Iraq and Syria, these latest developments reached another dimension. Were they only part of a religious act recalling the iconoclastic crises of the past, or losses directly attributable to fighting in case of enemy attack, or a cruel provocation against the West? Contrariwise, does the whole damage result from an act of political purification whose historical meaning was revealed, for the first time, by the “vandalism” practised by the French Revolution? In all cases, for about four decades, heritage has become unwillingly one of the great symbolic stakes of the on-going conflicts over the planet. We welcome papers that will try to understand how the modern world has returned to such radicalism, and explore the causes, forms, terms and consequences of this profound change. We will specially appreciate the documented case studies, historical perspectives, philosophical reflections, or other sociological approach, geographic, etc., which will make comparisons, take stock and provide reasoned explanations.


L’image dominante des destructions patrimoniales par faits de guerre est associée, depuis 1914-1918, à l’extension exponentielle d’une violence de masse, pratiquée le plus souvent à distance, à l’aide d’armes d’une force extrême. De 1939 à 1945, la puissance de feu a amplifié l’échelle de la guerre industrielle jusqu’à l’éradication totale. Il en a résulté deux phénomènes qui ont occupé les pays touchés pendant plusieurs décennies: des restaurations complexes portant sur des milliers de monuments, d’une part; de vastes chantiers de reconstruction, aux doctrines diverses, d’autre part, qui ont créé d’autres patrimoines bâtis, reconnus un demi-siècle après leur achèvement par les instances internationales comme de nouveaux marqueurs de la résilience humaine. On a largement étudié ces destructions, ces renaissances et les conséquences aussi bien politiques ou sociales que sensibles qui en ont découlé pour les populations. L’observation des conflits plus récents force à reconsidérer la place que le patrimoine bâti y occupe non plus comme victime collatérale, mais comme cadre stratégique des opérations de guerre et comme symbole des messages politiques livrés par les belligérants au reste du monde. La militarisation de l’espace urbain fut un des traits de la guerre civile du Liban (1975-1990). La troisième guerre des Balkans (1991-1999), consécutive à l’éclatement de l’ex-Yougoslavie et à l’affirmation des tensions nationalistes dans cette région, a donné lieu à une «purification» monumentale et «urbicide», parallèle à la purification ethnique qui déplaçait et persécutait les populations. Ces démolitions et amputations symboliques ont ensuite continué, dans divers lieux de la planète, atteignant un récent paroxysme au Moyen-Orient. Avec ces derniers développements, sur les territoires de l’Irak et de la Syrie, on touche à une autre dimension. S’agit-il seulement d’actes religieux rappelant les crises iconoclastes du passé? Ou bien de pertes directement imputables aux combats, en cas d’offensive ennemie? Ou encore de provocations cruelles contre l’Occident? Ou enfin d’actes de purification politique, dans la lignée du «vandalisme» pratiqué par la Révolution française? Dans tous les cas, depuis environ quatre décennies, le patrimoine est devenu un des grands enjeux symboliques des conflits en cours sur la planète. Nous accueillerons des communications qui tenteront de comprendre comment le monde actuel est revenu à un tel radicalisme et qui exploreront les causes, les formes, les modalités, les conséquences de cette profonde mutation. Seront en particulier appréciées les études de cas documentées, les perspectives historiques, les réflexions philosophiques ou toute autre approche sociologique, géographique, etc., qui permettront d’établir des comparaisons, de dresser un premier bilan et de proposer des explications raisonnées."

session 117 - Le patrimoine immatériel, ça change quoi ? Culture, économie, société : table ronde Le Canada doit-il signer la Convention pour la sauvegarde du PCI ? - Roundtable

Organisateur : Antoine Gauthier

Une table ronde portant sur la question de la signature par le Canada de la Convention UNESCO de 2003 sur la sauvegarde du patrimoine culturel immatériel se tiendra à l’UQAM dans le cadre du 3e congrès mondial de l’Association of Critical Heritage Studies (Montréal, 3-8 juin 2016).
L’objectif de cette table ronde est de questionner une éventuelle ratification par le Canada de cet instrument multilatéral. La réunion se tiendra en français et en anglais avec interprétation simultanée. Elle prendra la forme d’exposés d’experts et de tables de discussion.
Une consultation sera préalablement menée auprès des principaux groupes de praticiens du pays afin de recueillir leur avis sur la question de la ratification et de nourrir les échanges de la réunion.
Différents intervenants seront invités à prendre part à cette session d’étude: représentants ministériels provinciaux et fédéraux, représentants d’ONG, personnel du Secrétariat de la Convention de 2003, chercheurs universitaires, personnalités politiques, représentants des Premières nations et des Inuits, etc.
Les questions suivantes seront notamment débattues:

  • Quels sont les motifs de la non ratification actuelle? Les impacts?
  • Quels sont les avantages et les désavantages de cette situation sur la culture traditionnelle au 
  • Quels seraient les bienfaits d’une éventuelle signature de cette convention?
  • Quelles sont les étapes liées à cette éventuelle ratification?
  • Qu’est-ce que le Canada pourrait ou devrait faire à l’échelle nationale et internationale une fois 
le traité ratifié?
  • Les textes de loi fédéraux ou provinciaux actuels sont-ils compatibles avec une telle ratification?
FaLang translation system by Faboba
Retour en haut de page