We don’t need any safeguarding. We’re already doing this’: Grassroots and State safeguarding “Intangible Cultural Heritage” practices and plans for Greek Aeróphona (bagpipes)

the paper will be presented by Panas Karampampas and Panayiota Andrianopoulou at the RAI2018: Art, Materiality and Representation Conference, Royal Anthropological Institute, The Department of Africa, Oceania and the Americas of The British Museum and the Department of Anthropology at SOAS, London, UK 1-3 June 2018.

 

Abstract:

The UNESCO 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) requires from countries that have ratified the convention to plan and support the safeguarding of elements, which the state has recognised as ICH. In parallel to this scheme, safeguarding practices are done by individuals and groups, which in some cases are not informed or deliberately ignore the Convention. This is the case of Greek Aeróphona that revitalises the practice of Greek bagpipes. Central to this is the use of social media by Greek Aeróphona in organising their activities and disseminating and embodying their craft. However, the Greek State is currently starting the process of engaging Aeróphona musicians and crafters to discuss and create a safeguarding plan, aiming to inscribe Greek Aeróphona on the National ICH list. A part of bagpipers and crafters are against this for various reasons while others are not informed about the intention of the State. We examine and compare the safeguarding practices of the actors engage with this ICH elements as well as the creative frictions between them.

Invited lecture at the MA in Heritage Management (Organised by University of Kent and Athens University of Economics and Business),

Heritage economies and “sustainable” development as “a way out of the Greek Crisis”

 17 January 2018, Eleusina – Greece

Panas Karampampas (École des hautes études en sciences sociales)

 

During the Greek economic crisis, media circulate many stereotypes that depict Greeks as lazy and refusing to work hard as other Europeans. However, the Greek Ministry of Culture (MoC) considers Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) as a tool to provide a solution to the economic crisis and the negative image of Greece. Based on this, the MoC has created a strategy focusing on the promotion of agro-food products and techniques as well as other traditional crafting techniques by inscribing them on an ICH list (national or international). The aim is that the inscriptions will become leverage for other public mechanisms (such as Erasmus+ funding) that will create new jobs for the communities. Moreover, the inscriptions will enhance the visibility of the communities that practice these ICH elements in order to attract more tourism, and strengthen the commerce and local economy. Furthermore, this also will highlight “the hard work of Greeks” and fight the stereotypes. However, using ICH for to enhance the local economy is a grey zone for UNESCO and the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the ICH that is the main framework of MoC regarding ICH. This grey zone creates a space of creative frictions by allowing to the actors many interpretations of the Convention relating to the commercialisation of ICH. Thus, the current economic crisis becomes the motivation for individuals to highlight that Intangible Cultural Heritage can provide ways to overcomes difficulties by designing heritage-centred plans based ideas of (sustainable) development.

European Year for Cultural Heritage 2018 Information Event (Athens, 18/12/2017)

The Directorate of Modern Cultural Heritage (DMCH) organised the Cultural Heritage Information Event in order to inform about the European Year for Cultural Heritage 2018 cultural associations, the local governance and institutions working on tourism, “traditional agro-food producers”, environmental education centres and other heritage-related institutions. There, the DMCH informed the attendees about i) what the European Year for Cultural Heritage 2018 is, ii) the procedure of how heritage related organisation could incorporate their events and activities in the schedule of the activities of the European Year for Cultural Heritage 2018 and be allowed to use its logo, and iii) how the institutions could collaborate with DMCH in the valorisation of Intangible Cultural Heritage through these activities.

The event attracted many representatives of Intangible Cultural Heritage institutions which have inscribe an element on (Greek) National list of Intangible Cultural Heritage as well as others who are working towards the inscriptions of an element. The audience had many questions and was keen to receive the European Year for Cultural Heritage as it was seen as a way to disseminate their activities, help the safeguarding of their element and possibly attract some economic capital that will be ‘invested’ in safeguarding activities.

It was an event which the UNESCO Friction project was present looking at the ways that the implementation of the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage could crossover with European policies and their implementation. 2018 will be a very active year in Europe that discussions about Cultural Heritage will reemerge and the UNESCO Friction project will continue to analyse the creative frictions which will arise from the crossovers of transnational policies with National ones as well as with practices of the local actors.

CfP: Heritage, beyond materiality: intangible cultural heritage, collaborative methodologies and imaginations of the future

We would like to invite you to submit your paper proposals to the panel ‘Heritage, beyond materiality: intangible cultural heritage, collaborative methodologies and imaginations of the future ‘(P063). The panel is part of the Royal Anthropological Institute
(RAI)’s conference, The Art, Materiality and Representation, which will take place between the 1st and the 3rd of June 2018 at the British Museum, Clore Centre and SOAS, Senate
House.

The panel discusses the ways in which Intangible Cultural Heritage is defined, shaped and recognised by communities, researchers and policy-makers and the collaborations and creative (or not) frictions between them at local, national and international levels. Below you can find a more detailed overview of the panel and its scope.

Abstract:

This panel explores the relationship between Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), collaborative methodologies and local identity construction. The analytical drive of this panel is that of looking at ideas of heritage not only through museum representation but through the practices themselves: the ways in which the ‘immaterial’ itself is constitutive of local and international representations of identity and belonging. Therefore, a central focus point is the shaping and understanding of ICH on a local level: the ways in which ICHs are defined, shaped and recognised by communities, local and interventional.

A second aim of the panel is to better understand the collaborative relationships embedded within ICH knowledge-making in connection with the collaborative (and, at times, conflictual) relationships between the former and the practices of defining them as ICH.

We therefore invite papers that engage critically with the ways in which ICHs are defined, shaped and reshaped locally, as well as with the political implications of these processes. Some questions to be explore can be: What are the consequences of economic and other forms of ‘crisis’ regarding ICH? How do members of local communities themselves shape the discourse surrounding practices and knowledge deemed as ICH as well as the forms of participation in ICH policy-making? Finally, can ICH be a platform through which a broader, global connection is established between communities sharing similar practices?

We welcome both theoretical and ethnographic studies of ICH, with a particular focus placed on collaboration between local communities, researchers and policy-makers.

*The Call for Papers is now open. It closes on 8 January 2018.*

All proposals must be sent via the online form that can be found on the
panel page: http://nomadit.co.uk/rai/events/rai2018/conferencesuite.php/panels/6120

Proposals should consist of a paper title, a (very) short abstract of 300
characters and an abstract of 250 words. On submission the proposal, the
proposing author will receive automated email confirming receipt. If you do
not receive this email, please first check the login environment (click
login on the left on the conference website) to see if your proposal is
there. If it is, it simply means confirmation got spammed or lost; and if
it is not, it means you need re-submit, as process went wrong somewhere.

Proposals will be marked as pending until the end of the Call for papers.
Decisions on the papers proposed will be communicated by 20 January 2018.
If you have any questions about the panel or the submission process, please do not hesitate to contact one of the panel convenors below

Many thanks,
The convenors

Raluca Roman (University of St Andrews), rr44@st-andrews.ac.uk

Panas Karampampas (EHESS), p.karampampas@ehess.fr

When research impacts governance unintentionally

By Simone Toji

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In being simultaneously an official responsible for the national intangible cultural heritage policy in São Paulo/ Brazil and a researcher of the UNESCO frictions project, some activities I get involved may gain unexpected developments.

Because one of the main questions in the project refers to the problem of scales, I began by observing the intangible cultural heritage policies at the municipal and state level in São Paulo.

In Brazil, cities and states are autonomous bodies that together with the federal government compose the Federative Republic of Brazil. In this way, cities and states have their own executive, legislative and legal branches, which are concurrent to and, to a certain extent, independent from the federal government.

In the case of the intangible cultural heritage, cities and states in Brazil are creating their own intangible cultural heritage initiatives.

Historically, the Brazilian federal government, through its Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional (IPHAN), was the first to establish an intangible cultural heritage policy with national scope in 2000. Since then, numerous cities and states in Brazil have been tailoring their own local and regional policies.

The city of São Paulo and the state of São Paulo are examples of this tendency. Both of them approved legislation towards intangible cultural heritage in 2007 and 2011 respectively.

In order to understand how intangible cultural heritage policies were being developed at the state and municipal levels, I requested access to materials and files at the organisations appointed to implement the mentioned policies. The Departamento do Patrimônio Histórico (DPH) works on the municipal level, while the Unidade de Preservação  do Patrimônio Histórico (UPPH), on the state one.

My visits to learn from the documents of these two organisations raised the interest from DPH’s and UPPH’s directors and officials for establishing a partnership with IPHAN, as I am an IPHAN’s civil servant too. Staff from both organisations believes that IPHAN has a more consolidated intangible cultural heritage policy and assume that they can gain expertise from IPHAN’s experience.

For IPHAN, this can be an opportunity to discuss cultural heritage policies as a system of collaboration and possible distribution of responsibilities in the field of intangible cultural heritage governance.

The convergence of all these interests led to the installation of a work group on intangible cultural heritage in São Paulo on the 3rd of August 2017 under an agreement between IPHAN, DPH and UPPH, comprising officials from the three organisations.

This repercussion provides some food for thought. An UNESCO frictions project’s research activity – gathering documentation – resulted in the administrative decision of establishing collaboration between the three governmental organisations responsible for intangible cultural heritage policies at different levels in the national governance scale. As I am one of the appointed officials to participate in the work group as IPHAN representative, being at the same time a researcher in the UNESCO frictions project as well, some questions emerge:

  • Can my research abilities contribute to provide good and feasible proposals for the work group?
  • Can the experiences at the work group offer opportunities to observe phenomena on the topic of scales that otherwise would not be available?
  • At what points are the positions of official and researcher convergent or divergent?
  • Can my colleagues in the work group become research partners?

These will be some interrogations to be faced from now on by me and the work group.