Monthly Archives: October 2015

CFP: “Patrimonialisation des savoirs médicaux: vers une reconfiguration des ressources thérapeutiques” (Montreal, juin 2016)

Appel à contributions pour l’Atelier “Patrimonialisation des savoirs médicaux: vers une reconfiguration des ressources thérapeutiques” que nous organisons au sein du troisième congrès de l’Association of Critical Heritage Studies qui aura lieu à Montréal, 7-10 juin 2016.    

Les propositions peuvent être soumises en français ou en anglais sur le site du congrès : https://achs2016.uqam.ca/secure/submitAbstract.php

Date d’échéance de l’appel à communications : 1er novembre 2015 

Pour tout renseignement, merci de contacter les organisateurs de la session: Serena Bindi : serena.bindi@parisdescartes.fr et Lucia Candelise : lucia.candelise@unige.ch

 PATRIMONIALISATION DES SAVOIRS MÉDICAUX : VERS UNE RECONFIGURATION DES RESSOURCES THÉRAPEUTIQUES.

Session organisée par Serena Bindi (université Paris Descartes, CANTHEL) et Lucia Candelise (université de Genève, CECMC et CETCOPRA)
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 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, à quelque niveau que 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 savoirs ou des pratiques médicaux au niveau local sont souvent en relation avec les ouvertures 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 session traiteront des formes de patrimonialisation et de transfert de savoirs médicaux en différents continents et en différents contextes nationaux. Le but de cette session sera d’ouvrir à nouveaux échanges et nouvelles contributions notre travail qui avait donné lieu à la publication commune du dossier thématique de la revue Anthropologie & Santé en juin 2013 (https://anthropologiesante.revues.org/1043 ) 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. 

CFP: Symposium on Heritage Conservation in China

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS

2016 International Symposium
‘Reclaiming Identity and (Re)Materializing Pasts: Approaches to Heritage Conservation in China’
6-8 April 2016

The deadline for submission of abstracts is extended to 30 October 2015.

The Xi’an-Jiaotong Liverpool University, China and the University of Liverpool, UK are organising an exciting international symposium on ‘Reclaiming Identity and (Re)Materializing Pasts: Approaches to Heritage Conservation in China’.  The symposium will take place from 6 April to 8 April 2016 and will be held in Xi’an Jiatong-Liverpool University (XJTLU) in Suzhou on the east coast of China.  The symposium is free of charge to delegates whose papers are accepted for presentation.  Travelling and accommodation costs may be fully or partially covered by the organising committee.   We intend to publish selected papers in book form.  Abstracts of 300-400 words should be submitted by the 30 October 2015 to heritageofchina2016@xjtlu.edu.cn. For more information about the symposium, please visit the official website:http://upd.xjtlu.edu.cn/heritageofchina2016

CONFERENCE THEMES

We invite original papers for submission that address and/or challenge the following questions under the proposed three sub-themes:

Sub-theme 1. Sanitised Narratives of Heritage.
This theme explores the ways in which historic places or heritage sites are interpreted and re-materialised in the present so to construct narratives of cultural belonging and identity, and/or the strategies and measures employed in heritage management to validate a sanitised narrative of a Reinterpreted Past, Reinvented Past, or Disremembered Past.

Sub-theme 2. Politics of Heritage
This theme examines the political role of heritage and focuses on the extrinsic values of historical buildings and places, where heritage is deemed a process of political choices and negotiation about what relics of the past are chosen to be remembered (or forgotten) and protected and by whom. Papers may address the aspect of Contested Heritage, Democratisation of Heritage, or Unorthodox Chinese-ness.

Sub-theme 3. Commodification of Heritage
This theme explores the notion of heritage as “cultural goods”; commodities to be bought and sold as part of the tourism industry.  Papers may draw on the notion of a false or erroneous depiction of the past which questions the Western understanding of authenticity.  Questions may relate to Selling the Past/Place, Valorisation of Heritage, or Disneyfication of Heritage.

IMPORTANT DATES

Extended Deadline for Abstract Submission:            Friday 30 October 2015
Notification of Abstract Acceptance:       Monday 16 November 2015
Deadline for Presentation Paper:             Friday 22 January 2016
Notification of Presentation Acceptance:              Monday 22 February 2016
Symposium:       Wednesday 6 April to Friday 8 April 2016
Final Paper:        Friday 10 June 2016

ORGANISING COMMITTEE

Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University / Dr. Yi-Wen Wang, Department of Urban Planning and Design
University of Liverpool / Dr. Carol Ludwig, Department of Geography and Planning

Workshop: L’exposition dans l’horizon de l’enquête-collecte, 6 novembre 2015, Séminaire 2015-2018, La collecte ethnographique dans les musées de société, MuCEM-IDEMEC

Séminaire pluriannuel (2015-2018)

La collecte ethnographique dans les musées de société

Sous la direction de Véronique Dassié, Aude Fanlo, Cyril Isnart et Florent Molle.

 

Le projet de collecte ethnographique est au cœur d’enjeux complexes qui interpellent la relation recherche-musée. Sélectionner des objets au nom de l’ethnographie pose en effet de nouvelles contraintes aux professionnels du patrimoine. S’agit-il seulement de rassembler des vestiges épars qui ont échappé aux vicissitudes du temps, ou d’identifier au sein d’un ensemble incommensurable ce qui est digne d’être conservé, autrement dit, exsuder le patrimoine de demain ? Comment repérer au sein d’une production de traces infinie ce qui pourra faire patrimoine pour la postérité ? La difficulté est d’autant plus flagrante à propos d’objets ordinaires et contemporains pour lesquels une lecture patrimoniale n’est pas toujours partagée.

 

En partenariat avec le pôle recherche-musée de l’IDEMEC

 

Première séance: 6 novembre 2015, MuCEM, Site du Fort Saint-Jean, I2MP, Marseille

Entrée libre sur inscription :i2mp@mucem.org

L’exposition dans l’horizon de l’enquête-collecte 

Les musées de société recourent à l’enquête ethnographique pour recueillir des objets témoins des sociétés étudiées. Quelles spécificités induit ce dispositif particulier, qui conduit de l’enquête de terrain à l’exposition dans les vitrines d’un musée ?

Programme :

Introduction : Collecter aujourd’hui, contextes et renouveau de l’enquête collecte

Par Véronique Dassié, ethnologue, IDEMEC (CNRS-AMU)

 

Le dispositif d’enquête collecte au MuCEM, à propos d’une enquête en cours sur le football

Par Florent Molle, conservateur, MuCEM

 

Saisir et collecter la « matérialité religieuse ». Retour d’expérience de l’exposition « Lieux saints partagés »

Par Dionigi Albera et Manoël Pénicaud, ethnologues, IDEMEC (CNRS-AMU)

 

Enquête sur le carnaval de Nice : un ethnologue face aux objets

Par Antonin Chabert, attaché de conservation, Musée de Salagon, doctorant en ethnologie, IDEMEC (CNRS-AMU),

 

La première séance est organisée en partenariat avec Valérie Feschet.

FP: ACHS Montreal, Canada 7-10 June: Borders of Heritage/Frontieres du Patrimoine

Call for papers at The Association of Critical Heritage Studies Conference in Montreal, Canada (7-10 June 2016) https://achs2016.uqam.ca/en/

Session OS090: Borders of Heritage/ Frontières du Patrimoine

Session Organizer: Dr Astrid Swenson, Brunel University London,

Contact: astrid.swenson@brunel.ac.uk

Please submit a 600 words abstract in French or English through the conference website (https://achs2016.uqam.ca/secure/submitAbstract.php).

The deadline for submission of abstracts is  November 1st, 2015.

All papers submitted will be peer reviewed through a process managed by ACHS2016 scientific committee.

Panel Abstract:

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 the panel 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, second 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: Which 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 panel 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 the panel invites contributions from scholars 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.

FP: Critical Heritage Theory: Foundational Cores and Innovative Edges, Association of Critical Heritage Studies Third Biannual Conference Montreal, Canada, June 7-10 2016

Critical Heritage Theory: Foundational Cores and Innovative Edges

Session for the Association of Critical Heritage Studies

Third Biannual Conference

Montreal, Canada, June 7-10 2016

http://achs2016.uqam.ca/en/

Critical Heritage Theory: Foundational Cores and Innovative Edges

Organizers:

Kathryn Lafrenz Samuels (University of Maryland) and

Melissa F. Baird (Michigan Technological University)

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.

Please forward a short abstract to Kathryn Lafrenz Samuels (lafrenzs@umd.edu) or Melissa Baird (mfbaird@mtu.edu) if interested in contributing to the session.

CFP: Empathy and indifference, Association of Critical Heritage Studies Conference, Montreal, Canada (7-10 June 2016)

Conference session, Association of Critical Heritage Studies Conference, Montreal, Canada (7-10 June 2016) https://achs2016.uqam.ca/en/

Empathy and indifference – emotional/affective routes to and away from compassion

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 affect our lives, identity and wellbeing. This session focuses on the issue of empathy, the emotional and imaginative skill to place oneself 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 an individual and societal indifference to the marginalized. Conversely, others have argued that empathy is key to overturning indifference and effecting political and social changes. Overall, this session asks what role(s) 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 about 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 papers that explicitly address not just the emotional content of heritage practices, but clearly explore 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 well-being.

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, mobilize particular suites of emotional and affective responses to the past;
  • how communities or other groups who propose non-authorized versions of heritage/history utilize 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.

Enquires: gary.campbell2105@sky.com or Laurajane.smith@anu.edu.au

Please submit a 600 word abstract in French or English through the conference website: https://achs2016.uqam.ca/secure/submitAbstract.php

The deadline for submission of abstracts is November 1st, 2015.

All papers submitted will be peer reviewed through a process managed by ACHS2016 scientific committee.

CFP “Heritage Shifts in East Asia”, ACHS 2016, Deadline 1 November 2015

Heritage Shifts in East Asia: Communication between Global Policies and Local Practices

Association for Critical Heritage Studies, Third Biennial Conference in Montreal, 6th – 10th June 2016.

Deadline for Call for Papers: 1st November 2015.

Panel Description:

To date, there has been much scholarly discussion and critique about 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 that region. 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 populations interact with them? How are they professionally translated and interpreted and popularly imagined and practised 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.”

All interested paper presenters are invited to submit a paper abstract by completing the electronic form a thttps://achs2016.uqam.ca/secure/submitAbstract.php

Submissions include:

– an abstract of 600 words outlining the topic or main argument, its relation to one of the themes of the conference (or to a specific session) and its interest in the field of critical heritage studies.

– a brief resume (biographical notice and main publications) of no more than 300 words.

**All papers submitted will be peer reviewed through a process managed by ACHS 2016 scientific committee.***

You are welcome to contact Panel Organizer, Dr. William Nitzky, wnitzky@csuchico.edu, and Panel Co-organizer, Dr. Yujie Zhu, yujie.zhu@anu.edu.au, if you have any questions regarding the panel or your submission.

More information is available on conference website at: achs2016.uqam.ca

CFP: Challenging a discourse of difference – heritage in Asia and Europe, ACHS, June 2016, Montreal

Challenging a discourse of difference – heritage in Asia and Europe

Association of Critical Heritage Studies conference

Montreal 6-10 June 2016.

All interested paper presenters are invited to submit an abstract (max 600 words) by completing the electronic form at https://achs2016.uqam.ca/secure/submitAbstract.php
Deadline for submitting abstracts is 1 November 2015
All paper abstracts submitted will be peer reviewed through a process managed by ACHS 2016 scientific committee.

General information about the conference at https://achs2016.uqam.ca

Please send any enquiries regarding the session or your submission to:
Anna Källén, anna.kallen@ark.su.se , or Anna Karlström, anna.karlstrom@konstvet.uu.se

Session abstract:

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 internationalised 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 politicisation of heritage today, both at the local and national level 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.

 

 

CFP: Maverick Heritages. Ugliness, Discomfort and Illegality in the Political and Social Construction of Heritage, ACHS conference, Montreal 2016

Conference session

Association of Critical Heritage Studies Conference, Montreal, Canada (7-10 June 2016)

https://achs2016.uqam.ca/en/

Maverick Heritages. Ugliness, Discomfort and Illegality in the Political and Social Construction of Heritage

Convenors: Cristiana Panella (Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren) and Walter Little (University at Albany, SUNY)

cristiana.panella@africamuseum.be

wlittle@albany.edu

With regard to the main question of the 3rd ACHS Biannual 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 heritization 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 panel 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 themselves, 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 the 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 panel 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 establishingethical 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.

Please submit a 600 word abstract in French or English through the conference website:

https://achs2016.uqam.ca/secure/submitAbstract.php

The deadline for submission of abstracts is November 1st, 2015.

Mise en patrimoine et recomposition de régimes de savoir. Ethnographies d’expériences indigènes, Montréal, ACHS 2016.

Anath Ariel de Vidas (CNRS-CERMA-Mondes Américains) et Valentina Vapnarsky (CNRS-EREA-LESC)

https://achs2016.uqam.ca

Mise en patrimoine et recomposition de régimes de savoir.

Ethnographies d’expériences indigènes.

Séance proposée par Anath ARIEL DE VIDAS et Valentina VAPNARSKY pour 

The Conference of the Association for Critical Heritage Studies (ACHS), June 6th-10th 2016, Montréal.

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 pour les espaces méso et sud américains et encore moins pour les sociétés amérindiennes. Au sein de ces groupes, les conceptions de ce qui doit être conservé ou être 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 européano-centré. Par ailleurs, suite à 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 pour les 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 travaillées au sein du projet FABRIQ’AM (http://fabriqam.hypotheses.org). 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 sur 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/artefacts (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.

 

Les communications pourront être présentées en anglais ou en français.