ABSTRACT
The central arguments of this chapter are based on several assumptions established in the heritage literature. 1 First of all, any discussion of heritage needs to acknowledge its temporality as well as constructed nature. The making of heritage is a process of cherry-picking from the stockpile of the past those aspects of history that are complementary to the needs of the present (Lowenthal 1985; Harvey 2001; Smith 2006). Second, no artefact or practice by and of itself is heritage and heritagization is a process where a constellation of dynamics are at play through which a given phenomenon is attributed as bearing the quality of heritage. As such, it is the interplay between the political and cultural aspirations of a community and “authorizing institutions of heritage” (Smith 2006: 87–114) through which an artefact or a practice is made, constructed and infused with meaning as heritage (Bendix 2009). This interplay between the local and the global has been the driving force of the global heritage industry, crystalized through UNESCO’s list-making politics of world heritage, with its implications of inclusion and exclusion (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2004; Hafstein 2009; Smith and Akagawa 2009b). Third, all heritage, material or otherwise, is intangible (Smith 2006: 56); particularly so as it is not the heritage object per se, but its value and prominence for a given community, which is not only impalpable, but also malleable across time (Munjeri 2004). It is the dynamic relationship between the heritage material and heritage audience that is heavily influenced by social and cultural change.
