ABSTRACT
The original CH discourse has been criticized for its elitist nature. In this context, elitism is to be understood in at least two senses. The original Enlightened CH discourse was elitist because it favored what were considered to be the most outstanding cultural achievements only – most often those attached to the wishes and tastes of kings, emperors, religious authorities, tycoons, and other empowered people, thus disregarding the every-day expressions of popular culture. On the other hand, the original CH discourse was also elitist in that it was dominated by a group of experts, an intellectual elite that decided whether a particular cultural product was valuable enough to be considered CH without taking into account other opinions. Thus, the CH realm came to be seen as non-egalitarian and anti-democratic. Avoiding the problems of elitism was one of the driving forces behind the development of a non-axiological CH discourse. However, this has proved an elusive task. The non-axiological CH discourse transits through meandering pathways to avoid all forms of ‘elitism’ but ultimately fails to achieve this goal. It is the experts who necessarily shape and sustain the field: their authority is exerted, e.g., through the dissemination of the notion of CH, through CH designation, through the legitimization of communities, through filtering ideologically acceptable CH items, through musealization, conservation and safeguarding, and so forth.
