Source #6: Heritage as Life-Values: A Study of the Cultural Heritage Concept

Introduction: The Heritage Stampede and the Need for a New Perspective

The world is currently experiencing a "heritage stampede," with diverse stakeholders, including nations, global organizations, NGOs, terrorists, and ordinary people, laying claim to heritage and the past. There is an urgent need to understand the function of heritage in everyday contexts, and this article aims to contribute to this discussion by analyzing the concept of heritage from theoretical and analytical perspectives, tracing its evolution from a Swedish and European viewpoint. The authors argue that the current concept of heritage could significantly benefit from the introduction of "life-values," not as a replacement, but as an enrichment to bring heritage into the 21 ext{st} century. The study is based on fieldwork conducted in Albania, with keywords including Albania, concepts of culture, cultural heritage, historiography, and life-values.

A Semantic Analysis of Culture and Heritage

The Word 'Culture' (kultur)

In Swedish, kultur (culture) and arv (legacy) are generally understood without dispute in everyday use. However, when combined into kulturarv (cultural heritage), its meaning becomes complex, diffuse, ambiguous, and seemingly loses semantic clarity. The word kultur exists in similar forms across modern Germanic languages, such as German Kultur, Dutch cultuur, and English culture. In Icelandic, a conservative language with fewer loan words, menning means 'development, progress and increase', analogous to Old Norse menning which meant 'education, fostering'. Menning is a nominalization of the verb menna, 'to make a man out of someone, breed', suggesting an early patriarchal order due to the stress on 'man'. Culture originates from the Latin cultura, meaning 'cultivation, care; husbandry', derived from the verb colere (or quelere) 'to cultivate, till; inhabit; protect, nurture; honour, worship'. This implies activities closely linked to place and place attachment, associated with rituals and spirituality. Cultivation also extends to cultivating one's mind and intellect and caring for others' development, particularly children's education, aligning with the Icelandic menning, as noted by Kirsten Hastrup. Colere/quelere traces back to the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) *kwel- ('to move [oneself], to turn [around], rotate'). Cognates include Ancient Greek πέλω (pelö) 'I move, walk, I am, I become', and Sanskrit चरति (cârati) with over 26 meanings, primarily 'to move, walk; spread, be diffused (as fire)'. Old Armenian հոլով (holov) 'circular movement, circulation' led to English 'wheel' and Swedish 'hjul'. Despite semantic changes over time, culture has a remarkable continuity, possibly dating back to 7000 BC, revolving around movement, process, progress, and cultivating the land.

The Word 'Legacy' (arv)

Swedish arv, Danish arv, Norwegian arv, and Icelandic arfr originate from Old Norse arfr (Old Swedish arf), closely related to German Erbe 'heritage, heir'. Old English ierfe/yrfe 'heritage, cattle' and English/Dutch erf are also related. These words connect to Latin orbus and Ancient Greek ὀρφανός (orphanos) 'orphan, childless', as well as Sanskrit आर्भ (ârbha) 'small' and Old Armenian որբ (orb) 'orphan'. All these words trace back to PIE *h3orbh- 'orphan, slave' (Fortson IV). Julius Pokorny suggests PIE *orbho- and adds 'weak, abandoned', linking it to words for 'work, to work, poor' (Swedish arbete, arbeta, arm) and Czech robot from Proto-Slavonic *orbota 'hard work, slavery'. Ancient Greek also includes the meaning of 'bereft', and Latin 'widowed'. Wessén argues that the original meaning of arv 'legacy' is 'orphan'. Separately, Latin heres 'heir' and Ancient Greek χῆρος (khëros) 'widower' originate from PIE *ghë-/ghêi- 'to be empty, to miss, leave behind'. Latin heres and its derivation hereditas lead to English heir and heritage, which is often used as the official term for cultural heritage. In their original meanings, both words (heritage/arv) reside in concepts of emptiness and desolation—something left behind. This "left behind" can be discovered and filled with meanings that convey values for future generations. From a phenomenological viewpoint, cultural heritage precedes itself, similar to how an object precedes its naming, conveying value even without a specific name.

The Complexity of 'Kulturarv' (Cultural Heritage)

While culture and legacy maintain steady semantic meanings (movement, process, progress, cultivating land), their combination into kulturarv makes the meaning and implementation complex and difficult to grasp.

Cultural Heritage with Patriarchal Overtones

Kulturarv (cultural heritage) is still used in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, although this may be changing in Sweden, as indicated by the Swedish government law Kulturmiljöns mångfald (2014) (The Diversity of the Cultural Environment) which barely mentions kulturarv. This conceptual shift away from heritage may mean it's no longer a central analytical vehicle for understanding the past from a political perspective. Iceland, however, uses menningararfur (menning-'culture' [-ar-]-arfur 'legacy'). While Sweden and Germany use direct equivalents for "world heritage" (världsarv [Swe.], Welterbe [Germ.]), Iceland uses heimsminjar, which originally meant 'home-monument/home memory/-memorial/home-remembrance'. The Netherlands uses Werelderfgoed, which semantically combines erf 'heritage' and goed 'property/commodity', indicating a material dimension. The World Heritage Convention's official emblem, with Spanish Patrimonio Mundial and French Patrimoine Mondial, clearly shows patriarchal overtones. Patrimonio originates from Latin, meaning 'patrimony, fatherly heritage, fatherly descent' (pater 'father'). Historically, heritage was tied solely to male inheritance (father to son) of material and immaterial resources. While the concept has broadened over the last 60 years, it still carries connotations of male inheritance. From this perspective, the omission of the heritage concept in the Swedish Cultural Environment law (2014) is seen as an advantage.

The Qualities of Heritages

Aronsson argues that heritage in the 21 ext{st} century is "everywhere and therefore nowhere," similarly to how Hannerz (1993) described culture in the 1990s. This omnipresence creates ambivalence, intertwined with its theorization, globalization, and overuse. Heritage has a documented history in Sweden since the 17 ext{th} century, with churches, monuments, and antiquities legally protected. In 1666, the Antikvitetskollegiet (Board of Antiquities) took responsibility for protecting both material and immaterial heritage. Carl von Linné (1707-78) showed great interest, driving the collection and 'discovery' of economically viable heritage. Arthur Hazelius, founder of Skansen (the world's first outdoor museum), collected the "legacy" (not yet "heritage") of the Swedish people, focusing on the allmoge (peasants/country people) to preserve their values in a rapidly changing society. His work formed the basis of the Nordic Museum's 400-year collection of Swedish cultural history. In 1918, the scientific discipline of Nordic and Comparative Ethnology was founded. This history leads to today's "heritage crusade" (Lowenthal) and post-modern statements like "There is no such thing as heritage" (Smith). Heritage succumbs to complexity, diffuseness, and ambiguity, raising questions about its justification if it has lost semantic meaning. Cultural heritage exists within a context of contestation because it is an objective concept representing subjective and intersubjective notions. Cultural heritages (in plural) are symbolic constitutions of tangible and intangible elements, such as a statue, landscape, dance, or museum object. Their symbolism lies in their qualities as cultural, social, and economic products and political resources, representing diverse values and thoughts. "Dissonant Heritage," a term coined by Ashworth and Tunbridge, arises from different opinions on a particular cultural heritage, leading to disagreement.

A Phenomenological Approach to Cultural Heritage – Use and Abuse

From a phenomenological perspective, each individual has the power to select phenomena that transmit values in their lifeworld, but this is tempered by societal interrelations. Individuals must relate to others and to an everyday reality shaped by social, cultural, and historical contexts, including conventions and typifications (entrenched patterns of behavior). This leads to a duality: a subjective aspect where many subjective opinions create either heritage with intersubjective meanings or dissonant heritage; and an objective aspect, which involves heritages established and valued through an interpretative prerogative within a power discourse. The Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD), coined by Laurajane Smith and Emma Waterton, refers to the official discourse around heritage, exemplified by UNESCO World Heritage Sites and ICOMOS definitions. The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage determines what constitutes potential world heritage, with "heritage experts" such as museum professionals, archaeologists, historians, and architects negotiating its constitution and values. These experts claim unique ability, knowledge, and understanding to identify values deemed "intrinsic to heritage." This objective heritage is an official version, part of everyday conventions, and thus acts as an obstacle to the general public, where objectified phenomena and official heritages can manipulate subjects, creating false intersubjective or collective heritages. Smith further describes AHD as a historicist discourse focused on aesthetic objects, sites, and landscapes that contemporary people must protect, preserve, and honor for future generations, aiming to force a common identity based on the past. AHD defines heritage with "boundedness" as material structures with distinct boundaries, manageable in national and international archives and security systems. This idea originates from national romantic concepts of national identity, marginalizing sub-national socio-cultural groups and their values, and seeks to obviate alternative interpretations of heritage. People outside this discourse are relegated to roles of uncritical visitors or passive consumers in heritage mass tourism. AHD operates with a Foucauldian "art of government," where the protection of the discourse and its relation to properties, territories, and citizens forms the ultimate work; this exercise of power involves identifying risks and manipulating power relations to secure the discourse. The core problem is the interpretative prerogative and its ability to be retained as a discursive element through Foucauldian governmentality. Cultural heritage can be criticized for often being dissonant, leading to semantic paradoxes about what constitutes heritage if individuals don't recognize it or depart from AHD's meanings. This includes "Uninherited Heritage" (Grydehoj), which exists but is not recognized or claimed by individuals, and "Inherited Non-heritage"—phenomena that are culturally inherited but not officially proclaimed as heritage sites, such as bunkers and communist-era buildings in Mount Dajti National Park, Albania. Authorized heritages risk being standardized, restricting people's ability to find phenomena that attract them. Authorities can influence subjective choices, leading to authorized heritages with values not native to them. World Heritage sites are often tourist attractions, raising questions about whether their popularity stems from the "heritage label" or intrinsic attraction. Commercial interests can drive heritage nominations, even against local hostility, undermining socio-cultural values implicitly linked to inheritance. Moreover, interpretative prerogative contradicts democratic values, as democracy, as a product of human activity, should also be considered a cultural expression if cultural heritage involves transmitting cultural phenomena.

The Universality of Cultural Heritage – A Western Invention

Smith and Waterton note that many scholars claim the idea of universal values inherent in world heritage is a Western invention, citing the World Heritage Convention as evidence, which suggests universal values are best realized through European monuments. Indeed, the World Heritage List is predominantly composed of monumental heritage in European countries. The idea that heritage represents universally good, secure, and undisputed values is paradoxical. Its value can be modified, negotiated, interpreted, reinterpreted, and rejected, thus not being innate, authentic, or objective. The potential to become world heritage (e.g., on UNESCO's tentative lists, pre-world heritage or tentatively universal) disproves truly universal values. Universal values exist within shifting societal and political trends, meaning heritage cannot be fixed and factual while simultaneously changeable; instead, it is about "interpreted facts" (Schütz). Furthermore, heritage can be dissonant (disputed and non-universal), negating the need to obviate alternative notions if values were truly universal. Heritage nominations can also create targets in wars and conflicts, leading to destruction. The world contains diverse cultures, people, interests, and conceptions of life (lifeworlds). In lifeworlds in crisis, people prioritize survival, and cultural and national identities are luxury items for the poor (Jackson), potentially generating "mixed heritage" or "hybrid heritage" (Barbro Klein, Bendix). Heritage is not objectively collective because not everyone recognizes it as such; it should be accessible to anyone to decide its meaning for themselves.

An Interview Study of the Concepts of Culture and Cultural Heritage

To clarify the complexity of cultural heritage, a qualitative interview study was conducted to examine foreign museum visitors' notions of culture, cultural heritage, and intangible heritage. Interviews were held at the National History Museum in Tirana, Albania, during June 2013, with a total of 72 interviewees (36 male, 36 female). Demographic data such as gender, age, nationality, and occupation showed no clear patterns and were therefore excluded from the article. The study utilized semi-structured, open-ended questions including: "When you hear the word culture/cultural heritage, what is the first thing(s) that comes to your mind?" and "Are you familiar with the concept of intangible/immaterial heritage?" (followed by "What could that be?" / "What do you think it could be?"). Responses were divided into five categories based on connotative orientation: Materiality, Immateriality, Mix of materiality and immateriality, History, and Others (unfamiliar, no ideas, or not fitting other categories). The History variable was based on Lowenthal's theory which states that history lies in the past, involves passive study of predecessors and a search for 'truths', while cultural heritage is found in the immediate present, builds personal identity based on continuous values, and is valued for converting history into contemporary relevance, being vital and active rather than passively taught. From the results, 41 out of 72 interviewees (56.9 ext{%}) connected cultural heritage with historical aspects or the past. A significant 16 interviewees (22.2 ext{%}) also linked immaterial heritage to history, given the existing connections with cultural heritage or culture (18 out of 72 interviewees, 25 ext{%}). Schematically, the results indicated a general notion that culture is more immaterial than cultural heritage, with materiality often linked to history and the past, drawing parallels with AHD's "boundedness" of cultural heritage in distinct material structures. Contrary to Lowenthal's theory, some interviewees did not see heritage's role in the present, indicating a discourse gap between academic and non-academic understanding. Identity was a frequent answer across all three concepts (culture, cultural heritage, immaterial heritage), although none of the interviewees mentioned memory or commemoration, despite heritage studies associating cultural heritage with evoking memories for identity building. If cultural heritage isn't a definitive generator of collective identity or common values, then statements claiming it as such are too extreme and simplistic. The lack of explicit reference to concepts doesn't define their true nature, as interview responses can be shaped by rhetorical, verbal, and pragmatic aspects, linked to native language and the study's aim for spontaneous notions. The arbitrariness and ambiguities in concepts, revealed by the interviews, stem from an omnipresent individual lifeworld. Aronsson's idea that cultural heritage is "everywhere, and consequently, nowhere" leads to ambivalence, causing it to overlap with the more established culture concept. People "live the concepts" or even "before the concepts" themselves, not obliged to reflect on terminological or objective meanings, but rather on how things feel. This arbitrariness reflects a life situation under either authority control or subjective control, where the latter allows individuals to decide their own life-values.

Cultural Heritage as Life-Values – To Live Before Concepts

The general notion of culture today involves pluralistic ambiguities, as described by Jackson: invented and inherited, contested and recognized, textual and contextual, territorialized and deterritorialized, material and immaterial, high and low, local and global—all interwoven with historical, ethical, political, and practical perspectives. These ambiguities make culture diffuse, leading to its de-conceptualization, with Jackson suggesting culture becomes a single, united concept of distinct, abstract elements and thus not a proper term. In his view, "lifeworld" is a more useful concept to capture the dynamics of social fields, including ideas, passions, conflicts, and moral/ethical values/dilemmas, which cannot be measured by antitheses like true/false, real/unreal, objective/subjective, or rational/irrational. In its ambivalence and overlap with culture, cultural heritage is arguably just an expression of social behavior, whether tangible or intangible, inherited or un-inherited. It may therefore be pointless to call it "cultural heritage"; instead, focusing on different "life-values" might be more beneficial. Life-values are defined as phenomena (material objects or abstract elements) that provide people with life-enhancing meanings. They are not fixed but are expressions of subjective fulfillments, as each individual decides what is important, and are crucially free from interpretative prerogatives. These life-values are omnipresent and transcendent, moving beyond temporal and spatial constraints. They can be evoked through memories of the past and exist in the mind as expectations or hopes for the future. One life-value can include multiple narratives, events, processes, and associative thoughts, existing in different physical and non-physical places and times.

A Field Study of Mount Dajti National Park, Albania

The concept of cultural heritage is further analyzed by examining its relationship with natural heritage, landscape, and the cultural environment (as used in Swedish law) in the context of Mount Dajti National Park. This park is located 26 km east of Tirana, Albania's capital, and is a popular resort for locals, especially for snow in winter, and tourists. It is administered by the Tirana Forest Service Department.

A Walk in the Omnipresence of Concepts and the Presence of Life-Values

The journey to Mount Dajti National Park is accessed by a cable car from Tirana, leading to conspicuous mountain peaks where a "cultural heritage" spanning thousands of years, with visible traces of past lives, is embedded in a natural landscape. The cable car end station features restaurants, a hotel, and shops, with paths leading to a panorama outlook of Tirana and towards the mountain, lined with souvenir booths. Despite this setup, there is a striking lack of visitors, despite the prerequisites for mass tourism. At the mountain's foot lies a dilapidated hotel with a neglected, overgrown garden, which hides grey cement bunkers built during Enver Hoxha's communist era (1950s), estimated to be around 700,000 across the country (Howden: "paranoia dressed in cement and iron"). For some, these bunkers are materialized memories of oppression; for others, a glorious past. These isolated bunkers are de facto cultural legacies (heritage), but as they are unclaimed and unnoticed, they remain potential heritage rather than official. The park suffers from poor infrastructure, with no accessible information about trails or the national park for most tourists; information signs are damaged, and a purchased map is more an "absurdity" than a guide. A path further leads behind a huge, yellow housing complex with communist architectural history, which appears abandoned with empty window holes, yet people are moving items in, and clothes hang on lines, indicating current occupation. These elements—squatters in the house, an overgrown hotel, and bunker relics—suggest a failed dream of tourism, creating an unspoken and tacit heritage within an outspoken, but unconsidered, heritage milieu. The site raises questions about classifications: is it natural heritage, nature, nature and culture, natural/cultural landscape, natural/cultural milieu? Or simply a badly managed park with decaying contemporary heritage markers? DeSilvey (2006) suggests viewing decay as mutable things, adding new dimensions, and these non-official markers (bunkers, buildings in decay) might reveal more about Albania than an official natural/cultural heritage site. This creates a paradox: phenomena become inherited as 'non-heritage' – products of human activity left for the next generation but not officially labeled heritage. Here, the concept of heritage becomes semantically vague and arbitrary, making classification difficult. This again highlights the concept's complexity, overlapping character, and the ambivalence of cultural heritage (Aronsson)—omnipresent yet nowhere. It's hard to define what's at this place, but easy to describe how it feels as a subjective experience; the place is filled with dissonance, even if only between visitor and place. Following a path into the forest, with distant traditional Albanian music, eventually leads to a military zone, revealed by an armed soldier. After backtracking and hiking towards the highest peak (1613 m), the trees disappear, revealing a "most beautiful, deep and perfectly dimensioned view" in "surrealistic colours." At this moment, scientific concepts and definitions become irrelevant, as the "nature of cultural heritage and culture of natural heritage are in sublime harmony." The author chooses to ascribe individual characteristics to the view, rather than typifying it as landscape, and by absorbing its aesthetics, the visitor permanently 'intentionalizes' the view in mind and body (Husserl). The Mount Dajti National Park, despite its complexities, aligns with the original meaning of heritage and legacy – something left behind to be discovered and rediscovered, filled with meanings that convey values in the present and for future generations and visitors.

Conclusion (Implicit)

The study emphasizes the need to transcend rigid cultural heritage classifications and official narratives. By embracing the concept of life-values, which prioritize subjective meaning, emotional resonance, and individual experience, heritage can become more relevant and inclusive in the 21 ext{st} century, moving beyond its current ambiguities and patriarchal limitations.