Abstract
Partnership and dialogue are central concepts in na- tional heritage management. This article problema- tizes the concepts on the basis of a theme project con- ducted in a high school, where the aim has been to give the pupils insight into history-making processes. The school project was carried out as part of the public activity in a major contract archaeology project. The text has a self-reflexive perspective, analysing mobili- zation processes in connection with the establishment and implementation of the theme project. The article shows the pragmatic attitude of the institutional ac- tors to different educational ideals, with partnership as an instrument on its own in terms of market as- pects. This raises ethical questions about the pupils and the conditions for the desired partnership.
Highlights
“Think in time” – this is how the Swedish state authority responsible for matters of cultural heritage, the National Heritage Board (Riksantikvarieämbetet, RAÄ), formulates its vision of the future
In the preface to the brochure presenting the strategy, the director-general of the Board states that “[g]reater emphasis will be placed on clarity of advice, dialogue, partnership, strategic engagement and involvement in a wider range of societal issues”
When we went to one meeting imagining that it had already been decided to carry out the theme project and that the meeting would focus on arranging the different stages of the work in a timetable, instead we found that we had to take one step back
Summary
“Think in time” – this is how the Swedish state authority responsible for matters of cultural heritage, the National Heritage Board (Riksantikvarieämbetet, RAÄ), formulates its vision of the future. The context was a major line project in contract archaeology In the dialogue it became obvious how tensions between national legislation and administration, institutional structures and interests, scholarly questions and methods, the wishes and expectations of the local community, and personal interests create situations that are difficult to handle. Both in the heritage discourse and in scholarly archaeology, a great deal of energy has been expended on developing practices and debating the conflict between, on the one hand, a representative system based on the administration’s defining and selecting of history, and on the other hand, a direct democracy proceeding from the idea of the potential and. The desired dialogue and partnership cause friction in the everyday work, and uncertainty and frustration which the archaeologist expressed as follows: “All this talk about dialogue, it’s a kind of, it gets like, it’s sort of a rubbish word that sounds so bloody good, but how do you go about it, I mean?” (Gruber 2010:182)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
