Characterizing the Cold War: Music and Memories of Berlin, 1960–1989

Abstract

During my recent transition (in 2010) from the heritage sector to higher education, with an attendant shift of focus from heritage practice to an emphasis more on its theoretical foundations, I have had the opportunity to rethink earlier work, and examine — often se If-critically — how practice measures up to social needs and expectations: to what extent are ‘heritage communities’ (defined recently under Faro (Council of Europe 2005, Article 2) as consisting of ‘people who value specific aspects of cultural heritage which they wish, within the framework of public action, to sustain and transmit to future generations’) effectively represented by and in the heritage sector? My conclusion is that they are, but only to a certain degree. The heritage sector does represent the public interest through promoting understanding and awareness of the past, and protecting some key resources for the benefit of this and future generations. But heritage suffers (as it has always suffered, arguably) from representing only specific versions of the past: those that refer, simply, to the great and the good, the special and the iconic, the nationally important and the outstanding. This means that heritage may only seem relevant to a subset of the population. This selective approach has been effectively and comprehensively critiqued by Laurajane Smith — in her various assaults on the ‘authorized heritage discourse’ (e.g., 2006) and in the Faro Convention (Council of Europe, 2005), which recognizes the need to put ‘all people and human values at the centre of an enlarged and cross-disciplinary concept of cultural heritage’, and is convinced of the need to involve ‘everyone in society in the ongoing process of defining and managing cultural heritage’.