The Scopic Feast of Heritage and the Invention of Unthreatening Diversity in Neoliberal Cities

Feras Hammami

doi:10.3390/heritage4030092

Abstract

This article explores the role that heritage might play in the representation of ‘difference’, within the context of neoliberal cities. The case is a large-scale urban change in the former working-class neighborhood of Gamlestaden, Sweden. Interviews and on-site observations revealed how authorized heritage practices can enable the celebration of particular social and cultural values, while naturalizing the erasure of others. People’s cultural diversity, and diverging interpretations of the past, have been guided by the power of heritage into a process of subjectification, according to which only ‘unthreatening’ forms of cultural diversity were celebrated and revealed legitimate. The ‘fetishized’ difference and particular historical records have served to conceal the political interest at stake in its’ production and maintenance, and led to a politicised representation of cultural diversity through what Annie Coombes’ terms ‘scopic feast’. All this was made possible through BID, the first neoliberal business improvement district model in Sweden, and its investment in a deeply rooted process of heritageisation. Uncritical engagement with difference in the context of heritage management and neoliberal urban development, make it appear almost natural to erase the cultural values that fall outside the authorized narrative of value.

Highlights

Cultural diversity and other notions of living together-in-difference are notably advocated in urban policies that celebrate ‘difference’ as a basis for the development of socially equal cities [1,2,3]
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with five civil servants, including the Project Manager of Gamlestaden Urban Restructuring (PM-GUR), the Director of the Eastern District of Gothenburg (D-EDG), the project leader at Archaeologerna (PL-A), the Director of the Real Estate Services Department (R-ESD), and an archaeologist from the County Administrative Board (A-CAB)
The findings from Gamlestaden uncovered under-researched dynamics of urban injustices, in which notions of living together-in-difference are used as policy tools, enabled and legitimated through a devalued/unnoticed entanglement between a process of heritageisation and models of neoliberal economic development

Summary

Introduction

Cultural diversity and other notions of living together-in-difference are notably advocated in urban policies that celebrate ‘difference’ as a basis for the development of socially equal cities [1,2,3]. Landscapes, and architecture are designed to enable innovative forms of social interaction, while cities host a wide range of cultural programs, including festivals, carnivals, Pride celebrations, and other religious events. Despite these efforts to make difference and cultural representations visible, scholars from diverse disciplines are concerned about an often-uncritical engagement with the underlining principles of diversity and inclusion and their conventional utility as sources of energy, legitimacy, and capital for urban change. Scholars of urban studies advocate the uses of diversity as a panacea for enduring urban problems—segregation, gentrification, displacement, representation, prejudice, fear, and other notions of inclusion/exclusion [11,12,13,14,15,16]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion