Cultural Heritage Discourses and Europeanisation Discursive Embedding of Cultural Heritage in Europe of the Regions
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Cultural heritage discourses and Europeanisation Discursive embedding of cultural heritage in Europe of the Regions Roel During Thesis committee Thesis supervisors: Prof.dr. A.N. van der Zande Professor of Spatial Planning and Cultural Heritage Wageningen University Prof. dr. K.A.M. van Assche Professor Land Use Planning, Planning & Culture St. Cloud State University, Minnesota USA Prof. dr. A.J.J. van der Valk Professor of Land Use Planning Wageningen University Other members Prof. dr. B.J.M. Arts, Wageningen University Prof. dr. Itamar Even-Zohar, Tel Aviv University, Israel Prof. dr. Tannelie Blom, University of Maastricht Prof. dr. Jan C.A. Kolen, VU University, Amsterdam This research was conducted under the auspices of the Mansholt Graduate School of Social Sciences 2 Cultural heritage discourses and Europeanisation Discursive embedding of cultural heritage in Europe of the Regions Roel During Thesis Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor at Wageningen University by the authority of the Rector Magnificus Prof. dr. M.J. Kropff, in the presence of the Thesis Committee appointed by the Academic Board to be defended in public on Tuesday 12 October 2010 at 13.30 in the Aula. Roel During Cultural heritage discourses and Europeanisation: Discursive embedding of cultural heritage in Europe of the Regions, 252 pages. Thesis Wageningen University, Wageningen, NL (2010) ISBN 978-90-8585-689-4 The research described in this thesis was supported by the Belvedere Educational Network Contents Preface i Summery iii 1 General introduction: competing ideological frames of Europeanisation and their implications for heritage 1 1.1. The European Union: history and heritage 1 1.2. Heritage: expressing the contradictions of “unity in diversity” 3 1.3. Conflicting claims on cultural heritage 4 1.4. Europeanisation and cultural policy 8 1.5. European regional policy and regional identity 13 1.6. Problem description and research questions 14 1.7. Methodology 16 2 Theoretical framework 27 2.1. Heritage: ontological and epistemological perspectives 27 2.2. Conceptual Framework 29 2.3. Theoretical account 34 2.3.1. On social system theory 35 2.3.2. Polysystem theory/repertoire 40 2.3.3. Convergence and compatibility of repertoire and function system 43 2.4. Auxiliary theoretical concepts 44 2.4.1. Governance 44 2.4.2. Multilevel governance 45 2.4.3. Spatial planning cultures 46 2.4.4. Political pluralism and subsidiarity 47 2.4.5. Discourse coalition 48 2.5. Analytical interpretive strategy and research tool 48 3 INTERREG and its environment of Europeanisation discourses 51 3.1. INTERREG: history and programmes 51 3.2. Europeanisation discourses 55 3.3. Governance discourses 61 3.4. Discourse of European regions and regional identity 64 3.5. European cultural heritage discourse 67 3.6. European identity versus regional identity 79 4 The Baltic Fort Route and its environment in Lithuania 85 4.1. INTERREG’s Baltic Fort Route project 85 4.2. Kaunas’ participation in the Baltic Fort Route 87 4.3. The discursive environment around the Baltic Fort Route in Kaunas 92 4.3.1. The INTERREG IIIB discursive environment over the Baltic Sea 92 4.3.2. The national discursive environment 94 4.4. Lithuanian history and identity discourses 101 4.4.1. The governmental history discourse 101 4.4.2. Identity discourses 106 4.5. Discussion and conclusions 113 5 Restauronet and its environment in Greece 119 5.1. The Restauronet INTERREG project 119 5.2. Greek participation in Restauronet: Xanthi and Rethymno 122 5.2.1. Xanthi 123 5.2.2. Ethymnon 126 5.3. Planning environment of Restauronet in Greece 129 5.4. The discursive environment of RESTAURONET 131 5.4.1. International discursive environment 131 5.4.2. Regional discursive environment 134 5.5. Greek national history and identity discourses 143 5.6. Discussion and conclusions 147 6 Crossing the Lines and its environment in the Netherlands 153 6.1. INTERREG’s Crossing the Lines project 153 6.2. Utrecht’s participation in Crossing the Lines 155 6.3. The discursive environment of Crossing the Lines in Utrecht 163 6.3.1. The international discursive environment: INTERREG IIIB north-west Europe 163 6.3.2. The national discursive environment 166 6.4. Dutch identity frames and heritage discussions 169 6.5. Discussion and conclusions 172 7 Heritage signification in Europe of the regions: overall analysis 177 7.1. Introduction 177 7.2. Do cultural heritage INTERREG projects contribute to regional identity? 178 7.3. Do cultural heritage INTERREG projects contribute to European signification? 183 7.4. What assumptions towards cultural heritage are inherent in European regional policy? 184 7.5. Claims on cultural heritage in Europeanisation 186 7.6. Understanding pluralist and universalist tendencies in heritage practice 191 7.7. How does INTERREG practice correspond to European ideology of unity in diversity? 198 7.8. Discussion: validity of interpretive assumptions 200 8 Conclusions, discussion and recommendations 203 8.1. Conclusions 204 8.2. Discussion of the results 212 8.3. Policy recommendations 214 Literature 217 Curriculum Vitae 231 Preface Researching cultural heritage on a European scale is even more intriguing and inspiring than it sounds. It led me to roam remote areas of European regions where interregional European cultural heritage projects can be found. Collecting stories from people and interpreting the significance of cultural heritage for them was an eye-opening experience, and changed the way I saw how cultural heritage is addressed in the Netherlands, which I always took for granted. Now I know it’s not: what is normal to us is not normal in many other European regions and countries. It seems on reflection that, in the Netherlands, there is an almost complete separation between monumental and living cultural heritage. This view is grounded on observations on cultural heritage practices in Greece, Lithuania, England, Belgium and other countries, where traditions and monuments are connected as parts of people’s daily lives. In this sense I think the Dutch have lost something important. For us living heritage too readily invokes feelings of shame and nostalgia. It seems that the shame is caused by an imperfect view and knowledge of our own culture and cultural roots. I would like my dissertation to increase interest in comparative international perspectives of cultural heritage. Moreover I would like it to contribute to a shift away from restoring monuments for the sake of the monuments and towards preserving cultural heritage for the sake of society, a shift described in the Faro Convention. The best practices of this shift I encountered in Tatarstan, a Russian region in Europe. There, students are encouraged to learn about their traditional culture and use this knowledge to develop their own contemporary approaches to stories, poetry, songs, clothing, cooking etcetera. The results are astonishing, combining both tradition and intergenerational change. It would be impossible to express my gratitude to everyone who contributed to my research. Somebody even translated a Lithuanian article into English at my request although suffering from an overload of work (thank you Birute!). The hospitality and friendliness I met during my fieldwork was unbelievable. Sometimes people in the street gave me a detailed history lesson, because of my naïve type of questions. It shows that if you are interested in another culture this culture will open up for you. I pay tribute to the cultural diversity of Europe and thank everyone who taught me to see its relevance and beauty. Often, in the preface of a dissertation, one reads remorse and regret because of neglected family relations. Not in this one. The opposite is true. I took advantage of discussions with my children during the evening hours and weekends. And they enjoyed hearing my comments on their assignments and lectures from an international viewpoint. From the perspective of social relationships, anthropology and art history: Sanne, Sjoerd and Tosca were excellent supervisors of my work. During my research there has been no need to i withdraw to the attic, driven by onerous deadlines. I am very grateful to them and to Lucia, my dear wife, for providing such an excellent atmosphere for discussion and contemplation. The Belvedere Educational Network allowed me to do this research in the spare time of my work at the Belvedere Chair in Wageningen. This Network focuses on the scientific and normative aspects of dealing with cultural heritage in spatial planning. It has been a very inspiring environment for me. For this I am truly grateful. I respectfully wish to thank my promoters. First, Prof. André van der Zande, a constant source of very constructive and collaborative comments. I very much admire his ability to see through the fuzzy texts I sometimes produced, containing difficult phrases designed to conceal my lack of real understanding. His coaching was very effective and he gave me lots of confidence in finding my own way to use theory in the analysis. I also thank Prof. Kristof van Assche, whose contribution to this thesis lies in giving scientific inspiration. I benefited enormously from his deep knowledge of Niclas Luhmanns’ social system theory and I am grateful for the many excellent academic discussions we had. I thank Prof. Arnold van der Valk for focusing on the scientific quality of this thesis and guiding me through the academic procedures and for insisting that my epistemological account was clear as possible. My gratitude goes to Prof. Rudy Rabbinge, member of the Scientific Board of Wageningen University, for giving excellent advice on structuring my thesis design in the early phase of the research. My gratitude also goes to Prof. Arie van Kuyvenhoven, former director of the Mansholt Graduate School of Social Sciences, who both gave me good advice on my PhD work and decided to host my research in his research school.