In Switzerland: Re- Enacting Federalism Through the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage

Regina F. Bendix, Aditya Eggert and Arnika Peselmann (dir.) Heritage Regimes and the State Göttingen University Press Identifying “Living Traditions” in Switzerland: Re- enacting Federalism through the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage Florence Graezer Bideau Publisher: Göttingen University Press Place of publication: Göttingen University Press Year of publication: 2013 Published on OpenEdition Books: 12 April 2017 Series: Göttingen Studies in Cultural Property Electronic EAN: 9782821875470 http://books.openedition.org Electronic reference GRAEZER BIDEAU, Florence. Identifying “Living Traditions” in Switzerland: Re-enacting Federalism through the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage In: Heritage Regimes and the State [online]. Göttingen: Göttingen University Press, 2013 (generated 21 septembre 2021). Available on the Internet: <http://books.openedition.org/gup/397>. ISBN: 9782821875470. Identifying “Living Traditions” in Switzerland: Re-enacting Federalism through the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage Florence Graezer Bideau 1 Introduction A recent headline in a national French-language newspaper, “Yodeling or multimedia: which culture does Switzerland need?”(Fournier and Dufour 2011), is inter- estingly emblematic of what has happened since 2008, the year Switzerland ratified the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Herit- age. During this period, federal and cantonal officials worked with experts and advisors to prepare the public launching, on September 2, 2010, of a national program for identifying “living traditions,” the official translation of the technical term “intangible cultural heritage” (ICH1). The process of identifying Swiss ICH is still under way and, through participant observation, I have had the opportunity to investigate the mechanisms and repercussions of Switzerland’s ICH inventory.2 The newspaper article cited above clearly reflects the current political debate over the new law for funding culture, scheduled to come into force at the beginning of 2012; but by defining Swiss culture (“yodeling or multimedia”) as a choice between the dichotomous terms of tradition and modernity, and by proposing a functionalist approach to culture (“which culture does Switzerland need?”) it ob- 1 This substitution was effectuated in order to promote better understanding amongst the media, the government officials involved and the population. 2 This research was carried out within the framework of a larger project entitled “Intangible Cultural Heritage: the Midas Touch?,” funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation and coordinated by Professor Ellen Hertz, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland. 304 Florence Graezer Bideau scures what is really at stake in the federalist context. I argue here that the question should be rephrased as “who is deciding?” (the federal government or the 26 cantons), rather than “what is decided?” (traditional or modern expressions of Swiss culture), with the sub-question, “who are the legitimate experts” on questions of culture? Or, more generally, what role does expertise play in the constitution of Switzerland’s relations to its “living traditions?” This paper explores the political and bureaucratic mechanisms of Swiss federalism that have played a key role in shaping the national program to constitute an inventory of Swiss ICH, and analyzes the making of ICHat the federal, cantonal and local levels. Specifically, the actors I will be examining include the federal government and its administration, national institutions, such as Pro Helvetia (the Swiss Arts Council), the 26 cantons’ cultural administrations, and finally, the collection of experts of various stripes who have contributed to these procedures. In a first section, I will briefly introduce Swiss cultural policy for a better understanding of the particular federalist context within which it operates, notably, the subsidiarity principle. Next, I will examine the mechanisms for identifying ICH, designed to operate in three steps over a period of two years.3 At the end of this process in 2012, three different types of lists will have been produced, covering the whole country: 26 cantonal inventories listing 387 propositions; an indicative list of 167 cantonal propositions of national interest (see Appendix); and a final selection of 6–12 items to be submitted to the UNESCO Representative List of the ICH of Humanity. The first steps in this process having recently been completed, we can already see certain key issues and tendencies emerging. Thus, in the final part of this paper, I will address questions about the artificiality of territorial divisions and historical cultural differences, famously called the “Röstigraben,”4 the sensitive place of culture within a federal state, and the role of experts in the process. My conclusion will emphasize the praxis of federalism and its reaffirmation through cultural expertise. 3 Cantonal propositions were first submitted to the federal administration (September 2010–March 2011); the Federal Office of Culture (FOC) then made its recommendations to the cantons (March– September 2011); and, at the time of this writing, the federal administration is selecting a list of national representative items (September 2011–March 2012) (Office fédéral de la Culture et Haute Ecole de Lucerne 2010). 4 “Rösti” is the Swiss dialect term for hash browns, historically eaten as a breakfast food in German- Swiss areas. The “Röstigraben” (Rösti-ditch) metaphorically refers to the cultural division confirmed through cultural-geographic atlas documentation between the German and French Swiss area; it runs along the Saane river, through the bilingual canton Fribourg (Centlivres 1996, Büchi 2001). Identifying “Living Traditions” in Switzerland 305 2 Federalism in Action: the “Subsidiarity Principle” The separation of powers in the area of culture – between the 26 cantons that form the Swiss Confederation and the federal government – is inscribed in the Federal Constitution (see Article 69, also called the “cultural article,” Clottu 1975). This article gives full responsibility in cultural affairs to the 26 cantons. The federal government is responsible only for national aspects of culture, such as guarantee- ing the respect of cultural and linguistic diversity or subsidizing the Swiss film in- dustry, national library, national archives, and national museums. Its principal or- gan, the Federal Office for Culture (FOC)5 is charged with the task of formulating cultural policy (for example, by drafting the proposed federal law governing the funding of culture6) and of promoting culture through federal, cantonal and local institutions, both public and private.7 For their part, the principal actors, the 26 Swiss cantons, are responsible for promoting, funding and managing culture within their respective territories. As applied to heritage policy, the Swiss Constitution and the subsidiarity principle imply that the FOC establishes a framework for the application of the UNESCO Conventions while leaving their actual implementation to the cantons. However, as can be expected, the task of establishing this framework involved many other actors, and gave the federal government a considerable degree of dis- cretion in defining its content. Adopting the “participative principle” that has be- come virtually mandatory in international institutions today (Gradis 2008, Renz 2008, Vitali 2008), the FOC began its work by assigning the task of organizing meetings between parties concerned (administrators, cultural associations and other “bearers of ICH,” scholars, journalists, politicians, etc.) to the Swiss UNESCO Commission. The institutional name given to these meetings was the “Swiss Fo- rum for Intangible Cultural Heritage.” Some initiatives from NGOs well- established in several UNESCO commissions were proposed (Leimgruber 2010). However, these methodological propositions for constituting the national invento- ry8 were not accepted, although they were useful for reflecting on the process by 5 “Office fédéral de la Culture” in French, “Bundesamt für Kultur” in German. 6 Assemblée fédérale de la Confédération suisse (2009): Loi fédérale sur l’encouragement de la culture (LEC). 7 The Swiss Arts Council, Pro Helvetia, a federally funded cultural foundation, also plays a key role in supporting original creation in theater, dance, literature, music, and the visual arts. Pro Helvetia has also participated in the protection and promotion of ICH since the beginning of 2012 within the frame of the revision of the LEC. 8 See in particular http://www.culturaldiversity.cioff.ch/index_suisse.html, initiated by the Interna- tional Council of Organizations of Folklore Festivals and Folk Art (CIOFF), an NGO founded in 1970 that enjoys formal consultative relations with UNESCO. The Swiss branch was established in 1985 (see http://www.cioff.ch/) with the help of Traditions for Tomorrow, an NGO which has been supporting cultural initiatives by indigenous communities in Central and South America since 1986 and very active in Switzerland (see http://tradi.info/) <all accessed July 20, 2012>. 306 Florence Graezer Bideau raising questions about the notion of authenticity (Bortolotto 2007, Gonseth and Hertz 2008) and about the length of time necessary to qualify as a “bearer” of Swiss ICH (Camp 2006, Leimgruber 2008). Parallel to this participative procedure and in conformity with the Swiss legislative

Load more