Day: September 19, 2023

Whether expressed as historic buildings, collections of antiquities or art, cultural heritage encompasses the cultural expressions of societies. It includes both tangible, physical characteristics such as buildings, statues and works of art that can be seen (and visited), and intangible ones including customs, practices, languages, beliefs, and traditions that cannot be physically seen but are passed down from one generation to the next. In the case of human cultures, it can also include the accumulated knowledge of past accomplishments and achievements. The preservation and revitalization of cultural heritage is a key component of civic life.

Preserving and promoting cultural heritage is a large global undertaking with many different types of organizations engaged in the effort. In terms of broader organizational structure, the majority of cultural heritage organizations are nonprofits. A variety of funders support these groups in this endeavor, including government ministries of culture, national museums, libraries and archives, intergovernmental organizations like UNESCO and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, and non-governmental organizations that focus on individual artistic disciplines (like African American- or Hispanic-affiliated arts organizations).

A variety of challenges are faced by those who work to preserve and promote cultural heritage. Benign neglect, devastating accidents or major natural disasters can cause serious damage to the fabric of a heritage site, whether that’s an ancient archaeological ruin in Egypt or the collection of artworks at a museum in Haiti; or, as climate change takes its toll, sites can be threatened with permanent loss.

The scope and scale of scholarly research in this area has expanded considerably over the past decade, reflecting a larger societal interest in the importance of heritage to individuals and society. A search of ProQuest Central for peer-reviewed journals using the field term “cultural heritage” yields over 30,000 results. A deeper look reveals that this scholarly field is gaining in prominence, with the number of articles increasing over time and a general increase in quality as measured by productivity metrics and other quality assessment measures borrowed from the natural sciences.

Scholars from different disciplinary backgrounds are engaging with this phenomenon, and the broad societal interest has led to a wide range of scholarship on topics such as the relationship between history and identity, conservation strategies, heritage tourism, and cultural heritage in times of crisis. A common theme in these discussions is a tension between universalism and cultural specificity: On the one hand, there is a push towards conceiving of cultural heritage as universally valuable, grounding consequent rights or permissions for all concerning its use and ownership; on the other hand, there is a need to acknowledge that different cultural groups have their own particular claims on it.

Many of the societal and academic concerns surrounding cultural heritage are contentious, a fact reflected in a significant proportion of the journals with the highest total citation counts for this field.1 This article focuses on those with the most frequent co-authors of papers on the subject: Massimo Montella from the University of Macerata in Italy, who is involved in research on the economics of heritage and the theory of heritage as service, and Melissa Terras from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, who has contributed to papers on the cultural value of heritage and the role of museums in its protection and promotion.

The word museum is one of those words that people use freely and with no real definition behind it. It can mean hushed halls that smell of must, noisy centers with children running hither and yon, revered words of art or collections of living insects. Museums can be a place for education, a source of wonder or, as Orhan Pamuk argues in his novel Museum of Innocence, a space of sexual violence. They can also be places of protest.

Museums are not a new institution, with the first known examples dating back to ancient times. However, the modern museum has grown beyond a place where rare items are stored for the benefit of scholars and the public, with institutions now serving many different functions in society, from research to fostering a sense of curiosity in young minds. Some have even become the site of social change, as illustrated by the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment and assault.

As museums have evolved, so too has the definition of what they are and what they should be doing. Despite the wide range of definitions for museums, there are some key aspects that all of them share: they are not for profit, they collect and conserve objects, they provide access and interpretation, they promote awareness and engage with communities. However, there are also differences between institutions that have the same goal of serving the public, such as museums and science centres. For example, science centres do not have to collect cultural or artistic items and often don’t exhibit them, while museums are expected to have a collection of cultural and artefacts that they display.

This year, the International Council of Museums (ICOM) agreed on a new definition of what a museum is. The new wording challenges museums to cede their institutional authority to the public and shifts the focus of their mission from transmitting expert knowledge to fostering community engagement.

The new definition states that museums “are democratising and inclusive spaces for critical dialogue about the pasts and futures of societies, holding artefacts and specimens in trust and safeguarding diverse memories and guaranteeing equal rights and access to heritage for all.” It’s an ambitious statement, which was supported by 92% of those who voted for it at ICOM’s Extraordinary General Assembly in Prague.

The new definition will come into effect in 2022. The committee that drafted it spent months talking to about 900 of ICOM’s 40,000 members, says Jette Sandahl, the Danish museum director who led the group. She says that the feedback she received showed that many museums felt that the old definition was outdated and did not clearly describe their social role. She also notes that some funders were concerned that a new definition might limit their funding options, unless museums could show they were working toward global change and the values mentioned in the wording of the new definition.