A future for the intangible past : a sociological study on constructing UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Netherlands

(1)

A Future for the Intangible Past

A sociological study on constructing UNESCO’s

Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Netherlands

Name:

Juliëtte Dekker

Student number:

10052917

Email:

juliette_dekker@hotmail.com

Supervisor:

Prof. dr. H. Abbing

Second reader:

dr. K. de Keere

Master Sociology:

Track Cultural Sociology

Department of Sociology

The Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences

University of Amsterdam

(2)

2

Abstract

Throughout the years the function and definition of the concept of heritage has moved away from the material forms of heritage included in the UNESCO World Heritage List, to a wider interpretation including more diverse types of heritage. In 2003, in the international convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), UNESCO established the space for a new kind of heritage including living traditions and practices. This convention is meant to safeguard the cultural diversity of local traditions in times of globalization. In contrast to previous UNESCO conventions which operated primarily on the level of the state, this convention focuses on the contribution of the practitioners of the living tradition in nominating and safeguarding their ICH. By writing a safeguarding plan, the practitioners of a tradition have the potential to nominate their tradition. In this thesis I will focus on the process through which an everyday practice moves into the exceptional category of ICH, in something that needs to be safeguarded. I have focused on the case of the Netherlands and conducted thirteen in-depth interviews with experts in the field of heritage, as well as practitioners of living traditions. This was combined with the analysis of the safeguarding plans and documents covering the procedure. I have investigated which actors are involved, what strategic arguments the heritage communities use to legitimate their practice as ICH, and which motives for nominating a tradition for the national inventory of ICH the various actors put forward. The role of an

active heritage community with a competent stakeholder is fundamental to the nomination process of

ICH. In the safeguarding plan, the heritage communities produce a narrative of their tradition to tell an authentic and unique story to legitimate their tradition as ICH-worthy. The symbolic meaning of the national inventory is central for the nomination of a tradition, and is the foundation for other interests, such as economic or political ones. The acceptance in the national inventory is a formal recognition of a tradition as ‘official heritage’ and is considered by heritage communities to be prestigious. In light of the rise of the nation state, heritage is a powerful foundation to produce shared beliefs, a collective identity and a sense of belonging among the members of a community. In today’s globalized world, many states are characterized by a more diverse and multiethnic population than in times before, and there is more space for a broader range of potential national heritage. Therefore, a diverse inventory reflecting the diversity of cultures of the Dutch population is the aim of the Dutch implementation of the convention, and the national inventory focuses on the micro level of local traditions practiced by a small community. This gives more controversial traditions the opportunity to be included on the national inventory as well, whereas traditions that are listed on the international ‘Representative List’ have to meet the universal values of UNESCO. With the nomination on the national inventory traditions obtain a different symbolic meaning, that goes beyond the original goal of the inventory, which was merely to safeguard the existing ICH. This study attempts to contribute to the interdisciplinary field of heritage studies by focusing on the individual characteristics of the case of the Netherlands.

(3)

3

1. Introduction

In each society there are shared rituals, collective traditions and joint symbols observable that encourage the self-definition of a community (Durkheim 1912; Goffman 1967; Collins 2004). Collective symbols generate solidarity between different members of a group. Shared traditions function to reinforce the formation of communities. Such living traditions might vary between a local folklorist craft, such as a specific local technique of embroidering, a national festive event such as the Dutch Kingsday or Saint Nicholas, and global traditions practiced in many cultures throughout the world such as the falconry. All these living traditions are practiced or celebrated by individuals, groups or communities, and creating meaning and feelings of solidarity for its practitioners. They aim to represent the identity of a community. Presently we see that such living traditions are formalized by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) into the abstract category of intangible cultural heritage. What does this mean?

Throughout the years, the function and definition of the concept of heritage has moved away from the material forms of heritage included in the World Heritage List, to a wider interpretation including more diverse types of heritage. In 2003, in the international convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), UNESCO established the space for a new kind of cultural heritage other than the cultural and natural sites previously defined as world heritage. This new form of heritage installed by UNESCO includes “traditions or living expressions inherited from our ancestors and passed on to our descendants, such as oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, rituals, festive events, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe or the knowledge and skills to produce traditional crafts” (UNESCO 2016a). One of the convention’s main goals is to preserve and safeguard the cultural diversity of practices and traditions in times of globalization; it does so by providing a platform for the maintenance of and mutual respect for ICH, as well as raising awareness of its significance for mankind, both on the collective and the individual level (Ibid.).

Since 2003, almost 155 countries ratified the UNESCO convention. The present international “Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity” includes a wide variety of practices and traditions, ranging from the Turkish coffee culture, to the Argentinian and Uruguayan tango dance, to the traditional weaving of the Ecuadorian toquilla straw hat (UNESCO 2016b). Alongside these practices already officially established in the domain of the ICH, we find a mass of ‘candidate traditions’ striving for inclusion in the representative list. The UNESCO convention obliges the participating States Parties1 to start an inventory of their existing ICH within their territory, which is necessary for the nomination of a form of ICH internationally.

1_{According to UNESCO (2016): “States Parties are countries which have adhered to the World Heritage}

Convention. They thereby agree to identify and nominate properties on their national territory to be considered for inscription on the World Heritage List.” (http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/)

(5)

5 The Kingdom of the Netherlands (including the Caribbean territory) has ratified the UNESCO convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2012, nine years after the birth of the convention.2 To implement the convention, the Dutch government installed a NGO, The Dutch Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage3 (KIEN), to manage the inventory for ICH in the Netherlands. Thus, the process of creating an inventory of the existing ICH in the Netherlands has been initiated relatively recently; as of yet, no Dutch traditions have been taken up in UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO 2016b). The miller craft, however, has recently been nominated as the first tradition of the Netherlands; the nomination dossier was submitted to UNESCO in the spring of 2016, and will be reviewed by UNESCO in the summer of 2017 at the soonest (Immaterieel Erfgoed 2016a).

Another new element of the UNESCO convention, is the focus on the contribution of the practitioners of the living traditions in nominating and safeguarding the ICH. In contrast to previous UNESCO conventions, which operated on the level of the state primarily, the convention for the safeguarding of ICH gives the practitioners of the tradition a voice in the process of safeguarding. In the implementation in the Netherlands the heritage communities play a chief role in the process of inventorying the existing heritage. The practitioners of a tradition have the opportunity to nominate their tradition for the national inventory by writing a heritage safeguarding plan. At present, the Dutch inventory includes 92 living traditions,4 such as for instance flower parades, folklore games, celebrative traditions and various types of arts and crafts. The current inventory contains mainly traditional, rural and folklorist forms of culture, while a relatively smaller amount of urban, youth and minority types of culture and traditions are included (Immaterieel Erfgoed 2016b). Looking at the huge variety of living traditions and culture in contemporary Dutch society, one could ask the question if the inventory represents this diversity of the Netherlands. What heritage communities are nominating their living tradition for the national inventory of ICH and what explains this participation of some and not of others? Would it, to achieve more diversity in the national inventory, be desirable to have more guidance and management from the government in the implementation of the UNESCO convention?

Together with the rapidly rising number of official designations of tangible and intangible forms of heritage that has occurring throughout the world over the last (Elliott & Schmutz 2012), the interdisciplinary field of heritage studies has arisen (Harrison 2013: 7). So far, there has been relatively little systematic attention from a sociological perspective, although Elliott and Schmutz

2_{The Kingdom of the Netherlands accepted the convention instead of that they ratified it. However, the meaning}

of these two instruments are similar. The United Nations explains the difference in the following way: “The instruments of "acceptance" or "approval" of a treaty have the same legal effect as ratification and consequently express the consent of a state to be bound by a treaty. In the practice of certain states acceptance and approval have been used instead of ratification when, at a national level, constitutional law does not require the treaty to be ratified by the head of state (United Nations 2016)

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/Overview.aspx?path=overview/glossary/page1_en.xml

3

Translation from Dutch: Kenniscentrum Immaterieel Erfgoed Nederland (KIEN)

(6)

6 (2012) have noted that sociologists could deliver a fruitful contribution to the project of heritage studies.

In this study I will focus on how something that people do – to celebrate, to make a living, or simply as a necessity of everyday life – becomes something that obtains the status of being ‘intangible cultural heritage’. How does a practice move into this exceptional category that transforms it into something that needs to be safeguarded? How does an ordinary tradition or custom ,become something about which awareness must be raised, to be passed on to future generations so as to maintain its existence in a globalizing world? (UNESCO 2003). Is the nomination of potential ICH community driven, or are there cases where a more top-down approach is followed? Why are people willing to put effort in writing a heritage safeguarding plan to achieve this category? Therefore, the central question guiding this research is: “How is a practice socially constructed as Intangible Cultural Heritage in the

Netherlands?” In other words, how does a practice – to use Harrison’s terminology – shift from being unofficial heritage unrecognized by official forms of legislation, to being official heritage authorized

by the state? (Harrison 2013). According to Harrison, this entails no actual shift in the nature of the practice itself, but a simply formal change in the recognition of something as official heritage (Ibid.: 18). One might, however, reasonably wonder if it is true that the formal categorization of a practice as heritage is a mere matter of definition, or if something officially recognized as heritage is experienced and treated differently. What is the meaning of applying a category if it has no real world consequences?

To answer the main question I will first look closer at what a practice that can become ICH is. In the Merriam-Webster dictionary one of the definitions of practice is “to do (something) regularly or constantly as an ordinary part of your life”. How could something that people do as ordinary part of life and as part of a living tradition, become ICH? In this paper I will look closely at this process of change and answer the question of how something ordinary can move into the category of ICH.

This empirical research paper investigates the case of the Dutch inventory of ICH to study how a practice moves into the category of ICH. I combine the findings of semi-structured in-depth interviews with a thematic analysis of the documents of the safeguarding plans composed by practitioners of candidate traditions, as well as the official UNESCO documents on the convention and the implementation of the procedure in the Netherlands. This paper focuses on the contribution of the various actors in the process of constructing ICH, the strategic arguments that are used to legitimate the tradition and the motives of the actors to nominate their tradition. The theoretical framework through which the process of creating ICH can be understood, will be illustrated with the main themes found in the official heritage documents. In order to understand this phenomenon we have to look closer at the function of traditions in communities, both on the local and the national level. In what follows this paper discusses the role of symbols in the formation and continuation of communities. As a vital part of defining group identities, symbols and traditions have an essential role in social processes of inclusion and exclusion. Presently, we see that the category of heritage seems to get an

(7)

7 increasingly important role in defining the identity of national and international societies, on the local and the global level. After having placed the phenomenon of heritage in a wider context, this paper focuses more specifically on the UNESCO convention of ICH and its implementation in the Netherlands.

(8)

8

2. Theoretical framework

In order to identify how unofficial heritage is socially constructed as official heritage we might make use of theoretical perspectives found in sociological theory. In the first place, this study has to investigate what the function of symbols and tradition in communities is, both on the national as the local level. The way that people make us of symbols and tradition, closely relates to processes of social inclusion and exclusion. Afterwards, I will discuss the position of heritage in society and how the quantity of things designated as official heritage recognized by UNESCO grows rapidly. Subsequently, I will focus more specifically on how heritage is constructed and created in society. Next, the study elaborates how the convention for the safeguarding of the ICH is formed and what it includes. Lastly, I will focus on how the convention is received in the Netherlands.

2.1 Symbols and communities

In observing how people live together, it becomes visible that there are always bonding factors that connect members of a community. These connecting elements may vary from a common heritage, to a shared tradition, a collective past, the usage of symbols, and so on. On the local, national, as well as the global level a joint culture is a significant cornerstone in enabling people to live together. This idea is already present in the sociological thought of Émile Durkheim. In his now classic work The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912) he emphasizes that communities employ symbols and sacred elements, such as totems and superhuman powers. Being connected through shared symbols makes sure that the members of a community feel allied to each other. Religion has traditionally been one of the most important common denominators between the various members of a society and subsequently creates shared group feelings and a kind of collective consciousness. Durkheim argues that other things than religion can take this function as well: contemporary society, Durkheim argues for instance, is held together by a firm belief in the individual. As a sacred religion held together primitive societies, modern (Western) society is held together by a ‘cult of the individual’ (Durkheim 2003).

In the following subsection the study focuses on the question why symbols are important for communities and how symbols are produced. Symbols and traditions function, then, to connect the various members of a group, quite literally embodying the groups shared identity of a group. Shared symbols, then, are central for the existence of communities. By defining what the identity of the group consists of, it becomes evident who shares the group’s identity and who does not. Consequently, symbols and traditions have an important role in the social process of inclusion and exclusion, in defining who is in and out.

(9)

9

2.2.1 Symbolic traditions in communities

In the previous section I have argued that symbols play a vital role in the life of communities. The main question of my thesis interrogates the origin of these symbols. How are traditions created and what determines which ones become an important part of collective live and which ones de not? In the following section, I discuss several theories that address the processes through which symbols come into being.

One prominent theory addressing how symbols come into being, is put forward by Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983) in their collection of essays The Invention of Tradition. Here, they introduce the idea that traditions are invented, rather than simply coming into being. This, they argue, is something particularly important in the development of the modern nation state. Though traditions often have the appearance of being old and venerated, they are often more new than they appear to be, the result of conscious work. Hobsbawm defines these invented traditions as “practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behavior by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past” (1983: 1). Invented traditions are often characterized by the appearance of continuity, and consist of an ‘appropriate past’ that fits the values and norms of the modern nation state. Such invented traditions stand in stark contrast to the rapid change of the contemporary modern world (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983: 2).

An example of an invented tradition is given by Hugh Trevor-Roper in his essay on the invention of the Highland tradition of Scotland. The distinctive Scottish culture contains typical clothing tradition of the kilt, and the specific sound of their music due to the usage of the bagpipe. The use of the latter “traditional” instrument is actually based on an invented and new myth, and is not as old as it appears to be. Much of the Scotch culture, in fact exists mainly as a protest against the dominance of England (Trevor-Roper 1983: 15). Many invented traditions focus on specific episodes of the past to create a distinctive national culture. The so-called continuity in traditions leads to processes of socialization and social control in the formation of large communities, such as the nation state, and give people the idea that the “collective” exists. Thus, most of the heritage and traditions are formed in the present, instead of the past (Hobsbawm 1983; Lowenthal 1975). In his introductory essay Hobsbawm (1983) distinguishes between the “political” traditions instituted by the state, and the “social” traditions that come from communities within society. This is a distinction similar to the division between “official” and “unofficial” heritage made by Harrison (2013).

Elaborating upon this notion of the invention of tradition, Benedict Anderson (2006) introduced the concept of imagined communities, to describe how individuals are bonded together by an imagined collective sentiment. An imagined community differs from an actual one in the sense that there is no face-to-face interaction in imagined communities; it only exists in people’s minds as a social construct. Even in the smallest of nations, a citizen will never interact with the majority of his fellow-nation members; yet the members of a nation share an image of what binds them together as

(10)

10 members of the same nation, of their communion and brotherhood (Ibid.: 6). As Anderson notes, individuals are deeply attached to seeing themselves as part of an imagined atmosphere and are even willing to kill or die for this image (Ibid.: 7). In present day society the sentiment of an imagined community of the nation state is mostly apparent with supporting the national team for a global sports event, such as the Olympic Games or the Football World Cup. Where Anderson mostly discusses the role of imagination in the macro-level community of the nation state, the category of ICH can be understood as creating a kind of imagined sense of connectedness among the practitioners of a tradition on a micro-scale. This, for instance, results in the imagining of a heritage community, wherein a certain amount of solidarity and brotherhood is present due to the practice of the same living tradition.

Another characteristic of symbols and traditions in communities is their normal and everyday character. In explaining the concept of unofficial heritage, Harrison (2013) emphasizes the

everydayness of ‘customs’ and ‘traditions’, what he calls ‘unofficial heritage’. The author defines

these as “a set of repetitive, entrenched, sometimes ritualized practices that link the values, beliefs and memories of communities in the present with those of the past” (Ibid.: 18). Traditions and customs represent the continuity in everyday practices from generation to generation (Dibbits et al. 2011: 75). With the transformation of a daily tradition into an officially recognized tradition that is catalogued in the category of ICH, might causes tension in the definition of the tradition.

In sum, many approaches to heritage can be understood in light of the theories that represent the rise of the nation state (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983; Anderson 2006), as well as the everydayness of interaction (Harrison 2013). In the formalization of tradition when a tradition change from an everyday practice into a tradition that is officially recognized, might create tension for the practitioners. The social construction of imagination brings people together in large-scale nations, or smaller scale communities, and results in feelings of group identity, solidarity, and collectivity. The process of forming the identity of a community, automatically results in the inclusion of certain members, and the exclusion of others who do not share the same identity. In the next section I will explain how heritage communities use symbols in defining their identity, and how this results in social processes of inclusion and exclusion.

2.2.2 Social inclusion and exclusion

Traditions, rituals, crafts, festive events, customs and symbols are an important part of the self-definition of communities. These elements represent the community’s identity, and are the subject of community members’ pride. The identity of a community often constructed in opposition and resistance to other communities, and thus each community is characterized by a degree of social inclusion and exclusion. Many festive folklorist events and traditions, for instance, glorify the victory

(11)

11 of their community over another community, their religious domination, or their resistance against another power.

Several authors show how nation states use collective symbols, a common heritage, and a shared culture as part of the glorification of specific events in the past, how heritage is interwoven with nationalism (Anderson 2006; Rydgren 2007; Hall 1999; Di Giovine 2012; Harrison 2013). Myths of certain victorious events in the past might, for example, help to establish a narrative about past culture, something called narrativization. Mythical narratives help to bring order and meaning to past events and experiences, contributing to ‘harmonizing’ a nation in the present. Collective memory sites, such as commemorative rituals, archives and history books, help to bring order to the memory of people in considering which historical occasions are most vital (Rydgren 2007). Somewhat similar to Anderson’s imagined community, Hall considers heritage as a ‘discursive practice’ that constructs a sense of belonging to the nation state: a shared heritage enables the construction of a kind of ‘collective social memory’. Similar to personal memory, social memory selects specific events in the past and places them in a coherent story, ‘storying’ the collective past and heritage of the nation. The national narrative, or the ‘national story’ in Hall’s words, is a canon of selectively highlighting past occasions and traditions (1999).

The use of cultural narratives about the past is frequently an instigator for (ethnic) clashes between communities or nation states with a different narrative. A narrative is commonly defined in opposition to the story of other communities or nation states. For instance, a nation with a history of ethnic conflict has an increased likelihood of the outbreak of new ethnic conflict, because the self-definition of the nation takes place in opposition with another. The nation’s ‘distinctive’ cultural elements are emphasized in its narrative (Rydgren 2007: 226). Many types of heritage consumption, such as visiting heritage sites or practicing folklorist traditions, are linked together to remember the distant and weighty past (Dallen 1997: 752), or to invoke feelings of nostalgia about the faraway past (Lowenthal 1975: 5). A shared history helps people to feel connected with their nation, construct a collective identity, include them in a community and discourage ethnic conflict. The past is commonly symbolized by a physical place, such as a heritage site or historical monument. An example of this is the Delta Works that protects a large amount of land in the province Zeeland from floods of the sea. The Delta Works symbolize the fight against the sea in the Netherlands for centuries. Heritage sites often represent the collective principles, identity, or narrative of a community or nation state (Lowenthal 1975: 13; Doss 2010). For that reason, Lowenthal argues, we need to distinguish heritage from history, because the former should be seen as a kind of ‘cult’ – as the religious worship of the past – whereas the latter should (ideally) be based on historical facts (1975).

Next to the narrativization of past culture to strengthen nationalism, the construction of a heritage narrative might serve other goals. Past myths represent a society’s norms and values important in the present, norms of behavior, class, gender, ethnicity, race (Hobsbawm 1983). Community membership and a sense of belonging to a group is vital for individuals (McMillan &

(12)

12 Chavis 1986) and shared symbols, such as heritage and monuments, strengthen this community feeling. At the same time, a monument might have various meanings and evoke a different emotional reaction from person to person; in multicultural societies, especially, it becomes a challenge to find unifying symbols or monuments appealing to all members of a community or nation state (Doss 2010). Wrongly chosen symbols, might result in social exclusion and contribute to social inequality.

Furthermore, in globalizing times, many cultures and nation states do not merely cherish their

own past. In a 2005 study, Bevers demonstrates that small countries in particular are more likely to

focus on culture of other countries that are positioned high in the transnational hierarchies of culture, instead of solely nourishing their own cultural past. In contrast, citizens of large countries give more attention to their own culture and heritage, for instance in the canonization of their arts and music. Relatively small countries such as the Netherlands, on the other hand, are more flexible, adaptable and globally oriented, making use of a more diverse and international canon in their educational system (Bevers 2005: 408). Thus, in contrast to the more homogenous identity of nations, the effect of globalization causes a more diverse and multicultural form of canonization and heritage (Harrison 2013: 142).

For this reason, a global institution such as UNESCO rather focuses on the unifying elements between the diverse cultures of different countries, instead of emphasizing the differences that might cause conflict (Elliott & Schmutz 2012). The recognition of unique local traditions stand sometimes in opposition with the demand that traditions do not contradict with values of humanity and intellectual solidarity. The main reason of the existence of UNESCO, is to create peace in the minds of men:

The Preamble to the Constitution of UNESCO declares that “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.” In 1945, UNESCO was created in order to respond to the firm belief of nations, forged by two world wars in less than a generation that political and economic agreements are not enough to build a lasting peace. Peace must be established on the basis of humanity’s moral and intellectual solidarity. (UNESCO 2016c).

The UNESCO conventions and programs are dedicated to the creation of solidarity, mutual respect and an intercultural dialogue between different communities and countries. Cultural heritage, on UNESCO’s view, should not be seen as symbol of division, but rather focus on the collective and unifying elements meaningful to everyone in the world (Elliott & Schmutz 2012: 260). The UNESCO convention of 2003 for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, also describes that mutual respect should be a powerful starting point for the inclusion of new living traditions on the international representative list. However, as I have argued, many traditions are defined in opposition to those of other cultures, and thus seem to contradict this mutual respect clause. The mutual respect standard in the convention could possibly exclude and disqualify many traditional cultures from the representative list, because they do not meet these criteria (Kurin 2004: 70). Many traditions and culture arise from conflicts and war, which is rather contradictory to UNESCO’s generally hopeful

(13)

13 and positive notion of culture (Ibid.). Lots of folklore and living traditions are controversial in the sense that they do not include equality of gender, ethnicity and deviant minorities, that they cause discrimination and exclusion, and so on and so forth. There are many examples present of living traditions characterized by a clear division between gender or ethnic roles, as for instance the Dutch tradition of Saint Nicholas with the controversial role of ‘Black Pete’ as helper, that is closely related to the Dutch slavery past. Or controversial traditions with included animals, such as the bullfighting in Spain.

In this manner, heritage produces and reproduces its own life story, its narrative constantly. Heritage, according to Giovine, is not a passive symbol, but an active negotiation with collective thought and identity of the community (Di Giovine 2009: 26). When some aspects of a tradition develop into something controversial, heritage produces new aspects of its narrative. For instance, the Dutch tradition of Saint Nicholas is at this moment the topic of active negotiation. The identification of the heritage of a community is open to consideration and mediates between new formations of inclusion and exclusion of its community members (Di Giovine 2012: 62). World heritage represents collective principles, pride, ideals and the past, and thus reinforces collective group identities or nationalist sentiments. Communities need symbols, such as heritage, to stay close to their own communal past in a globalizing world that is changing rapidly (Lowenthal 1975: 13). As such, UNESCO is confronted with a tension between the recognition of local traditions on the one hand, and the production of a global heritage that is of universal value of humanity, on the other. Juggling these two different aims is not always uncomplicated.

In the construction processes of global heritage there is a need to create an authentic and unique narrative that represents and defines the community of mankind at large on the one hand, and UNESCO wants to recognize the value of local traditions on the other. UNESCO’s project of creating a globally shared form of heritage, however, imposes conditions that local heritage should conform to. Examples of such conditions are for instance the mutual respect clause and the criteria of international agreements, such as human and animal rights. Due to the fact that the nomination process is normatively conditioned by various criteria, while UNESCO calls for a diverse list at the same time, Di Giovine describes this contradictory process as unity in diversity (2010: 99). UNESCO calls for cultural distinctive and diverse heritage, but within the ‘universal’ boundaries wherein it is appropriate to operate.

All in all, UNESCO tries to create an intercultural dialogue with respect for the differences and diversity. However, it seems unavoidable that in many cases of heritage construction, a certain amount of social inclusion and exclusion is bound to take place. The process of “narrativization” of cultural heritage, by producing a biography and a story for the living tradition, creates a sense of identity for the heritage community. This happens often in opposition to other cultural practices and traditions. In many cases heritage contributes to the social inclusion of people into a community or nation, but socially excludes the ones who do not fit in that ‘self-definition’ of the identity of a community at the

(14)

14 same time. The last decades we see a rapid growth in the formalizations of UNESCO world heritage sites. It seems that there is an increasing interest for the role of heritage in society.

2.2 The heritage turn in society

As several authors have observed, present day society is characterized by a tendency to formalize the past in heritage (Walsh 1992; Sánchez-Carretero 2015; Kirschenblatt-Gimblett 2004; Margry 2011; 2012; 2014), as for instance UNESCO cultural heritage. The label of heritage makes practices and traditions into something that might be used for commercial gains, such as tourism; it might, in other words, commodify them. Kevin Walsh introduces the concept of heritagization to describe the process of the reduction of a ‘functional’ space to a tourist space, or an object of display (1992: 135). Tourism results in the destructive process of heritagization, and a place, phenomenon or cultural object with this label changes in meaning (Ibid.). However, most scholars use the concept of heritagization with less negative connotations than Walsh’. For instance, Margry (2011: 336) understands heritagization as the process wherein cultural objects or phenomena, both old and modern, are conceptualized as “cultural heritage”. Kirschenblatt-Gimlett (2004) points out that through heritagization a place might enter into a new category, giving it a ‘second life’ as heritage. For instance, we now see that many industrial warehouses that have become obsolete, acquire a new function after being redefined as industrial heritage (Harrison 2012: 80).

In today’s society there is a great call for the documentation and preservation of buildings, monuments, living traditions, memories and folk practices. In her book “Memorial Mania”, Erika Doss (2010) argues that contemporary society has the obsessive desire to express and claim issues of the past, and to remember it in the thousands of newly created memorial sites in the last decades. A similar trend is observable in the rapid expansion of formal designations of World Heritage sites by UNESCO, spreading all over the world since the last forty years. In 1972 the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage has been adopted and in 2016 there are 1031 Word Heritage sites in 163 countries, varying from the Chinese Wall, to the Taj Mahal, Machu Picchu and the canal district in Amsterdam. With the extension of UNESCO’s World Heritage List, there is a shift from the preservation and glorification of heritage at the national level, to becoming more of an international affair, both organizationally and academically. Elliott and Schmutz describe this process of the increasing importance which is given to heritage globally, as the world heritage movement (2012). UNESCO considers heritage of outstanding value to all of humanity, despite the differences in historical and geographical origin of the heritage. The organization contends that there is a common belief that World Heritage is the collective property and responsibility of humanity at large (Elliott & Schmutz 2012: 256).

A recent example of this belief is the intended destruction of the historically valuable city of Palmyra by the terrorist organization Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which caused great

(15)

15 indignation in the responses all over the world. Chief-director of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, responded with outraged language that it was “a crime against humanity” (Telegraph 2015). Several world leaders gave similar indignant responses, describing it as “barbarian”, a “cultural genocide” or a “cultural cleansing” (Ibid.). The language used by UNESCO and several world leaders was in a unifying tone, using words such as “all humanity” and “international community”. This indicates the importance that is given to heritage nowadays; all of humanity has the responsibility to protect and preserve it. UNESCO considers world heritage as meaningful and valuable to everyone around the world, and they are therefore advocating that the preservation of heritage should be a collective concern, not to be distinguished from country to country (Elliott & Schmutz 2012: 260). UNESCOs goal to safeguard the existing heritage, both the material and the intangible, is a battle against the potential risk to lose heritage, and UNESCO helps to stop the loss of collective memory and identity (Dibbits et al. 2011). If “global heritage” has such an important function in international relations, the process through which something becomes the “heritage of all humanity” is an important object of study.

One could see this world heritage movement in the light of the work of Meyer et al. (1997) and their concept of world polity, which provides an understanding of the formation of a global order wherein the heritage movement could rise. The world polity provides a cultural framework of norms and directions of how to deal with particular procedures and problems. In Meyer’s neo-institutional theory of globalization, authority is characterized as borderless, diffuse and without a clear administrative centre. After first playing out within the confines of nation states, processes of institutionalization create isomorphic pressures that lead to similar institutional pathways in different countries – that led to a world society. Institutional isomorphism refers to the structural similarity in the development of institutional pathways in nation states. This pattern of institutional isomorphism, leads to a development of similar institutions in countries with heterogeneous organizational resources and traditions. Schofer and Meyer (2005) exemplify this process in their study of how different countries undergo the same kind of phases and steps in the development of their educational system. Such transnational organizational mechanisms are useful for understanding the cultural and social setting within which many 19th century world movements, such as the human rights movement, the world heritage movement (Elliott & Schmutz 2012) and the international women’s movement (Berkovitch 1999) could develop and flourish. There are diverse kinds of heritage around the world, but all these are based on the same UNESCO criteria, principles and follow the same pathway in the construction process. Similar procedures are followed in the selection procedure by UNESCO of turning something into world heritage, and as a result those forms of heritage are based on similar characteristics and reference points (Boli & Elliott 2008). Regardless of variations between different kinds of heritage, all heritage is constructed through the same process of nomination, restricted by the universal demands UNESCO imposes on it. That is, only the heritage that answers to the criteria imposed by UNESCO actually becomes heritage. All the world heritage is constructed through

(16)

16 UNESCO-regulated pathways. Regardless of the diversity in different forms of heritage, the universalizing restrictions define the development and possibilities of every type of heritage.

Di Giovine (2010: 67) more specifically elaborates on the creation of a worldwide imagined community (Anderson 2006) of the UNESCO’s World Heritage program, what he calls the

heritage-scape. Here Di Giovine (2010: 69) builds on Appadurai’s (1996) notion of globalization with the

vision that power formations are de-localized. Appadurai describes these overlapping global orders in five overlapping –scapes wherein no clear distinction exists between center and periphery. Giovine adds a new –scape: the heritage-scape and the author defines it as the: “the social space of an imagined community linked together by their common appreciation and identification with cultural diversity” (2009: 36). In the case of the heritage-scape, the delocalization refers to a deterritorialized space, without one capital or a strict notion of in- and outsiders. The heritage-scape functions as an imaginative order of the world without any geopolitical boundaries. The role of tourism is extremely important to function as a mediatory between power relations in the global heritage-scape. Where Di Giovine (2010) argues that the delocalized heritage-scape does not have a strict notion of in- and outsiders, this study aims to show that heritage is not solely inclusive and that the cultural diversity of world heritage actually has boundaries. Some controversial local traditions cannot be included as universal heritage for all humanity.

In sum, there is a global expansion of sites officially designated as heritage by UNESCO. Similar institutional pathways of heritage formation are followed all around the world, due to an imagined global world order wherein the process of heritagization could flourish. As the function of cultural heritage is becoming gradually more significant in contemporary society, it is fruitful to have a closer look at the processes through which world heritage is constructed.

2.3 The construction process of heritage

In the former section I discussed how institutional globalization, embodied in organizations such as UNESCO, could facilitate similar trails of global heritage construction. But how is heritage actually socially constructed on the national level? How are people mobilized to construct a practice as ICH and what kinds of discourse are used in this process?

To begin with, to understand how heritage can be socially constructed, it is helpful to first give some thought to what the by Berger and Luckmann introduced idea of ‘socially constructed’ means (1966). This ontological position “asserts that social phenomena and their meanings are continually being accomplished by social actors […] and are in a constant state of revision” (Bryman 2008: 19). The categories of unofficial and official heritage are not fixed and pre-given, but are constructed over time. In today’s global society, according to Elliott and Schmutz, we find the “ongoing construction of a universal cultural heritage” (2012: 273).

(17)

17 To understand how and why unofficial heritage transforms into official heritage when it is placed on an UNESCO international ‘Representative List’, canonization theory might be fruitful. A canon refers to an ordering structure that functions as a static framework that includes the most representative, leading, or most famous of a selection (Dibbits et al. 2011: 80). In their article on the canonization of jazz music, Kahl et al. (2010: 83) show that the evaluation of a new candidate in a category is not based on prototypical criteria established a priori, but rather on the perceived qualities of the elements already included on the list. According to Kahl et al. (2010: 85) the value of

authenticity is central in processes of canonization. Fine (2003) signifies how certain identities in the

process of canonization become more authentic than others, due to the construction of a so-called

biography. This biographic narrative justifies the created object or phenomenon, to represent it as

authentic. In the selection procedure of UNESCO’s heritage, there is a call for “the unique” and “the exceptional”, on the one hand (Elliott & Schmutz 2012). At the same time, however, the world

heritage movement of the formal designation of UNESCO world heritage sites around the world,

requires that heritage should not be viewed as symbols of distinction or division. UNESCO emphasizes the global collectivity, the universal value and the notion that world heritage is meaningful for everyone (Elliott & Schmutz 2012: 260). Paradoxically, new heritage items must be unique and conformist at the same time.

Thus, in the heritage construction process it is vital to have an authentic and unique biography or a narrative to frame the significance and authenticity of the particular form of heritage. Unofficial heritage can be transformed into official heritage, by using new legitimating frameworks (Harrison 2013). For the process of legitimation, it might be fruitful to gain a deeper understanding of how framing processes work, which is a concept that is primarily used in social movement theory. Benford & Snow (2000: 614) define framing as a form of meaning construction that entails “an active, processual phenomenon that implies agency and contention at the level of reality construction”. In the construction of heritage meaning of the heritage is constructed, that at some point becomes reality. In this particular case, when a living tradition is accepted in the national inventory, the ICH becomes reality through the construction process. A practice is constructed as ICH, by using particular strategic frames. The ideas and goals of the heritage community need to be framed in the safeguarding plan, in the way that it has to be marketed, or packaged in order to convince the audience (Baumann: 2007: 57), and the review committee of the inventory. The evaluation of the safeguarding plan is based on the whether the practice is a living tradition and culture, whether the right community nominates the practice, whether the intention of the community is to pass the practice on to future generations and, lastly, whether the heritage safeguarding plan is complete. For the nomination of the inventory other criteria exist than for the international nomination of the ‘Representative List’ of UNESCO.

One might wonder how people are motivated to nominate their tradition on the national inventory. How are different stakeholders mobilized to accomplish action? The notion of resource

(18)

18 achieve their goals (McAdam et al. 2006). Baumann (2007), for instance, demonstrates that the need for such mobilization of resources might also be found in social theories of artistic legitimation. Baumann puts forward a theory of social movements using the idea of a changing opportunity space, the institutionalization of resources and practices, and a legitimating ideology. Similar to Baumann’s explanation of the process through which ‘cultural products’ are turned into ‘art’, we might use this theory to explain how ‘practices’ and ‘living traditions’ turned into ‘ICH’. The work of both Howard S. Becker (1984) and Pierre Bourdieu (1995) demonstrates that art worlds and artistic fields are based on collective action. Baumann puts this idea forward that “social movements are similar to art worlds in the goals of their collective action. I [the author, red.] argue that social movement success is a process of legitimation that is parallel to artistic legitimation” (2007: 49). When something is legitimated, it is accepted in the category. Thus, in the case of ICH, a practice is legitimated as ICH when the nomination is accepted for the national inventory. Before a movement can be legitimated as artistic or as ICH, the political environment wherein the movement operates has to be understood, the so-called political opportunity structure. The context of the wider society in which a movement operates matters for its success (Ibid.: 52). UNESCO creates the political opportunity structure in the wider society, and the awareness of the significance of the safeguarding of living traditions, so that heritage communities can nominate their tradition as ICH. The heritage communities have to be mobilized to succeed the legitimation of a tradition as ICH. Here, Becker’s (1984) idea is confirmed that the creation of art mostly relies on the work and the action of the collective, instead of one individual.

In the construction process of ICH, different factors play a role. A helpful concept to understand the role of individual actors in the process of constructing a practice as ICH, is that of

heritage entrepreneurship. Richard Pfeilstetter (2015) introduces the concept in his article about the

promotion of the Mediterranean diet in Spain. The author stresses that the role of individual agency is essential in the social processes that constitute cultural heritage. The process of constructing heritage, Pfeilstetter argues, is always based on competition among different social agents. In the case of the Mediterranean diet different interest groups – such as companies, academics and the local government – promote the diet internationally. In the narrative they put forward, the Mediterranean is differentiated from other gastronomic practices to emphasize the quality as “sustainable, ecological and healthy food and culturally, because it is Mediterranean, traditional and authentic” (Ibid.: 224). The concept of heritage entrepreneurship emphasizes the role of agency in the construction of a ‘community-heritage’ narrative. Heritage entrepreneurship has a competitive, conflictive and agency-driven character (2015: 215). In the process of the nomination and legitimation of ICH, according to Pfeilstetter, the possession of the Bourdieusian social capital (1983) might have a positive contribution for the various actors. In the promotion of the Mediterranean diet as ICH, a platform was created through meetings and congresses linking stakeholders from economic, scientific and political spheres (Pfeilstetter 2015: 225). The possession of a large ‘amount’ of social capital entails having a

(19)

19 widespread social network with many relations with actors in various positions, making the nomination process of ICH easier (Bourdieu 1983). The American sociologist Mark Granovetter (1973) puts the notion of ‘the strengths of weak ties’ forward, meaning that a social network with a great number of weak social contacts, has a greater impact than a small network with strong contacts. The transmission of information through such a network of weak ties can be useful for the creation of new information. Strong ties, such as close friends, are in the same social circles, thus many information overlaps with already known information. In the case of nominating a practice as ICH, having a large social network with weak ties might be profitable in promoting and legitimating the tradition. The role of cultural brokers, both individuals and NGO’s functioning as mediators or cultural experts, have a leading role in the construction process of ICH (Jacobs 2014a; 2014b; Lewis 2014).

In the process of nominating a living tradition for the national inventory, commercial interests might be of motivation. The economic value of heritage can be understood in the light of Appadurai’s (1981) notion that the past is a scarce resource, because of the cultural constraints that are placed on it in the present. Instead of viewing the past as a boundless resource that is always open to interpretation and re-invention, its meaning is continually produced by the existing cultural norms and material constraints of society (Ibid.: 203). According to Pfeilstetter (2015) we can understand heritage as a commodity because of its exclusive and inherited past. Heritage is suitable for economic exchange, due to the added value of the traditional and the authentic, which is desirable because of its scarcity (Ibid.: 216). Living traditions, monuments, historical events and objects can be presented in an ‘authentic’ way and can in this way attract more visitors. More generally, there is a shift observable from the sale of services towards the sale of experiences (Harrison 2013; Dibbits et al. 2011). In present-day society there is more time for leisure activities, which results in the rise an economy wherein the experience of the past comes to be commodified. This has major influence on both material and intangible heritage and how it is marketed for commercial goals (Harrison 2013: 84-88). Tourism, entertainment and commercial displays will become more prominent in the marketing of heritage. With the rise of the culture industry, heritage is increasingly marketed and consumed as an

experience, and specifically ICH is a way to gain an experience of the traditional past (Ibid.: 85-86). Overall, in the construction process of ICH it is vital that heritage communities are mobilized. These heritage communities, in term, have to frame an authentic narrative to ‘package’ their goal, so as to convince the review committee, making their living a practice a legitimate form of ICH. It has to be framed as having special, authentic cultural value. In many cases a heritage entrepreneur has a chief role in this process; however the virtues of social ties in the construction of ICH are significant and thus, in the end, ICH is constructed collectively. The shift to the commodification of cultural heritage in the experience and tourist industry might be an additional motivator for communities to nominate a practice. In the next section I focus more specifically on the UNESCO convention and how the construction procedure of heritage nomination works.

(20)

20

2.4 From traditional culture and folklore towards ICH

The UNESCO world heritage list with tangible cultural heritage grew rapidly in the last decades. One of the critiques is the relatively high number of European and North-American sites on the list, with a marginal place for developing countries. With this idea in mind, the initial goal of a new alternative world heritage list was based mostly on giving developing countries the opportunity to safeguard their heritage. This is based on the idea that developing countries have less tangible material heritage sites, but much more traditional culture and folklorist practices (Kurin 2004: 69). That is why UNESCO realized the Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore in 1989. As a counterpart to the world heritage list with its tangible sites, this recommendation focuses on living traditions and folklore practices.

After the implementation of this recommendation, a wave of criticism hit UNESCO because of difficulties of the used concepts in the text, such as “authenticity”, “ethnicity”, “folk”, “age old origins”, “pure”, and “uniqueness”, which seemed fairly problematic in practice (Jacobs 2014a: 268). Besides the complications with terminology of the recommendation, very few countries actually preserve and protect their local, regional and national traditions in the way that UNESCO prescribes (Kurin 2004: 68). After all, in the evaluation conferences of the recommendation, the organizer of the conference and the director of the Smithsonian Institute,5 Richard Kurin, concluded with the words that the convention is too much of a “top-down, state-oriented, ‘soft’ international instrument that defined traditional culture in essentialist, tangible, archival terms, and had little impact around the globe upon cultural communities and practitioners” (Kurin 2004: 68). Among UNESCO and various experts on heritage, the request for a more dynamic vision on traditional culture, with more interaction with its practitioners and heritage community, was widely shared (Ibid.).

Due to the practical difficulties with the concepts that are included in the recommendation of Traditional Culture and Folklore, UNESCO came with a new convention with a more neutral and less politically oriented concept in 2003, namely the International Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. An additional motivation to develop this convention was the increasing worldwide awareness in the mid-1990s that the consequences and the effects of globalization threatens practices of folk art and traditional culture with the risk of extinction and homogenization. Therefore, the safeguarding of local traditions, is an answer to fight back against the homogenizing effects of globalization (Kurin 2004: 66; Kischenblatt-Gimblett 2006). Perhaps ironically, it is a global organization, such as UNESCO, founded to foster a global shared heritage, that has to protect local traditions against the universalizing forces of globalization. At this moment the initial goal of the convention – to give developing countries the opportunity to safeguard their heritage – has not been reached and primarily Western countries are enlisted on the international UNESCO ICH ‘Representative List’.

5

The Smithsonian Institution is the worlds’s largest museum, research and education complex. It is administered by the Government of the United States. The institution is established in 1846. (http://www.si.edu/)

(21)

21 The convention gave many countries, policymakers and academics a novel concept to denote folklore and traditional culture, with less political and negative connotations. However, ICH closely touches the field of interest of the old terminologies, and is in fact not that dissimilar. The field of research of traditional culture and folklore is originally rooted in Ethnology, although the controversial past of the concept of ‘folklore’, or the Dutch concept of volkskunde, give ethnologists some difficulties in defining their field of interest. The connotations of these concepts to power relations, interests and exploitations make that the neutrality of their object of study has disappeared. Historically, there have often been political goals behind the definition of concepts such as traditional culture and folklore (Margry 2012). UNESCO embeds and facilitates the transition of these concepts to ICH; others have claimed that this transition is primarily hosted for goals of marketing and communication (Jacobs 2014a: 267).

But what is included in the category of ICH? The European Ethnologist Peter Jan Margry (2012) is critical of the definition, because it is hard to define where the culture of daily life stops and ICH starts. In accordance with the definition of UNESCO not all human daily culture and activity could be considered as ICH. The connotation of heritage is that a practice that is considered as heritage has to be old. Kurin puts forward the following definition: “the culture that people practice as part of their daily lives. It is beliefs and perspectives, ephemeral performances and events that are not tangible objects of culture” (2004: 67). Only traditions which are regarded as meaningful, such as experiences that are aesthetically and conceptually elaborated, could be ICH, according to the convention (Ibid.). In the definition by UNESCO there is a fundamental place for the community and the practitioners of a tradition. ICH is something shared, something that is symbolically identified by its heritage community, and something that could therefore be culturally transmitted from generation to generation (Kurin 2004: 69). For that reason, the collection of ICH is a never ending task (Ibid.). ICH also has a strong relationship with material culture. Many traditions and folklorist practices have a connection with crafts, attributes and religious objects (Dibbits & Willemsen 2010: 189). Therefore, it is impossible for many heritage communities to separate their intangible culture from the tangible (Kurin 2004: 70).

As an answer to the more top-down, state-oriented recommendation of Traditional Culture and Folklore (1989) the convention for the safeguarding of the ICH (2003) focuses more strongly on the collaboration with the heritage communities in the safeguarding process. In the majority of international conventions the focus is primarily on the nation state, instead of the community (Dibbits et al. 2011: 111-114). This grassroots approach asks communities, groups, and in some cases even individuals to nominate their tradition on an inventory. Next to that, the safeguarding of the ICH is only possible with the permission, co-operation and in consultation with the respective heritage community. Kurin (2004: 72) demonstrates two effects of this bottom-up method. On the one hand, it leads to more local agency, because the communities have a chief role in taking the initiative and the responsibility of the safeguarding of their traditions. On the other hand, it could perhaps result in the

(22)

22 formalization of new social relations, because the organization requires responsibility, potentially distracting attention from the performance or practice of the tradition itself. Furthermore, the grassroots approach becomes less effective with less active communities, who might not care about the national inventory. According to Dibbits and Willemsen (2010: 178), this is the case with urban and youth culture in the Netherlands, a ‘heritage community’ probably less well-acquainted with the existence of the inventory, and perhaps less interested in safeguarding their traditions. With a true grassroots approach, Dibbits and Willemsen argue, the initiative to place a tradition in the inventory should come from the heritage community itself. In such an approach, there could not be any guidance from the government or involved NGO’s, such as the KIEN, to select these kind of traditions to guarantee the inventory’s diversity (Dibbits & Willemsen 2010: 182). A consequence of this, is that it is harder to achieve a diverse inventory that reflects society.

According to Dibbits and Willemsen (2010: 189) many of today’s heritage communities are fluid or loose networks of various practitioners, instead of closely knit communities in the traditional sense. In these fluid times, many heritage communities exist only on a particular moment in time and are situational. These situational communities are less effective into taking the initiative for writing a safeguarding plan to nominate their tradition in the national inventory. In contrast to the Netherlands, there is another implementation of the convention in Belgium. Here a heritage-expert helps the heritage community in the organization of the community and in writing a plan for safeguarding. In the Netherlands, we see that the heritage community is expected to organize themselves potentially making it more difficult to involve the whole community (Ibid.). The rationale behind this bottom-up implementation of the Netherlands is that less state-intervention in inventorying the existing ICH is desirable.

In sum, on the road to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the ICH, many people have considered strategies for protecting, preserving and creating awareness about ICH. In times of globalization the convention attempts to safeguard local traditions and practices. The heritage community has a chief contribution in the process of safeguarding and the nomination of heritage. But how is this convention received and implemented in the Netherlands?

2.5 Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Netherlands

In the following section, the focus is more specifically on the implementation of the UNESCO convention for the Safeguarding of the ICH in the context of the Netherlands. It took the Dutch state nearly ten years to ratify the UNESCO convention of 2003. The Dutch government had some reservations and objections about the content, the initial cultural-political goals and the possible outcomes after implementation. Pending on the ratification a heated debate took place surrounding questions such as, “is it desirable to preserve ICH” and “how can living tradition be safeguarded?” took place (Dibbits & Willemsen 2010: 182). Margry contributed to this debate by questioning the

(23)

23 uncertain benefits for Dutch traditions with the ratification of the convention (2012). As the potential ICH is already organized and preserved in almost 6000 organizations, Margry points to the possibility of what he calls fossilization and so-called freezing-effects, which might occur due to the ‘static’ documentation and preservation of living traditions. Another critique coined by Margry concerns the fact that the Dutch government cannot force their citizens to celebrate and practice traditions. It seems that there is always someone willing to voluntarily safeguard the traditions, so there is no immediate need to institutionalize the safeguarding (Margry 2012).

During this debate, another tendency was taking shape: a renewed interest in Dutch nationalism and the various aspects of ‘Dutch identity’. Due to the effects of globalization and the pressures of the multicultural society, there were both external and internal pressures on defining what the Dutch identity includes (Dibbits et al. 2011). During the four cabinets led by Jan Peter Balkenende from 2002 till 2010, a renewed interest arose in Dutch culture and history. In the educational system, for instance, the government implemented a Dutch Canon representative of Dutch culture, a list of 50 themes represents the history of the Netherlands.6 Another example of this renewed interest, is the Rijksmuseum (i.e. The Dutch National Museum), which – after the reopening in 2013 –focuses on Dutch culture and history to a larger extent. The hall of honor now exclusively exhibits the Dutch master’s of the Golden Age, whereas mainly international paintings were displayed at the prominent places before the renovation (Volkskrant 2013). Already in 2013, the new announced director, Taco Dibbits formulated a strategy to transform the Rijksmuseum into a national institute with more attention for the Dutch cultural history (Ibid.). During the same period, during the presentation of a report on the Dutch identity written by the Scientific Council of Governments policy in 2007 (WRR)7, Queen Maxima of the Netherlands (still a princess at that time) said that “the Dutchman does not exist”, implying that there is no such thing as a fixed Dutch idenity.8

This sparked a massive debate on the Dutch identity in the media. At that moment, there was the call to define typical Dutch traditions, symbols, customs, practices, history and heritage, to be clear to the migrant population of what the Dutch identity consists of (Dibbits et al. 2011).

On the whole, the spirit of the UNESCO convention for the Safeguarding of the ICH fits in this renewed interest for the traditional culture of the Netherlands. The Dutch government ratified the convention in 2012 and the Dutch Centre for Intangible Heritage (KIEN),9 was assigned with the task to manage the national inventory of ICH in the Netherlands. Ratifying the UNESCO convention obliges a country to make an inventory of the existing ICH in their territory. The convention prescribes the importance and necessity of a participating community in the nomination and

6_{Foundation entoen.nu stimulated the use of the canon of the Netherlands and is established after the}

implementation of the canon in the Dutch educational system (http://www.entoen.nu/ 2016).

7

Translation from Dutch: Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid

8_{Translation from Dutch: “Dé Nederlander bestaat niet”}

9_{Translation from Dutch: Kenniscentrum Immaterieel Erfgoed Nederland. The organization was formerly called}

Centre of Folk Culture and Intangible Heritage. Translation from Dutch: Centrum voor Volkscultuur en Immaterieel Erfgoed (VIE)

A future for the intangible past : a sociological study on constructing UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Netherlands