Verslag Emma Waterton - Immaterieel Erfgoed met Prik

Imagine IC series
Intangible heritage with “Pop”
#5 with Emma Waterton
Co- organised with the Reinwardt Academy (AHK) and funded by the Mondriaan Fund
#5 Clashing and Sharing:
Emotions in Intangible Heritage Practice.
With Emma Waterton and a special intangible surprise
10 November 2015
Contents
The content of this report follows the programme of the seminar.
1. Introduction ................................................................... p.1
2. Emotion Networks in Intangible Heritage Practice ........................ p.3
Marlous Willemsen (Imagine IC) and Hester Dibbits
(Reinwardt Academy - AHK) ................................................................ p.3
Aroma jockey Scentman ...................................................................... p.3
3. Emma Waterton: “Affective Cosmopolitanisms in Spaces of Heritage” . p.3
4. Theories of Emotions in the Heritage Field ................................. p.5
Markus Balkenhol (Meertens Institute) – Politics of Compassion .............. p.5
Eline Hansen (University of Amsterdam, Sociology Department, and
MA student at the Reinwardt Academy – AHK) - Emotional
investment in city spaces and mobilisations of heritage formation ............ p.6
Chiara de Cesari (University of Amsterdam, European Studies) –
Heritage and Cultural Racism ............................................................... p.6
5. Theories of Emotions in Heritage Practice.................................. p.7
Wayne Modest (Dutch Museum of World Cultures) Emotional subjects, feeling objects ........................................................ p.7
Klaartje Schweizer (Netherlands Open Air Museum) The benefits of nostalgia; safe and risky stories in the Nederlands
Openluchtmuseum ............................................................................... p.7
Martin Berendse (Amsterdam Public Library)Emotions in library practices ................................................................ p.8
6. Reflections and Conclusions ................................................. p.9
1
1. Introduction
Since the ratification of the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible
Cultural Heritage in the Netherlands in 2012, intangible cultural heritage has
become the subject of strongly increased attention in this country. In response
to this development, Imagine IC and the Reinwardt Academy established the
series “Intangible Heritage with Pop”. With these series, we aim to produce
knowledge on definitions and methodologies of intangible heritage by focusing on
daily lives in the big city.
Among the participants in previous episodes were Saidiya Hartman (Columbia
University), who talked about old and new traditions of slavery commemoration;
Paul Moore (Ulster University), who dealt with (city) sounds as time documents;
and Crispin Paine (University College London), who discussed believing, rituals,
and the “things” we use in doing so. Every time and again, emotions hit the
stage.
Emotions are more than just an individual, mental affair. They make themselves
felt throughout our bodies, and are stimulated by people and things around us. In
this way, we either connect to them or reject them – in constant connection with
other people who share our feelings and in constant opposition to those who hold
other feelings. The feelings they evoke and the cultural connections they
generate in doing so comprise the meaning of all heritage – movable and
immovable, tangible and intangible. This is the reason we explored the idea of
emotion networks in particular as a methodological starting point for the
collection of intangible heritage.
Take Black Pete and “Slang” – both were to be seen/experienced at Imagine IC on
the day of seminar #5. People with a shared view of these topics and people
clashing over them exist in equal numbers. And what is more, all of them are part
of one network of emotions around such heritage items. The collection of
intangible heritage boils down to the continuous documentation of its
appreciation. How could one make conflicting emotions sit at one and the same
table of meaning attribution in this participative collection process in a fruitful
way? And what more can we gain from this? Compassion? And will this, in its
turn, lead to new connections? Could this committed heritage practice make the
neighbourhood or the world a better place?
2
In the final episode of the seminar series “Intangible Cultural Heritage with Pop”
on 10 November 2015, cultural anthropologist and geographer Emma Waterton
(Western Sydney University) discussed the relationship between heritage and
emotions – a subject of increasing attention. This subject often focuses on
responses of audiences in exhibitions rather than on the entire process of
heritage production. For this reason, we invited Emma Waterton to join us in our
exploration of the role of shared AND clashing emotions in the collection of
(intangible) heritage.
Her keynote lecture was followed by two panels of heritage professionals: with
Markus Balkenhol (Meertens Institute), Eline Hansen (University of Amsterdam,
Sociology and MA Student at Reinwardt Academy - AHK), Chiara de Cesari
(University of Amsterdam, European Studies), Wayne Modest (Research Center
for Material Culture, National Museum of World Cultures), Klaartje Schweizer
(Netherlands Open Air Museum) and Martin Berendse (Amsterdam Public Library).
In addition, aroma jockey Jorg Hempenius (Scentman) had a special intangible
surprise in store for all participants.
Nancy Jouwe, cultural activist and an independent scholar of post-colonial and
gender issues, hosted the full-day programme and led the discussions and
reflections with the 80 people in the audience.
2. Emotion Networks in Intangible Heritage Practice
Marlous Willemsen (Imagine IC) and Hester Dibbits (Reinwardt Academy - AHK)
jointly opened the seminar and welcomed all the participants to Imagine IC, and
to the Amsterdam Public Library, with which Imagine IC shares its building.
Recollecting the earlier events in the seminar series “Intangible Heritage with
Pop”, the audience was reminded of the importance of emotions. Moreover,
Willemsen and Dibbits argued for the use of emotion networks: “We adopted the
idea that, as far as the collection of ICH in the metropolis and the reflection of
our own fluid times in our work are concerned, we should shift our
methodological orientation from communities to networks. A network is not just,
or simply, interlinked with an item of ICH, but also links to it a variety of stakes
3
that are expressed by various emotions – sometimes stirred by the item itself,
and sometimes by other people’s emotions about such an item.”
Aroma jockey Jorg Hempenius, also known as Scentman, followed up on these
introductory words with a performance that evoked emotions in the audience and
opened up the discussion of the significance of emotions for heritage practice.
Participants noted how scents are often about memories: especially the scents of
different places and foods evoked emotions. Jorg Hempenius presented two sets
of three scents, which were diffused into the audience. Whereas the scents of
grass and coffee where accepted almost silently, the smell of “pepernoten”
excited the audience.
The second set evoked more clashing emotions. Both Axe Deodorant and Red
Bull Energy Drink were experienced as very heavy, and the third scent, that of
weed, evoked both smiling faces and grimaces. Host Nancy Jouwe explained that
these stereotypical scents were related to the exhibition that surrounded the
seminar. “Leip - Alles over Stadse Babbels” tells the story of youth language, an
important and positive practice for many, but a deviant or even dangerous
practice according to others.
4
3. Emma Waterton: “Affective Cosmopolitanisms in Spaces of
Heritage”
Emma Waterton introduced her theoretical work by sharing a personal memory of
a trip to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum in Japan in 1999. A wall was
displayed, where a stain had been visible: it was all what was left of a man who
had been sitting there when the heat of the atomic bomb engulfed the city.
Waterton shared her experience: “My body filled with a haze of sensations. I must
have looked quite wild in those moments. Realisation and disbelief chasing their
way across my face. I turned then and left. Shocked and without an ending.”
Looking back, Waterton understands this experience as a more-than-
representational way of understanding heritage. The experience illustrates her
definition of heritage. Heritage not only encompasses sites and objects, but also
the feelings of affinity, empathy, alienation or boredom we might experience in
connection with them: the situational affective context of heritage.
Waterton speaks of Affective Cosmopolitanism, a term that she coined together
with colleagues Professor Steve Watson and Dr Philipp Schorch (in press 2016)
to understand heritage, emotion and difference in concert. Affected by
industrialism, migration and globalism, public spaces have become more diverse
in a racial, ethnic and social sense. Helpful is Elijah Anderson’s notion of the
cosmopolitan canopy, which gives people whose reference point often remains
their own social class or ethnic group, a chance to encounter others. This works
towards a more cosmopolitan appreciation of difference. Anderson identifies
cosmopolitan canopies such as squares, markets and sporting events. Waterton
and colleagues suggest adding spaces of heritage to this list of cosmopolitan
canopies, since they might moderate and facilitate cross-cultural encounters.
They are interested in the social dynamics of the cosmopolitan canopy and how
this translates into the potentialities for affecting the way that people engage in
and with heritage: “Mapped across the spaces of heritage, visits may be
considered as profoundly affective, in that they prompt and set in motion
embodied engagements and acts of meaning-making.”
Affective Cosmopolitanism proposes an extended lens on more-thanrepresentational literature, one that goes beyond Spinozian and Deleuzian ideas
of precognitive and pre-personal dimensions of embodied experience: “This is
5
because of the difficulty we have with assuming that affect can somehow be
separated from human meaning-making. Indeed, we are more interested in theory
of affect that encompasses the subject and subjective responses expressed
inseparably as emotion, cognition and the construction of meaning.” Instead of
working with hardbound definitions that distinguish affect and emotion, Waterton
argues that we have to live with the inherent messiness of these concepts. A
focus on affect alone excludes the emotional and intersubjective processes that
constitute daily life.
Waterton’s current research explores the relationships between heritage, emotion
and difference in Kakadu National Park in Australia, a World Heritage Site
receiving 170,000 visitors each year. Kakadu is famous for many natural aspects,
as well as rock art galleries throughout the park. The land is Aboriginal-owned,
managed together with Parks Australia. Heritage sites are social sites were
national identities are constructed. Since the park is also on national heritage
lists, it was the ideal place to research both comfortable and challenging notions
of national belonging. Heritage places and objects come to be understood as
transmitters of affect. What do the visitors feel and how do they respond? How
do visitors define themselves in relation to the heritage site, and in terms of
shared identity construction? “I wanted to understand how representations of
Australia’s past were negotiated, made knowable and/or rejected within the
affective encounters of everyday life.”
Waterton’s participant observation, auto-ethnography and other research
methods enabled insights into bodily engagement, agency and subjectivities.
Visitors were asked to record their experiences and interpretations on photo or
video. Post-visit follow-up interviews involved more than just looking at the
images. They also explored memories and feelings. The interviews were used to
trigger a bodily engagement or corporeal enactment through memory. Clearly the
visitors expressed a range of responses, but there was nonetheless a strong
feeling of “identity-making” and deep personal emotions articulated while on site.
The national park is a place of national pride, but visitors are reminded that it is
also a deeply sacred Aboriginal landscape. Visitors engage in various levels of
critical reflections on broader historical and contemporary issues in Australia. For
some, recognition and familiarity with the site were the only affects. For others,
the connection with the Australian nation aroused positive sentiments, feelings
6
of pride. But many visitors' sentiments were actively and imaginatively inclusive,
and Waterton was interested in their ability to influence public feeling of
Australia’s contentious history and historical and contemporary racism in
Australia. Kakadu as a national icon is therefore complicit in a dialogue of
belonging between individuals and the larger and “imagined community”. The
lived, embodied and eventually transformative experience of visitors
demonstrates that spaces of heritage put into practice can be an intervention
that is both affective and cosmopolitan.
In the Q&A session after the lecture, Emma Waterton elaborated on how this is
followed up on by some museums: “In Australia there are a few institutions where
there is deliberate attempt to provoke a debate about difference. In the
Immigration Museum this concerns multicultural communities and in the National
Museum of Australia it tends to play out in terms of provoking a responsible
reaction to Australia’s settler history.” Furthermore, she stated that the solution
lies in finding places in which discomfort is OK. There has been a tendency to
represent good feelings, to represent a good history which someone may take
pride in. History will make people uncomfortable and people do not want to feel
uncomfortable. Feeling discomfort is what we want you to feel, because that is
the start of a process towards reconciliation.
4. Theories of Emotions in the Heritage Field
Markus Balkenhol followed up the debate on emotion networks with a
presentation on the politics of compassion. By referring to the abolition of
slavery in the Netherlands, the Black Pete debate and public discussion on white
privilege in the Netherlands, Balkenhol reiterated how emotions are never an
individual matter: “We have learned how to feel about the world and the things in
it.” He argues that emotions and feelings are a form of cultural heritage, because
they are inherited from the past. Both emotions and cultural heritage are things
we “do” in the present, although they are aimed at the future. “Although we
inherit, although we are products of uneven pasts, we can – and we must –
refreshen future that transcends that past.” Would compassion be a logical
answer? Balkenhol argues that compassion is a natural instinct, but within one’s
own group. Like Hannah Arendt remarked: “the worst atrocities have been
7
committed in the name of compassion”. Furthermore, compassion produces
uneven power relations, relegating one side to passivity while granting the other
agency. These hierarchies are often racialized. The slavery memorial in
Amsterdam serves as an example of how the sufferers utilise this uneven
relation, which lends them social and political leverage. The initiators asked for a
gesture for recognition of the suffering of their ancestors and their continued
marginalised position today, and thereby anticipated on the emotive work of
compassion. It might seem ironic, since slavery during colonialism was often
framed as compassion, and later the abolishment of slavery was framed as an act
of compassion as well. The Netherlands sees itself as a caring nation and is very
proud of that. Is this pride hypocritical? Perhaps. But it also does things.
Although an unequal power relation is implied, invoking compassion does not by
definition strip the sufferer of agency. Compassion can play a role in a future of
shared humanity, as long as one is not oblivious of one’s own history, provided
that compassion is handled with care.
The second contributor, Eline Hansen, examined in her presentation how
diversifying populations take a claim on spaces in the city through mobilisation of
heritage formation, and how emotions play a role in this. She presented the case
study of the Undercroft, on the Southbank of London, an abandoned
construction site that was appropriated by skaters. They created a place to meet
like-minded individuals, and produced a sense of belonging. They produced a
space through emotional ownership, which brings with it a sense of responsibility
and care. It illustrates the network-like character of emotional ownership of a
space and what implications this has for shaping social relations. Hansen argues
that these networks are always present, but only come to the fore when
something changes. We have to bear in mind that not everyone is emotionally
invested in the same way; it can be negative as well as positive. Emotions may
pertain to fear, irritation, etc., but the economic investment can also be the
source of an emotional response. Ultimately the emotions relate to the question
“What was valued as cultural heritage and what was not, and of course, by
whom?” The built environment shapes what people do and how they come into
contact; it plays a role in the way social networks are formed. “This case
demonstrates how production of cultural heritage plays an intrinsic role in
shaping space and vice versa, through who is there and who is not, when they
8
are there and when not, how they belong or not belong and perceptions of who
they are and who they are not, and ultimately, how they all belong together.”
Chiara de Cesari discussed the entanglement of cultural racism and the current
making of a European heritage. What is European heritage about and what are
European values? De Cesari shared with us the similarities she noticed between
discourses of heritage promoted by the EU and deeply racist discourses of, for
example, the Pegida movement. One striking example is the idea that Islam is
fundamentally incompatible with European values, and thus with a shared
European heritage. There is range of emotions attached to this cultural racism,
and De Cesari demonstrated the co-production of heritage and radicalised affect.
Europe displays an uncanny superiority by claiming that Europe is everything but
Islam, and is based on a Judeo-Christian tradition.
Quite some effort and policy money was put in to create Europe as a cultural
entity, instead of just an economic and political entity. Therefore “European
heritage” is being mobilised in the public sphere, aiming to reflect both unity and
diversity in European heritage. The way European diversity is portrayed however,
is very narrow. The view does not allow for the colonial and racial history of
Europe, but is mainly based on the suffering of the Holocaust and Communism.
Nor is there any space for cultural or religious diversity, and the European
museums focus only on national diversity. Therefore, De Cesari argues that we
should look at the broader presence of heritage in the public spheres and in
political discourse: how is European heritage mobilised by politicians? How does
the politics of fear relate to such circulating notions of European heritage?
The Q&A at the end of this first panel resulted in a discussion about diversity
and heritage. Whereas some in the audience felt compassionate towards
Balkenhol’s warning of not being oblivious of the past and white privilege, others
expressed the desire for a more inclusive discourse. Some members in the
audience claimed that reinforcing the terms “black” and “white” would not
produce any progress in this matter, whereas other members argued that
racialization should not be silenced. We have to take into account the anxieties
that people feel of being “overrun” by others, without neglecting the issue of
race. Working towards an inclusive heritage production implies the inclusion of
discussions on race and the inclusion of dissonant emotions and uneven pasts.
9
5. Theories of Emotions in Heritage Practice
The first speaker of the afternoon session was Wayne Modest, who shared his
research on curators that he interviewed about curating the colonial. Colonial
past is sometimes articulated in terms of “us” and “them”. What kind of
emotions do objects engender in all of us and what does that do to our subject?
In his research, Modest looks at the various emotions – such as shame, regret,
loss, pride – we go through as curatorial subjects looking at colonial objects.
Documents and photographs of colonial atrocities have always been present in
the Netherlands, but the way they are framed makes them appear to lie outside
national history. National history and colonial history are mostly kept apart, which
results in a different kind of colonial aphasia. In curating exhibitions on the
colonial past, there is a dividing line between two sets of visitors: white Dutch
visitors and “Surinamese people”. In curating the colonial, how do we come to
our common history? Sara Ahmed writes that both shame and good feeling are
part of creating the nation; both are important in order to deal with difficult
histories while creating feelings of belonging. Another matter that Modest
discussed was the question of “Who is allowed to feel?” While one interviewed
curator mentioned that he wanted to do justice to the subject of history by
distancing himself, another curator expressed embarrassment, regret and
remorse. Past atrocities are more often dealt with with regret and apologies. In
short, “there is no heritage without emotions. It is through emotions that
heritage is inaugurated as heritage”. We have to ask ourselves who the scholars
and curators are. The lack of emotions as well as the silences in museums are
reflections of an inadequate dealing with our colonial past in our society.
Klaartje Schweizer shared her experience of emotions in the Netherlands Open Air
Museum, more specifically on the concept of “nostalgia”. The museum was
founded in 1912, as an active contribution to the construction of national
identity. At the time, it (re)presented everyday life traditions in the countryside
from a static point of view. “Nostalgia” is a container term for certain emotions
which are nowadays disapproved of in academic environments. Feelings of
nostalgia are often evoked by simple everyday objects, while at the same time
the term is associated with conservatism, political exploitation and nationalism.
10
Actually, academic work, especially from a postmodernist view, is by its own
nature the opposite of what nostalgia is believed to be. Deconstructing and
unveiling the dynamics and power relations attributed to the phenomenon leaves
us with a feeling about the past which is unpleasant in every thinkable way.
However, taking the stern judgment of nostalgia as something “bad” as a
starting point might cause us to overlook the opportunities it provides.
“Nostalgia or nostalgic feelings can contribute to the understanding of one’s
biography and the past of one's family. We focus on the evocation of personal
stories and try to connect these to bigger [?] narratives, preferably from multiple
perspectives.” Schweizer illustrated this approach by, among other things, the
example of the Moluccan barrack. The negotiations of the narratives in this
particular project demonstrate that nostalgia does not only involve “safe”
stories, but also opens up the possibility to present “riskier”, more layered
stories. Meeting, participation and exchange create the opportunity to present
more perspectives in one story.
Martin Berendse presents the OBA (Amsterdam Public Library): the largest
cultural institution in the city, with 26 branches and nearly 4 million visitors a
year. The OBA is located all over Amsterdam. It is noticeable that residents from
different districts interact with each other in very different ways due to
differences in culture and knowledge. A literary café at OBA Reigersbos has a
very different character from one at OBA Linnaeus or OBA De Hallen. One of the
greater mysteries of modern library use is the increasing need for people to read
and learn together. The more information is made available online, the more
people just seem to feel the need to come together at the library. That is where
"knowledge and cultural networks", but maybe also "emotion networks” arise.
These new developments represent a major challenge for employees of OBA
branches. They are increasingly asked to provide not only knowledge and
information, but also communication to enable the exchange of ideas among
visitors. OBA is evolving to respond to these changes to their best ability. The
library serves as a platform for sharing emotions – in education, activities and the
exchange of information. Imagine IC has been an important partner in facilitating
that exchange, and will hopefully remain such a partner in all branches in the
future.
11
The question of how different narratives, pasts and emotions come together in
heritage practice was followed up on in the Q&A after the afternoon session. A
student of the Reinwardt Academy questioned whether “shared heritage” would
be a useful concept in the discussions. Another student followed up on that
question by asking if shared heritage was not about unequal relations. Wayne
Modest argued that it could be a productive term, but that it is often embedded
in a political context. We need to think about what “sharing” is. It does not have
to be unequal, as long as “shared” includes that problematic element which
makes heritage a truthful, equal exercise. “One of the reasons why I think shared
heritage can be productive is because it enables us to ask the question: how did
we get to it? It forces us to realise that our histories were bad and commits us to
understand those emotions and use them in the present for productive reasons.”
Another member in the audience remarked that the story of the Moluccan
barrack was a good example of a network of emotions, because at the end, the
multiple perspectives meet. Klaartje Schweizer acknowledged that emotion
networks enrich concepts like multiple voices and perspectives, which the
museum already incorporates. It will be a new endeavour to see how we can use
this new concept in the future.
6. Reflections and Conclusions
“Clashing and Sharing” was an emotional event. Not only were emotions the
centre point of attention, the concept of emotion networks and its implications
in the heritage field evoked emotions as well. Waterton’s recollection of her own
bodily experience in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial museum demonstrated how it
is through emotions that heritage is shared. Even with items that we might not
consider “our” heritage, understanding and involvement are created through
affect. The concept of “affective cosmopolitanism” was introduced to help us
understand heritage, emotion and difference in concert. Instead of just aiming for
an encounter with others, we should work towards the appreciation of difference
and be ready to allow for emotion shifts. Waterton also reminded us how the
division between tangible and intangible heritage is an artificial one, and emotion
networks help us realise how tangible and intangible heritage are always
interrelated. The significance of the tangible is non-existent until we attach a
value to it.
12
Several presentations during this event dealt with contestations; either uneven
pasts, clashing memories or unequal representation in museums and archives.
Markus Balkenhol’s thoughtful deliberations on compassion allowed us to think
through a way to overcome this unevenness. Both his and Wayne Modest’s
contributions opened up the discussion on power dimensions in both heritage
theory and practice. Who is allowed to feel? How do we include clashing emotions
in order to create a more complete image of heritage and a more inclusive shared
future? We should not neglect “uneven pasts” (Balkenhol) or “difficult” stories
(Schweizer), but work together towards a future where “shared heritage” is in
fact an equal, shared story that reflects difference in our societies. An
investigation of the role of emotions in heritage and of how emotions are part of
the sharing networks of heritage will allow us to discuss the significance of
heritage items without falling into the trap of presenting a feel-good parade.
“Clashing and Sharing” was a concluding event in the series “Intangible Heritage
with Pop”. It connected the earlier episodes on the remembrance of slavery,
sounds, religion and more, through the one thing they have in common: emotion
networks. We look forward to see how emotion networks could be implemented
in heritage practices and to further theoretical and methodological reflections.
Report, photos, film and audio recordings (c) Imagine IC
Author Jasmijn Rana (and special thanks to: Ramon de la Combé)
English-language editing Medea
Photography Auke van der Hoek
Film and audio recording Vernon Roberts
13