Dear all,
This essay will be developed as a part of the introduction in my thesis entitled
‘Architectural Heritage: as Culture and Cultural Policy in Europe 1960s-1990s,
Culture, Nation and Community, Whose Buildings are They? The brief scope of my
thesis is as follows:
*****************************************************
The European Union, a grand political project of the post World War II period, has
searched for new ways to advance the integration process since the 1960s, making culture a
key concept in that process. This thesis presents an analysis of the ways the EU has sought to
build Europe by using concepts of culture and architectural heritage. In so doing, it will
propose a new way of looking at the EU’s transformation from the 1960s to the 1990s,
namely the cultural construction of the ‘new Europe’. It will examine the European Union’s
ways of exploiting the power of architectural heritage upon the integration process. The
primary idea is that architectural heritage has been exploited in threes ways: as a
representation of common European culture; as a metaphor for building the ‘new Europe’,
and as a key aspect of development. The interplay of these functions serves as a dynamic
force to insert the ‘idea of Europe’ in the European Union’s denationalization process.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF ‘THE NEW EUROPE’
As far as collective memory of the past plays a significant role in creating the
sense of belonging to any communities among their people, political regimes
practically exercise their power in the process of making the past in which artefacts
are chosen to be its representation. Similarly, the European Union has endeavored to
construct ‘the new Europe’ by creating a collective memory known as the ‘common
European culture’ in the process of which the concept of architectural heritage has
become seminal in the representation of common European culture. Architecture by
its nature mirrors the shadow of power by two levels. Firstly, the power of
architecture itself creates human-being’s dwellings and space. It becomes a built
environment which influences people’s lives. Secondly, it represents power of any
political regimes in constructing their communities through styles and the function of
architecture. Metaphorically, architecture as a structure of form is the very symbol of
power and bureaucracy since its physical appearance is a huge form of something
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
2
powerful, important and complex. Undoubtedly, any political regimes, including the
European Union are attracted by the language of architecture and select it to be a
representation of European culture.
However, not every architecture is selected to be the representation of
common European culture. In the selection process, the idea of heritage is concerned.
The term ‘heritage’ is also similar to architecture in the sense that it associates with
power—who defines what is heritage. Heritage as collective inheritance is a symbol
of a community civilization and culture. Political power, particularly nation state
takes a dominant role in defining what is national heritage. By the same token, a new
political power like the European Union has endeavored to build up the Community
by getting involved with architectural heritage. Nevertheless, the relation between
supra nation and architectural heritage in a contemporary period is characterized not
only by political power’s vision but also by the on growing trend of the socioeconomic benefit of heritage industry which becomes a main actor in shaping the
perception of the past. More importantly, from the nineteenth century onwards,
architectural heritage has long functioned as a symbolic factor in defining the nationstate, but the European Union has endeavored to promote national architectural
heritage in order to celebrate ‘the common European culture’ or ‘the European unity’.
Such a contradiction, thus, proves to be interesting in seeing why architectural
heritage is so important for the construction of ‘the new Europe’.
Herein, the significance of architectural heritage is the point of departure and
it will be analyzed into three main topics: the rise of the term ‘heritage’ in the post
war period; the importance of architectural heritage for defining nation state, and ‘the
new Europe’. As heritage become a main actor in shaping the landscape of the past,
the rise of heritage and heritage industry needs to be clarified. My argument is that the
term ‘heritage’ which has been widely used nowadays is a rather new concept, it only
emerged and has been formulated since the 1970s. Furthermore, the widespread use of
the term ‘heritage’ was influenced by the international movement and the socioeconomic element of heritage. Subsequently, the significance of architectural heritage
shall be analyzed in the context of nation state and supra-nation. Why architectural
heritage is important to the construction of Europe is another principle question. The
hypothesis is that the European Union assumes the role of a nation state and imprints
its power over the reinterpretation of European history by defining what the
architectural heritage of Europe is. However, the involvement of the European Union
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
3
in the field of architectural heritage and the way of using this architectural heritage is
more complex than that of the nation state.
Heritage
The term ‘heritage’ has gradually arrived in vogue since the 1970s. Originally,
it meant ‘that which has been or may be inherited; any property, and esp. land which
develops by right of inheritance’.1 Before the 1970s, the terms ‘cultural property’ and
‘historical monument’ were more applied to historical and cultural assets. In `1954,
UNESCO adopted a convention2 to protect cultural assets from armed conflict by
selecting the term ‘cultural property’. In the convention, the term heritage is
mentioned as an alternative term of cultural property. Weber3 proposes that the term
heritage substituted the concept of historical monument in the 1970s. This proposal is
somewhat reasonable since before the 1970s, the term ‘historical monument’ was
widely used at the international level, applied to architecture as artistic and historical
value. At that time, the international movement to protect historical and cultural
property was more concerned with the endurance of the past by using the term
‘historical monument’. The most important witness is the Venice Charter (1964)
which uses the term historical monuments and sites meaning that,
‘The concept of an historic monument embraces not only the single architectural work but also
the urban or rural setting in which is found the evidence of a particular civilization, a
significant development or an historic event. This applies not only to great works of art but
also to more modest works of the past which have acquired cultural significance with the
passing of time’4
In this Charter, the term ‘heritage’ was used as a collective term referring to human
being property without any significance.
1
The Oxford English Dictionary. Vol. 5 Oxford University Press, 1970, p.242.
2
The Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The ‘Hague
Convention’), with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention, as well as the Protocol to the Convention and
the Conference Resolutions, 14 May 1954
3Weber,
4
Raymond. ‘Editorial’. European Heritage. No. 3, 1995, p.1. http:culture.coe.fr/Infocentre/pub/eng/epe
‘The Venice Charter’. http://www.icomos.org/docs/venice_charter.html.
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
4
The term ‘heritage’ began gaining its importance in the European Conference
of Ministers held in Brussels in 1969. In this conference, it was juxtaposed to the term
‘monument’ as seen in the recommendation namely, Recommendation of the
European Conference of Ministers Responsible for the Preservation and
Rehabilitation of the Cultural Heritage of Monuments and Sites. Nevertheless, it
became an international term in 1972 when UNESCO announced the Convention
Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1972. Later,
the Council of Europe through the Committee of Ministers also used the term heritage
by heading its charter concerning architecture ‘European Charter of the Architectural
Heritage’ (1975). Besides, in the European Union’s documents concerning culture in
the 1970s, the term ‘heritage’ was used as a representation of European culture.5
The outgrowth of the concept of ‘heritage’ since the 1970s has had three new
characters. First of all, it includes natural resources to be natural heritage such as
landscape, natural sites, outstanding parks and etc. Secondly, for cultural heritage, the
meaning is very broad as the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage defines that cultural heritage means,
‘Monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and
painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave
dwellings and combinations of features, which are out standing universal value from
the point of view of history, art or science;
Groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which,
because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of
outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art and science.
Sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and are
including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the
historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view’. 6
Thirdly, the concept of heritage has been broadened to include recent cultural assets
and buildings such as industrial heritage—buildings in dock land, tools in old
factories, coal mine sites etc. This is a new phenomenon in the sense that artistic value
is not the only criteria in order to judge which artefact can be called a heritage. The
practical value of artefacts becomes another important concern.
Heritage in vogue: factors
5
Please see details in the European Parliament’s reports and debates in the 1970s.
6
UNESCO. ‘Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 16 November
1972’. Conventions and Recommendations of UNESCO Concerning the Protection of the Cultural Heritage.
Geneva: UNESCO, 1983,p.80
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
5
1. The increase of international solidarity in protecting the world’s properties
The idea of protecting cultural and natural properties has gradually become
more international in the post war period since almost all of Europe were affected by
the war. It brought about the increasing awareness of protecting cultural properties at
a national level. Furthermore, natural disasters such as flood which submerged
outstanding heritage and artistic value and cities, was an important catalyst to
formulate the international solidarity to protect the world properties. The first
movement was the protection of the Abu Simbel and Philae temples in Egypt which
were greatly affected by the decision of the Egyptian government to construct the
Aswan High Dam. The construction of the Aswan High Dam could cause floods in
the valley containing these two temples. The two temples were also ‘dismantled and
moved to dry ground and reassembled’.7 In 1959, UNESCO launched international
campaigns to protect the temples. ‘The campaign cost approximately US$ 80 million,
half of which was donated by some 50 countries, showing the importance of nations’
shared responsibility in conserving outstanding cultural sites’.8 The concern with the
temple of Philea still appeared in 1966 as seen in the Times which published a
photograph of the temple with the description that, ‘The water of the Nile partly cover
the temple of Philea, one of the Nubian antiquities affected by the Aswan High Dam.
The water is now likely to remain at this level’.9
Another important event was a big flood in Florence and Venice on the 4th
November 1966. Consequently, ‘…all the streets of Florence were torrents of rushing
water as the River Arno broke its banks. Cars were lifted bodily and buried beneath
water and mud’.10 In Venice, the level of water was over 2 feet high and other areas
around were destroyed by the flood. Apart from physical damage of these two cities,
all buildings and works of art were in severe danger. Saving Florence’s art became a
huge international issue since it was far beyond the city’s and the Italian
government’s capacity to solve the problem alone. It started when ‘the city of
7
UNESCO. World Heritage Kit. http://www.unesco.org/whc/5history.htm.
8
Ibid.
9
The Times, November3, 1966.
10
‘Storm Havoc Causes 16 Deaths in Italy Floods Hit Florence and Venice as Country’s Links are Cut’ The
Times. November5, 1966.
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
6
Florence appealed to the world…to help save its flood-damaged art treasures’.11
Moreover, leading newspapers in many countries continued reporting news about the
flood and the art treasure in danger.
The formulation of international solidarity to protect world properties is
represented in newspapers. For example, the Times published a full page article, the
Ruin of Florentine Art: What the Floods have Cost Civilization, by John Sherman 12
who wrote that,
‘…the effects of this flood will continue, even for years; the weakening of foundations will go
on, rising damp in the wall will affect frescos, violent humidity changes will do further
damage to panel paintings or furniture… A definitive assessment of the destruction will never
be made. Similarly, no assessment can be given of the cost of whatever restoration can be
done. One may only say that if it is to be done within a generation the cost is many times
greater than any one country can bear.’13
Another example is an editorial article in the Times saying that,
‘To this must be added the cultural losses which no money can replace and which are only
now in process of being accurately assessed... Britain’s ties with Italy are of very special sort,
and imply special obligations. Leaving aside the dept that all European countries owe to Rome
and Italy in general, Britain’s special links over the past four centuries—and more—lie in the
things of the mind and of the human spirit’. 14
Furthermore, this idea was transformed into concrete action to protect Florentine art-the international committee was then set up to hasten restoration measures. People
from everywhere came to save Florence by giving a helping hand in moving all of the
works of art from water and mud to safe places. UNESCO launched an international
campaign for raising funds to restore art and the architectural heritage in Florence and
Venice. All of these experiences aroused awareness of the erosion of world properties
and the creating of the sense that all national properties are also world properties. In
this way, the term property does not serve the new rising sense, but the term ‘heritage’
functions well as a neutral term for international inheritance.
The world solidarity was also shaped by the UNESCO initiatives, the World
Heritage. The World Heritage is a project set up since 1972 for the reason that ‘the
cultural heritage and the natural heritage are increasingly threatened with destruction
11
‘Italian Petrol Tax for Flood Fund’ The Times November 9, 1966.
12
Sherman, John. ‘The Ruins of Florentine Art: What the Floods have Cost Civilization’ The Times November23,
1966.
13
IBID
14
‘Counting the Cost’. The Times November 17, !966.
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
7
not only by the traditional causes of decay, but also by changing Social and economic
conditions which aggravate the situation with even more formidable phenomena of
damage or destruction’.15 UNESCO has operated the Word Heritage initiative by
setting up the World Heritage Fund and the World Heritage Committee. The
Committee annually announces the world heritage list by selecting from the cultural
and natural sites. It also makes a list of heritage in danger each year in order to create
the awareness of protection of heritage among people all over the world. The longterm plan of the World Heritage initiative increases the sense of protecting heritage in
a national and international context. More importantly, it makes the term ‘heritage’
popular for referring to natural and cultural assets.
2. The increasing socio-economic trend of heritage
The term ‘heritage’ acquires its importance in the contemporary period,
having become an industry, a main witness is the increasing numbers of heritage
registered by states. For example, in Ireland, ‘during the decade 1970 to 1980, the
number of monuments given state protection …doubled, to 2,055 sites, with
substantial increase in listing and preservation order’16. The intervention of
architectural heritage of historical interest at that time is not limited only by the Irish
government, but expanded to local agencies which can be seen from the number of
sites and buildings in that decade, there were around 60, 000 buildings of historical
interest, but ‘one in ten of which were considered to be of national or international
significance’.17 It means that the nine percent of architecture of historic interest in
Ireland was invented by local agencies in order to attract tourists which was a new
approach to activate local economies.
Heritage has become an important commodity which brings about prosperity
in economic terms. This is very much influenced by the economic circumstances in
the 1970s and the 1980s when the fragile situation of the European economy
worsened because of the oil crisis in 1973. All European countries encountered
15
UNESCO. ‘Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 16 November
1972’. Conventions and Recommendations of UNESCO Concerning the Protection of the Cultural Heritage.
Geneva: UNESCO, 1983,p.79.
16
17
Prentice, Richard. Tourism and Heritage Attraction. London: Routledge, 193, p.23.
Ibid.
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
8
inflation, balance of payment difficulties, currency disorder, rising unemployment etc.
Even though the problem of economic recession was solved to a certain extent in the
late 1980s, the rate of unemployment was still high. In contrast to the decline of the
heavy industry, tourism grew and became one of the main income in many countries.
More importantly, tourism increased jobs in various ways, i.e., in accommodation
business, souvenir markets and heritage sites. In the light of this circumstance, tourist
attraction is a chief issue. As a result, most European countries actively created an
image of their capital cities and provinces by adding list of national heritage and
promoting them as tourist attractions. Moreover, many sites which related to
mankinds’ past and activities which had not been heritage such as coal mines and
other industrial sites were created to be heritage by private companies. Furthermore,
heritage industry expands since it is the commercialization of nostalgia. Changes in
European societies during the 1970s and the 1980s enhanced this feeling of nostalgia,
as Lowenthal wrote ‘dissatisfaction with the present and malaise about the future
induce many to look back with nostalgia, to equate what is beautiful and livable with
what is old or past’.18
3. The expansion of state heritage into popular culture
Next to the rise of the appropriate terminology, heritage has acquired an
additional new significance in the contemporary world, by being recreated as popular
culture. I agree with Prentice who proposes that ‘…what might be termed an official
heritage of state monuments increasingly expanded into popular culture’.19 In other
words, heritage, as artefact, initially functioned as a device of power in the Roman
Empire and during the formation of nation state, heritage such as architectural
monuments symbolized the sense of citizenship and royalty to the nation. When
tourism spread in the 18th century, the appreciation of state heritage dominated
tourists interests and it still continued until the early 20th century. At that time,
investment in heritage was mostly in the hands of state. The contention of heritage
between private sectors and state was not apparent.
18
Lowenthal, David. Our Past before Us. Why do We Save It?. London: Temple Smith, 1981, p. 216.
19
Prentice, Richard. Tourism and Heritage Attraction. London: Routledge, 1993, p. 23.
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
9
However, during the post war period, in particular, from the 1970s onwards,
heritage has become a popular culture in two ways. Firstly, it represents various
stories of popular history and local history. The increasing demand of new heritage
attractions for the tourist industry opens up space for local memories to be represented
through heritage. Secondly, heritage in a broad sense has become a mass leisure. The
new forms of heritage invention and consumption expand the new meaning of
heritage to people. While state heritage is highly invented for political purpose,
heritage as a popular culture is created to respond the tastes of consumers, markets
and vision of investors. This trend dramatically increases. Consequently, private
sectors and even nation states take an active role in turning heritage into a popular
culture.
This phenomenon corresponds with the changing of leisure time in European
society, the rebirth of cultural consumption, the ongrowing of global tourism and the
European force. During the post war period, the rate of leisure time in many countries
was higher than previously, due to the fact that the launching of the full wellfare state
together with the decline of the fixing of load long working hours enabled workers
and housewives to have more free time for holidays. Furthermore, the rebirth of
cultural consumption from the 1970s onwards has brought about new habit and
invention of cultural goods. The growing of global tourism is another factor which
activates the tourist industry in Europe. One of the images of Europe is a big museum
which is the most attractive factor in drawing tourists from other parts of the world
such as Japan, Korea and Latin American countries to visit Europe. What they want to
experience is European heritage. For the European force, it means the European
Union’s role in activating tourism in Europe which has a specific character-- the
European Union tries to promote intra-European tourism so as to promote intraEuropean understanding. All flexible measures concerning free movements of labor
and travelling set up by the European Union are potential since ‘more Europeans are
choosing to visit their continental neighbors than ever before in history’ 20
Furthermore, the European Union supports the invention of new heritage such as in
agricultural areas and in the industrial decline areas through various budgetary
instruments. This activity is a contributor in making heritage a popular culture.
20
Ashworth, Gregory J. ‘Heritage, Tourism and Europe: a European Future for a European Past’ in Hurburt, David
T. Heritage, Tourism and Society. Pinter, 1995, p. 77.
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
10
Architecture and architectural heritage and its relation to power:
nation-states models of exploiting architectural heritage
Architecture is a built environment which is designed and constructed by man.
It comprises both aesthetic and practical functions which provides human-being with
an opportunity to express their ideas regarding their relationship with the outside
world. In other words, it signifies the ways human-beings manage spaces by creating
architectural mirrors of how they think about themselves and the outside world.
Architecture is always considered as a symbol of human civilization since its elements
such as style and function change along with the development of human societies. In
ancient times architecture was designed and built to meet simple needs of humanbeings, but later its design and the construction methods became more complex. In
this development, architecture is associated with political power due to the fact that it
conveys collective memories through its artistic and practical functions.
This is very much concerned with the development in European society where
collective memories are found upon material objects. The origin of this memory
tradition sprang up in the Renaissance period and was then formulated in Western
society. Adrian Forty (1999) pins down this argument that ‘whether natural or artefact
can act as the analogues of human memory. It has been generally taken for granted
that memories formed in the mind, can be transferred to solid material objects, which
can come to stand for memories’.21The outgrowth of public museums from the mid
nineteenth century onwards has been a vivid case which shows that the western
society as a whole has the tendency to believe that material objects represent their
collective memories.
Just as material objects stand for the fragile memories of human beings,
architecture with its virtue of solidity is undoubtedly a long standing symbol of
collective memories. From this point, architecture attracts political power in order to
mobilize their vision of the world through its language. To a certain extent, it
represents the vision of political power in two ways-- representing the political
power’s idea of modernity and its vision of using the past for the sake of the present.
Put in another way, architecture is a significant medium for the political power to
21
Forty, Adrain. ‘Introduction’ Forty, Adrain and Kuchler, Susanne. The Art of Forgetting. Berg, 1999, p. 2.
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
11
express their self-interpretation. In turn, with time, the specific styles of architecture,
i.e., Renaissance, Gothic etc stand for memories of the period in which this
architecture was built. Therefore, political power has possibilities to apply or imitate
some previous architectural styles, which serve its vision of the world and power, to
be the architecture of its own time.
Furthermore, architecture by its own nature is symbolic in that it stands for
something else. More importantly, symbolic interpretations are imprecise since part of
their meaning is subjective, allowing for new reinterpretations. Thanks to its symbolic
function, architecture is a flexible medium in which political power can use its
language and at the same time contribute new meanings for a political purpose. A
good example of this explanation is the way in which the nation-state exploits
architecture and architectural heritage. In this heading, the discussion will be
furthered by arguing about reasons why analyzing the significance of architectural
heritage to the construction of the new Europe that can not be detached from looking
at its significance in defining a nation-state. Then, an aspect of nation-state, a political
imagery will be discussed as a foreground in order to better deduce an understanding
of why architecture becomes a representation of power. The last point in this heading
is concerned with the symbolic function of architecture and architectural heritage for
defining the nation-state.
Why is the model of architectural heritage as defined by the nation-state
significant for the construction of ‘the new Europe’?
First of all, the European Union has endeavored to represent itself as a new
kind of community, as it calls itself the ‘European community’. The concept of new
political community is unavoidably contestable with the concept of long-established
community, in particular, the nation-state. As a new Community, the European Union
has been analyzed from the point of view of political and economic development as
seen in much of the literature dealing with it. However, a community, as argued by
Anthony Cohen (1989), is not only a structural construction of a political constitution,
but rather a mental construction in the sense that the community needs to make itself
‘exist(ing) in the mind of its member’.22 In this process, symbolic factors such as
22
Cohen, Anthony. The Symbolic Construction of the Community. London: Routledge, 1989, p. 98.
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
12
boundaries and collective memory of the past playing a role as a share identity or
imagery among members of community.
This assumption is not only the academic’s construction, but the European
Union itself is also aware of constructing the Community in its people’s minds and
tries to forge the sense of belonging among its citizens. This can be traced back to
1976 when the Tindemans Report23 discussion on this point is that,
‘No one wants to see a technocratic Europe. European union must be experienced by the
citizen in his daily life. It must make itself felt in education and culture, news and
communications, it must be manifest in the youth of our countries, and in leisure time
activities’.24
Later, other political circumstances increased the European Union’s efforts to create
the imagined community. For example, it tried to use symbolical tools to convey the
idea of the community as seen from the launching of a five-year programme of
architectural heritage in 1985; producing the Community flag and song; promoting
the community boundary by distributing the community maps in Info-point Europe
and setting the programme called ‘A People Europe’ so as to make a European public
sphere by convincing its citizen how ‘Europe’ serves their daily life. 25 Therefore, the
European Union has become a new kind of community parallel to the community of
the nation-state.
Secondly, by constructing an imagery of the new community, the European
Union has endeavored to use architectural heritage symbolizing the common culture
of the new Europe. It initially imitated
the nation state’s model of exploiting
architectural heritage—it used the patronage system by sponsoring the preservation of
significance architectural heritage such as the Parthenon in Greece and Chiado in
Lisbon and launching an annual theme of supporting preservation through a project
carried out by its organizations.
Nation-state: a political imagery
23
The Tinedemans Report is a report written by the Prime minister of Belgium, Tindemans who was requested by
the European Council to revise the current stage of the European Union and to propose an idea how to further the
integration process. This report was later quoted and became one of the important guidelines of the European
Union in proceeding many policies, including cultural policy.
24
The European Commission. ‘European Union’ Report by Mr. Leo Tinedemans, Prime Minister of Belgium, to
the European Council. Bulletin of the European Communities. Supplement 1/76, p. 12.
25
Please see an example of this effort in Fontain, Pascal. A Citizen’s Europe. The European Commission, 1993.
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
13
In social sciences, there is a difference between the term ‘nation’ and ‘state’
which is needed to be clarified at the beginning. State means a unit of territory
ordered by sovereign power. It is also a ‘self governing set of people organized so that
they deal with others as a unit’.26 Whereas nation means the spirit of state which
includes its existence in its people’s minds and also the sense of belonging among its
citizen. Herein the term ‘nation-state’ is used as the co-meaning of the terms state and
nation, as Guiberneau defines that,
‘The nation-state is a modern phenomenon, characterized by the formation of a kind of state
which has the monopoly of what it claims to be the legitimate use of force within a
demarcated territory and seeks to unite the people subjected to its rule by means of
homogenization, creating a common culture, symbols, values, reviving traditions and myths of
origin…’. 27
By this definition, it links to the latest model of the nation-state building
(Anderson 1983) which attaches much importance to the role of imagery. According
to Anderson, the nation-state is neither deriving from gods will, nor a natural
phenomenon. Rather it is a political imagination which is only developed in modern
times. There are three ways in which it is imagined—it is imagined as limited;
sovereign and as a community. In other words, no matter how much of the citizen is
in a nation, it is limited by its boundary. Nation is imagined as a sovereign since it
symbolizes the freedom of human history which is a inheritance from the
Enlightenment intellectual development. Nation is imagined as a community since it
‘is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship….(O)ver the past two
centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willing to die for
such limited imaginings’.28
This approach perfectly corresponds with what Cohen points out that a
community building like a nation-state ‘can no longer be adequately described in
terms of institution and components, for now we recognize it as symbol to which its
various adherent impute their own meanings’.29 Therefore, a nation requires devices
to create its imagined community. The role of symbol; ritual and artifact intervenes
26
Kuper, Adam and Kuper, Jessica. ‘State’ in The Social Science Encyclopedia. London: Routledge, 1996, p. 835.
27
Guibernau, Montserrat. Nationalism. The Nation-State and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. Polity Press,
1996, p. 47.
28
Benedict, Anderson. Imagined Communities. London: Verso, 1983, p. 16.
29
Cohen, Anthony. The Symbolic Construction of the Community. London: Routledge, 1989, p.74.
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
14
at this point. The process in which these devices operate upon the constructing of the
imagined community in people’s minds lies in the relation of power and invented
memories and tradition.
Architectural heritage and its symbolic function for defining nation-state
Architectural heritage becomes one of the symbolic device on which political
power projects its vision of the world and conveys political message concerning
images of the community and forms of the imagined community in two ways.
Firstly, it transmits the self-conscious of the political regime through its style and
function. This process can be considered as the political regime’s way of expressing
the idea of modernity. Secondly, it is a representation of the idea of a political regime
which bases its legitimization on an identification with a past glory.
For the former, the case of the construction of the Opera House in Paris by
Napoleon III is a good example. Penelope Woolf (1988) analyses the belief which
was widespread among writers, architects and leaders in the nineteenth century that
architecture conveys the French civilizational spirit. The Opera House was, thus,
planed under this circumstance. Napoleon III, with the aspiration to build up the
image of the second empire and to enhance the reputation of Paris as a cultural
capital, wished to express the idea of modernity formulated in his empire through the
medium of architecture: location, style and function. As Woolf points out ‘by
locating the Opera at the centre of a district that was itself the heart of Paris, just as
Paris was the artistic capital of France, Europe and even the world, the imaginative
power of the monument would rest on layer of symbolic meaning’. 30 The Opera
House was designed by an architect, Garnier who was highly concerned with what he
was to design not only to create a style of ‘his age but also characteristic of the whole
nineteenth century’.31 Therefore, the style of the Opera House stands for ‘modern art
as realistic, a response to materialistic, individualistic era’.32It also demonstrates the
ideas of elegance, luxury and prosperity which is witnessed by its function serving as
30
Woolf, Penelope. ‘Symbol of the Second Empire: Cultural Politics and Paris Opera House’ in Cosgrove, Denis
and Daniels, Stephen. The Iconography of Landscape. Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of
Past Environment. Cambridge Universitry Press, 1988, p. 223.
31
IBID, p. 224.
32
IBID, p. 225.
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
15
a house of the grand opera. The opera in that time was a symbol of high appreciation
of materialistic value such as prosperity and luxury. In sum, architectural heritage, as
a built environment symbolizes the empire which was planned by political leaders.
However, the symbolic factor which architecture stands for does not only limit as the
interrelation between leaders, architects and architecture, but it touches people and
transmits its message by being their environment and a place where they can have
activities in their daily life.
For the second point, architectural heritage represent the political regime’s
self representation through the glory of the past. The fascist regime of Mussolini in
Italy is a perfect example. For Mussolini, as quoted in Gentile, ‘Monumental
architecture which lasts for centuries is a symbol of the permanence of the state’.33
The fascist regime endeavored to construct its self representation by exploiting the
past, in particular, the myth of Rome which Italian people were long familiar with. It
depicted the zenith epoch of Roman history, the Augustean’s era by emphasizing his
leadership. The reinterpretation of the Roman civilization, established ‘the regime as
the legitimate representative of the Italian nation’.34 Architectural heritage plays a
significant role in this process since it symbolized the glory of Rome. The fascist
government commissioned the support of the restoration of Roman architecture by
neglecting other architectural style such as the Middle Age architecture. Similarly, the
government ‘commissioned archaeological digs in search of the ruins of its Rome.
During the excavations, buildings belonging to the middle ages were found and
immediately destroyed in order to let ancient Rome predominate as original witness of
fascism’s glorious destiny’.35 Furthermore, when the fascist government organized
exhibitions demonstrating the greatness of the regime such as the grand exhibition in
1924. Architects applied classical style of architecture such as arches and columns to
be the theme of the whole exhibition structure.
The significance of architectural heritage for the construction of ‘the
new Europe’
33
Gentile, Emilo. The Sacralization of Politics in Fascist Italy. Harvard University Press, 1996, p. 122.
34
Falasca-Zamponi, Simonetta. Facism Spectacle. The Aesthetics of Power in Mussolini’s Italy. University of
California Press, 1997, p. 94.
35
IBID, p. 93.
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
16
Architectural heritage was recognized as a device to construct the new Europe
in 1974 when the Liberal and Allies Group, a political party in the European
Parliament, proposed to the European Parliament and the European Commission to
create the common European culture by preserving architectural heritage. The
incentive behind this phenomenon can be discussed in two ways. First of all, it lies in
the development within the European Union. At that time, the European Union elites
wish to advance the integration process by using the concept of culture. For example,
in the Hague Summit (1969), the heads of states for the first time regarded ‘Europe’
as an ‘exceptional seat of development, culture and progress; that it was indispensable
to preserve it’.36 Later, the final declaration of the Paris Summit (1972) contained the
observation that economic expansion is not an end in itself and ‘special attention will
be paid to non-material value…’37 Secondly, according to the presentation of Lady
Elle, the representative from the Liberal and Allies Group38 to the European
Parliament, architectural heritage is a symbol of the European common culture.
Furthermore, the reasons to preserve architectural heritage given by Lady Elle
correspond to the increasing of international trend to protect heritage—the term
‘heritage was used and the decaying problems of heritage were mentioned.
The European Parliament was the first organization of the European union
which became actively involved with architectural heritage activities—it urged the
European Commission to take a visible role in this field. The European Commission39
is the main organization of the European Union who has been in charge of
implementing all policies, including cultural policy, concerning architectural heritage.
Within the European Commission, there are main administrative units in charge of
separated subject matters called Directorate General (DG). Each DG is named by a
number such as DG I or DG II. In the case of architectural heritage, two DGs are
relevant-- the first one is called the Directorate General X (DG X) taking
responsibility for media, education and culture. Another one is the Directorate
36
Bulletin of the European Communities 1-1970. ‘The Hague Summit’, p. 7.
37
Bulletin of the European Communities 10-1972. ‘The First Summit Conference of the Enlarged the Community,
p. 15-16.
38
Please see details in Debates of the European Parliament, No. 176, May 1974.
39
The European Commission is ‘sometimes referred to as the ‘civil service’ of the European Union, (it)…is a
unique amongst international bureaucracies by virtue of its combination of administrative, executive, legislative
and responsibilities’. (Bainbridge, Timothy. The Penguin Companion to European Union. Penguin Book, 1997, p.
160.)
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
17
General XVI (DG XVI) whose main responsibility is regional policy. Obviously, the
DG X is a major organ of the European Commission who directly launches cultural
programmes, particularly, it set up the long-term architectural heritage programmes
over the last three decades. In contrast to its image which is seemingly far concerned
with architectural heritage matters, the DG XVI is a highly potential unit in
supporting architectural heritage preservation and creating new heritage such as urban
heritage, architectural heritage in rural and industrial decline areas through it regional
development programmes. The DG XVI is in charge of regional policy by mobilizing
a big amount of budgetary instruments of the Community called the Structural Fund
which bring about a great impact on architectural heritage. From these facts, several
questions concerning architectural heritage and ‘the new Europe’ arise. Firstly, what
is ‘the new Europe? Secondly, what is the significance of architectural heritage for the
new Europe?
‘The New Europe’
‘The new Europe’ is a political discourse which emerged and was formulated
along with the development of uniting Europe, known as the European Union. As an
idea, uniting Europe did not spring up for the first time at the end of the Second
World War. European scholars had long contemplated European unification but the
lack of a strong impetus prevented such an idea from becoming reality. The Second
World War confronted people in Europe, from citizen to political leaders, with
devastated situation. The idea of uniting Europe was revived as a result. As a
discourse, ‘the new Europe’ appeared when political leaders like Jean Monnet said
‘Europe has never existed’.40
‘Europe’ at that time was mentioned as an expected unity
which would arise from the devastation of the war. ‘Europe’ was waiting to be born
and nurtured as envisaged by Robert Schuman, ‘Europe will not be made all at once, or
according to the single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first creat de facto
solidarity’.41
The discourse of ‘the new Europe’ spread all over the continent and
functioned as a collective belief and hope for the future, for a new kind of
40
Monnet, Jean. ‘Memorandum to Robert Schuman and Georges Bidault’ in Nicoll, William. Building European
Union . A Documentary History and Analysis. Manchester University Press,.1950, p. 43.
41
Schuman, Robert. ‘The Declaration’ in Nicoll, William. Building European Union . A Documentary History and
Analysis. Manchester University Press,.1950, p. 44.
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
18
international cooperation beyond nation state, bringing about a new era of prosperity,
peace and solidarity back to Europe.
As a discourse, ‘the new Europe’ is a story in itself which needs more new
devices to achieve the greater Europe for two reasons. Firstly, by its very nature the
European Union is based on the way in which nation-states come closer to each other
under certain political and economic conditions. In order to be a part of new Europe,
Member States’ backgrounds and their commitment to being a part of Europe is an
important dynamic force of the European Union’s growth. Therefore, searching for a
new dimension is seemingly a method to advance the uniting of Europe and maintain
the relationship between the European Union and Member States.
Secondly, the discourse of ‘the new Europe’ is highly dependant upon the idea
of progress. For example, in the Declaration of the European Identity (1973), the idea
of progress is represented that, ‘They have defined their European identity with the dynamic
nature of the Community in mind…the nine have their political will to succeed in the construction of a
United Europe’.42
The idea is reiterated again in the Tindemans Report that, ‘…European
Union is a new phase in the history of the Unification of Europe which can be achieved by a
continuous process…I am convinced that this Europe, a progressive Europe, will lack neither power
nor impetus’.43
And then in the European Single Act, the idea of progress has been
stressed that, ‘the European Communities and objective to contribute together to making concrete
progress towards European unity European Political Cooperation shall have as their’.44
‘The new
Europe’ serves as a shared hope, seemingly far reaching , but it is supposedly capable
of becoming true in the future. In turn, when ‘the new Europe’ reaches a certain
development, it needs a greater progress which correspond to the changing
circumstances so as to make and keep ‘Europe’ alive.
The significance of architectural heritage for ‘the new Europe’
The reasons why architectural heritage is so important to the construction of
‘the new Europe’ is embedded in the power of architectural heritage and in the vision
of the European Union on constructing the Community from a cultural aspect in order
42
The European Communities. ‘The Declaration on the European Identity’ Bulletin of the European Communities.
No. 13, 1973, p. 118-119.
43
The European Commission. ‘European Union’ Report by Mr. Leo Tinedemans, Prime Minister of Belgium, to
the European Council. Bulletin of the European Communities. Supplement 1/76, p. 12.
44
The European Communities. The European Single Act. 1986, p. 7.
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
19
to solve the problem of legitimacy and to strengthen the integration process. As a
forementioned heritage is a new phenomenon in contemporary Europe, it become a
main actor in economic development, as one of the European Union’s publication
notes about its cultural projects in the framework of regional policy that,
‘These projects are meant to help to create or safeguard jobs, and to stimulate local and
regional economies. They do so… by creating jobs in the cultural or heritage sector…’ 45
Moreover, architectural heritage and its assumed role as a representation of collective
culture allows the new political power like the European Union to convey and
enhance the idea of ‘Europe’ to its people. In other words, architectural heritage as a
material object which consists of political and economic functions provides the
European Union with a way in which on one hand it can promote the new collective
identity called ‘European identity’, and on the other it can make a profit from this
identity for development and economic purposes.
The European Union’s vision to strengthen the integration process by using
the concept of culture appeared when the European Union wished to advance the
integration process from the late 1960s onwards. At that time, the integration process
achieved its goal of bringing prosperity back to Europe. However, two new
circumstances, the economic crisis in the 1970s and the plan to enlarge the
Community brought about uncertain future. As a result, the nine Member States at
that time wished to revise its common political goal by declaring ‘the Declaration of
the European Identity’ in 1973. This declaration was rather an external identity of
Community which was based on the political will and a common European culture.
The cultural aspect suddenly gained its importance on the European Union’s agenda.
Then it became even more significant when the European Union found itself lack in
legitimacy since political situations such as the election to the European Parliament
(1984) and the referendum of the European Single Act (1986) and ratification process
of the Treaty of Masstricht (1992) proved that people in Member States are far more
concerned with the Community’s future. The European Union is only a remote
bureaucratic.
The problem of legitimacy lies in the problem between the Community and its
citizens. This problem is rather complex--as the European union estimates itself, there
is no ‘European consciousness’. Nation-states dominate their citizens’ royalties. Here
45
The European Commission. Investment in Culture: an Asset for all Regions. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European communities, 1998, p. 5.
The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda
20
comes the concept of culture and architectural heritage to be political mediums in the
process of transferring citizens’ royalty to the Community. The ‘European
consciousness’ is expected to be nurtured. However, what the European Union has
done in creating ‘the European idea’ is that it supports and protects national
architectural heritage by naming it as a regional heritage. This contradiction leads to a
question what is the political reason behind these ambiguous activities? Certainly, the
European Union’s efforts can be considered as a denationalization process, but it is
rather a complex one. This opens up another question: how and why does
architectural heritage function in the European Union’s process of denationalization?