Tourist Productions 2005

In Destination Culture, we see tourism and heritage as “collaborative industries” (151): there is an ongoing exchange, as that which is designated heritage becomes a tourist destination and the tourism industry provides the economic support needed to maintain what was recognised as no longer economically viable and therefore requires “safeguarding” through designation as heritage. The opening quotation above is revised in World Heritage and Cultural Economics to explicitly reflect that important notion of safeguarding (or, on the other hand, vitality, or lack thereof): “heritage is a mode of cultural production that gives the endangered or outmoded a second life as an exhibition of itself.” (7) Ironically, as BKG points out, “if it is truly vital, it does not need safeguarding; if it is almost dead, safeguarding will not help.” (ibid)

This essay relates specifically to UNESCO’s program of intangible cultural heritage, and describes heritage as a metacultural production; produced through diversity, cultural assets come to belong to humanity, such that the question “What does it mean for humanity to own that which it did not create?” (20) arises. And as such, the possibility of a global public sphere arises, where the true project of world heritage is “to model a particular vision of humanity in terms of global cultural commons.” (32) The Smithsonian’s 2002 Folklife Festival, The Silk Road: Connecting Cultures, Creating Trust, perfects this goal in its very naming. I trolled through the website, particularly the Xi’an section, and found many instances of this effort to unify – nationally (really, the Xi’an Tower is a metonym for China, and many references and a great deal of the pictures are from other areas of the country, particularly the Xinjiang autonomous region to the west), and also transnationally, where exchange and “vibrant intermixing” are stressed.

To return to heritage and tourism as collaborative industries, this is also well illustrated by the Festival’s website:

The Silk Road was primarily a trade route, but its travellers also exchanged cultural and religious information. Today when tourism, both domestic and foreign, is a major form of commerce along the Silk Road, this exchange of historical, cultural and religious information continues. Tourists eagerly purchase souvenirs and provide income to guide, translators, drivers, hotel and restaurant workers, and craftspeople. The tourist industry has sometimes encouraged preservation of historic places and renewed interest in and protection of local craft industries. At the same time, tourism must be carefully managed to avoid potential negative effects such as overtaxing of local resources and infrastructures. In Dunhuang, for instance, the large number of tourists have endangered the fragile environment within the caves, and simulated “copy caves” have been built for tourists to visit. http://www.silkroadproject.org/smithsonian/xian/global.html

Amidst a tradition of information and economic exchange, tourism “continues” what had long ago become outmoded with the advent of sea trade. There is caution however: belonging now to the world (of tourists), overtaxing is possible. Although tourists participate in (perpetuate) a tradition of trade and exchange, they may still spoil sites to be maintained as they were – heritage must move to the realm of the virtual.
_______________

“…indigenous heritage registers relationship, survival, struggle, and most importantly, identity.” (Shand 62)

Peter Shand’s engaging investigation into cultural appropriation and intellectual property rights through a case study of the use of the koru posits heritage (for indigenous peoples) as a “bundle of relationships, rather than a bundle of economic rights.” (Daes in Shand: 62) Cultural heritage of the collective, rather than the individual, becomes core here, with obviously sticky complications to intellectual property rights as envisioned in an Anglo-American model ensuing. Using examples big (Air New Zealand), small (Te Rangitu Netana’s at least physically smaller tattoo on Robbie Williams), and in between (local and overseas fashion industries), Shand examines the dominant model of intellectual property as a legacy of Enlightenment focus on individualism (this is echoed in Hafstein’s critique of the Romantic cult of originality – add to this novelty and individuality). Challenging to dominant conceptions of copyright, patent, etc is also, for Maori, the arbitrary distinction and separation of tangible and intangible cultural heritage. In itself, this points to the difficulties in drafting appropriate or applicable legislation.

Shand discusses appropriation as a dislocation of the source form from its initial cultural context (54) – somewhat of a requirement in the definition of heritage in the first half of this response. How to reconcile this? Hafstein distinguishes between production (of the private individual that is copyrightable and patentable) and reproduction (tantamount to tradition), yet in UNECSO’s opening General Provisions, they list as a definitive feature of intangible cultural heritage that it “is constantly recreated.” (2) (reproduced?) Put up against my favourite article, Article 17 ‘List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding’ (!!!), where heritage assets would seems to be on the very brink of disappearance, “safeguarding” requires appropriation into another cultural context (the heritage context) as its initial one is no longer viable. So, are TCEs/EoF recreated out of cultural context ok? necessary?

WIPO can be seen to be trying to plug a contentious hole in existing legislation, however their comments are “suggestions only” (5) and come down to implementation on a national and even individual (individual corporation or person as can be seen in Shand’s examples) level. Is the project futile?

In the end, instances of unauthorised appropriation like Feld’s example of the Baegu lullaby from Northern Malaita circulating through the world music scene, well, they rankle. And to think that nothing can be done is dispiriting. Like international tourism between “First” and “Third” worlds (going back to Bruner), asymmetrical power relations, reproduction of primitivist representation, etc are important concerns. As he points out on p152, ‘celebratory narratives of world music often focus on the production of hybrid musics…This can have the effects of downplaying hegemonic managerial and capital relations…” With Feld’s example, even though the initial version of the lullaby used can be traced back to an individual performer and individual recordist, and therefore be neatly understood within the Anglo-American model of intellectual property legislation, we see that the law can be circumvented. This highlights Feld’s point that oral tradition is seen as vocally communal and therefore belonging to no one in particular. (161)

Lastly, issues of collective authorship or tradition can also be related to ‘unfair’ examples beyond appropriation of indigenous culture – and here I should call everyone’s attention to the repulsive business practices of the American company Deckers Outdoor Corporation, otherwise known as Ugg Australia. Although President Connie Rishwain is quoted on the company’s website as saying, “UGG Australia is the read deal. Once you wear UGG Australia, you’re hooked. They’re original, authentic, and the ultimate in luxury and comfort,” (http://uggaustralia.com/History.asp) they are in fact, not authentically Australian (just authentically ‘UGG Australia’-an).

Although ugg boots have been made, worn, and called such in Australia since the 1920s, in the last couple of years, Deckers has trademarked the name, has exclusive rights to sell them in the US (including on website such as E-bay) and has even gone so far as to register as a trademark their name in Australia and issue letters to many small Australian companies threatening legal action if they continue to use the term ‘ugg’. Samantha Joseph writes on the Arts Law Centre of Australia website, “The ugg boot apparently originated in rural Australia in the 1920s. At that time, no one bothered to register the term ‘ugg’ as it was considered a term that was common and used by people in the ‘ugg’ sheepskin industry.” (http://www.artslaw.com.au/LegalInformation/Trademarks/04UggBoot.asp: ¶3) She also writes, “As Australians we firmly believe that the infamous ‘ugg’ boot is an Aussie icon. The question then is ‘who owns the term ‘ugg’?” (ibid: ¶2)