lnside the UNESCO apparatus 69
Chapter 5
lnside the UNESCO aPParatus
From intangible representations to
tangible effectsl
Kristin Kuutmo
Why cannot it be evaluated based on the essence? That kind of very mechanical
management of assessment - I don't think it will take us anywhere! [. . .] focus
rather on the essence, on the real value of [the heritage of/for] thr people!
That was the emphatic reaction by the delegation member from Ethiopia on 3
December 2015, on a hot summer day in Windhoek, Namibia, during the Tenth
Session of the Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) of the Convention for the
safeguarding of the Intangible cultural Heritage (ICHC). The remark was made
during the debate that followed the Report (of 12,000 words) of the Evaluation
Body on its work in20l5 (ITIV15/lO.CON{/10), which analysed and critiqued the
nomination files of the two lists of the ICHC.2 Having frequently witnessed such
aggravation concerning organisational procedures, I found it important to explore
the UNESCO framework as an incentive for bureaucratic arrangements from an
ethnographic perspective.3 Given the growing body of critical literature on the
intangible heritage concept and its practical implications in the early twenty-first
centuny, the issuis of arbitration, representation or expertise in the functional
processes ofUNESCO cannot be over-theorised. Therefore, I propose to review
ihe conceptualisation of ICH and its agency in the context of meetings that craft
heritage policy. These are settings for investigating how evaluative assessments
reformulate the conception of ICH and how the concept is made operational by
the organisational machinery. The main argument developed in this chapter is
that representations produce effect in the operational frame of IJNESCO, due
to its entangled evaluative and organisational imperative: on the one hand, the
evaluation process sets exemplars that modiff the ICH conceptualisation, and on
the other hand, the inevitablg trickle-down production of the new organisational
format redistributes political and socio-economic power. Thus, the novel otgani'
sational urratg"*"ti of representation and management inadvertently transforrns
the current situation.
The following analysis is based on my extensive anthropological fieldwork
and participant observation studying the international standard-setting and
decision-making organisation of ITXBSCO in the field of ICH. This empirical
sludy explores ICH-driven formulations and organisational instruments as they
play out at conferences programmed by the fn{ESCO apparatus. My first two
UNESCO-monitored expert workshops were followed by a formal official par-
ticipation in the Estonian delegation to the General Assembly of the ICHC in June
2006 in Paris. On this occasion Estonia was elected part of the IGC for a four-year
term, and I have subsequently attended ten Committee meetings over a period
of ten years (as well as two General Assemblies) both as an accredited member
and as observer. In addition to those events, I acquired further insight into the
working mechanisms of the bureaucratic apparatus when representing Estonia in
the IGC Bureau and during the Subsidiary Body sessions for the examination of
Representative List nominations in the 2009 and 2010 cycles, where I was elected
chairperson. Thus, an opportunity befell me to observe open and closed meet-
ings on several organisational levels instrumental to the operational aspect of this
aggregate of international governance, as well as to get a first-hand understand-
ing of the tasks carried out, and various procedures employed, by the UNESCO
Secretariat of the Convention. This ethnographic material has given me a more
profound grasp of fi.rnctional arrangements for operating the UNESCO-defined
ICH domain, where the normative idealistic aspect of management and control
reveal tacitly political and economic interests.
The issues that this chapter discerns focus on the transformational power of the
concept when made operational on an organisational level - what changes in the
course of establishing an organisational format. The constitution of modes of rep-
resentation and the construction of ICH discourse relate to politics in a complex
way. Recent multiple compendiums studying heritage politics contemplate mat-
ters from, for example, the framework of globalisation (Labadi and Long 2010;
Harrison 2010; Meskell 2015b), of state regimes (Bendix et al.2012), and of
community participation (Adell et al. 2015). At the same time, the complexities of
intangible heritage find growing interest among researchers in the current decade.
Along with an interest in the operational mechanism of UNESCO and its agen-
cies' discussions of the UNESCO bureaucratic processes tackle the issues of gov-
emance policies and the paper trail this produces (see, for example, Schmitt 2009;
De Cesari 2010; Tausch"iZO|Z; aaei ZOtS;. Here, the paramount question of
representativeness in relation to conceptualisation, listing
and the nomination
process continue to generate
of exploratory studies (see, for example,
a variety
ueeger 2009; Labadi 2010; Askew 2010; Adell 2012;
Heru 2015, among oth-
ers). The notion of representativeness
and-in national synbolic or delegated
is primarily manifested in the form of lists
pt"r.o.", but the evaluative practices in
the TINESCO ICH
machine.y of gorremance pose questions of competence and
expertise in various functions.
epistemic and political
Representation hut u social dimension alongside
connotations as well as constructing images and knowr-
edge, and therefore
the ICH representations that the UNES-co liiting spotlights
also begin to model
the concepiion of ICH.
Ia contrast to substantial analyses undertaken of the world Heritage committee
-
players and
their decision-making processes (see, for example, Brumam 2012;
70 Kristin Kuutma
Meskell 2013,2015a), the number of ethnographic studies focusing on the 2003
Convention offices and their bureaucratic framework (not to mention the work-
ings of its ad hoc consultative or subsidiary bodies) is more modest.a In the col-
lection of articles focusing exclusively on ICH, edited by Smith and Akagawa in
2009 and published in the Routledge series of Key Issues in cultural Heritage,
debates ranged from conceptual implications to management and policyrmaking
from a critical perspective, but, as the 2003 Convention apparatus was still in
progress, glimpses of and references to the first IGC sessions remained largely on
a descriptive level (see Aikawa-Faure 2009; Blake 2009).5 However, analytical
explorations of IGC sessions have begun to appear in more recent compendiums,
though from a different angle than presented in this chapter (see Bortolotto 2010,
2015). The evaluation procedures implemented in the Masterpieces Programme
that preceded ICHC have also been studied from the perspective ofpersonal expe-
rience by an NGO representative (see Seeger 2009).
My theoretical argument builds partly upon explorations into institutions of
policy-making and governance, including studies into multilateral organisations
(see, for example, Gellner and Hirsch 2001; Miiller 2013) now ubiquitous in the
modern world where transnational networks circulate knowledge through the
activities of experts and develop descriptive and normative models that underlie
policies (see Shore and wright 1997). Likewise, Mosse (2005) has suggested that
participatory ethnographic studies with renewed methodological reflections can
provide further insight into mechanisms and practice of govemance. For me, the
UNESCO framework has been a site for collecting data as well as a space for stra-
tegic intervention. My embeddedness has provided me with access and a position
for critical reflection on the intemal organisational machinery through personal
experience. I have not searched for charnels to fumish entry points for research
but have greeted the opporfunities provided by interaction with UNESCO-related
initiatives and actors as valid moments of observation, in order to comprehend
how global governance is made operational (Cowan 2013: 103) and to carry out
an ethnography of communication (Bendix 2013:24),
Meetings that I refer to here embody the implementation and management of
concepts and of policies. My discussion leaves aside the inner mechanisms of
meetings: rather the aim has been to explore them as microenvironments where
the ICH concept is interpreted, relevant policies are made operational and imple-
mented through an organisational arrangement. The assemblies introduced me to
a range of bodies - consultative or evaluative, expert meetings and meetings of
national or local organisations - that provided me with my fieldwork material.
Simultaneously, by participating in IGC, I was able to follow developments in
Estonia and in other locations. The geography covered includes places from west
to east and north to south - besides the organisational headquarters in Paris, also
Estonia, Switzerland and Eritrea. The sessions of IGC tackled meta-level prin-
ciples and the technical details of the bureaucratic process. Their direct impact,
however, became unravelled in local situations and functional processes that I
could observe as a participant fieldworker. As my inferences and conclusions
lnside the UNESCO appararus 7l
stem from this wide comparative scope and long time frame, I believe the analysis
presented in this chapter can be significant in contemplating the key issues related
rcICH.
Making international assessments: from
conceptualisation to implementation
My first strand of analysis introduces the experience gained when participat-
ing in the working meetings of the subsidiary Body (sB) for the t00g-2010
examination cycles of nominations to the Representative List of ICHC. These
meetings played an essential role in advancing the aspect ofrepresentativeness
ofthe intangible cultural heritage concept. In the evaluative process the concept
came to be applied and confirmed when a body of experts determined whavwho
were appropriate to represent the locale or nation, inherently thus generating
hierarchies ofvalue.
This subsidiary Body (SB) was envisaged in the operational Directives (oD)
adopted at the Second General Assembly of the convention in paris in June 200g
as an evaluative organ. The elected sB comprised six committee members to
reflect the geographical distribution of LTNESCo electoral groups.6 The SB ration-
ale was devised by the Intergovernmental committee, which decided it would
exercise strict control over any list nominations. This resolution was adopted with
a view to demonstrate a distinctive contrast to the 1972 Convention's practice
of
delegating assessment tasks to the expert bodies of ICoMos and ICUN (for rele-
vant debates, see ITH/I1/1.coM/coNF). The ICH Subsidiary Body thus eventu-
ally gained substantial power over the most visible aspect of the 2003 convention
and attracted astute political attention.
The normative authority granted to the SB prompts consideration of the issue
of expertise represented by the IGC composition. The IGC member delegations'
spokespersons were made up of one third diplomats, one third
coming from gov-
emment ministries engaged with cultural or foreign affairs, and one third
rep-
resenting academic background. while less than half of them could
be called
professional experts, the overall relation to the ICH
subject matter remained
equivocal as it seemed that a superior competence was granted
ex fficiomembers
while anyone could claim expertise in thi realm ofculture
1cr. riartetius 20ll).
what kind of knowledge particular individuals held or how their expertise
was
performed overwhelmingly reflected
political agendas and the views oi dominant
interest groups within the 'authorized
heritage discourse' (ADH) (Smith 2006).
, over the course oftwo years, in order to process I 1 1 files in the first round and
103
in the second, the SB held six face-to-face meetings in paris (facilitated
by the
Secretariat, each lasting two to five days),
with additional information exchange
online. Though certain aspects of the mleting structure
corresponded to the work-
mg methods of the UNESCO organisation in general,
the sheer intimacy of those
gatherings both in the sense of size and in the
- sense of ,cultural' or ,burlaucratic,
urtimacy referred to by Herzfeld (2015) made these conferences
- and their level
72 Kristin Kuutma
of exchange quite different from the Committee sessions. The major IGC meetings
were hosted by member states in distant and exotic locations and gathered sev-
eral hundreds of delegates in huge congress venues (cf. Bortolotto 2015)' Effort
and debate there focused on the Rules of Procedure and on the OD guidelines
that 'translated' the legal instrument into different kinds of managerial activities
for member states. Accordingly, most energy was concentrated on diplomatic
interventions and managerial tasks in the big hall (for similar reflections see, for
example, Meskell 2013,2015a), By contrast, at the SB meetings the debates and
deliberations touched upon the subject matter of ICH - our discussions centred on
the dynamics and essence ofpeople's lives and cultural practices, as well as on the
effect of policy-making or external public recognition. Besides, the level of com-
munication was much more direct between interlocutors without the gaps between
speaking turns at the microphone experienced in the big hall.
Still, my overall observations point to substantial contradictions that arose from
the SB meetings.T The ODs, which the IGC compiled during their first five ses-
sions of debates, postulated that this group should be strictly limited (ITWlll6.
COM/CONF.20614) to accredited members of the delegation, at least with no
explicit option of outsourcing the task, which would have instigated randomness
and volatilify of assessments made. The quality of decision-making knowledge
brought to this authoritative body diverged substantially. Different backgrounds
or training in the sphere of ICH prompted disparate approaches to the significance
ofthe exercise ofarbitration and its prospective socio-cultural consequences.
Our understanding of rules and regulations did not concur, and half of the
group showed deficient anthropological sensitivity. There was also a difference
in applying ethical principles when taking decisions. Advocating for national
interests occurred; even if some of the regional interests were easier to accept,
there was unanticipated veiled demonstration of personal gain (invited visits or
presents) in connection with applicant nominations. As it was, the rules of proce-
dure required that the evaluative judgements be based solely on submitted files,
because this SB had no means or mandate to visit the communities or sites of cul-
tural elements and practices nominated. The SB based its assessments on textual
representation on paper or on computer sareen in stale (often both academic and
bureaucratic) prose.
One aggravating factor of these meetings was the agreed-upon principle of
reaching consensus. All deliberations and heated discussions had to take as long
as was required to reach an agreement, making it primarily an effort to find a com-
mon ground among a group that fell into uneven subgroups' There were 'delega'
tions' that comprised only one person or, in the case of two, where one of them
provided only technical assistance. There were delegations that comprised more
than three with just one taking the floor, whereas the others seemed to hold the
decision-making capacity. One of the delegations was different for each meeting'
so that its inner hierarchy or dyramics or logic remained an enigma.
All in all, these assemblies demonstrated that the elements nominated or
the quality of files did not really matter when national or international politics
lnside the UNESCO apparatus 73
4d relations appeared to prevail. Due to the goal of reaching consensus, the
occasionally stark difference in intelpreting the rules set for arbitration denoted
thatthe outcome of our debates was far from any imagined ideal, and presented
merely a representation of the lowest common denominator. During following
Committee meetings, any concern voiced regarding our decisions simply mir-
rored international representation of national pride. Thus the evaluation cycles
resulted in conceptualising ICH further in the process of making it operational
and in defining managerial agendas and the process of selection of exemplary
phenomena henceforth comes to embody the dominant image of ICH.
what these debates have drawn my attention to is the existential significance
of representation on paper within the entire trNESCo framework. Even where
ideals and goals focus on cultural practices and their meanings in people's lives,
what you are doing does not necessarily encompass actual realities. Moreover,
the whole notion of intangible cultural heritage is all about (often competitive)
representation. In general, we have entered the realm of audit culture with its
ranking and hierarchies of achievement that are based on written files, involv-
ing also the regular course of cultural dynamics. This reshaint is not simply a
western feature that is imposed on other parts of the globe but a universal aspect
of modernity. Policies as instruments of governance migrate with 'domaining
effect'(see Shore and wright 20ll:3), which is similarly observable in inter-
national policy-making institutions. Modern techniques of management include
competitive ranking, even if to determine access to social or economic resources.
It appears that technologies of audit, being sustained by calculative practices,
incite the development of an increasingly pervasive 'audit culture' that suppos-
edly enhances accountability (see strathern 2000), which has refashioned organi-
sational culture with global effects.
A national framework: the emergent
organisational format
I registered the significance of organisational format as a procedural corol-
lary when participating in various meetings. These were sites for considering
the concept or for developing managerial procedures, which highlight the role
of expertise employed on govemmental level. The next strand of ethnographic
observation presented here focuses on deliberations and policy-setting activities
on a national level within the framework of implementing the 2003
convention.
Being involved in the process has given me opportunities to see how
this instru-
ment was introduced and interpreted and to identify the main players. My initial
htroduction to the UNESCO ICH format occurred as a scholar when I was asked
to-contribute with expert knowledge to the candidature
file in the promotional ICH
Masterpieces Programme at the tum of the century. This enabled me to participate
n relevant meetings and follow actors from practitioners to govemment officials.
In corurection with a joint nomination of the Baltic song and dance celebrations,
choral singing activists and promoters from Lithuania and Latvia invited their
74 Kristin Kuutma
colleagues from Estonia to join in preparing a submission. Thus, this undertaking
was launched by insider stakeholders, including academics and music profession-
als involved with communities of practice. Their enthusiasm could be explained by
the post-Soviet condition that was defined by major socio-economic transformation
accompanied by fundamental uncertainty that traversed the sphere of expressive
culture. With the previous system of cultural management and creative constraints
crumbling, outreach to an international arena with prospective symbolic and capital
revenue made the ICH agenda particularly appealing in Eastern and East-Central
Europe or the post-Communist bloc in general. Besides, the significance of (pre-
industrial, peasant) folk culture in the nation-building process, alongside a long
history of documenting and archiving of popular traditions, backed by a network
of museums, had formulated a canon of cultural heritage packaged for this type of
recognition (see Kuutma 2015).
In Estonia, the process of formal sanctioning of the 2003 Convention, which
hinged on the dedicated interest by state authorities, resulted in official ratifica-
tion in January 2006. But it soon appeared that the standard-setting instrument
required rethinking the whole sphere of celebrating phenomena now regarded
as intangible cultural heritage. The Estonian Ministry of Culture assigned the
'new' work around the concept of ICH to its branch office, the Folk Culture
Development and Training Centre,8 where by 2007 two positions were created
and filled through open competition. Both new employees had anthropological
training at graduate level, which was, to my knowledge, unprecedented in that
office. They started their task by probing the field with comprehensive negoti-
ations. The Ministry of Culture set up a Board of Intangible Cultural Heritage
that comprised various stakeholders: academics, researchers, cultural animators,
regional and local NGOs, complemented by relevant councillors from the minis-
terial and local UNESCO office. In general, the ministry allowed ample time for
debates on essential issues, involving cultural researchers and ethnologists, me
included. Apparently those called upon at government level were more or less at
a loss about how to handle the new international concept and category of intan-
gible heritage' in respect to previous practice and conceptions. At the beginning,
each meeting on any level included prolonged arguments about what was meant
by'intangible cultural heritage'as opposed to terms like'popular traditions',
'folk culture', ofolklore', etc.e This situation recurred unavoidably when the com-
position of the forum changed. Thus, the conceptual sphere became gradually
redefined, alongside the reorganised administrative entity.
Due to my close encounter with UNESCO activities I was offered concomi-
tant opportunities to attend various meetings. In August 2007 I had attended
a meeting in Zurich, Switzerland, organised by the Swiss Commission for
UNESCO, entitled 'International Experts' Seminar on Intangible Cultural
Heritage', and was familiar with other examples of a national approach to the
promotional activities of the 2003 Convention. In principle, Switzerland falls
under the category of well-established Western democracies that initially with-
held interest in the Convention. It was argued that this new legal instrument was
lnside the UNESCO apparatus 75
crafted to accommodate the non-western sphere of cultural heritage in order
to truly complement the 1972 world Heritage convention that had been initi-
ated by western interested parties, with representative initiatives focusing on
Europe-related monuments and sites. Nevertheless, the goal of that meeting was
twofold: to promote and expedite the Swiss ratification of the 2003 convention,
and to establish a position with IGC. The invitees and expected participants were
clearly reflecting the UNESCO ICH command and the current IGC composi-
tion, with me included among the invited 'experts' due to my affiliation to the
IGC. Judging by my fieldwork observations, the occasion was possibly geared
towards acquiring a presence also within the UNESCo Secretariat, because the
format and documentation followed their official model. This was probably to no
avail as there are no traces of it in UNESCO archives.
The main objective of the event was described as 'Dialogue on the evolution of
the definitions: the importance of a shared frame of references and the role of the
various stakeholders (states, communities, academics, researchers, the NGOs -
the organised civil society, other consultative bodies)' (seminar programme, 25
August 2007). However, conspicuously absent were Swiss stakeholders, nota-
bly scholars and researchers well known in professional circles, apart from the
IINESCO national commission and two NGos with formally established posi-
tions with uNESCo.ro By contrast, both the administrative subordination of the
Swiss national commission as well as the representative of the Federal office of
culture indicated the predominance of foreign affairs interests, while the event
itself was in line with other examples of steps taken in obtaining personal sym-
bolic capital.r'
My continued interest in the Swiss case encompasses insights at other meet-
ings, but the complexities of (national) friction in the controversial implemen-
tation and management of the convention in Switzerland have been critically
analysed by other ethnologists and anthropologists (see, for example, Leimgruber
2010; Graezer Bideau 2012;Herz2O15). They conclude that the convention has
become an instrument for stabilising existing imbalances and biases while avoid-
ing reference to cultural diversity or social change, being based on a static image of
a pre-industrial, rural and traditional expressive culture (Leimgruber 2010:
176).
The federal government assigned the task to the Swiss commission for UNESCo
that established the 'swiss Forum for ICH', a new formation that, regardless of
promoting a 'participatory paradigm', bestows additional power upon new
top-
oown bodies of experts in heritage administration that operate on exclusion (see
Hertz 2015).12 consequently, by founding this new organlation the previous divi-
uon of authority in expertise and policy-setting institutions has been altered under
the aegis of the ICH conceptualisation.
The ICHC attracted rather an enthusiastic reception with relatively swift ratifi-
cation and gained more than 100 member states in two years
followirg its opera-
tional launch n2006. walter Leimgruber (2010: 186) argued the ICHC
needed to
focus on 'groups that tend to see themselves as indigenius, ancestrally
oriented,
I or primordial' and presumed that it did not apply 'in most cases, at least for the
76 Kristin Kuutma
modem Western states'. But, ironically, this was the main drawcard that enchanted
post-Communist or Eastern European countries, where the recent nation-building
process and postmodern nationalist programmes sustain notions of the stability
and security of symbolic cultural traditions. This also had relevance elsewhere,
which testifies to the manifold, even contradictory, reception of the Convention in
different parts of the world. However, the global coverage proved uneven and the
Intangible cultural Heritage Section at UNESCO pursued a wider geographical
representation, also through arranging promotional events via their field offices.
My third opportunity to witness an altemative national approach occurred in
April2009 when I was invitedto attend 'a consultationmeeting' in Asmara, Eritrea.
On that occasion, stakeholders were gathered on a national level to promote both
the wH and ICHCs, particularly with a view to ratiffing the latter.13 In that small
country in the Horn of Africa with a complicated past of various colonisers, recent
warfare, economic hardships and a restrictive political regime in the present, such
negotiations had to encompass the realm of cultural heritage in a holistic way
because any institutional division of the spheres covered by the two Conventions
would have made little sense (see Ohinata 2010). This national workshop was
organised by the Cultural Affairs Bureau under the Ministry of Education and the
National Museum of Eritrea together with the Eritrean Commission for UNESCO
and the LTNESCO Nairobi Office plus the Eritrean Research and Documentation
Centre and the College of Ans and Science.
Besides administrators and researchers, the meeting of 70 participants also
included practitioners and performers. In relation to the sphere covered by the
term intangible cultural heritage,they represented different strands and levels of
institution and authoritative status as well as representing different preservation
and transmission agendas. Eritrea has nine ethno-linguistic groups with distinct
cultural expressions, and in such a case activities that lead to any empowerment
in the ICH framework simultaneously have an impact on heritage authorities,
while promoting the creation of a national heritage, Despite the predominant
communicative language being English, the concept of ICH required a pro-
longed explanation with the subsequent identification of subsumed expressions
and areas.la The convenors advanced the agenda ofcreating a new institutional
format for articulating national heritage that would be conducive to an interna-
tional policy framework (cf. Keitumetse 2014). When Eritrea ratified the ICHC
in 2010, a sub-committee was established, thus creating a new organisational
structure in alignment with UNESCO and instituted by UNESCO. These steps
indicate that the ICH format generates a new policy of cultural management that
brings about conceptual and social change. The involved Eritrean government
officials particularly promoted archival practices to record culture and endorsed
festivals as a showcase for expression, now envisaged as conduits to the new
conceptualisation of ICH. In essence, this entire ICH safeguarding configura-
tion by UNESCO instigates a transformation and restructuring of an organi-
sational format. Consequently, a new organisational structure emerges, which
does not necessarily correspond to or rely on the formats previously in place.
lnside the UNESCO appararus 77
yle alteration in heritage authorities may shepherd into existence new political
entities, albeit within a national framework.
Community frictions: the concept and
organisation enacted
If the previous examples illustrated meta-level considerations, the last part of
my fieldwork elucidates the community situation. I continue to observe how a
designated representative community engages with ICH policy formulations and
how the question of expertise persists. In the mechanism of governance, national
policy-making transfers to a subnational level and this third section of my chapter
follows key actors in the organisation and practice affiliated with the LINESCO
ICH framework.
In February 2012 my fieldwork took me to a remote village meeting in south-
eastern Estonia to visit the Seto community, whose historical residential area
extends into neighbouring Russia. The Seto cultural expressionwas internationally
recognised when their singing practices were inscribed on the ICH Representative
List in 2009. This inscription was mainly a local initiative - though backed up by
govemmental acknowledgment of the undertaking's national significance. The
Seto leaders got their impetus from an earlier celebration of the Kihnu Island com-
munity in the framework of the Masterpieces Programme. Following the principle
set up in the core debates around the ICH operations, community activism has
been paramount in defining and animating ICH in Estonia. This principle extends
to the national inventory of ICH where entries have to be initiated by communi-
ties. The meeting in Setomaa (the Seto district) with executive government offi-
cials from the capital was gathered to discuss prospective seto submissions to the
online database.
The room was filled with Seto leelo singers. During the process of drafting
the nomination candidature file, the involved Setos assembled a new NGO in
2008, Leelotarko Kogo (council of leelo masters) that comprises representatives
of major leelo-chotrs. Seto singing relied originally on collective performance and
today the core carriers ofthat cultural expression are leelo-choirs, choral groups
of roughly five to ten singers. Thus, the main actors identified by the UNESCO
nomination are those choral groups. Though prior networking may have occa-
sionally occurred, such an organisation of choii representatives was nevertheless
Previously unheard of.
I wish to stress here the argument that a tlNESCo nomination does not drop
into an empty space, but tops an already existing format
of management and rep-
resentation, although on a different
scale and authority. The community has to
reinvent itself as a heritage stakeholder in
order to comply with the uNESCo regu-
Iations and execute a certain normative tum. This
demonstrates the significance of
an organsational structure, which is basically new and inventive
under concrete
circumstances, being a prerequisite for the administrative logic
of the convention
(and its listing) mechanism. Hence, the local situation is changed
by default.
78 Kristin Kuutma
The UNESCO-related programmes initiate new organisational structures, which,
from the perspective of the community, may be complementary but also competi-
tive and antagonistic. The latter may be instigated by different kinds of expertise
or also individual interests and personal factors.r5 In addition, these new organisa-
tions may stimulate unprecedented community-based initiatives and co-operations
particularly due to the LINESCO spotlight. For example, after a similar UNESCO
iesignation of a marginal community with distinct singing practices in neighbour-
ing iatvia, the Suiti and the Seto started organising novel joint events, sustaining
direct cross-border communication.
The meeting granted me an opportunity to observe how an organisation per-
forms, involving politics of interest and politics of expertise. I noticed perfor-
mances of authority, demonstrations of,syrnbolic capital and contested licence to
(with-
representation. Now and then the local Seto leader in the municipal office
out particular competence in singing) took over from the government offrcials the
with temperature
promotion of the new ICH policy. It was an extremely cold day a
-of
26 degrees Celsius below zero, but the discussion in the village meeting hall
frequentiy became quite heated. The occasion had gathered 25 singers from dif-
ferent leelo-choirs who debated issues concerning the performance of their hadi-
tions and representativeness.
The polernic revolved around terminology and conceptualisation of ICH, pre-
senting an intriguing example of discourse on authority and expertise. With a
background of earlier stigmatisation, the present national acclaim of Seto sing-
lng was generated by long-term academic interest that has defined the authorised
treritage discourse, hence privileging particulal narratives, positions and ideolo-
-oncurrently, it created the conceptualisation ofa cultural ideal that today
gies.
i-nstigates contesiation between traditionalists and innovators. The UNESCO
nomination, however, grants power and a framework to petriff normativity (see
Nielsen 2}ll). The effect is especially intrusive in the case of expressive cul-
ture, as I have wihressed over many years, in a polemic concerning the 'right
singing, (see Kuutrna and Ktistik 2014). what the UNESCO recognition has
frigitighteO henceforth is the urge to conceptualise the 'right' performance or
practice in the framework of competition for funding, as the Ministry of Culture
'has
set particular funding schemes for the ICH framework. In order to submit
an application under these programmes, the candidate for funding has to align
the practice, the phenomenon or element, and him/herself accordingly. A similar
identification and demarcation process occurs in relation to any kind of inven-
torying. Even where there is an explicit overarching wish for recognition on the
nuiiotrul database, my fieldwork experience indicates conflict around expertise
and contestation of representation based on the delimiting and exclusive pro-
file of the ICH concept. on the one hand, such friction and competition inside
the community has the effect of defining local heritage practices in new ways'
On the other, emergent contestation of cultivated representation points to con-
straints in access to resources. The moment of contention has thus both political
and economic implications.
lnside the UNESCO apparatus 79
Conclusion
6 this chapter I have presented an ethnographic study of the instrumental pro-
cedures related to the UNESCO ICHC with an aim to explicate the globalised
regime of such an intemational standard-setting instrument in the field of cul-
flrral expression. My participatory observation registered distribution and imple-
rnentation of normative frameworks in various administrative stages, which can
enhance our understanding of transference in the global governance of culture, By
following networks ofpeople, practices and conceptualisations, I have been able
multi-sited and peripatetic fieldwork (see Marcus l99g) at interrelated
@ carry out
(political) sites with shifting institutional environments where international guide-
lines of normativity became 'translated' - both in literal and metaphoric sense to
-
subordinate levels.
In particular, in this chapter, I have focused on the brokering role of uNESCo
by investigating ICH (re)conceptualisations at relevant meetings. This has led
me to conclude that emerging interventions are bureaucratic and political. They
redistribute social power, but also redefine the field of expressive culture. This
chapter also discerned the transformational power of the concept when made
operational by examining what changes when ICH policy is enacted and func-
tional processes are launched. The LrNEsco initiatives resort to a need for cer-
tain competences and commands in defining the field and identifying the aspects
of concern or praise, while the global organisation operates via governmental
mediation. Thus, this intervention re-shifts and complicates explicit and implicit
hierarchies in the ICH framework while introducing designated expertise (IGC
members, the secretariat, and the selected national or local actors). The LINESCO
progrilmmes of inlangible heritage have been both an asset and an intervention,
building upon choices emanating from the power game of inclusions and exclu-
sions, ofrootedness and rights for possession. Having enhanced public represen-
tation ofheritage and also the construction ofhierarchies ofexpertise, the concept
of ICH is a resonant and politically implicated tool that has transcended from the
academic scene to the public sphere to become an instrument of arbitration that is
deployed politically. The notion of representation is inevitably related to power,
but here the problem is transparency and engagement with representativeness.
the UNESCo framework the system of representation disseminates
In
images of ICH through its lists that eventually start transforming
stereotlpical
and social field, whereas policy-making entails a redistribution
the conceptual
of power relations.
. My anthropological study has revealed how policy is enacted on the receiv-
rng end of IGC decisions, while I have discerned
its social effects, namely the
production of the new organisational formats,
It concurs with the view that
organisations are ubiquitous today while
normative activities that reflect global
governance of culture also
alter the field on the local national and subnational
level. UNESCo practices its global governance
of culture through bureaucratic
technicality. This denotes assessment and representation in
the format of docu-
ments, be it on paper or in electronic files, which actually present a self-sufficient
80 Kristin Kuutma
interpretation ofa cultural expression or condition that has already changed, by
being transubstantiated into a political and socio-economic asset. Finally' let me
return to the aggravation expressed by the Ethiopian delegate concerning the
mechanical assessment of ICH - it testifies to the incompatible conflict between
representational ideals and the organisational imperative.
Notes
1 This work was supported by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research under
the Institutional Research Grant IUT34-32.
2 The Representative List and the List of ICH in Need of Urgent Safeguarding.
3 Interestingly, Ethiopia was the country that hosted the next ICH IGC meeting in20t6.
4 Local has been critically studied more often, for example: Leimgruber
"r[.ii.n".
Bortolott
201 0; o 2011 Tauschek 2013, to name just a few.
5 Notably Hafstein (2009) presents an ethnography ofnegotiations and representational
issues related to the drafting of the ICHC in 2003.
6 Turkey, Estonia, the Republic of Korea, Kenya, United Arab Emirates, Mexico'
7 My eihnographic task was complicated due to those meetings being private and m1'
function ai ttr.i, chair (ITH|09I4.COI\4/CONF.209/INF.6, page2). Estonia was elected
to this position as a neutral bystander in an open rivalry between two other neigh-
bouring candidates in the European 'Eastern bloc'. The real irony about the whole
exercii was that I had been (and openly so) against the whole system of lists' and the
Representative List particularly, to begin with. On that, one Secretariat member later
commented that this was precisely why I had to be included.
8 This office (renamed Foik Culture Centre in 2012) has gone through a substantial
transformation concurring with the general post-soviet transition from a Soviet gov-
ernmental arm to manage and monitor collective cultural activities into an agencl'
administering exchange of information, collecting statistics, organising government
sponsored training foi cultural animators and, most recently, handling proposals for
targeted funding programmes.
9 InEstonian: vaimnekultuuripc)rand,rahvapt)rimus,rahvakultuur,folkloor'
10 CIOFF and Traditions pour Demain.
11 Commission suisse pour I'IINESCO c/o D6partement f6d6ral des affaires dtrangdres'
FOC was representel by 'responsable affaires internationales'(international relations
offrcer).
12 Switzerland ratified the Convention in 2008.
l3 My role as a 'resource person' resulted from previous interactions during a workshop
in South Africa, possibly affirmed by my post-Soviet background.
ia
14 Notably, discussions of legal framework forthe protection of heritage in Eritrea'also
involved viewpoints of and expertise in customary law.
15 Communities are not homogeneous and the potential for partnerships becomes an
important factor. For exampie, on the Kihnu Island of 600 inhabitants a competing
orfanisation was founded as a direct result of the successful UNESCO nomination.
References
Adell, N., 2012. The French Journey'men Tradition: convergence between French her-
itage traditions and tINESCo's 2003 convention. lz: R.F. Bendix, A. Eggert and
A. Peselmann, eds, Heritage Regimes and the State. Gottingen: Universitdtsverlag
G<ittingen, 177-193.
lnside the UNESCO apparatus 8l
Adell, N., 2015. Polyphony vs. monograph: the problem of participation in a French
ICH dossier. 1n: N. Adell, R.F. Bendix, C. Bortolotto and M. Tauschek, eds, Between
Imagined Communities and Communities of Practice, G<ittingen: Universitiitsverlag
Gdttingen, 237148.
Adell, N., Bendix, R.F., Bortolotto, C. and Tauschek, M., eds, 2015. Between Imagined
Communities and Communities of Practice. G0ttingen: Universitiitsverlag Gdttingen.
Aikawa-Faure, N., 2009. From the Proclamation of Masterpieces to the Convention for
the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. ft: L. Smith and N. A-[iagaw4 eds,
Intangible Heritage. Abingdon : Routledge, 1 3-44.
Askew, M., 2010. The magic list of global status: IINESCO, world heritage and the agen-
das of states. In: S. Labadi and C. Long, eds, Heritage and Globalisation, Abingdon
Routledge, 19-44.
Bendix, R.F.,2013. The power of perseverance: exploring negotiation dynamics at the
world intellectual property organization. ll: B. Mtiller, ed., The Gloss of Harmony: The
Politics of Policy-Making in Multilateral Organisatiors, London: Pluto Press, 23-49.
Bendix, R.F., Eggert, A. and Peselmann, A., eds,2012. Heritage Regimes and the State.
Grittingen: Universitiitsverlag Grittingen.
Blake, J.,2009. UNESCO's 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage: the implica-
tions of community involvement in 'safeguarding'.In: L. Smith and N. Akagawa, eds,
Intangible Heritage. Abingdon: Routledge, 45-73.
Bortolotto, C., 201 0. Globalising intangible cultural heritage? Between international arenas
and local appropriations. ll: S. Labadi and C. Long, eds, Heritage and Globalisation,
Abingdon: Routledge, 97-l 14.
Bortolotto, C., ed., 2011. Le Patrimoine Culturel Immatdriel: Enjeux d'une Nouyelle
Catdgorie. Paris: Editions de la Maison des sciences de I'homme.
Bortolotto, C., 2015. LTNESCO and heritage self-determination: negotiating meaning
in the intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the ICH. 1n: N. Adell,
R.F. Bendix, C. Bortolotto and M. Tauscheet, eds, Between Imagined Communities and
Communities of Practice, Grittingen: Universitiitsverlag Gdttingen,249-2'72.
Brumann, C.,2012. Multilateral Ethnograplty: Entering the World Heritage Arena, work-
ing papers/Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology 136. Halle (Saale): Max
Planck Institute for Social Anthropology.
Cowan, J.K.,2013. Before audit culture: a genealogy of international oversight of rights.
Ir: B. Mtiller, ed, The Gloss of Harmony: The Politics of Policy-Making in Multilateral
Organisations, London: Pluto Press, 103-133.
De Cesari, C., 2010. Creative heritage: Palestinian heritage NGOs and defiant arts of gov-
emment. American Anthropologist, 112(4), 625437.
Gellner, D.N. and Hirsch, E., eds, 2001. Inside Organizations: Anthropologists at Work.
Oxford: Berg.
Graezer Bideau, F.,2012.Identifing 'living traditions' in Switzerland: re-enacting fed-
eralism through the TINESCO Convention for the Safeguarding oflntangible Cultural
Heritage. 1n: R.F. Bendix, A. Eggert and A. Peselmann, eds, Heritage Regimes and the
State, Gcittingen: Universitiitsverlag Grittingen 303-325.
-_ ,
Hafstein, V.Tr., 2009. Intangible heritage as a List: from the masterpieces to representa-
tion. In: L. Smith and N. Akagawa, eds, Intangible Heritage. Abingdon: Routledge,
93_1 1 l.
Hanison, R., ed., 2010. The Politics of Heritage.Manchester: Manchester University press.
Hartelius, J.E.,2}ll. The Rhetoric of Expertise. Lanham: Lexington Books.
 lnside the UNESCO apparatus 83
82 Kristin Kuutma

N' Adell' R'F' Bendix' C' Bortolotto Anthropology and the Analysis of Contemporary Power. New York and Oxford:
Herz,E.,20l5. Bottoms, genuine and spurious' 1n:
Berghahn Books, 1-25.
andM'Tauschek,eds,BetweenlmaginedCommunitiesandCommunitiesofPractice,
Srnitlr, L., 2006. Uses of Heritage. Abingdon: Routledge.
Gdttingen: Universitiitsverlag Gdttingen, 25-58'
nation-state' International Srnith, L. and Akagawa, N., eds, 2009.Intangible Heritage. Abingdon: Routledge.
Herzfeld, fu., 2015. Heritage anJ corruption: the two faces of the
Heritage Studies, 21(6), 531-544' Strathem, M., ed., 2000. Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics
Journal of
towards a community- and the Academy. Abingdon: Routledge.
Keitumetse, 3.O., ZOt+. Cultural resources as sustainability enablers:
(COBACHREM) model. sustainability, Tauschek, M., 2012. The bureaucratic texture of national patrimonial policies. 1n:
based cultural heritage resoufces management
R.F. Bendix, A. Eggert and A. Peselmann, eds, Heritage Regimes and the,S/ale. Gottingen:
6(1), 70-85.
Logan' M' Craith' and Universitiitsverlag Gdttingen, 19 5112.
Kuutma, K., 2015. From folklore to intangible heritage' In: W ' Ii" Tauschek, M., 2013. Kulturerbe. Eine Einfiihrung. Berlin: Reimer-Kulturwissenschaften.
U.Kockel,eds,ACompaniontoHeritageStud'ies.London:Wiley-Blackwell,4l_53.
aural experience and
Kuutma, K. and Kiistik, H., 2014. Creativity and 'right' singing:
5 1 (3)' 27 7 -j 10'
embodiment of heritage. Journal of F olkl or e Re s e ar ch,
authenticity and post-authenticity: international and
Labadi, s., 2010. world Heritage,
national perspectives. fu: S. Labadi and c. Long, eds, Heritage
and Globalisation.
Abingdon: Routledge, 66-84.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Labadi, i. and Long, c., eds, 2010. Heritage and Globalisation.
Nic Craith, M., eds, 2010. Cultural Diversity, Heritage and
Langfield, M.' Logan, W. and
practice. Ablngdon: Routledge.
Eu*on Rights: Intersections inTheory and
Switzerland and the UNESCO Convention on Intangible cultural
Leimgruber, w., zoto.
Heritage. J our nal of F o I kl or e Re s e ar c h, 47 (l -2), 1 6l -196'
multi-sited
Marcus, c.8., tsst. Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence_of
ethnography.In..G,E'tvt*cu''ed.,EthnographyThroughThickandThin.Princeton.,
Princeton University Press, 79-l 04.
the eco-
Meskell, L.,2013. UNESCO's World Heritage convention at 40: challenging
Anthropologt,
nomic and political order of intemational heritage conservation. current
s4(4),483494.
on a global
Meskell, L.,2llla.Transacting LINESCO world heritage: gifts and exchanges
stage. Social Anthropology, 23(2)' 321'
Meskell, L., ed', 2015b. Globat Heritage: A Reader' London: Wiley-Blackwell'
Mosse, D.' 2005. Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid
Policy and Practice.
London: Pluto Press.
Miiller, 8., 2OT3.Introduction: lifting the veil of harmony: anthropologists approach.
The Politics of
intemational organizations. .Dz: B. Miiller, ed., The Gloss of Harmony:
Policy-MakinginMultilateralorganisations,London:PlutoPress,l_20'
production and
Nielsen, B., 2011. tlNEsco and the-'right' kind of culture: bureaucratic
articulation. Critique of Anthropology' 3 I (4), 2'1 3-292'
heritage in
ohinata, F., 2010. ITNBSCO', activities for the safeguarding of the intangible
the Horn of Africa. African Study Monographs,Sluppl' 41,3549'
Schmitt, T.M., 2009. Global cultural gou".*i., decision-making conceming
world herit-
age between politics and science. Erdkunde, 63(2), 103-121 '
of nominations forthe
Seeg'er, A.,200;.Lessons learned from the ICTM Q'{GO) evaluation
Humanity, 2001-5' In:
LTNESCO Masterpieces of the oral and Intangible Heritage of
Abingdon: Routledge' 112-128'
L. Smith and N. Akagaw a, eds, Intangible Heritage'
of Policy' Critical Perspectives on
Shore, C. and Wright, S., eds, 1997. Anthropologt
Governance and Power. Abingdon: Routledge'
of.governance
Shore, c. and wright, s., 201i. Conceptualising policy: technologies
C. s. wright and D. Perd, eds, Policy Worlds:
and politics of visibility. 1n: Shore,
Key lssues in Cultural Heritage
Series editors: Safeguarding I ntangible
William Logon ond Lauraione Smith
H e ritage

Heritage andTourism
Practices and Politics
Russell Staiff, Robyn Bush-ell ond Steve Wotson

The Future of Heritage as Climates Change

David Harvey ond Jim Perry

U rban H eritage, Development and Sustainability

Sophio Lobodi ond William Logon
Edited by Natsuko Akagawa
Managing Heritage in Africa
and Lau raiane Smith
Webber Ndoro, Shadreck Chirikure and Jonette Deacon

lntel lectual Property, Cultu ral Property and I ntangible

Cultural Heritage
Christoph Antons ond Williom Logon

Gender and Heritage

Wero Grohn ond Ross Wilson

Cultural Heritage and the Future

Cornelius Holtorf ond Anders Higberg

World Heritage and Sustainable DeveloPment

Peter Bille Lorsen, Giovonni Boccordi and Williom Logon

lntangible Heritage
Edited by Lourajone Smith ond Notsuko Akogawo

Safeguardi ng I ntangi ble Heritage

Practices and Politics t) Routledoe
Edited by Notsuko Akogowo ond Laurajone Smith $\ raylor arran.iicroup
LONDON AND NEWYORK
For more information on the seriesn please visit https://www.routledge.comlKey-
Issues-in-Cultural-Heritage/book- seriesA(ICH
First published 2019
by Routledge
Co nte nts
2 Park Square, Milton Park,Abingdon, Oxon OX l4 4RN

and by Routledge
7l I Third Avenue, NewYork, NY 100 l7
Routledge is an imprint of theToylor & Froncis Group, on informo business

@ 20 l9 selection and editorial matter, Natsuko Akagawa and

Laurajane Smith; individual chapters, the contributors

The right of Natsuko Akagawa and Lauraiane Smith to be identified

as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their
individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections
77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act I 988.

All rights reserved. No part ofthis book may be reprinted or List offigures
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
vll
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including List of contributors viii
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or Ser ies e ditor s' for ew or d x111
retrieval system,without permission in writing from the publishers.

Troderno* notice: Product or corPorate names may be trademarks

or registered trademark,and are used only for identification and I The practices and politics ofsafeguarding
explanation without intent to infringe. NATSUKO AKAGAWA AND LAURAJANE SMITH
British Librory Catologuingin-Publicotion Dou
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
PART I
Librory of Congress Cotologingin-Publicotion Doto
A catalog record has been requested for this book Legal, administrative and conceptual challenges t5

ISBN: 978 I I 38580756 (hbk)

ISBN: 978 I I 38580749 (Pbk)
2 Further reflections on community involvement in
ISBN: 9780429507 I 37 (ebk) safeguarding intangibte cultural heritage t7
JANET BLAKE
Typeset in Times New Roman
&Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UK
by Swales
3 Intangible heritage safeguarding and intettectual property
protection in the context of implementing the UNESCO
ICH Convention 36
HARRIET DEACON AND RIEKS SMEETS

Intangible heritage economics and the law: listing,

commodification'and market alienation 54
LUCAS LIXINSKJ

Inside the UNESCO apparatus: from intangible

representations to tangible effects 68
KRISTINKUUTMA

Intangibility re-translated 84
MIN-CHIN CHIANG

:,.$",;lr:.lii ir;'Jili:ur;;,,. ,.;ill[,i,

vi Contents

Language as world heritage? Critical perspectives on Figu res

language-as-archive
t02
ANA DEUMERT AND ANNE STORCH

The Conventionfor the Safeguarding of the Intangible

Cultural Heritage: absentees, objections and assertions ll8
vrAnEep NIc cRAITH, ULLRIcH KocK-EL AND KATHERINE LLoYD

PART II
The complexities of 'safeguarding' r33

9 Batik as a creative industry: political, social and economic 7.1 Inside The Language Archive: the archive of Aweti
use of intangible heritage 135 (a language of Brazil)
106
NATSUKOAKAGAWA
7.2 Inside The Language Archive: data representation for
K6mnzo (a language of papua New Guinea) 109
10 Replacing faith in spirits with faith in heritage: a story of
9.1 Kindergarten children attending a batik-making
workshop t4l
the management of the Gangneung Danoje Festival 155
9.2 Cap or metal block stencil method of batik making 144
CEDARBOUGH T. SAEJI
9.3 Batik workers using the tulis method at a family-run
batik firm 149
11 World Heritage communities, anchors and values for the 10.1 Seong-ju-gut in Gangneung at the Danoje Festival,
safeguarding ofintangible cultural heritage in southern June 201 I
163
Africa: Botswana and Zimbabwe 174 13.1 Traditional Japanese food 202
STELLA BASINYI AND MUNYARADZI ELTON SAGIYA 15.1 Sydney harbour before European arrival tn Virtual lV.arrane 233
15.2 Participation in traditional cultural activities nvirtual Meanjin 237
12 lCH-isation of popular religions and the politics of
recognition in China t8'7
MING-CHUN KU

13 National identity, culinary heritage and UNESCO:

Japanese washoka 200
NATSUKOAKAGAWA

t4 Beyond safeguarding measures, or a tale of strange

bedfellows: improvisation as heritage 2t8
MUSTAFA CO$KUN

15 Playing with intangible heritage: video game technology

and procedural re-enactment 232
JAKUB MAJEWSK]

Index 250
,t::i

Mr