By OSWALDO JUNIOR*
The preservation of heritage (material and immaterial) is linked to the maintenance of the cultural identity of a people, to the cultural ties that constitute social relations.
Introduction
In all Applied Social Sciences, there is a concern with the precision of concepts, that is, the way of representing or describing concrete or abstract objects of social reality. The analysis, classification and description of objects require a methodological approach capable of accounting for the complexity of different social realities. Reflection on this reality (memory, history and relations with heritage) requires an approach capable of problematizing, questioning and pointing to answers in the face of social and historical issues that arise in the daily lives of individuals and human groups.
It is correct to note that, in the search for precision in concepts, we often come across a huge number of possible variables that must be considered, analyzed and criticized. These variables often arise from different “worldviews” of the subjects who produce and relate to knowledge and their memories and histories. Therefore, the analyses that follow presuppose a historical and critical approach with the aim of outlining the concepts that will be worked on throughout the text, considering that they are products of a historical process and that they must be analyzed within it. (Leme, 2002, p. 95).
Based on this observation, Dulce Leme states that: “scientific reality will not, therefore, be a spontaneous and passively observed reality, but a constantly constructed reality” (2002, p. 97). The same should be applied to history, since it will never be a “photograph” of the past, but rather the construction of this past based on the hegemonic interests of the present. Historical knowledge, therefore, cannot be limited to the study of facts and the reproduction of knowledge without reflection or new questions and denials. On the contrary, it requires permanent affirmation and denial. It is, therefore, in this dialectical process (abstraction and concreteness at the same time) that the construction of concepts and knowledge takes place. Understanding that “dialectics is constituted by real contradictions, which manifest themselves mainly at the political, social and economic levels” (Sandroni, 2001, p. 174).
Faced with historical facts, memories and heritage, tourism professionals will always be challenged to ask questions and problematize, that is, to search dialectically for the real motivations behind social and historical phenomena.
In this way, this essay seeks to situate knowledge within a historical, social and political process in permanent evolution and transformation, observing that concepts are the results of these dialectical processes.
history and memory
History as a discipline/science developed from the 19th century onwards, and so the 19th century can be understood as the century of history. This emergence is linked to the so-called “positivist historical school”, the German Historical School and the French Methodical School, which elevated history to the category of a science. It was from this point onwards that the historian’s profession emerged and history began to be written with scientific and historiographical concerns. In a certain sense, anything that existed before would not be history. Thus, we begin by talking about memory, how it is expressed and its relations with history.
To speak of memory (in Brazil) is to deal with a “fashionable” topic; many speak of “memory preservation”, of caring for memory, and no one, no matter how unwary, risks making statements that threaten memory (D'alesio, 1993, p. 97). Therefore, we can ask a first question: after all, why is there this interest in memory, from common sense to the formulation of public policies…?
It is possible to observe that it is “in moments of rupture in historical continuity that attention is most focused on memory […]. Memory, in this case, reconstructs the past/present relationship and is a strategy for emotional survival”
(Ibid.).
In common sense[1] The construction of memory is seen as a truncated process, if not impossible to be carried out. In this context, we hear expressions such as: “the Brazilian people have no memory”, “the Brazilian people do not know their history” or even “we are a country without memory”. At the same time, we hear: “we need to value our memory”, “we need to rescue the past”, “we must recover our memory” or finally “we need to preserve our historical and cultural heritage”.
In addition to certain terms having no relation to history (such as rescue), it is curious how these expressions contain ways of understanding memory that are contradictory and ambiguous. Note, for example, the statement that the people have no memory, which is completely false, or that Brazilians do not know their history. First, we must ask ourselves which memory is not preserved (the official or the popular)? In the same way, with regard to history that is unknown, it is necessary to inquire into the processes of construction of history, the omissions and falsifications of historical reality.
Memory should be understood as the human capacity to store data and recall it through biological actions. As historian Jacques Le Goff (2003, p. 419) observes: “Memory, as the property of preserving certain information, refers us first of all to a set of psychic functions, thanks to which man can update impressions or information, or which he represents as past”. Thus, to want to understand, for example, that all Brazilian people have the same memory is to incur a huge exaggeration, given that memory is always selective, that is, it chooses what will be stored, transmitted and interpreted.
The relationship between history and memory is complex, at the same time they complement and negate each other. History and memory are not synonymous, memory is multiple, and is at the same time remembrance and forgetfulness, while history is the “reconstruction of the past”, it is a science of building society, insofar as it narrates what must be remembered, it will make selections and choices (political, ideological and others).
In the article “Between memory and history: the problem of places” (1981), Pierre Nora will reflect on places of memory, understanding that they are: “true cultural heritage designed symbolically and can be linked to a living past that still has a presence and reinforces the identity traits of the place” (Andrade, 2008, p. 570).
There is, therefore, a relationship between History and memory, between history and places of memory, as these places are real bearers of the identities of social groups.
The places of memory
There are many ways of accessing memory: sounds, smells, the narrative of history, tastes and knowledge, buildings and ruins, festivals and processions, etc. All of these forms are nothing more than memories, places of memories, which preserve and produce identities. The selection of what will remain in memory will result in the identity of a group/people, so remembering will also be an instrument of power and exclusion. For example, when certain festivals and traditions are maintained, the groups that express them are valued and preserved, while when others are “forgotten”, the groups are culturally silenced by history.
It is noted that in societies that have undergone many transformations and destructions, memory is something that flees, that is at risk, so it will seek out places where it can be housed, places where memory is kept, such as museums, monuments, etc. The only problem is that when it is preserved in this way, a selection will inevitably occur, which will not always be discussed widely or will encompass all the places of memory of all groups.
However, in the Western world (guided by analytical rationality), it will be history that will define which places of memory and which heritage will be preserved, sometimes creating conflicts with memories. An example of this is that the so-called Historical Heritage Institutes will decide which material and immaterial heritage, places, knowledge and stories will or will not be preserved.
This process of selection based on history and not memory results from the power relations established in society, where market interests dictate which memories should be preserved, always guided by the logic of the commodification of places of memory, with the risk of historical heritage undergoing a process of “disneylandization”, that is, a place not for the preservation of social, cultural and historical identities, but for merchandise that is commercialized in different ways until it is exhausted or loses its character.
To delve deeper into this issue, it is worth taking a look at Walter Benjamin’s theses on history, for whom history is made by the vanquished, who silence the “defeated”. In the process of class struggle, history silenced the vanquished. This observation can be made in thesis number VI of “Theses on history” by Benjamin, where we read (apud, Löwy, 2005, p. 65): “Articulating the past historically does not mean knowing it “as it really was”. It means appropriating a reminiscence, just as it flashes forth at the moment of danger. It is up to historical materialism to fix an image of the past, as it presents itself, at the moment of danger, to the historical subject, without him being aware of it. The danger threatens both the existence of tradition and those who receive it. For both, the danger is the same: to surrender to the dominant classes, as their instrument. In every era, it is necessary to wrest tradition from the conformism that wants to take possession of it. For the Messiah does not come only as a savior; he also comes as the conqueror of the Antichrist. The gift of awakening sparks of hope in the past is the exclusive privilege of the historian convinced that even the dead will not be safe if the enemy wins. And this enemy has not ceased to win”.
As Michael Löwy (2005) observes, Walter Benjamin's thesis number VI on history rejects a historicist and positivist formulation of history. It is not possible to speak of the neutrality of history, and every time this is somehow reinforced, what actually occurs is the confirmation of the “vision of the victors: of the kings, the popes, the emperors”.
The production of the silences of history often counted, in part, on the firm collaboration of historians, who, for example, when producing a national history ended up generating the exclusion of social groups.
Memory, its places and heritage
As we have seen so far, memory can be understood as the ability to preserve certain information; this property derives from a set of psychic and social functions (Le Goff, 2003, p. 421). It is noted that places of memory are material, symbolic and functional. As Pierre Nora (1981, p. 21-22) observed, “even a purely material place, such as an archive depository, is only a place of memory if the imagination invests it with a symbolic aura”. The same can be observed in a classroom, a functional place. “Even a minute of silence, which seems like the extreme example of symbolic significance, is at the same time the material cut of a temporal unit and serves as a concentrated recall of remembrance”.
Seen in this way, the notion of material and immaterial heritage must always be understood as complementary, given that they are material, functional and symbolic simultaneously.
Throughout the history of human societies, memory has manifested itself in five different ways, which is of particular interest to tourism professionals, as they work with these elements in their daily lives. These forms were: (i) Oral memory without writing – the valued knowledge was that which was memorized, in the strict sense (decorated knowledge).[2]) . Also understood as ethnic memory; (ii) Oral/written memory – “prehistory”/antiquity; (iii) Oral/written memory – medieval period, which lived in balance between orality and writing; (iv) Written memory – 16th century with the invention of the printing press, which experiences the progress of written memory; (v) Electronic memory – contemporary period, with its current developments in memory.
For Jacques Le Goff (2003, p. 424-425), the domain of ethnic memory is collective memory, transmitted orally, especially through myths of origin. However, “it is necessary to emphasize that, […] the memory transmitted through learning in societies without writing is not a “word-for-word” memory. This transmission is far from being mechanical, as it is told and retold in different ways, an example of which are the different “versions” of myths of origin among ancient peoples.
Ethnic or unwritten memory revolves around three main interests: the collective age of the group, which originates in certain founding myths (of origin); the prestige of the dominant families expressed through genealogies and finally technical knowledge, “which is transmitted through practical formulas strongly linked to religious magic” (Le Goff, 2003, p. 427).
With the emergence of writing, a profound transformation occurred in collective memory. Writing allowed collective memory to make great progress: commemoration, that is, the communal construction of memory without the need for orality. Historical monuments, for example, true material heritage, commemorate and celebrate past deeds, as do ancient inscriptions that become auxiliary elements of history.
In the ancient East, for example, commemorative inscriptions gave way to the multiplication of monuments such as stars and obelisks. In Mesopotamia, stars predominated, in which kings wanted to immortalize their deeds through figurative representations, accompanied by an inscription […]. It was, above all, the Akkadian kings[3] who resorted to this commemorative form. (Le Goff, 2003, p. 427)
Oral/written memory. The written document was another form linked to memory, as observed by Le Goff (2003, p. 428-429), which was produced on different bases such as palm leaves, bones and animal skins until finally reaching papyrus, parchment and paper. It is also important to highlight that every document has a dual character of monument and heritage. In this document (monument and heritage), the information that communicates to us through time and space is stored at the same time, providing a process of marking in addition to ensuring the transition from orality to visual, which allows correction and orderly transmission.
Kings, for example, in ancient times created “memory institutions” consisting of libraries, museums, compositions and documents engraved in stone, in which their great deeds were narrated, which took us to the frontier where memory becomes “history” (Idem, p. 430).
Oral/written memory produces great transformations, such as, for example, the transformation of mnemons[4] in archivists. Concerns about the changes resulting from written memory, that in archaic Greece, even a goddess of memory was thought of, since forgetfulness was considered mortal: the goddess of memory would then be Mnemonic, and her role is to remind people of the great deeds of heroes and to preside over lyrical poetry, thus every poet is possessed/inspired/remembered by the goddess Mnemonic, making him a fortune teller of the past, who preserves humanity from lethal oblivion. (idem, p. 433).
Written memory, with the printing press, experienced a revolution, as it expanded the memorization of knowledge. For example, in the Middle Ages, the word memorial was created, which was initially related to financial accounts, an administrative dossier, therefore transforming memory into a bureaucratic service, at the service of monarchical centralism (Idem, p. 455).
In the 1914th and 1918th centuries, new expressions of memory and new places of memory emerged, such as at the end of the First World War (2003-460), when numerous monuments were erected to the unknown soldiers who had died in battle. In other words: “The funeral commemoration found a new development there. In many countries, a Tomb to the Unknown Soldier was erected, seeking to go beyond the limits of memory associated with anonymity, proclaiming over a nameless corpse the cohesion of the nation around the common memory.” (Le Goff, XNUMX, p. XNUMX).
In the 19th and 20th centuries, it can be said that the phenomenon of collective memory was definitively expressed around the nation. Another element that revolutionized memory in the same period was photography, which brought about the phenomenon of the multiplicity of visual memories.
After these brief considerations above, it is necessary (no pun intended) to remind us that there is true memory, which is that which is expressed in daily habits, in work, in knowledge and flavors transmitted in silence, and memory transformed into history, which loses its spontaneity. (Nora, 1981, p. 14).
History, being a rational and scientifically structured activity, removes all veil of sacredness from memory, as Maurice Halbwachs observed. Thus: “History recognizes the past and wants to know it, therefore, it is a “representation of the past” and not its experience. Memory is unconscious of itself, and is, for this very reason, all-powerful, authoritarian, absolute; history is conscious because it rationalizes and in this sense is always relative.” (D'Alessio, 1993, p. 101).
Once again, the relationship between history and memory is raised. Memory will always be seen as a current phenomenon, while history will be the (re)construction and deconstruction of these memories. The tourism professional, like the historian, will always be caught between these issues of memory and history, their constant preservation and problematization.
Cultural heritage
The notion of heritage (heritage), has a trajectory in history, and is initially linked to the idea of inheritance, material goods, things that accumulate. At first, in Ancient Rome, it was related to the interests of the aristocracy, since the majority of people (plebeians) did not own property and did not even own land. In Ancient Rome, there was no notion of collective and public heritage, “heritage was patriarchal, individual and private to the aristocracy” (Funari; Pelegrini, 2006, p. 11).
In the Middle Ages, even with the maintenance of the aristocracy, with the rise of Christianity, heritage (cultural and historical) gained a collective and symbolic dimension, the religious experience common to a vast majority led to a greater feeling of belonging. “The cult of saints and the appreciation of relics gave ordinary people a very unique sense of heritage” (idem) and the appreciation of places and objects of cultic celebration.
In the Renaissance, the third moment in this history of heritage, there is a centrality on human values to the detriment of religious ones, there is a (re)valuation of Greek expressions, with the construction of monuments and the creation of antiquaries (“places of memory”), which “carried out research with an undisguised local pride.” (Idem, p. 13).
The fourth moment in this brief history of heritage occurs with the advent of National States, an example being France, where the proposal for heritage as it is understood today was consolidated. The debate on citizenship that followed the French Revolution (1789) signaled the equality of all people in the nation and also pointed to the communion of all the cultural and heritage values of the people. From then on, heritage began to designate the set of cultural assets of a people, a cultural inheritance capable of constructing national identities.
From a sociological point of view, there is an apparent return and appreciation of cultural identities, which have undergone a process of social invisibility,[5] especially after the formation of National States, which sought comprehensive cultural elements and excluded particularities, disrespecting differences, to forge national identities. However, it is important to emphasize that “the search for a cultural identity is the search for the affirmation of a difference and a similarity”. (Dias, 2006, p. 68).
This return of cultural identities is a phenomenon that also results from the weakening of National States, often incapable of maintaining group cohesion. This is how it happens: “The search for identity in an increasingly heterogeneous world, in which cultures that did not maintain direct contact are increasingly interrelated, as such relationships were mediated by the National State, increases the need to insert oneself in this global context, and the search for insertion is the search for one's equals, the search for a certain homogeneity within heterogeneity.” (idem).
Cultural heritage in contemporary Brazil
The preservation of heritage (material and immaterial) is linked to the maintenance of the cultural identity of a people, to the cultural ties that constitute social relations, which is why legislation that protects what will be called heritage is necessary. In Brazil, this protection has been in place since the Federal Constitution (1988), especially in its article 216, in the section on culture of the chapter on education, culture and sport, which states that:
Art. 216. Brazilian cultural heritage is made up of tangible and intangible assets, taken individually or as a whole, that bear reference to the identity, action and memory of the different groups that make up Brazilian society, including: (i) Forms of expression; (ii) Ways of creating, doing and living; (iii) Scientific, artistic and technological creations; (iv) Works, objects, documents, buildings and other spaces intended for artistic and cultural manifestations; (v) Urban complexes and sites of historical, scenic, artistic, archaeological, paleontological, ecological and scientific value.
There is a clear concern for all forms of heritage, both intangible and tangible. As can be seen, the concept of intangible heritage, as defined by UNESCO, states: “Intangible Heritage is transmitted from generation to generation and is constantly recreated by communities and groups based on their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, generating a sense of identity and continuity, thus contributing to promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.” (Ministry of Culture/IPHAN).
While material heritage is defined as: “[…] a set of cultural assets classified according to their nature in the four Books of Heritage: archaeological, landscape and ethnographic; historical; fine arts; and applied arts. They are divided into real estate such as urban centers, archaeological and landscape sites and individual assets; and movable assets such as archaeological collections, museum collections, documentary, bibliographic, archival, videographic, photographic and cinematographic collections”. (Idem)
However, it is important to problematize this issue, since the definition of what will be preserved will depend on history (through the various levels of historical heritage institutes – federal, state and municipal) and not necessarily on the places of memory. It will often be these institutes that will define which heritage will or will not be preserved, however it is worth highlighting that the “assets of a people” are also characteristics of memory.
This issue can be seen in the statement by Pedro Funari and Sandra Pelegrine (2006, p. 43): “In our country [Brazil], public policies aimed at the cultural area, particularly those related to heritage protection, have oscillated between concepts and guidelines that are not always transparent. What is certain is that most initiatives in this field have been implemented within the spheres of federal power, and that, not infrequently, they support disparate interpretations”.
In Brazil, the federal agency responsible for cultural heritage is the National Institute of Historical and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN), created in 1937. The institution, which was initially “entrusted to Brazilian intellectuals and artists linked to the modernist movement,” is now present in all Brazilian states with 25 offices, 4 cultural centers and 41 museums under its direct administration, with approximately 250 assets under its care. (Ministry of Culture/IPHAN).
Still in our discussion of the issue of cultural heritage and its forms of preservation, it is worth highlighting that: “[…] cultural assets are preserved based on the meanings they awaken and the links they maintain with cultural identities. However, despite the breadth that the concept of cultural heritage has acquired, tending to encompass the most diverse forms of expression of the assets of humanity, traditionally, the aforementioned concept continues to be presented in a fragmented manner” (Pelegrini, 2006).
It is true to say that cultural heritage is based on the group's memory, in this context, it is noted that tourism activity ends up playing an important role, both for the preservation and also for the decharacterization of sites (places), it is certain that done responsibly and with respect for diversity, tourism activity contributes to the maintenance and preservation of cultural and environmental heritage, as well as identities.
Another issue is that human societies, as they develop, produce material and immaterial wealth, that is, “things” that belong to them, that concern them and have meaning. However, in the process of economic development, these goods often become obstacles to new human enterprises that arrive, starting a conflict between what should or should not be preserved as cultural identity. The choice will not always fall on those truly significant heritages, especially because this decision is not always possible, since such a choice is sometimes the choice of the dominant groups that silence the minorities.
*Oswaldo Santos Junior He is a historian, retired university professor and coordinator of research for the Memorial of the Struggle for Justice in São Paulo..
Text originally published in the magazine Lutas Sociais of PUC-SP, DOI: https://doi.org/10.23925/ls.v28i53
References
ANDRADE, Cyntia, Place of memory… Memories of a place: intangible heritage of Iguatu, Andaraí, BA. Tourism and cultural heritage magazine, La Laguna, vol. 6, n. 3, p. 569-590, 2008. Available here. Accessed on October 11, 2023.
BARRETO, Margaret. Tourism and Cultural Legacy🇧🇷 Campinas: Papirus, 2002.
BENJAMIN, Walter. Selected Works. Vol. 1. Magic and technique, art and politics. Essays on literature and cultural history. Foreword by Jeanne Marie Gagnebin. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1987, p. 222-232.
CAMARGO, Harold Leitao. Historical-cultural heritage. ABC of Tourism Collection. São Paulo: Aleph, 2002.
CHOAY, Françoise. The allegory of Heritage. Sao Paulo: Freedom Station, 2001.
D´ALÉSSIO, Márcia Mansur. Memory: readings of M. Halbwachs and P. Nora. Brazilian Journal of History(ANPUH), Sao Paulo, vol. 13, n. 25/26, p. 97-103, 1993.
DAYS, Reinaldo. Introduction to Sociology. New York: Routledge, 2006.
FAUSTO, Boris. History of Brazil. New York: Routledge, 2000.
FUNARI, Pedro Paulo; PISKY, Jaime (Eds.) Tourism and Cultural Heritage. São Paulo: Context, 2003.
LE GOFF, Jacques. history and memory. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp, 2003.
LÖWY, Michael. Walter Benjamin: fire warning – A reading of the theses “on the concept of history”. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2005.
MINISTRY OF CULTURE/IPHAN. Available here.
NORA, Pierre. Between memory and history: the problem of places. History Project: Journal of the Postgraduate Studies Program in History, São Paulo, n. 10, p. 7-28, 1993.
PELEGRINI, Sandra de Cássia Araújo. Notes on the relationships between heritage, nature and culture in America. Academic Space Magazine, Maringá, n. 63, 2006. Available here. Accessed on October 11, 2023
PORTO, Juliana. Social invisibility and consumer culture. PUC RIO. Department of Arts and Design, 2006. Available here. Accessed on October 11, 2023.
KINGS, Jose Carlos. The logical specificity of history: the narrative model. History and Theory. São Paulo: FGV, 2006.
Notes
[1] Common sense here should be understood as the “shallow” expression and alienated from history and society. It is, therefore, devoid of criticism and reflection. Through common sense, reality is inverted and often the false is taken for true, creating a false awareness of reality.
historical. To deepen the concept I suggest reading the book invitation to philosophy by Marilena Chauí.
[2] To memorize is to “keep in the heart”, “keep in memory”, or simply remember, because in the past it was understood that the heart was the “place” that kept memories. Rubem Alves stated that: “What is written in the heart does not need a diary because we do not forget. What the memory loves remains eternal. If I need a diary it is because it is not in the heart. It is not my desire. It is the desire of someone else”.
[3] Region where present-day Iraq is located, near Baghdad.
[4] A mnemon is a person who keeps the memory of the past in view of a decision of justice. It can be a person whose role as a “memory” is limited to an occasional operation. In many mythologies the mnemon is a servant of the heroes, who constantly reminds them of the divine orders, the forgetting of which could bring condemnation and even death. (Le Goff. 2003, p. 432). Even today it is possible to observe in many religious communities individuals who resemble these mnemons, that is, those who bring the group’s precepts and stories orally.
[5] “The concept of Social Invisibility has generally been applied when referring to socially invisible beings, whether due to indifference or prejudice, which leads us to understand that such a phenomenon affects only those who are on the margins of society. In fact, these are the greatest victims of Social Invisibility (…)” PORTO, Juliana. Social Invisibility and Consumer Culture. Available here.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE