2

cover

Notorious Architectural Heritage

site and their Owners in the
course of History:
Manipulation of National cultural
heritage by the political elite, at
the expense of peoples
traditional culture.

VASILEIOS RYZIOTIS
Student number: 10227926
Tutor: Denise Maior-Barron
ARCO320

Contents
Abstract

p.5

Introduction

p.6

Chapter one:

p.9

Elements of Manipulation used by Nationalist

Elite

Chapter two:

p.15

Defining Cultural Capital

Chapter three:

p.21

Bucharest and Ceausescus House of the

people

Conclusion
Bibliography

p.28
p.30

Abstract
A nations identity is a function of the culture
and beliefs of its people. Architecture is an
essential part of the national heritage of any
country. It stands tall as the symbol of its
pride and dignity. But at times, it also falls
prey to the selfish and wanton motives of the
notorious political leaders of the nation, who
try to lay the foundation of their interests
upon the demolished corpses of these pieces
of architectural heritage. The political elite
often attempt to manipulate the heritage
architecture at the cost of the national and
religious sentiments of the people. Keeping
these key issues in mind, the paper outlines
some cases of historic architectural sites
which portray such manipulation. The
Legitimation, Cultural Capital and Dominant
Ideologies provide a theoretical framework
for the study. Thus the study outlines how
these heritage sites undergo change in
ownership as well as purpose.

Introduction
Architectural heritage carries immense
significance within almost all academic
domains in social science and is extensively
useful in research work for gaining valuable
insights. The intrinsic characteristic of
architecture is that it reflects human power
through their creativity. At the same time,
architectural heritage taking architecture as
the base structure unfurls various cultures
and their corresponding environment that
has influenced lives of people from time
immemorial. Through architectural heritage
we witness the stories and underlying
mechanism of various political regimes in the
world in developing their communities and
depicting the relation of people with varied
political and societal forces. Here comes the
importance of analysing the aspect of
manipulation of these heritage sites in recent
times. The power of respective political
regimes gets mirrored vehemently through
architectures and they can be regarded as
bureaucratic
symbols.
Here
lies
the
importance of exploring their role in
changing the meaning of the sites and in
changing the beliefs of the people.
The term heritage is sometimes synonymous
to architecture as it correlates power.
Basically heritage as an amalgamation of

inheritance can be regarded as a benchmark

of a community, civilization and culture. The
idea of heritage is embedded within the
societal dimension so much so that the
nation takes a pioneering role in defining
national heritage.
We often cherish architectural marvels that
are built in different corners of the world and
the narratives about them reveal the
relationship that these buildings and sites
carry with people who were owners of these
buildings and sites. Standing in todays
world, the architectural heritage being
characterized over time also carries national
identities. The political elite also bear cultural
heritage and one essential thing that is to be
noted is that this cultural heritage is
exploited by the bureaucrats and political
elites sitting at administrative levels in
various manner to manipulate various
segments of the economy mainly the
hospitality industry luring tourists, residents
within the nation and thus developing an
image for the nation according to their
volunteered motives. It is a fact that
architectural heritages become national
heritages which are utilized by the niche
think tanks of the nations in meeting their
own ends. We need to see how this affects
the significance of the sites. The current
study would therefore show the changing
role of these sites.
The word manipulation can be regarded as
one of the turn-key factors in this essay as in

the course of discussion we would focus on

how owners of architectural heritages and
political elites in the course of history have
manipulated various national heritage at the
expense of peoples traditional culture. They
take on the chance to exhibit the national
heritage in their own ways and steer peoples
conscience in the directions shown by them.
In this respect it can be stated that, national
heritages, integral parts of national identity
are being challenged by cities, localities and
regions wishing to use heritage for their own
purpose1. Heritage in a nation exists where
most of the population inhabit, and the
governments rule a nation through owning
the heritage. A nation is, after all, an
extended community because regardless of
the actual inequality and exploitation that
may prevail in each, the nation is always
conceived
as
a
deep,
horizontal
2
comradeship .
Therefore it is important to
study the extent of this manipulation
attempted by the elites. In order to connect
ideologies or theories with evidence, the
following
chapters
elaborate
the
Legitimation, Cultural Capital and Dominant
Ideology.
1 P. Howard and G.J. Ashworth, European
Heritage, Planning and Management (Exeter:
Intellect Books, 1999), p. 4
2 B. Anderson, Imagined Communities (London:
Verso, 1991) p. 224

10

Chapter One

Elements of Manipulation used by

Nationalist Elite
Architectural heritage might be classified as
a sub-domain of cultural heritage. The
government and the political elites therefore
at times use architectural heritage sites to
promote their ideologies and often these
sites become a pseudo representative of
themselves. Thereafter the government
indulges in careful promotion of that
particular site and thereby successfully uses
the past events associated with that site to
legitimize them3. Though considering the
historical nature of inter European conflict
occasionally a national mascot is necessary
to uphold the national identity, however time
and again such manipulative promotion and
legitimation
are
actually
bereft
of
nationalistic ideologies and rather an effort
to foster the interest of the few.
At this juncture a question might be raised of
how a cluster of a few influence the concept
and thinking process of the mass through the
manipulation of a tangible cultural heritage
Howard and Ashworth4 have explained this
3 T. Gilmar, Sustaining Heritage (Sydney: Sydney
University Press, 2007), p.23
4 P. Howard and G.J. Ashworth, European
Heritage, Planning and Management (Exeter:

11

phenomenon in terms of culmination of three

theories, namely legitimation, culture capital
and dominant theories. The present chapter
takes the onus of explaining these theories
and relates them to architectural heritage.
Again an endeavour has also been made to
provide the answer of the question that is
raised at the beginning of this paragraph
with the help of these three theories5.
The main responsibility of any government is
to govern or control. In this process many
times it confronts a specific domain that
might not be under its control, yet it has to
prove its supremacy on that domain as well.
Confronting such situation governments
mostly resort to the legitimation theory. The
legitimation theory seeks the justification of
action through the symbolization of past
events such as teaching in schools of
national histories6 or symbolization of past
artefacts such as that in national museums 7.
In order to opt for the legitimation theory,
governments
usually
choose
to
use
inevitable progress techniques that are a
Intellect Books, 1999)
5 P. Howard and G.J. Ashworth, European
Heritage, Planning and Management (Exeter:
Intellect Books, 1999), p.60-62
6 P. Howard and G.J. Ashworth, European
Heritage, Planning and Management, p.60-62

12

linear representation of the past in terms of

objects, events and ideas8. This is used in
such a way so as to prove the present is
much more advanced than the past and that
proves that the present state is an optimal
point to cherish.

Such fabrication of historical logic legitimates

Present society, its institutions and ideas 9
and nullifies any sort of opposition.
Totalitarian governments are prone to use
such technique closely followed by the
pluralist liberal democracies10.
After
the
above
discussion
relating
legitimation
theory
with
architectural
heritage site becomes quite easy. An
architectural heritage site present a thing of
the past, symbolize past glory and often
poses a challenge to the ruling government;
7 P. Howard and G.J. Ashworth, European
Heritage, Planning and Management, p.61
8 P. Howard and G.J. Ashworth, European
Heritage, Planning and Management, p.62
9 P. Howard and G.J. Ashworth, European
Heritage, Planning and Management, p.62
10 P. Howard and G.J. Ashworth, European
Heritage, Planning and Management, p.62

13

specifically if the past and present

government are opposing in political
ideology. The present government often
dismantles the past architectural marvel and
establishes a new one only to promote its
supremacy over the past government. An
architectural heritage site thus becomes a
political battlefield and more precisely a
medium
for
falsified
incarnation
of
supremacy of present over the past.
Cultural Capital: Howard and Ashworth11
credits French sociologist Bourdieu for
inventing the term cultural capital. In
economics we are introduced to capital and
cultural capital is superimposed of the same
in cultural field. Cultural capital can take
many form, it might be some painting, books
but more importantly taste and opinion about
a certain culture.12 Though economic capital
and cultural capital does not always share a
one to one correspondence, but often they
are directly proportional. The cultural elite
take up the responsibility to determine the
cultural trend of the society. Similar to
economic class conflict, the cultural capital is
also subject to the same. New or upcoming
11 P. Howard and G.J. Ashworth, European
Heritage, Planning and Management
12 F. Bandarin and R. Oers, The Historic Urban
Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban
Century. (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012),
p.45-46

14

cultural tycoons always try to lead the

cultural trend and dethrone the traditional
cultural elite. Such possibility and continuous
friction between classes regarding cultural
capital has made this particular phenomenon
extremely fluid and dynamic13.
Cultural capital theory highlights the fact that
culture and cultural portrayal whether
tangible or intangible bears extreme social
importance and a thing of lucrative
possession for several reasons. Cultural trend
setters or people with possession of cultural
artefacts are considered as important and
special.
Legitimation
of
own
cultural
possession would just act as a positive
catalyst and would be a boost to ones
present social status14. This might eventually
help to drive the society in ones self
determined track. From political point of view
thus cultural capital becomes very important.
Possession of the cultural capital and
legitimation of the same by any political
identity or party would definitely bring added
benefits to it. This can lead the society to a

13 P. Howard and G.J. Ashworth, European

Heritage, Planning and Management (Exeter:
Intellect Books, 1999), p.62
14 R. Free, 21st century economics: A reference
handbook. (Vols. 1-2). (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, 2010), p.822

15

predetermined course by any political party

or identity15.
Dominant
ideology:
Culmination
of
legitimation and cultural capital theory opens
up a broader aspect namely dominant
ideology thesis. According to dominant
ideology thesis; society is divided in two
parts the dominant and the subordinate
groups. The dominant group determines the
ideas and values regarding culture and the
subordinate groups follow the same in a
passive way. Justification of heritage site as
cultural icon can be given using dominant
ideology
thesis.
Heritage
sites
are
incarnation
of
past
and
the
ruling
government by promoting a new heritage
site or by maintaining an old heritage sites
safeguards their ideological stand and
influences the subordinate group about the
dominant ideology16 . This is definitely one
sort of propaganda but carefully hidden so
that it is hard to identify17.
The above discussed three theories used in a
cumulative way successfully promote and
explains use of heritage sites for political
15 P. Howard and G.J. Ashworth (1999), European
Heritage, Planning and Management (Exeter:
Intellect Books, 1999), p.62
16 M. Rampley, Heritage, Ideology and Identity in
Central and Eastern Europe, (London: Boydell
Press, 2012), p.99

16

purpose. The dominant ideology thesis as

explained above put things in a simple way;
perhaps way to simple than the complex real
world scenario. In mature pluralist societies
the subordinate groups are not always
passive followers of the cultural ideology;
rather successful creator of a parallel cultural
identity that does not get demean by the
overemphasis of the dominant group of their
own cultural images through heritage sites,
music, museums etc. Rather at times the
subordinate groups even if small in numbers
successfully occupy significant cultural
capital and stick to it18.
This particular phenomenon might be
explained in case of Europe. Europe and
heritage the two terms sounds almost similar
in national and international scale yet beside
a highly dominant national heritage as
reflected in most of the parts in Europe 19;
17 S. Ashley, Heritage Institutions, Resistance
and Praxis (Published online: CJC-online, 2006),
Vol.31, No. 3. Available from:
www.cjconline.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1
746/1860 (Accessed January 31, 2014)
18 P. Howard and G.J. Ashworth, European
Heritage, Planning and Management (Exeter:
Intellect Books, 1999), p.63
19 P. Howard and G.J. Ashworth, European
Heritage, Planning and Management, p.63

17

regional heritage sites such as 13th century

Norman castles in Wales. Scottish Highland
dress
and
music,
Dublins
Georgian
architecture of the protestant ascendancy,
Hindu temples in Leicester, Mosques in
Bradford, the Northern School of Landscape
painters20
maintain their successful
existence and thereby proves the existence
of politically separationist identities. Such
existences are mostly peaceful; however
become political battle ground at times of
emergency. In this sense heritage sites are
like volcanos that remain dormant in normal
time and radiates an aura of beauty but
might emit molten lava at sensitive times
and bring catastrophe as would be explained
through case studies in successive chapters.
Chapter two

Defining Cultural Capital

Cultural
capital
analyses
the
manipulation of political elites and owners of
architectural
heritages
through
their
exploitation of national heritage. The name
of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu comes
into the forefront as his works on cultural
capital is phenomenal in this respect. He is
one of the greatest postmodern social
thinkers who infused the notion of cultural
capital for explaining the ability of elite
20 P. Howard and G.J. Ashworth, European
Heritage, Planning and Management, p.63

18

managers and professionals in disseminating

their privileged status to their children which
can be regarded as cultural reproduction.
Bordieu coined the term cultural capital for
referring
to
familiarity
with
various
prestigious aesthetic cultures like that of high
arts, literary culture, linguistic abilities and
business abilities. Bordieu questioned about
the ways in which the high status people like
managers, doctors and lawyers are being
able to transmit their high position among
the children. Business in the earlier days
were easily transmitted from the owners to
their children but with rising complexities in
business and with the introduction of
manager controlled firms, the process of
inheritance became a tough call. Although in
order to maintain the legacy of transmission
of high status among the children, these
people transformed the economic capital into
cultural capital. As for instance, the children
from their very childhood are being exposed
to the high status culture, practices and
lessons with visits to museums and so on.
Bourdieu wanted to say that priory
developed cultural environment is infused
within the conscience of these children and
they carry it with them wherever they
move21. Photography is another area of
interest where Bourdieu researched and
found out various useful results. He studied
three deviant groups that revealed a range
21 G. Ritzer, Encyclopedia of Social Theory, Volumes
1-2 (London: SAGE Publications, 2004), p. 167

19

of varied aesthetic practices that seemed to

reflect various social positions of the
practitioners in the broader societal domain.
He concluded that diversity created with the
newness of the profession as well as absence
of proper practice, training and lack of
avenues. Bourdieu directed that although
there prevailed a congruence of social origin
with respect to professional photographic
practice but there was no existence of any
established agenda of high photographic
practice22.
The absence of any robust
established agenda of high photographic
practice can be majorly attributed to the
absence of any group claiming authenticity
over any form over the other. This can be
contrasted to the cultural reproduction as in
the latter there has been a provocative force
of imposing some established ideas on to the
agents of the society. Thus, one of the
essential points of analysis here is that no
concepts
are
strong
until
they
are
internalized and practiced fervently.
The term cultural capital has come to denote
social assets, such as intellect, education,
physical appearance and dressing style, that
22 A. Reckwitz, Toward a Theory of Social
Practices: A Development in Culturalist
Theorizing (Germany, Hamburg: University of
Hamburg), Vol. 5, Issue 2, p.243. Available from:
www.metodos.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/reck
witz_toward_a_theory_of_social_practices.pdf
(Accessed on February 24, 2014)

20

are of a non-financial nature but help in

uplifting ones social stature beyond financial
means. It is a sociological concept that was
first introduced by Pierre Bourdieu and has
eventually attained worldwide popularity in
social and intellectual circles. For Bourdieu,
the term capital encompasses all the goods
material and symbolic, without distinction,
that present themselves as rare and worthy
of being sought after in a particular social
formation23 and acts as a basis for social
relationships within a system of exchange.
According to him, within a system of
exchange, cultural capital confers power and
status by taking the form of a social entity
that consists of the amassed cultural
knowledge24.
The term first appeared in
Bourdieus Cultural Reproduction and Social
Reproduction25 in which he has examined
23 R. Harker, Education and Cultural Capital in
An Introduction to the Work of Pierre Bourdieu:
the practice of theory (London: Macmillan Press,
1990), p.13
24 C. Barker, The Sage Dictionary of Cultural
Studies (London: Sage Publications, 2004), p.xx
25 P. Bourdieu. Cultural Reproduction and Social
Reproduction (London: Tavistock, 1973).
Available from:
www.edu301s2011.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/
cultural-reproduction-and-social-reproduction.pdf
{Accessed 25 February, 2014)

21

the role of higher education system in

determining the structure and distribution of
cultural capital in the society. He has done so
by explaining the differences in outcomes
brought about by the nature of upbringing of
the children in France during the 1960s26.
Subsequently
the
concept
has
been
elaborated in greater details in The Forms of
Capital27, a work which further established
the concept in terms of various types of
capital such as social, economic, cultural and
symbolic. Bourdieu defines cultural capital as
the sum total of the knowledge, skills and
education possessed by a person by virtue of
which he enjoys a higher status in society.
Cultural capital is transmitted from the
parents to their children in the form of the
knowledge, behaviour and attitudes that are
essential for gaining success in the
contemporary educational scheme. Cultural
26 R. K. Brown, Knowledge, Education and
Cultural Change. (London: Taylor and Francis,
1974). p. 71-84.
27 P. Bourdieu, The forms of capital, In J.
Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education (New
York, Greenwood, 1986), p.241-258. Available
from:
www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/w
orks/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm (Accessed 24
February, 2014)

22

capital cannot be transferred straightaway.

Rather, it needs to be assimilated over time
as it creates its influence upon one's
character and way of thinking.
In this work, Bourdieu also categorises
cultural capital into three major subtypes:
embodied, objectified and institutionalized.
Embodied cultural capital refers to the traits
that are received and developed in a person
over time either through family values or
through socialisation with persons of various
cultures and traditions. It relates to the
features that are consciously learned as well
as those that are passively developed. For
example, language is a form of embodied
cultural capital as it signifies a means of
communication and self-expression learnt
from one's neighbouring culture Objectified
cultural capital refers to physical entities that
can
be
owned,
such
as
machines,
apparatuses, paintings or artistic works.
These cultural goods can be utilised for
economic earnings by buying and selling
them. These also serve the purpose of
conveying the symbolic essence of the
cultural capital they stand for. One can gain
the possession of an objectified cultural
capital by owning an entity of cultural
significance. But in order to consume the
cultural capital i.e. to understand its cultural
importance, one necessarily needs the
appropriate foundation of the relevant
conceptual
and
historical
information.
Institutionalized cultural capital refers to the

23

formal acknowledgment of the cultural

capital possessed by an individual. This is
mostly expressed in the form of academic
credentials or educational qualifications. The
most conspicuous role played by the concept
of institutionalized cultural capital can be
seen in the case of employment industry. The
employment market makes it necessary for
the individuals to express an extensive range
of cultural capital in terms of certain
measurable qualitative and quantitative
benchmarks. The cultural capital can thus be
easily converted into its economic equivalent
through this institutional recognition process.
This converts the job market into an
empirical platform where the sellers can
showcase their cultural capital in absolute
quantified terms and the buyers can use that
information to narrow down their choices
based upon their needs for that capital28. The
concept of cultural capital developed by
Bourdieu
has
met
with
widespread
appreciation
from
philosophers
and
researchers all across the world. It is
generally used in relation to the education
system. However, it has time and again been
28 P. Bourdieu, The forms of capital, English
version, Published In J. Richardson (Ed.)
Handbook of Theory and Research for the
Sociology of Education (New York, Greenwood,
1986), p.241-258. Available from:
www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/w
orks/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm (Accessed 24
February, 2014)

24

used in the discussion of other significant

issues as well.

Chapter three

Bucharest and Ceausescus

House of the people

25

In different parts of the world, there have

been repeated instances when the political
elite have manipulated the national cultural
heritage at the expense of peoples
traditional culture. They have indulged in
inventing tradition which very often
includes traditions that are actually
invented,
constructed
and
formally
29
instituted .
Examples are the royal
Christmas broadcast started in 1932 in
Britain and the reconstruction of the British
Parliament in Gothic style in the 19th
century.
The Declaration of Rostock-Dresden30 states:
As
witnesses
of
human
civilization,
monuments and sites contribute to the
strengthening of the historical awareness
and cultural identity of individuals and
communities. Monuments and sites are of
local, national, and international importance
as an expression of culture and lifestyle, as a
significant part of world heritage. Therefore,
it is the responsibility of all people to ensure

29 E. Hobsbawm, & T. O Ranger, The invention

of tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge university
press, 1983), p. 1
30 The Declaration of Rostock-Dresden, 7th
ICOMOS General Assembly, May 12-18, 1984
(Rostock and Dresden, German Democratic
Republic, 1984)

26

protection and preservation of monuments

and sites at all levels at all times.31
In the context of the above declaration and
the practice of manipulation of national
cultural heritage by the political elite, a case
study on the Romanian city of Bucharest
would offer a deeper understanding of the
issue. Bucharest is the largest city in
Romania and the most important cultural,
industrial and financial centre of Romania.
Apart from being the capital of Romania
since 1862, it is also the hub of Romanian
media,
culture,
art
and
architecture.
Bucharest was nicknamed Little Paris of the
east32 during the period interspersing the
two World Wars owing to the city's
sophisticated architecture and the erudition
of its elite class. The interwar period is often
perceived as the "golden age" of Bucharest
31 D.C. Giurescu, The razing of Romania's past:
international preservation report (US Committee,
International Council on Monument. National
Trust for Historic Preservation, 1989),
introduction. Available from
www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/wmf_publication/
Razing%20of%20Romania's%20Past.pdf
(Accessed 10 February, 2014)
32 Bucharest's museum, Town History,
Bucharest, The small Paris of the East (18771920), (Photos). Available from
www.museum.ici.ro/mbucur/english/micparis.htm
(Accessed on January 31, 2014)

27

architecture. During this period, the city

sought to imitate the other major European
capitals like Paris owing to its growth in
dimension and prosperity. Its architecture
draws from the historical, the neo-classical
and the communist era dating from the
1920s and 1930s and also from the modern
era dating from the beginning of the 20th
century. One of the top specimens of this
kind of architecture is the Centrul Civic, a
structure
inspired
by
North
Korean
architecture. It is made up of giant utilitarian
buildings that substituted a major chunk of
Bucharest's historic city centre.

Most of the monumental structures and

districts in the historic city were, in the
course of time, severely damaged or
devastated by natural calamities like war and
earthquakes. Whatever survived into modern
times was ruined by the Communist program
of
systematization,
fire
and
military
invasions.
A
phenomenal
portion
of
Bucharest's architecture consists of buildings
erected during the Communist era which had
substituted the historical architecture of
Romania. But the factor that contributed the
most to the wreckage of Romanian
architectural heritage was Communist leader
Nicolae
Ceauescu's
policy
of

28

systematization33.
Under the project of
systematization led by Ceauescu, former
historical areas were annihilated and new
buildings were built upon the space. Marilyn
Perry, President of The Samuel H. Kress
Foundation, feels alarmed at the fact that
never in our century has a human agency
put into action a blatant and conscious
peacetime program for the wilful destruction
of the artistic heritage of an entire nation,
such as we now witness in Romania34.
Significant portions of the core historic
region of Bucharest were wiped out to make
way for one of the worlds largest buildings,
the House of the Republic. The building
33 C. Bucica, Legitimating power in capital cities.
Bucharest continuity through radical change.
(Canada, Quebec: Laval University, 2008), p.6.
Available from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jse
ssionid=C8D8E93EC9CAF70024BC80CF22981AB
5?doi=10.1.1.194.3415&rep=rep1&type=pdf
(Accessed on 26/2/2014)
34 D.C. Giurescu, The razing of Romania's past:
international preservation report (US Committee,
International Council on Monument. National
Trust for Historic Preservation, 1989), p.11.
Available from
www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/wmf_publication/
Razing%20of%20Romania's%20Past.pdf
(Accessed 10 February, 2014)

29

originally named Casa Poporului (Peoples

House) by Ceauescu is now popularly known
as the Palace of the Parliament35. Originally
designed during Ceauescus regime as the
base of political and administrative power,
the building presently houses both the
chambers of the Romanian Parliament.
Merely
a
glance
at
the
land
surrounding the building gives an estimate of
the enormous destruction that was brought
about in order to create space for its
construction. Constructing the Palace and
Centrul Civic involved the annihilation of 19
Orthodox Christian churches, six Jewish
synagogues, three Protestant churches and
30,000 residences36. The apparent reason
put forward by the political elite for the
'systemization' process was to expand the
amount of cultivable land in order to
overcome the prevailing scarcity of food in
Romania. However, the experts felt that such
a
step
would
only
aggravate
the
35 T. Dunlop, Romania's costly passion for
building churches. BBC News. Romania. (June
2013), Available from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23420668
(Accessed on 31/1/2014)
36 A. Moraru , "The Romanian Church under
thecommunists" in Studia Universitatis BabesBolyai (Orthodox
Theology, 1-2/2001), p.31-40

30

predicament. As put forward by Jessica

Douglas-Home, President of The Mihai
Eminescu Trust: ...the sufferings of the
Romanians are now compounded by a new
despair as they realize that they are about to
lose
communication
with
their
past
forever....Romania is being purged of its
historical identity37
Romania's traditional culture was profoundly
Christian and 'systemization' meant the
destruction of a series of churches and
graveyards catering to that Christian culture.
Though this construction apparently seemed
to signify the replacement of the old by the
new, in reality it had nothing to do with
aesthetics or modernity. The real aim of the
political leaders was to strengthen the hold
of communism over the past systems and
regimes. But the real reason at the heart of
this drastic step was to satisfy the inflated
ego of Ceausescu who felt that without
political education and advanced culture, the
people remain prisoners of prejudice,
mysticism
and
obscurantism....Greed,
egoism, mysticism and obscurantism must
be
firmly
combatted...38
Moreover,
Ceausescu was one of the most extremely
37

R. Mitrica, Interview with Jessica DouglasHome,Romanian Cultural Centre London 1988.

Available from
www.romanianculturalcentre.org.uk/interviews/2006/
9/jessica-douglas-home/ (accessed on 5/2/2014)

31

atheistic leaders in the Communist Bloc 39. His

atheist stance was made more evident when
he clearly professed in the columns of
Scinteia, the Communist Party daily that:
The reconstruction of human values, in the
process of building a new life, necessarily
presupposes the overcoming of the state of
dependence on religious ideas about the
world.40 By the time the Ceausescu regime
fell towards the end of 1989, more than 29
towns had been entirely restructured and
another 37 were on the verge of being
restructured. The plan had been to annihilate
38Orthodox America: The Cry of the New Martyrs
Destruction in Romania, (ROCA , 1988).
Available from www.roca.org/OA/88/88c.htm
(accessed February 5, 2014)
39

S. Lavinia, and L. Turcescu, The Romanian

OrthodoxChurch
and
post-communist
democratisation. (Europe-Asia
Studies, vol.52, No.8, 2000), p.1467-1488. Available
from
www.academia.edu/183577/The_Romanian_Orthodox_
church_and_Post-Communist_Democratization
(Accessed on
27/2/2014)

40 Orthodox America: The Cry of the New Martyrs

Destructionin Romania, (ROCA , 1988). Available
from
www.roca.org/OA/88/88c.htm (Accessed on February
5, 2014)

32

almost 8000 of the villages and to substitute

these with over 500 agro-industrial centres
by the year 200041.
However, many of the Communist-era
buildings
have
been
renovated
and
restructured following the fall of Communism
in 1989. This practice gained momentum
after 2000, when the city experienced a
property boom and the Communist-era
buildings soon came to be seen as strategic
real estate. The huge utilitarian building in
Centrul Civic has been transformed into a
Marriott Hotel. Many of the obsolete and
abandoned pre-existent structures have been
converted and extended into shopping malls,
office buildings, bank headquarters and
commercial centres. The city underwent a
phase
of
urban
regeneration
and
architectural revival owing to Romania's
economic progress. The Nara Document on
Authenticity asserts that authenticity may
differ from culture to culture, and even
within the same culture. It is thus not
possible to base judgements of values and
41 D.C. Giurescu, The razing of Romania's past:
international preservation report (US Committee,
International Council on Monument. National
Trust for Historic Preservation, 1989), p.10-12.
Available from
www.wmf.org/sites/default/files/wmf_publication/
Razing%20of%20Romania's%20Past.pdf
(Accessed 10 February, 2014)

33

authenticity within fixed criteria. On the

contrary, the respect due to all cultures
requires that heritage properties must be
considered and judged within the cultural
contexts to which they belong42. The same
is valid in the case of the Palace of
Parliament in Romania. It is no doubt the
world's largest, heaviest and most expensive
administrative building43. But to be truly
effective, a management proposal cannot
depend
solely
on
intricate
Western
technologies, imported elite solutions and
selfish political motives. It must be
premeditated
by
the
native
patrons,
assented to by the local community and
suitable for implementation in the specific
political, social and technical environment of
the region.

42 UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS. Nara Document

on Authenticity, Preamble, 3. Available from:
http://whc.unesco.org/document/9379, (Accessed
on 27/2/2014)
43 Largest administrative building. World
Records Academy. Available at:
http://www.worldrecordacademy.com/biggest/larg
est_administrative_building_world_record_set_by_
the_Palace_of_the_Romanian_Parliament_80185.h
tm (accessed on January 31, 2014)

34

Conclusion
In the modern context of cultural tourism,
the term authenticity somewhat loses its
ultimate essence. Most of the tourists in
post-modern era are more interested in
tasting a perceived sense of authentic
cultural heritage rather than witnessing the
necessary reality. The few tourists who are
genuinely interested in exploring authentic
cultural heritage, in most cases lack the
requisite nominal understanding about the
past. Nezar Alsayyad asks a vital question in
this regard: What is it that motivates the
interest of tourists in others, prompting them
to travel to distant lands, sometimes under
uncomfortable conditions?44 The answer
to this may be derived from the concept of
tourist gaze introduced by John Urry in his
book
The
Tourist Gaze45. After an
exploration of the significance of tourism as a
major industry in the post-modern years,
Urry suggested that this kind of a gaze has
44 N. Alsayyed, Consuming Tradition,
Manufacturing Heritage: Global Norms and Urban
Forms in the Age of Tourism (London:
Routledge,2001), Chapter 1

35

now become a core ingredient of all

contemporary tourists who are in search of
truth and authenticity in times and places
that are beyond their routine daily life46.
Authenticity thus becomes a matter of social
paradigm, a major part of which is
determined by the individual tourists own
level of knowledge and frame of reference.
The commercialisation of living culture
may entail the simplification of heritage for
the purposes of transmission.47 A balance
must be achieved between commodification
of the tourism products for commercial
sustainability, while preventing their overcommodification. The focus should be on
meeting the requirements of tourists while
nurturing a tourism practice that also
preserves the core cultural values.
It is a very common practice in the modern
times to time and again use the terms
45 J. Urry, The tourist gaze 3.0, (Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE publications, 2011)
46 J. Urry, The tourist gaze 3.0
47 UN World Tourism Organization, Study on
Tourismand Intangible Cultural Heritage,
Developing ICH based tourism
projects: Major challenges and management
strategies (2013),
p.5. Available from:
http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/doc
pdf/
smmaryview.pdf (Accessed

36

history and heritage interchanging for one

another. But the fact remains that heritage is
not synonymous to history. The former uses
the latter to translate significant facts into
concrete structures in order to complement
and sustain memories and beliefs. Heritage
may have surpassed history as a principal
way of recovering the past. But heritage is,
definitely, not our chief or exclusive tie with
the past. As propounded by The Declaration
of
Rostock-Dresden48:
National
and
international policies should be directed not
only at the material factors of welfare. These
policies
should
be
directed
at
the
preservation and protection of monuments
and sites which make specific and significant
contributions to the quality of life as a
whole49.

Bibliography
Alsayyed, Nezar, Consuming Tradition,
Manufacturing Heritage: Global Norms and
48 The Declaration of Rostock-Dresden, 7th
ICOMOS General Assembly, May 12-18, 1984
(Rostock and Dresden, German Democratic
Republic, 1984).
49 D.C. Giurescu, The razing of Romania's past:
international preservation report (US Committee,
International Council on Monument. National
Trust for Historic Preservation, 1989)

37

Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism (London:

Routledge, 2001)
Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities:
Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism (London: Verso, 1991).
Ashley, Susan, Heritage Institutions,
Resistance and Praxis, (Canadian Journal of
Communication), Available from: www.cjconline.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1746/
1860 (Accessed January 31, 2014).
Bandarin, Francesco and Oers van Ron, The
Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage
in an Urban Century (Chichester: WileyBlackwell, 2012).
Bourdieu, Pierre, The forms of capital,
www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosoph
y/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm (New
York, Greenwood, 1986).
Bourdieu, Pierre and Passeron, Jean-Claude,
Cultural Reproduction and Social
Reproduction (London: Tavistock, 1973).
Brown, Richard ed., Knowledge, Education and
Cultural Change (London: Taylor and Francis,
1974).
Bucica, Cristina, Legitimating power in capital
cities. Bucharest continuity through radical
change? (Canada, Quebec: Laval University,
2008)

38

Giurescu C.Dinu, The razing of Romania's

past: international preservation report (US
Committee, International Council on
Monument. National Trust for Historic
Preservation, 1989)
Gilmar, Tony, Sustaining heritage: giving the
past a future (Sydney: Sydney University
Press, 2007)
Harker, Richard, Education and Cultural
Capital in An Introduction to the Work of
Pierre Bourdieu: the practice of theory
(London: Macmillan Press, 1990)
Webster, Helena, Bourdieu for Architects
(Thinkers for Architects (London: Routledge,
2011)
Hobsbawm, Eric, and Ranger, Terence, eds.,
The invention of tradition (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1983)
Howard, Peter and Ashworth, Gregory,
European Heritage, Planning and
Management (Exeter: Intellect Books, 1999).
Lavinia, Stan, and Turcescu, Lucian, The
Romanian Orthodox Church andPostcommunist Democratisation. (Europe-Asia
Studies, vol.52, No.8, 2000). Available from
www.academia.edu/183577/The_Romanian_Or
thodox church_and_PostCommunist_Democratization (Accessed
February 27, 2014)

39

Rampley, Matthew, ed., Heritage, Ideology

and Identity in Central and Eastern Europe
(London: Boydell Press, 2012)
Urry, John, The tourist gaze 3.0, (Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE publications, 2011)