Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
KAYLEE LINDAHL
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION AND CULTURAL POLICY
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP
Introduction
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s World Heritage
Convention establishes a framework for and outlines all the policies of UNESCO’s World
Heritage Centre. The Convention states that “cultural and natural heritage are of outstanding
interest and therefore need to be preserved as part of the world heritage of mankind as a whole”
(World Heritage Committee 1972; emphasis added). From the Convention’s origins to the
present day, the concept of “world heritage” or “universal value” has been disputed by scholars,
politicians, and community members. Unfortunately, even the policies outlined in the
Convention and descriptions in the “World Heritage Information Kit” are unable to explain how
To make matters worse, certain processes outlined in the World Heritage Convention’s
Rules of Procedure policy document prevent the institution from achieving its goal of a universal
allowed the politicization of World Heritage sites, desecrating the idea of “outstanding universal
value.”
The overarching idea of a shared world heritage is not flawed; there are countless benefits
to understanding another country’s culture. Yet the idealism found in the implementation of this
policy is in direct opposition to the fractured world in which we live. What changes need to be
made in order for this policy to effectively serve the diverse cultures of the world?
This paper will begin by addressing what scholars believe to be the main issues with the
origins and the geographic location of World Heritage Sites. Second, even though the
1
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP
organization has grown immensely, it has not adjusted its governance practices to account for
such change, resulting in ineffective governance. Third, there are ongoing disagreements about
whose culture is actually being represented, dividing the “west from the rest” and pushing local
Next, this paper will evaluate the World Heritage Convention policy document, paying
particular attention to how it defines and applies the term “universal world heritage.” It will
outline the facts, goals, assumptions, and contradictions of the policy. Finally, it will offer
A “western-directed” institution
On November 16, 1972 twenty states-parties ratified the World Heritage Convention.
Despite the Convention’s policy that “outstanding natural and cultural heritage work to serve
2018). Discussions leading up to the Convention were heavily influenced by Julian Huxley, first
arena, believed in preserving the colonial lands to assert their superiority and improve European
economic and political influence (ibid). Furthermore, the whole idea of preservation is rooted in
western culture (Kawharu 2009). For example, Nepali craftsmen may prefer to replace rather
than repair cultural structures and Maori communities traditionally would have rather let a
meetinghouse rot or burn to the ground than preserve it (ibid). Colonists hoped to gain influence
and knowledge from such structures, so they had high incentives to preserve them.
2
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP
World Heritage Site locations further illustrate the issue of a western-oriented institution.
There are currently 1,097 inscribed World Heritage Sites; 47% of them are in Europe and North
America (UNESCO 2019). The World Heritage General Assembly recently published a new
policy document called the Budapest Declaration on World Heritage with the intent to “increase
awareness and support for World Heritage as well as promote the establishment of new
partnerships” (World Heritage Committee 2002). Included in this new strategy is the goal to
invite more states parties to nominate sites, but it has yet to make a substantial difference in
Ineffective governance
It is best practice in governance to adjust the organizational structure as the institution
grows (Gross 2009; Mathiasen 1990; Stevens 2009). The World Heritage Convention has grown
from twenty states parties and twelve inscribed sites to 197 state and 1,097 sites. Despite such
immense growth, however, the governance structure has not changed. The organizational
structure of the World Heritage Convention is made up of three groups (“How the World
1. The World Heritage Committee: the policy and decision-making group. It determines
which sites make it on the list. It is comprised of 21 states parties. Terms last from
and Sites (ICOMOS), and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation
and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). It was created with the intent to
3
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP
3. The World Heritage Centre: acts as the Secretariat and coordinator within UNESCO.
In order for a site to be nominated as a World Heritage Site, it must pass through various
stages. First, the state must create a list of all possible sites within their borders that they think
would qualify for World Heritage status. In order for a site to qualify, it must “be of outstanding
universal value” and meet at least one out of ten selection criteria (World Heritage Committee
1972). Next, the state must submit a list of final nominations to the Committee. Usually, the state
government is the sole decision-maker in determining whether the site fits one of the ten criteria.
Finally, the World Heritage Committee holds its annual meeting to determine which sites are
accepted. Ideally, the committee consults with the Advisory Body and select members of the
Growth without change has led to a clash between the three governing bodies and what
many authors agree is a corrupt nomination system (Al-Harithy 2005; Meskell 2014; Djurberg
and Aasland 2018). Such a high number of states parties, combined with the United Nations
policy that every country is allowed one vote, have resulted in states forming pacts and coalitions
to meet their varying political motives (Al-Harithy 2005; Meskell 2014). Rather than using the
Convention to preserve and disseminate culture, governments use it to control culture and gain
legitimacy within their borders as well as internationally (Durrer et al. 2019). Although one-third
of the Committee is replaced every two years, those coalitions allow certain states to perpetually
involvement in the initial selection process of sites; governments nominate sites based on their
own economic and foreign policy goals and the locals are left out—and in some cases, pushed
out (Al-Harithy 2005). The Advisory Body is meant to provide expertise throughout the
4
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP
decision-making process, but diplomats and their social circles have become more influential
than the archaeological and cultural experts, rendering the Advisory Body useless (Rumann
2015). This politicization and fractured governance structure have created a broken institution
that at the time of its founding, “world heritage” was meant to imply that all the world’s heritage
belonged to the west (Meskell 2018; Frey et al. 2011). Prior to the creation of the Convention,
none of the discussions mentioned artifacts that were within major European borders; colonists
were concerned with dividing up the spoils of the Middle East among themselves (Meskell
2018). In one instance, the assistant keeper at the British Museum stated that “because museums
did not exist in some of the colonies, archaeological finds should be relocated so as to be
accessible to ‘the world’” (Meskell 2018). In light of the fact that only the global elite could
travel to those sites, it is clear that he really meant ‘the western world.’
While many intended for the definition of a universal world heritage to imply western
access, Julian Huxley, a believer of economic and social collectivist theories, intended to
establish an organization that would form a single world culture, hence a “universal world
culture” (ibid). As UNESCO Director-General, Huxley initiated a radio program and later a book
called The History of Mankind, in which he attempted to trace the history of humanity. His
collectivist view did not prove successful as various country representatives fought over what
was fact and what or who should be eliminated from the story—the Russians drew upon their
Marxist perspectives and the Pakistanis asked that the word “India” be removed from the history
5
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP
(ibid). Despite this conflict, the idea that a divided world could evolve into one with a universal
world culture persisted and found its way into the Convention.
In recent decades, the debate surrounding a universal world culture has evolved. It is less
of a question of “west versus the rest” (Gfeller and Eisenberg 2015) and more concerned with
social class. Nomination as a World Heritage Site has become a brand for tourism on which
governments capitalize to boost their economies (Al-Harithy 2005). As wealthy Asian countries
like Japan, Korea, and China enter the tourist market, the “universality” of sites expands to those
Policy Analysis
Facts
There are underling facts pertaining to “universal world heritage” that the Convention
describes. First, it defines universal world heritage as something with “outstanding universal
value” (World Heritage Committee 1972). It recognizes that natural and cultural sites are in
danger because of man-made causes, and states that not all countries have the resources to
protect their own heritage. To remedy that, it advocates for a collective protection agency to
ensure that heritage is preserved for future generations. At the same time, however, it emphasizes
that although sites become defined as “universal” heritage, it is still the duty of each individual
Goals
Communicating a policy of a universal world heritage serves a number of goals. First and
6
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP
support States Parties to the Convention in their efforts to conserve and identify that heritage”
(World Heritage Committee 1972, Article 7). Through the process of preservation, it hopes for
everyone to understand the value of natural and cultural sites regardless of the borders in which
they are located, and as a consequence rally support on a national and local level to preserve
items for future generations. Ultimately, the declaration of a universal world heritage establishes
Assumptions
The facts and goals outlined in the policy document are idealistic and have proven to be
somewhat ineffective, even after over forty years. The Convention immediately assumes that all
states parties who ratify the document have a vested interest in other states’ heritage and as such
will not be prejudiced. Numerous examples throughout the document’s history show that that is
not true. The long-standing debates over sites in Israel and Palestine serve as a prime example of
this incorrect assumption. Additionally, the Convention assumes that the World Heritage
Committee will “ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the
world” (World Heritage Committee 1972, Article 8). As mentioned above, not only is the
institution western-oriented, but its politicized governance practices have moved it further from
Contradictions
One of the main challenges of creating policies for an international organization (as
opposed to a sovereign country) is that not all countries subscribe to the same models of
communication. Despite the institution’s Western origins, most of the policies outlined in the
7
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP
which are not prevalent in the West. First, the idea behind a universal world culture follows a
nationalist-cultural model. The institution’s origins were heavily influenced by utopian ideals
where there is a single global culture determined by a smaller group of representatives. The goals
and assumptions of the Convention are created with the intent of benefitting the collective,
adding that “it is the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate” (World
Heritage Committee 1972, Article 6). At the same time, some of these policies fall in line with
entitled “The World Heritage Information Kit,” explicitly state that one of the major reasons to
In direct contrast with the Convention’s policies, the United States follows a liberal
model of communication and places utmost importance on democracy and the rights of the
individual. This clash in models has led to ongoing disagreements between the United States and
UNESCO, under which the World Heritage Convention falls. In 1984, the United States
withdrew from UNESCO citing “antidemocratic leanings” among other issues (U.S. Library of
Congress 2017). After rejoining in 1997, the United States again withdrew in 2018 because of
the organization’s politicization, disagreement over admitting Palestine as a member state, and
the United States’ minor influence despite its heavy monetary contributions (ibid). The
nationalist-cultural and liberal models contain inherent conflicts that will prevent the United
States and UNESCO from being able to move forward and enact change together. Therefore, this
begs the question: why does UNESCO (and the World Heritage Convention) continue to
A look at Carol Rosenstein’s framework for cultural policy (2018) might provide some
explanation. Rosenstein’s framework for evaluating cultural policy examines cultural norms,
8
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP
challenges, the rationale for addressing challenges, and the resulting set of policy goals. First, it
is possible that the institution is more concerned with establishing norms that appeal to as many
countries as possible than explicitly promoting democratic ideals. A norm, by its own definition,
requires “shared understanding and expectations” (Rosenstein 2018), and because every country
that sits on the General Assembly receives one vote, the norm becomes the voice of the majority,
Next, the challenge that UNESCO is attempting to address presents culture as threatened.
Once again, the institution’s history provides context to better understand these current policies.
Some of the events that surrounded UNESCO’s founding include Hitler’s attack on culture, the
USSR’s extreme cultural repression, and China’s devastating cultural revolution (ibid). In order
to address these challenges, the organization had to appeal to those regions of the world.
Furthermore, its rationale for addressing them was its claim that the cultural heritage of one
country has an effect on all mankind and must be preserved. The resulting policies were created
to guide the choices and actions of those countries in conflict. Today, even though half a century
has passed, the policies still reflect the original challenges, rationale and goals of the
organization.
Recommendations
This report shows how the term “universal world culture” can make varying implications
depending on the time period and who sits on the Committee. Therefore, the solution is not
necessarily to change those words in the Convention, but rather to alter the nomination process
so that it acknowledges whose culture is actually being represented. The Convention as well as
the World Heritage Rules and Procedures give states members of the Committee the power to
9
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP
select who will advise them in the nomination process, counseling them to choose “persons
qualified in the field of the cultural or natural heritage” (UNESCO 2015, Rule 5.2). That assumes
that each state will put their cultural heritage above other more pressing foreign policy goals (e.g.
economic development, influence in the global arena). This policy should be changed so that the
various NGOs, should select representatives from each country to advise the Committee. That
would not only decrease politicization of heritage sites (it is impossible to completely eliminate
politics in an organization largely comprised of politicians), but also give opportunities to local
experts who are not involved in government but have higher stakes in the outcome of the sites.
There should also be stronger mechanisms in place for states or the World Heritage
Centre to remove sites from the World Heritage List. The Convention states that universal world
heritage should be protected for future generations, but is it possible for a site to have
“outstanding universal value” forever? As the number of sites that are selected increases while
the World Heritage Centre’s budget to care for them decreases, preservation is becoming more of
a challenge. High rates of tourism combined with local governments’ mismanagement of sites
compounds preservation issues, leaving many sites either no longer representative of the culture
they were meant to share, or badly damaged. If there were an easy process to remove sites from
the list, it would incentivize governments to be more intentional and careful about how many
Conclusion
The world is in a constant state of disarray and conflict, but the World Heritage
Convention exists to unify and protect its natural and man-made wonders. Growing divides
between nations make it increasingly difficult for the organization to accomplish these lofty but
10
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP
worthy goals. The problems outlined in this report are not intended to discount the immense
contribution the organization has made. After all, countless sites have been preserved because of
its efforts. Yet under its current policies, the World Heritage Convention is not the most effective
solution for preserving and uniting cultures across the globe. By reforming the nomination
process, etc., the Convention can better carry out its mission.
11
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP
Bibliography
Al-Harithy, Howayda. “[Reframing] World Heritage.” Traditional Dwellings and Settlements
Review, 17:1, 2005 (7-17). https://www.jstor.org/stable/41758301.
Bureau of Financial Management. “Statement of Compulsory Contributions as at 30 April 2019.”
World Heritage Committee, World Heritage Fund, April 2019.
https://whc.unesco.org/en/world-heritage-fund.
Djurberg, Mats and Tora Aasland. “Reforming UNESCO’s World Heritage.” The Globalist, June
27, 2018. https://www.theglobalist.com/unesco-world-heritage-committee-reform/.
Dore, Bhavya. “Who Controls Cultural Heritage? Interview with Lucas Lixinski.” Hyperallergic,
December 31, 2018. https://hyperallergic.com/477859/who-controls-cultural-heritage/.
Durrer, Victoria, Toby Miller, and Dave OBrien. The Routledge Handbook of Global Cultural
Policy. London: Routledge, 2019.
Frey, Bruno S. and Lasse Steiner. “World Heritage List: does it make sense?” International
Journal of Cultural Policy, 17:5, 2011 (555-573).
Gfeller, Aurelie Elisa and Jaci Eisenberg. “Scaling the Local: Canada’s Rideau Canal and
Shifting World Heritage Norms.” Journal of World History, 26:3, September 2015 (491-
520). https://www.jstor.org/stable/43901773.
Gross, Susan. Seven Turning Points. Washington, DC: Management Assistance Group, 2009.
“How the World Heritage Convention Works.” Ambio, 12:3/4, 1983 (140-145).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4312901.
Kawharu, Merata. “Ancestral Landscapes and World Heritage from a Maori Viewpoint.” The
Journal of the Polynesian Society, 118:4, December 2009 (317-338).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20707498.
Mathiasen, Karl. Board Passages: Three Key Stages in a Nonprofit Board’s Life Cycle. National
Center for Nonprofit Boards, 1990.
Meskell, Lynn. Future in Ruins: UNESCO, World Heritage, and the Dream of Peace. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2018.
Meskell, Lynn. “States of Conservation: Protection, Politics, and Pacting within UNESCO’s
World Heritage Committee.” Anthropological Quarterly, 87:1, 2014 (217-243).
Meskell, Lynn. “UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention at 40: Challenging the Economic and
Political Order of International Heritage Conservation.” Current Anthropology, 54:4,
August 2013 (483-494). https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/671136.
Rumann, Christoff. “Community as Myth and Reality in the UNESCO World Heritage
Convention” in Between Imagined Communities and Communities of Practice:
12
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP
Participation, Territory, and the Making of Heritage. Nicolas Adell et al. Göttingen:
Göttingen University, 2015.
Rosenstein, Carole. Understanding Cultural Policy. New York, NY: Routledge, 2018.
Schmitt, Thomas M. “Global Cultural Governance: Decision-Making Concerning World
Heritage between Politics and Science.” Erdkunde, 63:2, April-June 2009 (103-121).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25648197.
Slatyer, Ralph O. “The Origin and Evloution of the World Heritage Convention.” Ambio, 12:3/4,
1983 (138-140). https://www.jstor.org/stable/4312900.
Stevens, Susan Kenny. Nonprofit Lifecycles: Stage-based Wisdom for Nonprofit Capacity.
Wayzata, Minneapolis: Stagewise Enterprises, Inc., 2nd edition, 2008.
U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. U.S. Withdrawal from the United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Author redacted.
IN10802. 2017
World Heritage Committee. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage. General Conference, 17th Session, Paris November 16, 1972.
World Heritage Committee. “World Heritage Information Kit.” UNESCO World Heritage
Centre, June 2008.
World Heritage Committee. The Budapest Declaration on World Heritage. World Heritage
Committee, 26th Session, Budapest, Hungary, June 2002.
UNESCO. Rules of Procedure. World Heritage Committee 39th Session, July 2015.
UNESCO. Mission Report: Venice and its Lagoon (Italy) (394). World Heritage Committee, 40th
session, October 2015.
UNESCO. “World Heritage List Statistics.” World Heritage Committee, 2019. Accessed June
2019. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/stat/.
UNESCO. “United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” International
Organization, 1:1, February 1947 (130-133). https://www.jstor.org/stable/2703530.
13