by An interest in the British character is central to the British character – if the Americans speak with pride, and the French frankly, we speak of ourselves as amateur naturalists might discourse on your favorite beetle: amused, affectionate, alive to the minute .
It is British to talk about the weather but also to talk about ourselves talking about the weather. How much of the “classic British” literature is an inventory of our things and habits, as if for future anthropologists? One may have a tendency to assume that your foibles are universal, but our tendency runs the other way: we prefer to think of ourselves as an eccentric island, an outlying island.
It is therefore strange that it took us 20 years to decide to submit our favorite customs and traditions to the world’s official register, Unesco’s list of intangible cultural heritage, so that they can be preserved and preserved properly.
Or rather, their choice. Carol singing, sea tales, pantomimes, basket weaving, wreath making, bog snorkelling, fishing – no, these are not items on the “Things Nicky Haslam Finds Common” tea towel, another sign of British self-awareness, but suggestions for “living heritage” that requires special protection. There are ideas to be put forward by the public, and the government will send some of these to the United Nations this year, which will decide whether they deserve a place alongside practices such as kok boru, a game in Kyrgyzstan played on horseback involving a dead goat. traditionally used. as the ball.
Is Unesco able to protect endangered cultures? It has to work through governments in the first place
This convention was established by the UN cultural body in 2003: it is a counterpart to its famous list of world heritage sites, which the world tends to use as a kind of “see before you die” coffee table book. As museums began to make exhibits more interactive, Unesco expanded its focus from buildings to traditions. Governments can apply for funds for “masterpieces of oral and intangible culture” at risk from globalization, and these also go on a high-profile list, attracting attention and, through visitors, more money.
It’s hard to argue against money for culture when anything helps: a report last week tells us that the country’s brass bands, for example, are on the verge of bankruptcy, but is the Unesco project really the solution ? Although the UK was partly responsible for establishing the body, we have had an uneasy relationship with it ever since; Margaret Thatcher pulled us out, Tony Blair brought us back in, then Penny Mordaunt wanted us to follow the US out again in 2019. In 2021, Liverpool’s status was stripped due to new developments on the sea (he replied that was. not care). Unesco’s aims are noble, but I think we were right to be skeptical about the project. Is a global approach to culture really the best way to prevent the effects of globalization?
We are already at the first problem: how to choose what goes on the list? People hardly do anything that cannot be classified as “culture”. The Unesco program draws a lot of inspiration from organizations that protect the natural world; but, unlike those, it has no scientific principles to determine the value of one item over another. How to decide between pantomime and cheese rolling, or pancake flipping and weighing High Wycombe on the mayor (and why are British traditions so silly?).
One of the criteria is that customization must be compromised – but this does not quite fit the list so far, which includes the French baguette, Spanish flamenco, Italian opera, Neapolitan pizza making and diet the Mediterranean. Are these really endangered? Or are they instead world famous and commercially viable? Environmentalists are sometimes accused of prioritizing charismatic animals such as the panda as thousands of little-known species become extinct. The UN cultural program may be falling into the same trap.
And there is also the opposite risk, of course: that that money will be wasted keeping almost dead traditions on life support when the community around them has become of its own accord. Plays will be performed and songs will be sung by people who no longer remember why, in a culture that has moved on.
A list can harm what it is trying to protect: it is not always helpful to let loose a group of tourists
The biggest flaw is that Unesco may not be able to protect endangered cultures – such as minorities persecuted by states, because they have to work through governments in the first place. China’s ruling party donates more money to the international body than any other group, but critics claim it uses Unesco’s heritage listings to bolster its version of the country’s history: privileged groups are credited with longer, kinder and more influential, and ethnic minorities are set aside, designated for one country’s practices here and there.
But perhaps Unesco’s worst accusation is that it could harm the traditions it decides to protect. Releasing large numbers of tourists to the trashy restaurants and chains that serve them is not always the best way to conserve. When a small mining town in northern Japan ended up on the world heritage list, along with places like Angkor Wat, it was inundated with thousands of visitors, lacking the infrastructure.
Traditions and practices can become even more vulnerable than buildings when visitors come with cameras and the new world status enters the minds of the participants. Unesco is careful with its wording – it wants to preserve a “progressive” heritage; the value must be for the community, not for the world. Still, not everyone reads the fine print on the UN website, and the new reputation risks freezing culture in the Aspic: locals performing Disneyfied versions for international tourists.
Perhaps Britain is stronger than some – and we could do with the cash, even if we have to turn into pantomime versions of ourselves in the process. Still, I have gone to the cheese-rolled Gloucester, where visitors are tramping flat six fields: any more attention and it could be the end of Gloucester. If we are going to take part in the project, we should include a healthy skepticism from Britain with our entries.
• Martha Gill is a columnist
