Reconciling Nature and Culture in a Global Context? - Rainforest ...

Sandra PannellIn the same way that Annette Weiner argues that there are some objects which are neverexchanged because of their acknowledged capacity to authenticate cosmology (1992), thenthere are some places which, regardless of their disfigurement or, in some cases, completeobliteration, continue to be socially recognised as important loci for the convergence ofmemory and meaning. In other words, some places invite commentary and people tellstories about them. Again, similar to Weiner’s ‘inalienable possessions’, these places are notisolated ‘memory palaces’ (Yates 1966). Rather, their uniqueness derives from thosecultural traditions, which link these sites into a wider netscape of memory.As these comments suggest, and as Paul Carter (1987) reminds us, space is not simply abackdrop or stage upon which significant events take place or are inscribed upon.Landscapes and places are implicated in dynamic social processes of memory-making andforgetting, as well as being one of the products of these ongoing processes. In Massey’sterms, space is part of “an ever-shifting social geometry of power and signification” (1994: 3).This is brutally evident in places like Bosnia and Herzegovina which, to paraphrase EdwardSaid (1993: 7), can be regarded as ‘geographies which struggle’, disturbing the notion ofspace as somehow inherently fixed or settled.Rather, than regarding these violated spaces or disfigured places as ‘non-places’ (cf. Auge1995) or aesthetic blights on the landscape, readily shunned or removed in the first wave ofrebuilding a community or creating a new nation, these ‘troubled’ spaces occupy animportant place in the social consciousness of a people. As the Rwanda example suggests,the violations enacted on place not only stand as powerful memorials of violent events andhistories but they can also give shape to ongoing social processes of reformation andreconciliation.In light of the preceding discussion, we can ask the question, how does a society rememberits past or configure its future? In the context of recent theatres of war in Europe, Africa, andAsia, this is not an academic question but is one, which has widespread social and politicalimplications. In the post-war period in many of these war-torn places, with the emphasisupon reinstating fundamental amenities, such as health, water, sanitation, housing, etc., andredeveloping the built environment, this question takes on an added impetus.In war-torn and transformed landscapes, identifying what constitutes the cultural heritage of agroup or a nation is not an obvious or simple matter. The issue here is not purely a matter ofdetermining how to memorialise a tragic past in spatial terms, though this is a significantconsideration. Often, efforts to monumentalise events and experiences in this wayunderstate the fact that social memories are conveyed and sustained through embodied,spatialised experiences. The issue here is how to preserve this progressive and engagedsense of place and, at the same time, recognise enduring commemorative spaces.An examination of the World Heritage List reveals a notable lack of places and spacesassociated with and defined by war and conflict. Indeed, as previously stated, spacesdisfigured, even obliterated by war and conflict do not readily meet the criteria and conditionsfor ‘outstanding universal value’ under the World Heritage Convention. While such placesmay signify monumental events in world history, structurally they do not conform to the ideasof intact heritage defined by the Convention. The emphasis upon restoration as a means ofmaintaining the integrity and authenticity values of a site necessarily precludes the listing ofmany war-related properties, resulting in a situation where the World Heritage List practicallyignores a significant dimension of human history and heritage.58