the performativity and dynamics of intangible cultural heritage

Recommendations

Info

Practices of intangible cultural heritage have a beginning and an end and therefore a temporal structure of communication and interaction. They take place in cultural spheres which they in turn help shape; they have a pronounced character, they are conspicuous and determined by their respective framing (Goffman 1974). Mimetic learning and practical knowledge Practices of intangible cultural heritage are largely appropriated in mimetic processes, in which the practical knowledge necessary for their staging and performance is acquired (Bell 1992, Sahlins 1976). These learning- processes take place first and foremost when people participate in cultural mises-en-scène and performances, in which mimetic processes unfold as processes of creative imitation. Those behaving mimetically attempt, in these processes, to become like their role-models. These processes of mimetic likening differ from one person to the next and depend on the way of relating to the world, to other persons and to oneself. In these mimetic processes, people take an "imprint" of the cultural world and in so doing make it a part of themselves. At the same time, the practices of intangible cultural heritage are thus passed on to the next generation (Gebauer/Wulf 1995, 1998). The importance of mimetic processes for the transfer of practices of intangible cultural heritage can hardly be overestimated. These processes are sensual; they are tied to the human body, they relate to human behaviour and seldom unfold consciously. Through mimetic processes, human beings incorporate images and patterns of practices of intangible cultural heritage, which subsequently become part of their inner world of images and imaginations. Mimetic processes transfer the world of intangible cultural heritage into the inner world of man. They contribute to a cultural enrichment of this inner world and broaden it, thus furthering man's development and education. In mimetic processes, the practical knowledge necessary for the staging and performance of cultural actions is acquired. This culturally diverse knowledge develops in the context of the staging of the body and plays a special role in the creation of cultural performances in modified form. As a practical form of knowledge, it is a result of a mimetic acquisition of performative behaviour, which in itself develops out of a bodily form of know- how. As practical knowledge, mimesis and performativity are mutually intertwined – repetition plays a big role in the transfer of intangible cultural knowledge. Cultural competence only develops in cases in which socially formed behaviour is repeated, and in being repeated, modified. Without repetition, without the mimetic rapport to something present or past, no cultural competence can come into being. For that reason, repetition is a central element of transferring intangible cultural heritage to the following generation (Boetsch/Wulf 2005). The performativity of cultural practices The performativity of practices of intangible cultural heritage comprises at least three dimensions (Wulf/Göhlich/Zirfas 2001; Wulf/Zirfas 2007). Such practices may firstly be grasped as communicative cultural THE PERFORMATIVITY AND DYNAMICS OF INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE 4/14
performances. As such, they are the result of mises-en-scène and processes of bodily performance. Their unfolding deals with the cultural arrangement of social scenes, in which the actors fulfil different functions. As speaking and acting relate to one another, their interaction produces cultural scenes. Just like works of art and literature, the practices of intangible cultural heritage may be construed as the outcome of cultural actions, in the course of which even divergent social forces are subsumed into an accepted cultural order. Secondly, the performative character of speech is of crucial significance in the practices of intangible cultural heritage, made explicit for example in rituals of baptism and communion, of transition and investiture, instances in which the words spoken during the performance of the ritual practices contribute substantially to the creation of a new reality. The same is true for cultural practices in which the relation of the sexes to one another is organised and in which repeatedly addressing a child as "boy" or "girl" contributes to the development of gender identity. Finally, the performative also comprises an aesthetic dimension, constitutive of artistic performances. Without taking this dimension into account, many other practices of intangible cultural heritage cannot be made transparent. This aesthetic perspective points to the limits of a functionalist view of the performativity of cultural acts. Just as the aesthetic regard upon artistic performances prohibits reducing them to acts determined merely by the intention of attaining functional goals, so it reminds us, that the practices of intangible cultural heritage are "more" than the manifestations of concrete intention (Fischer-Lichte/Wulf 2001, 2004). Even when the intentions they serve are identical, the staging of bodily performances of intangible cultural heritage often exhibits important differences. Among the reasons are general historical conditions, cultural and social conditions and finally conditions associated with the uniqueness of the protagonists. The interplay of both kinds of factor produces the performative character of linguistic, social and aesthetic action in cultural mises-en- scène and performances. At the same time, the limits of the predictability and manageability of practices of intangible cultural heritage are made transparent when we consider their specific, event- and process-like character. By taking into account their aesthetic dimension, the significance of the style of cultural practices is made visible. The difference between conscious purposefulness and the manifold layers of meaning accruing to the scenic arrangement of bodies is obvious. The performative character of practices of intangible cultural heritage invites many different interpretations and readings, without this difference of interpretation diminishing the effect of the cultural arrangements as such (Schechner 1977; Tambiah 1979; Turner 1982). On the contrary: part of the effects of the practices of intangible cultural heritage flows precisely from the fact that the same practices admit of different readings, without detrimental consequences for the magic of their practice (Frazer 1996, Bourdieu 1972). Communication crucially depends on how people make use of their body in their culturally determined behaviour and action, which body distances they keep, which body postures they adopt, which gestures they develop. By these means, people communicate much about themselves and their approach to life, about their way of seeing, THE PERFORMATIVITY AND DYNAMICS OF INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE 5/14
Page 1 and 2: Introduction THE PERFORMATIVITY AND
Page 3: play along" in a cultural community
Page 7 and 8: As cultural templates for action, t
Page 9 and 10: homogenous, integrative and authent
Page 11 and 12: availability are efficient - and ye
Page 13 and 14: Durkheim, E.

the performativity and dynamics of intangible cultural heritage

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?