TY - JOUR
KW - Safeguarding
KW - Safeguarding
KW - UNESCO
KW - Convention for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage
KW - Cultural heritage dispositifs
KW - Intellectual ethnography
KW - salvaguarda
KW - Convenção para a Salvaguarda do patrimônio imaterial
KW - cultural heritage dispositifs
KW - dispositivos de normativas patrimoniais
KW - etnografia intelectual
KW - intellectual ethnography
KW - Justice and Strong Institutions (ICH\_1394)
KW - SDG 16: Peace
AU - Antonio Arantes
AB - The expression ‘safeguarding intangible cultural heritage’ was formed within the context of transformations in the instruments and strategies for protecting cultural elements usually designated ‘folklore and traditional (and popular) culture’.1 The adoption of a ‘cultural heritage approach’ to this subject was a somewhat turbulent process that drew, since the mid-twentieth century, a winding path of dialogues with, and divergences from, common sense notions and mainstream preservationist culture. Throughout this process, political and conceptual possibilities for social engineering were envisaged, some were discarded, choices were legitimized and, no less importantly, networks were formed of agents and narrators of the political and legal negotiations that eventually lead to designing UNESCO ICH Convention as officially adopted. This path will be explored in the following comments on the formation of safeguarding as a cultural heritage policy dispositive2 and significant contrasts to other instruments, in relation to which it has acquired specificity, meaning and scope.
BT - Vibrant: Virtual Brazilian Anthropology
DO - 10.1590/1809-43412019v16a201
LA - English
N1 - Publisher: Brazilian Anthropology Association
N2 - The expression ‘safeguarding intangible cultural heritage’ was formed within the context of transformations in the instruments and strategies for protecting cultural elements usually designated ‘folklore and traditional (and popular) culture’.1 The adoption of a ‘cultural heritage approach’ to this subject was a somewhat turbulent process that drew, since the mid-twentieth century, a winding path of dialogues with, and divergences from, common sense notions and mainstream preservationist culture. Throughout this process, political and conceptual possibilities for social engineering were envisaged, some were discarded, choices were legitimized and, no less importantly, networks were formed of agents and narrators of the political and legal negotiations that eventually lead to designing UNESCO ICH Convention as officially adopted. This path will be explored in the following comments on the formation of safeguarding as a cultural heritage policy dispositive2 and significant contrasts to other instruments, in relation to which it has acquired specificity, meaning and scope.
PY - 2019
EP - e16201—e16201
T2 - Vibrant: Virtual Brazilian Anthropology
TI - Safeguarding. A key dispositif of UNESCO’s convention for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85072726756&doi=10.1590%2f1809-43412019v16a201&partnerID=40&md5=b98bcfc0a30dddcb86aa16919a5c9bf0
VL - 16
SN - 18094341 (ISSN)
ER -