The nature of heritage is dissonant and heritage is likely to be part of conflicts or politics within and between classes, communities, ethnicity, identities or nations. One of the significant heritage debates is the presence of the Western Authorised Heritage Discourse (ARD) in non-Western societies, which may lead to tensions between stakeholders in heritage management. Heritage management in Non-Western countries at times sits in a complex web of conflicts due to the existence of competing discourses that shape the way cultural heritage is interpreted and managed. This research explores how different heritage interest groups perceive 'cultural heritage' and respond to tensions in heritage management arising from the competing ideologies underpinning heritage management by mapping conflicts over heritage issues at the city of Lamphun in Northern Thailand. There are different types of meanings and values attached to Lamphun's cultural heritage as a consequence of the coexistence of at least three major discourses: the traditional Buddhist/animistic worldview, the royalist- nationalist discourse and the Western AHD. This research has shown that while Western hegemony does exist, other competing discourses are equally influential. Heritage management will never be free of values or politics. In a place where management or administration is centralised, the parties that deliver globalised heritage practices are likely to be government agencies and experts. However, the outcomes of the implementation of these protocols, procedures or practices are often counterbalanced by traditional practices performed by locals and negotiations are necessary. The relationship between parties that adhere to different heritage discourses is in fact on a continuum. Heritage is defined and re-defined by a range of communities as they negotiate their identities and sense of place. These negotiations will have ongoing influences and will change not only the content of heritage discourses but also which discourses are given power and legitimacy. Heritage management, thus, should be a dynamic practice. Even the dominant discourses can change over time. Thus, it is difficult to define a single or 'best' set of practices that are held to be 'universally true'.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:556279 |
| Date | January 2011 |
| Creators | Saengphueng, Sasitsaya |
| Publisher | University of York |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/21067/ |
Page generated in 0.0016 seconds