UNESCO’s geopolitical maps: The lack of symmetry lies between distinction and difference. The (exotic) success of Immaterial Heritage

Abstract

Immaterial Heritage is a political category that is both confusing and contradictory. The democratization and universalization of Cultural Heritage have made the latter more profuse and have led to its increased importance. Even so, and despite its current levels of protagonism, its construction responds not only to outmoded parameters but also to a global exercise in apparent symmetry. In other words, things do not appear to have changed significantly from Colonialism to the new Imperialism. So it is safe to say that we are now privy to a “re-christening” of what was formerly referred to as “folklore”. And in this change in the conception of heritage we have gone from putting the accent on distinction to placing it on difference; from the pursuit of conservation to the need for safeguarding; from underscoring results to emphasizing process; from confining ourselves to a political-scientific definition to the will to underline participation and community. This article sets out to approach the normalized niche of Immaterial Heritage, looking at its institutionalization, its discourse and its uniform practice. To do so, we will carry out a conceptual analysis as a framework aimed at constructing it and placing it on a particular geopolitical map.