by A central element of the British character is a fascination with the British character: if Americans talk about their traits with pride and the French with indifference, we talk about ourselves as amateur naturalists might about their favorite beetle: funny, affectionate, lively . detail.
It is British to talk about the weather but also to talk about ourselves by talking about the weather. How much of “classical British” literature involves an inventory of our peculiarities and habits, as if intended for future anthropologists? It might be a human tendency to assume that our weaknesses are universal, but our bias runs the other way: we prefer to think of ourselves as eccentrics, an island of outliers.
So it’s strange that it took us 20 years to decide to include our favorite habits and traditions on the official world record, UNESCO’s list of intangible cultural heritage, so that they can be properly preserved and preserved.
Or rather, a selection of them. Singing Christmas carols, sea songs, pantomime, basket weaving, wreath-making, bog snorkeling, tweeding… no, these are not elements of the “Things Nicky Haslam finds in common” tea towel, another symptom of British shyness, but suggestions for “living heritage” that need special safeguarding. The public must submit ideas, and the government will send some of them this year to the UN, which will decide whether they deserve a place alongside practices such as kok boru, a Kyrgyz game that It is practiced on horseback and in which a dead goat was traditionally used as the ball.
Is UNESCO capable of protecting cultures in danger of extinction? First, it has to work through governments.
The UN cultural body created this convention in 2003: it is the counterpart to its famous list of world heritage sites, which the world tends to use as a kind of “see before you die” coffee table book. As museums began to make more interactive exhibits, Unesco broadened its focus from buildings to traditions. Governments can apply for funding on behalf of “masterpieces of oral and intangible culture” endangered by globalization, and these too feature on a high-profile list, attracting attention and, through visitors, more money.
It’s hard to argue against money for culture when every little bit helps: a report last week tells us that the country’s music bands, for example, are on the brink of bankruptcy, but is the Unesco project really the solution? Although the UK was partly responsible for founding the body, we have had an uneasy relationship with it ever since; Margaret Thatcher took us out, then Tony Blair took us back in, then Penny Mordaunt wanted us to follow America again in 2019. In 2021, Liverpool was stripped of its status due to new developments on the seafront (answered yes) . It doesn’t matter). Unesco’s objectives are noble, but I think we were right to be skeptical of the project. Is a global approach to culture really the best way to avoid the effects of globalization?
We are already facing the first problem: how to choose what goes on the list? There is hardly anything humans do that cannot be classified as “culture.” Unesco’s program draws heavily on organizations that protect the natural world; but, unlike these, it has no scientific principles on which to decide the value of one item over another. How to decide between pantomime and cheese rolling, or flipping pancakes and weighing the mayor in High Wycombe (and why are British traditions so silly?).
One of the criteria is that the custom must be in danger, but this does not quite match the list so far, which includes the French baguette, Spanish flamenco, Italian opera, Neapolitan pizza and the Mediterranean diet. Are these really at risk? Or are they world famous and commercially viable? Environmentalists are sometimes accused of prioritizing charismatic beasts like the panda while thousands of lesser-known species become extinct. The UN cultural program could be falling into the same trap.
And there is also the opposite risk, of course: that money will be wasted keeping almost dead traditions on life support when the community around them has become indifferent. Plays will be performed and songs will be sung by people who have stopped remembering why, in a culture that has moved on.
A listing can end up damaging what it seeks to protect: unleashing a horde of tourists is not always helpful
A major flaw is that UNESCO may not be able to protect cultures that are in danger, such as those of minorities persecuted by states, since they must work through governments in the first place. China’s ruling party donates more money to the international body than any other group, but critics say it uses UNESCO heritage lists to bolster its version of the country’s history: favored groups are credited with a longer past. , kinder and more influential, while ethnic minorities are credited with a longer, kinder and more influential past. marginalized, nominated only for popular practices here and there.
But perhaps the worst accusation made against UNESCO is that it may end up damaging the traditions it decides to protect. Unleashing a horde of tourists, with the resulting garbage and chain restaurants, is not always the best way to conserve. When a small mining town in northern Japan ended up on the world heritage list, along with places like Angkor Wat, it was inundated with thousands of visitors, for whom it did not have the infrastructure.
Traditions and practices can be even more fragile than buildings once visitors arrive with cameras and the new global status settles into the minds of participants. UNESCO is careful with its wording: it wants to preserve “evolving” heritage; the value should be for the community, not for the world. Still, not everyone reads the fine print on the UN website, and there is a danger that the new fame will freeze a culture: locals perform Disney versions for international tourists.
Britain is perhaps more robust than other countries, and we could use the money, even if we have to become pantomime versions of ourselves in the process. Still, I’ve been to the Gloucester cheese mill, where vagrant visitors bulldozed six fields: if they pay closer attention, it could be the end of Gloucester. If we are to join the project, we should introduce a healthy British skepticism alongside our proposals.
• Martha Gill is a columnist for the Observer.
