The promises of the bureaucratisation of intangible cultural heritage safeguarding in post-conflict regions: lessons from anthropological fieldwork in four Western Balkan states

ABSTRACTAnthropology and critical heritage studies share a rather negative view of the role of bureaucracy in heritage management as utilised by the international community in post-conflict regions. However, fieldwork findings among ethnologists working as expert bureaucrats in four Western Balkan states (Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina) suggest that the ongoing process of the ‘bureaucratisation’ of collective identities, based on UNESCO principles, holds more promise for successful conflict management than relying solely on day-to-day politics or a purely academic critique. The safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage has emerged as a powerful tool for redirecting identity-based conflicts towards abstract concepts such as ‘elements’, ‘lists’, and ‘registers’. These abstractions are less susceptible to suffering than real individuals. Consequently, this approach offers a greater chance of success in mitigating conflicts. Anthropology’s most significant contribution to the global implementation of the heritage-for-peace paradigm could be to reconcile with ethnology, despite any disciplinary incongruity that may arise.KEYWORDS: Intangible cultural heritagepost-conflict reconciliationbureaucracyWestern balkansanthropology vs. ethnology AcknowledgementsThe fieldwork activities in the Western Balkans, and the knowledge-to-policy aspects of this research, were funded through the Civil Society Scholar Award 2019/20 by the Open Society Foundation. The theoretical aspect of the research was developed within a multiyear research project funded by the Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia (Identities Call Project No. 1534). I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the institutions that helped fund this multi-year study. I extend special gratitude to the editor and reviewers who provided valuable insights on enhancing the clarity of the argument and making the proposed model more accessible for comparative reflection. Fr. Robin Fox kindly proofread the final version, for which I am thankful.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.Notes1. https://ich.unesco.org/en/directives: http://rm.coe.int/16806f6a03; https://www.osce.org/mc/40881?download=true; https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304?download=true; https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/32121-EN.pdf; http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/743151530217186766/; ESF-Guidance-Note-8-Cultural-Heritage-English.pdf.2. https://www.coe.int/en/web/culture-and-heritage/faro-convention; https://en.unesco.org/creativity/convention; http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/convention.3. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132540e.pdf (Article 2).4. For further information about the acceleration of identity-based conflicts see Anghelescu et al. (Citation2016), Petrovic and Wilson (Citation2021).5. The ways particular states in the region implement UNESCO conventions are portrayed in Schreiber (Citation2017).6. For further information about the phenomenon of disputed-while-shared heritage in WB consider the following examples: https://store.der.org/whose-is-this-song-p260.aspx; https://balkaninsight.com/2021/12/16/montenegro-hails-boka-navys-addition-to-unesco-heritage-list/; https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Areas/Albania/Albanians-and-Serbs-a-common-epic-135279. The relevance of identity for bilateral disputes, especially as a tool used within bilateral EU conditionality framework is tackled in Milenković and Milenković (Citation2013). See also: http://aei.pitt.edu/47316/1/E_Fouere_Bilateral_Disputes_in_the_Balkans.pdf.7. The ethical and political aspects of ICH safeguarding are particularly intriguing in ethnomusicology, a field often grappling with the intricate dynamics of shared heritage, seen by communities as both distinct and inherent, occasionally even appropriated. Engaging in a process encompassing research and practical application, Ceribašić (Citation2019, 253) offers a resolution to the dilemma of maintaining detachment or humorously anthropologising ICH safeguarding: ‘Once upon a time, the Clash were a significant catalyst in my formative years. As in the meantime I have deserted youthful rebellion, I incline towards reversing their moral: “If I stay, there will be trouble/And if I go it will be double”. So we, scholars and ethnomusicologists, are better off staying’.8. Although I teach methodology and come from a discipline obsessed with theory and ethics, over the years I have come to believe that the socio-theoretical objectives of anthropology can be achieved by approaching, rather than distancing ourselves from, those we study.9. In the context of highly politicised heritage, such as the Western Balkans, stakeholders’ ignorance points to a lack of comprehensive awareness arising from an often distorted grasp of historical narratives. Amplified by misinformation from political actors, stakeholders were found to inadvertently adopt biased information aligned with specific agendas which led to an exclusive focus on its political facets, diminishing its intrinsic cultural or historical value. Ignorance has multifaceted outcomes, including marginalising minority voices. Post-conflict, dominant stakeholders are prone to overlook these perspectives, perpetuating an incomplete understanding conducive to fundamentalism. Overlooking the socio-political repercussions from politicisation fosters divisions and biases, with ignorance additionally stemming from lack of cultural expertise that limits the comprehension of heritage’s interplay with identity and politics. Ethnologists were found to bridge this gap, embodying qualities resonating with nationalist and fundamentalist ideals – perceived origin and community belonging, enabling a comprehensive understanding. The part of my research concentrated on politically active stakeholders concluded with a sorrowful, yet practical, conclusion. In order to induce impact in a populist contexts, legitimacy must encompass perceived ethnicity, not just expertise. (Ćuković and Milenković Citation2023.10. Milenković, M. ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage and Reconciliation in the Western Balkans: An Anthropological perspective’ (Routledge, forthcoming). Fieldwork accounts are here presented in abstract purposively.11. The Croatian province of Istria also has semi-autonomous formalised ICH selection, safeguarding and promotion based on the principles of interculturality and inclusivity (Nikočević Citation2013). Among many other models, this regionally based model has been found to be by far the most suitable for respecting the heritage of minorities during the research, and it is strongly recommended that it be taken into account globally.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Open Society Foundations [CSSA 2019]; Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia [Identities 1534].Notes on contributorsMilos MilenkovicMiloš MILENKOVIĆ is a professor of anthropology at the University of Belgrade, specializing in the study of the intersection of knowledge politics and identity politics. Connecting the methodology of social sciences, history of ideas, and contemporary efforts to make these disciplines impactful, he is dedicated to researching various types of minorities: ethno-religious, medical, as well as humanities and social science scholars as an academic minority. In his work, he is committed to knowledge-to-policy transfer and operates within the paradigm of Science in and for Society. The majority of his extracurricular work is devoted to post-conflict stabilization, especially its socio-cultural aspects.