传统外交;后记

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q2 CULTURAL STUDIES
Tim Winter
{"title":"传统外交;后记","authors":"Tim Winter","doi":"10.1080/10286632.2022.2141728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Back in 1995, I travelled to Kiev to stay with a Ukrainian friend that I had met in England. Complicated visa requirements, along with copious amounts of vodka, made it very clear that I had left Europe and entered a country navigating major social and political change in the wake of a collapsed Soviet Union. I was surprised then to hear war correspondents in 2022 describe Ukraine as lying at ‘the heart of Europe’. But in noticing that it was only ‘Western’ media outlets that used this terminology, I was reminded of how, and why, geocultural imaginaries such as Europe are contingent, fluid and constantly being remade, in this case by a military invasion and the analytics of its wider geopolitical consequence. Back in the mid-1990s, the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia meant that Europe’s frontiers were being defined around those countries located to the southwest of Ukraine, in the Balkans and Mediterranean. But then, as now, the idea of Europe was not merely geographical, but wrapped up in questions of civilisation, religion, values, and peoples. It was with such issues in mind that I read with great interest the articles presented in this special issue. Across a number of the papers we see how Europe as a concept is in constant flux and production, whether it be through webs of documentation that make up policy and bureaucracy, or through the valorisation of particular cities, the language of shared heritage oriented around certain values, or through efforts to build cultural and political ties with countries in other parts of the world. The two additional papers here nicely complement this analysis in their respective examination of China’s Silk Road engagements with Central Asia, and the role of UNESCO’s conventions in shaping ideas about heritage as a ‘public good’ at the global level. In reading the papers, I was reminded that they straddle two overlapping, yet distinct ways of approaching heritage diplomacy. The first is to frame it as a domain of practice, something that governments do as part of their ‘soft power’ strategy. Here, we can draw a parallel with those institutes for cultural diplomacy that have sprung up around the world in recent decades. Academic or think-tank, these institutes tend to view cultural diplomacy as an arm of government policy, and thus discuss it in terms of strategy, trends, innovation, or, perhaps, the loftier goals of peace and reconciliation. It is possible to think of heritage diplomacy in such ways, either as a separate, or sub field of the cultural. The second approach is to see heritage diplomacy as a conceptual framework, one that holds distinct critical purchase. Today, both terms, heritage and diplomacy, are used multifariously. This means that attempts to reduce this conceptual frame to a single sentence definition risks inadequately capturing the various ways it can be developed over time to interpret a multitude of events and contexts. Recent scholarship on diplomacy, for example, emphasises the need to move beyond state-centric analyses and instead incorporate other actors, namely non-governmental bodies, professional groups and for-profit organisations. I have always seen heritage diplomacy in this second way, given that, like the authors here, I see heritage as a socio-political process that codifies and orders, preserves and exhibits, reconstructs and erases, and serves as a medium through which ideologies are both advanced and resisted. For cultural heritage, it is also important that critical theory starts by challenging the everyday language of past, present and future as separate ontologies, and instead grapples with the ways in which each is continually remade by the other(s). It is in this space that we find the political, the ideological, the negotiation of power. With such thoughts in mind, the idea of heritage diplomacy then draws our attention to processes of representation, communication, and the building of collaborative INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURAL POLICY 2023, VOL. 29, NO. 1, 130–134 https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141728","PeriodicalId":51520,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","volume":"284 1","pages":"130 - 134"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Heritage diplomacy; an afterword\",\"authors\":\"Tim Winter\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10286632.2022.2141728\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Back in 1995, I travelled to Kiev to stay with a Ukrainian friend that I had met in England. Complicated visa requirements, along with copious amounts of vodka, made it very clear that I had left Europe and entered a country navigating major social and political change in the wake of a collapsed Soviet Union. I was surprised then to hear war correspondents in 2022 describe Ukraine as lying at ‘the heart of Europe’. But in noticing that it was only ‘Western’ media outlets that used this terminology, I was reminded of how, and why, geocultural imaginaries such as Europe are contingent, fluid and constantly being remade, in this case by a military invasion and the analytics of its wider geopolitical consequence. Back in the mid-1990s, the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia meant that Europe’s frontiers were being defined around those countries located to the southwest of Ukraine, in the Balkans and Mediterranean. But then, as now, the idea of Europe was not merely geographical, but wrapped up in questions of civilisation, religion, values, and peoples. It was with such issues in mind that I read with great interest the articles presented in this special issue. Across a number of the papers we see how Europe as a concept is in constant flux and production, whether it be through webs of documentation that make up policy and bureaucracy, or through the valorisation of particular cities, the language of shared heritage oriented around certain values, or through efforts to build cultural and political ties with countries in other parts of the world. The two additional papers here nicely complement this analysis in their respective examination of China’s Silk Road engagements with Central Asia, and the role of UNESCO’s conventions in shaping ideas about heritage as a ‘public good’ at the global level. In reading the papers, I was reminded that they straddle two overlapping, yet distinct ways of approaching heritage diplomacy. The first is to frame it as a domain of practice, something that governments do as part of their ‘soft power’ strategy. Here, we can draw a parallel with those institutes for cultural diplomacy that have sprung up around the world in recent decades. Academic or think-tank, these institutes tend to view cultural diplomacy as an arm of government policy, and thus discuss it in terms of strategy, trends, innovation, or, perhaps, the loftier goals of peace and reconciliation. It is possible to think of heritage diplomacy in such ways, either as a separate, or sub field of the cultural. The second approach is to see heritage diplomacy as a conceptual framework, one that holds distinct critical purchase. Today, both terms, heritage and diplomacy, are used multifariously. This means that attempts to reduce this conceptual frame to a single sentence definition risks inadequately capturing the various ways it can be developed over time to interpret a multitude of events and contexts. Recent scholarship on diplomacy, for example, emphasises the need to move beyond state-centric analyses and instead incorporate other actors, namely non-governmental bodies, professional groups and for-profit organisations. I have always seen heritage diplomacy in this second way, given that, like the authors here, I see heritage as a socio-political process that codifies and orders, preserves and exhibits, reconstructs and erases, and serves as a medium through which ideologies are both advanced and resisted. For cultural heritage, it is also important that critical theory starts by challenging the everyday language of past, present and future as separate ontologies, and instead grapples with the ways in which each is continually remade by the other(s). It is in this space that we find the political, the ideological, the negotiation of power. With such thoughts in mind, the idea of heritage diplomacy then draws our attention to processes of representation, communication, and the building of collaborative INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURAL POLICY 2023, VOL. 29, NO. 1, 130–134 https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141728\",\"PeriodicalId\":51520,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Cultural Policy\",\"volume\":\"284 1\",\"pages\":\"130 - 134\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Cultural Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141728\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Cultural Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141728","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1995年,我去基辅旅行,住在我在英国认识的一位乌克兰朋友家里。复杂的签证要求,以及大量的伏特加酒,清楚地表明我离开了欧洲,进入了一个在苏联解体后经历重大社会和政治变革的国家。当我听到2022年战地记者说乌克兰躺在“欧洲的心脏”时,我很惊讶。但当我注意到只有“西方”媒体使用这个术语时,我想起了欧洲等地缘文化想象是如何以及为什么是偶然的、流动的、不断被重塑的,在这种情况下,是通过军事入侵和对其更广泛的地缘政治后果的分析。早在20世纪90年代中期,南斯拉夫的暴力解体意味着欧洲的边界被划定在乌克兰西南、巴尔干和地中海的那些国家周围。但是,当时和现在一样,欧洲的概念不仅仅是地理上的,而是包含在文明、宗教、价值观和民族等问题中。正是带着这样的想法,我怀着极大的兴趣阅读了本期特刊上的文章。在许多论文中,我们看到欧洲作为一个概念是如何不断变化和生产的,无论是通过构成政策和官僚机构的文件网络,还是通过特定城市的价值增值,围绕某些价值观的共同遗产语言,还是通过努力与世界其他地区的国家建立文化和政治联系。本文的另外两篇论文很好地补充了这一分析,它们分别考察了中国与中亚的丝绸之路合作,以及联合国教科文组织公约在塑造遗产作为全球“公共产品”理念方面的作用。在阅读这些文件时,我意识到它们跨越了两种重叠但截然不同的遗产外交方式。第一种是将其作为一个实践领域,是政府作为其“软实力”战略的一部分所做的事情。在这里,我们可以与近几十年来在世界各地如雨后春笋般涌现的文化外交机构进行比较。这些学术或智库机构倾向于将文化外交视为政府政策的一个分支,因此从战略、趋势、创新,或者更崇高的和平与和解目标的角度来讨论文化外交。可以这样看待遗产外交,既可以作为文化外交的一个独立领域,也可以作为文化外交的子领域。第二种方法是将遗产外交视为一种概念框架,一种具有独特关键价值的框架。今天,遗产和外交这两个术语被广泛使用。这意味着,试图将这个概念框架减少到一个句子定义的风险是,不能充分捕捉到随着时间的推移,它可以发展成解释大量事件和上下文的各种方式。例如,最近有关外交的学术研究强调,有必要超越以国家为中心的分析,转而纳入其他行为体,即非政府机构、专业团体和营利性组织。我一直以第二种方式看待遗产外交,因为和本文的作者一样,我认为遗产是一个社会政治过程,它编纂和整理,保存和展示,重建和抹去,并作为一种媒介,通过这种媒介,意识形态既可以得到发展,也可以受到抵制。对于文化遗产,批判理论从挑战过去、现在和未来的日常语言作为独立的本体论开始,而不是努力解决每一种语言被其他语言不断重塑的方式,这一点也很重要。正是在这个空间里,我们发现了政治、意识形态和权力的谈判。带着这样的想法,遗产外交的理念将我们的注意力吸引到代表、交流和合作的国际文化政策杂志2023,第29卷,NO. 29。1,130 - 134 https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141728
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Heritage diplomacy; an afterword
Back in 1995, I travelled to Kiev to stay with a Ukrainian friend that I had met in England. Complicated visa requirements, along with copious amounts of vodka, made it very clear that I had left Europe and entered a country navigating major social and political change in the wake of a collapsed Soviet Union. I was surprised then to hear war correspondents in 2022 describe Ukraine as lying at ‘the heart of Europe’. But in noticing that it was only ‘Western’ media outlets that used this terminology, I was reminded of how, and why, geocultural imaginaries such as Europe are contingent, fluid and constantly being remade, in this case by a military invasion and the analytics of its wider geopolitical consequence. Back in the mid-1990s, the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia meant that Europe’s frontiers were being defined around those countries located to the southwest of Ukraine, in the Balkans and Mediterranean. But then, as now, the idea of Europe was not merely geographical, but wrapped up in questions of civilisation, religion, values, and peoples. It was with such issues in mind that I read with great interest the articles presented in this special issue. Across a number of the papers we see how Europe as a concept is in constant flux and production, whether it be through webs of documentation that make up policy and bureaucracy, or through the valorisation of particular cities, the language of shared heritage oriented around certain values, or through efforts to build cultural and political ties with countries in other parts of the world. The two additional papers here nicely complement this analysis in their respective examination of China’s Silk Road engagements with Central Asia, and the role of UNESCO’s conventions in shaping ideas about heritage as a ‘public good’ at the global level. In reading the papers, I was reminded that they straddle two overlapping, yet distinct ways of approaching heritage diplomacy. The first is to frame it as a domain of practice, something that governments do as part of their ‘soft power’ strategy. Here, we can draw a parallel with those institutes for cultural diplomacy that have sprung up around the world in recent decades. Academic or think-tank, these institutes tend to view cultural diplomacy as an arm of government policy, and thus discuss it in terms of strategy, trends, innovation, or, perhaps, the loftier goals of peace and reconciliation. It is possible to think of heritage diplomacy in such ways, either as a separate, or sub field of the cultural. The second approach is to see heritage diplomacy as a conceptual framework, one that holds distinct critical purchase. Today, both terms, heritage and diplomacy, are used multifariously. This means that attempts to reduce this conceptual frame to a single sentence definition risks inadequately capturing the various ways it can be developed over time to interpret a multitude of events and contexts. Recent scholarship on diplomacy, for example, emphasises the need to move beyond state-centric analyses and instead incorporate other actors, namely non-governmental bodies, professional groups and for-profit organisations. I have always seen heritage diplomacy in this second way, given that, like the authors here, I see heritage as a socio-political process that codifies and orders, preserves and exhibits, reconstructs and erases, and serves as a medium through which ideologies are both advanced and resisted. For cultural heritage, it is also important that critical theory starts by challenging the everyday language of past, present and future as separate ontologies, and instead grapples with the ways in which each is continually remade by the other(s). It is in this space that we find the political, the ideological, the negotiation of power. With such thoughts in mind, the idea of heritage diplomacy then draws our attention to processes of representation, communication, and the building of collaborative INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURAL POLICY 2023, VOL. 29, NO. 1, 130–134 https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2022.2141728
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
59
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信