Panel 21 - International Public History and memory

Abstract

In our paper, we analyse how the concepts of cultural heritage are interpreted and used by official state institutions and public memorial and conservation projects in contemporary Russia. Though both of them appeal to the international definitions of cultural heritage adopted by UNESCO, their interpretations and uses vary. Involving the methods of critical heritage studies (esp. L. Smith’s concept of “authorized heritage discourse”, AHD) we analyse a defining role that the concept of cultural heritage has in their discourses and practices. At the same time, we are working in frames of the public history research program explicating the problem of “shared authority” in our cases. In our paper we will compare uses of heritage concepts by two important actors of the Russian heritagization processes: Likhachev Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage and the “Arkhnadzor”. Our research is based on the analysis of their publications (books, web-sites etc.) and our field observations made in 2021-2022. Likhachev Institute (est. 1992) is the only one institution implementing the state policy regarding cultural heritage and the AHD in Russia – including cooperating with UNESCO. Since 2014, with the changes in the state cultural policy, the AHD provided by Likhachev Institute has also changed (it became especially evident in the case of the inclusion of the Crimean heritage to the Russian register). The “Arkhnadzor” (Architectural supervision) project arose in 2009. It is interested in the protection and conservation of historical buildings in Moscow, bringing together researchers, local historians and active citizens. It tries to involve different audiences in discussions about heritage and organizes protests against the demolition and incorrect restoration of buildings and monuments. At the same time using and challenging the AHD, the project adapts the practices of public history, expanding agency into the debate about heritage.