-
4. Theorical Orientations
- CODESRIA
- Chapter
- Additional Information
4. Theoretical Orientations Reflecting on both tangible and intangible heritage, Bouchenaki (2003: 1) states that ‘an anthropological approach to heritage leads us to consider it as a social ensemble of many different, complex and interdependent manifestations’. This complexity is evident in the Indian Ocean region, sites of rich oral history, music and customs. Viewed from afar, the islands of Zanzibar, Seychelles and Mauritius have particular political structures and geographies. However, a closer look reveals that they are inextricably linked by their common historical experience of maritime trade, slavery and creolisation. These aspects have to be considered when deciding on an appropriate theoretical framework for the study of heritage in the IOR. In the previous chapter, I referred to McPherson’s idea of the IOR as overlapping cultural zones. From this perspective, regional identity is constructed on the relationship between maritime trade and cultural diffusion. McPherson’s approach offers a useful base for reflections on the nature and management of heritage in the IOR, especially because it points to both diversity and unity in the region. Using this idea, I propose that these island societies are inextricably linked entities, with particular distinctive social facets that render each one unique. The fact of a long and common history, the production of similar social and cultural hierarchies, exposure (in current times) to similar influences of trade and globalisation, means that the inhabitants of Zanzibar, Mauritius and Seychelles share common historical experiences. Does shared experience produce similar social and cultural perspectives? Before attempting to answer this important question, one has to look at how the various macropolitical experiences shaped the island societies researched. In brief, exposure to maritime trade, slavery, colonisation and the specific geographiclimitationsofislandlifeproducedalargelyhybridisedspace.Cultural interaction (forced and voluntary), compelled many islanders to encounter one another’s customs, languages and perceptions of life, fuelling creolisation. Slavery and colonisation also produced a socially and politically oppressed or oppressive people, who in turn created racial and cultural hierarchies. Today, dominant groups in these island societies are intent on maintaining segregation, Rosabelle Boswell 35 believing (as the Mauritius case shows), that cultural purity will enable them to meaningfully reconnect with their motherland and to display identity. These ideas are not solely the result of being ‘abandoned’ in unfamiliar lands. They are inspired by a long and varied history of resistance against cultural and racial mixing. Nevertheless, these societies, isolated from Africa and mainland Europe/ Asia, became hybridised, a process rejected by some but experienced by all. In my research, I found that hybridity has become central to personal existence and to cultural expression. Thus the issue of hybridity is of great import to heritage and consequently, its management in the IOR. However, an overview of discussions and perceptions of heritage reveals an obsession with the presumed boundedness and homogeneity of heritages. In many instances, heritage is seen as a source of ‘roots’ or a means to establish belonging in a presumed, homogeneous landscape. Heritage scholars influenced by Western notions of the concept tend to state the imperativeness of identifying and safeguarding heritage. As an anthropologist working in Africa, this view is reminiscent of the time at which anthropologists romanticised the ‘native’, searched for the exotic at all costs and attempted to salvage elements of traditional culture. It seems that in the new millennium anxiety is at an all time high, as cultural boundaries melt away and all are subject to the uncertainties of a global market and society. In this context, Malthusian (or catastrophic) perceptions of social evolution encourage heritage bodies to romanticise the past and to ‘protect’ the integrity of existing heritage. Doing research in the IOR revealed that people’s identity or sense of self may be defined by mobility, displacement and hybridity as much as it may be influenced by stability, homogeneity and ‘roots’. In fact, in the IOR, the latter is an ideal while the former is a reality. What does this mean for heritage managers in the region? Drawing on Western models of heritage management and the conceptualisations of heritage that inhere in these models, heritage managers in the region are not able to fully encounter heritage in the IOR. The externally imposed models and standards for management cannot help them to articulate their country’s heritage . Nestor Garcìa Canclini’s early critique of patrimony/heritage discusses dominant (‘Western’) thinking about heritage, which conceives of it as ‘a gift of symbolic prestige that has to be preserved ... not discussed or analyzed’ (1995: 108). Garcìa Canclini offers a political critique...