Photo: Kin Cheung/AP
A central part of the British character is the fascination with the British character - when the Americans speak of their traits with pride, and the French with nonchalance, we are speaking of ourselves as amateur naturalists might speak of a favorite beetle: amused, affectionate , alive in detail.
It's British to talk about the weather, but it's also British to talk about ourselves about the weather. How much of 'classic British' literature involves an inventory of our idiosyncrasies and habits, as for future anthropologists? It may be a human tendency to assume that your weaknesses are universal, but our biases run the other way: we prefer to think of ourselves as eccentric, an island of outliers.
So it is strange that it has taken us twenty years to decide to submit our favorite customs and traditions to the world's official register, UNESCO's List of Intangible Cultural Heritage, so that they can be properly compiled and preserved.
Or rather: a selection thereof. Carol singing, sea shanties, pantomime, basket weaving, wreath making, swamp snorkelling, tweed - no, these are not items on the tea towel 'Things Nicky Haslam Finds Common', another symptom of British self-consciousness, but suggestions for 'living heritage' that special needs protection. The public needs to come up with ideas, and the government will send some of them this year to the UN, which will decide whether they deserve a place alongside practices like kok boru, a Kyrgyz game played on horseback that traditionally involves killing a dead goat used. like the ball.
Is UNESCO able to protect endangered cultures? It must work primarily through governments
The UN cultural body set up this convention in 2003: it is the counterpart to the famous list of World Heritage Sites, which the world often uses as a kind of 'look before you die' coffee table book. As museums started making exhibitions more interactive, UNESCO expanded its focus from buildings to traditions. Governments can apply for funding for 'masterpieces of oral and intangible culture' that are at risk from globalisation, and these also end up on a high-profile list, attracting attention and, through visitors, generating more money.
The story continues
It's hard to argue against money for culture when anything will help: for example, a report last week tells us that the country's brass bands are on the verge of bankruptcy, but is the UNESCO project really the solution? Although Britain was partly responsible for the organization's creation, we have had an uneasy relationship with it ever since; Margaret Thatcher took us out, then Tony Blair brought us back in, and then Penny Mordaunt wanted us to follow the US again in 2019. In 2021, Liverpool was stripped of its status due to new developments on the waterfront (it responded that it was not). does not 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 avert the consequences of globalization?
We're already at the first problem: how do you choose what goes on the list? There is hardly anything that people do that does not fall under the category of 'culture'. UNESCO's program draws a lot of inspiration from organizations that protect nature; but unlike these it has no scientific principles by which to determine the value of one item over another. How to choose between pantomime and cheese rolling, or pancake flipping and High Wycombe's weigh-in of the mayor (and why are British traditions all so stupid?).
One of the criteria is that the habit must be compromised - but this doesn't quite match the list so far, which includes the French baguette, Spanish flamenco, Italian opera, Neapolitan pizza making 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 go extinct. The UN cultural program could fall into the same trap.
And of course there is also the opposite risk: that money is wasted by keeping almost dead traditions alive while the community around them has become indifferent. There will be plays performed and songs sung by people who no longer remember why, in a culture that has moved on.
A listing can ultimately damage what it's trying to protect: unleashing a horde of tourists isn't always helpful
A bigger drawback is that UNESCO may not be able to protect cultures that are in danger - such as those of minorities who are persecuted by states because they have to work primarily through governments. China's ruling party donates more money to the international body than any other group, but critics say it uses UNESCO's heritage listings to bolster its version of the country's history: favored groups are given a longer, friendlier and more influential past assigned, while ethnic minorities are sidelined, only nominated here and there for popular practices.
But perhaps the worst accusation against UNESCO is that it may ultimately actually harm the traditions it chooses to protect. Letting go of a horde of tourists, with the associated waste and chain restaurants, is not always the best way to save money. When a small mining town in northern Japan ended up on the World Heritage List next to places like Angkor Wat, it was inundated with thousands of visitors, for which it did not have the infrastructure.
Traditions and practices can be even more vulnerable than buildings once visitors arrive with cameras and the new global status sinks 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. Yet not everyone reads the fine print on the UN website, and there is a danger that the new fame will freeze a culture in aspic: locals performing Disneyfied versions for international tourists.
Britain may be more robust than some countries - and we could use the money, even if it means becoming pantomime versions of ourselves. Still, I went to the cheese factory in Gloucester, where wandering visitors razed six fields: any more attention and it could be the end of Gloucester. If we join the project, we must also bring a healthy British skepticism to our submissions.
* Martha Gill is an Observer columnist
