observation is not enough. On the other hand, they have to participate in a race for the recognition of local identities and cultural items, that are compared with objects, easily ignoring the living, contextual and relational nature. The pressure is rising; the 2003 Convention fever is proliferating. The 2003 UNESCO Convention has encouraged and galvanized many actors in local cultural life to mobilize around traditions. The candidature could be seen as a way to inscribe the local community in a global setting, even as a tool for touristic and economic development. But this potential is also criticized as a way of selling culture, as a way of turning the items described in the candidature files or the records into commodities, items for the (mass) tourism market. In the scholarly and other networks, there are critical voices that reject the 2003 UNESCO Convention and the resulting policies as interventions that go too far, even suggesting that it is part of “the dark side of colonial power”. UNESCO is sometimes reduced to a caricature as a synthesis of a global power system and the 2003 Convention seems as an instrument in the hand of political elites. Some see it as an instrument for conservatism or as a tool for fixing communities, groups and their culture in a matrix of authenticity labels. There are many misunderstandings circulating about the UNESCO paradigm, but of course critical analysis is always needed.
Work in Progress and Ongoing Debates These perceptions and interpretations have provoked tensions and a critical distance between researchers in social sciences and actors involved in national and local policy. All these perceptions, distances and misunderstandings do not make it easy for researchers close to heritage communities that want to work for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. A number of anthropologists (like Broccolini), specializing in the making of the BDI-MODI catalogue entries, denounce the problems for communities to participate in the process. They argue for more action-research and mediation but also for a better knowledge of international instruments where a dialogue with communities and groups is vital. Due to the participation in the work of the Intergovernmental Committee and the increasing influence of the “scène globale des politiques du patrimoine” (Arantes), alternative visions and discourses are circulating. Since 2009 SIMBDEA (www.simbdea.it) participates in these international networks, as an observer of the official meetings of the Intergovernmental Committee and as active participant in the ICH-NGO-forum and other meetings and networks of accredited NGOs. These experiences have injected input in the debate in Italy, in conferences and in publications, demonstrated by a special issue in 2011 of the journal AM, devoted to the safeguarding of intangible heritage paradigm and UNESCO. In 2012 a special working group SIMBDEA-ICH was founded. The participating researchers wish to keep their distance from overemphasizing the listing system and candidatures for the representative list. They wish to cultivate the spirit of the 2003 Convention and to invest in safeguarding plans,
414
valentina lapiccirella zingari | projects of heritage communities