‘Being’, ‘Becoming’ and ‘Challenging’ European: Subject Positions in the European Heritage Label

Abstract

This article scrutinises the subject positions of ‘being’, ‘becoming’ and ‘challenging’ European in the context of the European Heritage Label (EHL), a flagship cultural heritage action of the European Union. While the positions are widely used in academia to analyse the relationship between the Central and East European (CEE) countries and the EU/Europe, the setting of the current research shows how the power dynamics between CEE countries and the EU contribute to forming ‘European heritage’ and contribute to the EHL as EU-level authorised heritage discourse in the making. Simultaneously, the transformative potential of heritage makes these subject positions visible and opens them up for changes.

Notes

1 In public discussion the EU is widely communicated as a ‘materialisation’ or a concrete phenomenon of Europe.

2 ‘European Heritage Label’, European Commission, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/heritage-label_en, accessed 9 October 2020.

3 See also Kaasik-Krogerus (2016, p. 16; 2020).

4 See also Welz (2012, p. 367).

5 The fieldwork was conducted by the researchers of the project ‘EUROHERIT: Legitimation of European Cultural Heritage and the Dynamics of Identity Politics in the EU’, from August 2017 until February 2018, at 11 EHL sites located in ten EU countries. As well as Estonia and Poland, fieldwork was conducted at sites in Germany, France, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Hungary and Portugal.

6 See, for example, Feldman (2001), Szczerbiak (2001, p. 109), Góra and Mach (2017, p. 56).

7 See also Velikonja (2011, pp. 25–6), Kaasik-Krogerus (2019).

8 See also Kuus (2002b, p. 307), Kaasik-Krogerus (2016, p. 86).

9 See also Góra and Mach (2017, p. 57).

10 See also Wolff (1994, p. 7), Moisio (2002, pp. 98–9), Velikonja (2011, pp. 27–8).

11 See also Kaasik-Krogerus (2016, pp. 44–5).

12 See also Kuus (2002a, p. 97).

13 See also Stefanova (2018, pp. 88–9).

14 See, for example, Kaasik-Krogerus (2016), Ballinger (2017, pp. 54–5); see also Todorova (2009, pp. 2–61).

15 See also Jones and Subotić (2011, p. 554), Kaasik-Krogerus (2019).

16 For example, Smith (2006), Harrison (2013), Kisić (2017).

17 See also Waterton and Smith (2009).

18 See also Zarycki (2011, p. 94).

19 For example, Moskwa and Bartyzel (2016).

20 Great Guild Hall, Permanent Exhibitions, available at: https://www.ajaloomuuseum.ee/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/opituba-asja-armastajad-vanad-manguasjad, accessed 2 February 2021.

21 See also Čeginskas and Kaasik-Krogerus (2020).

22 Interview with Practitioner 4, ESC, 27 September 2017.

23 For example, interviews with: Visitor 8, ESC, 26 September 2017; Visitor 20, ESC, 27 September 2017; Visitor 22, ESC, 27 September 2017.

24 Interviews with: Practitioner 1, ESC, 26 September 2017; Practitioner 2, GGH, 7 September 2017.

25 Interview with Visitor 7, ESC, 26 September 2017.

26 Interviews with: Visitor 5, ESC, 26 September 2017; Visitor 23, ESC, 27 September 2017; Visitor 18, ESC, 27 September 2017.

27 Interview with Visitor 6, ESC, 26 September 2017.

28 Interviews with: Visitor 8, ESC, 26 September 2017; Visitor 9, ESC, 26 September 2017.

29 Interviews with: Practitioner 2, ESC, 26 September 2017; Practitioner 4, ESC, 27 September 2017; see also Góra and Mach (2017, pp. 76–7).

30 For example, interviews with: Practitioner 2, ESC, 26 September 2017; Practitioner 3, ESC, 26 September 2017.

31 Interviews with: Visitor 2, ESC, 26 September 2017; Visitor 11, ESC, 26 September 2017; Visitor 12, ESC, 27 September 2017; Visitor 13, ESC, 27 September 2017; Visitor 3, GGH, 6 September 2017; Visitor 4, GGH, 6 September 2017; Visitor 5, GGH, 6 September 2017.

32 For example, interviews with: Practitioner 1, GGH, 7 September 2017; Practitioner 3, GGH, 7 September 2017.

33 Interview with Practitioner 2, ESC, 26 September 2017.

34 Interview with Practitioner 2, ESC, 26 September 2017; see also Zarycki (2018), Lyubashenko (2018, pp. 75–6).

35 Interview with Practitioner 2, ESC, 26 September 2017.

36 Interviews with: Practitioner 1, ESC, 26 September 2017; Practitioner 2, GGH, 7 September 2017.

37 Interviews with: Practitioner 2, ESC, 26 September 2017; Practitioner 2, GGH, 7 September 2017.

38 For example, interviews with: Practitioner 2, ESC, 26 September 2017; Practitioner 1, GGH, 7 September 2017.

39 Interviews with: Visitor 5, ESC, 26 September 2017; Visitor 18, ESC, 27 September 2017; Visitor 20, ESC, 27 September 2017.

40 For example, interviews with: Visitor 1, GGH, 6 September 2017; Practitioner 1, GGH, 7 September 2017; Practitioner 2, GGH, 7 September 2017; Practitioner 4, ESC, 27 September 2017.

41 See also Velikonja (2011, pp. 18–9).

42 Interviews with: Practitioner 1, GGH, 7 September 2017; Practitioner 2, GGH, 7 September 2017.

43 For example, interviews with: Practitioner 2, ESC, 26 September 2017; Practitioner 4, ESC, 27 September 2017.

44 Interviews with: Practitioner 2, ESC, 26 September 2017; Practitioner 4, ESC, 27 September 2017.

45 Interview with Practitioner 4, ESC, 27 September 2017.

46 Interview with Practitioner 2, ESC, 26 September 2017.

47 Interview with Practitioner 4, ESC, 27 September 2017.

48 Interviews with: Practitioner 1, ESC, 26 September 2017; Practitioner 2, ESC, 26 September 2017; Practitioner 3, ESC, 26 September 2017.

49 Interviews with: Practitioner 2, GGH, 7 September 2017; Practitioner 3, GGH, 7 September 2017; Practitioner 4, ESC, 27 September 2017.

50 Interview with Practitioner 4, ESC, 27 September 2017.

51 Interviews with: Practitioner 1, GGH, 7 September 2017; Practitioner 2, GGH, 7 September 2017; Practitioner 3, GGH, 7 September 2017; Practitioner 2, ESC, 26 September 2017.

52 Interviews with: Practitioner 1, GGH, 7 September 2017; Practitioner 1, ESC, 26 September 2017.

53 Interview with Practitioner 4, ESC, 27 September 2017.

54 Interview with Practitioner 3, GGH, 7 September 2017.

55 Interview with Practitioner 4, ESC, 27 September 2017.

56 For example, interview with Practitioner 1, ESC, 26 September 2017.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant 636177 (EUROHERIT) and by the Academy of Finland Grant 330620 EU Heritage Diplomacy and the Dynamics of Inter-Heritage Dialogue. The research was conducted at the University of Jyväskylä.

Notes on contributors

Sigrid Kaasik-Krogerus

Sigrid Kaasik-Krogerus, Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies, P.O. Box 24, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. Email: [email protected]