Rebecca Marsh

One Comment

  1. While your analysis offers a compelling and critical view of Cultural Heritage Without Borders’s rhetoric (both visual and verbal) of development and inclusion/“borderlessness,” I think that further study of this organization would benefit from some attention to ways in which specific projects are selected as “worthy” of the label of “cultural heritage.” Though understandably not the focus of this project, the question of what is defined as “cultural heritage” is certainly not unproblematic or uncontested. I would be interested in seeing not only the trail of money/manpower behind CHWB (which you touch on here), but also considering what is at stake in the selection of sites for preservation. Why do these particular places find the support of CHWB? Whose vision of “heritage” is being preserved and promoted here? Such questions might illuminate both the power of capital from cultural tourism, as well as dynamics of national/international power as historical narratives are written, rewritten, and played out on the architecture of the nation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *