Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBakka, Egil
dc.contributor.authorKaroblis, Gediminas
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-19T06:56:13Z
dc.date.available2022-10-19T06:56:13Z
dc.date.created2021-11-11T19:57:18Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationDance Research. 2021, 39 (2), 247-263.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0264-2875
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3026878
dc.description.abstractThis article directly responds to an article authored by Iacono and Brown published in Dance Research (2016), and considers issues emerging since its publication. The core topic is the UNESCO Convention from 2003, and in our view, criticism in the 2016 article is based on misinterpretation. We address the claims that the Convention is marked by binarism and provide in-depth background for the concept of intangible cultural heritage. We also caution against using the biomorphic term ‘living cultural heritage’ as its application stands in an ambiguous relation toward essentialist, organicist and totalitarian ideologies. We end with a discussion on attitudes toward globalisation and the concept of innovation. These, we argue, have profound implications for recent discussions on decolonisation.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherEdinburgh University Pressen_US
dc.titleDecolonising or recolonising: Struggles on cultural heritageen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionacceptedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber247-263en_US
dc.source.volume39en_US
dc.source.journalDance Researchen_US
dc.source.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3366/drs.2021.0345
dc.identifier.cristin1953824
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpostprint
cristin.qualitycode1


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record