Understanding the heritage discourse of the council of Europe: a look from beyond the official policies

Over the past few decades, the acknowledgement of the dominant heritage discourse in policies and practice on a national and international levels, defined as the Authorised Heritage Discourse – AHD (Smith 2006), and its subsequent critique are taking up a prominent position in academic, public and policy agenda. Generalised characteristics of the AHD, such as a focus on aesthetically pleasing material objects and sites that current generations, represented by experts, have to care for so that they could be passed to future generations and forge a sense of common identity, could still be considered as the dominant elements in international heritage agenda. However, this thesis’s aim is to contribute to the growing discussion that recognises the multiplicity of AHDs and their different nuances among different institutions rather than gloss over them by recognising only the generalised character of the AHD. This research examines the discursive constructions of heritage and maps the development and influence of the Council of Europe (CoE) heritage discourse throughout 70 years of its heritage activities. The CoE extensively relied on heritage as a promising solution for a range of social problems it was addressing in its work, which, as argued throughout this thesis, has prompted the organisation to considerably challenge the dominant (international) heritage discourse (AHD) on multiple levels. To trace the discursive, linguistic and policy responses that the CoE has developed and to pinpoint the innovative aspects the organisation introduced into the international heritage arena, the research employs the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of Critical Discourse Analysis, supplemented by in-depth interviewing. The choice of methodology required a focus that examines both the linguistic features of the conventions and their preparatory material, as well as the political and social context behind the texts. What this thesis has demonstrated is that the CoE played a significant role in international heritage discussions, being a part, together with UNESCO, ICOMOS and ICCROM, of the organisations that legitimised the AHD during the 1950s and 1960s, but also constructing a genuinely counteractive approach for understanding and managing heritage in a new millennium that challenges the AHD on multiple levels. With the shift of its heritage discourse during the 1990s and 2000s, the CoE seems to offer the framework in which the call for democratisation of heritage could be possible.