| Abstract [eng] |
This work intends to reveal the ways that social and cultural groups attribute various types of values to the objects remaining to us from the past. The research is based on the idea of social constructing and tries to dig in to the past of different social institutes in order to understand why some people admire the past relicts for its “internal” value and others do not. Work examines different discourses as a way’s of institutionalized thinking in M. Foucault’s sense and tries to reveal the reasons of today’s misunderstandings that a common among heritage professionals and society and even specialists themselves. The research chronologically and problematically analyzes four different and at the same moment interconnected approaches to the phenomena of cultural heritage: administrational, academic, societal and commercial. Analysis of those approaches suggests some insights on the origin of social factors of cultural heritage valuing. On the basis of Authorized Heritage Discourse the unity of administrational and scholar methods is still vital in national heritage protection systems and one of the objectives of this work was to examine the most common ways of different “innate” values getting into conflict. The research successfully illustrates how academic approach to the past influences heritage politics and what role it takes in value identification and legitimating the role of specialists. The transcendence of Modernity to Postmodernity simultaneously in society and in academic though is to bring up a set of new actors in cultural heritage valuing business. On the other hand, After insight in to commercial approach to heritage and heritage industry it becomes clear that nothing new is invented. Business for its profit is using and loosely interpreting the same “old good”, or to say it academically, values of wide societal legitimacy, which where unquestionable and “innate” in the period of positive academic approach. |
