Publication: Altamira: hegemonía de élite y valor social en conflicto
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2015
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Servicio de Publicaciones
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
El conflicto puede generarse cuando el equilibrio de poder entre las partes interesadas se desplaza, empoderando a unos y desempoderando a otros (McKercher et al. 2005). El Patrimonio, entendido como una valoración social incorporada a la realidad (Barreiro en prensa)1, forma un entramado ideal para convertirse en un inductor de conflictos, pues incluye la percepción de diferentes grupos, o individuos, con diferentes posiciones de poder en torno a los procesos de su gestión y su impacto. En 2012 y tras diez años de cierre preventivo de la Cueva de Altamira, se aprobó el Programa de Investigación para la Conservación Preventiva y Régimen de Acceso de la Cueva de Altamira, generando un activo debate en torno a la dicotomía cierreapertura. Con el objeto de profundizar en la caracterización de Altamira como enclave patrimonial, el Programa incorporó un estudio de Valor Social, cuyos resultados deberían servir, como los de los restantes proyectos del Programa, para optimizar las condiciones de gestión del sitio. Como parte del equipo de trabajo, a través de la presente comunicación, pretendemos analizar Altamira como espacio de conflicto durante el proceso de ejecución del Programa, convirtiéndonos a su vez en actores integrantes de dicho conflicto. Con la pretensión de obtener una idea global e integrada de Altamira, implementamos diferentes técnicas cualitativas y cuantitativas de investigación, a través de una aproximación interdisciplinar. Desde técnicas antropológicas y sociológicas, identificamos una variedad significativa de actores sociales(comunidad local, visitantes, personal del museo, especialistas en conservación, actores políticos, investigadores, empresarios, etc.) de diversos ámbitos territoriales (municipal, autonómico y estatal) que encarnaban las aristas de un conflicto poliédrico. Nuestro fin era analizar las distintas posiciones de poder desde las que los actores conformaban sus valoraciones sobre Altamira. Entre los múltiples resultados del estudio destacamos una normalización de la importancia del “valor” de Altamira en relación a otros espacios patrimoniales; una instrumentalización de dicho espacio desde la política para potenciar el valor económico de la zona; y una idealización del papel de los expertos en Patrimonio para decidir sobre la apertura-cierre de Altamira.
Conflict can arise when the balance of power among stakeholders in a context is broken, empowering and disempowering the parties (McKercher et al. 2005). Heritage, understood as the social value incorporated into reality (Barreiro forthcoming), is often the locus of contestation that triggers conflicts, including the perception of different groups or individuals with different power positions around heritage management processes and its impact. In 2012, after ten years of the closure of Altamira Cave, a Research Program for Preventive Conservation and Access Regime of the Altamira Cave was approved. This sparked an active debate on the dichotomy of whether it would be suitable to close or open the cave. In order to understand Altamira as a heritage site, this Program included a study of its social value, whose results should serve as the other projects of the program, to optimize conditions for the Management of the site. As members of the research team, through this paper, we focus on Altamira as a contested heritage site conflictive during the execution of the Program and how, in turn, we became involved players in the conflict. With the aim of obtaining a comprehensive and integrated idea of Altamira, weimplemented different qualitative and quantitative research techniques based on an interdisciplinary approach. From anthropological and sociological techniques, we identified a significant variety of stakeholders (local community, visitors, museum staff, curators, policy makers, researchers, entrepreneurs, etc.) at various territorial scales (local, regional and national) that embodied the different perspectives on the contentious situation. Our aim was to analyze the different power positions from which the actors made up their assessments of Altamira. The results showed a normalization in the importance of the Altamira “value” in relation to other heritage sites; a policy for the instrumentalization of the space to enhance its economic value; and an idealization of the role of heritage experts in order to decide on the opening-closing of Altamira.
Conflict can arise when the balance of power among stakeholders in a context is broken, empowering and disempowering the parties (McKercher et al. 2005). Heritage, understood as the social value incorporated into reality (Barreiro forthcoming), is often the locus of contestation that triggers conflicts, including the perception of different groups or individuals with different power positions around heritage management processes and its impact. In 2012, after ten years of the closure of Altamira Cave, a Research Program for Preventive Conservation and Access Regime of the Altamira Cave was approved. This sparked an active debate on the dichotomy of whether it would be suitable to close or open the cave. In order to understand Altamira as a heritage site, this Program included a study of its social value, whose results should serve as the other projects of the program, to optimize conditions for the Management of the site. As members of the research team, through this paper, we focus on Altamira as a contested heritage site conflictive during the execution of the Program and how, in turn, we became involved players in the conflict. With the aim of obtaining a comprehensive and integrated idea of Altamira, weimplemented different qualitative and quantitative research techniques based on an interdisciplinary approach. From anthropological and sociological techniques, we identified a significant variety of stakeholders (local community, visitors, museum staff, curators, policy makers, researchers, entrepreneurs, etc.) at various territorial scales (local, regional and national) that embodied the different perspectives on the contentious situation. Our aim was to analyze the different power positions from which the actors made up their assessments of Altamira. The results showed a normalization in the importance of the Altamira “value” in relation to other heritage sites; a policy for the instrumentalization of the space to enhance its economic value; and an idealization of the role of heritage experts in order to decide on the opening-closing of Altamira.