Possible
The first few days of this field school can really be summed up using Prof JW’s definition of heritage—“Heritage is about people, not property. It is about empathy, advocacy, empowerment, respect and humility”.
I know, I know. It sounds extremely sappy and many times impossible. What about laws and the government? What about conservation? What, isn’t heritage about built structures and artefacts—stone tools, pendants and pottery?
Over the past few days, our lecturers have shown us by example, that this version of heritage is achievable, and that it is more than just buildings and artefacts. It is, put in colloquial terms a “can, can”, not a cannot. Heritage work, tangible or intangible, can be done with the people at heart. And not just any people, the communities closest to and currently using the sites. Chawanad Luansang’s lecture about the Community Architects Network showed us the power of maps in terms of heritage learning. The story of Rakan Mantin showed us the power of social media. The struggle of Pom Mahakan has been a story of using technical drawings to aid in claiming rights to land.
The overall theme of all of these examples is the power of empathy. Our lecturers have shown us how much change can be done if we care and if we try, together. Simple method, but often forgotten. Through their projects, they’ve shown us that it is possible to create change using architecture, art or whatever your skill set is. It is possible to give much of your time and effort for causes that affect not only you, but communities around you whose heritages—however they may choose to define it—are at risk. Heritage practiced in this way is one that has its strength in the people whose capacities are developed, whose identities are strengthened and whose stories are given the chance to be heard in the process.
Most importantly, their examples have also showed us that this type of heritage work is messy, time consuming and that there is never a clear path to victory. It is in fact a battle that is full of uncertainty and is unlikely to end. Additionally, the fact that this brand of heritage is one that requires us to give so much heart makes us so vulnerable in the process but one that is worth all the trouble, disappointments and hassle.
The study of heritage beginning with empathy at its core is refreshing in a world where heritage is still predominantly practiced in a top-down manner. By choosing to align our actions to the idea of heritage by, for and with the communities that surround the sites that we care so much about, we really have better chances of creating sustainable programs with better impact.
Inspiring, simple, and most of all, possible.
