Received: 01-Feb-2022, Manuscript No. GJMSSR-22-59509; Editor assigned: 03-Feb-2022, Pre QC No. GJMSSR-22-59509(PQ); Reviewed: 17-Feb-2022, QC No. GJMSSR-22-59509; Revised: 21-Feb-2022, Manuscript No. GJMSSR-22-59509(R); Published: 04-Mar-2022, DOI: 10.15651/2408-5511.22.7.41
Heritage conservation concerns the management, treatment, interpretation and fate of material heritage- old, beautiful or else meaningful things similar as buildings, objects and geographies-and therefore constitutes an important part of the sphere of material culture (Omekwu, 2006) after the word culture. Because all societies exercise some form of conservation, issues concerning artistic change are pressing matters for the conservation field worldwide. How, also, is the signal artistic process of contemporary society – globalization – refracted through the lens of heritage conservation? How has globalization affected the practice of heritage conservation? And what are the prospects for material heritage and conservation in a globalizing world? This paper will explore some of the confines of globalization most relevant to the practice of heritage conservation and suggest unborn directions and issues for the conservation field as it takes heed of globalization.
The philosophy, planning, policy and practices of the conservation field are embedded in, and in numerous ways still dominated by, canons and hypotheticals formulated a century ago in Western Europe and North America (Gruen, 2002) after the word report. Conservation professionals have made notable strides in ways of conserving material heritage – the specialized aspects, that’s – but less frequently in the conservation field have we asked, ‘Why conserve? ‘Nor have we seriously considered similar extensively complex questions as ‘What should be conserved? ‘And ‘Who decides? ‘As a group, we’re innately ‘conservative ‘and reticent to change. It has to be conceded, however, that heritage conservation is explosively told by social, profitable and broad artistic surrounds, precisely the surrounds and processes falling under the rubric of globalization. These present the conservation field with a number of new challenges vis-à-vis the part that conservation plays in society. Is the meaning and efficacy of material conservation being eroded by globalization? Similar is the argument from some diggings globalization ‘de-territorializes’ culture, and by extension makes material culture on all situations less central to social life. We’d argue the negative, still the artistic imperatives to elect, cover and interpret certain aspects of the material world – or, in other words, conserve heritage – are indeed more important now for societies in a globalizing world (Maffi, 2012) after the word world.
Cultural diversity is ‘an each-pervasive, enduring characteristic of societies ‘and it has surfaced as a social norm. Recent public conversations about artistic diversity have driven home the principle that diversity is a good thing. In questioning exactly how conservation can advance the cause of diversity, one needs a deeper sense of why artistic diversity is desirable and what its different faces are. At first regard, diversity and culture could be seen as having a tense relationship. Any culture is presumed to have some internal coherence and unity – as opposed to diversity – owing to the notion that a culture is perceptible only if it can be distinguished from other societies. On the other hand, numerous scholars have argued that diversity is critical to the survival and thriving of mortal societies. This is a generally held belief, and indeed is abecedarian to this report (Gruen, 2002) after the word report. The need for diversity is argued from ecological perspectives (societies diversify as they acclimatize to different environmental circumstances); and from political perspectives (post-colonial arguments contend that different societies should be cultivated against the homogenizing, cathartic forces of dominant Western societies). Economist Stephen Marglin indeed goes so far as to assert that,‘ Artistic diversity may be the key to the survival of the mortal species. ’Em pirically the need for artistic diversity would feel to be expressed in the reality that multilateral societies and countries have long was in all corridor of the world. Anthropologist Ulf Hannerz has detailed a number of reasons why artistic diversity is demanded in contemporary society. Globalization, at first regard, is assumed to lead to a homogeneous, one- world culture that quashes diversity. In assessing the threats globalization poses to diversity, Hannerz sees reasons why diversity won’t wither down creativity and intercultural contact produce culture at a rapid rate, which increases as part of the reach of globalization (Lenzen, 2012) after the word Globalization.
Another line of thinking about globalization stresses the complexity of the social processes involved and finds that these processes are, to some extent, always accompanied by their contraries. For case, the creation of homogeneous global societies spread through call forces (‘McDonaldization’) is accompanied by opposing forces of differentiation, hybridization or outright resistance ( substantiation the recent attack against a McDonald’s eatery in France, and protests at the December 1999 World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle). And while artistic fusion, pluralism and other democracy-or request- driven creation of new cultural forms are apparent all over the globe, so are forces of chauvinism,‘ cleansing’ and commercial homogenization. Similar opposing tendencies can be observed in numerous spheres of society. The aim of diversity in the context of the global ecumene can be achieved and sustained only with heritage conservation as one of its means. Diversity can be cultivated through conservation as long as opinions about which values, which meanings and which corridor of material culture should be conserve dare made explicit and abide by wide commitments to diversity, pluralism and creativity.