So I had my exam for Genetic heritage today which was an oral exam with a short prep to write keynotes and short sentences.
I go up to my professor, apologising for my handwriting because my hand is cramped due to fieldwork. He looked me dead in the eye and said “I teach in medicine.”
If you are interested in decolonisation or anticolonial activity in museums, Bruno Brulon Soares is probably the most important current voice in that conversation.
World is Mine: Evaluating the Ethical Implications of OUV as a Primary Measure of Heritage Significance
“Outstanding universal value” (OUV) has become the requisite system of evaluation for the UNESCO WHC (Bai et al. 2021, 25). This has had a major impact on cultural heritage conservation policies worldwide (Molina et al. 2023, 597). I argue that although the use of OUV as a primary measure of heritage ostensibly allows for heritage to be assessed more objectively and encourages global co-operation and respect, in practice, it has several shortcomings, particularly due to its goal of "universality". The ontological basis for measures of OUV remains strongly rooted in European intellectualism, restricting the ability of heritage that does not conform to UNESCO’s ideological goals to be accurately expressed, represented, and managed. In attempting to encompass concepts that are broad enough to appear universal, OUV has also become highly discretionary, leading to an increasing disconnect from local communities due to the increasing scientisation of heritage discourse and parallel necessity of heritage experts to operate within the paradoxical opacity of the OUV lexicon. Throughout this essay, I refer to alternative evaluation frameworks to highlight and challenge specific problematic implications of OUV as a primary metric of significance.
While Dattilo et al. (2025, 427) argue that there is no empirical basis for systematic favouritism of Western ideas of heritage, their quantitative method of evaluation is problematic, relying on a simplistic dichotomy of “native” and colonial sites and failing to consider that a Western epistemology of value could have more complex implications than excluding sites designated as relating to indigenous peoples. Rather, I would argue that the OUV evaluation process influences the granting of status towards monumental, superlative examples of heritage, which has implications for how diverse global cultures are required to represent themselves (Morgane et al. 2025, 8). For example, requiring that submissions be in French or English using the terminology and intellectual framework of the WHC constrains the communication of non-European complexity and specificity (Smith 2015, 178). Minority communities are increasingly calling for their heritage values and rights to be recognised in the WH process, including in statements of OUV (Smith 2015, 181). One example of these calls, the “Pacific Appeal,” written by representatives of Pacific Island nations, states that their heritage must be considered holistically and in its own terms, through the relevant cultural traditions and associations (Smith 2015, 181). It is crucial to the ethical operation of WH that it provides an opportunity for all communities to share the way in which they “traditionally see, feel and listen to the Universe” (Smith 2015, 187), which is impeded by the structures of OUV that enforce a culturally specific worldview, despite claims to universality (Cocks et al. 2018, 36).
The area locally referred to as emaXhoseni (“the land of the Xhosa”) in South Africa highlights the function of OUV as a framework to disregard heritage according to a rigid framework aligning with Western intellectual ideals. Di Giovine in Tucker and Carnegie (2014, 65) argues that “the heritage-scape’s meta-narrative often seeks to "forget" or underplay contentious aspects of the place’s own life-history and attendant narrative claims... which would undercut the heritage-scape’s unifying, peacemaking ideals”. Within emaXhoseni, the local people attach significance to the entire landscape, including its natural and constructed, tangible and intangible elements, which bear testament to its turbulent history of oppression, social engineering, ill-advised agricultural interventions, and marginalisation (Cocks et al. 2018, 45). However, from a professional perspective, emaXhoseni is generally viewed as a degraded, dysfunctional agricultural landscape unworthy of conservation and in need of economic and agricultural development; it lacks the “outstanding” qualities sought-after by conservationists, its village life does not conform to picturesque ideals of traditional tribal life, the landscape doesn't conform to ideals of cultural landscapes characterised by ecological harmony (Cocks et al. 2018, 43-5). Similarly, in the defining of Angkor Wat as a WH site, narratives of conflict were excluded from its submission, suggesting that they were considered to be problematic in achieving value that UNESCO would consider to be “universal” (Tucker and Carnegie 2014, 65). Together, these examples suggest how OUV excludes views and values that fall outside the dominant paradigm (Tucker and Carnegie 2014, 73).
Attempting to reframe the implicit Eurocentricity of OUV, Cocks et al. emphasise a biocultural perspective. They aim to construct a framework that “better addresses the sociocultural pasts and futures for different regions of the world and recognises the need to de-centre Europe and the West in the way heritage is thought about” (Cocks et al. 2018, 35). The culturally specific social values, particularly of indigenous communities, are often expressed in different ways than are accepted by institutional heritage due to epistemological and ontological differences between understandings of heritage places (McNaughton et al. 2016, 417). For example, Alngith identities are made in and through place in an ongoing process, just as place is made in dialogue with people, emphasising the living nature of heritage and the importance of small-scale practices (McNaughton et al. 2016, 428). Cocks et al.’s emphasis on the experiential and emotional aspects of heritage specifically includes the physical experiences of routine life that make room for "small stories" (Cocks et al. 2018, 36) to emerge. This directly challenges the “outstanding” facet of OUV and encourages appreciation of the links between people, place and identity in a depiction of heritage that is locally embedded and culturally specific. While developments such as the inclusion of cultural landscapes appear to align with that of Cocks et al.'s biocultural perspective, the assessment process remains confined within the same OUV framework, continuing to represent heritage through a process that tends to be opaque and alienating to local people (Cocks et al. 2018, 40).
Attempts to universalise heritage through the discretionary allowance afforded by the vagueness of OUV criteria has led to the increasing scientisation of cultural heritage. Professionals in ICOMOS and IUCN have shaped the “epistemic governance” (Schmutz and Elliott 2017, 142) of OUV through the act of translating abstract principles into concrete evaluative procedures (Molina et al. 2023, 598). Seemingly in answer to the difficulties of universalising culturally specific heritage, empirical science has developed as a key source of universal value (Matthes 2015, 1020). While natural site evaluations have stayed relatively consistent in their use of scientific terms (about 30–40 per 1000 words), cultural site evaluations have noticeably expanded their use of such phrases over time (about 10 per 1000 words during the 1980s, 10–20 during the 1990s, 22–35 in the 2000s) (Schmutz and Elliott 2017, 149-50). Rational, scientific claims are perceived to bestow legitimacy on individual, organisational, and state actor claims that their heritage is of universal importance through appeal to "the primary interpretive frame through which understandings of the natural and social world are made possible" (Schmutz and Elliott 2017, 146). This suggests the implicit intellectual strain that heritages are under to be universally valued in a way that OUV can uphold. Furthermore, the ambiguity and contradictions in OUV frequently require interpretation by professionals. While the meaning of OUV has become taken for granted, the process of articulating and verifying OUV is not straightforward (Schmutz and Elliott 2017, 141). The 2005 Operational Guidelines defines OUV as “cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations” (UNESCO 2013: rev. 2005, 46, P49). Uncertainty in the OUV framework stems from the fact that “common importance” is ambiguous; If universality is to be understood as making everyone in the world equal stakeholders, as Tucker and Carnegie suggest it does, what are the implications for the people living in close geographical proximity to WH (Tucker and Carnegie 2014, 63; Matthes 2015, 1001)? By suggesting that a manifestation of heritage has OUV, the line between respect for value and value itself is muddied, minimising the personal value of heritage to specific groups as well as local popular control of heritage.
Experts are instrumental to the comprehension, application, and expression of the significance of OUV (Bai et al. 2021, 31; Silberman 2012, 248). Unfortunately, the decisions of these experts do not necessarily reflect the values of those directly connected with the heritage in question (Cocks et al. 2018, 39-40). Values-based conservation, such as the OUV framework, depends upon balancing technical and professional perspectives with those of the engaged public (Kalman and Létourneau 2020, 307; McNaughton et al. 2016, 428). However, in much WH documentation, value is regarded as inherent rather than socially constructed, which is problematic as it results in heritage assessments that favour outcomes which are more easily interpreted as universal, rather than those that reflect the relevance of heritage to lived experiences (Tucker and Carnegie 2014, 65; Matthes 2015, 1004-5). Cuenca became a WH site in 1999, its dossier emphasising the city’s connection with natural elements as well as the effects of indigenous, Spanish, and Mestizo cultural coexistence on the city’s urban design (Molina et al. 2023, 601-2). However, current OUV criteria are arcane and foreign to popular appreciation and understanding of Cuenca’s heritage, which focuses on the way of life rather than the historical values outlined in the official submission (Molina et al. 2023, 604-7). Although WH status prompts a degree of pride among inhabitants, the assessment does not correspond to the values of the people who live there, drawing into question the universality of OUVs, as they are not commonly found among those who, in some sense, would know Cuenca best (Molina et al. 2023, 606-7).
In contrast to OUV, Borges’ (2025) methodology is based on the idea that cultural significance lies in the power of material and immaterial attributes to communicate heritage values. Building on the work of Laurajane Smith, who argued that traditional heritage discourses privilege authorised narratives over the lived experiences and values of local communities, he contends that recognising “heritage from below” (Borges 2025, 3) is key to understanding an article of heritage’s full range of values and devising appropriate management strategies (Borges 2025, 3). By focusing value assessment on factors endemic to local connection, such as “working-class identity, intergenerational memory, and socio-spatial transformation” (Borges 2025, 3), Borges' model reframes heritage evaluation to be centred around non-expert public participation with heritage.
Conflict between the official OUV and inhabitants’ perception of heritage can also lead to problems in the management of cultural heritage sites by establishing new legislative, administrative, or economic systems (Molina et al. 2023, 599). The Richtersveld World Heritage Site in South Africa is an example of living cultural and natural heritage that is maintained by a local community who values and wishes to safeguard their heritage (Cocks et al. 2018, 43). Simultaneously, as a result of Richtersveld being deemed of OUV, the local custodians are now monitored and accountable to an international organisation which they have no direct influence over and whose support and protection is contingent on the site continuously meeting external requirements (Cocks et al. 2018, 43). Similarly, Alngith interviewees in Australia have consistently asserted that their role as custodians is continuously undermined and disrespected, desiring primary rights to the processes surrounding engagement and heritage management rather than merely “a seat at the table” (McNaughton et al. 2016, 429). As suggested by these examples, OUV can result in power resting in the hands of institutional authorities who are removed from the local context, creating a position in which demands justified by universality can overshadow and negatively impact the agency and practices of local communities (Cocks et al. 2018, 46-47; Matthes 2015, 1026).
Neil Silberman’s rights-based approach to evaluating heritage aims to combine three approaches used by the UN towards culture to reconfigure WH into a balanced system that actively works towards the principles of human rights (Silberman 2012, 252). These three approaches include: 1) systematic and empirical expert documentation and verification based on Enlightenment ideals of objectivity and reason; 2) the enactment of distinctive contemporary identity to assert the contemporary legitimacy and vitality of a cultural community; and 3) processes of self-definition, intercultural dialogue, and toleration, associated with colonised groups and emphasising diversity under universal responsibility (Silberman 2012, 249-50). Silberman (2012, 252) suggests that a lack of balance in any of these heritage directions is dangerous, having the potential to endanger human rights. As he states: “An approach that relies entirely on empirically gathered data and expert opinion can sometimes miss the forest for the factual trees. On the other hand, the interpretive voice that cares nothing for evidence and relies only on tradition, or dogma or intuition can never allow itself to question its seeming self-evident truth. Likewise, the conspicuous, obsessive display and celebration of a shared culture can cultivate an atmosphere of xenophobia and ethnic tension” (Silberman 2012, 252). Silberman (2012) aims to integrate a wide variety of approaches in an attempt to increase meaningful heritage participation and therefore multivocality, thereby improving interconnectivity between professional and community groups.
To conclude, the ethical implications of OUV as a primary framework for heritage evaluation are far-reaching. Striving for universality results in heritage evaluation being tied to an “objective” perspective that centralises a particular worldview; in this case, a Western ontology that negatively impacts the ability for global cultures to express heritage in a way that is representative within the OUV framework. Additionally, a lack of clarity in the definition of “Outstanding Universal Value” itself has resulted in the scientisation and professionalisation of these evaluations. In turn, this has caused WH to have an increasingly top-down and authoritative relationship with the public, limiting their ability to have the local significance of heritage represented in the WHL and maintain democratic control of heritage by locals.
Bibliography
Bai, N., P. Nourian, R. Luo, and A. Pereira Roders. 2021. ““What Is Ouv” Revisited: A Computational Interpretation on the Statements of Outstanding Universal Value." ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences (Gottingen, Germany) VIII-M-1–2021: 25–32. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-VIII-M-1-2021-25-2021.
Borges, Breno. 2025. “(De)Valued Railway Heritage – The Case of Barreiro, Portugal.” The Journal of Transport History 0 (0): 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/00225266251355463.
Cocks, M., S. Vetter, and K. F. Wiersum. 2018. “From Universal to Local: Perspectives on Cultural Landscape Heritage in South Africa.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 24 (1): 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1362573.
Dattilo, Martina, Fabio Padovano, and Yvon Rocaboy. 2025. “Soft-Power and pro-European Bias in the UNESCO World Heritage List? A Test Based on ICOMOS Experts’ Evaluations of Colonial Sites.” Public Choice 204 (3): 425–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-024-01248-z.
Ismaeel, Emad Hani. 2023. “D&C Technique as an MCDM Tool for Managing the Heritage Value Assessment of Historic Buildings in Post-War Cities: Mosul Old City as a Case Study.” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 15 (3): 707–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-03-2022-0042.
Kalman, Harold, and Marcus R. Létourneau. 2020. “Heritage Planning: Principles and Process.” Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429431692.
Matthes, Erich Hatala. 2015. “Impersonal Value, Universal Value, and the Scope of Cultural Heritage.” Ethics 125 (4): 999–1027. https://doi.org/10.1086/680908.
McNaughton, Darlene, Michael Morrison, and Cassie Schill. 2016. ““My Country Is like My Mother…”: Respect, Care, Interaction and Closeness as Principles for Undertaking Cultural Heritage Assessments.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 22 (6): 415–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2016.1165277.
Molina, Barbara, Gabriela Eljuri, and Xavier Roigé Ventura. 2023. “Citizens’ Perceptions of World Heritage Values: The Case of Cuenca, Ecuador.” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 15 (3): 597–612. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-01-2022-0006.
Morgane, Bos, Claeys Damien, Stiernon Dorothée, and David Vandenbroucke. 2025. “Objectivising Heritage Assessment with Values: Criteria-Based Grid and Constructivist Approach.” Heritage 8 (4): 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8040116.
Schmutz, Vaughn, and Michael A. Elliott. 2017. “World Heritage and the Scientific Consecration of “Outstanding Universal Value”.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 58 (2): 140–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715217703778.
Silberman, Neil A. 2012. “Heritage Interpretation and Human Rights: Documenting Diversity, Expressing Identity, or Establishing Universal Principles?” International Journal of Heritage Studies 18 (3): 245–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.643910.
Smith, Anita. 2015. “World Heritage and Outstanding Universal Value in the Pacific Islands.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 21 (2): 177–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2014.930066.
Tucker, Hazel, and Elizabeth Carnegie. 2014. “World Heritage and the Contradictions of “Universal Value”.” Annals of Tourism Research 47 (July): 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.04.003.
शिवाजी विद्यापीठात मोडी लिपी अभ्यासक्रम - २२ सप्टेंबरपर्यंत प्रवेश नोंदवा
मोडी लिपी अभ्यासक्रमाला २२ सप्टेंबरपर्यंत प्रवेश नोंदविण्याचे आवाहन
कोल्हापूर: छत्रपती शाहू महाराज मराठा इतिहास अध्ययन केंद्र व शिवाजी विद्यापीठाचा इतिहास अधिविभाग यांच्यामार्फत दिनांक 22 सप्टेंबर 2025 पर्यंत मोडी लिपी प्रमाणपत्र अभ्यासक्रमासाठी प्रवेश प्रक्रिया राबविण्यात येत आहे. अभ्यासक्रमाचा कालावधी सहा महिन्याचा असून प्रवेशाकरिता शैक्षणिक पात्रता पदवी आहे, अशी माहिती केंद्राच्या समन्वयक डॉ.…
The second keynote from that seminar, and this one is if possible even better than the first one. Anyone who is interested in decolonisation of museums, especially repatriation of objects, should listen to this, Wayne Modest does an incredible job at illuminating the issues, and gives really concrete examples of problems he has encountered during his career, etc.
I’m Anas, former architecture student (with a Bachelor’s and everything) turned to a Master’s in heritage conservation.
As architects love pretty pictures and hate reading, I’ve got some writing practice to catch up on. Which is why I decided on starting a little blog, writing about (built) heritage conservation history and theory and hopefully shining some light on the contemporary challenges cultural heritage management is up against.
This means that my posts are not the writings of a professional in this field but of someone who aspires to work full-time with built heritage someday. What I post will reflect my interest but also my lack of experience. Since this is a micro blogging website I’ll also just reblog things that are interesting without adding commentary to it besides tags. I hope you can enjoy it nevertheless and encourage you to ask for more detail or better sources where things seem unclear. Questions like that will most likely help me improve my research and writing skills :)
Furthermore I live and study in Germany, so this shapes my perspective and experience. Please keep that in mind, as culural heritage management differs as much as cultural heritage, thus methods that are best practice in Germany might be highly controversial in other parts of the world. Starting as close as France, Italy and Poland.
Finally a short list of my interests so you know what you’re in for:
- the problem of the authorized heritage discourse
- approriation vs misappropriation
- communication
- digital heritage and digital documentation and communication methods
- social history (over military history any day)
- subaltern heritage
- time periods of special interest are: the 20th century and it’s reform movements and the renaissance (to keep that period as broad as possible - yet, mostly florentine Renaissance)
Projects I’m currently involved in (however losely):
- research on a church building project of the 1950ies (my thesis)
- a digitalisation project on a late medieval church (my work)
- research and upkeep of an anarcho-syndicalistic hiking lodge from the 1920ies (my hobby I guess? anyway to level out all the church stuff)
- a puzzle game in an art noveau villa from 1902 (more hobby stuff)
My spoken languages are:
German, English, and some Italian
and I understand easy Spanish and French (with dictionary help) but don't expect me to write in these
