Heritage as a Notion

In this blog, I reflect on the topic of heritage in the context of South Africa. In the discussion, I will link heritage with the topic of decolonial theory and practice. Heritage is both a practical expression of identity as well as a notion. The latter is contentious whereby heritage is “an active cultural construction” (Sheperd, 2008: 125). Being an individual expression; heritage also oscillates around the collective viewpoint of a common history, presenting a critical starting point for understanding post-colonial cultural identities in decolonial terms.

Familiarly known through objects; monuments; museums; theme parks et cetera, heritage is in the way people express themselves. This may be through customary practises; various dances; attire which reflects the occasion; signing; instruments and drums, all informed by a historical identity. Thus, heritage can be historicised and encourage cultural pride. Heritage materials such as artefacts monuments; museums; theme parks are national heritage since these are a collectively experienced identity.

Learning about our history through heritage instils knowledge founded on human experience. So, heritage is an educative tool. Defined, heritage means it is something inherited. Nick Sheperd (2008) says this familiar view is too simple to capture the expressiveness of heritage. Historicising heritage poses a narrative about national history. I term it heritage authority, referring to hegemonic claims (Freund; 1986: 367) to the national culture in South Africa. Thus, unpacking the heritage authority in post-colonial South Africa makes belonging and citizenship evidently contested matters.

Heritage is a nuanced notion. It is the site in which new cultural identities in the postcolonial setting conflict with notions of belonging. Shepherd cites the criticism by Mahmood Mamdani (1996) about the two-sided nature of post-colonial citizenship (Ibid) whereby national liberation is there yet emancipation is yet to have an expression. Liberation from colonialism is an incomplete form of emancipation. The following lengthy quote offers a precise view of the paradox of colonial independence:

"On the one hand, persons appear as citizens of the modern, secular state, in which their status is defined by rights and entitlements framed as individual rights and guaranteed by the apparatus of the courts and the constitution. On the other hand, the majority of such citizens simultaneously appear as subjects of […] the ‘Kingdom of Tradition’, where cultural rights and obligations defy their existence. Furthermore, there are multiple instances in which the assertion of rights is incompatible across these two spheres, for example, in practices of patriarchy cast as cultural practises of male ascendancy" (Sheperd; 2008: 124).

The above post-colonial paradox is an evident example of the South African Heritage Day. A contemporary example is Heritage Day, or ‘braai’ (barbeque gathering) day where one must assert being a compatriot by engaging in braai day activities such as sports. They match their clothing colours with the national rugby team and host a braai in support of the team. On the other side, the understanding of Heritage Day celebration from indigenous practices involves traditional attire.

The diversity of South Africa is celebrated but from different understandings of Heritage Day; with each side claiming its ownership to their perceptions of heritage in South Africa. Such persistence in asserting originality to culture and national heritage enforces difference: an original culture versus a diluted one. The confusion is caused by the blanket national identity of being a ‘rainbow nation’. Heritage here expresses itself as a coerced self-expression. Thus, the notion of heritage shows that our post-colonial cultural identities exist as extensions of the past in the present.

Since heritage is more experienced than can be identified, it is a useful practice of decolonial theory. The “heritage effect” by Nick Shepherd (2008:125) conceptualises heritage as a “set of effects” (Ibid); which means that we may broaden the notion of heritage into its efficacy. It is an unlimited notion that goes beyond ideas of culture and identity. It “places notions of culture and identity beyond critique” (125) by “associating [these notions] with the sacred” (Ibid). Thus, heritage is “self-evident, entire, enclosed with its own logic” (Ibid).

Additionally, the historicization (Ibid) of heritage associates it with related concepts such as race gender and nation (Ibid). It means that heritage is a point of reference when investigating the evolution of our cultures and then asking difficult questions about what this implies to new cultural identities in the post-colonial setting. How easy it is, or not, to render our post-colonial cultural identities authentic enough? Where we perceive untrue or made-up (Freund; 1986:368) heritage, perhaps terminology such as “settled identity” (Shepherd; 2008: 126) can come to the surface, to aid heritage dialogue. I recommend that the contestations of hegemony presented by the heritage notion are used as a guide to localise the notion in South Africa.