Lisa Breglia. Monumental Ambivalence: The Politics of Heritage.

Lisa Breglia. Monumental Ambivalence: The Politics of Heritage. Lisa Breglia. Monumental Ambivalence: The Politics of Heritage. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2006. 256 pp. Lisa Breglia's Monumental Ambivalence: The Politics ofHeritage (2006) is an original multi-sited and comparative examinationof the construction of meaning in monuments--what she calls"heritage-as-practice." As a tributary of ZygmuntBauman's Modernity and Ambivalence (1991), and Henry LeFebre'sProduction of Space (1991), the book offers a key contribution tostudents and professionals engaged in Critical Heritage Studies.Additionally, its implicit consideration of the sources ofpoliticization around heritage as a symbolic territory deservesconsideration in light of mounting international tensions over it. (1) Her research gets to these overarching aims by firstcircumambulating around two archeological/monumental sites found in theYucatan Peninsula of Mexico--one a UNESCO World Heritage Site, ChitchenItza, and the other, Chucumil, a heritage site-to-be. Each site isdiscursively excavated for a genealogy of its symbolically laden andterritorialized meanings. As the title suggests, the meanings are notalways certain, nor uncontested. Instead they are produced--throughpractice. And, the most evident mixed-use practices she documents ashaving taken place around the sites are mostly the result of ahistorically discursive cloisonne of science, neoliberalism, andinternational and national policy--all allegedly ambivalent orunconcerned. Thus, certain referential frames, such as "tangibleheritage," monument of "ancient civilization,"national/cultural patrimony, and/or, site of touristic development,construct Chitchen Itza and Chucucmil both as monumental-heritage placesthat are conceptually outside of the contemporary land, labor, orculture claims that any specific de facto, local heir may have overthem. That there may be de facto local practices and interests notrecognized de jure is a feature common to modern States' withhistorical minority and ethnic groups. After Breglia shows that it is through the allegedly ambivalentmodern legal, bureaucratic, and scientific interests in the historicalor national value of the sites, it becomes clear how certain otherconnections are systematically undervalued, even as they are decidedlynon-ambivalent. Such non-ambivalent stakes that some local Yucatec Mayaand even other foreign social actors have tried to have in the heritagesites are secure jobs, entrepreneurial opportunities, land, tourism, andcontemporary folk beliefs. Thus, Breglia also anticipates wherepoliticization is likely. Maya with secure jobs and opportunity atChitchen Itza had already been protesting the Mexican government'sdeclaration to turn the monument over to private hands. And at Chucumil,some Maya with patrifruct rights (2) to the land inside thearcheological zone perceive the actual land beneath and around the ruinsas a landscape of de facto intangible heritage. But Breglia notes thatthese heirs are becoming "docile"heirs-made-"illegitimate." Would this be happening if someonehad been contesting Chucumil through de jure International precedentssuch as UNESCO's "intangible heritage"-which includes theindigenous knowledge, folklore, and cultural expressions based interritorial natural resources? Chapter Four, "By Blood or By Sweat,Shaping Rights to World Heritage" implies that the invisible andcontemporary labor practices going into the production of monumentmeanings are also worthy of intangible heritage notice. However, such an explicit recommendation on behalf of any onesocial actor is not found in Monumental Ambivalence. This is even thoughthe ledger of histories, archived titles and policy, offer numerousgrounds for different and competing claims to the resources around thesites. Even the end of Chapter Six--Archeology, Ejidos, andSpace-Claiming Techniques, offers evidence to argue that Maya with ejidoland grants in the Chuchucmil archeological zone--expropriated byMexican State as eminent domain--deserve compensation for the loss ofagrarian products. But this is not Breglia's overarching point. And even thoughher Chuchucmil data was derived from an applied anthropology job, herbook has more implicit lessons for the agent of the Modern State,archeology, or International Heritage and Monuments policy. Thus, heroverall caveat rests in anecdotes about the misapprehended Maya figuresof the exotic past and/or present. But the thought that actual consideration of local Maya shoulddisturb an outsider's awareness of who is an actual,legitimately-practicing stakeholder in the meaning of monuments shouldbe taken seriously. How many archeologists, cultural resource managementofficials, or tourists have met "new" heirs or stake-holdersin monumental sites with surprise or dismay? In some regards,archeological ruins and monuments sites have been built upon a subsoilof presumption that assumes an either irrelevant or erased past andlocal connection. Especially if the monumental meanings are erased fromany one historical body's relation to its meaning, the subsequentterra nullius view permits the inscription of anybody's"new" meanings. Shortly thereafter, nobody's--or a"neutral" State bureaucrat's orscientist's--meanings become intelligible. But in spite of the official archeological or historical meaningthen given, the "heritage" appears more as a "new"frontier of scientific meaning than it does as an actual past history ofproximate relations, practices, and connections. Thus, MonumentalAmbivalence: The Politics of Heritage illustrates comprehensively howthe Heritage Industry in nostalgia gives way to a business (and strategyand politics) in "ruins." And who benefits most from this ineach case is likely to continue to be politicized--especially withoutrecognition that the politics were even there a priori. REFERENCES Bauman, Zygmunt. 1991. Modernity and Ambivalence. Cambridge,England. Blackwell. Lefebre, Henri. 1974/1991. The Production of Space. Trans. DonaldNicholson-Smith. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Chloe Frommer University of Oregon ENDNOTES (1) Examples include the Thai-Cambodian dispute over Preah Viharand the BolivianPeruvian dispute over La Diablada dance. See forinstance, Montlake, Simon. 2008. "Why the Thai-Cambodian DisputeCase Lingers." Christian Science Monitor, April 22. Accessedhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0722/p06s02-wosc.html on August 31 andMoffat, Matt and Kozak, Robert. 2009. "lnSpat Between Bolivia andPeru, The Devil is in the Details," Wall Street Journal. August 21.Accessed http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125081309502848049.html onAugust 31. (2) She innovates a new term for the patrilineal group'sentitlement to use--in place of usufruct rights.