Semillas del Desarraigo (Spanish Edition)

---

Beyond the Leonesist rhetoric, there are no identity struggles or constructions at work. Neither there is a large tourism sector that can lead to the trivialization of heritage assets. For most people, patrimonio — heritage — refers to the traditional use of the term, i. In this sense we can speak of a pre- heritage situation in transition to a postmodern conception of heritage characterized by the metacultural selection of specific items as valuable.

For Prats, this dialectic occurs between places with a local heritage and those with a heritage localized through specific heritage processes Of course, this situation arises from the social complexity of an area where multiple presents, rhythms and temporalities coexist. Thus, the preindustrial communities in transition to modernity are today moving away from traditional lifestyles and the material culture associated with them.

How to deal with this is the problem, to characterize new societies. The different ways through which the social desire for the past will materialize and take ground in the social will lead to specific territorializations, which define new social hierarchies, the available life paths for each social actor, and the kinds of subjectivities, identities and agencies that are tolerated and supported.

These territorializations can only be understood within the dynamic tension existing between the local and the global, modernity and tradition. The traditional and the local are crucial assets as immaterial value in a postmodern global society that appraises knowledge, leisure and culture. From here, an anti-essentialist understanding of heritage implies following the Deleuzian logics of difference in various senses: Heritage is a key driver in postindustrial economies not because it can provide any form of real identification with preindustrial communities or a return to tradition, nature or the rural.

The assumption of symbolic references via heritage to the worlds of each subject fulfils this task perfectly: Rather, it is the symbolic representation and the individual affirmation of a specific mode of existence that represents some values. The supermodern identity replaces the direct relationship between individuals with metaphorical and symbolic affiliations that endow meanings to different heritage assets and places. These territorializations articulated the symbolic landscape where they live and that they share with other members of the society and no longer of the community, as we will see below.

Thus, the modern is not only a condition of disenchantment as Weber diagnosed. For Grossberg , the modern ethos goes beyond the establishment of differences with and from the others, to embrace a constant difference from itself, both temporally and spatially.

The modern never constitutes itself as an identity different from others but as a difference always different from itself-across time and space. Consequently, the heritage machine enacts constant homogenizations through difference in villages such as Valdespino, Lagunas, Castrillo, Santiago Millas or Val de San Lorenzo. Far from recovering any sort of communitarian ethos in material or symbolic terms, these heritage processes employ the visual economy of the village to convey certain values and meanings of individualized subjects.

Buy for others

That is, to construct something new and to invest energy, emotions and money in the effort. These interventions result in a shattering of community and the establishment of a society, and micro-societies, such as the one formed in Santaigo Millas to safeguard the interests of a privileged group. Heritage works here as a vector and a substance to articulate this claims, while at the same time creating and nurturing the affective environment where interactions take place in society.

Therefore, heritage serves to establish new power relations based on symbolic and mnemonic expressions, which prevent the resolution of matters of concern for the community in the field of local politics. From this standpoint, heritage works in tune with post-politics, where affective and symbolic interventions in the social sphere to impose patterns of behavior, taste, value and lifestyle that confer hegemonic positions and privilege the agency of certain social actors. Heritage, like tradition, is a slippery concept that escapes bounded definitions.

It is a constructed and dynamic reality, which can be modulated according to factors external to the heritage objects that constitute it through the establishment of relations external to their terms. That is, heritage is an assemblage in the sense that it can only exist inscribed in relational networks of value, knowledge and leisure that sustain its immaterial values and its capacity to convey identities and memories. Therefore, heritage can exist as an object, a discourse or a practice, without actually permeating or having a real existence in the social sphere.

Only when a wide array of externalities and agencies of multiple subjects converge, the existence of heritage is made possible as a relevant vector within the public sphere. For instance, a postindustrial economy and a welfare state are necessary to sustain the intermingling between the realms of culture and leisure. In addition, the existence of a highly educated population with leisure time and purchasing power, bureaucratic institutions capable of administering and managing metacultural notions and using them for the reproduction of the State system, and entrepreneurs who can take advantage of the situation and capture the values produced by the political economies of heritage.

Consequently, the strength of heritagization processes is equally low. This is so because the territorializations that occur have a local character and reflect the multiplicity of converging interests and tensions between different social actors. Also, it shows that heritage processes can take many meanings and forms far from global institutional and academic heritage discourses and market values.

My research has sought to understand the variable consequences of heritagization processes in the different cases of study, focusing in the potential relations between these local actualizations and other scales. The cases of study have explored this interplay between modernity and tradition and between the two abstract conceptions of heritage as an immanent bounded relation and heritage as a transcendental metacultural selection of valuable features.

All the cases evince the importance of non-linear causality and complex emergence in the processes of development and enacting of heritage discourses and practices, and their consequences for the reorganization of the social sphere and power relations. Therefore, we have moved from the social construction of cultural representation to the attempt by social actors to materialize these representations in reality, by the construction of houses that try to imitate maragato architecture or the revitalization of maragato music and dress. Heritage has become, more than ever, a discourse with material consequences Smith Similarly, the distribution of agencies and subjectivities derived from this process relegates the paisanos to a subaltern position within the political economies of the village.

They are reified and classified by academics, folklorists and institutions as entities that represent something — tradition, the past, the roots, and so on. Furthermore, they do not join the metacultural discourse of heritage metaphorical — the objects refer and establish a relation with the outside of the object , but rather live culturally metonymically — relationships are enclosed within objects in the heritage. That is, what heritage subjects represent and classify as primitive, archaic and worth recovering, is precisely the world where other social group dwells and gives meaning to its life experience.

As Grossberg argues, the modern identity is sublimated precisely in the establishment of temporal differences. The supermodern goes beyond this dichotomy and exaggerates it. Thus, they bring the urban mindsets and behaviors to the rural, while at the same time adapting to local aesthetics formally, in a subtle identification with the values of the rural without actually inhabiting it.

It is clear then that cultural representations of difference are used to gain value and rearticulate the social sphere.

fundación semillas de vida

However, they are also suitable for identity building purposes and the support of nation-building narratives. For instance, once it has been reified, the paisano can be considered as the ultimate essence and bearer of the identity of the Leonese imagined community. As Adorno argued, these cultural processes serve to recode difference and homogenize it.

Thus, heritage is a fundamental device in the process that reifies, segments and rearticulates the immanent realities in communities to impose novel negations, languages and repressions. What remains as invisible, inaudible and unpronounceable is the actual alterity of the subjects studied and their impossible incorporation into the current social sphere. The coloniality of power leaves unwanted subjects two options: Sadly, we are witnessing this process with the preindustrial vernacular cultures of northwestern Spain, their forms of property, social organization and interrelation.

The friction between culture and metaculture remains in a constant tension between the immanent and transcendent realms. Conversely, in Val de San Lorenzo or Santiago Millas, heritage has been deterritorialized and extricated from the community as metaculture, in a process based on external categories and judgments. In Prada de la Sierra, the Camino de Santiago or the Military Range of the Teleno Mountain, heritage serves to negotiate power positions and authority. Social actors use it to make symbolic claims in the realm of sociopolitical debates and struggles.

For instance, my case study shows how all social actors involved in the conflict, from ecologists to the Ministry of Defense, have moved from the political struggles of the s and s to negotiate conflict in the symbolic realm of metaculture and heritage. Those against the Range do not use political but post- political arguments: Rather, what matters is that it is damaging a natural and cultural heritage in the Teleno Mountain.

Meanwhile, the military and the state apparatus employed the modern power-knowledge assemblage to attempt to construct the Range as an ideal device for the protection of heritage, and especially natural heritage. In other words, once the heritage discursive field becomes hegemonic, what matters is the metacultural relation between individuals and a specific heritage, either in the Military Range of the Teleno Mountin or in South American indigenous communities see Montenegro Academic forms of knowledge production and their positioning as researchers in the field contribute to this state of affairs 2.

On how to Combine Methodology and Theory. If it is so disgusting to judge, it is not because everything is of equal value, but on the contrary because what has value can be made or distinguished only by defying judgment. What expert judgment, in art, could ever bear on the work to come? It is the arena of consent and resistance. It is partly where hegemony arises and where it is secured. It is not a sphere where socialism, a socialist culture-already fully formed- might be simply expressed.

But it is one of the places where socialism might be constituted. That is why popular culture matters. The will to know derives from the modern break that causes a separation between the human and non-human realms and the creation of the creation of all the dichotomies assumed and reproduced by modern Western science: Also, continues Hernando, as the individualization of modern subjects increases and their rational explanatory models gain accuracy, there is an increasing emotional detachment from the world.

The supermodern or postmodern ethos represents an attempt to rebalance this emotional rupture and loss of emotion and bounded attachment to the real. However, what is not lost is the will to knowledge-power, controlling the social field and explaining its phenomena. Therefore, as is well known after Foucault, knowledge is necessary to impose novel transcendental models that serve to order what has been understood and explained.

From here, two basic images of heritage as a field of study arise.

Each of them has different assumptions and ideas concerning truth, knowledge and the ultimate aims of research. Official or colonial heritage studies share an understanding of knowledge based on the models provided by positive science. In brief, the main objective is to establish regimes of truth through appropriate epistemologies that enable the researcher to attain a correspondence between the observed phenomena and the theoretical representations made of them.

Therefore, this standpoint affirms the existence of a static and truthful external world, a given empirical reality where social realities take place. Accordingly, research is the outcome of the application of concepts extrinsic to the subject matter of investigation. We know beforehand what social relations are, or cognition, kinship, religion, family, politics, heritage, etc. With Winter , we have seen how the market and the state promote specific forms of heritage expertise and knowledge according to hegemonic needs.

Thus, heritage research here comes down to what Nietzsche defined as the task of the antiquarian. That is, the ultimate aim of heritage research is the preservation of certain objects to which hegemonic social actors accord specific values. There are several ways by which the knowledge produced by archaeologists, anthropologists and researchers can channel the overabundance of capital to the expansion of the colonial border through the creation of new commodities and regimes of value Haber c.

This concept developed by Peruvian sociologist Anibal Quijano ; ; refers to an operation of power that naturalizes territorial, racial, cultural and epistemic hierarchies, enabling the reproduction of relations of domination. These expansions find today a privileged vector of expansion in the heritage machine, but are also anchored in traditional disciplinary boundaries and their operations. These strategies are reflected in the search to preserve certain valuable elements as the ultimate aim of research, in a typically institutional approach. Subsequently, the researcher tries to define, segment and classify these elements into close-cut categories.

Curiously enough, this drive towards the expansion of the conceptual boundaries of heritage reflects and measures the distance that a certain society and its subjects have generated between subject and object, culture and metaculture. Thus, a mining pit, the remnants of a nuclear missile bunker in Cuba, or the common law of a community, can become heritage once they are extricated from contexts of real social interaction and negotiation.

Therefore, this sort of research reproduces the old antagonisms of class, gender, and race that make possible the existence of the power-knowledge assemblage as such. Another option within the official research framework is to develop a critical strand of research. This sort of investigation shares the ontological and epistemological principles of positive science, yet it differs in its objectives: Critical knowledge appears strongly in heritage ethnographies or historic studies of heritagization processes, that unveil the implicit inequalities and hierarchizations that they cause and how they reproduce class, gender or ethnic antagonisms, whether they are carried out by market or state forces.

That is, is assumes that heritagization processes corrupt the authenticity and purity previously embodied by heritage entities. However, more complex critical studies account for the social construction of heritage, revealing the injustices inherent to the process, and deconstruct the myth of heritage authenticity Andrews ; Lowenthal ; Uzzell In addition, they fulfill the task that has been considered fundamental in the critical tradition derived from the Enlightenment, i.

However, we must keep in mind that this sort of rational knowledge about the world still imposes the modern break between subject of enunciation and subject of the statement, between researcher and reality. Therefore, it carries on expanding the rupture between the immanent practices situated in communities and the transcendental knowledge acquisition practices. This standpoint contributes to the colonial violence, both internal e.

A critical stance involves assuming a position in favor of one of the sides in the conflicts around heritagization processes, whether against commoditization, market values or the imposition of ethnic, gender or racial categories or specific territorializations by the state. However, even if a critical stance overtly supports one of the sides of the social antagonisms, it does not overcome the growing objectivation of the subjects and processes under study because it has created a distance from them.

In case this is not done, both the positivist and critical strands of heritage studies will carry on exploring, expanding and constructing the world in a certain fashion, inoculating Western epistemologies and their inherent beliefs wherever they go. The existence of that rupture in the objective world is, then, situated beyond the nature of the world, it is already encoded in the instruments with which the world is known.

We, as researchers, are involved in the antagonist relations that articulate certain power relations and constitute ourselves as researchers. To avoid this schizophrenic derivation, it is necessary to establish relations with those subjects and objects under study and account for how social dynamics constitute ourselves as researchers Haber This is so because, according to Winter , the dominant forms of heritage knowledge production are not the result of a higher epistemological accuracy or a better explanatory power, but rather the outcome of the support provided by the State apparatus or the market forces to those same forms of heritage knowledge.

That is, specific forms of heritage knowledge are privileged because they provide narrations suitable for nation building purposes or facilitate the reproduction of capital. Thus, a critical heritage research might limit its scope to the interpretation and criticism of heritage processes as texts in relation with other texts, academic, legislative, etc.

Where are the continuations or prolongations of the epistemological heritage texts leading us? The official positivist texts extend not only in the academic networks but also continue in the actual heritagization processes. The official critical texts expand in academic networks to gather academic capital, with a rather feeble impact in real contexts, as they are not favored by the State apparatus or by the market. Part of the critical endeavors in the field of heritage can be equated with the figure of the postmodern ironist as described by Rorty or Zizek For them, the ironist represents the paramount conservative stance, since it embraces relativism and stands back to observe what the others are doing to criticize them, without producing anything new or transforming the existing social field and its constitutive relationships.

Smith and Deleuze This situation is given by the subject position of the researcher in the outside and above, that enables him to aseptically judge and support one side or another of the antagonisms objectively identified in the social field. Rorty sets out a somewhat similar opposition. Hewison ; Samuel One says or does this, thinks or feels that: What mode of existence does the heritagization of Prada de la Sierra, Santiago Millas, or the Camino de Santiago imply? Then, is there an alternative to the reproduction of present states of affaires and the mere critical account of heritagization processes from privileged positions?

Perhaps the starting point for such an alternative is to start conceiving our research as a situated practice, in close contact with the modes of existence of situated communities, rather than as a contribution to a global discourse that we call heritage. In other words, studying heritage becomes a task of transcendental judgment in connection with certain universal values rather than an immanent assessment of situated modes of existence.

This strategy of heritage knowledge production is related to what Latour has called the principle of symmetry. This implies that forms of academic knowledge acquisition pathways should be conceptually of the same kind of those employed by the subjects being investigated Viveiros de Castro This deleuzian conception of scientific knowledge assumes the creative and productive character of scientific knowledge.

Knowledge does not serve to create metaphors about the world but is itself added to the world Law a. Our understanding of non- representation theory is that it is characterize by a firm belief in the actuality of representations. It does not approach representations as masks, gazes, reflections, veils, dreams, ideologies, as anything that is laid over the ontic life and its meanings.

Consequently, the social sciences and the humanities struggle to deal with the materiality of things and the subjectivity of individuals. Nonetheless, as with the issue of gender reported by Halewood, these criticisms do not prevent or challenge in any form the increasing intensity and extension of heritagization processes and their growing superficiality and open mercantilist character under strict bureaucratic control. If we want heritage research to have some influence in the world, outside the text and the academic networks of epistemological knowledge production, we should conceive of research as a directly ontological task and, consequently, inherently political.

This is so because everything that is added to the world contributes to shaping and articulating it in one way or another. The setting of the research is at the crossroads between both types of relations, and it is there that the antagonistic cartography allows us to situate the investigation.

As we have seen earlier, this position involves enunciating a transcendental judgment from the dominant position that the research setting confers.

Meaning of "higo" in the Spanish dictionary

In fact, this is rarely the case. Therefore, it is problematic to claim that we, as researchers, are unveiling truths, ideologies or hidden meanings, or providing all encompassing explanations and interpretations of highly complex processes. Thus, in order to attempt to shorten the gap between researcher and researched, I have tried to follow a Deleuzian epistemology. Gallego defines a Deleuzian epistemology not as pure praxis or teoresis but rather poiesis: Therefore, scientific reflection does not imply a pure immersion in the praxis of heritage management or exclusively the search of accurate epistemological correspondences between scientific metaphors and reality.

The outcomes of scientific research should then be problematic rather than hypothetical — a set of legitimate beliefs — or nomological — a system of universal laws Gallego Likewise, the researcher should not seek deduction, that is, making explicit what is already known, such as the role of state or market forces in heritagization processes.

The knowledge to be produced should be abductive or retroductive, which means that it should be partial and situated in specific local contexts of reference Toscano This locally situated knowledge opens the door to practical interventions in heritage management. While almost all knowledge facilitates the intervention of hegemonic social actors in the social, the abductive knowledge produced in my research is hardly useful to underpin institutional practices, nationalist-regionalist discourses or market commoditization.

Therefore, it serves to make sense of the manifold and unexpected alliances and connections established between different social actors following the logic of difference rather than of identity. Peasants and hippies inhabit different ontological realities but similar forms of relating with the environment bound them.

In other words, it establishes a new symbolic landscape, a new regime of truth and a novel material organization of reality. The heritage machine is adapted to an era of control rather than discipline Deleuze What matters here is not to legitimize national narratives or to devise new forms of governing the population although it contributes to this end , but rather to work in tune with postindustrial economies. Those are characterized by high levels of complexity, speed and change.

Customers who bought this item also bought

The heritage discourse and the heritage sector thrive in the interactions between the multiple presents, speeds and dimensions that exist in a global market where value emerges from the friction between these various ontological dimensions. Thus, what is here a local tradition associated with slow rhythms of life, archaism and poverty, is there an object of consumption as something exotic, different and exciting, which represents the values of sustainability, socio-ecological balance and connection with the land.

The heritage machine does not resort to transcendent universal values but rather works to produce value in the immanent assessments of heritage values and affirmations of specific modes of existence carried out by social actors in the global village. These concepts are not the cause or the outcome of the heritage machine.

Rather, they should be understood as co-constitutive of it, as there is no intrinsic relation between identity, memory and heritage. The heritage machine articulates the social field in ways that favor the emergence of specific forms of identity and heritage in a constant interplay between local situations and global contexts. Thus, the heritage machine conditions the agency and subject position of different individuals, functioning as an attractor bodies and people tend towards, within a biopolitical turn of the economy and a metacultural shift in the cultural realm Urban, In this sense, the heritage machine encourages a form of contemporary conservatism at the ideological and vital levels, as it is sustained and underpinned by certain modes of existence that enable its reproduction.

Those are the heritage subjectivities, ultimate representatives of the contempory process of individualization. The widespread of universal reason has led to an overall loss of rootedness and the sense of belonging and membership to communities. However, rather than a return to nationalism and wider imagined communities, the heritage machine fosters the construction of ever more individualized identities through symbolic and metacultural associations established via heritage. The ownership, construction, manipulation and display of heritage is conceived as a vital and individual investment to mark the differences with others.

This is evinced in the various forms of relating and symbolically playing with the past, constructing or restoring maragato houses, displaying agricultural tools, or reifying the peasants as knowledge objects for political purposes. In this sense, the heritage machine furthers the split of local communities and their immanent relations.

This process is intrinsically related with the establishment of liberal democracies and their peculiar way of understanding freedom on an individual basis. Modernity segments the traditional opposition between Gesellschaft society as an external gathering of atomized individuals with a specific goal and Gemeinschaft a community bounded by organic links without any specific goal where face-to-face and spiritual relations prevail , prioritizing the imposition of the former.

Furthermore, modernity establishes a clear-cut dichotomy between the public and the private realms, which gradually obliterate the common and take over the social space previously occupied by the community. Nevertheless, it is important to clarify here that it would be deceiving to argue that only capitalist and liberal logics enacted the obliteration of communities. The states living under the so-called real or existing socialism imposed the social over the common, shattering communities peasant, familial or religious and accelerating the pace of life.

These modernizing processes gradually separated specific realms of communities from one another: The permanent deterritorialization of communities and the common is exacerbated during supermodernity. The heritage machine performs a deepening of the individualization process by which subjects do not gather any more in communities, but rather live their individual solitudes in shared temporalities and spaces. Likewise, the heritage machine operates transversally, traversing the modern dualisms of nature and culture, soul and body, to reorganize production so as to generate isolated individuals surrounded by chaos and complexity, and not anymore to impose any sort of discipline or modern-derived governance framework.

This is evinced by the evolution of the materiality in maragato villages. In modern times, the communitarian ethos that had prevailed hitherto was broken. Consequently, the almost complete formal homogeneity of architectural patterns in the buildings of the village was disrupted, resulting in the sprouting of modern buildings and materials use of bricks, concrete, metal or plastic elements as signs of distinction, wealth, and modernity.

In turn, the supermodern heritage machine implied an exaggeration of modernity: The aim now is now to establish a disjunctive connection with the past and tradition. That is, a symbolic connection with tradition not in order to reinstate community and affirm a communitarian ethos, but rather to assert an individual identity from and through difference. Villages like Santiago Millas reflect those multiple presents in their materiality. Preindustrial homogenous buildings stand side to side with large supermodern buildings, whose unity lies precisely in the repetition of a certain difference, or a ritornello in Deleuzian terminology.

Therefore, supermodernity breaks with modernity and the functional relation with reality, and moves to the symbolic field, thus curtailing the immanent relations through which the relational premodern identities are constituted Hernando Gonzalo, Clearly, these devices that serve to reinforce distinction are resources for reproducing difference, inequality and hegemony. Ultimately, this is a process of deterritorialization and reterritorialization, or deassembling and reassembling cultures and societies to set them in tune with new capitalist developments: To achieve this, they separate the economic basis from cultural representations and break the unity between production, circulation, and consumption and between individuals and the community.

At a second stage, or simultaneously, they put the pieces back together again and subordinate them to a globalization of culture that corresponds to the nationalization of capital. We will examine this process through one of its principal mechanism: The different forms of symbolic appropriation and struggle in the public landscapes of villages are performed through the aesthetics and functions of the house. The family and the house are included in a common relational network in which they become, along with the farm, the chakra, the seeds, the irrigation ditches, the animals, the gods.

Rather, supermodernity and the heritage machine result in an all-encompassing homogenization of the social sphere and the appearance of ever more strict and narrow social models of subjectivity that exclude from the social sphere those who do not assume or concur with the hegemonic values. Consequently, when most households in a community heritagize their houses to underscore their difference from the others, a new relational identity, a regime of truth and a new set of meanings emerge. However, this is a hegemonic and exclusivist grouping of solitudes, a society rather than a community.

It is true that heritage has become a device that is being employed to transform communities into societies of autonomous individuals and commons into private properties. Of course, it is crucial to explore, analyze and understand heritagization processes and criticize them epistemology. However, we must go beyond this stance to problematize them and explore the potential they hold for being redirected towards other aims with material effects ontology. That is, we must be aware that when we decide what is the legitimate set of objects that populate our studies and the world, we are directly producing new heritages and excluding others Suddaby Therefore, to act politically does not mean to discursively opt for one position or the other in the antagonisms of the social field, but to establish an immanent relation with them, inhabit and transforming them Haber c.

This implies leaving behind the dualism promoted in the Anglo-Saxon world that separates research from commitment and activism, something already denounced by Horkheimer and Bourdieu We must not forget that the field of heritage studies has expanded qualitatively and quantitatively, and in terms of editorial and financial power, within the Anglo-Saxon world, and therefore it field has been born with a scarce degree of politicization in an immanent sense.

Then, back to the topic at hand, how to produce heritage knowledge? For what might it be useful? Again, if we focus in the epistemological issues concerning the refinement of theory and methods exclusively, the discipline will be lost in superfluous debates. The gap is an artifact due to the wrong positioning of the knowledge acquisition pathway… All its interesting questions concern what is known by science and how we can live with those entities but certainly not whether it knows objectively or not What he did was to unify different chains of experiences into a single heritage assemblage, that is, he constructed the Petroglifos as a heritage object by linking local knowledge, his notions of archaeology and prehistory, with experts, technicians, academics and institutions, the provincial press, among others.

In the Camino de Santiago, various social actors try to link the Route with multiple chains of experiences in order to make their actions, practices and different forms of capturing the value produced by the Camino legitimate and facilitate the reception of institutional support. In conclusion, heritage knowledge does not start from the object the Roman gold mine of the Teleno Mountain, the Camino de Santiago, the villages considered Goods of Cultural Interest by the regional and national governments, or the Petroglifos , nor from the subject the market, public institutions, or subjects sanctioning heritage assets broadly.

Rather, it starts in the exploration of the assemblages, the fields of forces that are problematized in order to establish a new set of relations between social actors and the ongoing heritagization process in the territory. In other words, heritage remains as an abstract ideal that our research explores, interprets and explains, when it is actually our research that produces it as by-product. Thus, an official conception of heritage considers it a system in equilibrium defined by a certain set of constants: The understanding of heritage put forward by this standpoint is of only one ontological plane: Clearly, this unique ontological conception of heritage is located in a power position embodied by the universal reason of an expert, an academic or an institution.

This ontology is sustained by its relation with other transcendental notions of what heritage is that are reproduced and reinforced by the nation-states, the market and international institutions, which judge the others and sanction their heritages. We can explore this issue in relation with the process that led to the stabilization or rectification of the Petroglifos as a heritage entity. If we consider that the Petroglifos were always what they are since they were carved, and that they were only waiting to be discovered and known by a transcendent subject of enunciation, we reopen the epistemological gap between humans and their object of knowledge.

On the contrary, if we think that the Petroglifos date back, or emerge, when someone scientists, expert, institution sanction them as such, we are falling into the trap of relativism. In a similar fashion to the notion of multiple ontology devised by Law and Mol , Latour argues that it would be necessary to accord two ontological rather than two epistemological status to the Petroglifos. That is, two different ways of life or modes of existence depending on the assemblages and frameworks in which they are immersed and engaged. The Petroglifos are assembled with the world in different modes, allowing different subjects to experiment with novel forms of existence by the establishment of various relations with them.

The classification is not random but rather stems from my empirical investigation and orders the different levels according to two abstract poles: To do so, I have connected my proposal with the structuralist theory of identity and individuation developed by Hernando ; Hernando Gonzalo Moreover, it argues that we can know the basic structure that the subjective consciousness will acquire in each cultural group, because it advocates an structural and necessary relation between the material control of the human and non human phenomena… and the mode of perception of reality.

Notwithstanding the fact that the different global distributions of power, political economies of cultural production, and national particularities condition the development of heritagization process, I deem functional to establish a certain connection between a low level of techno-economic development and a high degree of immanence in the social practices, relational identities and senses of belonging to a specific community.

On the contrary, greater levels of technological control relate to higher degrees of individualization, of shattering of communities and the establishment of transcendental, scientific and metaphorical non-emotional ways of relating with reality. The different ontological statuses of heritage can then be ordered as follows from greater to lower degrees of immanence: In the most immanent sense that prevails among the older generations of maragato people, heritage refers to the land, the house, and if any, also to certain movable property or livestock. However, we can also include in this category and already introducing a certain dose of transcendence , the language, expertise and behaviors, traditions and rituals, etc.

In other words, the phenomena comprised in the collective unconscious upon which no conscious self-reflections characteristic of disembodied reason are made. Relationships between members of the community and surrounding elements are entangled in an immanent network of meanings and practices: Heritage as an organic value. What people value without generating a metacultural representation of if. On the other hand, there are also evaluations about what people would like to preserve, enhance or take care of, such as the church, the pathways, the forests or the rivers.

Consequently, only with the acceleration of time and the ubiquity of change brought up by modernity it is possible to start being worried about the past. In other words, there is only a potential loss when there is a potential change, a virtuality or abstract machine characteristic of modernity and exaggerated during the supermodern phase. The heritage entities selected, sanctioned, inventoried and constructed by institutions, academics or social actors of any kind. This is already a transcendental ontological realm because the mediation of the universal reason, the mind, is introduced between subjective experience and the world.

We can divide here between: A A modern phase where certain heritage institutions utilize heritage to extricate certain areas of community life and culture and transform them into metaculture. This process is framed within the broader disciplinary project to transform the multitude into a set of self-disciplined citizens and, in general, to facilitate governmentality tasks through the definition of legal and subaltern subjects in society. Modernity segmented community in different parts and put them at the service of the governing elites: In this moment, the social control over the surrounding environment attained during modernity is taken for granted.

What matters now is the control over symbolic representations, meaning and emotions. The heritage machine emerges here as a device of production and capture of heritage values. Its ultimate aim is not to construct universal metanarratives of the nation, of humankind, etc. This is performed through the creation of metaphoric representations of reality as in Val de San Lorenzo or Santiago MIllas, which are actualized in the material culture of the villages. Thus, objects attain a relevance that had never have hitherto, because they are now embedded with a high symbolic charge.

Fukuyama drawing on the thymotic function described by Plato, has drawn attention to the significance of the struggles for recognition rather than for material goods in the framework of contemporary individualistic societies. There is a transition from a sort of real struggles for power, to the realm of the symbolic and mnemonic struggles for recognition that can serve to co-opt or legitimate power. These constructions are developed on a high degree of abstraction and transcendence from reality.

That is, what matters is the control over metaphysics, emotions and symbols. Thus, the material implementation of the cultural representation of the maragato culture in the villages is employed to affirm individual identities. Heritage can channel these desires for individualized identification and the parallel need to weave new power networks that rearticulate the distributions of profits and agencies in the social sphere.

These subjects are privileged in decision-making and in the articulation of the social. The highest degree of transcendence or, in Deleuzian terminology, the context that generates a greater distance between the plane of immanence and the plane of reference see Brown ; May , is generated by academic or intellectual experimentation. We witness this situation whenever someone attempts to expand the boundaries of heritage, enlarging the concept to encompass further areas of reality. These theoretical experimentations open the door for the material and practical heritagization of more realities.

For instance, the theoretical expansion of the concept of heritage to the realm of industrial remains arose in the friction between global discourses on heritage value and the multiple presents inhabiting different geographies. Meanwhile Industrial Archaeology was blooming in Britain during the s, its theoretical principles were imported to Spain or Portugal during the s by heritage experts.

However, this discursive import occurred before the actual demise of most factories and machineries that were being already musealized in Britain at the time as remnants of the past. In other situations, these transcendental expansions derive from unequal distribution in the number of elements in the World Heritage list. However, with the geopolitical shift in relevance and power to the East, the expansion of the heritage border is thriving on the intangible vector, in which Asian countries consider themselves richer.

Other transcendental expansions have to do with well- meaning attempts to protect certain practices, goods, or realities by their inclusion within the realm of heritage. Would the inclusion of the commons and customary law guarantee their preservation or sanction their death in the realm of culture to become metacultural representations in a museum? Authors like Kirshenblatt-Gimblett a consider that heritagization implies removing an element from reality to place it as an inert object for display.

In other words, it implies a struggle for the maintenance of the immanence of the territory and its villages, empowering communities and their cultures rather than metacultures. In it, the social being of the community is not given by the fact of fulfilling certain conditions: This is a response to a real problem of community destruction in the area, connected to demographic, economic, political and social problems and the imposition of foreign cultures that obliterate local lifestyles, shatter community and minimize sociodiversity Magnaghi Research arises from a problem.

What the researcher can do is to point to ways to channel, appropriate and redirect heritage to other aims. This implies conceiving our task as experimentation or creative exploration Deleuze or as mediation Latour. The question is how to use the values of heritage constructed as metaculture to allow the reproduction of culture rather than to reify it, channeling the profits made from heritage to the local community rather than reinserting them in the global flows of tourism value.

This search for an affirmation of immanence and community values is not a random ideological choice but derives from the following reflections: The social is imposed over the communitarian, which is depleted of agency and voice in the public sphere. This paves the way for the current obliteration of the Juntas Vecinales by the state. Far from being a finished task, this process of disintegration is still ongoing in the form of a heritage machine.

It fosters the imposition of a transcendent universal idea of heritage over the local heritages, reinforcing preexisting networks of inequality and power and expanding them. The issue of community should not be conceived in ideological terms, as class struggle, or as the fight of the subaltern against the hegemonic. What I consider worrying is the growing homogenization and flattening of reality that prevents the emergence of novel alternatives and modes of existence, of lines of flight that allow other forms of understanding and living to arise.

As discussed below, unlike the social the community cannot be said in relation to any particular purpose or teleological direction: Although millions of Euros have been squandered thanks to the E. This model privileges short-term political interests and the construction and infrastructural sectors, where investments are conceived as affective shocks rather than part of wider strategies for achieving long-term sustainability Jerez Darias et al.

Despite the lack of support provided to them, local communities and their minor economic models based on low productive intensity, multifunctionality, artisanship over industry, local-regional trade networks and the use of local resources, represent a better model of sustainability than the one provided by sustainable development experts and bureaucrats.

Likewise, eco-rural newcomers arrived from all over the world seek to regain contact with nature and to develop sustainable lifestyles and productive activities as well. These groups shorten the gap opened up by modernity between nature and culture, and bridge the gap with the preindustrial mindset of the local elders, respecting and profiting from their knowledge. The ethnographic literature on the topic has drawn attention to the fact that the dichotomy between nature and culture fades away in non- modern groups, whose perceptions of reality diverge from ours Latour ; Strathern ; Viveiros de Castro However, very little is found in the literature on the question of the micro socio-cultural practices that channel the breakage between nature and culture in specific contexts.

Moreover, even less focus has been placed on the pragmatic and immanent forms, and not only theoretical, idealist and discursive, to overcome that division, something that certain social actors are carrying out in the field already. This is not surprising, because neoliberal governance explicitly disavows this process of suture, deepening the modern rupture and expanding it. Rather, it must be conceived as a multiplicity characterized by its forms of reproducing the different and inhabiting a specific territory, by differences that diverge and compose, communicate with each other without a representative unit Zourabichvili Once the existence of an alternative subject is affirmed, it becomes legitimate to question why it has not been granted administrative and financial support, given that it embodies the real values of sustainability.

Precisely, those same values that serve to legitimize the reception of European funding. What would happen in that case? What forms of knowledge production, spatial planning and heritage management would be necessary? What socio-academic-institutional assemblages should emerge from it? At the level of heritage production, management and preservation. With regard to what has been traditionally considered heritage management, the current model is equally flawed. The urban aesthetics of the villages reflects the inconsistency of urban and spatial planning laws based in inequities.

While a return to the idea of community is not a panacea and does not solve immediately or necessarily these problems, a stronger connection between local communities and heritage always favors its preservation and enhancement. This is so especially when the community perceives the benefits of doing so. From another point of view, we must not forget that heritage is not only preserved, but also produced. That is, new heritage emerges in the interplay between different temporalities and the socially constructed categories of tradition, modernity and postmodernity.

Subjects operating in the field employ different epistemic temporal categories and live in different ontological temporalities. In his works on the problem of time, Deleuze a; a is concerned about the ways people synthesize future and the past from their presents. He distinguishes between active and passive synthesis of time.

The active synthesis of time works through representation. This is the temporality of the heritage machine. This is the time lived by pre-industrial communities and that neo-rurals try to recover in places like Matavenero. This is not a time for representation but rather for life and immanent creation. And, ultimately, this is the real that is subjected to the elaboration of metacultural representations, that is, this is the site from where heritage practice and discourse draw to generate new values and to appropriate ever-more signs to construct self-representations of difference and distinction.

This reality, the need of immanent life and passive temporalities for the reproduction of heritage values, is completely overlooked by institutions, and largely ignored in the literature on tourism and heritage management. How are we then to understand the influx of tourists to the ecological gym of Valdespino or to Matavenero?

Also, these entrepreneurs are shooting themselves in the foot because the trivialization and homogenization of the Camino decreases its added value. In turn, the values produced by heritage are appropriated by foreign actors in different ways economically, co- opting them to gain legitimacy or build certain discourses, etc. My research has focused, following Latour, in adding a new reality to the world.

Something that can be thought and named thereof, and whose mode of existence can be affirmed, defended and propagated. This is less a problem about minorities than a representation of the people as being always as the rest of a division, as something that resists a division — not as a substance, but as a difference. It would imply to proceed in this way, by dividing the division, instead of asking: They moved beyond psychoanalytic models and Marxist dialectical models to understand capitalism as a multiple system composed by lines of flight and constant re- expansions.

Thus, the Western white male, heterosexual, urban, rational and calculating, speaker of a hegemonic language, is a majority. In contrast, a minority does not have a model, although sometimes they can be defined or self-defined on the basis of rational, ethnic, linguistic, and territorial or gender categories in their struggles for recognition, autonomy or rights. A minority seeks to circumvent the capitalist axiomatic without necessarily going into direct contradiction with it Virno At the same time, however, they make it clear that their aim is much more radical than that of the ordinary political parties: What is at stake in the former case is not just a political belief but an entire life attitude.

However, communities differ from societies in that in the latter members meet to achieve a certain goal stop climate change, world peace, the preservation of the heritage of mankind, the end of capitalism, etc. Neither the forms of understanding the relations nature-culture, society-economy, the relation with the past, the forms of decision making and property, are in line with the guidelines set by neoliberal governance, the modern state and the political economies of cultural production.

The maragatos and their heritage are today subjects of statements but not subjects of enunciation. Of course, as Hall points out , the issue of who represents whom is related to power hierarchies and agency.

Synonyms and antonyms of higo in the Spanish dictionary of synonyms

It is in this sense that minor heritage practices should be presented as such in their immanence and affirmed in their difference: All this without falling in the deadlock of the struggles for identity recognition, in which minorities wedge a struggle that only deepens their dependence. It is evident since Hegel and Nietzsche and their accounts of the master-slave dialectics, that those seeking recognition reaffirm their subaltern position in relation to the ones sanctioning or granting recognition.

Moreover, communities cannot be affirmed from closed-cut identities. It is necessary to revert the dominant scheme to make it play in favor of immanence: This means reversing a thought deeply ingrained in the supermodern mindset according to which the production of reality and life is subject to obtaining value. Why not using value for the construction of reality?

Why cannot communities start to present themselves and redistribute the values obtained for the common good? What is the role of the researcher here? To dilute him or herself in the collective of enunciation of a minor people and its multiple heritage dimensions. To express their potentials and forces, serving as an agent of collective transformation, or as a catalyst.

This implies constructing minor heritages by reversing the hegemonic myths and fictions, as an act of resistance that opens the door to a sociopolitical line of flight. This ontological affirmation brings to the fore a further paradox.

Thus, the researcher forms a rhizome with the researched, establishing relations of solidarity, commitment and intersubjective feelings with other subjectivities, existences and heritages that were previously left aside the disciplinary epistemological frameworks. The researcher does not only criticize, describe or discursively support a theory, but becomes something else and changes in line with the people and the sites under study.

Second… it is a conversation with social movements and local communities, that is, groups mobilized politically to challenge the hegemonic power. Again, this is not to describe how the poor or the peasant are organized to obtain benefits from the State. This is true due primarily to two interconnecting and conflicting conditions of the common with respect to capitalist production. First, contemporary capitalist production relies ever more centrally on the production and productivity of the common. And, second, the common, since it must be shared and open to free access, is antithetical to property.

In other words, the common and its productivity are destroyed when relations of property private or public are imposed on it; and, in turn, the affirmation of the common implies the destruction of property. The first, which I think derives from Hegel and Lacan, tries to think the body from language… and another position tries to think about the body from its absolute immanence. This last section points to the outside of the text. It is a line of flight propelling us into other areas of research and pragmatic contexts of research and action, which connects research with the contemporary world.

Understanding how heritage is produced and consumed is only one aspect of the issue, and the one that that has been explored more in-depth. I will focus here in understanding what kind of value can heritage embody and produce today, and the strategies employed to capture these values. In parallel, and transversally to this process, heritage is used to channel and implement transformations in the forms of governance and the construction of nation and ethnic categories of identity and memory De Cesari ; Herzfeld ; Tunbridge and Ashworth However, the issue of heritage value in postindustrial societies has been less explored.

This is an issue that underlines the whole argument of the dissertation, from the literature review on heritage values, the philosophical discussion of the issue of value with Deleuze and Nietzsche, and the case study analysis of contexts where the negotiation, production or capture of heritage values were at stake. I do not intend to summarize here these arguments but rather to push the argument forward to set out a new hypothesis that can prove useful outside the text, in pragmatic contexts of heritage management and sociopolitical action.

Likewise, I do not intend to elaborate a theory on heritage values, but rather to draw the conclusions that derive from my conceptualization of heritage as a multiplicity: Rather, heritage values emerge precisely in the dynamic interaction between its multiple ontologies. Otro significado de higo en el diccionario es excrecencia que se forma alrededor del ano, y cuya forma es semejante a la de un higo.

No dar un higo por algo. No estimar en un higo algo. No valer algo un higo. Synonyms and antonyms of higo in the Spanish dictionary of synonyms. But people do tend to wax rapturous - nearly orgasmic, even - over figs. Among the essays he presents we find a explanation of the phrase ' once in a blue moon '. Good news for anyone who has ever had that queasy feeling the morning after tying one on: A study has found that an extract of prickly pear can prevent a severe hangover.

Figs do not ripen after picking and so unripe figs are to be avoided. See below for nutritional values and information about how many calories are in fig bars. I love fig rolls anyway, and can easily munch my way through a whole packet in a day though it's not really much good for the weight! Examples of use in the Spanish literature, quotes and news about higo. Agua al higo y a la pera vino. Agua al higo , que ha llovido.

Al tiempo del higo , no hay amigo. Amigo sin dinero, eso quiero, que dinero sin amigo, a las veces no vale un higo. Digo y redigo que la breva no es higo. Higo mirao, higo tirao. Higo verdal y moza de hostal, palpando se maduran. Hombres hay que por un higo pierden un amigo. Monsieur Bibot, el dentista, recibe con enfado dos higos como pago de una mujer pobre que le dice que esas frutas pueden hacer sus suenos realidad.

Chris Van Allsburg, Tiene una demanda alta en el mercado. El higo es rico en muchas vitaminas y sales minerales, calcio,

• The Three Little Dwarfs (with panel zoom)/n/t/t/t - Classics Illustrated Junior
• Figments of a Murder
• The Well-Disciplined Husband
• Éduquer ladolescent ?: Pour une pédagogie psychanalytique (Education spécialisée : enfance / adolescence et les troubles du comportement) (French Edition)
• The Magic of Microwave Cooking ~ Cooking For One
• Playscript For School Production-A Musical Modern Re-telling Of The Boy Who Cried Wolf
• Borderlands 2 Unloaded - The Secrets.. The Guns!