C O N T E X T 1 3 3 : M A R C H 2 0 1 4 13 VALUING HERITAGE SIÂN JONES Conservationandsocial value:anambivalent relationship The new emphasis on contemporary value and benefit contributes to a tension between the idea of heritage as something fixed and tangible, and something mutable and intangible. ‘Values give some things significance over others and thereby transform some objects and places into “heritage”.The ultimate aim of conservation is not to conserve material for its own sake but, rather, to maintain (and shape) the values embodied by that heritage’(Avrami et al,Values and Heritage Conservation , 2000). As in many areas of society, a values-based approach is now widespread in the conservation of the historic environment. Nevertheless, its application remains fraught with controversy, as witnessed at the 2012 IHBCAnnual School on Significance (Context 126). How should different values be identified and measured? To what extent should values be restricted to those expressed in physical fabric? Is attention to the values of present communities at odds with the long-standing moral imperative to preserve the historic environment for future generations? The place of contemporary social value in the conservation process ignites particularly fervent debate around these questions. The concept of social value has been fleshed out in slightly different ways in a range of international conservation instruments, but it encompasses the relationship between the historic environment and contemporary identity, distinctiveness and belonging. It also accommodates forms of memory, oral history, symbolism, spiritual association and cultural practice associated with particular historic places today. One of the most detailed elaborations on social value in a UK policy context can be found in English Heritage’s Conservation Principles. Here, social value is referred to as ‘communal value’ and defined as ‘the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for who it figures in their collective experience or memory’. In the influential Burra Charter, social value is one of a number of values (including historical, architectural and aesthetic value) that must be taken into account in the assessment of cultural significance. Moreover, significance assessment should be the first stage in conserving and managing a specific heritage place.Yet while the need to understand social value is recognised as part of the assessment of significance, there is considerable variation in where and how it is taken into account. For instance, in the UK the range of values acknowledged in the designation of scheduled monuments and listed buildings is constrained by the statutory frameworks. ‘Associative’ factors, such as later connections with important literary figures, have received increasing attention in guidelines, but these are assumed to be secondary to physical fabric. Correspondingly, there is also an expectation that such associations will be directly linked to historic fabric, often excluding the intangible aspects of social value. The difficulties of accommodating contemporary social value in the designation process are highlighted by the contentious nature of recent cases, such as the listing of Brixton Markets and the Abbey Road crossing. A broader range of values, including social value, is considered important in wider conservation and management of both designated and undesignated sites. However, in practice social value is still eclipsed by historical, architectural and aesthetic values, because the expertise and methodologies for dealing with these are long established. Indeed, in many cases the existing evidence is so sparse or anecdotal that it is not possible to give social value due consideration without further investigation and assessment. All too
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=