Language Education and Intangible Heritage: The Dangers of Cultural Incompetence
Presentation Type
Oral Presentation
Abstract/Artist Statement
The discussion surrounding heritage management: who should regulate what is considered heritage and what isn’t, has been a growing discussion in the field of Anthropology and academia. As the awareness of our colonial past becomes more evident in what has and has not been preserved, Harrison, Brown, and Fairclough tackle the socio-political conflicts surrounding heritage sites and museums. While these scholars direct the conversation from local, to state, and international policies and protocols, they also focus the discussion on the legal, political, and socio-economic arena. That being said, heritage management can deal in the the tangible and intangible. Intangibility of heritage, are the aspects of knowledge and skills that can be transmitted through generations. As such, in American culture, institutionalized education can be a type of museum for intangible heritage. This begs the question: are teachers a kind of heritage manager that should be under more scrutiny? As language is a form of intangible heritage, and language teachers aim to bring their students to an understanding of another culture, education and language learning could be an important unexplored role in the public’s understanding of heritage. Moreover, the American Council for Teachers of Foreign Language (ACTFL) has been encouraging teachers to bring intercultural competency, into the classroom, for the last decade. Additionally, in the United States there is a push to keep students engaged in the classroom which can emulate what Harrison might call the “disneyland” effect on heritage or a type of touristic, experiential interaction with heritage. The question then is has this focus on engagement and push for intercultural competency caused a misrepresentation of culture? If so, how might this actually be a detriment to what one understands of another culture? Using perspectives on pragmatism from Noriko Ishihara and on worldview and teacher bias from Marianne Celce-Murcia, this paper argues that through the same assumptions that lead to universal heritage and heritage tourism, the language classroom can simplify intangible cultural heritage in a way that can be counterproductive to understanding another culture.
Mentor Name
G.G. Weix
Language Education and Intangible Heritage: The Dangers of Cultural Incompetence
UC 332
The discussion surrounding heritage management: who should regulate what is considered heritage and what isn’t, has been a growing discussion in the field of Anthropology and academia. As the awareness of our colonial past becomes more evident in what has and has not been preserved, Harrison, Brown, and Fairclough tackle the socio-political conflicts surrounding heritage sites and museums. While these scholars direct the conversation from local, to state, and international policies and protocols, they also focus the discussion on the legal, political, and socio-economic arena. That being said, heritage management can deal in the the tangible and intangible. Intangibility of heritage, are the aspects of knowledge and skills that can be transmitted through generations. As such, in American culture, institutionalized education can be a type of museum for intangible heritage. This begs the question: are teachers a kind of heritage manager that should be under more scrutiny? As language is a form of intangible heritage, and language teachers aim to bring their students to an understanding of another culture, education and language learning could be an important unexplored role in the public’s understanding of heritage. Moreover, the American Council for Teachers of Foreign Language (ACTFL) has been encouraging teachers to bring intercultural competency, into the classroom, for the last decade. Additionally, in the United States there is a push to keep students engaged in the classroom which can emulate what Harrison might call the “disneyland” effect on heritage or a type of touristic, experiential interaction with heritage. The question then is has this focus on engagement and push for intercultural competency caused a misrepresentation of culture? If so, how might this actually be a detriment to what one understands of another culture? Using perspectives on pragmatism from Noriko Ishihara and on worldview and teacher bias from Marianne Celce-Murcia, this paper argues that through the same assumptions that lead to universal heritage and heritage tourism, the language classroom can simplify intangible cultural heritage in a way that can be counterproductive to understanding another culture.