对批判遗产研究中权威遗产话语问题的再审视——以上海提篮桥地区为例

Re-examination of Authorized Heritage Discourse in Critical Heritage Studies:Taking Tilanqiao in Shanghai as an Example

关于“权威遗产话语”的讨论发展至今,仍有学者质疑其是否存在过度诠释的倾向,也仍有学者对其采用过于简单的二元对立式的理解。上海提篮桥地区的遗产案例说明,物质本体第一位、价值的选择、横向做比式的遗产话语生成模式的确是存在的;保护与展示的“共谋”也能进一步推动遗产话语的生成;但所谓的专业化的自洽逻辑、动态发展过程、内在兼容性、现实条件的制约等因素也都是不应被忽略的。

In recent years,critical heritage studies have attracted increasing attention from academic circles in China and other countries.In this context,scholars have been questioning whether it is just an over-interpretation from outsiders.Among supporters of critical heritage studies,there is a tendency to look at this issue from the perspective of binary opposition between authority and mass.In order to respond to such issues,this study focuses on the protection history of Tilanqiao in Shanghai.This paper first theoretically analyzes the connotation of authorized heritage discourse put forward by scholars represented by Laurajane Smith,and divides main content into three parts,namely,the logic of architecture and style protection in Tilanqiao,the process and current situation of museum-oriented development,and the protection process of other heritage sites with limited attentions in Tilanqiao.Through the analysis of these three parts,we find that issues such as material noumenon,value selection/ranking,and specialized groups discussed by critical heritage studies and authorized heritage discourse do exist.On this basis,this study further enriches previous studies.This study finds internal differences in the so-called"authorized"or"specialized"groups;the concept of"specialization"is compatible,and there is a phenomenon of mutual support;and actions of"specialized"groups do not directly correspond to a political issue,but are in line with the self-consistent logic of specialized practices.Therefore,this study provides a more detailed explanation path to issues in authorized heritage discourse,which is of great significance for breaking through the binary opposition of critical heritage studies,and will be conducive to mutual learning and integration between critical heritage studies and mainstream heritage protection actions.