Intangible Heritage Archives: Building Counterpublics through Social Media
Sheenagh Pietrobruno
Digital technology and social media in particular are providing the means to counter the narrative representations of cultural heritage proposed by nation-states. This challenge to national heritage enables the circulation of identities and practices of communities not officially recognized by national governments. This potential of social media to produce counterpublics in the domain of heritage occurs on YouTube throughthetransmission of videos of intangible heritage. This dissemination of heritage videos specifically calls into question the official heritage narratives put forward by nation-states and sanctioned by UNESCO. Since 2003, UNESCO has officially safeguarded intangible heritage, defined by this global institution as the living practices of people, including performing arts, rituals, social events and artisanship.[1]This challenge to official heritage arises sinceYouTube archives videos of intangible heritage uploaded by UNESCO as well as by a range of users,including individuals, institutions and communities.Thestoring of UNESCO and user-generated videos of intangible cultural heritage is producing informal and dynamic archives that are continuously shifting in response to user-generated content and algorithms.[2]Social archiving can contest the UNESCO-sanctioned narratives of intangible heritage proposed by national governments through the stories related in user-generated videos, metadata and posted texts. This archiving further challenges national heritage stories by situating particular videos on fluid lists produced by search engines through algorithms and user-generated input.[3]This research shows how the Web can foster “a valuable collision space between official and unofficial accounts of reality,”[4]specifically those pertaining to heritage.
The potential of both cultural forms – narrative and lists – to counter official
heritage disseminated by YouTube’s archive of intangible heritage is approached in this context through a case study of an intangible heritage recognized as global heritage by UNESCO:the Mevlevi Sema (or whirling dervish)Ceremony of Turkey.UNESCO, through the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, promotesthis Sufi ceremony as a practice performed only by men. However, YouTube features videos of the religious performances of a contemporary Mevlevi community in Istanbul where women dervishes whirl alongside their male counterparts in public ceremonies. This case study
is explored through the virtual ethnography of Mevlevi Sema Ceremony videos, comments, metadata and lists conducted since 2010 at different intervals of time to capture the shifting nature of YouTube. This online research is enriched by an actual ethnography (participant observation, discussion and interviews) of this Mevlevi community in Istanbul (2010 to 2012) as well as by scholarly research on Mevlevi Sufism in contemporary and historical contexts. UNESCO’s use of social media to promote intangible heritage is informed by scholarly research as well as by interviews conducted with members of the Intangible Cultural Heritage section in Paris (July 2012).
Against the backdrop of this research terrain, a specific question is posed here:how does the shifting relation between the public and private impact thesocial archivingof intangible heritage and the concomitant emergence of counterpublics in the arena of heritage?The following claims are proposed in response. YouTube challenges the authority of UNESCO-sanctioned heritage narratives since this site enables the public distribution of videos from an array of sources, including: personal, private media collections of individual users; professional documentary media companieswhose productions are intended for public consumption; promotional videos posted by intangible heritage communities; and the global heritage institution of UNESCO. However,YouTube as a medium that counters official heritage through the representations of communities succumbs to another authority: the politics of code thatfurther complicate the relation between public and private media in the context of YouTube. As an unofficial public archive of heritage, YouTube is under the control of algorithms, including those for searching and sorting[5]that Google designs and continuously upgrades to monetize the labour of YouTube users. For individual users, this means that the videos they access on YouTube are increasingly personalized and algorithmicallydesigned to meet their perceived private media consumption demands. The fundamental purpose of YouTube is to monetize the online creativity and sociality of users.[6]
To examine the shifting nature of the public and private in the context of the social archiving of the Mevlevi Sema Ceremony on YouTube, the arguments unfold in stages. First, a detailing of how UNESCO and YouTube are producing archives of intangible heritage andthe relation between these two social institutions as heritage archives is brought forth. Then the emergence of YouTube as a heritage archive is contextualized within theoretical explorations of the archive in the digital era. Finally, specific examples of videos and their tabulation on lists under the search heading “Mevlevi Sema Ceremony” are delineated to illustrate the manner in which the theorizing of YouTube as a heritage archive intersects with how the politics of code underlie searches on YouTube.
UNESCO’s online recording of official intangible heritage is a type of archive. On UNESCO’s website of intangible cultural heritage, each intangible heritage practice, referred to as an “element,” is represented via a short text, photographs and a YouTube video produced by a national government.[7]This official tabulation of intangible heritage resembles to a certain extent the traditional archive administered by a central authority,which in this case comprisesnational governments supported by UNESCO.[8]Nation-states determine the contents of the lists and hence their value. The UNESCO YouTube videos featured on this official list nonetheless also circulate on YouTube under an array of search headings that group them with videos uploaded by a range of users featuring the very practices officially safeguarded by this global heritage institution. UNESCO videos combine with videos from a variety of public and private media sources, forging an archive that can challenge the central authority of the traditional archive. This archive is nonetheless fluid and unstable since it constantly shifts in response to user-generated content and algorithms.
This mutable archive of intangible heritage parallels the theorizing of the archive in the digital era.[9]Alexander Galloway claims that the archive is no longer forged through an original set of documents that build a point of origin. It is instead always in the middle since it undergoes continuous transformation through the constant labour of the machine with itself and its users.[10]In a similar vein,Eivind Røssaakreimagines the archive in the digital era as an archive in motion.[11]According to Wolfgang Ernst, documents in digital archives are linked together in lists produced by algorithms that unsettle the previous ordering in traditional archives. Lists that mathematically connect units in digital archives can disrupt the traditional archival order and practice, in which distinct documents are linked through interpretative narratives produced by human agency. Computation in the digital archive therefore affects the production of cultural memory by moving it from human interpretation to the machine.[12]Katherine Hayles’s writing on the interconnection between the narrative and database enriches Ernst’s materialist vision of the digital archive.Hayles argues that lists of data produced by algorithms do not necessarily challenge narrative and the central role of human interpretation and agency. The juxtapositions produced through database links require narrative to make these information connections meaningful. The interpretation of these “relational juxtapositions” nevertheless providesnarrativesthat are alternatives tothose interpreted through the connection of discontinuous units in traditional archives.[13]
Examples from the case study embody these theoretical assessments of the
digital archive, while considering the interplay of the public and private within social media and the corresponding emergence of counterpublics: YouTube becomes a fluid archive of intangible heritage thatcan counter official heritage narratives, while fusing public and private media. On April 29, 2013, the first page of a list of 2,760 videos that appeared under the search term “Mevlevi Sema Ceremony” was analyzed. UNESCO’s video of this practice put forward by the Turkish government always appears as the first video on this list,[14] a ranking that has endured since the start of this online ethnographic research in 2010.This official UNESCO video depictsthis ceremony as an exclusively male practice. The videos on the first page either reinforce this male exclusivity or call it into question by portraying the activities of a Mevlevi communityin Istanbul – the Foundation of the Universal Lovers of Mevlana Jelaluddin Rumi (EMAV)– that integrates women intoits performances. This countering emerges through the contents of videos uploaded as public media, such as the video produced by the community itself.[15]This challenge also occurs through the dissemination of personal travel videos of individual users that become public through their circulation on YouTube. The user Alejandro Mũniz Delgado, for instance, has uploaded a video of a recording of a performance by EMAV from his selection of travel videos from around the world.[16]This video,like the promotional video of the EMAV community, showsthat women take part in contemporary whirling dervish performances. If the UNESCO video on the top of the list is clicked, a further list of up-next videos is featured in accordance with user-generated content and algorithms. This connection between the first list and the up-next video listfosters relational juxtapositionsthat do not appear in UNESCO’s archiving of intangible heritage on its official lists. For example, the contents of YouTube videos challenge the male exclusivity of official heritage by tabulating the promotional public video of EMAV on the up-next list as a video linked to UNESCO’s exclusively male official video of this ceremony,as featured on the top of the first list. This juxtaposition raises the question of whether or not there are women dervishes in Istanbul. As online ethnographic research has shown, the existence of women dervishes within a genuine spiritual context is often debated in posted text comments.[17]At the same time, the up-next videos also list a shifting array of videos that are recommended to my IP address as I search for Mevlevi Sema videos.These videos marked as “ Recommended to You” arenot pitched to my social selfbut to me as a digital customer;[18] they are a response to my personal settings and search histories.[19]Within the space of one hour of searching, the list of up-next videos ofthe EMAV video was flanked by a video that featured background music[20]and then, about thirty minutes later,by a Dreamweaver tutorial.[21]This case study shows that although YouTube can serve as a public archive of intangible heritage that challenges official narratives, this video-hosting service is also beingincreasingly personalized and algorithmicallydesigned to meet the perceived private media consumption demands of individual users.
YouTube isboth a social institution that counters official heritage by
disseminating the practices of communities and a social mediumalgorithmicallystructured to reap profits for Google.Within the disparate and contradictory functions of this video-hosting service, new forms of the archive are nonetheless taking shape that have the potential to represent the heritage practices of communities and circulate the cultures of counterpublics.
Abstract(and Preliminary) Bibliography
Ayar, Şeref R. “The Foundation of the Universal Lovers of Mevlana Jelaluddin Rumi (EMAV).” YouTube, 2010. Accessed August 26, 2013.
Bolin, Göran. “Personal Media in the Digital Economy.” In Moving Data: The iPhone and the Future of Media, ed. Pelle Snickars and Patrick Vonderau, 91-103. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012.
Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong. Programmed Visions: Software and Memory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.
Cormen, Thomas H. Algorithms Unlocked. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013.
Ernst, Wolfgang. “Dis/continuities: Does the Archive Become Metaphorical in Multi-media Space?” In New Media, Old Media: A History and Theory Reader, ed. Wendy Hui Kyong Chun and Thomas Keenan, 105–123. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Galloway, Alexander R. “What You See Is What You Get?” InThe Archive in Motion: NewConceptions of the Archive in Contemporary Thought and New Media Practices, ed. Eivind Røssaak, 155-179.Oslo: Novus, 2010.
Hayles, Katherine N. How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis. Chicago, IL, and London: University of Chicago Press, 2012.
Hayles, Katherine N. “Narrative and Database: Natural Symbionts.”PMLA 122 (2007): 1603-1608.
Hillis, Ken et al. Google and the Culture of Search. New York: Routledge, 2013.
Mũniz Delgado, Alejandro. “Mevlevi Sema Ceremony at Orient Express Station – Istanbul- Turkey.”YouTube, 2012.Accessed August 26, 2013.
Pietrobruno, Sheenagh. “Between Narrative and Lists: Performing Digital Intangible Heritage through Global Media.” International Journal of Heritage Studies(2013): 1-18. Accessed August 26, 2013.
Pietrobruno, Sheenagh. “YouTube and Social Archiving of Intangible Heritage.” New Media and Society (2013): 1-14. Accessed August 26, 2013.
Rieder, Bernhard. “Democratizing Search? From Critique to Society-Oriented Design.” In Deep Search: The Politics of Search beyond Google, ed. Konrad Becker and Felix Stalder, 133-151. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag, 2009.
Rogers, Richard.Digital Methods. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013.
Rogers, Richard. “The Googlization Question: Towards the Inculpable Engine?” In Deep Search: The Politics of Search beyond Google, ed. Konrad Becker and Felix Stalder, 173-184. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag, 2009.
Rogers, Richard. Information Politics on the Web. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.
Røssaak, Eivind. “The Archive in Motion: An Introduction.” In The Archive in Motion: NewConceptions of the Archive in Contemporary Thought and New Media Practices, ed. Eivind Røssaak, 1-11.Oslo: Novus, 2010.
Simon Sez IT. “Dreamweaver CS6 – Tutorial: Basic HTML – Part 1 – Create a Website Course.” YouTube, 2012.Accessed August 26, 2013.
Smith, Laurajane. The Uses of Heritage.London and New York: Routledge, 2006.
StudyMusicProject. “Background Music Instrumental Piano / Waltz Into Love.” YouTube, 2013.Accessed August 26, 2013.
Van Dijck, José.The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
UNESCO. “Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.”2003. Accessed August 26, 2013.
UNESCO.“Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage and Register of Best Safeguarding Practices.” 2012. Accessed August 26, 2013.
UNESCO. “The Mevlevi Sema Ceremony.” YouTube, 2009.Accessed August 26, 2013.
.
1
Notes
[1]Laurajane Smith, The Uses of Heritage (London and New York: Routledge, 2006), 106-107); UNESCO, “Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage” (2003), accessed August 26, 2013,
[2]Sheenagh Pietrobruno, “Between Narrative and Lists: Performing Digital Intangible Heritage through Global Media,” International Journal of Heritage Studies (2013): 1-18, accessed August 26, 2013,
; Sheenagh Pietrobruno, “YouTube and Social Archiving of Intangible Heritage,” New Media and Society (2013): 1-14, accessed August 26, 2013,
[3]Richard Rogers, Digital Methods (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013), 95.
[4] Richard Rogers, Information Politics on the Web (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), 28 See also Bernhard Rieder, “Democratizing Search? From Critique to Society-Oriented Design,” in Deep Search: The Politics of Search beyond Google, ed. Konrad Becker and Felix Stalder, 133-151 (Innsbruck: StudienVerlag, 2009), 143.
[5]Thomas H. Cormen, Algorithms Unlocked (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013), 26.
[6] José Van Dijck, The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 39.
[7]UNESCO, “Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage and Register of Best Safeguarding Practices” (2012), accessed August 26, 2013,
[8]Ken Hillis et al., Google and the Culture of Search (New York: Routledge, 2013), 163.
[9]Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Programmed Visions: Software and Memory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011), 212; Hillis et al., Google and the Culture of Search,164.
[10]Alexander R. Galloway, “What You See Is What You Get?” in The Archive in Motion: New Conceptions of the Archive in Contemporary Thought and New Media Practices, ed. Eivind Røssaak, 155-179 (Oslo: Novus, 2010).
[11]Eivind Røssaak, “The Archive in Motion: An Introduction,” in The Archive in Motion: New Conceptions of the Archive in Contemporary Thought and New Media Practices, ed. Eivind Røssaak, 1-11 (Oslo: Novus, 2010).
[12]Wolfgang Ernst, “Dis/continuities: Does the Archive Become Metaphorical in Multi-media Space?” in New Media, Old Media: A History and Theory Reader, ed. Wendy Hui Kyong Chun and Thomas Keenan, 105–123 (New York: Routledge, 2006).
[13]Katherine N.Hayles, “Narrative and Database: Natural Symbionts,” PMLA 122 (2007): 1603-1608; Katherine N. Hayles, How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis (Chicago, IL, and London: University of Chicago Press, 2012), 183.
[14]UNESCO, “The Mevlevi Sema Ceremony.” YouTube, 2009, accessed August 26, 2013,
[15]Şeref R. Ayar, “The Foundation of the Universal Lovers of Mevlana Jelaluddin Rumi (EMAV),” YouTube, 2010, accessed August 26, 2013,
[16]Alejandro Mũniz Delgado, “Mevlevi Sema Ceremony at Orient Express Station – Istanbul- Turkey,” YouTube, 2012, accessed August 26, 2013,
[17] Pietrobruno, “YouTube and Social Archiving of Intangible Heritage.”
[18]Göran Bolin, “Personal Media in the Digital Economy,” in Moving Data: The iPhone and the Future of Media, ed. Pelle Snickars and Patrick Vonderau, 91-103 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012), 97.
[19]Richard Rogers, “The Googlization Question: Towards the Inculpable Engine?” in Deep Search: The Politics of Search beyond Google, ed. Konrad Becker and Felix Stalder, 173-184 (Innsbruck: StudienVerlag, 2009),175.
[20]StudyMusicProject, “Background Music Instrumental Piano / Waltz Into Love,” YouTube, 2013,accessed August 26, 2013,
[21]Simon Sez IT, “Dreamweaver CS6 – Tutorial: Basic HTML – Part 1 – Create a Website Course,” YouTube, 2012, accessed August 26, 2013,
CURRICULUM VITAE
SHEENAGH PIETROBRUNO, PhD
NATIONALITY – CANADIAN
4780 Côte-des-Neiges Road, Apt 25
Montreal, Quebec
Canada H3V 1G2
ACADEMIC BACKGROUND
Goldsmiths’, University of London – Department of Sociology
Post-doctorate
Society and Culture Research Council of Quebec (FQRSC) Postdoctoral Research Fellowship
McGill University – Communication Studies
Doctor of Philosophy
Dissertation Award: Dean’s Honours List
- McGill University – Comparative Literature
Master of Arts
- University of British Columbia - Faculty of Arts
Bachelor of Arts in French
ACADEMIC AWARDS
Faculty Travel Grant (Cambridge, MA., United States)
Fatih University, May 2013