ISSN 0798 1015

Vol. 39 (# 02) Year 2018. Page 19

The directions and mechanisms of historic cultural heritage actualization

Directrices y mecanismos de actualización histórica del patrimonio cultural

Natalia Vladimirovna MEDVEDEVA 1; Elena Viktorovna FROLOVA 2; Irina Yurevna SHIMANSKAYA 3; Olga Vladimirovna ROGACH 4; Elena Evgenyevna KABANOVA 5

Received: 16/12/2017 • Approved: 21/12/2017

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Methods

3. Results

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion

Acknowledgments

References

1. Introduction

The formation of cultural values, the mentality of peoples and maintaining traditions in many respects depend on historic cultural heritage. The objects of cultural heritage of the Russian Federation which are of special value for the entire multinational people of the Russian Federation are also an essential part of the world cultural heritage. At the same time, the preservation of cultural heritage, being the constitutional duty of any citizen, acts as the basis for not only spiritual development of the society, but also as an economic resource for the development of a territory.

 The historic cultural heritage of a territory is "the basis, forming, first of all, the market of tourist services of a territory. Maintaining the historical appearance of a territory, protection and reconstruction of cultural monuments and architectural complexes, and paying attention to national peculiarities, traditions and customs promote the formation of the tourist appeal of a territory" (Kabanova et al., 2016).

At the present time, the condition of the majority of objects of the Russian Federation’s cultural heritage which are under the state protection is characterized as unsatisfactory. Unfortunately, the preservation of historic cultural heritage has not been the priority direction of the state cultural policy for many years.

The problems of cultural heritage actualization are of special interest for humanities and social sciences today. The questions devoted to understanding the essence of cultural heritage and the mechanisms, increasing the demand for it in modern society, found their reflection in the works of such researchers as Baller (1987), Vedenin (Vedenin), Dyachkov (2005), Kuchmayeva (1987), Lisitsky (2005), Likhachev (2006), etc.

The questions connected with the mechanisms of the policy realization in the heritage sphere are mentioned in the works by Dragilevich-Sheshich (2000), Carman (1991), and Lipe (1984). The interpretation of heritage in the context of tourism is considered by Newby (1994), MacCannell (1973), Peterson (1990), Urry (2005), etc.

The research objective is the analysis of conditions and factors of preservation and regeneration of historic cultural heritage of the Russian cities as well as the emphasizing of directions of historic cultural heritage actualization in the Russian Federation.

2. Methods

The information base of the research is federal and regional standard acts, statistical data, information and analytical materials of the federal, regional and local government authorities.

In the course of the research, general theoretical methods were used: analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, generalization, theoretical modeling, as well as empirical methods - analysis of documents, expert poll. The poll of the heads of local authorities on the subject "Development of Tourist and Cultural Potential of Municipal Units of the Russian Federation" was conducted in 2015 by the All-Russian Council of Local Self-Government (with contribution from the authors). The sampling is multistage territorial random. 514 experts were interviewed.

The received results of the research are confirmed by the data of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, the All-Russian Society for the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Monuments (VOOPIiK), the Scientific Design Institute of Reconstruction of Historical Cities (INRECON), the materials of the Report on research work on the subject: Research of Perspective Forms of the Use of Russia’s Cultural and Natural Heritage Objects for Tourist and Recreational Purposes, Development of Recommendations on Improvement of Objects for the Increase in their Competitiveness in the Global Market. The use of the above-mentioned materials allowed providing for the validity of the carried-out analysis, theoretical and practical conclusions.

3. Results

In Russia, the Convention "On Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage" was ratified only in the late 1980s. Now the basic law regulating questions of cultural heritage preservation is the Federal Law No. 73-FZ "On the Cultural Heritage Objects (Historical and Cultural Monuments) of the Peoples of the Russian Federation" dated June 25, 2002. However, the last word has not yet been said on the question of optimization of powers in the field of cultural heritage preservation and actualization. It is the sphere of culture that suffers most from the blurring of responsibility limits, duplication and simultaneous fragmentation of functions, the presence of the same authorities at different levels of power. In particular, the questions of cultural heritage preservation at the municipal level are regulated by two federal laws: The Federal Law dd. June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ "On the Cultural Heritage Objects (Historical and Cultural Monuments) of the Peoples of the Russian Federation" and the Federal Law dd. October 6, 2003 No. 131-FZ "On the General Principles of the Local Self-Government Organization in the Russian Federation". In the original version of the Law No. 131-FZ, practically all authorities to solve local issues in the field of cultural heritage preservation were transferred to the settlement level. Thus, according to the plan of legislators, these authorities have to be carried out in the location of monuments and existing of national art crafts. It is difficult to agree with such position, especially concerning historical and cultural monuments, as in the settlements there are no experts of sufficient profile and corresponding qualification. Therefore, " certain mechanisms of interaction between local government bodies of different levels which are, as a rule, provided by authorities delegation and also providing for the municipal order for rendering cultural services" are necessary (Ignatyev, 2011, p. 2-12). But the introduction of such a mechanism requires the presence of trust and partnership relations between the authorities of different levels.

According to Art. 14.1, Art. 15.1 and Art. 16.1 of the Law No. 131-FZ, the local government bodies have the right for creation of the municipal museums. However, the realization of this right is possible only at the corresponding condition of the local budget. The vast majority of municipal units has deficit-ridden and showing extreme loss budgets. In view of this, the question of creation of municipal museums has to be ensured not in the rights of local government bodies, but in the questions of local value.

So, it should be noted that in our country the sufficient legal conditions of preservation and regeneration of historic cultural heritage have not been created. There are still no accurate mechanisms of heritage preservation; the issues of preservation of non-material cultural heritage are insufficiently handled; the issues of possession rights differentiation, the use of the objects of cultural heritage which are owned by the authorities of different levels; there is a problem of differentiation of property questions from the questions of heritage objects protection; the issues of competence differentiation of the authorities of different levels in possession area and use of cultural heritage objects.

The preservation of cultural heritage is within the competence of public authorities. At the same time, 25 thousand monuments out of 80 thousand have the federal status (exclusively of archaeological heritage). The financial opportunities of public authorities allow providing the carrying out of this task for about 10% of the minimum responsibility.

According to the data of the Main Information-Computing Center of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, only 4% (6,962) objects of cultural heritage were on restoration in 2014 (see Table 1).

Table 1
The quantity of cultural and archaeological heritage objects

However, the financing of restoration works on the cultural heritage objects has increased almost twice for the last 5 years (Fig. 1).

Figure 1
The dynamics of expenses on carrying out repair-restoration
works on cultural heritage objects (2010-2014), mln rubles.

Beginning from 2001, the financing of restoration works on preservation of cultural heritage objects was carried out according to the federal target programs. On average, "annually, works on 400 objects of cultural heritage are financed from the government budget. At the same time, it should be noted that a considerably larger number of historical and cultural monuments of federal importance needs carrying out of repair and restoration works" (Institute of Heritage, 2013).

According to the data of the All-Russian Society for Preservation of Historical and Cultural Monuments, the ecological factors (flooding, ground and industrial waters, soil slips, etc.), economic factors (the active economic development of regions), infrastructure factors (transport vibration, the uncontrolled building of cultural layer), administrative factors (the absence of owners of cultural heritage objects, the inefficient activity of authorities and bodies for protection of monuments), anthropogenic factors (the pollution of air basin, plowing of the territory of monuments, vandalism), etc. are the main reasons for physical destruction of the objects.

Thus, despite the stable dynamics of allocating financial resources for restoration of cultural heritage objects, in this sphere, according to a number of experts, the two key problems are observed: "the justification of public support of cultural heritage, the need of allocation of budgetary funds demanded for its preservation, including carrying out repair and restoration works; the introduction of cultural heritage objects for market turnover, that is, the adaptation of the monuments for commercial use in modern conditions of economy management" (Rubenstein, 2016).

4. Discussion

Using historic cultural heritage objects, the authorities can define the priority directions of social policy. At the same time, in the sphere of cultural heritage the tendencies of creating threats and challenges in relation to cultural heritage are accurately shown. At the same time, even the results of implementation of this or that municipal or regional program, the features of cultural policy implementation, the increase in rates of economic and industrial development, etc. can act as such threats.

At the present time, owing to actualization, the heritage becomes a real socio-cultural fact. The actualization of historic cultural heritage objects will happen if the inquiries of society are adequate, the social adaptation is stimulated, and the objects themselves are unique.

The historic cultural heritage actualization represents the activity of various subjects directed to preservation, as well as to inclusion of cultural heritage into modern culture and social and economic development of the territory.

At the same time, the questions of historic cultural heritage actualization are of particular importance in historical and small cities having unique historic cultural heritage. So, "in 2014, within the program of support of rural territories and small cities of the Russian Federation nearly 3 billion rubles were aimed at the complex development of cultural institutions, 38 small cities received grants on reconstruction and preservation of historical centers. The majority of small cities, including historical settlements, are not capable of solving numerous problems of municipal 13th economy independently". At the municipal level, the problem of heritage preservation is particularly acute, as the majority of objects of cultural and historical heritage are concentrated in the territories of municipal units, and the local government bodies in the conditions of budget deficit are not able to provide full reconstruction and modernization of all historical and cultural monuments. As a result, in small and mid-sized cities (especially in historical settlements), the majority of cultural heritage objects are in unsatisfactory condition, and the works on restoration of historical building works often contradict the economic interests of such cities.

The results of the poll of regional authorities’ heads on the subject "Development of Tourist and Cultural Potential of Municipal Units of the Russian Federation" also testify it. About 80% of experts noted the need of reconstruction of historic cultural heritage objects in connection with their unsatisfactory condition. However, at the municipal level, according to local government officers, the lack of financial means on maintenance and development of historic cultural heritage objects (71%) is the key limiting factor of heritage actualization. In addition to the problem of insufficient funding of the cultural sphere, the experts emphasized such problems as the absence of qualified specialists capable to be engaged in reconstruction and restoration of the objects (36%), the insufficient level of interaction of authorities of different levels on preservation of historic cultural heritage objects (17%), etc.

The experts also revealed the priority measures promoting actualization of cultural heritage objects. These were the work on the preservation and restoration of cultural heritage objects, museum values, archival documents, library stocks (39%), the maintenance of cultural heritage objects in proper condition (34%); the identification and support of young talents in the sphere of culture and mass communications (26%); the increase in the number of festivals, theatrical tours, and exhibitions (25%). The obtained data allow noting that first of all the realization of measures’ package, directed to preservation, restoration and maintenance of these objects, is necessary for the increase in actualization of cultural heritage.

Various polls are devoted to assessing the activities of regional and municipal authorities for reorganization of city space (Frolova, 2016). In particular, according to the poll "Studying of Opinion of the Citizens of the Historical Cities Concerning Historic Cultural Heritage: Degree of Knowledge, Consolidation and Readiness for Active Actions in the Solution of Problems of Preservation and Modern Use of Cultural Heritage Objects", the assessments of the authorities by the population considerably varied depending on the city, where survey was conducted. So, "among the regions’ heads" the activities of the governors of Kaluga, Pskov and Tver Regions for preservation of cultural heritage objects were most positively assessed, whereas the work of the Tatarstan Head was perceived most critically. Among the mayors of the historical cities, the maximum quantity of positive assessments was received by the heads of Kaluga, Veliky Novgorod and Pskov, whereas the activities of the mayors of Irkutsk, Tver and Kazan were perceived by adult population of the respective cities rather ambiguously (i.e. the shares of negative and positive estimates were comparable in number)" (All-Russian Society for the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Monuments, 2011).

The opinion of residents of the capital on the policy of the Government of Moscow for preservation and restoration of cultural heritage objects is not so unambiguous. Though the majority (47.9%) highly appreciated the work of the Moscow Government in this sphere, the research revealed an apparent information gap on its work. At the same time, in society and media the subject of preservation of the Moscow cultural monuments had been rotated quite widely, and was far from always appearing in the aspect, favorable to the Moscow Government (Research Institute of Sociology, 2012). The Muscovites noted the progress in preservation and restoration of historical and cultural monuments, the historic center of the capital, but at the same time they pointed at the lack of attention in the field of involvement of tourists and information support of cultural monuments. Just a few in the city knew about carrying out of the archeological excavations, designed to enrich cultural heritage of the city. Considering high significance which Muscovites attach to cultural monuments of the city, the direction of information support of the Moscow Government work in the sphere of protection and restoration of cultural monuments can be expanded.

The differentiation of the population’s assessments of the authorities’ activities for preservation of historic cultural heritage is in many respects caused by various social and economic potential of the regions of Russia.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the carried-out analysis allows drawing the following conclusions.

The historic cultural heritage is the major foundation for development of the intellectual and spiritual, moral and creative person and also for national self-esteem. It penetrates literally in all aspects of life and activity of a person. The cultural heritage has two important aspects. The first is the creative aspect – living culture – the folk art and crafts, which are continuously developing and renewing. The second aspect of cultural heritage concerns its historical value – the monuments of architecture and history, the museum exhibits reminding of the past. The architectural monuments being a part of cultural economy attract tourists.

Today the cultural richness of our country is being steadily reduced. By various estimates, from 50 to 70% of historical and cultural monuments protected by the state are in unsatisfactory condition. Most of them demand urgent measures to rescue them from destruction and damage.

Besides natural or anthropogenic destructive influences, it is also necessary to emphasize uncontrollable redevelopment of historical territories and zones of protection of many of the most valuable monuments. A large number of cultural heritage objects suffer from the processes connected with industrial and housing construction, road building, oil pipelines and other routes; the special hazard is represented by extortionate excavation and also by private construction.

The foreign and Russian experience illustrates the need in regeneration, preservation and development of historic cultural heritage, identity of the territory, local culture, traditions and customs, which assumes active participation of the population (Frolova et al., 2016).

The preservation of historic cultural heritage has not been the priority direction of the public cultural policy for many years. In this country, the sufficient legal conditions of preservation and regeneration of historic cultural heritage have not been created yet: there are no accurate mechanisms of heritage preservation; the issues of preservation of non-material cultural heritage are insufficiently handled; there are issues of differentiation of the rights for objects of cultural heritage into the federal property, the property of territorial subjects of the Russian Federation and municipal property, etc. The analysis of economic conditions showed that in the sphere of preservation of cultural heritage objects the disproportions in allocation of financial means on restoration of these objects are observed: if at the federal level the dynamics of financial expenses allocation is stable, then at the municipal level the financial resources are limited that has significant effect on the process of heritage actualization.

At the same time, in recent years the historic cultural heritage acts "as a new factor of social and economic life of many territories and as a special indicator of regional economy development" (Shulgin, 2004). The cultural heritage for a number of territories (in particular, the historical cities) can act as a strategic resource, which can promote both social and economic recovery of the municipal units (Makushkin et al, 2016). "So that the historic cultural heritage can become a resource of sustainable development of a territory, it is necessary to use various instruments of financing, the choice of which in many respects depends on features of carrying out the public cultural policy, the level of development of patronage and charity systems, mechanisms of social partnership" (Medvedeva, 2016, p. 258).

Thus, the legal regulation of the questions of possession and use of cultural heritage objects, the multichannel system of cultural branch financing, social partnership of the power, business and public organizations in the sphere of heritage, the training and retraining of the personnel of cultural sphere have to become key mechanisms of historic cultural heritage actualization.

As a result, the cultural heritage will play a special role in the development of the country, being, on the one hand, a part of the resource potential of the country, and, on the other hand, being of special value for the development of society. Respectively, the complex use of cultural and historical potential contributes to the social and economic development of the state in general, having the great impact on the role of the state in the world space.

Acknowledgments

The publication was prepared within the scientific project No. 16-33-01106 supported by the Russian Foundation for Humanities.

References

All-Russian Society for the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Monuments. (2011). Izuchenie mneniya grazhdan istoricheskikh gorodov v otnoshenii istoriko-kulturnogo naslediya: stepen informirovannosti, konsolidirovannosti i gotovnosti k aktivnym deistviyam v reshenii problem sokhraneniya i sovremennogo ispolzovaniya obektov kulturnogo naslediya (analiticheskii otchet po rezultatam sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniya) [The Results of Sociologic Research "Studying of Opinion of the Citizens of the Historical Cities Concerning Historic Cultural Heritage: Degree of Knowledge, Consolidation and Readiness for Active Actions in the Solution of the Problems of Preservation and Modern Use of Cultural Heritage Objects"]. Moscow. Retrieved July 20, 2017, from archtoropets.ru/wp-content/uploads/voopiik.doc

Baller, E.A. (1987). Sotsialnyi progress i kulturnoe nasledie [Social Progress and Cultural Heritage]. Moscow. (p. 56).

Carman, J. (1991). Archaeological Heritage Management as Archaeology, Archaeology as Social Science. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 10(2), 175-184.

Dragilyevich-Sheshich, M., & Stoikovich, B. (2000). Kultura: menedzhment, animatsiya, marketing [Culture: Management. Animation. Marketing] (Trans. from Serbo-Croatian]. Novosibirsk: TIGRA.

Dyachkov, A.N. (2005). Kulturnoe nasledie [Cultural Heritage]. In Rossiiskaya muzeinaya entsiklopediya [Russian Museum Encyclopedia] (Vol. 1, p. 312). Moscow.

Federalnyi zakon ot 06.10.2003 No. 131-FZ "Ob obshchikh printsipakh organizatsii mestnogo samoupravleniya v Rossiiskoi Federatsii" [Federal Law No. No. 131-FZ "On the General Principles of the Local Self-Government Organization in the Russian Federation"]. (2003, October 6).

 Federalnyi zakon ot 25.06.2002 No. 73-FZ "Ob obektakh kulturnogo naslediya (pamyatnikakh istorii i kultury) narodov Rossiiskoi Federatsii" [Federal Law No. 73-FZ "On the Cultural Heritage Objects (Historical and Cultural Monuments) of the Peoples of the Russian Federation"]. (2002, June 25).

Frolova, E.V. (2016). Vzaimodeistvie naseleniya i mestnoi vlasti: problemy i novye vozmozhnosti [Interaction of the Population and Local Government: Problems and New Opportunities]. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, 4(4), 59-64.

Frolova, E.V., Vinichenko, M.V., Kirillov, A.V., Rogach O.V., & Kabanova, E.E. (2016). Development of Social Infrastructure in the Management Practices of Local Authorities: Trends and Factors. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(15), 7421-7430.

Ignatyeva, Ye.L. (2011). K voprosu ob utochnenii polnomochii organov vlasti v oblasti kultury [On the Question of Detailing of the Government Authorities in the Field of Culture]. Spravochnik rukovoditelya uchrezhdeniya kultury, 07, 2-12.

 Institute of Heritage. (2013). Otchet o nauchno-issledovatelskoi rabote po teme: Issledovanie perspektivnykh form ispolzovaniya obektov kulturnogo i prirodnogo naslediya Rossii v turistskikh i rekreatsionnykh tselyakh, razrabotka rekomendatsii po sovershenstvovaniyu obektov dlya povysheniya ikh konkurentosposobnosti na globalnom rynke [The Report on Research Work on the Subject: Research of Perspective Forms of the Use of Russia’s Cultural and Natural Heritage Objects for Tourist and Recreational Purposes, Development of Recommendations on Improvement of the Objects for Increase in Their Competitiveness in the Global Market]. Moscow. Retrieved July 20, 2017, from mkrf.ru/upload/mkrf/mkdocs2013/26_12_2013_8.doc

Kabanova, E.E., Frolova, E.V., Medvedeva, N.V., Vinichenko, M.V., & Shimanskaya, I.Y. (2016). Cultural and Educational Tourism in the Russian Federation: Basic Problems and Development Resources. International Review of Management and Marketing,5, 206-210.

Kuchmayeva, I.K. (1987). Kulturnoe nasledie: sovremennye problemy [Cultural Heritage: Modern Problems]. Moscow: Nauka. (p. 173).

 Likhachev, D.S. (2006). Deklaratsiya prav kultury i ee mezhdunarodnoe znachenie [Declaration of Cultural Rights and Its World Significance]. Nauka i zhizn, 2, 23-37

Lipe, W. (1984). Value and Meaning in Cultural Resources. In H. Cleere (Ed.), A Comparative Study of World Cultural Resource Management Systems (pp. 1-11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Lisitsky, A.V. (2005). Kulturnoe nasledie kak resurs ustoichivogo razvitiya: dis. ... kand. kulturologii [Cultural Heritage as the Resource of Sustainable Development (Ph.D. Thesis)]. Moscow. (p. 151).

MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589-603.

Makushkin, S.A., Kirillov, A.V., Novikov, V.S., Shaizhanov, M.K., & Seidina, M.Z. (2016). Role of Inclusion "Smart city" Concept as a Factor in Improving the Socio-Economic Performance of the Territory. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(S1), 152-156.

Medvedeva, N.V., & Shimanskaya, I.Y. (2016). Cultural Heritage as a Resource for Socioeconomic Development of Territories. Actual Problems of Economics, 6, 253-259. 

Newby, P. (1994). Tourism. Support or Threat to Heritage? In G.J. Ashworth, & P.J. Larkham (Eds.), Building a New Heritage: Tourism, Culture and Identity in the New Europe (pp. 206-228). Routledge.

Peterson, K. (1990). The Heritage Resource as Seen by the Tourist: The Heritage Connection. In J. Van Haasrseelll (Ed.), Tourism: An Exploration (pp. 242-249). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Rubinstein, A.Ya. (2016). Aktualnye problemy ekonomiki kulturnogo naslediya [Burning Problems of Cultural Heritage Economics]. Moscow: National Institute of Art Studies.

Shulgin, P.M. (2004). Istoriko-kulturnoe nasledie kak osobyi resurs regiona i faktor ego sotsialno-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya [Historic Cultural Heritage as a Specific Resource of the Region and the Factor of its Socio-Economic Development]. Mir Rossii. Sotsiologiya. Etnologiya, 2. Retireved September 18, 2016, from http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/istoriko-kulturnoe-nasledie-kak-osobyy-resurs-regiona-i-faktor-ego-sotsialno-ekonomicheskogo-razvitiya.

The Research Institute of Sociology. (2012). Kratkaya versiya analiticheskogo otcheta na temu: "Zhiteli Moskvy o predprinimaemykh rukovodstvom goroda merakh po sokhraneniyu i restavratsii obektov kulturnogo naslediya" [The Brief Version of the Report on the Topic "Moscow Citizens on the Measures Taken by the City Leaders for Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage Objects"]. Moscow. Retrieved July 20, 2017, from http://niisocio.ru/napravleniya-deyatelnosti/razvitie-gorodskoj-sredy/64-razvitie-gorodskoj-sredy-izbranye-issledovaniya/164-zhiteli-moskvy-o-sokhranenii-i-restavratsii-ob-ektov-kulturnogo-naslediya

Urry, J. (2005). Vzglyad turista i globalizatsiya [Globalising the Tourist Gaze]. In Massovaya kultura: Sovremennye zapadnye issledovaniya [Mass Culture: Modern Western Studies] (pp. 136-150). Moscow: Pragmatika kultury.

Vedenin, Yu.A. (2004). Osnovy geograficheskogo podkhoda k izucheniyu i sokhraneniyu kulturnogo naslediya [The Fundamentals of Geographical Approach to Study and Preservation of Cultural Heritage]. In Nasledie i sovremennost. Informatsionnyi sbornik [Heritage and Modernity. Information Collection] (Issue 12, pp. 3-21). Moscow.

1. Russian State Social University, 129226, Russian Federation, Moscow, Wilhelm Pieck street, 4, build.1

2. Russian State Social University, 129226, Russian Federation, Moscow, Wilhelm Pieck street, 4, build.1. E-mail: efrolova06@mail.ru

3. Russian State Social University, 129226, Russian Federation, Moscow, Wilhelm Pieck street, 4, build.1

4. Russian State Social University, 129226, Russian Federation, Moscow, Wilhelm Pieck street, 4, build.1

5. Russian State Social University, 129226, Russian Federation, Moscow, Wilhelm Pieck street, 4, build.1