Reflections on the Connection between Cultural Memory and Female Subjectivity Carried by Intangible Cultural Heritage
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/mg6rqb42Keywords:
Intangible cultural heritage, cultural memory, female subjectivity, gender identity, cultural preservation, empowermentAbstract
Intangible cultural heritage is a living inheritance of the people's lives and customs that links the past with the present. In this life system, women have traditionally served as the main, but often unrecognized, bearers of oral culture, textile skills and family traditions. This paper investigates the deep connection between cultural memory and female subjectivity in intangible cultural heritage. Given the theoretical convergence of collective memory studies and feminist discourse, this paper will investigate how traditional crafts and embodied practices serve as necessary paths for women's liberation and identity formation. Women have been marginalised by patriarchal and monument-oriented societies historically, but in recent years, they have used intangible cultural heritage for economic reasons and also as a way to express their own ideas and revise historical narratives. At present, around the world, these practices have been revived and now serve as cultural symbols by female artisans. The study shows that the protection of intangible cultural heritage is closely related to promoting gender equality, and therefore, women's subjectivity should be taken into account in all parts of the discussion on global heritage protection.
Downloads
References
[1] Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory (L. A. Coser, Ed. & Trans.). University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226774497.001.0001
[2] Assmann, J. (1995). Collective memory and cultural identity. New German Critique, 65, 125–133. https://doi.org/10.2307/488538 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/488538
[3] Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203602263 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203602263
[4] Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (2004). Intangible heritage as metacultural production. Museum International, 56(1–2), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00458.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00458.x
[5] Braidotti, R. (1994). Nomadic subjects: Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory. Columbia University Press.
[6] Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
[7] Macdonald, S. (2013). Memorylands: Heritage and identity in Europe today. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203553336 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203553336
[8] Alivizatou, M. (2012). Intangible heritage and the museum: New perspectives on cultural preservation. Left Coast Press.
[9] Bendix, R. F. (2009). Heritage between economy and politics: An assessment from the perspective of cultural anthropology. In L. Smith & N. Akagawa (Eds.), Intangible heritage (pp. 253–269). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203884973-20 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203884973-20
[10] Ahmad, Y. (2006). The scope and definitions of heritage: From tangible to intangible. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(3), 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250600604639 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250600604639
[11] Kuutma, K. (2013). Between arbitration and engineering: Concepts and contingencies in the shaping of heritage regimes. In R. F. Bendix, A. Eggert, & A. Peselmann (Eds.), Heritage regimes and the state (pp. 21–36). Universitätsverlag Göttingen. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/books.gup.367
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
