Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress ( 2011) DOI 10.

1007/s11759-011-9164-x

RESEARCH

Intersectionality and the Construction of Cultural Heritage Management

Wera Grahn, NIKUThe Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research, Storgata 2, PO Box 736, Sentrum, 0105 Oslo, Norway E-mail: wera.grahn@niku.no

ABSTRACT
________________________________________________________________

ARCHAEOLOGIES Volume 7 Number 1 April 2011

From an intersectional perspective, this article will identify, critically analyse and deepen the understanding of how the social categories gender, class, ethnicity and nationality are inscribed and interlinked in the official narratives performed by the public actors in the field of cultural heritage management. This article will analyse the contemporary discourse of the official institutional cultural heritage management actors, with special emphasis on Protection Orders made by the Directorate for Cultural Heritage in Norway. It is important to analyse this kind of material because it can bring new knowledge and raise the level of awareness of the construction of identities that are present at a structural national level of representation. This has the potential to increase the understanding of how the societal feeling of being Norwegian is created, which in a strange way seems to have striking similarities to the representations of national identities in other Western countries.
________________________________________________________________

sume : Dans une perspective intersectionnelle, cet article permettra Re hension didentifier, danalyser de fac on critique et dapprofondir la compre `re dont les cate gories sociales, le sexe, la classe, lorigine de la manie sont inscrits et interde pendants dans les re cits ethnique et la nationalite s par les acteurs publics dans le domaine de la gestion du officiels effectue patrimoine culturel. Cet article analyse le discours contemporain des agents officiels institutionnels de la gestion du patrimoine culturel, en accordant `re aux ordonnances de protection prises par la une importance particulie `ge. Il convient danalyser ce type Direction du patrimoine culturel en Norve de documents car ils peuvent apporter des connaissances nouvelles et lever le niveau de sensibilisation de la construction des identite s qui sont e sentes au niveau national structurel de la repre sentation. Ce travail pre devrait permettre de mieux comprendre la fac on dont le sentiment ` la socie te norve gienne se cre e, et qui e trangement dappartenance a

222

2011 World Archaeological Congress

Cultural Heritage Management

223

sentations des semble avoir des similitudes frappantes avec les repre s nationales dans dautres pays occidentaux. identite
________________________________________________________________

culo identifica, Resumen: Desde una perspectiva interseccional, este art n de co mo el ge nero tica y profundiza en la comprensio analiza de forma cr as sociales, la clase, la etnicidad y la nacionalidad se inscriben de las categor blicos en el campo de y se entrelazan en la narrativa oficial de los actores pu n patrimonial cultural. El art neo culo analiza el discurso contempora la gestio n patrimonial cultural e institucional, de los actores oficiales de gestio nfasis en las o rdenes de proteccio n emitidas por la Direccio n de haciendo e Patrimonio Cultural de Noruega. Es importante analizar esta clase de s material porque puede aportar nuevos conocimientos y concienciar ma n de las identidades que esta n presentes en un nivel sobre la construccio n. Esto puede incrementar la nacional y estructural de la representacio n de co mo se crea el sentimiento social de ser noruego, que en comprensio cierto modo parece presentar similitudes sorprendentes con las ses occidentales. representaciones de las identidades nacionales en otros pa
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

KEY WORDS

Cultural heritage management, Intersectionality, Gender studies, Feminist theory

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction
Feminist theory currently covers a broad area within the Academic disciplines. It is today an integrated part of almost every subject in one way or another. Depending on the specific theory being used and in which particular discipline, the theoretical approaches have been developed in special ways, a process similar to those occurring in any other new subject field. Of course the characteristics of the empirical material and the research questions as such have also had an impact on how feminist theory has developed. This means that no single feminist theory exists today, but several feminisms. But even if there are differences, there are also some basic similarities. Firstly, the focus is set on gender and it is not primarily the biological sex, but the socially and culturally constructed one which is examined. This is the prism used to see the world through. The content and the boundaries of what are perceived as feminine or masculine and the stereotypic understandings of this relationship is further emphasized and questioned. Secondly, the asymmetrical power relations between these

224

WERA GRAHN

categories are being problematized. Thirdly, this kind of research most often has an emancipatory aim, which means that the goal is to change unequal gender relations. Here it is important to keep in mind that unequal gender relations are primarilybut not exclusivelysituated at a structural level and are most often linked to a lack of political, economic and symbolic power (cp. Young 1997).1 It is a question of who has or has not the power to control and master ones own life and to be a part in the development of the society as a whole. One common misconception of feminism is that all feminists see the unequal gender relations as an effect of a far reaching male conspiracy. This is not necessarily the case. To apply a feminist perspective means to raise the awareness of deeply rooted values and norms that are internalized in all of us, to a higher or lower degree. Unconsciously we are categorizing and dividing the world in feminine and masculine terms. This way of understanding the world is so deeply internalized in us that we hardly question it. It often appears to be an evident and natural way to understand the world. That is what makes these structures so effective. It is this way of seeing that a feminist perspective wants to change. Feminist theory has also had an impact outside the universities in many fields of practice. But even if feminist theory and gender studies is a rapidly growing sphere2 feminist approaches seem to have had less impact in some domains than in others. One area that appears to have paid very little attention to these questions is the field of cultural heritage management and a particular absence of awareness can be observed within the area of practices in this sector. To be more precise I am referring to gender informed perspectives of the preferred meaning (Hall 1997) being assigned to cultural heritage sites or historical buildings by the official authorities in the field of cultural heritage management. To critically analyse the official version of history is important because even if many other readings can be made, the one which is officially sanctioned is also articulated from a normative, supposedly neutral position and often understood to be the very version which is true. This is a consequence of this fields strong relationship to modernity (cp. Grahn 2006; Hooper-Greenhill 1992, 2000; Smith 2006; Smith and Waterton 2009). The officially constructed image of the past tends to cling to the cultural imaginary (Dawson 1994) and forms a rigid frame inside which only a limited number of histories appear to be able to take place. Very little seems to have been done in this area. One example touching upon the above mentioned approach is the study by Alcock (2002) showing how the allegedly ungendered focus of archaeology on public buildings and monuments in fact has been an androcentric enterprise. However, this study does not critically analyse the official construction of the past promoted by different actors in the cultural heritage management field as much as dealing with the use of the past by different groups in the past.

Cultural Heritage Management

225

Another example more closely related to the management field is Smiths (2008) recent study of how people make different interpretations of the same cultural heritage site. Such investigations are important because they in many ways convey hope in showing that the readings do not necessarily have to be the one intended by the official stakeholders in the field of cultural heritage management. In relation to gender perspectives this implies that the readings do not have to be as limited as intended. However, the circumstance that people make their own interpretations does not make it less urgent to scrutinize critically the privileged meaning assigned by the authorities, because they not only have a normative function of pointing out what is considered historically important, but also indirectly sketch the outline of the ideal citizen. Only a few works have this far been found dealing directly with the questions of how the official authorities could constitute the images of the past from an explicit feminist perspective (Grahn 2009; Kaufman and Corbett 2003; Knafve 2003; Myrin 2009). Apart from this, various works related to questions of the cultural heritage management sector at the most have one or two sentences in which it is stated that it would be of interest to apply a gender perspectiveor the gender perspective, as if there was only onebut very few actually seems to be doing it.

Intersectionality
This article will attempt, however, to alleviate the lack of gender awareness and will from an intersectional perspective try to identify, critically analyse and deepen the understanding of how the social categories of gender, class, ethnicity, nationality etc. are inscribed and interlinked in the official narratives performed by the public actors in the field of cultural heritage management. Intersectionality is one among several perspectives on the feminist academic arena. It takes into account how various structures of oppression are intertwined and how these power structures become mutually reinforced by one another. Gender interacts closely with for instance class, ethnicity, and nationality. These structures of oppression work together and shape the societal hierarchical power relations in a way that gives certain combinations a higher value than others do. It is important to investigate how these social categories act together and how they are constructed. The key point here is to emphasize that identities are not created out of one single social category, but are formed at the crossroad of several intersecting power structures. It is essential to examine how structures of power and oppression cooperate and to investigate whose interests are being marginalized and whose are given privilege in societal processes. It is a key to understand the effects of power.

226

WERA GRAHN

This is also a fruitful perspective when examining which identities are being produced, reproduced and rewarded at various levels in society and how this is done. Most often these processes of identity construction are being perceived as natural and self-evident, and are hardly ever questioned, which make them almost invisible. This is what makes them so effective and makes them last over long periods of time. Applying an intersectional perspective can deepen the understanding of these processes and their consequences. Intersectionality grew out of the writings of Black feminists and this approach was applied already during the 1970s (Crenshaw 1994). It is a perspective that has grown stronger during above all the 1990s (Collins 1998). In its present form intersectionality appears in the interstices between post-structuralism, feminist theory, post-colonial theory, black feminism and queer theory. Among its predecessors are Crenshaw (1994), Collins (1998), Young (1997) and McCall (2005). This perspective has received an increasing interest in the Scandinavian academic context during recent years (see e.g. de los Reyes and Mulinari 2005; de los Reyes et al. 2002; Lykke 2003, 2005, 2010).

Cultural Heritage Management

The primary empirical material derives from the list of special Protection Orders made by the Directorate for Cultural Heritage in Norway (Riksantikvaren)the national authority responsible for cultural heritage managementin recent years and the official presentation made by this institution.3 This includes an examination of the formal documents shaped for and by experts as well as the more popular versions aimed at the general public. In addition, examples will be included from the institutional context in which the Protection Orders are made, comprising both the intra-institutional context and the relation to other relevant public actors in this field. In this article my view of the official cultural heritage management sector conflates to a high degree with what Smith (2006) has identified as an authorized heritage discourse (AHD). According to Smith the AHD is a particular way of understanding heritage that privileges the recollection of a limited social stratum. Certain aspects are emphasized in this discourse such as the tangibility, the aesthetics and the grandness of things. At the centre of this discourse is also the expert who is constructing their own universe in the name of the nation state. Cultural heritage creates explicit boundaries around what is seen as historically important and valuable in a nation and makes implicit statements about what does not count. It is an official practice, emanating from a modern way of thinking bearing strong

Cultural Heritage Management

227

claims of truth.4 Cultural heritage is one of several actors who are shaping societal norms and models for what counts and what does not. It is a sort of official manual describing the important moments of the past that are created through the selection of certain parts. When a building becomes protected it passes through a metamorphosis. By this act it will all at once be transformed from one among many everyday artefacts into a particularly sanctioned thing of cultural heritage value. In this process the objects are not only given meaning in a simple sense in reference to the object itself, but in this context meaning is ascribed in ways that transgress the object and will include more than can be read and decoded from the thing itself. Through the selection of object and the narratives articulated in relation to it, assumptions of gender, class, ethnicity and nationality are linked.5 Things are assigned a symbolic meaning. This symbolic meaning can be seen as operating at three various levels of time: the past, the present and the future. These three phases are mixed in a complex way. In this process the past becomes materialized in the present and is ascribed a meaning for the people living today. This meaning is not only assigned to the past but also to the present and future. How we tell stories about the past will shape the boundaries of how we can grasp the possibilities of the future, in Nietzsches sense (Nietzsche 1974:14). Critically analyses of official cultural heritage management are essential because they have the ability to provide knowledge of the construction of identities being present in the narratives of the official authorities. Examining these processes will have the potential to increase the understanding of how a specific nation and a national identity are createdin this case Norway and Norwegianessprocesses which have close points of similarities with representations in other Western countries. The Protection Orders are on the one hand a sort of indicator to identify the specific cultural imaginaries of a nation, which on the other hand is something that is shared with other countries.

The Context
To start with some general ideas attached to the official documents of external relevant public actors in this field, they are mostly very neutrally held from a linguistic point of view. Here and there the word mennesker (people) occur, which implicitly most frequently refers to white Norwegian men.6 More seldom other social or ethnic categories are the focus. If they are, they are usually found in short passages reminding the reader of the fact that the Indigenous peoples cultural heritage and the national minorities heritage are not sufficiently regardedI will soon come back to ethnic categories. One of a few written texts which include formulations that

228

WERA GRAHN

reflect an explicit awareness of womens history being poorly represented is the Report No. 39 (19861987) to the Storting (St.meld. nr 39). This report originates from 1988 and according to the text a specific amount of money (one million Norwegian crowns) was dedicated to promoting activities and contributions paying attention to womens lives and history. The only result leaving explicitly articulated imprints that seem to have come out of this specific venture was a seminar, which was held the same year, and a report from this event (Riksantikvaren 1988). It is uncertain whether any other activities were carried out. No other publications or official documents dealing with this theme have been found. Neither does any additional funding appear to have been budgeted in order to encourage such a purpose. As a comparison it can be interesting to examine the official documents encompassing other areas of priority in the field of cultural heritage management. The maritime field is one that can serve as an example. In the same way as the above mentioned report to the Storting was focusing on womens lives and history, ships have been specifically addressed in other Governmental writings (e.g. NOU 2002:1; St.meld. nr 16). The circumstance that this area has been a masculine coded field7 is not emphasized in these texts, in spite of the fact that men have dominated this occupational group over the centuries, on deck as well as in commanding positions at the captains bridge. This area isjust as womens lives and historya relatively new domain which has been neglected for a long time and made invisible (Berkaak 1992), but they are each given priority in a Report to the Storting. Apart from this the similarities seem to end. Scrutinizing the field of maritime cultural heritage a whole apparatus of cultural heritage protection8 appears to have been launched. The management give the impression of having shown marked attention to the maritime field amongst others by providing capital for restoration projects (270 million Norwegian crowns) and executing Protection Orders. The recommendations in the report to the Storting have been transformed relatively promptly into actual plans and these in their turn have been put into practice by concrete actions. Guiding principles and regulations have been formulated and the contribution of fresh money has been made. A wellfunctioning mechanism for cultural heritage management seems to wheel forward. However, the system is not solely an apparatus for preservation and management for cultural heritage. It simultaneously functions as a system for cultural heritage production. Artefacts and environments are not only being taken care of and preserved in this context, but are also created as parts of a common cultural heritage. However, this apparatus of cultural heritage production and preservation appears to be missing almost altogether as far as the field of womens

Cultural Heritage Management

229

lives and history is concerned. Most likely some money must have been directed to projects during the years that could have been said to signify womens history. However, if this has been done, it has neither been made visible nor articulated. Nobody seems to have taken the trouble to make a compilation, count out the sums, dedicate one specific month to the theme womens lives and history, write articles which have been filed and made accessible on the web, in the same way as was done with the maritime heritage. In other words, it is an indistinct area that appears not to have been privileged as an important part of the past. If we move our focus towards a document presenting the guiding principles and the needs for future knowledge which has been identified by the institution itself, matters get even worse as far as womens lives and history are concerned, because in this context it is a non-question (Riksantikvaren 2004). There are, however, some small bright spots in this document problematizing the strong connections between national Norwegianess and the cultural heritage field, and a need is also articulated to map and get an outline of the national minorities and immigrants cultural heritage. Even though no gender awareness is present, the sphere of Norwegian cultural heritage nevertheless slowly seems to become inhabited by groups other than an ethnic white Norwegian. However, this writing is at the same time complicated. The national minorities and the immigrants never seem to become a part of the national Norwegian. Even if they are present in the Norwegian society they are all the same defined as being outsiders. Although they are interesting, they are after all entities positioned at the exterior. An undertow of thinking in terms of us versus them appears to be present. The concept of representativeness, a term which in a Swedish, context amongst others, is related to the democratic function of cultural heritage,9 and which refers to everybodys right in a society to be able to identify with and benefit from the cultural heritageis in this context never explicitly linked to questions of whose interests are being represented in the official cultural heritage sphere. In this writing an uncertainty about the meaning of the concept seems to be prevalent. In a later documentthe strategy for preservation (Riksantikvaren 2005)published in January 2005 the concept of representation is, however, dealt with more precisely. Representativeness in this context is divided into two levels of meaning. One is concerned with an objectrelated level and the other with a more general level. In the first case the term refers to the need for the heritage authorities to cover a certain amount of types of objects in its stock. In the other case the discourse is related to phrases talking about social, ethnic groups and minorities, but not explicitly in terms of the democratic function of cultural heritage. In

230

WERA GRAHN

this context, just like in the documents examined above, gender aspects are lacking, although class and ethnicity seem to have gained traction. A similar pattern can be observed in a report published by the Norwegian Research Council (RCN), with the aim of mapping the need for knowledge in the field of cultural heritage (RCN 2004). The concept of representativeness does not occur in this text at all and neither does the term democracy. On the other hand a discourse of diversity has found its way into the writing and the need to pay attention to cultural diversity and to include the cultural heritage of the Sami people, the national minorities and new ethnic groups are emphasized. This indicates an identification of an existing lack of awareness of these aspects in the present heritage management field. However, gender aspects are not mentioned in this context either. Just like in the other documents this seems to be a nonexisting question. However, 4 years later something appears to have happened. In a call for funding projects in the field of cultural heritage launched in 2008 gender has finally found its way into the writings. In the call the term gender appears on page 18 (RCN 2008). However, it is not to be found among the main perspectives emphasized, nor among the intermediate strategic or subject related goals, nor among any other leading goal. The concept of gender is only mentioned once in this 28 pages document. It is listed as one of many sub-questions that would be interesting to ask in a Sami context. Questions dealing with gender aspects are consequently deported to the ethnic Other. This is extremely problematic, as it makes the question of gender into something exclusively related to the ethic Other, but is never related to the ethnic white Norwegian societys memory of cultural heritage. The normative white Norwegian remains untouched by all the insights that gender analyses can bring. Instead, the gender aspects are pasted on to ethnic Others, who become the carriers not solely of ethnic markers by also the markers of gender. This way of thinking can be understood as part of unconscious processes deeply rooted in Norway as well as in many other Western countries (cf. Irigaray 1974; Said 1978). This does not mean that it is in general inappropriate to bring gender aspects up for discussion in relation to groups of other ethnicity than the white Norwegian. Of course it can be equally relevant in both cases. The problem is that in this case gender becomes an exclusive question for the ethnic Other but never touches the majority of the society. The website of the Directorate for Cultural Heritages has also been examined briefly, focusing on the narratives being linked to archaeological sites and environments. In these texts explicit actors are to a large extent missing. They are neither visible as actors in relation to the contexts described nor visible as authors of the texts. The narratives are largely

Cultural Heritage Management

231

constructed in accordance with the principles of the modern project. Everything is written in the name of the institution. An anonymous and authoritarian voice is talking, which gives legitimacy to the narrative, which gives it an impression of being the truth. This is a characteristic of modern thought (see e.g. Latour 1993; Smith 2006) and is a perspective that the whole apparatus of cultural heritage production is created in accordance with, at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century (Hooper-Greenhill 2000). Even if the actors to a high degree are explicitly invisible in the written material, they nevertheless appear implicitly and become readable. The houses, the places and the artefacts given expression reveal whose history is being told. Here, buildings owned by former kings and bishops are mixed with trading posts, churches, poniards and boat axesartefacts and environments traditionally linked to a masculine sphere, with connotations to a quite wealthy, white, Norwegian male part of the population. Of course, neither buildings, nor places or artefacts are bound to have a history exclusively connected to men. The problem is that previous research has shown that if no explicit alternative articulation exists the viewer tends to make a reading in accordance with an already dominating matrix (cp. Adolfsson 1987; Losnedahl 1993; Porter 1988, 1996). The prevailing system of gender power relations tends to form a filter through which the past is easiest understood and the preferred meaning is constructed. Alternative readings will have a hard time emerging in an already naturalized and self-evident context.

The Protection Orders

A Protection Order is the strongest executive tool the authorities have in order to protect what is understood to be particularly valuable objects of cultural heritage. Examining the institutionally sanctioned historical buildings and environments will have a potential to chisel out a condensed picture of the collective memory in a society. It is the manifest meaning that the official sources taken together are pointing at, that will be scrutinized. Here is a key to understanding the essence of the normative Norwegian identity and society, but it gives at the same time an opportunity to see who is excluded from the official actors historiography. Whose history and interests are being privileged, and whose are not included in the public representation of what is worth remembering? In this study, I have examined both the popular versions of the Protection orders and the more detailed resolutions during 11 years, from 1997 to 2008. The popular versions can be found at the website of the Directorate10 and from here, a link will lead the visitor further into the material.

232

WERA GRAHN

The popular version is interesting as it will probably be the first written source concerned with the protection that the general public will meet. The Protection orders will thereby play an active part in creating the cultural imaginary of what is worth remembering and whose memorials are most valuable. The more detailed resolutions will be able to deepen the understanding and provide additional information. Just like the material, in general at the website of the Directorate, most often an authoritarian and anonymous voice is present using a language that transmits an impression that decisions are rationally founded. Sections of law, counting of numbers and stating of years seem to be necessary ingredients in almost all Protection orders. Architectural elements and type of styles belonging to specific art historical epochs are lined up and the rhetoric of authenticity is striking. People on the other hand get a subordinate position, with a few exceptions discussed below. A discourse characterized by ideas emanating from the modern project seems to be a guiding-star in these writings as well. A more detailed reading will uncover that the preservations are nevertheless linked to certain social categories both explicitly and implicitly.

The Memorable Worker

One starting point in order to catch sight of the human subjects and their social context could be to examine which kind of working places have been protected and which professional categories have been discursively privileged in the Protection Orders. However, no working place seems to have been protected because of the link to any particular occupational group. This is especially clear when looking for places where women have worked. Presumably some of the protected working places ought to have had female workers and this might be tacitly recognised by someone with a deep knowledge of the Norwegian womens industrial history. For those lacking such knowledge former female labour places never will appear on the map of cultural memorials. Guesses can at the best fill in the gaps, for example that women probably worked at Engene old dynamite factory, protected in 2009, in conformity with other contemporary dynamite factories in the Nordic countries. However, nothing in the text indicates that this would have been the case and if women had worked there this fact does not appear to have been a crucial motive for the protection as such. As shown above this is problematic, as things that are not being articulated are usually interpreted in accordance to the already existing matrix. All in all the places being identified as culturally memorable are gender neutrally described, but just like the maritime heritage previously described, they are

Cultural Heritage Management

233

at the same time associated with traditionally masculine occupational groups. Going through the Protection Orders one more time I all of a sudden believe to have found a working place in which women have been predominating. It is a Protection Order made in 2007 of the hospital in Halden. The whole health care sector, including hospitals, have been a womendominating working sector, but reading the text linked to this specific Protection Order it quite soon becomes obvious that this has nothing to do with the protection. The hospital is protected because it is one of the most characteristic and best preserved examples of hospital architecture in Norway and it symbolises the emergence of the welfare state. Instead of the female workers the subject and main actor in the text is the architect who is presented by his full name. The mans full name is even dedicated a special title in the more popular version of the Protection Order. The mans professional lifework is made visible and he is discursively described as an authority and an active debater in the field of architecture. His buildings are said to have great architectural qualities. It is consequently not a protection based on the fact that the hospital is and has been a working place in which women have been predominating, but a protection showing the power and success of a male architect with authority. Discursively the successful Norwegian male architect appears as the single actor. The white Norwegian outstanding man seems to be revisiting the field. However, a wide range of male predominating working places exist in the material, for instance station buildings. In 2002 no fewer than 12 were protected. Among other working places traditionally connected to a masculine sphere a power station, a police station and military buildings can for example be found. At all these working places many different professional groups have been present, from high to low rank. Most often no particular group has been accentuated in the textsapart from the architects, a phenomenon I will come back to. Neither stationmasters, captains, police officers nor generals appear in the texts and neither do workers. Even if the working places are traditionally masculine coded a high degree of anonymity still seems to exist. However, one Protection Order appears to be an exception to this rhetoric. Already the title assigned to the protection signals a different focus: Protection order of the Labour Association in Aalesund. The text explains that this building in popular speech is called the Labourer. This might be the exception from the rule of the lack of articulation of professions apart from architects. The building was protected in 1997. A little surprising, nothing in the text exposes what kind of workers this building was a residence for and nothing indicates if the workers were men, women or both. Additional information about this labour association seems to be difficult to find, even on the web. After a long search one article finally was found

234

WERA GRAHN

written in a regional magazine of Rotary Aalesund and all of a sudden the outline of the labourer in the protected building becomes more distinct. It does not seem to be any kind of workers that used to dwell in this building, but : the association had members that were centrally stationed in leading positions: academics, public officials within the municipal administration and the leading figures in the citys business world (Lmo 2003). The association was, according to the author, founded by the right wing movement as an effort to neutralize the more radical left wing elements in the trade union movement. This explains the grand, not to say magnificent, building. It is impressively large and richly decorated with large columns and amongst others a relief of a Viking ship and a lighthouse on the fac ade. Already from the very start the building was used to practice various cultural activities, such as theatre, concerts, exhibitions and recitations. This makes it plausible to believe that the worker in question was represented by the upper classes. Furthermore the professional groups mentioned above were probably exclusively masculine coded in Norway by this time, just as in Sweden where women neither had an evident right to attend the universities nor to hold an official position in the state or the local governments and very seldom had a leading position in private commerce and industry. On closer examination the worker in question does not appear to be close to anything that is usually regarded to be a worker. Instead the white-collar men stand out as representatives of the well-to-do professional groups in the society. The author of the article wonders at the choice of the name of the building and concludes with the following phrase: One can wonder at Aalesunds Labour Associations leading role, and to an even greater extent at the name, as the leading figures belonged to the right wing (Lmo 2003). Gender, class and political preferences seem to walk hand in hand and to be united in a gathering of right-wing sympathizing men in leading positions in society, who have taken rhetorical command of the literal distinguishing mark of the working class. The text at the Directorates webpage does not reveal anything related to the content of the above article. This might be due to the possibility that all Norwegian inhabitants already know this story and that it is understood even if that is not a very plausible explanation. However, those lacking the specific knowledge will not be able to make a meaningful reading of the text. Returning to the text at the Directorates webpage, two persons are named. They are the architects that made the drawing of the building. Besides this they are also discursively linked to some other buildings they have drawn in the city: the Bank of Norway and The Kings Street nr 1. An air of wealth, splendour and upper class is created. The text concludes that the Labourer is the finest public assembly room in Norway with an interior

Cultural Heritage Management

235

of Art Nouveau. Maybe keywords, such as the names of the architects, the striking buildings, the finest assembly room etc. immediately should have announced that the Labourer in Aaleesund was a euphemism for an elite paper pusher at the opposite side of the traditional class distinction. However, this will not be the case for those who do not own that knowledge in advance. Even if further examination is needed to state whether the examples above are parts of a larger pattern or pure coincidences, there seems to exist a class-related bias with masculine overtones that are cut into the memory of the Norwegian nation, according to the previous findings. Class, gender and nation are pieces in a jigsaw puzzle that have grown together in an imagined Norwegian community (cp. Anderson 1991). This imagined community seems to a high degree to be composed of the ethnically white Norwegian men belonging to the upper social stratum and possessing a work position.

The Memorable Human Being

Returning to the Protection Orders a systematic analysis of the texts has been accomplished, starting with the most recent year 2008 in order to find out how representations of people are constructed. To start with the most recent year available at the time of this study has been a conscious decision, because the latest protections will have a greater potential to reflect some of the current academic and societal discourse related to gender, ethnicity, class etc. It is not especially remarkable or strange that the cultural heritage selection processes at the initial stages of the cultural heritage field in the beginning of the last century bear a bias, whereas it would be more intricate and problematic if this is still the case today. This makes it important to scrutinize the very recent Protection Orders. When this study was carried through the latest Protection Orders at the website of the Directorate for Cultural Heritage derive from July, 2008 and nga rden in Oslo is the focus of attention. According a building called Halle to the text it is a shop that is characteristic for its time. Already in the introduction, accentuated with a bold typeface, it is clear that this sites preservation is linked up with a person. And once again it is the male architect who gets to take a step forward and the architectural value which is emphasized. By clicking on to the very formal decision documents the masculine focus becomes even more evident. In this document several other men are paid attention to by being named, firstly a male artist who has made a mural painting inside the house, secondly two former owners whose last name appears to have given the building its name and thirdly the current owner.

236

WERA GRAHN

The next Protection Order in the list is the House Stenersen, which follows the same pattern. It is the male architect whose name and work are emphasized first in the introduction at the website. In contrast to the just referred example above, the former owner whose last name the house is named after, is brought to life quite early in the popular version at the website right after the architect. Here we learn not only his full name, but also his profession and the fact that he had expensive habits. He was a financier and an art collector. He donated the house to the state with a request that the house should be used as either a state apartment or the residence of the Prime Minister. His wish however, was not fulfilled as the house was turned into a meeting place for architecture, design and culture. In the formal document of decision the architect is further attributed with the expressions internationally oriented, one of the greatest professionals of his time, and the building is referred to as one of the most important contributions to the international modernistic styles in Norway in the 1930s. Here masculinity is tied with excellent aesthetic taste, successful professional men, Norwegian nationality, international orientation, wealth, art, political elite, and a meeting point for highly advanced aesthetic design. The following two cases of preservation in the list show the same kind of narrative. In accordance with the previous pattern the representations of the human beings in these texts are characterized by a combination of the social categories masculinity, the architectural profession and a successful profession. One after another the Protection Orders seem to reinforce and strengthen each other, especially in relation to making the male architect and his work the principal character of the narrative. The safeguarding of forty bridges at once follows these order of preservation. In this context no architects, customers or users are mentioned. The text is formulated in a very matter-of-fact-manner and the presence of emotionally charged expressions are minimal. The bridges represent the historical development of the national road network. Implicitly, however, the male engineer is made visible in this example. Previous research has shown that this profession was for a long time reserved for men and has represented a main component in the construction of masculinity (see for example Berner 1996; Ek-Nilsson 1999). By indirect means the construction of masculinity is reproduced in combination with technical buildings and historical evolution, even if it is given an anonymous form. Concurrently with a weakening impact of linkage to the Norwegian upper class, the personal narratives also seem to decrease. The next preservation is a building at Fredensborgsveien 5, in Oslo, and it is a very rare representative of a suburban workers dwelling from the 18th and 19th century. According to the narrative, the inhabitants seem to have been exclusively male artisans. There is no articulation what-so-ever of any families living and working at the same place, which was common

Cultural Heritage Management

237

in relation to artisans dwellings. The text is filled with carpenters, armourers, and various other craftsmen. Here are stonecutters, undertakers, and coffin makers. None of them are named. A socially non-contextualized and anonymous male artisan living in a world without women and children appears in this narrative. In this text it becomes perhaps even clearer than in previous examples that class and the form of representation an actor is given, are strongly linked together. The higher the societal class the more developed are the person-related narratives. The lower the societal class the greater the anonymity. Another example of an artisans dwelling from the same period is the following Protection Order of Hvedingsveita 8 in Trondheim, but in this text it is emphasized that the domestic part and the workshop were placed closely together. None-the-less, nothing is articulated about any actors other than men, who for instance are described as painters and carpenterstraditionally male occupationsin the workshop. The domestic part is depicted only as a place to live. Going further into the formal documents this does not change. The only difference is that here one of the artisans is mentioned by name and title. This case is a striking example of how masculinity seems to be constructed in isolation from all that ever could include the feminine. This is followed by yet another safeguarding of an artisans building in the same town at vre Bakklandet 33. This is articulated as an architecturally and cultural historically very important example of building. Various forms of artisanship appear to have been carried out here and just as the previous two examples the domestic part is placed in close relation to the working place. The activity has been going on from the middle of the 20th century until the 1970s and among the trades mentioned at least two of them could have included women, namely when the building contained a milk store and a laundry. However, nothing is mentioned of womens workplaces. Instead the two examples of former activity in the building are framed by a long row of traditionally male artisans jobs, which makes the presumably female element disappear from the heritage memorial map. The artisans seem to be exclusively masculine constructions. In the more detailed formal document the masculine feature becomes even more evident. In this text a general of noble birth who was a proponent of a strictly regulated city plan is mentioned by full name several times, although this strict way of regulating was the exact opposite to this preserved part of the town. In other words, a man from the upper class is made an actor in the text, in spite of the fact that he has no direct link to the building or the specific area of the town. The privileging of the combination of high social class and male gender is obvious. In this document the two men that originally built the artisans dwelling, and one of the artisans working there, are also mentioned by full names. Masculinity is in this context clearly linked

238

WERA GRAHN

to full names, titles, building constructions and strict regulation. The world that is to be remembered appears again to be drained of women. The next preservation in the list is the whole area surrounding the former Bank Square in Oslo, now occupied by the Norwegian museum of architecture. The place embraces older as well as newer architecture. The architect who has contributed with the later parts is assigned his full name and is emphasized quite early in the popular narrative at the Directorates website. This is followed by an articulation of the architect of the earlier parts of the building. The preservation act is explicitly linked to the architects and their work as personal achievements. The text tells the reader that the two architectural styles bring out the best in each other and that this is a very important example worth remembering in architectural and cultural history. In the formal documents the younger architect is in particular honoured by statements such as the most well-known of our time and the most prize-awarded Norwegian architect. Once again the construction of masculinity is combined with successful, award winning, well-known, well-educated white Norwegian men who have left considerable material traces in the social world. The following preserved site in the list of 2008 is the fire station Skansen in Bergen. Just as the bridges mentioned earlier, this is an example of the technicalindustrial cultural heritage. The techno-industrial sphere, as well as this particular example of a fire station is a highly masculine coded area. Today fire fighters are still predominantly men. This increases the appearance of a strictly male dominated arena. The cultural, historical, and architectonical values are accentuated. Only one person is named and that is the architect again, just as in the previous cases. In this instance, however, nothing is said about his person or his professional position, in contrast to the majority of the above narratives surrounding the Norwegian architects. The positively charged adjectives are not prevalent and the prime articulated value of this fire station is implied in the completeness of the building. Just as in connection with the bridges the tone of the narrative is much more a matter-of-fact account than the other protections. Explicitly the construction of masculinity is reinforced by linking the male architect to this text, while it is also implicitly strengthened by the choice of a traditionally masculine sphere. According to the examination above, the memorable human being is unquestionably a man who in addition is well-to-do and well educated. Even if a male worker occasionally gets represented by a conservative white-collar association, he remains mute, anonymous, and deprived of his own voice. This is above all a world without women, drained of all that ever was connected to the feminine. Class and gender seem to structure the narratives produced.

Cultural Heritage Management

239

The Ethnic Other Woman

However, one exception for this rhetoric that to a certain extent differs from the above examples exists. It is the last protection examined from moen fjellgard, a small high mountain farm also functioning 2008, Gressa as a carriage station. The narrative surrounding this preservation differs from the earlier descriptions, because it makes a crack in the exclusively mi People enter the story. ethnic white Norwegian narrative as the Sa The protection is, according to the popular presentation, said to sym mi People and settlers. The text also menbolize the contact between the Sa tions that a name of a place to the east of the settlement indicates that mi People have had a settlement here. However, this is not the focus of Sa the narrative. Instead, the text is centred on the carriage station and the white Norwegian settlement. mi Only two sentencesor 15% of the whole textdeal with the Sa connection. The rest of the text maps out a white Norwegian territory. Here the first white Norwegian man who ran the carriage station is emphasized. Then the preservation of their first buildings is highlighted. Hereafter mi settlement is mentioned incidentally. There are small the presumed Sa but important significant wordings that in a fundamental way differentiate the two descriptions. Apart from the fact that the white Norwegian is the mi People first thing to be addressed, the first sentence referring to the Sa starts with the conjunction in addition, as indicating that something is added, a side issue. This additional history is a known excluding practice (see for instance Hirdman 1993; cp. also Grahn 2004, 2006, 2007). This pattern seems to be reproduced here related to the Ethnic Others. mi People is spelled out under The second sentence referring to the Sa the heading Kveilestue fra 1600-talet, which translates as Resting cottage from the seventeenth century. According to some maps, a resting cottage is moen said to have been situated at this place before the settlement Gressa was founded. This cottage is furthermore discursively secluded from the mi context, which in the last sentence of this paragraph instead is articuSa mi Peolated to have been situated to the east of the referred place. The Sa ples heritage becomes in this setting an example of something else, something that is located outside and on the other side of the preserved boundary. It becomes the reflection of the Other as the opposite, confirming what the white Norwegian is not (cp. Irigaray 1974). However, long before the last sentence in this paragraph comes to talk about the mi People, the narrative has already constructed a genealogical story of a Sa white Norwegian territory. This move might not immediately be obvious because of a skilfully adopted rhetoric. It is accomplished by making the cottage self-evident, by

240

WERA GRAHN

describing it as a natural stop located half-way on the mountain. Of course, it was situated half-way for those passing the mountain from one side to the other, but not necessary for those living on the mountain. Going further into the formal documents the story again can be seen as being partly nuanced, even if the story of the cottage still is the natural starting point. What makes the narrative different is that an articulation is mi territory. It is made explicit of this whole area as being an old South Sa mi People since the 17th century and most likely said to be used by the Sa even before that time. Even if it is not made explicit this information all mi land long before any evidence of the the same indicates that this was Sa mi People have not only resting cottage existed. This also implies that Sa been present to the east of the now safeguarded area, but also inside this territory. This fact questions the self-evidence by which the cottage has been discursively located on the midway as a natural stop for everybody. mi People living in this area the cottage would probably more For the Sa accurately have been located in the middle of or inside their territory. This emphasizes that the story is constructed from a white Norwegian point of view, even if, at the same time, there seems to have existed an mi past in the narrative. It simultaneously makes intention to include the Sa it clear that it is important for any author to situate consciously and explicitly the perspective and point of view from which the narrative is produced (cp. Haraway 1991:183201). The narrative above is probably a result of unconscious processes, but this does not make it less effective or frightening. On the contrary, it gives expression to a generally problematic predominant imaginary of the Other revealing deep problems when scrutinized. Another displacement of meaning that seems to be built into the formal documents is executed by the technique of separation of the facts indicat mi presence in this territory. The two sequences considering a Sa mi ing a Sa past are rhetorically split into different parts of the text. The first sequence mi presence but locates it outside the safeguarded area, just indicates a Sa mi People as in the popular version mentioned above. The next time the Sa appears in the text is not until the following page. In this context, they are indeed located within the area, but the two sequences are divided by a long episode describing the white Norwegian process of colonization of the land. The first settler is given a full name. The land is furthermore characterized as the states common land, that is white Norwegian property. The first white Norwegian settler is said to have been given a legal document to start the settlementa bygselbrevand a legal right to the land from the kinga kongeskjtewhich maps the territory as a general white Norwegian property, a no mans land which rightfully has been taken possession of by this man, and this is a fact that can be proved by written legally valid documents and maps.

Cultural Heritage Management

241

The ground is white Norwegian as its point of departure. The same goes mi court is also for the articulated rules of the game. As a side issue, a Sa said to exist. However, this does not seem to be one in regular use. The mi past is something constructed in opposition, as something exotic that Sa does not really belong to the centre of the story. A white Norwegian process of colonization has the prime role in this narrative. Even if the rhetoric is founded on a white Norwegian perspective, there mi Peoples past nevertheless seems to exist an intention to include the Sa in the narrative. The formal documents include several examples of this. At mi woman appears, Malena Thorkelsen (18721954), and she the end, a Sa is assigned a first name as well as a last name. She was a widow with ten children and her main settlement was situated one kilometre south east of moen. Gressa This place is also described, but it includes some problematic passages. mi woman loses her last name after a For some unknown reason the Sa while and is only referred to by her first name. This does not happen to any of the men mentioned in the text. Previous research has shown that this is not a coincidence, but a pattern and a mechanism of power by which women are made subordinate. This can also happen to men if they belong to an ethnic minority (see for example Grahn 2006). Men in particular belonging to the upper strata on the other hand usually get presented with a full name, title, biography and are ascribed various positively charged judgements, which has been shown above. This becomes particu mi woman is the only woman ever larly obvious as the just referred Sa mentioned among the protections examined in 2008 and one of the few mentioned in the whole material of 11 years. The other problematic issue is that her settlement is not included in the protection area. It is situated just outside the border, but ends up on the wrong side. The text does not comment on this fact so the reason why is unknown. However, maybe the main part of her settlement is older than 100 years and thereby automatically protected according to Norwegian law. However, if so, nothing about it is mentioned in the text. In any case, not all of the buildings would fall under this law, as for instance a building mentioned to be put up by the woman in 1937. This means it is only 70 mi years old. Neither does it include the buildings put up by the Sa Schoolwho uses the place today. Maybe the Sami representatives did not want this location to be protected because the use of the place might be restricted. Whatever reason, the reader never gets to know, because nothing in the text gives any clue. mi history in the Grand Even if a good intention to include the Sa national narrative seems to have been present the story nevertheless becomes additive. It is presented as an aside from the major storyin the

242

WERA GRAHN

initially covered formal documentand not at the more popular place at the Directorates web page.

Discussion
This pattern can be understood from several different positions and points of views. In many ways this is an example of a classical white Western binary thinking with its roots in the positivism and the modern project (see e.g. Braidotti 2002; Hooper-Greenhill 2000; Pearce 1997). In this perspective the ethnically white Western man is positioned on the cultivated side, while the ethnically Other woman is situated at the same side as nature. This is a view that has been criticized in particular during the second half of the 20th century and beyond as an obsolete remainder of the modern conception of the world. This raises the question whether and to what extent the understanding of the importance of the linguistic turn and a post-structuralist or post-modern perspective have made any impact on the field of cultural heritage management. This can also be understood as an expression for the aestheticizing processes, which has been prevalent in the cultural heritage management sector since its initial stages, a practice in which the artefacts are identified within the scope of good taste. This is a power structure which Smith (2006) has identified as the authorized heritage discourse (AHD), governing the Western way of understanding what cultural heritage is and what it is not. This discourse revolves around certain aspects, such as specifically constructed styles of art and architecture, which are embraced and honoured. These values have above all since long been supported and reproduced by a masculine predominant elite group of architects and art historians (see for example, Myklebust 1994; cp. also Arcadius 1997a, b; Smith 2006), who so to speak have promoted their own groups works and values. This seems to be a valid standard which still is present in todays Protection Orders, even if those who are working within this field as well as the society at large have been more diversified. This pattern can also be understood from an intersectional perspective11 as an expression for an intertwining of several power structures. Gender but also class, ethnicity and nationality are together shaping hierarchal power relations, some of which appear to be assigned a higher cultural value than others. In a knowledge regime which defines women, indigenous people/ethnic minorities and the lower strata of society as being out mi womans cultural side the scope of interest it becomes natural for the Sa past to be placed outside the boundary of the safeguarded area. Gender, ethnic belonging and class are in this case intertwined in a way that does not allow this combination of social categories to become a part of Norwe-

Cultural Heritage Management

243

gian collective identity. It is a dark continent12 outside the borders of the nation. In an equally natural way the well-to-do, well-educated white Norwegian men are included in a knowledge regime privileging these social categories and thereby creating them as symbols of the national Norwegian identity. Identities are shaped at the intersection of several structures of power, which cooperate to reinforce subordination or to privilege. This can be seen as a key to understanding the effects of power, which appear to be as present in the field of cultural heritage management as in other places. This pattern in not solely characteristic for Norway, but seems to be a recurrent trait in a grand Western narrative of who we are. It is a part of a Western rhetoric (see for example, Aronsson and Meurling 2005; Haraway 1989; Landzelius 1999; Pearce 1997; Porter 1996; Smith 2006). It is a part of an obsolete way of thinking that appears, nonetheless, to be alive still.

Conclusion
Irrespective of which of the above mentioned understandings of the uncovered patterns are preferredif anythe examination calls upon the heritage authorities to apply a more reflexive approach towards the field, not only in terms of finding and including material objects related to previously disregarded groups, but above all to reflect upon the way the authorized heritage discourse is constructed. It is not only a question about tangible things, but also the intangible. In other words how to talk about the objects, which stories to connect and which to exclude. With another language, another focus and a richer contextualization the texts examined could have been much more nuanced and could have included many more social categories. With a narrative taking for instance a women-dominating working sector as a starting point for the protection of Halden hospital would have constituted a much more refined and inclusive discourse. A mi peoples right to territory narrative recognizing, for example, the Sa would make the white Norwegian societys colonization visible. By treating mi woman with the same respect as the articulation of the name of the Sa the names of the white Norwegian men and making explicit why her settlement was not included in the protectionor if feasible including her settlement in the protectiona more inclusive discourse would have been constructed. However, no efforts to construct a more inclusive discourse seem to be made. This study shows that only narrow parts of the Norwegian cultural heritage are represented in the examined Protection Orders. There neither mi People, nor seems to be any room for the heritage of the indigenous Sa

244

WERA GRAHN

any minorities. Only rarely is the protected cultural heritage representative of men from the working classes, and if such men are remembered they are usually described as a mute and anonymous group. The collective memory of Norwegianess is above all symbolized by a white Norwegian male from the elite strata of society who has left material traces that have been assigned as cultural heritage and thereby worthy of preservation. The lack of protection of buildings and sites that can be linked to womens lives and work is the most striking result of this examination. Women appear only as an exception and in those cases usually in margin mi woman referred to above. Gender, class, alized positions such as the Sa ethnical belonging and nationality are intertwined in the public grand narrative emanating from the memory of a white Norwegian well-to-do man. In spite of the strong articulation of the specific nationally Norwegian imaginary, this image is not exclusively characteristic for Norway. In a strange way, every Western nation tends to shape their peculiar national history in accordance to much of the same matrixes, often only allowing minor variations.

Notes
1. Women still have a subordinate position compared to men in many ways in Norway today, similarly to many other countries. A large amount of research existing today showing this. Women still have lower average income than men. Women are still underrepresented at a political level. In the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) 61% of the members are men, but only 39% women. Women carry out the major part of the unpaid domestic work. This, and many more facts, can be found at the website of Statistics Norway (Statistisk ) http://www.ssb.no/likestilling/. Those who are not familiar with sentralbyra the discussion of the general power structures in the Nordic countries might also find it worthwhile to study the Swedish Government Official Report on womens power (SOU 1998:6). There are close points of similarities between Sweden and Norway which makes it possible to translate the conditions discussed in this report into a Norwegian context. 2. Only in Sweden between 50 and 90 dissertations are produced each year. http://www.ub.gu.se/samlingar/kvinn/gena/search.html. 3. This article derives from an investigation and a report written in SwedishGrahn (2009)which can be found on the following web address: http://www.niku.no/archive/niku/publikasjoner/NIKU%20Rapport%20pdf/ Rapport%2027_Intersektionella%20konstruktioner.pdf. 4. See e.g. Hooper-Greenhill (1992), Bennett (1995), Amundsen and Brenna (2003) and Smith (2006). 5. In other contexts other aspects are present, but in this context I have chosen these social categories as they are manifest in this particular material.

Cultural Heritage Management

245

6. The concept of white Norwegian has been selected in order to visualize the ethnic dimension in the prevailing idea of Norwegianess. Most often the ethnicity of the majority of the society is made invisible, whereas minorities are constructed as the ethnic Other. This construction of ethnic difference is repeatedly made on the basis of the colour of individuals skin and forms an essential part of a racist discourse (see e.g. Molina 2005). Of all the ethic markers the ethnic whiteness is particularly unmarked, but serves at the same time as a powerful but indiscernible norm (cp. Dyer 1997; Frankenberg 1993). In order to emphasize and make the whiteness of the majority in Norway visible, the concept of white Norwegian has been selected. 7. See e.g. Berggreen (1992), Burton (1999), Creighton and Norling (1996) and Kaijser (2005). 8. Cp. with Donna Haraways expression apparatus of bodily production (1991), a concept being used and developed by amongst others Barad (2007). It is as an apparatus of production being formed by political, economic, linguistic, social and material relations, which results in various processes of regulation, exclusion and inclusion. The field of cultural heritage could be perceived as such an apparatus, in which cultural heritage not only is preserved, but to a high degree is also created. This phenomenon I have called the apparatus/system of cultural heritage production, inspired by Haraway and Barad. 9. More about the democratic function of cultural heritage can be seen in e.g. SOU (1999:18), Pripp et al. (2004), Grahn (2006, 2007, 2009) and SOU (2007:50). 10. http://www.ra.no/Norsk/Aktuelt/Fredninger/. 11. As mentioned above this is one of several perspectives. For more about vari n (2003), e (2002), Thure ous forms of gender perspectives see e.g. Gemzo Grahn (2006, 2009). 12. Cp. Johannisson (1994).

References
Adolfsson, G. nniska och objekt i smyckeskrin. Symposion, Lund. 1987. Ma Alcock, S. 2002. Archaeology of the Greek Past: Landscapes, Monuments, and Memories. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Amundsen, A. B., and B. Brenna 2003. Museer og museumskunnskap. Et innledende essay. I: A. B. Amundsen, B. tid: essays i museRogan, and M. Stang (red.) Museer i fortid og na umskunnskap. Novus forlag, Oslo, pp. 924.

246

WERA GRAHN

Anderson, B. resta llda gemenskapen. Reflexioner kring nationalismens ursprung och 1991. Den fo teborg. spridning. Daidalos, Go Arcadius, K. n det tidiga 1900-talet. I: n: en bild fra 1997a. Modernitet, identitet och museima l?: kulturella identiteter i tid och rum. G. Alsmark (red.) Skjorta eller sja Studentlitteratur, Lund, pp. 108129. svenska: la nsmuseerna och kulturhistorien. Nordiska museet, 1997b. Museum pa Stockholm. Aronsson, I.-L., and B. Meurling (red.) nade museet. Etnolore, Uppsala. 2005. Det beko Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway. Duke University Press, London. Bennett, T. 1995. The Birth of the Museum. History, Theory, Politics. Routledge, London and New York. Berggreen, B. 1992. Dealing with Anomalies?: Approaching Maritime Women. The North Sea, pp. 111126. Berkaak, O. A. 1992. Ressursbruk, bevaringsideologier og antikvarisk praksis i fartyvernet. Norsk s. Forening for Fartyvern, Kolsa Berner, B. nd: ko n, klass, teknisk expertis. Carlsson, Stockholm. 1996. Sakernas tillsta Braidotti, R. 2002. Metamorphoses: Towards a Materialist Theory of Becoming. Polity Press, Cambridge. Burton, V. 1999. Whoring, Drinking Sailors: Reflections on Masculinity from the Labour History of Nineteenth-Century British Shipping. In Working Out Gender, edited by M. Walsh. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 84101. Collins, P. H. 1998. Its All in the Family: Intersections of Gender, Race and Nation. Hypatia 13(3):6282. Creighton, M. S., and L. Norling (editors) 1996. Iron Men, Wooden Women: Gender and Seafaring in the Atlantic World, 17001920. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Crenshaw, K. W. 1994. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color. In The Public Nature of Private Violence, edited by M. A. Fineman, and R. Mykitiuk. Routledge, New York, pp. 93118.

Cultural Heritage Management

247

Dawson, G. 1994. Soldier Heroes: British Adventure, Empire and the Imagining of Masculinities. Routledge, London. de los Reyes, P., I. Molina, and D. Mulinari (red.) rkla dnader: ko n, klass & etnicitet i det postkoloniala Sveri2002. Maktens (o)lika fo ge : en festskrift till Wuokko Knocke. Atlas, Stockholm. de los Reyes, P., and D. Mulinari (red.) ver (o)ja mlikhetens landskap. Liber, 2005. Intersektionalitet. Kritiska reflektioner o Stockholm. Dyer, R. 1997. White: Essays on Race and Culture. Routledge, London. Ek-Nilsson, K. l. En studie av teknikuppfattning och civilingenjo rer. Etnolore, 1999. Teknikens befa Uppsala. Frankenberg, R. 1993. White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. Routledge, London. e, L. Gemzo rlag, Stockholm. 2002. Feminism. Bilda Fo Grahn, W. Tekniska museet. I: Cecilia Trenter (red.) Tan n pa 2004. Representationer av ko llets kulturarv i Va sternorrland. ISKA, Ramkar och texter om industrisamha r industrisamha llets kulturarv, Ha rno sand. programmet fo nn dig sja lf: Genus, historiekonstruktion och kulturhistoriska museirep2006. Ka ping: Tema Genus, Linko pings universitet. Full resentationer. Diss. Linko Text PDF: http://www.ep.liu.se/theses/abstract.xsql?dbid=7271. r genusintegrering. Up2007. Genuskonstruktioner och museer. Handbok fo plandsmuseet, Uppsala. rvaltning. NIKU-rapport 2009. Intersektionella konstruktioner och kulturminnesfo 27. NIKU, Oslo. Full Text PDF: http://www.niku.no/archive/niku/publi kasjoner/NIKU%20Rapport%20pdf/Rapport%2027_Intersektionella%20k onstruktioner.pdf. Hall, S. 1997. The Work of Representation. In Representation. Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, edited by Stuart Hall. Sage Publications, London, pp. 1374. Haraway, D. 1989. Teddy Bear Patriarchy: Taxidermy in the Garden of Eden, New York City, 190836. I: Primate Visions, pp 2658. Routledge, London. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Free Association Books, London.

248

WERA GRAHN

Hirdman, Y. n och makt kvinnor 1993. Kvinnohistoriens historia. I: Det dolda budskapet: ko n i museiutsta llningar, pp. 2937. Arbetets museum, Norrko ping. och ma Hooper-Greenhill, E. 1992. Museum and the Shaping of Knowledge. Routledge, London. 2000. Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. Routledge, London. Irigaray, L. 1974. Speculum of the Other Woman. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Johannisson, K. `cle. Norstedt, rka kontinenten: kvinnan, medicinen och fin-de-sie 1994. Den mo Stockholm. Kaijser, I. ma n - finns dom?: en samtidsdokumentation. Statens maritima 2005. Kvinnliga sjo museer, Stockholm. Kaufman, P. W., and K. T. Corbett (editors) 2003. Her Past Around Us: Interpreting Sites for Womens History. Krieger, Malabar, FL. Knafve, H. r yttre miljo nska byggnadsminnen; socialgrupp, rderingar i va : Om ska 2003. Va r genus och etnicitet. C-uppsats v.t. 2003, Lunds universitet, Avdelningen fo - och la rdomshistoria. Inst. Fo r kulturvetenskaper. Ide Landzelius, M. 1999. Dis(re)membering Spaces: Swedish Modernism in Law Courts Controversy. teborg. Diss., Univ. Go Latour, B. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York. Losnedahl, K. G. 1993. Kvinne + museum = kvinnemuseum? Senter for humanistisk kvinneforskning, Bergen. Lykke, N. ndbart begrepp fo r genusforskningen. I: Kvin2003. Intersektionalitet ett anva novetenskaplig tidskrift 1.03, s. 4756. intersektionalitet. Problem och mo jligheter. I: Kvinnove2005. Nya perspektiv pa tenskaplig tidskrift nr 23, s. 717. 2010. Feminist Studies. A Guide to Intersectional Theory, Methodology and Writing. Routledge, New York. Lmo, N. 2003. Aalesunds Arbeiderforening litt historikk. I: R-ST. NR. 8. Informasjonsblad for AALESUND ST ROTARY KLUBB Klubb nr. 12703 - Distrikt 2280. November 2003.

Cultural Heritage Management

249

McCall, L. 2005. The Complexity of Intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30(3):17711800. Molina, I. 2005. Rasifiering: Ett teoretiskt perspektiv i analysen av diskriminering i Sve-rige. I: P. de los Reyes, and Kamali M. Bortom vi och dom: Teoretiska reflektioner om makt, integration och strukturell diskriminering, pp. 95112. Fritzes, Stockholm. Myklebust, D. 1994. Foreningen til Norske Fortidsminnesmerkers Bevaring. Historien 18441994. rsbok 1993. Foreningen til Norske Fortidsminnesmerkers Bevaring, Oslo. A Myrin, T. kulturmiljo rd: en diskussion om genus i beva 2009. Genusperspektiv pa teborgs universitet, Institutionen fo r byggelseantikvarisk verksamhet. Go rd, Go teborg. kulturva Nietzsche, F. 1974. The Use and Abuse of History. Gordon Press, New York. NOU 2002:01. Fortid Former Framtid. Statens forvaltningstjenste, Oslo. Pearce, S. 1997. Cultural Diversity Developing Museum Audiences in Britain. In Making Other People, edited by E. Hooper-Greenhill. Leicester University Press, London. Porter, G. 1988. Putting Your House in Order: Representations of Women and Domestic Life. In The Museum Time-Machine, edited by R. Lumley. Routledge, London, pp. 102127. 1996. Seeing Through Solidity: A Feminist Perspective on Museums. In Theorizing Museums, edited by S. Macdonald, and G. Fyfe. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 105126. Pripp, O., E. Plisch, and S. Printz Werner ngfald: utga ngspunkter och resultat, enka r ma tunderso kningen, kar2004. Tid fo rsredovisningar, intervjuunderso ggning av a kningen: en studie av de stattla ligt finansierade kulturinstitutionernas arbete med etnisk och kulturell ngfald. Ma ngkulturellt centrum, Tumba. ma RCN 2004. Kulturminner og kulturmiljer utredning av forskningsbehovet. Norges d, Oslo. Forskningsra d, Oslo. 2008. Utlysningstext till Milj 2015. Norges Forskningsra

250

WERA GRAHN

Riksantikvaren kulturminnevern: rapport fra Riksantikvarens seminar 1988. Kvinneperspektiv pa Isegran ved Fredrikstad. Riksantikvaren, Oslo. 30.111.12.1988 pa 2004. Riksantikvarens oversikt over kulturminneforvaltningens kunnskapsbehov 20052009. Riksantikvaren, Oslo. 2005. Alle tiders kulturminner - Riksantikvarens vernestrategi. Riksantikvaren, Oslo. Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. Ordfront, Stockholm. Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. Routledge, London. 2008. Heritage, Gender and Identity. In Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, edited by Howard Graham. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, pp. 159178. Smith, L., and E. Waterton 2009. Heritage, Communities and Archaeology. Duckworth, London. Statens offentliga utredningar SOU gor till det industriella samha llet. Slutbeta nkande av Utredningen om 1999:18. Fra det industrihistoriska kulturarvet. Fritzes, Stocken statlig satsning pa holm. ngfald a r framtiden. Fritzes, Stockholm. 2007:50. Ma Stortingsmelding nr 16 20042005. Leve med kulturminner. Miljverndepartementet, Oslo. Stortingsmelding nr 39 19861987. Bygnings- og fornminnevernet. Miljverndepartementet i samarbeid med Kultur- og vitenskapsdepartementet, Oslo. n, B.-M. Thure gor, villkor och utmaningar. Vetenskapsra det, Stock2003. Genusforskning Fra holm. Young, I. M. 1997. Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy, and Policy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.