Heritage, Cosmopolitanism, and Identity in Abu Dhabi PDF

Chapter 6 Heritage, Cosmopolitanism and Identity in Abu Dhabi 6DULQD:DNH¿HOG Introduction Nation states, and consequently heritage organisations, have recognised the need to operate as transnational actors within the global economy, as being...

Chapter 6 Heritage, Cosmopolitanism and Identity in Abu Dhabi 6DULQD:DNH¿HOG Introduction Nation states, and consequently heritage organisations, have recognised the need to operate as transnational actors within the global economy, as being part of the global world requires both ‘national’ and ‘global’ identities. In Abu Dhabi contemporary cultural developments are situated within a desire to modernise and at the same time retain traditional aspects of Arabian Gulf life-ways. This has led the emirate to develop a unique approach by using both autochthonous heritage – that which is formed or originating in the place where it is found – and franchised heritage – the distribution of heritage through a legal relationship between two parties: the franchiser (the heritage organisation) and the franchisee (in this case, the Abu Dhabi government), to develop its heritage industry. A franchise is as an agreement whereby one company will buy in another company’s business model and brand; the parent company then charges a fee for WKLVEOXHSULQW7KHPRGHUQOHJDOGH¿QLWLRQRIDIUDQFKLVHLV A right or license that is granted to an individual or group to market a company’s goods or services in a particular territory under the company’s trademark, trade name, or service mark and that often involves the use of rules and procedures designed by the company and services (as advertising) and facilities provided by the company in return for fees, royalties, or other compensation. (‘Franchise’ in Merriam Webster Online: Dictionary and Thesaurus) However it is worth noting that cultural heritage franchise partnerships are RIWHQQRWEDVHGRQDSDUWQHUVKLSEHWZHHQWZROHJDOO\LQGHSHQGHQW¿UPV7KLVLV because cultural heritage institutions are often the preserve of the nation state and as such are intricately linked to the political motivations and objectives of the nation. In Abu Dhabi the Louvre Abu Dhabi is a partnership between the Abu Dhabi government and the French government, and the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi between the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation and the Abu Dhabi government. This can be observed within other heritage franchise partnerships such as that of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, which is also based on an 100 Cultural Heritage in the Arabian Peninsula agreement between the Basque government and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation. Due to the often negative connotations that are connected to the process of franchising, and in particular the franchising of cultural heritage institutions, the heritage organisations do not refer to the planned institutions as franchises. Rather they are publicly presented as intergovernmental agreements, which are based on cross-cultural dialogues. The strategic plan for Abu Dhabi, Plan Abu Dhabi 2030 (Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council 2007) sets out the ways in which the government plans to diversify the economy by 2030. According to the plan, Abu Dhabi intends to SODFH LWVHOI RQ WKH PDS RI JOREDOO\ VLJQL¿FDQW FLWLHV E\ SURPRWLQJ LWVHOI DV D cosmopolitan centre within the Arabian Gulf, by seeking to position itself as a cultural centre through the development of its heritage industry. One of the ways that this is being achieved is through strategic alliances with some of the world’s largest cultural organisations as part of Abu Dhabi’s Saadiyat Island development, which translates from Arabic as the ‘isle of happiness’. Saadiyat Island is planned to include Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim, Jean Nouvel’s Louvre, Zaha Hadid’s Performing Arts Centre, Foster + Partners Zayed National Museum and Tadao Ando’s Maritime Museum.1 This chapter explores how heritage is being used to construct a cosmopolitan identity for the emirate of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. First it will discuss how cosmopolitanism is embedded within Abu Dhabi’s heritage industry through an analysis of the heritage discourse that surrounds both autochthonous and franchised heritage. It will then go on to discuss how cosmopolitanism is used at a national level to address multiculturalism through the heritage projects. Ultimately it will argue that by focusing on global heritage and cosmopolitan identity, the more ‘everyday’ aspects of autochthonous heritage are marginalised, which leads to an unresolved tension between autochthonous and franchised heritage. 1௑$ EXGJHWDU\ UHYLHZ RI $EX 'KDEL¶V GHYHORSPHQW SURMHFW LQ  VDZ D reassessment of the emirate’s entire cultural heritage sector. The result was the merger of the Abu Dhabi Authority for Culture and Heritage and the cultural department of the Tourism Investment Development Incorporation. According to the Tourism Development Investment Corporation website (http://www.tdic.ae/en) in 2012, the review and merger resulted in the development of a revised timeline for the cultural projects on Saadiyat Island, with the Louvre Abu Dhabi due to open in 2015, Zayed National Museum in 2016 and Guggenheim Abu Dhabi in 2017. There were no scheduled completion dates given for the Maritime Museum and the Performing Arts Centre at the time of writing. According to the TDIC’s website these projects are still at the design phase.  Heritage, Cosmopolitanism and Identity in Abu Dhabi 101 Abu Dhabi’s Cultural Developments: Saadiyat Island2 The Louvre Abu Dhabi The development of the Louvre Abu Dhabi is based on an agreement signed between the governments of Abu Dhabi and France in 2007, and is being developed with the expertise of both the Musée du Louvre and Agence France-Museums. The museum building is being designed by Pritzker Prize-winning architect Jean Nouvel who describes the museum as an ‘island on an island’. Nouvel’s design incorporates a falaj (pl. afalaj) inspired water system based on ancient Arabian engineering – a falaj is an irrigation system formed of a series of water channels. According to the Louvre Abu Dhabi’s section of the Saadiyat Island website, the museum’s geometric lace dome is also said to have been inspired by the interlaced SDOPOHDYHVWUDGLWLRQDOO\XVHGDVURR¿QJPDWHULDOWKDWDOORZDµUDLQRIOLJKW¶WRHQWHU the museum space. The Louvre Abu Dhabi will have its own permanent collection along with loans from French museums including the Musée du Louvre, the Musée d’Orsay and the Centre Pompidou. The museum’s collection will explore different civilisations in parallel as the visitor moves forwards on a journey through time. The exhibitions will feature four major periods: archaeology and the birth of civilisation; the medieval period and the birth of Islam; the classical period from Humanism to Enlightenment; and the modern and contemporary period, starting at the end of the eighteenth century. The Louvre Abu Dhabi is being promoted as a ‘universal museum’ that transcends both national and geographical boundaries :DNH¿HOG  $FFRUGLQJ WR WKH µ&XUDWRULDO &RQWH[W¶ VHFWLRQ RI WKH /RXYUH Abu Dhabi website, ‘[i]ts unique museographic approach – displaying objects and art chronologically – will explore connections between seemingly disparate civilisations and cultures around the world’. The exhibitions will be accompanied by a variety of textual and multimedia resources in multiple languages explaining where they come from and their histories. Guggenheim Abu Dhabi The Guggenheim Abu Dhabi franchise is being developed by collaboration between the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation and the Abu Dhabi government. The Guggenheim Abu Dhabi building is being designed by Pritzker Prize-winning architect Frank Gehry, who on the ‘Outside the Museum’ section of the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi section of the Saadiyat Island website describes his design as ‘intentionally messy, moving into clarity’. Gehry drew inspiration for the museum’s cone design from the region’s ancient wind-towers, which both ventilate and shade the museum’s exterior courtyards. The ‘Inside the 2௑7KH GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKHVHSURMHFWVLV EDVHG RQ LQIRUPDWLRQGUDZQ IURPWKHRI¿FLDO Saadiyat Island project website: http://www.saadiyat.ae/en/. 102 Cultural Heritage in the Arabian Peninsula Museum’ website section states that, as the biggest of the Saadiyat museums the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi will feature ‘13,000 square metres of gallery space in the monumental piles of gallery boxes, and eleven iconic cone-like structures providing a further 18,000 square metres of exhibition space’. The museum’s galleries will be distributed around the atrium on four levels connected by glass bridges above. The museum will also feature workshop space and a 350-seat theatre for educational and performing-arts programmes. The ‘Curatorial Concept’ of the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi will build a permanent collection and organise exhibitions that examine the history of art produced around the world since circa 1965 from a variety of perspectives. The museum’s permanent collection and temporary exhibitions programme will both have a transnational focus featuring major art historical movements across geographical areas and time periods. The Zayed National Museum The Zayed National Museum, due to open in 2016, is set to be the centrepiece of the 6DDGL\DW,VODQGGHYHORSPHQW7KLVLVUHÀHFWHGLQWKHSRVLWLRQLQJRIWKHPXVHXP which will be elevated above the rest of the cultural district at its highest point and in the very centre. The proposed museum is being developed in consultation with WKH%ULWLVK0XVHXPDQGZLOOWHOOWKHVWRU\RIWKHUHJLRQ¶VKLVWRU\DQGWKHXQL¿FDWLRQ of the United Arab Emirates through the life and times of Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, father of the nation. The museum is being designed by Pritzker Prize- winning architects Foster + Partners. The museum’s towers are reminiscent of the wing tips of the falcon, which is a ‘symbol of the UAE’s cultural heritage’ (Conroy and Thomas 2010). The Zayed National Museum will have seven permanent gallery displays as well as a special exhibition programme in which visitors can explore the long history, heritage and culture of the UAE and its place in the world. The Zayed National Museum’s website describes how each gallery is inspired by the values of Sheikh Zayed: his belief in education, conservation, heritage and culture, all underpinned by his humanitarianism and deep faith. The seven galleries to be included in the museum are: The Sheikh Zayed Gallery: Life and Times Gallery, The Falconry and Conservation Gallery, The Land and Water Gallery, The People and Heritage Gallery, The History and Society Gallery, The Science and Learning Gallery and The Faith and Islam Gallery. The museum will also host a library housing historical and cultural sources and various interactive media. Outside the museum will be a garden that will use landscaping, planting and installations to further explore key moments in the life of Sheikh Zayed. The Maritime Museum, designed by Tadeo Ando, and the Performing Arts Centre, designed by Zaha Hadid, will both form part of Saadiyat Cultural District’s second phase of development; the delivery dates were unavailable at the time of writing, and the descriptions below are based on the information available on the project websites.  Heritage, Cosmopolitanism and Identity in Abu Dhabi 103 The Maritime Museum The Maritime Museum will tell the story of Abu Dhabi’s maritime heritage and explore the local population’s long relationship with the sea. The building is being designed by Pritzker Prize-winning architect Tadao Ando and is based on the form of a sail full of wind. The building will combine space, light and water both inside and out, blending the building’s interior and exterior. Abu Dhabi’s nature, landscape and maritime traditions all served as the inspiration for the Abu Dhabi Maritime Museum. Within the ship-like interior of the Maritime Museum, UDPSVDQGÀRDWLQJGHFNVZLOOJXLGHWKHYLVLWRUVWKURXJKWKHH[KLELWLRQVSDFH$ WUDGLWLRQDOGKRZZLOOÀRDWRYHUWKHPXVHXP¶VLQWHULRUZKLFKZLOODOVRIHDWXUHDQ underwater aquarium. The Performing Arts Centre The Performing Arts Centre will be home to various forms of artistic performance, and will house concert halls, theatres and experimental performance spaces with a combined seating capacity of 6,300. Zaha Hadid’s design for the Performing $UWV&HQWUHUHÀHFWVWKHÀXLGLW\RIPRWLRQDQGLVLQVSLUHGE\IRUPVHQFRXQWHUHG LQWKHQDWXUDOZRUOGWKHEXLOGLQJKDVEHHQGHVLJQHGWRÀRZIURPWKHFHQWUHRIWKH Saadiyat Cultural District. It will also accommodate an academy of performing arts, which is expected to foster local and regional talent. Abu Dhabi, Cosmopolitanism and the Heritage Discourse 7KHVLJQL¿FDQFHRIWKH&XOWXUDO'LVWULFWLVLOOXVWUDWHGE\WKHVWUDWHJLFUROHWKDWLW plays within the government’s vision and future development strategy for Abu Dhabi, as set out in Plan Abu Dhabi 2030. The aim is to diversify the economy away from Abu Dhabi’s dependence on oil and to make Abu Dhabi one of the WRS¿YHJOREDOGHVWLQDWLRQVLQWKHZRUOG$VVWDWHGRQWKH7RXULVP'HYHORSPHQW Investment Corporation (TDIC) website in 2011, Saadiyat Island is planned to be a cosmopolitan mixed-use development for both luxury tourism and exclusive residential living. The notion of Abu Dhabi becoming a new cosmopolitan cultural centre in the Middle East has therefore occupied a central position in the promotion DQGMXVWL¿FDWLRQRIWKHFXOWXUDOSURMHFW One of the most fundamental outcomes of the transnationalisation of KHULWDJH LV WKDW WKH UROH RI KHULWDJH KDV VKLIWHG IURP EHLQJ XVHG WR GH¿QH D place as bounded by borders to one that is global (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2007; +DUULVRQ   DQG FRVPRSROLWDQ LQ VFRSH 0HVNHOO  :DNH¿HOG   Appiah (2007) suggests that cosmopolitanism is a tradition of thought that is linked to the idea that we are all citizens of the world. Cosmopolitans welcome diversity of culture, race, religion and nationality. Therefore within the process 104 Cultural Heritage in the Arabian Peninsula of creating cosmopolitan heritage identities the ability to possess and mobilise KHULWDJH ZKLFK LV GH¿QHG DV JOREDO DQG FXOWXUDOO\ GLYHUVH LV RI LQFUHDVLQJ LPSRUWDQFH$ VLJQL¿FDQW DVSHFW RI WKLV KDV EHHQ WKH JURZWK RI WUDQVQDWLRQDO heritage processes such as UNESCO’s World Heritage listing, the franchising of heritage, the internationalisation of professional heritage practices through museum consultancy services and the exchange of international exhibitions. +HULWDJH LQ WKH DUJXPHQW SXW IRUZDUG LQ WKLV FKDSWHU LV GH¿QHG DV RSHUDWLQJ transnationally when it reaches beyond or transcends national boundaries. Anthropologist Arjun Appadurai (1996) has argued that globalisation led to the eradication of the divide between the individual at home and the ‘other’ who lives elsewhere. Sociologist John Urry (2000) expands on this notion by suggesting value is increasingly being accorded to ideas of movement, networks and trade with diverse audiences across the world. The impact of this within the heritage sector has been that heritage organisations and their processes are adapting to this new trend of global mobilities. However, it is worth noting that heritage does not necessarily have to move physically in order to be mobile. The brand reach of World Heritage Sites, for example, extends beyond the boundaries of the nation in which the site is held. This is because, although many people will be aware of well-known World Heritage Sites, they may never visit them. 7KHRI¿FLDOKHULWDJHGLVFRXUVHDVVHWRXWE\WKH$EX'KDELJRYHUQPHQWIRFXVHV on the emirate’s role as facilitator of cross-cultural exchange and global dialogue, and by doing so it seeks to establish the emirate’s cosmopolitan credentials on the world stage. Developing a cosmopolitan identity plays a central role in the ways in which heritage is produced and presented in Abu Dhabi. The global aspirations of the cultural project are set out by the Tourism Development Investment Corporation (TDIC). According to the TDIC’s website,3 through the development of its iconic cultural institutions, Saadiyat Island will become a global cultural hub attracting local, regional and international visitors. Yet cosmopolitanism is about more than just being seen to be part of the global world. Cosmopolitan heritage is embedded within collective collaboration (Appiah 2007). Within the process of shaping global heritage identities cosmopolitan values and difference become central to the promotion of shared heritage, which is more often referred to (or branded) as global, universal or transnational. Cosmopolitanism, as Appiah (2007, xiii) argues, is an ‘ethical stance, which in essence captures a receptive and RSHQDWWLWXGHWRZDUGVRWKHUV¶2I¿FLDOVWDWHPHQWVE\WKH$EX'KDEL*RYHUQPHQW stress the emirate’s commitment and active role within the global heritage project. These statements suggest that the cultural project ‘is contributing to the strengthening of intercultural dialogue and the appreciation of different cultures’ by exchanging cultural heritage, according to the Abu Dhabi Authority for Culture and Heritage website.4 3௑http://www.tdic.ae/en/news/media-center/news/tdic-announces-opening-dates-of- saadiyat-cultural-district-museums.html (accessed 25 January 2012). 4௑KWWSZZZDEXGKDELFODVVLFVFRPHQDERXWDGDFK (accessed 9 March 2012).  Heritage, Cosmopolitanism and Identity in Abu Dhabi 105 The rhetoric that surrounds the development of cultural heritage franchises in Abu Dhabi further supports the argument that cosmopolitan ideologies are bound up within the heritage discourse. The Louvre Abu Dhabi, for example, claims on its website that it ‘will express the universalism of its time, that of a globalised and interdependent world’. Furthermore the website claims that the museum’s universal WKHPHVDQGFRPPRQLQÀXHQFHVZLOOEHKLJKOLJKWHGWRLOOXVWUDWHVLPLODULWLHVDULVLQJ from shared human experience transcending geography, nationality and history. 2I¿FLDOVWDWHPHQWVIURPWKH*XJJHQKHLP$EX'KDELVHFWLRQRIWKH6DDGL\DW Island website also stress the cosmopolitan nature of the museum and its programmes along with its linkages to the local context of Abu Dhabi, and the broader Gulf. According to the website, through its permanent collection, temporary exhibitions and its educational programming the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi will explore common WKHPHVDQGDI¿QLWLHVDPRQJDQGEHWZHHQDUWLVWVDFURVVWLPHDQGJHRJUDSK\%\ doing so, it will focus on the ‘interconnected dynamics of local, regional, and international art centres as well as their diverse historical contexts and sources RIFUHDWLYHLQVSLUDWLRQ¶7KHFURVVLQJRIJHRJUDSKLFDOERXQGDULHVOLNHWKHRI¿FLDO heritage as presented by the Abu Dhabi government, features heavily in the ways in which the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi presents itself as a transnational museum. This illustrates how ‘cosmopolitanism presupposes a positive attitude towards GLIIHUHQFH¶ $SSLDK   7KH RI¿FLDO UKHWRULF VXJJHVWV WKDW E\ XVLQJ KHULWDJH to communicate across cultural and social boundaries that diverse nations may become part of a universalist solidarity. Abu Dhabi is therefore using heritage to create an imagined global community (Hobsbawm 1983). The concept of global imagery is therefore used to refer to a growing consciousness of belonging to a cohesive global community. This process carries the underlying assumption that certain aspects of heritage are universal and that heritage is, and can be, exchanged, interpreted, managed and displayed in similar ways globally. It also implies that all communities are equal and that all members have equal access to the cosmopolitan project. As such the heritage franchise has become a global commodity that can be purchased and moved around the world due to the promulgation that heritage franchises embody universal characteristics that can be applied globally. Anthropologist Arjun Appadurai (1996) has suggested that a global cultural economy exists. Within this global cultural economy he DUJXHVWKDWFXOWXUDOPRYHPHQWVDQGÀRZVFDQQRWEHVHSDUDWHGIURPWKHZRUNRI representation, which works to make global action meaningful. Seen in this way the cultural heritage franchise works both to represent cosmopolitan identity and to make cosmopolitan cultural engagement possible. Notions of cosmopolitanism and universalism are also evident within the 8QLWHG 1DWLRQV (GXFDWLRQDO 6FLHQWL¿F DQG &XOWXUDO 2UJDQL]DWLRQ¶V 81(6&2  approach to heritage. UNESCO has most prominently perpetuated this idea within its promotion of the World Heritage Convention on a global scale (Byrne 1991; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2007; Harrison 2010; 2013). Lynn Meskell (2009, 11) coined the term ‘heritage protectionism’ to describe this process of preserving FHUWDLQYDOXHGVLWHVIRUWKHEHQH¿WRIKXPDQLW\+DUULVRQ  KDVVXJJHVWHG 106 Cultural Heritage in the Arabian Peninsula that this shift towards a collective global ownership for heritage was the result of an important move away from the dominance of national heritage preservation and SUHVHQWDWLRQ81(6&2¶VJOREDOLQÀXHQFHKDVEHHQVRSHUYDVLYHWKDWLWKDVSOD\HG a strategic role in the development of transnational heritage agendas by diverse cultures around the world. Within Abu Dhabi UNESCO also uses cosmopolitanism overtly by promoting ‘heritage protectionism’ as an ethical obligation to contribute to the broader polity of world heritage that has emerged within the modern world. For example, UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity states: Culture takes diverse forms across time and space. This diversity is embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up humankind. As a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity for nature. In this sense, LWLVWKHFRPPRQKHULWDJHRIKXPDQLW\DQGVKRXOGEHUHFRJQL]HGDQGDI¿UPHG IRUWKHEHQH¿WRISUHVHQWDQGIXWXUHJHQHUDWLRQV 81(6&2 The Declaration is based on two ideas that form the basis of cosmopolitanism. These are: that we have obligations to others that stretch beyond local and national ties, and that we take seriously the value of others and their practices and beliefs (Appiah 2007, xiii). Again we see how the development and subsequent sharing RIZRUOGKHULWDJHLVRIWHQEDVHGRQDGXW\DQGREOLJDWLRQWRRWKHUVWKDW¿QGVLWV expression through global heritage processes and partnerships. Yet UNESCO’s early value system was dominated by Western regions DQG DHVWKHWLFV ZKLFK GH¿QHG FXOWXUDO KHULWDJH LQ WHUPV RI SK\VLFDO VLWHV DQG characteristics (Harrison 2010, 241). UNESCO’s response to the criticism that this brought was to expand the World Heritage Convention to incorporate intangible cultural heritage. UNESCO’s Global Strategy for a Balanced, Representative and Credible World Heritage List was used to devise categories that were capable of recognising intangible heritage such as languages, music and living cultures (Von Droste 1995, 22). Harrison (2010, 196) has argued that ‘this broadening agenda emerged within the context of multicultural and postcolonial critique in which heritage was seen to represent a limited number of interests, and new “representative” models of heritage came to replace older notions of a single GH¿QLWLYH ³FDQRQ´ RI KHULWDJH¶ 7KLV VHUYHV WR LOOXVWUDWH KRZ FRVPRSROLWDQLVP works from within (Beck and Sznaider 2006, 9). Kirshenblatt-Gimblett argues that the listing of intangible cultural heritage practices as World Heritage creates a ‘metacultural process’ in which heritage methods and processes are applied to living people and their practices. The result is that people become ‘agents in the heritage enterprise itself’ (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2007, 171). As Dicks notes, ‘[t]hrough display sites, people can ensure their own traditions continue, ones that might otherwise be lost, by educating people about them (for example, Fijian students learn rope-making in the Polynesian Cultural Centre on Hawaii)’ (2004, 13). In Abu Dhabi this occurs during heritage events and days where traditional activities such as falconry and sadu weaving are performed. The result  Heritage, Cosmopolitanism and Identity in Abu Dhabi 107 is that locally conceived values and ideas can be incorporated into the dominant heritage methodologies when cosmopolitanism is put into practice. Transnational museum and heritage practices therefore not only are linked to DÀRZRIFXOWXUHDURXQGWKHZRUOGEXWDUHDOVRDVWDWHRIPLQG :DNH¿HOG  which is part of a shared phenomenological world (Hoogvelt 1997) based on a new form of global consciousness. For cosmopolitanism to exist nations and actors must sign up to the cosmopolitan project by joining the cosmopolitan ethic DVVHWRXWE\WKHRI¿FLDOKHULWDJHGLVFRXUVH0HVNHOO  KDVDUJXHGWKDW ‘tradition is mobilized from a Euro-American platform based on the presumed universalism of “world heritage”’. It is through what Smith (2006, 29) calls the ‘authorized heritage discourse’ (AHD) that society decides what should and VKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDVRI¿FLDOUHSUHVHQWDWLRQVRIKHULWDJH&RVPRSROLWDQ KHULWDJHDVWKHDXWKRUDUJXHVHOVHZKHUH :DNH¿HOG LVEDVHGRQDVHWRI ideas and practices that through the AHD positions the dominant ideologies and actors (practices of state and professionals), and in this case the cosmopolitan ideal of sharing and exchanging culture, as natural. The result is that global institutions (World Heritage List, cultural heritage franchises, world-class museums and so on) and processes are sought to promote and present heritage JOREDOO\ 7KH EHQH¿WV RI GHYHORSLQJ SDUWQHUVKLSV ZLWK PDMRU JOREDO KHULWDJH institutions is that they bring the skills and experience that are deemed necessary through the AHD to develop and operate global heritage. In addition WKH\ EULQJ KLJKSUR¿OH EUDQG DVVRFLDWLRQ ,Q WKH FDVH RI $EX 'KDEL JOREDO KHULWDJHLVFUHDWHGLQSDUWQHUVKLSZLWKDUJXDEO\WKHODUJHVWDQGPRVWLQÀXHQWLDO organisations – the British Museum, the Louvre, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation and UNESCO. This leads to the assumption that the Louvre, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, the British Museum and UNESCO are all needed for the heritage project in Abu Dhabi to succeed. Cosmopolitanism in this sense means accepting the rules of the game as presented by the dominant global heritage organisations. The concept of cosmopolitanism is therefore an institutionally embedded global political consciousness. 7KHLVVXHZLWKWKLVLVWKDWWKHJOREDOKHULWDJHGLVFRXUVHZLWKLWVVSHFL¿FUXOHV and regulatory practices can exclude indigenous populations. Ultimately as Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (2007, 171–80) suggests, global heritage processes such as World Heritage listing alter the relationship of local heritage practitioners to cultural KHULWDJHSUDFWLFHV7KLVLVEHFDXVHWKHEHQH¿FLDULHVRIKHULWDJHDUHQRORQJHUMXVWWKH indigenous peoples but all of humanity. One of the issues for the local community in Abu Dhabi is that the heritage projects, both global and local, are being created and shaped by expatriate workers. One of the responses to this has been the continued use and development of alternate forms of heritage such as the heritage village. In 2012, the local community as part of a locally led heritage drive restored Jazirat Al Hamra (or the Red Island) in Ras Al Khaimah. Jazirat Al Hamra was once a small island whose inhabitants, the za’ab tribe, subsisted on maritime and pearl trading (Zacharias 2012). The area is believed to have been occupied since the sixteenth century but was abandoned prior to the formation of the Federation. The 108 Cultural Heritage in the Arabian Peninsula project began due to the voluntary efforts of four men – Mohammad Rashid Al Zuabi, Mohammad Hilal Al Zuabi, Abdullah Yousuf Al Miyahi and Hamad Esmail Al Ahmad, who initiated the restoration project. According to Gulf News the men VWDUWHGWKHSURMHFWDVWKH\EHOLHYHGWKDWWKHDUHDKDGVLJQL¿FDQWKLVWRULFDOYDOXHDQG as such needed to be restored (Gulf News 2012). The standing remains at Jazirat Al Hamra consists of a hisn, several mosques, a souq and over 100 houses including a wind tower home. The project attracted the attention of the Ras Al Khaimah Government and other members of the community, with the result that Saud Bin Saqr Al Qasimi, Supreme Council Member and Ruler of Ras Al Khaimah, ordered further work to be undertaken within the area to restore the site and to develop it into a tourism attraction (Gulf News 2012). There are numerous other heritage villages throughout the Emirates such as the Heritage Village on the Abu Dhabi Corniche, the Hatta Heritage Village, and the Dubai Heritage and Diving Village to name but a few. It is worth noting that not all heritage villages in the Emirates have emerged from a community led grass-roots movement. The continued importance of these villages and the connections that they have with the local community are particularly apparent during times of national celebration, such as during the annual National Day celebrations. For example, huge efforts were put in to the 40th National Day celebrations in Abu Dhabi, and across the entire United Arab Emirates. This suggests that the concept of national heritage through, for example, the development of heritage villages is an act of resistance to the cosmopolitan discourse. The universalising effect of cosmopolitanism masks the political nature of the world heritage process. By drawing on the ideological stance of cosmopolitanism, world heritage in the form of the World Heritage List and cultural heritage franchising is distanced from the more negative aspects of the exchange through the pursuit of the ‘common good’. In reality political motivations play an important role in the way that cosmopolitanism is used within the process of building cross- border relationships between nations. The UAE and France, for example, have VLJQHGDQXPEHURIKLJKSUR¿OHDJUHHPHQWVZKLFKLQFOXGHGWKHRSHQLQJRIWKH ¿UVW)UHQFK1DY\EDVHRXWVLGHRIWKHFRXQWU\LQ\HDUVLQWKH:HVWHUQSURYLQFH in May 2009, underlining the continuing importance of the region to Western geo-security and commercial interests (Cody 2009). In addition, the Abu Dhabi versions of the Paris-Sorbonne and the Louvre have been described by the French &XOWXUH0LQLVWHU*LOOHVGH5RELHQDVSDUWRIDµZLVKWR¿QGDGLDORJXHEHWZHHQ(DVW DQG:HVW¶ &KULVD¿V &RVPRSROLWDQLVPLVWKHUHIRUHGHHSO\HPEHGGHGZLWKLQ political discourse and international relations. The claim inevitability depoliticises the public discourse around globalisation, cosmopolitanism and heritage. Heritage is portrayed as above politics and as such the cosmopolitan nation through the process of globalisation is simply carrying out what is preordained by nature. 7KLV LPSOLHV WKDW LQVWHDG RI DFWLQJ DFFRUGLQJ WR D VHW RI FKRLFHV SHRSOH IXO¿O global heritage requirements and surrender national control in favour of global ownership. Resistance would therefore be unnatural.  Heritage, Cosmopolitanism and Identity in Abu Dhabi 109 Cosmopolitanism and Difference: The Zayed National Museum The nature of difference is of central importance for cosmopolitan heritage, which is employed at different times, in different spaces, and across different cultures. Therefore difference may be promoted and tolerated but deeper ontological differences are excluded and suppressed. One of the ways that issues of multiculturalism have been addressed is by developing the museum as facilitator of cross-cultural exchange with a view to taking the sting out of the politics of difference within wider society (Bennett 2007, 59). In doing so it brings ‘creative friction to global connections’ (Tsing 2005, x). Within Abu Dhabi cosmopolitanism is used within the heritage project as one of the ways of showing tolerance. Cosmopolitanism makes this possible as it promotes the way Abu Dhabi understands the world and how this is made possible by the liberal and modern outlook of the rulers. However, there is an important difference between multicultural and cosmopolitan approaches to heritage. Within the UK, for example, multiculturalism is used within the national agenda to address discrimination and promote more inclusive societies. Harrison (2013, 142–4) has observed how governments have used heritage to address increasing globalisation and multiculturalism by developing policies that are targeted at managing cultural and ethnic diversity. Within the museum and heritage sector this has resulted in the development of more inclusive displays that incorporate excluded groups such as women and ethnic minorities. Within Abu Dhabi cosmopolitanism is used very differently. Cosmopolitanism in Abu Dhabi is used to promote the modern outlook of the government and its citizens. In addition cosmopolitanism is used to address issues relating to immigration and national identity. It has been argued (Ansari 1987) that increased multiculturalism within the Gulf States due largely to the presence of foreign guest workers (up to 80 per cent) from Arab and non- Arab countries who are referred to in Arabic as al-wafedeen (‘the in-comers’), has created ‘a strong sense of self-preservation among indigenous Gulf communities’ (Ansari 1987, 22). Multiculturalism is addressed by presenting cosmopolitanism as the natural way forward. This is achieved by taking those aspects of the past that link to other cultures and nations through trade and so on, and using them to construct a cosmopolitan imagery that engages with both national and transnational peoples’ and their identities. According to its website, the Zayed National Museum, as discussed earlier in this chapter, is being used to tell ‘the story of Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al 1DK\DQ ±  KLV XQL¿FDWLRQ RI WKH 8QLWHG $UDE (PLUDWHV WKH ORQJ history of the region and its cultural connections across the world’. The Science and Learning Gallery will locate modern engineering and technology GHYHORSPHQWVWDNLQJSODFHLQWKH8$(ZLWKLQ$UDEVFLHQWL¿FDQGWHFKQRORJLFDO achievements. In addition, the Zayed National Museum website argues that the ‘archaeology collection will present the heritage of the UAE as interconnected 110 Cultural Heritage in the Arabian Peninsula with developments elsewhere in the region’.5 Furthermore as part of the Zayed National Museum’s pre-opening programme, the museum staged the Splendours of Mesopotamia exhibition, which opened to the public on the 29 March 2011 at Manarat al Saadiyat, Saadiyat Island. The exhibition featured a range of objects and artefacts from the ancient civilisation of Mesopotamia (modern Iraq and parts of Syria). The exhibition included objects and artworks from both the British Museum’s Middle East collection and from the Al Ain National Museum’s collection (Thomas 2011). The importance of this exhibition lies in its shift in focus as the exhibition attempted to place the history of the UAE within a regional and international context by positioning objects from the ancient UAE alongside objects from Sumer, Assyria and Babylon. Therefore, as Askew (2010, 20) argues, ‘the globalised and institutionalised heritage system has not overcome nation- state based power structures and nationalistic agendas, but has enhanced them’. Cosmopolitanism draws on these universal ideologies to create a global imagery. Yet, as Sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein (1996, 124) argues, the stance ‘citizen of the world’ is deeply ambiguous and cosmopolitanism ‘can be used just as easily to sustain privilege as to undermine it’. Therefore the production of cosmopolitan heritage identities does not necessarily neutralise difference. In reality much of the work that cosmopolitanism undertakes is elite-centred. In Abu Dhabi the relationships being forged are with Western cultural heritage institutions and their governments, not the world at large. Transnational heritage, World Heritage Site listing, museum franchises, bilateral partnerships and so on, all act as social agents and symbols of political accord. Cosmopolitanism is therefore highly selective and is used to speak to those cosmopolitans who are perceived to ‘belong’ within the heritage narratives. Tony Bennett (2007) argues that cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism are limited in terms of potential for cross- cultural dialogue due to their tendency to address white, cosmopolitan, educated, urban elites. In Abu Dhabi the heritage narratives exclude the huge numbers of PLJUDQWODERXUHUVZKRPDNHXSDVLJQL¿FDQWSURSRUWLRQRIWKHSRSXODWLRQIDYRXULQJ instead heritage presentations and narratives that are familiar to, but do not represent, the largely white-collar, middle-class Western expatriate workers. This produces further tension as the local population is marginalised from the heritage narrative as it is seen to speak to a largely ‘Western other’ through the emphasis that is placed on global heritage. Therefore, cosmopolitan heritage, as Rodney Harrison (2010) argues in relation to multicultural heritage, challenges the nation state and its production of XQL¿HG KHULWDJH GLVFRXUVHV WKDW VHUYH WR SURGXFH QDWLRQDO QDUUDWLYHV ,DQ +RGGHU (2009, 185) has argued that, ‘in the cosmopolitan world of complex and shifting DOOLDQFHVFXOWXUDOKHULWDJHFODLPVVKRXOGEHOLQNHGVWUDWHJLFDOO\WRWKHVSHFL¿FVRIWKH cosmopolitan mix’. Therefore there are those nations, such as Abu Dhabi, who are in DSRVLWLRQZKHUHE\WKH\FDQXVHWKHLUFDSLWDODQGSRVLWLRQZLWKLQWKHJOREDOÀRZWR LQFUHDVHWKHLUSRZHUDQGLQÀXHQFHRQDJOREDOOHYHODQGWKRVHWKDWFDQQRW 5௑KWWSZZZ]D\HGQDWLRQDOPXVHXPDHJDOOHULHVKLVWRU\DQGVRFLHW\KWPO DFFHVVHG March 2012).  Heritage, Cosmopolitanism and Identity in Abu Dhabi 111 A cosmopolitan approach to the problem would be to take an interest in the difference between the local and the global, recognising that both the global and the local depend upon each other to exist. This is implicated within the term ‘cosmopolis’ since ‘cosmos’ means a natural universal order and ‘polis’ means a society’s variable order (Ribeiro 2005, 19). This emphasises the debate surrounding the opposition between the local and the global, which has preoccupied critical thinking within both globalisation studies (Wallerstein 1974; Featherstone 1990; Giddens 1990; 2000; Robertson 1992; 1995) and critical heritage studies (Harrison 2013; Kirshenblatt- Gimblett 2007). One way to do this would be to see cosmopolitanism as a ‘rooted’ SURFHVVµ5RRWHG&RVPRSROLWDQLVP¶ZDVDWHUP¿UVWFRLQHGE\0LWFKHOO&RKHQ   to explore the global and the particular. Cohen (1992, 483) argues for a ‘dialogical’ approach to cosmopolitanism that ‘accepts a multiplicity of roots and branches and that rests on the legitimacy of plural loyalties, a standing in many circles, but with common ground’. The metaphor sought to conceive of the roots and branches of the tree as particularised, and the soil in which it sits as universal. Following Cohen’s interpretation Lynn Meskell (2009, 3–4) argues that ‘rooted cosmopolitanism’ has the potential to ‘acknowledge attachments to place and particular social networks, resources and cultural experiences that inhabit that space’. Yet such a view would limit cosmopolitan heritage to certain places or zones in DVLPLODUZD\WR-DPHV&OLIIRUG¶V  µFRQWDFW]RQHV¶WKDWZHUHOLPLWHGWRVSHFL¿F hybrid museum spaces. More usefully Sheldon Pollock, Homi K. Bhabha, Carol A. Breckenridge and Dipesh Chakrabarty have suggested that ‘cosmopolitanism is not a circle created by culture diffused from a centre, but instead, that centres are everywhere and circumferences nowhere’ (Pollock et al. 2002, 12). Taking such an approach would require a consideration of the different relations and processes that underpin diverse cosmopolitan global heritage settings. Anthropologist Anna Tsing (2005) has examined how the concept of ‘friction’ can be used to explore global connections and interconnections within the rainforests of Indonesia. Tsing argues that universals reinforce hegemonic power structures while simultaneously providing the opportunity for empowerment amongst those with less power. As we KDYH VHHQ WKH RI¿FLDO KHULWDJH GLVFRXUVH VHUYHV WR SUHVHQW$EX 'KDEL¶V QDWLRQDO and global agendas and identities; at the same time the community is constructing alternative identities through the development of community-led heritage initiatives. Cosmopolitan approaches to heritage must be seen within the context of the struggles and frictions that emerge within complex interconnected global heritage contexts. Conclusion Transnational heritage, by subscribing to a global polity, means promoting particular types of cosmopolitan identity that are bound up within complex SROLWLFDODQGQDWLRQDODJHQGDV7KHSROLWLFVRIGLIIHUHQFHDUHWKHUHE\FRPPRGL¿HG for the consumption of the global citizen through the cosmopolitan project, which IXHOVWKHWUDQVQDWLRQDOKHULWDJHHFRQRP\ :DNH¿HOG +HULWDJHLVWKHUHIRUH 112 Cultural Heritage in the Arabian Peninsula FKDUJHG ZLWK UHÀHFWLQJ WKH QDUUDWLYH RI WUDQVQDWLRQDO FRQQHFWLRQ DQG H[FKDQJH both by expressing the need to be part of the global world, and at the same time by highlighting the need to experience and retain cultural peculiarity. As we have seen in the case of Abu Dhabi, this has led to the predominance of world heritage discourses. Autochthonous heritage is not isolated from global heritage discourses, as is evidenced by the popularity of World Heritage Site listings, but rather is used to further identify with and reinforce the cosmopolitan project. This is achieved by invoking both national and transnational solidarity through the use of local, national and global heritage narratives. Cosmopolitanism, following Beck (2013), is ‘a non-linear, dialectical process in which the universal and particular, the similar and the dissimilar, the global and the local are to be conceived, not as cultural polarities but as interconnected and reciprocally interpenetrating principles’. The issue that arises is that it is the more ‘everyday’ and contentious forms of heritage that are marginalised in favour of world heritage agendas and cosmopolitan identity making. However, grass roots movements are responding and resisting these dominant discourses by developing alternative forms of heritage such as heritage villages. Cultural diversity therefore is not banished from these interconnections but is what fuels them, which leads to unresolved and often FRQÀLFWLQJWHQVLRQV8OWLPDWHO\ZKDWZHVHHLQ$EX'KDELLVWKHZD\WKDWERWK autochthonous and franchised heritage are shaped by, and shape, the formation of cosmopolitan identities in Abu Dhabi. The result is that certain cosmopolitan ‘traditions’ are ‘invented’ and put to use within the transnational heritage economy, which plays an important role in the way that Abu Dhabi imagines and represents itself through the heritage project. References Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council. 2007. Plan Abu Dhabi 2030. Abu Dhabi: Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council. Ansari, Ghaus. 1987. Urbanization and cultural equilibrium in the Arabian Gulf states. Bulletin of the International Committee on Urgent Anthropological and Ethnographical Research 28: 19–24. Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 2007. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. London: Penguin Books. Askew, Marc. 2010. The magic list of global status: UNESCO, World Heritage and the agendas of states. In Heritage and Globalisation, ed. Sophia Labadi and Colin Long, pp. 19–44. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. Beck, Ulrich. 2013. Cosmopolitan sociology: An outline of an argument. Ulrich Beck Online: The Online Presence of Professor Ulrich Beck. http:// www.ulrichbeck.net-build.net/index.php?page=cosmopolitan (accessed 24 April 2013).  Heritage, Cosmopolitanism and Identity in Abu Dhabi 113 Beck, Ulrich. and Natan Sznaider. 2006. Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda. British Journal of Sociology 57: 1–23. Bennett, Tony. 2007. Exhibition, difference, and the logic of culture. In Museum Frictions: Public Cultures/Global Transformations, ed. Gustavo Buntinx, Ciraj Rassool, Corinne Kratz and Lynn Szwaja, pp. 46–69. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Byrne, Denis. 1991. Western hegemony in archaeological heritage management. History and Archaeology 5, no. 2: 269–76. &KULVD¿V$QJHOLTXH7KHUDFHIRUDUWLVODQG/RXYUHDQG*XJJHQKHLPEDWWOH it out. The Guardian, World News, 22 November. http://www.guardian.co.uk/ world/2006/nov/22/france.arts. Clifford, James. 1997. Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. Cody, Edward. 2009. First French military base opens in the Persian Gulf. The Washington Post, 27 May. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-05-27/ ZRUOGBBUDIDOHIUHQFKVROGLHUV¿UVWPLOLWDU\EDVH Cohen, Mitchell. 1992. Rooted cosmopolitanism. Dissent, Autumn: 477–83. Conroy, Erin and Jen Thomas. 2010. Museum architect’s inspiration: The falcon. The National, 26 November. http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/ museum-architects-inspiration-the-falcon. Dicks, Bella. 2004. Culture on Display: The Production of Contemporary Visitability. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Featherstone, Martin. 1990. Global culture: An introduction. In Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity: A Theory, Culture and Society Special Issue, ed. Martin Featherstone, pp. 1–14. London: Sage. Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ——. 2000. Runaway World: How Globalisation Is Reshaping Our Lives. London and New York: Routledge. Gulf News. 2012. Restored ancient Ras Al Khaimah village opens to public. 26 February. http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/heritage-culture/ restored-ancient-ras-al-khaimah-village-opens-to-public-1.986066. Harrison, Rodney. 2010. Multicultural and minority heritage. In Understanding Heritage and Memory, ed. Tim Benton, pp. 238–76. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ——. 2013. Heritage: Critical Approaches. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. Hobsbawm, Eric. 1983. Introduction: Inventing traditions. In The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Timothy Ranger, pp. 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, Ian. 2009. Mavili’s voice. In Cosmopolitan Archaeologies, ed. Lynn Meskell, pp. 184–204. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press. Hoogvelt, Ankie. 1997. Globalization and the Postcolonial World: The New Political Economy of Development. Basingstoke: Macmillan. 114 Cultural Heritage in the Arabian Peninsula Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. 2007. World heritage and cultural economics. In Museum Frictions: Public Cultures/Global Transformations, ed. Gustavo Buntinx, Ciraj Rassool, Corinne Kratz, Lynn Szwaja, Tomas Ybarra-Frausto, Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett and Ivan Karp, pp. 161–202. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Merriam Webster Online: Dictionary and Thesaurus. Franchise. http://www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/franchise (accessed 7 January 2013). Meskell, Lynn. 2009. Introduction: Cosmopolitan heritage ethics. In Cosmopolitan Archaeologies, pp. 1–27. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press. Pollock, Sheldon, Homi K. Bhabha, Carol A. Breckenridge and Dipesh Chakrabarty. 2002. Cosmopolitanisms. In Cosmopolitanism, ed. Carol A. Breckenridge, Sheldon Pollock, Homi K. Bhabha and Dipesh Chakrabarty, pp. 1–15. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press. Ribeiro, Gustavo Lins. 2005. What is cosmopolitanism? Vibrant – Virtual Brazilian Anthropology 2 no. 1–2: 19–26. http://www.vibrant.org.br/downloads/v2n1_ wc.pdf. Robertson, Roland. 1992. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage. ——. 1995. Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In Global Modernity, ed. Scott Featherstone, pp. 25–44. London: Sage. Smith, Laurajane. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London and New York: Routledge. Thomas, Jen. 2011. Mesopotamian splendour on Saadiyat Island. The National. 29 March. http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/tourism/ mesopotamian-splendour-on-saadiyat-island. Tsing, Anna. 2005. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press. UNESCO. 2002. Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. http://unesdoc. unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf (accessed 5 March 2012). Urry, John. 2000. Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge. von Droste, Bernd. 1995. Cultural landscape in a global world heritage strategy. In Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value: Components of a Global Strategy, ed. Bernd Von Droste, Harald Plachter and Michthild Rossler, pp. 20–24. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag. :DNH¿HOG6DULQD7KHXQLYHUVDOPXVHXP7RZDUGVDFULWLFDODSSURDFKWR the museum franchise. Paper presented at the Seminar for Arabian Studies, the British Museum, July 2012. ——. 2013. Hybrid heritage and cosmopolitanism in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. In Reimagining Museums: Practice in the Arabian Peninsula, ed. Pamela Erskine-Loftus, pp. 98–129. Edinburgh & Boston, MA: Museums Etc. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System. 2 vols. New York and London: Academic Press.  Heritage, Cosmopolitanism and Identity in Abu Dhabi 115 ——. 1996. Neither patriotism nor cosmopolitanism. In For Love of Country?, by Martha C. Nussbaum (and respondents), ed. J. Cohen, pp. 122–4. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Zacharias, Anna. 2012. Ras al Khaimah tribe return to abandoned village. The National. 26 February. http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/ras-al- khaimah-tribe-return-to-abandoned-village. This page has been left blank intentionally