FUNCTIONS OF NATIONAL CULTURAL INSTITUTES IN TERMS OF PROMOTION OF INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF CULTURAL DIPLOMACY

Year 2021, Volume: 17 Issue: 129, 136 - 148, 21.03.2021

Alpaslan Okur , Seda Demir , Şaban Köktürk

Abstract

The processes of cultural evolution of societies have been among the main issues discussed by cultural scientists in the light of various theories ever since the 9th century when the cultural identities were classified and defined by some determining elements such as folklore and language, and national identities were built on the basis of 'us and the others'. Possessing cultural elements and determining areas of influence based on these elements have been the main motivation source at the focus of many of these discussions. In this context, at the beginning of the 20th century, institutionalization studies aimed at investigating the basic cultural dynamics for the construction of nation-states have expanded from the center to the periphery and evolved towards creating an awareness level of themselves in others by shifting from the local to the international dimension. Defined as national cultural institutes, these institutions have aimed at the aforementioned notion of creating an awareness of themselves in others by carrying out their cultural and artistic activities mainly language teaching, in different countries according to their own cultural policy and strategies in line with their cultural policies. In the modern century, these institutions, which were at the center of the cultural policies that states have structured accordingly to the international arena, fulfill many functions overtly or tacitly. First of all, it performs a superior function like protecting the cultural heritage of societies and transferring this memory to international platforms, to position it correctly among the world’s cultural heritage. It can also be speculated that these institutions have a crucial function in the realization of cultural interaction in a true and efficient way, also have another tacit role in helping individuals’ developing inter-cultural sensitiveness and minimizing the intercultural clashes. Although transmitting the cultural heritage to the next generations constitutes the cultural policy of all states, socio-economically and interculturally active states aim to uplift and promote their cultural heritage to wider geographies around the world. At this point, cultural diplomacy comes into play and enables the promotion of intangible cultural heritage elements not only in its own geography but also in a wider area and in other cultures. Hence, when the governments have been convinced that they wouldn’t be that effective through classical ways of declaration and demanding, they were to reorganize their cultural transmission by adopting an inclusive and integrative attitude in order to have a voice in socio-cultural arenas and political platforms globally. Turkish culture, which has a well-established history and a rich content, has been late in introducing particularly intangible cultural heritage elements to larger spaces by establishing a national cultural institute to implement its cultural diplomacy with respect to its Western counterparts. Today, the first institution or the first authority that comes to mind first for anyone who wants to carry out an activity abroad, obtain first-hand information about a country includ-ing all the features of the related culture have become the national cultural institutes of the relevant country. In the study, initially some information on the most essential and the most efficient cultural institutes of Europe and Yunus Emre Institute, a Turkish counterpart which undertook the responsibility as the leading institution in cultural diplomacy in Turkey will be presented. Yunus Emre Institute, which undertook Turkey's cultural diplomacy responsibility since 2007 has been examined in its educational, artistic and cultural services examined in a comparative approach with its Western counterparts. Besides the position of Turkish culture has been tried to be determined compared to other cultures in the world. Comparative process of the study is largely based on cultural and artistic properties from 2014 onwards.

Keywords

Cultural diplomacy, cultural heritage elements, intercultural communication, European Union National Institutes for Culture (EUNIC), Yunus Emre Institutes

References

• Referans 1: Avrupa Parlamentosu Kültür ve Eğitim Komitesi İçin Yapılan Araştırma Raporu-Yurtdışındaki Avrupa Kültür Enstitüleri, 2016.
• Referans 2: Bound, K. Cultural Diplomacy. Demos, 2007.
• Referans 3: Cummings, M. C. Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: A Survey. Wash-ington: Center for Arts and Culture, 2003.
• Referans 4: Gürçayır Teke, S. Somut Olmayan Kültürel Mirasın Korunması Sözleşmesi Listelerinde Yaşayan Miraslar ve Sabitlenen Gelenekler. Millî Folklor, 120 (2018), pp.19-31.
• Referans 5: Kaya, A., & Tecmen, A. The Role of Common Cultural Heritage in External Promotion of Modern Turkey: Yunus Emre Cultural Centres, 2011.
• Referans 6: Oğuz, M.Ö. Onuncu Yılında Somut Olmayan Kültürel Miras Listeleri: Görünürlük, Değerlilik ve Güvenirlik. Millî Folklor, 116 (2017), pp.5-17.
• Referans 7: Purtaş, F. Türk Dış Politikasının Yükselen Değeri: Kültürel Diplomasi. Akademik Bakış, (2013) 7 (13), 1-14.
• Referans 8: Ybañez, E., Pascual, J. A., Castillo, A., Moreno, F., Otero, J. El Peso de la Lengua Española en el Mundo, Edit. Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, 1996.