Old Age and Living Heritage: The Role of Older People in the Survival of Culture
Can old age be considered the cultural heritage of humanity? Before arguing that it can (spoiler), I will introduce some concepts that I think may help us to arrive at the reflection I want to share today. According to the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE), historical heritage is the set of assets of a nation that has been accumulated over the centuries, and which, because of its artistic, archaeological, or other significance, is the object of special protection by legislation. But what is cultural heritage (a concept forgotten by the RAE, by the way)? Well, after a search in the literature, a recent book on the subject indicates that "the cultural heritage of a community, endowed with multiple manifestations both tangible and intangible, is its social and historical identity (...). Its preservation, therefore, does not consist solely in prolonging the existence of a material good or a cultural practice, but in attending to the social constructions that are formed around them and how these adapt to the passing of time". Well, a rather long description, but one that can help us to situate the subject.
My interpretation, as a convinced sociologist, is that cultural heritage (and I am referring to its more intangible aspects) is one of the backbone elements of society, which helps us to feel part of the group and which reminds us not only of our shared social character, but also of the fact (so simple, but sometimes so complex) that we come, as a society, as a culture, from somewhere. In other words, we do not appear as a spontaneous generation, but what we have and are as a human group is, to a large extent, an inheritance of what many people before us had, were and developed.
What I have just defined is, in reality, society. When we say that society is more than the sum of individuals, we are talking about the relationships that are formed between them, the daily interactions, but also the structures that are created and the shared memory. Because it is shared memory that helps us to understand the structure that governs our daily lives today.
To simplify these ideas: we are because we were. In that sense, to despise our shared memory, our accumulated knowledge, is to despise all that we are.
What happens? Because we are finite beings (fortunately: living forever seems a bit of a drag to me, although that way we might still have time to pay the mortgage), when we talk about shared memory we have to think of those who have been before us. Basically, we can know what happened from books, from stories, but also from people who have memories of past times because they lived them, because they acquired them from their parents and grandparents (from previous old ages). When we despise old age and ageing, we are in fact despising that knowledge shared and still alive in people who experienced times before (and so different) from our own. The raw source of our shared identity.
And now, if we start from this vision, could the memory of people, the set of memories, be considered an asset to be preserved? And why defend this idea?
We are at a time of certain uncertainties, polarisations and tensions, even without referring to the horrors that are happening right now. One of the tensions is that which is formulated around the question of ageing, always assuming that the increase in the number of older people over the number of younger people is tantamount to something negative. I heard one man say, in a determined manner, that ageing meant a loss of ideas, creativity and productivity. Apart from the error of this person (and of so many others) about what the ageing process is (as if ageing were equivalent to a kind of progressive disappearance of what we are and in which, moreover, we are not capable of learning anything new), and the unfortunate nature of such a discriminatory opinion, it seems to me that it was based on a way of understanding the value of people that is not the right one. In my opinion, it even starts from a way of understanding the wealth of society that is not the real one. But, in addition, it completely forgot the dimension of cultural heritage, disregarding that "living historical cultural heritage" which is the memory of the elderly.
The fact is that, while this is happening, in the European Union, in Spain, in the world, we are devoting efforts, programmes and investment to the maintenance of intangible heritage. For example, the Council of Europe and the European Commission speak of the protection of 'Living Heritage', referring to the practices, knowledge and techniques that have been passed down from one generation to the next and are still in use today.
These organisations propose how to facilitate universal accessibility to culture and how involving society in the management of cultural heritage can favour social inclusion, democratisation and citizen governance. As if that were not enough, they show how positive the protection of intangible heritage is for society and even for the sustainability of territories. Why not value those who are the natural transmitters of this intangible heritage, of this knowledge? Why not consider this one of the values of old age, of living longer, of the wealth that longevity can offer?
We can, of course, continue to limit ourselves to measuring the wealth of nations on the basis of purely economic indicators, or simply to talk about Gross Domestic Product without giving it much more thought. We can continue to talk about intangible heritage as if it were something somewhat empty, something more associated with the dimension of the imagination than with the dimension of what has already been experienced and what is preserved in the memory of many people and which has yet to be passed on. But, in the face of this, we can also claim the importance of old age, of longevity, in the better and greater preservation of what we were as a society, to think of the elderly as elements of transmission of key aspects of identity. I am aware that this can also be a heavy burden, but it would help us to better value those who are, I insist, natural living transmitters of our history and identity.
If the promotion of access to culture can be an element to promote cultural dynamisation in the most disadvantaged areas and among groups at risk of social exclusion, and if cultural heritage is considered to be an element of social cohesion and, even, to fix population and preserve cultural identity in a globalised world (source); I propose that old age be considered as one of the potential elements of cultural transmission, which will be key, if we give it the appropriate spaces for intergenerational participation, in obtaining a better adherence to our societies in a context of globalisation in which we are all a little lost.
