This is the first of two papers presenting the doctoral research that looks at
the development of an alternative paradigm for the conservation of non-secular
built heritage in South and Southeast Asia. This paper describes the development of
the paradigm and supporting conceptual framework based on identified
synergies between Buddhism and systems theory (Ellis and Ludwig, 1962; Churchman,
1968; Macy, 1976, 1991a and 1991b; Capra, 1996; Schmithausen, 1997; Checkland,
1999; Khisty, 2006a and 2006b; Chao and Midgley, 2007a and 2007b; and Midgley and
Chao, 2007).
Culture and people across the world have often been labelled in a
binomial manner: East and West, occidental and oriental, and Western/European and Asian.
One manifestation of this divide is in the appreciation of the built heritage that
has been produced from these cultures. While there have been recent trends
towards inclusiveness of other cultures and views (Wijesuriya, 1993 and 2003;
ICOMOS, 1994; Larsen and Marstein, 1995; Australia-ICOMOS, 1999; UNESCO, 2005;
and Jokilehto, 2006), the current pervasive view of conservation and restoration
has been overwhelmingly driven by Euro-centric policies (Seung-Jin, 1998 and
2005). The basis of global heritage protection has been enshrined in the clauses
of international charters and guidelines determined by western imperatives
(Seung-Jin, 1998 and 2005; and Jokilehto, 2006). However, representation
and interpretation of art and architecture irrevocably differ between the Asian
and European mode. For example, arguably, the cultural systems of the sub-continent
is based on spiritual values, norms and beliefs, while the western culture has
evolved, particularly since the enlightenment (Capra, 1982) through values founded on
the reality of the material world or materialism (du Plessis, 1999, 2000, 2001 and
2005; and Macy, 1976, 1991a and 1991b). The implications of these differences are
significant within conservation practices. |