Conflicts and Synergies of Values

Life, routes and monuments created by Mastorochoria craftsmen formed an ensemble of values. The ‘characterization and assessment of [these] values are critical and particularly difficult because they require potentially many different methods and many collaborating professionals’. Thus, as Randall Mason suggests, ‘collaboration across disciplines is essential’ (2006:39-40). Moreover, an analysis in this framework represents the fundamental methodology of the MaNet Strategic Plan. Hence, in order to design the Strategic Plan with a holistic approach, a ‘values-centred’⁷ initial identification has been conducted. However, the culture that formed around the craftsmen in the area of Mastorochoria -as a ‘dynamic and changing’ notion- contained contradictions, shifts and conflicts. Consequently, the values of this territory are a combination of conflicts and synergies. Accordingly, values are often mutually opposed in synchronic, diachronic, local and/or supra-local levels (Nitsiakos 2003:73,82,168-172). In order to ‘assert heritage values in the same arena as contemporary values’ and plan projects that will benefit and protect the social fabric, it is of great importance to prioritize the weight of values in a tailor made flexible model, taking into account the particularities of every project individually. This innovative approach excludes generalizations and a priori evaluations. Besides, in his renowned article ‘The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin’ in Oppositions 25 Alois Riegl has already identified conflicts of values that occur on issues of monument preservation, which can be resolved only by balancing the needs of a monument and the society that includes it at a time (1982:21-51). According to this approach, Paul Drury from the perspective of a Chairman of the Steering Committee for Cultural Heritage (CDPAT) stresses that ‘[t]here is a particular need to develop an understanding that heritage is constantly being created and destroyed; the process is a negotiation between past, present and future’. Therefore, it is essential to draw on concepts that ‘shift the emphasis from preventing change to managing change based on knowledge’ (2002:13). However, the MaNet Project also has to overcome the complex discussion on which set of values is objectively important. From universal to local and even to individual assessment of values, MaNet must manage conflicts in a dialectically constructive way. In this sense, the project adopts the model of co-existence and ‘democracy whereby differences are accepted’. The outcome is a synthesis⁸ of values. This is realized rather as an organized structure and prioritization ‘according to a particular intention to mediate between’ values of the past and the present, even the future, needs, than a list of existing values in a vacuum, isolated from their context. Moreover, the challenge is to provide the ground in which various conflicting or consistent values coexist valorising all the aspects of the cultural heritage harmonically (Ganiatsas 2011b:22-25; COE 2008:47; Avrami, Mason & Torre 2000:8).

Focusing on a holistic framework, the MaNet Project adopts the relevant theories and integrates them with the innovative regional intelligence concept. Here, tailor-made in-depth diagnosis and evaluation procedures are designed as a dynamic equilibrium. Crucially, all the researches and analyses represent ‘full knowledge of the values of a site’, and underscore the importance of the research agenda, local involvement, and the monitoring mechanisms (COPTA 2011:9-10; Mason 2006:30-40; Nitsiakos 2003:73,82,168-172).

⁷ As a methodology, values-centred planning provides three main advantages that are in total accordance with the MaNet strategic framework. First, it ‘enables the holistic understanding of sites’. Second, it ‘leads to an acknowledgement and inclusion of a greater range of stakeholders by accounting for all the values of a site’ and, third, it supports ‘the long view of stewardship’ (Mason 2006:34).

⁸ Synthesis is considered here, in line with professor Vassilis Ganiatsas arguments, ‘never [to be] neutral and absolute, but [as] an intentional act, a creative projection of an intended whole picture out of fragmented parts and traces (Ganiatsas 2011a:9; 2011b:24).