This paper delves into the complex nature of heritage as a public value, determined by a myriad of other values that can either reinforce or negate each other. When heritage is debated, particularly the inclusion of ‘social values,’ these discussions often turn into discursive struggles. Proponents of social values frequently lose these battles. By applying Herbert Gottweis’ Argumentative Policy Analysis, the paper explores why arguments supporting social values are particularly vulnerable.
Using Aristotle’s categories of ‘logos,’ ‘pathos,’ and ‘ethos,’ the paper demonstrates that supporters of social values often struggle to construct logically consistent and persuasive narratives (logos). This difficulty also hampers their ability to appeal emotionally to the public (pathos) and to gain legitimacy (ethos), which government-backed experts typically possess. The paper argues that if social values were more embedded and ‘lived’ by a community, they would be stronger. However, these values often need to be constructed during debates, making them seem less authentic and therefore less convincing.
The research highlights the power dynamics within heritage debates, showing how economic values, often backed by consistent and justified narratives, tend to overshadow social values. The paper concludes that understanding these dynamics through argumentative policy analysis is a novel and productive approach in Heritage Studies. It suggests that social values could gain strength if they are genuinely supported by local communities, though it acknowledges the challenge of constructing a cohesive community narrative, as communities often harbour conflicting values. The constructed nature of community values often weakens their authenticity and the strength of their justification.
