Conceptualising and theorising heritage participation is an uneasy quest, with ongoing debates over what constitutes genuine participation. Debates often highlight the expectations placed upon it – expectations that, as I argue in this paper, are accompanied by conceptual paradoxes. First, the paradox of participatory parity. According to Nancy Fraser, economic maldistribution, cultural misrecognition and political marginalisation are primary barriers to achieving equal participation. Paradoxically, participation is often proposed as a solution to eliminate these barriers. Second, the paradox of inclusion. Although heritage participation can serve both inclusion and exclusion purposes, heritage is inherently exclusive, as it often reflects values specific to certain groups. Third, the paradox of multivocality. If multivocality is to prioritise marginalised voices and challenge dominant discourses, distinguishing between them proves challenging. Moreover, entrenched dominant discourses may lead marginalised individuals to doubt their own judgement rather than challenging the power structures behind them. Fourth, the paradox of balancing citizen power and government control. Theoretically, participation is intended to empower citizens to counterbalance government control; however, it has increasingly become part of governmentality itself. Highlighting the paradoxes of participation is not intended to dismiss this concept entirely. Instead, this approach serves to caution against the idealisation of participation.
Zheng Nana (Wed,) studied this question.