Heritage entrepreneurship. Agency-driven promotion of the Mediterranean diet in Spain.

Richard Pfeilstetter Heritage entrepreneurship. Agency-driven promotion of the Mediterranean diet in Spain. This is the pre-copyedited author’s final version of the journal article accepted for publication following peer review. Original citation: Pfeilstetter, R. (2015). Heritage entrepreneurship. Agency-driven promotion of the Mediterranean diet in Spain. International Journal of Heritage Studies 21 (3): 215-231. The version of record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2014.930502 Heritage Entrepreneurship. Agency-driven promotion of the Mediterranean diet in Spain. Richard Pfeilstettera a Department of Social Anthropology, University of Seville, Spain Received; accepted This article explores the role of the agency in the social process that constitutes cultural heritage. By introducing the concept of heritage entrepreneurship to explain the conversion of cultural elements into heritage, we discuss the case of the Mediterranean diet (MD) in Spain. We explore the role of an expert NGO in the recent inclusion of the MD in the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Empirical evidence is presented for two basic patterns of heritage entrepreneurship, namely the construction and promotion of cultural heritage. First, we show how the community-heritage narrative is constructed in the official nomination file of the MD. Second, we analyze how businesses, governments and researchers constitute a specific heritage entrepreneur. We argue that the promotion of the MD as cultural heritage makes ordinary food different, both qualitatively (healthy and sustainable) and culturally (Mediterranean and traditional). We then look at the specific political, economic and scientific value of such a difference and its uses in Spain. Keywords: Intangible Cultural Heritage; social anthropology; entrepreneurship; UNESCO; Mediterranean diet Introduction* *Email: [email protected]s Over the last decade, Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) has experienced a growing relevance as a field of research. Our paper contributes to this field, by discussing the case of the Mediterranean diet (MD) in Spain, recently put on the UNESCO Representative List of the ICH of Humanity (ICH List). We begin our article with a general outline of cultural heritage as part of the socio-cultural realm. This is illustrated by showing the economic, political and ideological implications of cultural heritage in contemporary Spain. It is argued that the reification of selected cultural elements by means of safeguarding policies need to be understood in a wider socio-cultural context of competition among different social agents for economic, social and cultural capital. In the second section, the theoretical framework of our paper is further reinforced. We establish the concept of heritage entrepreneurship and hold that it can accurately address the competitive, conflictive and agency-driven character of cultural heritage described in chapter one. In the third section, we present the case of the Mediterranean diet foundation (MDF), a non-governmental organization accredited to provide advisory services to the UNESCO committee. This institution coordinated the inscription process of the MD as an element on the ICH List. Applying our theoretical model, we show why the MDF can be understood as a heritage entrepreneur. The two following chapters provide empirical evidence of two basic patterns of heritage entrepreneurship, namely the construction and promotion of cultural heritage. First it is shown how the MD is constructed by the discursive reification of a community-heritage nexus. Evidence for this is provided from the official nomination file for the inclusion in the ICH List. Second, we explore how communities, business, politics and science relate to cultural heritage. By analyzing the institutional web that sustains the MDF we develop our understanding of how heritage entrepreneurship articulates different elites‟ interests over cultural heritage. In the last chapter we readdress the wider sociological sense of cultural heritage referred to at the beginning of the paper, now specifically focusing on the example of food in the Spanish context. The MD constructed and promoted as cultural heritage is now a distinctive kind of food, both qualitatively (healthy and sustainable) and culturally (Mediterranean and traditional). We show how this distinction is a catalyst, both for the quality food-related industries and research, and for those political and scientific practices using cultural differences as a resource. The conclusion discusses the scope of our contribution and summarizes some of the main arguments. Cultural heritage as a social, cultural and economic force in Spain […] the significance of cultural heritage and its usages has been constituted principally from the influence of political ideology and practice, of the economic sector and of social sciences. (Zamora 2011, 104; translation by the author) Cultural Heritage has multiple implications as a social, cultural and economic force within world society. Especially ICH is used as a criterion for distinguishing, comparing and unifying human beings principally in ethnic terms. The community-heritage connection is intrinsic and mutually legitimizing (Crooke 2010). The increase of values associated with the authentic, to local culture and identity as a reaction to globalizing tendencies of mobility, media and markets is directly related to the new forms of heritage construction (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2004, 58). An example of a recently constructed cultural heritage item is the MD, included in the ICH List for the first time in 2010 (UNESCO 2010b). The particularity of a cultural element, for example the MD, and the universality of the UNESCO category, representative heritage of humanity, universalizes particularities, and relates the global to the local. Legalizing, listing, protecting, describing, nameing and registering culture in terms of heritage is objectifying the intangible. A legal definition of a series of cultural values, products and places in terms of MD is an example of this. The definition and reification of selected cultural elements like the MD as ICH is then a catalyst for the constitution and evolution of social systems in the field of science, politics, and economics. In the economic field, culture once processed as heritage, is a commodity. As the past is a scarce resource due to cultural constraints placed on it in the present (Appadurai 1981), it is suitable for economic exchange. Experiences, products and services can convert into traditional and authentic, and therefore desirable, so producing added value, when they relate to this scarce and exclusive inherited past. In Spain, tourism is one of the most important industries in the country. In 2012, about 12 per cent of all employed people worked in this sector (as of November 12, 2013, on the database of the Spanish Statistical Office). “Spain is still the second largest earner [from tourism] worldwide and the first in Europe (US$ 56 billion), while ranking 4th in the world by arrivals” (UNWTO 2013, 6). Cultural heritage has been introduced successively as a complement to what is the traditional marketing model of “sun and beach” to constitute a second resource for the leisure business. In this sense, some speak of an authenticityseeking model in the tourism industry in the twenty-first century (Wang 1999 or Zuckin 2008 for example). Specifically, cultural heritage as an economic-touristic resource is promoted in Spain through national and international policies. The Spanish Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism highlights on its website “Marcaespana” the importance of cultural tourism related to World Heritage Sites in Spain, since it is the second most ranked country in the world (as of December 9, 2013). The UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (subsequently referred to as 2003 Convention) stresses “the importance of the intangible cultural heritage as […] a guarantee of sustainable development” (UNESCO 2003). The European Union promotes both local cultural heritage construction and traditional food products as a specific rural development policy. “Tourism is a major growth sector in many rural areas and can build on cultural and natural heritage” (EU 2006, 27). Cultural heritage is also an important variable in the Spanish political system. Contemporary Spain is characterized by strong ethno-political separatist/independence movements (choosing one word or the other may already be seen as a political statement). The most fundamental political issue in present-day Spanish society is whether in Spain there exists one or various nations, and if the latter is the case, whether these should constitute or not sovereign states. Different nationalist discourses, culturally justified, are related to political claims, like the regional distribution of state investment, the transfer of powers between regions and state or political sovereignty. Autonomous regions, namely Cataluña and the Basque Country, but also to a lesser extent other regions, as well as the state, the central government and a constitutional monarchy, are competing for legitimate authority by using different cultural identities and affiliations as a tool for political power. One way of doing so is by interfering in the construction of cultural elements as heritage items and in the interpretation of whom these elements represent. UNESCO‟s legal frameworks then work as an “international endorsement of national pride in heritage” (Prott 2009, 268). An evident example in contemporary Spain for the political implications of heritage is the bullfight, banned by the Catalonian government in 2012. Perceived outside Spain as typically Spanish the internal public discussion over whether or not it is a “good” or “bad” tradition indirectly puts a “good” or “bad” light on what Spanish and Catalonian culture generally is. This particularly strong relevance of cultural heritage and ICH in the political and economic field in contemporary Spain also finds it refection in the proliferation of academic activity around the question of why something is typical, traditional and representative and for what kind of community it stands for. In this sense, Zamora relates patrimonial discourses in Spain to romanticism and ethnic nationalism reproduced by the intellectual elites (2011, 104-105). In particular, social anthropology has found in the ICH arena a field with strong professional possibilities in academia, politics and business. We argue that the explicit ethnic foundation of the ICH concept promoted by UNESCO is one of the main reasons for this. The 2003 Convention says that “ICH, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities […] and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity” (article 2 point 1). As we are going to see later, the ethnic foundation of the MD as a transnational ICH, gives raise to different community discourses. The Mediterranean people, the Mediterranean nations, for instance Spain and Catalonia, and Mediterranean communities, such as the Spanish region of Soria, appear to be supporters and transmitters of the Mediterranean diet. Heritage entrepreneurship As a theoretical framework for this paper, we understand cultural heritage as a social process (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983, Harvey 2001, Smith 2006, Silverman 2011a). Cultural heritage is considered and appreciated by people as an especially meaningful cultural item for distinguishing collectives from one and another. Cultural items can become more or less heritage on a scale between irrelevant, that is not socially valued, human outcomes to heritage as main cultural imperative. We could speak of a scale of grades of authenticity. Cultural elements have succeeded on this scale, when they are declared legally as heritage by local, regional, national or international authorities. Cultural elements can cease to be considered heritage in the same way that they can start to be considered heritage. Specific heritage items are relative to time and space. For instance, in the past, the MD, was not considered to be a ICH, there was no awareness of the distinctive character of this cultural element in relation to what is typical of certain communities. Conceptualizing heritage as a process raises the question of why potentially everything could be considered heritage but only a few things are considered to be heritage. Why the MD and not the Andalusian olive grove? How can this heritage process best be measured? Who are the key players in the heritage process? To address theoretically these questions we suggest a concept semantically related directly to processes of creating, defining, institutionalizing and exploiting ideas. In this line, an increasing number of scholars are using agency-based theoretical models to understand the implementation processes of cultural heritage. In November 2013 UNESCO promoted an international symposium discussing the role of ICH brokers, facilitators or mediators as a driving force for safeguarding heritage (unesco.org). At this event, Marc Jacobs spoke on cultural brokerage as a “keyword and critical success(f)actor” in safeguarding ICH. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett refers to heritage in terms of enterprise, an economy with proper actors (2004, 55, 58, 59, 61). In this line of employing vocabulary from economic domains related to actor-based inquiry in the field of ICH, our paper aims to discuss the advantages of linking the concept of entrepreneurship with heritage construction processes. Our approach is different from the idea of the mediator between the community and the experts or the distinction between heritage holders and heritage practitioners. Our notion of entrepreneurship focuses on institutionalized heritage construction and exploitation. The heritage entrepreneurs need to be identified empirically. They consist of emerging legally constituted institutions with the manifest or indirect goal of benefitting from ideas and discourses related to specific heritage items, both through production and exploitation of these ideas and discourses. This way, the anonymous entities like politics, community, heritage economy or UNESCO may be analytically domesticated and empirically targeted. The heritage process can be measured within all of these abstract entities in terms of key agencies or institutional driving forces. Far from reducing entrepreneurship to the idea of a business creation on a micro-social level, we have developed an anthropological model of entrepreneurship inspired by the social theories of Pierre Bourdieu (1972, 1980) and Niklas Luhmann (1984, 1997). This model understands entrepreneurship as a process of social change fostered by the institutionalization of innovative and/or conflictive ideas in a social environment (Pfeilstetter 2011, 2012, 2013). The advantage of the entrepreneurship theorem in relation to the heritage process is its focus on the (1) agency insted of “anonymous forces”, (2) on the legal institutionalization and (3) on the market-like competition for ecnomical, political and symbolical resources. This concept channels the emphasis of heritage research towards how emerging institutions articulate the specific interest of their stakeholders in relation to heritage elements. Creation, functioning and composition of institutions established to explore opportunities for economic and noneconomic profit from ICH become a central concern for inquiry. In this sense, we agree with De Bruin who suggests that heritage entrepreneurship consists of the “opportunities to acquire and/or safeguard customary, heritage-based resources” (2003, 170). However, we would like to amplify his notion. The opportunities in relation to ICH are connected to different types of benefits - economic, political, scientific, or religious, for example - and are articulated via specific emerging institutions. These can be companies, associations, social movements, political parties, specialized media, religious communities, departments within state-administrations at all levels, or NGOs. Our next section now introduces the specific case of an expert NGO as a heritage entrepreneur. The Mediterranean Diet Foundation The Association for the development of the Mediterranean diet is a union of Catalan food companies that founded the MDF in 1996 in order to “promote research on the MD in relation to its healthy, historical, cultural, culinary, agricultural and environmentally friendly aspects” and to safeguard the MD as a “ancient heritage common to the Mediterranean populations” (as of November 12, 2013, on the website of the MDF). Both the promotion of the idea of heritage as a capital, and therefore the moral and desirable value of the item, and the promotion of the community (the Mediterranean populations), can be seen as the core of the foundations objectives. The MDF is a nongovernmental organization accredited to provide advisory services to the UNESCO committee (UNESCO 2010a, 5). In this function, the MDF defines itself as a “nonprofit organization with a strictly cultural and scientific agenda” (MDF 2008, 4). The MDF is located in the Catalan capital Barcelona and technically coordinated the nomination process of the MD for the ICH List on behalf of the governments that initially promoted the inscription: Spain, Italy, Greece and Morocco (UNESCO 2010b). In December 2013, through a new resolution of the intergovernmental committee for the safeguarding of the ICH, Cyprus, Croatia and Portugal joined the initiative (UNESCO 2013). Consequently, this entity is a key actor in the legal consolidation of the MD as an item on the ICH List (subsequently referred to as ICH item of Humanity). We might say that the institution consolidated its role as a heritage entrepreneur once it brought the nomination process to a successful conclusion. On the other hand, the MDF was founded through private initiative and today is a platform linking different economic, political and scientific institutions to the MD. We suggest that the MDF is a heritage entrepreneur, because it (1) successfully conducted the construction of an ICH, now recognized internationally, through the technical coordination of the nomination process. (2) The MDF is a platform for the utilization of the MD by linking different stakeholders like communities, food businesses, governments, academic scholars to the heritage item. (3) The MDF has consolidated itself as a legalized institution, an accredited NGO, through the creation and use of an ICH item of Humanity. These dimensions of heritage entrepreneurship, construction, promotion and exploitation, are illustrated in the two following chapters. First, we analyze the nomination files presented for inscription on the ICH List in 2010 in Nairobi, Kenya, during the fifth session of the intergovernmental committee. The focus of our inquiry is on the implications of the heritage construction process in Spain. Theoretical arguments in the inscription file, the forms documenting the consent of the community and the ethnic justification of the element, are explored. We conduct a survey of political, economic and scientific discourses and the corresponding institutions articulated through the organizational chart of the MDF. The following observations are sustained empirically on a content analysis of UNESCO and MDF documents related to the MD. The focus on UNESCO‟s heritage denominations as an “arena [that] is dominated by written materials” (Brumann 2011, 19), and the discursive construction of heritage (Waterton, Smith and Campbell 2006) has motivated our research design. The methodological approach is associated with our theoretical groundwork: (1) the social construction of heritage, (2) heritage as capital, (3) the heritage-community relationship and finally, (4) the key role of emerging institutions which articulate the construction process. Discursive construction of the Mediterranean diet The most paradigmatic imposition of cultural elements as definitely appreciated and perceived as heritage is being on, what Kirshenblatt-Gimblett calls, The List (2004, 55). The ICH List “confer value on what is listed” (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2004, 55). From second world war until today “UNESCO became the foremost heritage authorizer” (Silverman 2011, 18). This international distinction certifies authenticity, prominence, moral integrity and uniqueness of certain cultural elements. A basic pattern of heritage entrepreneurship consists therefore of managing the successful creation of such brands that ensure further exponential growth in the symbolic, social and material value of the labeled item. One of the formal requirements for success on the ICH List is the building of a convincing community-heritage narrative. We now analyze why, and look at how the narrative was constituted for the case of the MD. Looking at article 2 of the 2003 Convention, the ICH definition is related to (1) an anthropologically inspired concept of culture consisting of “practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artifacts and cultural spaces associated therewith”; (2) secondly it has a constructivist character in the sense that the definition argues that heritage is what people recognize as their heritage: “[…] that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage.” Finally, the definition is inspired by an (3) identity discourse: specific cultural elements recognized as heritage create a subjective (changing and related to the feeling of belonging) and objective (inherited, related to history and nature) criterion for distinguishing humans. “ICH […] provides [communities] a sense of identity and continuity” (UNESCO 2003, Article 2). We can see the application of these three main criteria in nomination files for the inclusion of the MD in the ICH List: a social practice based on the set of skills, knowledge, practices and traditions ranging from the landscape to the cuisine, which in the Mediterranean basin concern the crops, harvesting, fishing, conservation, processing, preparation and, particularly, consumption. This set, recreated within and by the communities identified in the territories of the four States Parties, is unavoidably linked to a seasonal calendar marked by nature and religious or ritual meanings. The MD as a unique lifestyle, determined by the climate and by the Mediterranean area, is also manifested through related festivals and celebrations. These events become the receptacle of gestures of mutual recognition, hospitality, neighbourliness, conviviality, intergenerational transmission and intercultural dialogue. This is how among these communities in particular, and the Mediterranean people in general, there is a feeling of rebuilding identity, of belonging, and of continuity, allowing them to recognize this element as an essential part of their shared intangible cultural heritage. (UNESCO 2010b, 4-5) Adopting the UNESCO notion, the MD is promoted as culture in the widest sense of the term, a lifestyle related to all aspects of human life. From the moral point of view the nomination file relates it to a series of values: hospitality, neighborliness, conviviality, intergenerational transmission and intercultural dialogue. Finally, the promoters argue that it belongs to, and is recognized by, a specific collective: the Mediterranean people. UNESCO requires the candidates for admission in the ICH List to justify discursively, the cultural embeddedness of the element in a previously defined homogenous, for the purposes of the nomination file reified, ethnic group. For the praxis of heritage construction, this criterion makes it necessary for the promoters to imbed the Mediterranean people into a specific local community. For this purpose the promoters decided to defend the community of Soria for representing the Mediterranean people in Spain. The promoters of the nomination justify the selection of Soria as it follows: The community of Soria has a population of 40,600 people (2008). Inhabited since the Bronze Age, Soria has acted as a crossroads – it is said that it is “the meeting town” –, and has nourished itself from the Mediterranean cultural mixing. The town, its landscapes and its monuments witness this while its cuisine and social interaction confirm it. To the northeast, Ágreda, “the town of the three cultures”, recalls the co-existence on these high plains of the three Mediterranean monotheist religions: Hebrew, Christian and Muslim. Soria is the example of the inland territories and communities which are, however, still touched by the civilization of the Mediterranean and imbued with its culture. In fact, Cicero referred to continental people as homines maxime mediterranei (“the Most Mediterranean men”). Today, as in the past, the MD is always a major component of the identity of the members of this community. (UNESCO 2010b, 2) As Soria is geographically located in the interior it is, as the promoters defend, an “example of the inland territories and communities which are, however, still touched by the civilization of the Mediterranean”. Soria is “touched by” the civilization of the Mediterranean and “imbued with its culture”. The MD is “always a major component” of their identity and “it is said that” Agreda is the town of three cultures. The references to landscapes and monuments, Cicero and the Bronze Age and to the small size of the community (forty thousand inhabitants) make up the discursive construction of a decidedly local community representing the MD. The intrinsic, essentialist and naturalized character of the community-heritage nexus throughout the discourse may be illustrated with statements such as “the town, its landscapes and its monuments witness this while its cuisine and social interaction confirm it”. Conclusions In the first paragraph of our conclusions we want to discuss the acknowledged limitations and scope of our contribution. Our approach does not attempt to give the only valid interpretation of the MD as a contemporary heritage process. Our theoretical framework takes multiple layers of social reality as a given. Different approximations to our case, for example through qualitative fieldwork within the community of Soria and its local social organization, may have added a different, more participative view of the MD and its relation to the community. Therefore, we do not reject the legitimacy of a universalist approach to ICH as encouraged by the UNESCO ICH List and the MD promoters, nor do we argue that heritage construction processes are out of the community‟s control. It is the relation between the global and the local institutions that should be described for every specific case of ICH items of Humanity in terms of legitimization, appropriation, conflict, synergy, confluence, exchange, contradiction, etc. For our case, we decided to take a closer look at the uses of the community and of moral frameworks by global and national players without discarding the existence of local compensations, benefits, or counter-narratives. Therefore we agree with the anthropologist Thomas H. Erikson who criticizes UNESCO‟s naïve notion of culture, but, nevertheless, says that the shortcomings, self-contradictions and the need for compromise in the efforts of UNESCO “cannot be easily resolved in theory nor in practice. Traditionalism and modernism, ethnic fragmentation and global unification are complementary dimensions of political processes in the contemporary world” (2001, 136). Our case may not be representative of all the approximately three hundred elements on the ICH List. Nevertheless, it can shed light on a specific dimension within all these items. We measured this dimension in terms of heritage entrepreneurship in order to test the validity of agency-driven understanding of the heritage process. Additionally, our approach does not attempt to substitute or delegitimize enquiries focused on what heritage is, e.g. why some people consume olive oil and others do not, or why it is an important food element in relation to social and cultural organization. Our decision to focus on what is done with heritage is inspired by an anthropological approach and from the empirical evidence of our case study. At the same time, we include science, and therefore our own contribution to the analysis. We do so when we comment on anthropological and medical research related to the MD and when we reflect both on critical and legitimizing academic discourses as a part of the heritage construction process. We recognize the role of academics with their specific interests within the social constitution of ICH items of Humanity. A scientific approach, revealing commonly less perceived social logics, is a reflexive motivation, normally cultivated in university environments. We suggested that heritage could be considered a capital in Pierre Bourdieu‟s sense of the term (Bourdieu 1983; Canclini 1999, 18; Velasco 2012). Cultural elements have an associated symbolical, material and social value. Heritage construction processes foster the specific value of cultural elements. This added value takes the element into a contested arena, where various social agents compete for the benefits associated with heritage. It´s value can be created, appropriated, exploited and promoted by different agents within a social field. Once we assume a heritage concept as socially constructed the focus of our research necessarily changes from what it is to from whom and how is it created. The socio-historical process of consolidation of a cultural element as an ICH item of Humanity has to be related to different social groups actively implicated in this emergence and consolidation. The case of the MDF shows that heritage construction processes and their exploitation can be addressed to specific institutions. Heritage entrepreneurship is presented as a public-private partnership of experts appropriating cultural elements to be used in both the global and local economic, scientific and political market. This hybrid administration-business laboratory, with its supporters, staff and activities is a metaphor for the functionally differentiated society‟s relationship with cultural heritage. The importance of the role of experts, the constructivist character of a mediated reality, the contradiction of local culture and identity as a global values and the confluence of political, economic and scientific power are some of the main results we may appreciate within our case. Employing an anthropological entrepreneurship concept has led our enquiry to focus on the institutionalizing processes linked to particular agents and interests. Consequently, the idea of heritage construction and exploitation as a resource for elites emerges. Because of the commonly held view of entrepreneurship as business creation at a micro-social level, we suggest that our unusual employment of the term produces a fruitful questioning of previously accepted perspectives. We suggest a productive line for future inquiry would be comparing this case with other heritage elements, heritage entrepreneurs and their social logics. This may reveal differences and similarities and prove the strength of our heritage entrepreneurship model. Cultural heritage was once considered the symbolic expression of every era‟s elites. The exclusivist monumentalistic, historical and esthetic criteria for identifying cultural heritage indicates its tendency to represent the dominant class. This idea has been substituted by a democratic, plural concept of cultural heritage. The most important idea in this consensus-driven notion of cultural heritage, as encouraged in the 2003 Convention, is that it represents communities and societies, not only dominant groups within these communities and societies. Furthermore, the active implication of the whole of civil society should be guaranteed. This romantic idea of heritage as belonging to popular living culture and ethnic identities is strongly promoted by UNESCO. We sustain that this new ethnically justified cultural heritage discourse is directly linked to globalization. We suggest that an ICH item of Humanity merges culture into a powerful communication instrument created, managed and expanded by heritage entrepreneurs in a global society, where power, both on a global and local level, seeks to connect with new imperative values such as health and nutrition, local cultural identity or ecology. Finally, we state that ICH items of Humanity such as the MD provide synergies for different functional systems. The complementary relationship between ethnic identity discourse (exploited politically), the nutritional-environmental discourse (exploited economically), and the heritage discourse itself (exploited academically) in the case of the MD illustrates this confluence of purposes. Acknowledgements I would like to thank both the anonymous reviewers of the journal and Ray Harte for their corrections and discussions improving form, argument and understanding of the final version of the text. References Appadurai, Arjun. 1981. The Past as a Scarce Resource. Man, New Series 16 (2): 201- 219. Bourdieu, P. [1972] 2000. Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique, précédé detrois études d’ethnologie kabyle. Paris: Seuil. Bourdieu, P. 1980. Le sens pratique. Paris: Éditions de minuit. Bourdieu, P. 1983. “Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital.” Soziale Ungleichheiten. Soziale Welt Sonderheft 2: 183-198. Brumann, Christoph. 2011. “Unser aller Kulturgut: Eine ethnologische Annäherung an das UNESCO-Welterbe.” Sociologus 61: 19-44. Contreras, J., A. Riera, and X. Medina. 2005. Sabores del Mediterráneo. Aportaciones para promover un patrimonio alimentario común. Barcelona: IEMed. Cook, Guy. 2010. “Sweet talking: Food, language, and democracy.” Language Teaching 43 (2): 168-181. Cresta, M. and V. Teti. 1998. “The Road of Food Habits in the Mediterranean Area”. Rivista di Antropología 76: supplement. Crooke, Elizabeth. 2010. “The politics of community heritage: motivations, authority and control.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 16 (1-2): 16-29. De Bruin, Anne. 2003. “Indigenous entrepreneurship.” In: Entrepreneurship: New Perspectives in a Global Age, edited by Anne De Bruin, and Ann Dupuis, 169-184. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. 2001. “Between universalism and relativism: A critique of the UNESCO concepts of culture.” In: Culture and Rights: Anthropological Perspectives, edited by J. Cowan, M. B. Dembour, and R. Wilson, 127–148. Cambridge: University Press. EU (European Union). 2006. “2006/144/EC: Council Decision of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007 to 2013).” Official Journal of the European Union. García Canclini, Néstor. 1999. “Los usos sociales del Patrimonio Cultural.” In: Patrimonio Etnológico. Nuevas perspectivas de estudio, edited by E. Aguilar Criado, 16-33. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía. Garine, I. 1997. “Alimentación méditerranéenne et réalité”. In: Antropología de la Alimentación: nuevos ensayos sobre la Dieta Mediterránea, edited by I. González Turmo and P. Romero de Solís. Sevilla: Fundación Machado. Gómez-Limón, J. and A. Picazo-Tadeo. 2012. “Irrigated Agriculture in Spain: Diagnosis and Prescriptions for Improved Governance”. International Journal of Water Resources Development 28 (1): 57-72. Harvey, David C. 2001. “Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 7 (4): 319- 338. Hobsbawm, E. J., and T. O Ranger. [1983] 2012. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. Keys Ancel, and Margaret Keys. 1975. How to eat well and stay well the Mediterranean way. New York: Doubleday. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. 2004. “Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production.” Museum International 56: 52–65. Luhmann, N. [1984] 1987. Soziale Systeme. Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Luhmann, N. [1997] 2007. La sociedad de la sociedad. México D. F.: Herder. Lupton, Deborah. 1994. “Food, Memory and Meaning: The Symbolic and Social Nature of Food Events”. The Sociological Review 42 (4): 665-685. MDF (Mediterranean Diet Foundation). 2008. “Accreditation form of the MDF to be accredited to provide advisory services to the committee. NGO 90021.” Accessed May 2. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00329 Pfeilstetter, R. 2011. “El emprendedor. Una reflexión crítica sobre usos y significados actuales de un concepto.” Gazeta de Antropología 27 (1): article 16. http://hdl.handle.net/10481/15684. Pfeilstetter, R. 2012. Bourdieu y Luhmann: Diferencias, similitudes, sinergias. Revista Internacional de Sociología 70 (3): 489-510. Pfeilstetter, R. 2013. “Entrepreneurship and regional development in Europe. A comparative, socio-anthropological case study in Germany and Spain”. Anthropological notebooks 19 (1): 45–57. Prott, Lyndel V. 2009. “UNESCO international framework for the protection of the cultural heritage.” In: Cultural heritage issues: The legacy of conquest, colonization, and commerce, edited by J. A. Nafziger, and A. M. Nicgorski, 257-280. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Reguant-Aleix, J., M. R. Arbore, A. Bach-Faig, and L. Serra-Majem. 2009. “Mediterranean Heritage: an intangible cultural heritage.” Public Health Nutrition 12(9A): 1591–1594 Silverman, Helaine (ed.). 2011a. Contested Cultural Heritage. Religion, Nationalism, Erasure, and Exclusion in a Global World. New York: Springer. Silverman, Helaine. 2011b. “Contested Cultural Heritage. A Selective Historiography.” In: Contested Cultural Heritage. Religion, Nationalism, Erasure, and Exclusion in a Global World, edited by H. Silverman, 1-49. New York: Springer. Smith, Laurajane. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge. UNESCO. 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO. 2010a. “Accreditation of non-governmental organizations to act in an advisory capacity to the Committee. Draft Resolution ITH/10/3.GA/CONF.201/7.” Accessed May 2. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00283&lg=en UNESCO. 2010b. “Nomination file no. 00394 for the inscription on the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.” Nairobi, Kenya. UNESCO. 2012. Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO. 2013. “Nomination file no. 00884 for inscription on the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.” Baku, Azerbaijan. UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization). 2013. “Tourism Highlights 2013 Edition.” Accessed December 12. http://mkt.unwto.org/publication/unwtotourism-highlights-2013-edition Van Westering, Jetske. 1999. “Heritage and gastronomy: The pursuits of the „new tourist‟.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 5 (2): 75-81. Velasco Maillo, Honorio M. 2012. De patrimonios culturales y sus categorías. Gazeta de Antropología 28 (3): article 13. http://hdl.handle.net/10481/23343 Wang, Ning. 1999. “Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience.” Annals of Tourism Research 26 (2): 349-370. Watertona, E., L. Smith, and G. Campbella. 2006. “The Utility of Discourse Analysis to Heritage Studies: The Burra Charter and Social Inclusion”. International Journal of Heritage Studies 12 (4): 339-355. Willer, H., and L. Kilcher. 2012. The world of organic agriculture. statistics and emerging trends 2012. Frick: FiBL. Wong, Hiufu. 2013. “Spanish cuisine: Best food in the world right now?” CNN Travel, April 19. http://travel.cnn.com/spanish-food-trend-689636. Zamora Acosta, Elías. 2011. “Sobre Patrimonio y Desarrollo. Aproximación al Concepto de Patrimono Cultural y su Utilización en Procesos de Desarrollo Territorial.” Pasos: Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural 9 (1): 101-113. Zuckin, Sharon. 2008. “Consuming authenticity.” Cultural Studies 22 (5): 724-748.