Organised in partnership with the Les Oiseaux de Passage cooperative, these discussions and meetings on the place given to others in heritage stories and sites brought to the fore common concerns shared by the ACCR, inspiring practices already in place and avenues for future reflection.

In order to address inclusivity through and in heritage, a value dear to the ACCR, the different axes of the Faro Convention were deployed. In fact, the European Convention aims to encourage a shared heritage in which everyone can find a field of expression.

Explained by Prosper Wanner in a previous article, the Faro Convention presents heritage as a resource around which heritage communities can develop, strengthening the ties between human beings.

Using the example of the Château de Goutelas, which appears to be an open space, the teams were able to discover how this collaborative approach between residents, heritage site and territory had been established. As Sarah Wasserstrom described in an earlier interview, a heritage community has formed and bonded around the issue of recognising women in the history of the Château de Goutelas.

/ Setting up and developing a heritage community

Thanks to the concrete example of the Château de Goutelas, with the contributions of its representatives and the experimentation of its matrimonial walks, these three days enabled us to determine what would enable a heritage community to take shape.

To begin with, we need to determine what we have in common, what makes sense to everyone around a given heritage. This means giving everyone a chance to express themselves and giving each story the same value and interest. This interweaving of stories leads to a common ground, which in turn is the necessary step towards mutual understanding.

Once this common ground has been found and approved, a new narrative around the heritage can be developed that everyone can easily make their own, having contributed to it in part. The heritage community takes ownership of the heritage to make it its own, and thus to talk about it more effectively.

/ Rethinking the notion of hospitality

Hospitality was examined in its broadest sense: physical openness, kindness to all and listening to everyone, but also respect for the environment, with particular attention paid to non-human living beings.

The first level of hospitality is welcoming. So we need to be extra vigilant, in three phases: before, during and after the visit. This fosters a general feeling of well-being, making it easier to take ownership of the place concerned.

Each of the CCRs present was able to assess the place they gave to the different stories in the creation of their discourse. This calls into question the idea of a single, institutional narrative that would give a fixed, official image of the site to outsiders. Acknowledging the legitimacy of other narratives, whether they are alternative or contrary to the main narrative, requires a rethink of how the company is positioned and operates.

Taking into account multiple points of view enables the site to present itself as accessible. This is all the more true if the institution anticipates these new narratives by encouraging the process.

In an approach that respects biodiversity, the notion of hospitality is to be understood as the fact of cohabiting with all living things in harmony. In other words, the presence of man must not be to the detriment of other living beings, and measures must even be taken to encourage their arrival.

/ Preserving the memory of places and the multiplicity of stories: how can they coexist?

One of the reservations that heritage sites may have about opening up in this way is the loss of consistency in their discourse: how do you present and assert your identity if multiple narratives exist side by side? How do you reconcile the memory and project of the site with the individual and subjective views of each person?

It's a question of reversing our way of thinking and seeing the multiplicity of stories as an enrichment rather than an impoverishment of identity.

(Talking about the teams at a cultural centre) "They are not the owners or guardians of a heritage, they are its legatees".

Combining contemporary views and questions with the memory of the site gives it a living character, making it more relevant to today's concerns while at the same time providing an opportunity to recall a part of the past.

It is also important to see the multitude of stories as evidence of a certain attachment to the site: if people talk about it, it's because they are interested in it. Popular attachment helps to keep a site alive by creating visiting habits and a recommendation dynamic. And that's good for the heritage site itself.

Cyril Leclerc, consultant and trainer as well as editor for communicant.info, the media of the Les Œuvres Vives collective, followed the Goutelas meetings. You can read his report on the three days in the following article.