The fourth volume, first issue of the journal Culture: Policy, Management and Entrepreneurship features a special themed issue titled “Making Heritage Visible: The Representational Politics of Cultural Diversity and Public Memory in the 21st Century.” Framed by the concept of the “regime of visibility” (De Backer 2019) and drawing on Brighenti’s (2007, 323) assertion that “recognition and control are understood and explained as two opposing outcomes of visibility”, the special issue brings together contributions that explore visibility-as-control (in the Foucauldian sense), visibility-as-recognition (as an act of resistance), and visibility-as-appropriation—or more precisely, visibility-as-(re)appropriation, particularly in postcolonial contexts.
Foucault (1975) argued that visibility functions as a mechanism of surveillance and control, shaping power relations and disciplining those under observation. Building on this, scholars have emphasized that what is seen, heard, sensed, and presented in the surrounding world—and who is included or excluded—defines the contours of visibility and the authority that governs it. Anthropologists such as Taussig (1992), Ingold (2000), and Macdonald (2009) have critiqued the visual bias and power structures that determine not only what is rendered visible, but also what is obscured, marginalized, or erased. In heritage studies, this calls for a critical engagement with the politics of representation, especially in spaces such as exhibitions, museums, and heritage parks (Macdonald 2009), as well as in performances staged for tourists (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998). These are not neutral domains but curated arenas of selective memory, shaped by those in positions of expertise and authority (Smith 2006; Macdonald 2009). Moreover, attention must be paid to the exhibition technologies—such as display techniques, lighting, labelling, and spatial hierarchies—that contribute to the production of meaning and authority within these spaces (Bennett 1995). Crucially, what is not visible can be as significant as what is on display. Power structures rooted in colonial histories, class dynamics, or national ideologies often result in the erasure or non-recognition of certain heritages, reinforcing dominant narratives while silencing others.
However, in the 21st century, the emergence of Critical Heritage Studies has increasingly challenged the Eurocentric foundations of heritage discourse and practice. This shift has contributed to a transformation in the power structures that govern heritage by foregrounding the role of “community” as a key stakeholder (Smith and Waterton 2013; Smith 2006) and recognizing cultural diversity as a vital source of agency in the production and interpretation of heritage. As a result, voices that have been marginalized or silenced, such as those of local communities, indigenous peoples, and formerly colonized groups, are gaining visibility. These changing power dynamics have not only expanded the spectrum of what is made visible in heritage contexts but have also intensified memory conflicts, as competing narratives, claims, and representations emerge in the public sphere.
The scope of visibility explored here is not limited to material objects as socially embedded creative practices. Rather, the included papers examine visibility in relation to the preservation, representation, and even the consumption of heritage more broadly—ranging from how historical preservation is mobilized in the pursuit of restorative social justice, to how lost historical scenes are reimagined through film, enabling alternative dialogues and actions previously foreclosed. These novel approaches contribute to a deeper understanding of the shifting power dynamics in the production of heritage and public memory. By rendering previously hidden memories and marginalized memory agents visible, they offer a more nuanced reading of visibility itself.
We are grateful to have this opportunity to do this special issue. We had hoped for more submissions in the research article category; the outcome—albeit fewer than anticipated—may itself reflect the ongoing underrepresentation of this critical topic in academic discourse, further underscoring the significance of the two research articles included. In total, this issue comprises two research articles, one policy review, one book review, and a non-special-issue section featuring two additional research articles and one forum summary. They are briefly reviewed in the following.
Karma Hoi-Pan KONG‘s article, “Visualising Contestation of Storytelling: Kowloon Walled City Park as a Site of Counter Memory,” highlights how visualizing the process of social remembering can give voice to marginalized perspectives and provoke reflection within both society and governing institutions. Focusing on Kowloon Walled City Park (KWC Park) in Hong Kong, Kong explores the concept of counter-memory from a spatial perspective, examining how the park evolved from a colonial-era garden designed to erase the memory of a notorious slum to a site of collective memory under the new government. As a result, the park sparked a broader community rethinking of the city’s past and prompted a challenge to the dominant historical narrative. KWC Park thus became a space for counter-memory, where the official history coexists with alternative memories, offering room for community expression and recognition.
Dunja Karanovic‘s research article “(In)visible Audiences: From Inclusivity and Access to Caring Museum Practice” introduces a novel framework for cultural participation and museum policy, emphasizing care ethics in the context of accessibility and inclusion. Through a comparative analysis of programs designed for people with disabilities, it examines three case studies: the Gallery of Matica Srpska, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgrade, and the Museum of Yugoslavia. Karanovic’s study draws from political philosophy, cultural policy, museology, and disability theory. The analysis highlights museum programs that go beyond legal accessibility requirements, exploring care ethics, social regeneration, and museum care. The proposed framework aims to guide museum policies, fostering interdependence and cultural participation for marginalized and invisible audiences.
The special issue also included policy review by WANG Chih-Hung and KAO Yu-Ting, “Towards an Integrated Heritage Policy: Cultivating Infrastructural Commons for a Maintenance-Oriented Society.” The concept of integrated heritage is proposed as an alternative to traditional, building-focused approaches to heritage reuse, which are often limited by rigid regulations. Instead of treating heritage as isolated sites, integrated heritage views heritage ensembles as central to revitalizing the broader social and spatial fabric of neighborhoods or towns. This approach redefines heritage as an infrastructural commons—a shared resource that supports daily life and demands collective care, equitable access, and continuous community stewardship. To make this model viable, the authors argue for a shift in societal values toward maintenance and sustainability, moving away from the dominant mindset of endless growth. Ultimately, integrated heritage offers a vision for reorganizing the built environment where preservation plays a central role in fostering more resilient, sustainable, and community-oriented futures.
There is an additional book review by HUANG Jia-Yi‘, “‘Dispositif’ and Its Visible Strategies: Artificial Darkness.” HUANG Jia-Yi introduces Noam M. Elcott’s concept of “artificial darkness” from his book Artificial Darkness: An Obscure History of Modern Art and Media, presenting it as a dispositif that played a central role in the production and reception of images from the 19th to 20th centuries. Unlike the traditional view of darkness as absence or concealment, Elcott argues that darkness is a condition for visual manifestation. Through the specific deployment of spaces such as laboratories, theaters, and cinemas, artificial darkness shaped the viewer’s body and perception. The review traces Elcott’s analysis of Marey’s physiological research, phantasmagoria shows, Méliès’ films, and Bauhaus art practices, highlighting the link between artificial darkness and modernist politics in forming a new visual subject. Elcott ultimately sees the camera, darkroom, and cinema as part of the same “dark box” system, revealing how media apparatuses blur the boundaries between image production and reception. Huang brought attention to how Elcott reframes artificial darkness as a historically contingent spatial practice of vision rather than an essential property, mediating between illusion and reality.
Other than the special issue, there are also research papers such as CHEN Chi-Fang‘s “K-pop and Fan Activism—the Legislative Advocacy of ‘Scalper Slayers Unit'” and CHANG Yu-Hsin‘s “Speculation on Tribal Governance and Policy Practice: The Katratripulr Case” CHEN’s study explores how K-pop encourages Taiwanese fans to deepen their participation and transform it into policy actions. Using MAMAMOO’s fan group “Tuliu Small Team” pushing for anti-scalping legislation as an example, the paper analyzes how fans combine support experience with digital mobilization, demonstrating fan activism and the potential for institutional reform, highlighting the social influence of the Korean Wave culture. CHANG’s article examines the case of Katratripulr Solar Power Projectto explore the dilemmas and possibilities of Taiwan’s Indigenous tribal governance and policy practices.The paper highlights the value and potential of traditional organizations, and proposes legislative suggestions for adjusting consultation processes and strengthening cultural governance, to realize the autonomy and cultural sustainability of indigenous tribes.
Additionally, a forum note “International Forum for Art Sustainability—’How Artists & Creators are Incorporating Sustainability into Their Work?'” is included in the issue. The summary documents how “International Forum on Art Sustainability Action” came into being and brought together eight groups of sustainability practitioners from Taiwan and abroad to explore how artists can integrate sustainability into their practice and careers—rooted locally yet connected globally—to envision a future of art in ecological symbiosis.
Taken together, this special issue illustrates the richness that emerges by engaging with diverse genres, disciplinary perspectives, and critical orientations, ranging from theoretical interventions to practical policy critiques. We hope that this issue serves not only as a timely intervention, but also as an invitation to further explore the transformative potential of visibility across a broader and more inclusive spectrum of heritage practice.
References
Brighenti, Andrea Mubi. 2007. “Visibility: A Category for the Social Sciences.” Current Sociology, 55: 323–342.
De Backer, Mattias. 2019. “Regimes of Visibility: Hanging out in Brussels’ Public Spaces.” Space and Culture, 22(3): 308–320.
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books.
Ingold, Tim. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. 1998. Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Macdonald, Sharo. 2009. Difficult Heritage: Negotiating the Nazi Past in Nuremberg and Beyond. London: Routledge.
Smith, Laurajane. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge.
Smith, Laurajane. and Emma Waterton. 2013. Heritage, Communities and Archaeology. London and New York: Bloomsbury.
Taussig, Michael. 1992. The Nervous System. New York: Routledge.