Pratnatattva Journal of the Dept. of Archaeology Jahangirnagar University, Vol. 25, June 2019: 203-223 ISSN 1560-7593 203 “Safeguarding-Governmentality”: A Neology to Understand the Mechanism of Governmentalisation of the Cultural Heritage in Bangladesh MD. MASOOD IMRAN, PhD Professor Department of Archaeology Jahangirnagar University Savar, Dhaka 1342, Bangladesh masoodimranmanuu@juniv.edu Abstract The objective of this paper is to define ―safeguarding-governmentality‖ as an analytical framework to understand the mechanism of governmentalisation of the cultural heritage in Bangladesh. This paper has been developed as a theoretical background of an analytical tool: ―safeguarding-governmentality‖. This analytical tool has been developed under this study by customising the theory of Michel Foucault‘s ―Governmentality‖ (1991), along with the scholarship of Ian Hodder‘s ―reflexive archaeology‖ (2003), Robert Layton‘s ―archaeological / historical fact‖ (2004), Asish Nandy‘s ―multivocality of history‖ (1995), Hayden White‘s ―new historicism‖ (1975), Bruno Latour's ―scientism‖ (2004), Stuart Hall‘s ―representation‖ (2003) and Judith Butler‘s ―performative subjectivity‖ (1988). Such customised analytical tool is referred to as ―Safeguarding-Governmentality‖ – a process of exploring the rationalisation in respect to safeguarding cultural heritage. This process, when based on a modernised knowledge system, governs ―heritage‖ as a subject of subjectivation (i.e., cultural heritage and state) and subjectification (i.e., her itage- residents). Arguably, it involves a range of actors from transnational agencies to grassroots agencies of the performativity of reflective subjectivity, where the voices of residents in heritage sites are rationalised or manipulated through spatial- governmentalisation. Introduction Nowadays, the safeguarding of cultural heritage has become a ritualistic phenomenon among ethnic groups and nation-states with authentication projects routinely being conducted by different authorities (e.g., the government, transnational organisations, NGOs, and INGOs). Worldwide wars, especially WW-II, essentialised protecting cultural properties which were not only considered to be local heritage but also global patrimony. However, the consciousness with regard to protecting heritage was formally addressed for the first time in 1882 through the introduction of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act. During the 1950s, specifically after WW-II, the monuments protection initiatives were undertaken for cultural properties. In the 1970s, in order to heighten -public consciousness of heritage protection campaigns, UNESCO undertook initiatives and successfully engaged nation-states in a ―protection project‖ under the nomenclature of ―world cultural heritage.‖ Before this, the major challenge had been the selectio n of specific cultural heritage apt to be declared as world cultural heritage. UNESCO, under its initiative, introduced a set standard such as the ―OUV‖ (outstanding universal value) and ―creative human geniuses‖ as two of the foundational parameters to be part of the elite class of cultural heritage. As a part of the strategy for protecting cultural heritage, cultural heritage tourism and heritage-festivals were introduced — these types of strategy engendered by neoliberalism. Cultural heritage under the regime of the safeguarding projects of world cultural patrimony is encompassed by the regulations of governmentality, neoliberalism, and modernity. The notion of ―collective universal humanity‖ gives legitimacy to such projects. European enlightenment has played a major part in these based on modernity. It produced epistemological assumptions that make tradition stand alongside heritage, and these assumptions persisted with the birth of modern nation- states and a market-economy. Presently, one of the major objectives of heritage is to commodify the conceptualising of history as an embodiment and signifier of the past, which glorifies national pride, and upon authorisation by transnational agencies (e.g., UNESCO, ICOMOS and ICCROM), heritage is turned into a universal treasure of human-past. In recalling the previous forms and changes in society and culture, the idea of tradition has come about with its epistemological assumptions. As an example, the current news and electronic media are, more than before, playing an extraordinary role in transforming the modern idea of heritage. However, the essence is interestingly alike. The colonialist and nationalistic regimes of modern power have made the options available to the subject, both as human and as a citizen. Now, the modernity of the citizenries‘ measures or conscious actions is used to save the non-renewable human-created heritage, which has been defined by institutions and laws. Consequently, citizens would be recognised as ‗‗conscious‖ and ‗civilised‘; while traditionalists are otherwise ―unconscious‖ and ―incapable‖. By this time, another project has been developed to raise awareness and capacity building by enhancing the modern power to safeguard the heritage.