Conclusion

The Hungarian case showed us how the heritage making can be analyzed in detail and offered an example of the modes of national reception of the universal imperative of heritage-making. The spectacular spreading of heritage in the West creates a shared culture shaped according to shared political aims. World heritage are destined to realize a similar goal: the construction of a universal cultural and natural heritage and introducing it to shared consciousness through consensus.

Till the mid-20^th century, two conceptions of the nation co-existed in Western Europe: one supposed the existence of a national ?spirit? penetrating all the members of the national community through the traditional institutions, the soil and the climate and determined their way of thinking. The establishment of institutions determining national identity lead to severe debates in most of the Western countries and divided the norm-giving elite, or even the whole nation. The other conception is based on an inherited national ?character? possessing easily discernable marks of physical appearance and those of behaviour. Cultural heritage remained secondary from the point of view of both camps compared to the traditional institutions, i.e. the embodiment of national ?spirit,? or to the race, the imprint of national ?character.?[4]  The representatives of the former saw it as a sign of intellectual superiority, while the representative of the latter as the blatant expression of the inferiority of other peoples. Because of the well-known historical events of the mid-20^th century, both approaches lost their credit. According to the heritage logic of nation-building, national identity is not based on a common ?spirit? or ?character,? but on a past we lived through and a shared future. This past is not represented through the dictates of the common ?spirit? or ?character? any more, but by the choice of the individual or that of a small community.

This evolvement differs from the description of heritage building offered by a Hungarian anthropologist, Péter Niedermüller in his article on post-socialist national heritage construction dating from 2000. During the post-socialist redefinition of national culture, he states, ?cultural myths of origin? still play a crucial role, i.e. the exploration and identification the culture of the people with the national cultural heritage. ?In this sense??, he writes,?? national culture perceived as national heritage and not as a social practice, which would let national identity be defined and represented?.[5] Niedermüller?s definition of heritage is just the opposite of what we have seen in Western Europe, where it is the notion of heritage and heritage-building itself mean the common social practice of creating inclusive national identity opposed to the previous exclusive practices.

[4]Pomian, Krzysztof : ? Nation et patrimoine ?, in: FABRE, L?Europe entre cultures et nations, Éd. de la  MSH, Paris, 1996: 85-95.

[5]Niedermüller Péter: ? A nacionalizmus kulturális logikája a posztszocializmusban ?, Századvég, spring 2000: 91-109.