The Significance of the Mystery Play of Elche for the Local Community

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found this an interesting paper which is a useful contribution to the literature on intangible cultural heritage.

I am not sure that the results actually address the stated aim, which is "The aim of this study is to explore the distinctive collective memories associated with" the Mystery Play: rather, it addresses the attitudes towards the Play as it is presented today, having been officially recognised and ownership having passed to State and local government agencies. The latter (what you actually achieve) is solid and valuable but you need to be clearer about this.

Your use of raw data -- especially quotations from locals -- is good and informative. Your discussion is also full and raises issues that apply to so many examples of ICH -- the tendency of officialdom to wish to 'freeze' the form and to take steps to alter it for the purpose of widening its appeal to tourists, thus weakening the local claim to its distinctiveness; the differences in generational engagement; and the pride in official recognition that locals nonetheless feel. All these are well represented in the literature and more use of the general works cited (Smith and Akagawa; Bortoletto; etc.) to emphasise this would be useful: a search of other publications in Heritage and indeed journals such as the International Journal of Heritage Studies would also help here.

The paper would also benefit from a Conclusion that pulls the diverse threads together and presents a clear statement of the overall argument, which is otherwise lost in the more detailed discussion. It is also important to ensure that the significance of the findings for a wider -- global -- audience is made clear (and again more reference to the global literature will help). You may wish to include some actual guidance to local cTs and official agencies as to how they can meet their divergent needs while maintaining the Play as a distinctive local form that adapts to a changing world.

I note the paper includes the advice to authors about each section: these need to be removed. The paper will benefit from some extra images, showing how the Play is actually performed. 

Author Response

I found this an interesting paper which is a useful contribution to the literature on intangible cultural heritage.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment.

I am not sure that the results actually address the stated aim, which is "The aim of this study is to explore the distinctive collective memories associated with" the Mystery Play: rather, it addresses the attitudes towards the Play as it is presented today, having been officially recognised and ownership having passed to State and local government agencies. The latter (what you actually achieve) is solid and valuable but you need to be clearer about this.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment.

The aim of this study is to explore the current collective attitudes associated with this manifestation following its proclamation by UNESCO as a Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity. These collective attitudes must be understood as a reconstructed discursive amalgam bounded by the persons transmitting the manifestation (the inhabitants of Elche) and a specific space (the Mystery Play), in the knowledge that the criteria qualifying it as heritage that encompasses a cultural group and the community that sustains it are its historical roots, its identity, its excellence and its uniqueness.

Your use of raw data -- especially quotations from locals -- is good and informative. Your discussion is also full and raises issues that apply to so many examples of ICH -- the tendency of officialdom to wish to 'freeze' the form and to take steps to alter it for the purpose of widening its appeal to tourists, thus weakening the local claim to its distinctiveness; the differences in generational engagement; and the pride in official recognition that locals nonetheless feel. All these are well represented in the literature and more use of the general works cited (Smith and Akagawa; Bortoletto; etc.) to emphasise this would be useful: a search of other publications in Heritage and indeed journals such as the International Journal of Heritage Studies would also help here.

Response: Thank you very much.

Different contributions in the literature referring to these aspects have been included with the aim of enriching the text.

(Line 272) As part of this commercialisation process, … (Lines 277-278) reflecting that these types of museums are an example of instrumentalisation of heritage by public authorities as a means of legitimising their prestige [49].

(Line 493) It is not set in stone [63] (p. 7) and the cTs….

(Lines 506-507) … In other words, in the opinion of the cTs what was hidden from view has now become visible for the purposes of intervention [66].

(Lines 543-545) … Such experiences, based on the evidence of similar cases in other parts of the world [73,74,75], can help to achieve greater diffusion of this intangible heritage of humanity.

49. Arrieta Urtizberea, I.; Seguí, J.; Roigé, X. Folklore, museums and identity politics in Spain: 1931 to present. International Journal of Heritage Studies 2020, 26, 387-400, doi:10.1080/13527258.2019.1639070.
50. Silberman, N.A. Heritage interpretation and human rights: documenting diversity, expressing identity, or establishing universal principles? International Journal of Heritage Studies 2012, 18, 245-256, doi:10.1080/13527258.2012.643910.
51. Waterton, E.; Smith, L. The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies 2010, 16, 4-15, doi:10.1080/13527250903441671.
52. Nikolakopoulou, V.; Printezis, P.; Maniatis, V.; Kontizas, D.; Vosinakis, S.; Chatzigrigoriou, P.; Koutsabasis, P. Conveying Intangible Cultural Heritage in Museums with Interactive Storytelling and Projection Mapping: The Case of the Mastic Villages. Heritage 2022, 5, 1024-1049.
53. Garzia, F. The Fellini Museum of Rimini in Italy and the Genetic Algorithms-Based Method to Optimize the Design of an Integrated System Network and Installations. Heritage 2022, 5, 1310-1329.
54. Vázquez de Ágredos Pascual, M.L.; Fantoni, R.; Francucci, M.; Guarneri, M.; Mongelli, M.; Pierattini, S.; Puccini, M.; Ferrero Gil, S.; Izquierdo Garay, J.C.; Gil Bordallo, J.M. 3D Model Acquisition and Image Processing for the Virtual Musealization of the Spezieria di Santa Maria della Scala, Rome. Heritage 2022, 5, 1253-1275.
55. Ekern, S.; Logan, W.; Sauge, B.; Sinding-Larsen, A. Human rights and World Heritage: preserving our common dignity through rights-based approaches to site management. International Journal of Heritage Studies 2012, 18, 213-225, doi:10.1080/13527258.2012.656253.
56. Hill, R.; Cullen-Unsworth, L.C.; Talbot, L.D.; McIntyre-Tamwoy, S. Empowering Indigenous peoples’ biocultural diversity through World Heritage cultural landscapes: a case study from the Australian humid tropical forests. International Journal of Heritage Studies 2011, 17, 571-591, doi:10.1080/13527258.2011.618252.
57. Boc, E.; Filimon, A.L.; Mancia, M.-S.; Mancia, C.A.; Josan, I.; Herman, M.L.; Filimon, A.C.; Herman, G.V. Tourism and Cultural Heritage in Beiuș Land, Romania. Heritage 2022, 5, 1734-1751.
58. Gallaga, E.; Trujillo, J.; Andrlić, B. Archaeological Attractions Marketing: Some Current Thoughts on Heritage Tourism in Mexico. Heritage 2022, 5, 567-580.

The paper would also benefit from a Conclusion that pulls the diverse threads together and presents a clear statement of the overall argument, which is otherwise lost in the more detailed discussion. It is also important to ensure that the significance of the findings for a wider —global— audience is made clear (and again more reference to the global literature will help). You may wish to include some actual guidance to local cTs and official agencies as to how they can meet their divergent needs while maintaining the Play as a distinctive local form that adapts to a changing world.

Response: Thank you very much.

My apologies, due to an error when transferring the text to the journal template, the final paragraphs which may be considered as the conclusion and which clarify the matters raised in the above comments were excluded.

Without entering into the debate as to whether culture can be legislated or the consequences of institutionalising culture, the legislation has proven effective to guarantee the safeguarding of the Mystery Play as an integral feature of the city of Elche and a communal rite, protecting against situations such as the possibility of it ending up as a mere tourist attraction or the introduction of certain ideological perspectives that are not in keeping with the essence of the Mystery Play.

Nonetheless, this identity discourse need not be at odds with the value that may be assigned to it as a product for consumption as in the case of touristification processes, particularly if it is heritage tourism [76,77,78,79]. However, due to the unique characteristics of the Mystery Play priority should be given to symbolic acts that assert its identity rather than changes that could lead to over-exploitation or debasing of this heritage.

In light of the above, maintenance of the community-population-representation relationship requires responsible management by the Board of Trustees with reference to the group’s social memory, given that the characteristics of this heritage element are associated with the actions and uses made of it by the society of Elche. Accordingly, the Board of Trustees must seek to ensure preservation of this festive-community dimension which gives meaning to the Mystery Play as a whole, adopting a flexible perspective of heritage transfer subject to constant reformulation which must connect the past, present and future of the Mystery Play.

I note the paper includes the advice to authors about each section: these need to be removed. The paper will benefit from some extra images, showing how the Play is actually performed.

Response. Thank you very much, this has been done.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the authors explored very interesting and relevant issues for the sustainable preservation of intangible heritage, namely the attitude of the local community towards local traditions of a religious nature and their collective memories of these traditions.

What is markedly lacking in the article are references to previous theoretical studies and state-of-the art in the study of collective memories in relation to intangible cultural heritage and cultural or religious practices. The notion about limited research (l. 80-89) is insufficiently substantiated.

The methodology adopted is adequate and promising, but the results are presented with little clarity (e.g. unclear mention of the coding process (l. 151-153). Despite the identification of the four groups surveyed (l. 119-122 and 447-450), the results presented do not contain clear references to each group, containing only a mention of the custodians of tradition, which the reader must assign to one of the groups themselves. 

The article would have benefited greatly in terms of clarity of message if at least a framework set of questions asked of respondents had been included in one of the appendices. The article would similarly benefit from setting out clear research problems or hypotheses. For example, the phenomenon of social secularisation and its impact on changing the perception of the studied religious tradition by younger generations, only vaguely mentioned in the results (l. 246), could be part of the research problem.

The article intended to explore collective memories, however, this concept is not used with sufficient consistency, given that the results present a selection (according to what key?) of individual responses, not grouped by groups of respondents. The way the results are presented undermines the clarity of the discussion section.

Doubts are raised by the subtitle 'from one collective memory to many collective memories', l. 296, given that the section seems to include not only memories from the past, but a description of the experiences of participants in the Mystery Play from the present. It is therefore recommended that the article more clearly articulates and defines the concept of 'collective memories' as opposed to current perceptions and experiences (l. 14-15).

 

Author Response

Overall, the authors explored very interesting and relevant issues for the sustainable preservation of intangible heritage, namely the attitude of the local community towards local traditions of a religious nature and their collective memories of these traditions.

What is markedly lacking in the article are references to previous theoretical studies and state-of-the art in the study of collective memories in relation to intangible cultural heritage and cultural or religious practices. The notion about limited research (l. 80-89) is insufficiently substantiated.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment.

(l.11; l. 86-89) Due to a misunderstanding in the English version the term ‘collective memory’ was used when in fact it should refer to the current collective attitudes associated with this manifestation following its proclamation by UNESCO as a Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity.

The methodology adopted is adequate and promising, but the results are presented with little clarity (e.g. unclear mention of the coding process (l. 151-153).

Response: Thank you very much for your comment.

Following an analysis of the different narratives, the transcriptions have been grouped into three large groups.

(l. 150-153)The coding process resulted in three main codes referring to: 1. Cultural heritage, management and rights; 2. Cultural tourism; 3. From one collective attitude to various collective attitudes.

Despite the identification of the four groups surveyed (l. 119-122 and 447-450), the results presented do not contain clear references to each group, containing only a mention of the custodians of tradition, which the reader must assign to one of the groups themselves.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment.

In the results section a correction has been made to an error in the first letter of the acronyms. This may be the reason why the reviewer was unable to clearly identify each group.

Furthermore, they cannot be grouped in the manner suggested by the Reviewer even though an attempt was made, and for this reason mention is made in the discussion to the situation “If the analysis is reduced to two basic population groups…”.

(l. 487-494) Nonetheless, in line with the suggestion made the corresponding paragraph has been redrafted as indicated below to further clarify matters:

After completing the study it was observed that in reality all the opinions of the participants could be grouped into two basic population groups, regardless of whether they were 1) locals with local ancestry; 2) first-generation local origin; 3) mixed Spanish ancestry, i.e., one parent from Elche; and 4) non-local origin, that is, persons not from Elche: namely, those who attend the Mystery Play every year and experience it as a rite (cTs) and those who attend occasionally because it has become popular following the proclamation. It can be seen that the former (cTs) are generally of Elche descent extending back several generations

The article would have benefited greatly in terms of clarity of message if at least a framework set of questions asked of respondents had been included in one of the appendices. The article would similarly benefit from setting out clear research problems or hypotheses. For example, the phenomenon of social secularisation and its impact on changing the perception of the studied religious tradition by younger generations, only vaguely mentioned in the results (l. 246), could be part of the research problem.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment.

This is precisely one of the future areas of study which arise, however the current article does not address this matter and at the current time both this matter and other related issues are being addressed by other studies.

The article intended to explore collective memories, however, this concept is not used with sufficient consistency, given that the results present a selection (according to what key?) of individual responses, not grouped by groups of respondents. The way the results are presented undermines the clarity of the discussion section.

Doubts are raised by the subtitle 'from one collective memory to many collective memories', l. 296, given that the section seems to include not only memories from the past, but a description of the experiences of participants in the Mystery Play from the present. It is therefore recommended that the article more clearly articulates and defines the concept of 'collective memories' as opposed to current perceptions and experiences (l. 14-15).

Response: Thank you very much for your comment.

My apologies, the intention is not to analyse the collective memories but rather the perceptions or attitudes society has of the Mystery Play following the proclamation by UNESCO.

(l. 137-143) The specific research questions were as follows:

1. Do you usually attend the Mystery Play? Please indicate if you attend the general rehearsals or the performances.
2. How did you discover the Mystery Play?
3. How long have you known about it?
4. What does the Mystery Play mean to you?
5. What does its proclamation as World Heritage mean to you?

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is generally dealing with an important and interesting research question with regard to collective memories: to what extent can the development of a religious event and performance, today also being an important tangible and intangible object of cultural heritage, to such a cultural and touristic presentation be accepted by the members of the community in which it takes place?

The chosen way of interviewing representatives of  different groups of inhabitants and  of actors and recipients of the event can be seen as a good way to deal with the problem and research question. In the analysis, however, the different groups and similarities or divergences of them are only to some extent taken into account (e.g., not with regard to gender). The significant difference in the opinions of "custodians of the tradition" and representatives of "political- commercial interests" are shown well. To offer a number of  transcribed statements of interviewees  as examples are welcome, although they make it sometimes rather laborious for the reader to get to the group affiliations of these interviewees with the help of the offered codes (What's the H? Should it be F?). Perhaps one could find another solution.

The described situation shows that, today,  there are a number of problems with regard  to the performance and reception of the Mystery Play of Elche in the community. The paper should conclude with some ideas of the authors if it might be possible to overcome these problems and how to  do it.

Author Response

This paper is generally dealing with an important and interesting research question with regard to collective memories: to what extent can the development of a religious event and performance, today also being an important tangible and intangible object of cultural heritage, to such a cultural and touristic presentation be accepted by the members of the community in which it takes place?

The chosen way of interviewing representatives of different groups of inhabitants and of actors and recipients of the event can be seen as a good way to deal with the problem and research question. In the analysis, however, the different groups and similarities or divergences of them are only to some extent taken into account (e.g., not with regard to gender).

Response: Thank you very much for your comment.

(Lines 152-153) There were no gender differences in the testimonies of the participants provided that they belonged to the same social group.

The significant difference in the opinions of "custodians of the tradition" and representatives of "political- commercial interests" are shown well. To offer a number of transcribed statements of interviewees as examples are welcome, although they make it sometimes rather laborious for the reader to get to the group affiliations of these interviewees with the help of the offered codes (What's the H? Should it be F?). Perhaps one could find another solution.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment.

Due to an error, rather than H the codes should indicate M, a reference to Male as opposed to F for Female corresponding to the gender of the participants, as shown in Table 1: Contributor identity codes. This has been corrected in the text using Track Changes.

The described situation shows that, today, there are a number of problems with regard to the performance and reception of the Mystery Play of Elche in the community. The paper should conclude with some ideas of the authors if it might be possible to overcome these problems and how to do it.

Response: Thank you very much

My apologies, due to an error when transferring the text to the journal template, the final paragraphs which may be considered as the conclusion and which clarify the matters raised in the above comments were excluded.

5. Conclusions (l. 568-592)

The Mystery Play must be understood as a discursive form in which tangible and intangible elements are fused in a single process, the result of which is a production charged with meaning. Its identity value is associated with a multiple and changing population which varies and adapts to the changing times, in which new values and meanings emerge and coexist with the previous ones.

Without entering into the debate as to whether culture can be legislated or the consequences of institutionalising culture, the legislation has proven effective to guarantee the safeguarding of the Mystery Play as an integral feature of the city of Elche and a communal rite, protecting against situations such as the possibility of it ending up as a mere tourist attraction or the introduction of certain ideological perspectives that are not in keeping with the essence of the Mystery Play.

Nonetheless, this identity discourse need not be at odds with the value that may be assigned to it as a product for consumption as in the case of touristification processes, particularly if it is heritage tourism [76,77,78,79]. However, due to the unique characteristics of the Mystery Play priority should be given to symbolic acts that assert its identity rather than changes that could lead to over-exploitation or debasing of this heritage.

In light of the above, maintenance of the community-population-representation relationship requires responsible management by the Board of Trustees with reference to the group’s social memory, given that the characteristics of this heritage element are associated with the actions and uses made of it by the society of Elche. Accordingly, the Board of Trustees must seek to ensure preservation of this festive-community dimension which gives meaning to the Mystery Play as a whole, adopting an incomplete perspective of heritage transfer subject to constant reformulation which must connect the past, present and future of the Mystery Play.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have adequately addressed most of the suggestions, making the article definitely clearer.

Although a crucial terminological issue has been clarified (the erroneously used 'collective memories' has been replaced by the more appropriate expression 'collective attitudes'), the article still lacks a discussion on the state of the art with regard to 'collective attitudes' as a research phenomenon in general and specifically with regard to intangible heritage.

The inclusion of this aspect in the article would definitely enhance its cognitive value. 

 

Author Response

Response: Thank you very much for your comment.

Our results show that the Misteri, as it is immaterial heritage, belongs to a tradition that the population from Elche is permanently reconstructing, evolving from an agricultural society to an industrial society, currently more centred in the service sector. 

This restructuration has a bearing in contemplating the Misteri as a live organism in both the material and the immaterial. In each representation the society that created it creates it and recreates it once and again. By doing so, the Misteri relives the appropriation or its own meaning, that involves redoing the ties and affections with tradition. That is, we witness a process of constant production, transmission and reproduction [60], that tie together the different generations of the natives of Elche.

The living experience of the different groups that have been studied must be understood as a synonym of the selection of the social context in which it is generated. It is the memory of that present which configures the past, and not the other way around.

We thus confirm that immaterial heritage such as the Misteri is not inherited genetically but transmitted socially, and this derives from a process of cultural selection which implies that the meanings are modified, but their essence is not. This is their value, considering that immaterial heritage in general lives in the variable, and it is fruitless to persecute the version that we could call authentic [61].

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Some of the weaknesses have been corrected. But there are severe problems that I overlooked in my first evaluation:

Lines 366-433 are more or less identical with lines 300-366 !!!!

Footnote 8 should be in line 310, not 312

Line 644-47: repetition of the same sentence. !!

Lines 665-669: repetition of the same sentence. !!

Line255: still HCL13B

 

 

In this form the paper cannot be published!

Author Response

Lines 366-433 are more or less identical with lines 300-366 !!!!

Response: Thank you very much, this has been done.

Footnote 8 should be in line 310, not 312

Response: Thank you very much, this has been done.

Line 644-47: repetition of the same sentence. !!

Response: Thank you very much, this has been done.

Lines 665-669: repetition of the same sentence. !!

Response: Thank you very much, this has been done.

Line255: still HCL13B

Response: Thank you very much, this has been done.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx