This article reflects on the arguments that heritage is as much about people as it is about places and objects. It is focused on Syria and based on a doctoral research project. The article investigates how heritage is approached by both “civil society” groups and extremist religious groups in Syria. It argues that the utilization of heritage by these groups offers learning lessons and examples of people-centered, socially innovative, and future-oriented heritage practices. The article suggests that the heritage community’s efforts in conflict contexts should be less about preservation and more about embracing change and finding creative ways to manage the transformation process from a pre-conflict society to a post-conflict society. In other words, they should tackle issues that matter to conflict-affected people, improve the quality of their life, and increase their horizons of hope and opportunities in assembling better futures.

According to the Syrian philosopher T. Tizini (1934–2019), the dilemma of authenticity heritage in the Arab world has lost its factual conceptualization. While its societal and ideological issues have been rightly discussed, its technical aspects have been handled only superficially. In this article, I review the deep interconnectivities between the societal and technical aspects of the term “authenticity” and the reconstruction of the damaged architectural heritage in Syria after years of a devastating war. I suggest that any postwar reconstruction raises a central contradiction: rebuilding an element from the past in the present. While the destroyed physical fabrics might be reconstituted, the setting that gave them value and meaning can never be reestablished. For that reason, preserving the “authenticity” in the wide significance of the term seems unrealistic in the context of reconstructed heritage. Nevertheless, what several Syrian scholars and politicians describe as “authenticity by creativity” might be a possible outcome.

In an era when war, acts of terror, and the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change loom large in the public conscience, the conservation community is grappling with the associated loss of the historic built environment and potential responses. But the built environment—at least some aspects of it—is becoming progressively obsolete due to environmental and social changes. Coastal sea-level rise, inefficient resource and land use, and the role of the built environment in perpetuating social exclusion raise questions about the potential value of destruction and the opportunities it affords for reframing spatial memory and historical narrative in more just and sustainable ways. The heritage field’s preoccupation with the physical, place-based fabric will be challenged in the face of this obsolescence, compelling a reexamination of attitudes toward destruction and reconstruction. This article borrows loosely from Joseph Schumpeter’s economic concept of creative destruction to explore the ways in which both innovation and new lenses on history and memory may be borne of change, loss, and obsolescence. Using the discourse surrounding past and contemporary North American cases, it examines some fundamental ideas regarding capital in the built environment and the economic value of destruction. It also explores the negative social consequences of destruction and the historical influence cum perspective of the heritage enterprise and posits potentially positive values and opportunities engendered through destruction. Finally, it reimagines how approaches to reconstruction by the heritage field may contribute to more socially just and sustainable futures.

Natural and human disasters continue to destroy historic urban fabrics worldwide. While residents would often like to see their cities rebuilt “as they were,” most scholars of heritage fiercely reject identical reconstructions by arguing either that they are “fake” simulations, or that they epitomize undemocratic urbanization processes. Challenging these arguments, I first draw from literature on theming to argue that it is precisely “fakeness” that allows people to construct a sense of authenticity in rebuilt urban spaces. Next, I show how preoccupations with participation and justice can paradoxically lead professionals to advance the same universalistic, undemocratic heritage approach that they claim to contest. By enabling diverse people to negotiate a sense of the past, confront each other, and share new aspirations for the future, identical reconstructions are heritage as much as, if not more than, other “historic” urban fabrics.

Concepts of memory—specifically notions of collective memory—are associated in heritage studies with the central idea of authenticity. In this article I review what is relevant in the psychology of memory to these discourses, and reflect on this association of collective memory and authenticity in heritage studies, notably in the 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity. Concepts of time are central to this review. The idea of world heritage is, it is suggested, a future-oriented ideal for a common humanity. The metaphorical underpinnings of our vernacular uses of time-concepts, such as past and future, are examined. Psychological considerations of memory as retrieval or reconstruction are then outlined. The distinction between kinds of memory, notably episodic and semantic memory, is then presented. These, it is argued, are building blocks for collective memory, which, in turn, is the seedbed for the underemphasized but potent idea of collective imagination. If the primary function of memory is actually oriented to the future, then imagination is what puts kinds of memory to work in both predicting and creating the future. Our ability to imagine—to mentally project forward—is heavily dependent on what we know—that is, on semantic memory. The article concludes with some reflections on the policy implications of this analysis for the visitor to world heritage sites.

According to the logic of the conservation ethics, the heritage sector has the duty to conserve cultural heritage because it has inherent value and constitutes a non-renewable resource that once destroyed cannot be substituted and, therefore, must be preserved for the benefit of future generations. In this article, I argue, however, that the cultural heritage of the past is not a comprehensive legacy that theoretically, at any point, might have been considered complete but, rather, that it can be understood as frequently updated manifestations of changing perceptions of the past over time. The most important question for conservation and heritage management, thus, is not how much heritage of any one period may or may not survive intact into the future but, instead, which heritage, as our legacy to the generations to come, will benefit future societies the most. In particular, I am calling for more research into the possible significance of heritage in addressing some of the social consequences of climate change.