[Ye Shuxian] Intangible economy and intangible cultural heritage
[Abstract] The concept of "intangible" is actually not the exclusive preserve of the term "intangible cultural heritage".
It was first used as a new term in post-modernity and in other occasions unrelated to "cultural heritage".
How to correct the abnormal relationship between conquest and plunder between man and nature created by modernity is the subtext of Lyotard's proposal of the term "immaterial".
This paper restores the postmodern context of a series of official discourses on intangible cultural heritage and its protection from the major changes in today's world's intangible economic era, thereby understanding these new concepts that are advancing with the times and providing a perspective of historical background and theoretical genealogy.
[Keywords] Intangible; post-modern; symbolic economy; intangible cultural heritage; cultural capital
[Document identification code] A
[Article Number] 1008 - 72142005) 04 - 0019 - 07 1.
From "immaterial" to "immaterial economy" Engels said that every important conceptual innovation will inevitably be accompanied by a revolution in terminology.
In recent years, the most popular new term in the humanities community is "intangible cultural heritage", because behind it there is a looming movement of change in the concept of knowledge that is in the ascendant on a global scale.
The nature and breadth of influence of this movement are unprecedented, and therefore require the close attention of humanists.
The persistent enthusiasm for the term "intangible heritage" and related terms such as "intangible heritage" has been fully reflected in the large number of articles written by new and old scholars around these concepts in a short period of time.
The number of publications of such papers is increasing day by day.
Judging from the current situation, if everyone's focus is on the interpretation of the meaning of the changing new terms (from "intangible cultural heritage", to "oral and intangible heritage", and then to "intangible cultural heritage ") themselves, and there is no more effective and over-looking interpretation perspective and strategy, then there may be the possibility of getting into the horns of the word concept without knowing it.
The author hopes to broaden his horizons and restore the realistic context in which a series of official discourses on intangible cultural heritage and its protection originated from the major changes in the world that the intangible economic era is replacing the material economic era, so as to understand these new postmodern concepts that keep pace with the times., providing a perspective of historical background and theoretical genealogy.
First, the attention to cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible cultural heritage) that flourished in the late 20th century is closely related to postmodern and postcolonial cultural consciousness.
As globalization theorist Robertson pointed out from a sociological standpoint: Attention to cultural issues is a manifestation of the enhanced reflexivity of contemporary sociology.
"Mature modernity is not conducive to attention to cultural issues, and what is often diagnosed as postmodernity-or postmodernism-promotes that attention." (Robertson, 2000: 47) If the reflexivity of postmodern social science based on post-colonial criticism is an important driving force for the promotion of cultural consciousness and cultural heritage consciousness, then the concept of "immaterial" must also be restored to the context of postmodernity.
Understand it in the context of modernity.
The concept of "intangible" is actually not the exclusive preserve of the term "intangible cultural heritage".
It was first used as a new post-modern term and in other occasions unrelated to "cultural heritage".
For example, in March 1985, the famous French postmodern theorist Liotta launched an exhibition at the Pompidou National Center for Arts and Culture in Paris, consciously named "Les Immateriaux".
Lyotard's understanding of the new word can be found in the conceptual outline he wrote for the exhibition: In the modern tradition, the relationship between man and matter has been fixed by Descartes 'plan to conquer and possess nature.
A free will imposes its own goals on specific elements of nature, taking them out of its own natural trajectory.“非物质”是否改变了人与物质的关系？-- That is, the relationship fixed by the tradition of modernity, the relationship fixed by the rules of change of Descartes who conquered and possessed nature...
"Nonphysical" for a plan means a substance that is no longer a physical object; for "people", it reveals a decomposition comparable to one's own decomposition.
Most of these "non-physical" results from computer and electronic science, or at least from technologies that use the methods of electronic science.
(Lyotard, 2002:33, 36 - 37) In Lyotard's view, disappointment and rebellion against modernity are the prerequisite for the emergence of postmodern values, which is the specific context in which the concept of "immaterial" is proposed.
He said: At the end of the 18th century, Europe and America claimed to spread light, law and wealth to the human world in the name of freedom and moral enlightenment.
After 200 years of killing and domestic, international and world wars, we now begin to lament this arrogance.
At least in the layout of the background, the "immaterial" echoed this wise melancholy from a distance.
(Lyotard, 2002: 41) From this perspective, the original intention of this exhibition titled "Intangible" created by Lyotard and other postmodernists is to arouse people's awareness of the crisis of modernity and reflection on the postmodern situation.
How to correct the abnormal relationship between conquest and plunder between man and nature created by modernity is the subtext of Lyotard's proposal of the term "immaterial".
Baudrillard, another French scholar contemporary with Lyotard, may have made the most thorough analysis and criticism of postmodern symbolic economy, that is, the immaterial economy so far.
Some people regard him as the godfather of postmodernism.
It is no accident.
Baudrilla believes that the actual development of capitalism in the 20th century has put forward the need to transform and upgrade the Marxist system.
The key to transformation is to add a cultural and semiotic dimension to the existing political economy dimension.
Baudrillard's "Political Economy of Symbols" provides a timely theoretical perspective on the unprecedented characteristics of contemporary society: the development of contemporary capitalism has brought the majority of mankind into a consumer society.
The difference between consumer society and previous societies is that it focuses on the symbolic value of goods in addition to traditional exchange value and use value.
He proposed that the organizational principles of modern society and postmodern society are different.
The keyword in the former is "production", while the keyword in the latter has become "simulation".
Under the logical control of production, the greatest effect of social organization lies in strengthening material labor and its products itself.
Under the logical control of simulation, the nature of social organization has shifted to the symbolic development level of intangible labor, which is what people today call the pursuit of added value of product culture.
In his early works, Baudrillard declared with a very radical attitude the end of traditional political economy, the end of Marx's problem group, the end of labor, the end of production and the end of modernity itself.
The replacement of postmodernity heralds the arrival of an era of simulation, in which social reproduction around the value-added of knowledge becomes the main force replacing material production.
"Symbols and codes multiplied and gave rise to other symbols and new symbol machines.
Technology thus replaces capital in this story, and semiurgy, the reproduction of images, information, symbols, overshadowed production." (Kelner, 2005: 10) In the case of Foucault, a French critical theoretical pioneer a generation older than Baudrillard, the subject has already died once.
Now, in Baudrillard's perspective on postmodern society, as individuals flee the "desert of reality" in pursuit of ultra-real fanaticism and new realms of computer, media, and technological experience, people once again see another strange landscape of the subject's disappearance: the postmodern world is also a hyperreality world, in which the experiences provided by entertainment, information and communication technologies are more intense and tempting than the tedious scenes of daily life.
Hyperreal domains (such as real-life media simulations, Disneyland and other amusement parks, commercial districts and consumer havens, television sports and other travels to the ideal world) are more real than real, and with these, hyperreal models, images and coding control thoughts and behavior.
But definition itself is uncertain in this nonlinear world, because in this world, people find themselves in a situation where individuals face an overwhelming wave of images, codes, and models, any of which have the potential to shape an individual's thoughts or behaviors.
(Kellner, 2005:11 - 12) Whether it is the simulation of the symbolic world or the hyperreality, their value lies in symbolism.
Symbolic value is the information value of a commodity, which Kahneman calls experiential utility.
Traditional economists, including Marx, only recognize that commodities have dual attributes, and do not have enough understanding of this third attribute, which is characterized by "information, experience, and symbols." Although the symbolic value of goods has always existed, it is only in contemporary consumer society that this symbolic value has been fully developed and infinitely amplified, in order to construct commodity differences and create demand, and cultivate and induce a consumer obsession similar to religious fanatics and artistic star-chasing.
The relationship between consumer products and consumers is no longer a simple relationship between being used and being used, but has multiple connotations of emotion, trust, and cultural identity.
All of these are not present in the material elements of the product themselves.
They are additional values created by consumer culture and are therefore immaterial.
Different from the material economy that focuses on production, in the symbolic economy that pursues added value of culture, what is related to overall consumption behavior is no longer simple economic strength, but various new consumption concepts closely related to culture.
New consumption concepts and consumption patterns pay more attention to the characterization of consumption phenomena rather than a certain background of economic strength.
Therefore, in contemporary society, it is not consumption that determines culture, but culture that guides consumption, and representational consumption creates a symbolic economic model.
Symbolic culture guides consumption from many aspects, such as the conceptual packaging of specific consumer goods, the creation of the atmosphere required for consumption, the rendering of the ideology of consumption, and establishing an idol of life for consumers.
Knowledge of mythological archetypes in literary research has become the most convenient gateway to the symbolic economy.
(Wartime, 2004:1 - 8) As the psychological energy of mythical archetypes is effectively activated and developed, symbols have extraordinary magic power.
Symbols can give profound meaning to plain goods.
Images are used to redefine the relationship between people.
The symbolic economy is the large-scale development of intangible cultural values to realize the transformation from symbols to social ideology.
If we want to trace the theoretical source of Baudrillard's symbols in the political economy, then it can be said that the entire field of professional knowledge from symbols to symbolic anthropology is the main source of inspiration for theoretical change.
He later recalled the formation of his first book and said: My first book contained a commentary on objects as obvious facts, matter, reality and use values.
There, the object is treated as a symbol, but it is still a symbol full of meaning.
In this commentary, there are two basic logical interactions: one is illusory logic, which points mainly to psychoanalysis...
the other is the principle of social logic of differences, which makes distinctions based on sociology and is itself derived from anthropology (communication is a product of symbols, distinctions, status, and prestige).
(Baudrillard, 1983: 126) This self-statement by Baudrillard clearly illustrates how his ideas for symbolic analysis emerged from the perspective and method of anthropology.
It can be said that it is the cultural symbol phenomena in prehistoric societies that anthropological attention-totems, tattoos, masks, rituals, and various body decoration techniques that express social class, identity, and status-that have made consumption that also pays attention to today's society Baudrillard, the theorist of the phenomenon of totemism, enabled him to obtain sufficient theoretical nourishment beyond the pure political economy of the 19th century from similar analogies of objects.
Also in the late 1980s, the French thinker Bourdieu divided the concept of capital into three in his important monograph "The Forms of Capital".
In addition to economic capital, he proposed and discussed the functions of "cultural capital" and "social capital" in today's society and their transformation rules.
He specifically mentioned that compared with the economic capital recognized by tradition, both the so-called cultural capital and social capital can be expressed in "intangible forms": In fact, unless people introduce all forms of capital, rather than just thinking about the one recognized by economic theory, it is impossible to explain the structure and role of the social world...
The reason why this economic theory changes the nature of certain capitals and defines them as super-utilitarian is that by changing their nature, the vast majority of material types of capital (in a sense, economic capital types) can express the intangible form of cultural capital or social capital; similarly, intangible forms of capital (such as cultural capital) can also express the material form.
(Bourdieu, 2003) Intangible forms of cultural capital and social capital can be regarded as "symbolic capital" in an intangible sense.
(Bourdieu, 2003) Therefore, some scholars have divided Bourdieu's new capital form theory into four categories.
(Gao Zhuan, 2004: 148)
In this way, in terms of social leading spiritual transformation, there is the rise of postmodern intangible concepts pointed out by Lyotard; in terms of consumer society sweeping across today's world, there is the rise of intangible symbolic economy discussed by Baudrillard's analysis; in terms of changes in capital form, there is the operation methods and conversion possibilities of intangible forms of cultural capital and social capital revealed by Bourdieu; These observations from different fields and angles all keenly grasp the pulse of the emerging era of "non-material economy" and reveal one of the main differences between post-modernity and modernity.美国著名的未来学家托夫勒在15年前也非常敏锐地预测到：“当代经济方面最重要的事情是一种创造财富的新体系的崛起，这种体系不再是以肌肉（体力）为基础，而是以大脑（脑力）为基础。”(Toffler, 1996: 10) Toffler also regards the coming change as the most profound power shift in our human history, and calls on people to adjust themselves in time to cope with this extraordinary cultural change.
In his view, the expansion of the knowledge economy is an explosive force.
It allows those who know and understand first to rise rapidly and gain sufficient competitive advantages, while those who know later and realize later fall into a passive and outdated situation that is about to be eliminated.
It will also inevitably lead developing countries to abandon their traditional "big chimney" economic strategy of development and shift to the direction of the information economy marked by computers.
Churchill once said this prophetic saying: "The empire of the future is the empire of the mind." Today this sentence has become a reality.
In Toffler's new vocabulary, the so-called "knowledge economy","information economy", or "hyper-symbolic economy" are basically used as synonyms.
It is not difficult to see this from his redefinition of "knowledge".“知识”这个字眼将具有更广泛的词义。It will include information, data, images and imagery, as well as attitudes, values and other symbolic products of society.
Whether these products are "real","approximate", or even "fake".
(Toffler, 1996:21) In this expression that reidentifies knowledge in the traditional sense with "symbolic products", it is not difficult to see that the essence of the so-called "knowledge economy" can be said to be a "symbolic economy." According to Lyotard,"Technology is one of the many symbols of modern times." (Liotard, 2002:41) In the more theoretical and systematic book "Empire-The Political Order of Globalization"(hereinafter referred to as "Empire"), published 10 years later than Toffler's book, the two authors Michael Hart and Antonio Negri also strongly called attention to the historic and dramatic changes in contemporary power transfers, which they called "global power relations": That is, from industrial economy to symbolic economy, from imperialism to empire, from modern to post-modern.
However, they seem reluctant to use the term "knowledge economy" for fear that such a favorable term will beautify the object of criticism-"empire", but instead use more fashionable terms such as "intangible labor" and the information economy to describe what they believe to be the "end of modernization" phenomenon.
"Empire" no longer entangled in the historical dispute over the successive replacement of the five social forms in the Marxist era, but shortened the focus of theoretical perspective, focused on the current actual situation, and proposed that the world has experienced before and after the establishment of the modern system, that is, since the Middle Ages.
The paradigm of three economic forms: the first paradigm: agriculture is the main body of the economy; the second paradigm: industry and the production of sustainable goods occupy the core of economic activities; the third paradigm, which is our current paradigm: Services, information, and cultural products are the core of the economy.
(Michael Hart and Antonio Negri, 2003:268) In major capitalist countries, this shift from modern production to a postmodern intangible economy has become very evident.
Table 1: Changes in economic and cultural paradigms since the Middle Ages
before the 17th century
17-20 century
Morphological order from the late 20th century to the present
the first normal form
the second paradigm
Third Normal Form Ideal Form
pre-modern
modernization
Post-modern economy dominates
agricultural
industrial
Cultural industry and social pursuit
self-sufficient
productivism
consumerism totem landscape
Gothic church
big chimney
Disneyland masterpiece
Don Quixote
modern times
Missing the wolf fashion concept
Christian theology
Monistic Enlightenment
Natural conditions for multiculturalism
Small population and abundant resources
Population explosion, resources exhaustion
Core manpower for species extinction and ecological crisis
farming
manufacturing
Creative keywords
not to develop
development is the last word
Is it sustainable (develop, or survive)?
key beliefs
asceticism
materialism
Major non-material threats
Plagues, natural disasters, massacres
AIDS-Nuclear Weapons Technology Mark
Irrigation-Windmills
steam engine
computer-network media style
Oral transmission-writing
printed text
digital texts
The thirteenth chapter of "Empire" is titled "Post-Modernization or Informatization of Production", which writes: However, in our era, modernization has come to an end.
In other words, industrial production no longer extends its dominance over other economic forms and social phenomena.
One sign of this transformation is evident in changes in the number of jobs.
While the modernization process is manifested in the migration of labor from agriculture and mining to industry (secondary industry), the process of post-modernization or informatization has been manifested in the migration from industry to service industry (tertiary industry), which has occurred in major capitalist countries since the early 1970s, especially in the United States.
The service industry covers a wide range of activities from health education and finance to transportation, entertainment and advertising.
Most jobs are highly mobile and involve a variety of flexible skills.
More importantly, their universal feature is that knowledge, information, feelings and communication are the protagonists.
(Michael Hart, Antonio Negri, 2003:272) The "cultural industry", which was the object of sharp criticism by the Frankfurt School, can now re-enter the theoretical community's vision under the positive name of "cultural industry." The intangible economy was once regarded as unhealthy and harmful to people, but now it has become the first ideal goal pursued by the world's major economically developed countries.
However, the new phenomenon of symbol obsession and totem worship for consumption spawned by the cultural industry are also new manifestations of human alienation.
As Horkheimer and Adorno incisively analyzed in "Dialectics of Enlightenment":"Cultural industrial products express their own nature of advertising culture through language expression.
That is to say, the more completely language becomes a tool for propaganda, the more seriously words become from actually meaningful commitments to symbols without content, the more simply and clearly they express what they should express, the more unclear they themselves become at the same time.
Language freed from the influence of mythology, as a factor in the entire enlightenment process, comes back with mythical magic." (Horkheimer, Adorno, 1990:154-155) People liberated from the suppression of theology are now oppressed by advertising violence and may even become slaves to symbol-brands.
This is something that all those who advocate cultural industries and the intangible economy have to consider.
2.
Intangible cultural heritage as cultural capital and the broad vision of the intangible economy provide us with a contemporary context to re-focus on intangible cultural heritage.
The biggest advantages of the non-material economy are energy conservation and environmental protection.
Therefore, compared with the material economy in the industrial era, it is more in line with the requirements of sustainable survival of mankind.
(Ye Shuxian, 2004) For our country's unfavorable conditions with a large population and limited resources, vigorously developing cultural industries and intangible economy is of special significance.
Is China taking the modernization path of becoming a "world factory" or taking the post-modernization path of rejuvenating the country through culture? This has become a key strategic choice issue that cannot be avoided by policy makers and high-level intellectuals.
While many people are still proud of "Made in China" in color TVs, refrigerators, computers and mobile phones, and more Chinese people are still intoxicated by the dream of a moderately prosperous society with a per capita output value of more than US$1000, I would like to specifically quote the speech of Minister of Commerce Bo Xilai when he attended the "China-France Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Cooperation Conference" in Paris in May 2005 to illustrate how necessary and arduous the strategic transformation from modernization to post-modernization is: Due to the low profit margins of products made in China, it takes 800 million shirts to export enough for an Airbus 380.
Data from the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation show that China exports about 100 million pairs of shoes to France every year, and the foreign exchange earned by these 100 million pairs of shoes is enough to exchange for an Airbus.
China wants to become a "production workshop" for the world's products, but that only relies on the quantitative indicator of low-end products-the almost astronomical huge output accumulated with cheap labor to support the foreign trade surplus in imports and exports, and that's all.
Compared with the high-end technical products and high value-added cultural products mastered by multinational giants, the profits generated by our "production workshop" are only 1% to 2%.
Overall, the equipment needed by China's high-tech industries has become import dependence.
For example, 100% of optical fiber manufacturing equipment and 80% of petrochemical equipment are occupied by imported products.
"In fact, the so-called 'Made in China' is just a low-end link in the world's manufacturing industry.
It is enduring the suffering of shrinking profits day by day.
The real master of the world's manufacturing industry is still the world's multinational companies that master high-tech." People in China have to work hard to build 100 million pairs of shoes or 800 million shirts to exchange for an Airbus plane.
How much resources and manpower are expended behind such an exchange-from cotton planting to textile printing and dyeing and other industrial chains with staggering emissions, how much wastewater and waste gas are emitted, and how many people are sick because of the pollution caused by this? Behind the astronomical low-end products, there can only be a deterioration in environmental carrying capacity and an overdraft of the survival foundation.
It would be more appropriate to summarize it with the idiom "loss of gain."
In contrast,"Star Wars", one of the American films that is a successful example of the immaterial economy, had an initial investment of US$10 million and a global box office revenue of US$800 million.
What kind of input-output ratio is this? It is indeed mythical; and the follow-up sales of the film-related brand products have reached US$9 billion.
It can be seen from this example that developing the intangible economy is much smarter and more affordable than striving to be the "world's factory".
Intangible cultural creativity and even fantasy creation, as emerging industries, can indeed play an alternative role in saving the earth's natural resource crisis.
If the entire world consciously promotes the transformation from the primary and secondary industries that consume high energy and resources to the cultural industries and service industries, then the contradiction between mankind and nature in the context of modernity will be significantly alleviated.
On May 166, 2005, at the world-renowned "Beijing Fortune Global Forum", Zhao Qizheng, director of the Information Office of the State Council, was shocked: The current "cultural trade" deficit between China and Western countries is as high as 10-15 times.
The ratio of natural resources to cultural resources in China is currently in an extremely unbalanced state, resulting in the deterioration of our overall living environment and the intensification of the survival crisis.
In the United States, the export of audio-visual products has become the largest export product.
In Japan, the output value of the cultural industry exceeded the output value of the automobile industry in 1993.
In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Blair established the "Creative Industries Task Force" when he was elected and took office in 1997.
The top government decision-makers guided and organized the UK to vigorously develop cultural and creative industries from top to bottom.
The annual growth rate has been around 15% for several years.
Rapid development and outstanding achievements.
Since 2001, the output value of the cultural industry has reached 112.5 billion pounds, which has exceeded the contribution of any manufacturing industry to GDP.
How to turn heritage into capital is an urgent matter that we have to think about in the face of the rise of the symbol economy.
In this regard, humanistic scholars are both duty-bound and have a long way to go.
However, due to the lag in the reform of the education system and the outdated teaching content, our liberal arts intellectuals are facing the challenge of transformation and innovation.
The traditional set of cultural values with material production as the core, protected by the outdated old disciplinary boundaries, still firmly occupies people's minds, seriously hindering the transformation of knowledge concepts and knowledge innovation.
At present, due to the great leap forward in higher education, the output of liberal arts doctoral programs and doctoral students we have is already very alarming.
However, among these intellectual elites wearing Western doctoral hats that have been mass-produced by the modern education system with a lot of resources, how many of them can adapt to the needs of the rise of the intangible economy and become think tanks or tactical planners of cultural development strategies?
From the perspective of the history of global civilization, China is the only remaining ancient civilization in the world.
Thousands of years of civilization itself should be the greatest cultural capital that is inexhaustible, not to mention the rich cultural diversity and long-term cultural diversity of the 67 ethnic groups (the Gaoshan ethnic group in Taiwan, which has now been rerecognized as 12 ethnic groups by anthropology).
The extraordinary experience of harmonious coexistence between the land should provide the most valuable practical reference and valuable theoretical development resources for the future re-integration of world cultures and peaceful coexistence to resolve conflicts among civilizations.
3.
Cultural heritage will protect us and treat intangible cultural heritage.
If we cannot raise the theoretical consciousness of cherishing living resources and cultural capital, it is absolutely not enough to just have the same protection consciousness as we treat antiques and collecting cultural relics.
The difference between intangible heritage and material heritage is that it is not a cultural relic lying in a museum, but a living cultural inheritance.
The key points of the concept that need to be re-enlightened are: the intangible cultural heritage we protect today is a consciousness of the extremely precious survival experience of mankind that has been passed on for millions of years, and a conscious continuation of the cultural traditions that still live among the people through vicissitudes.
Such living contemporary traditions, such as folk paper-cutting, shadow puppets or Nuo performance, even if they seem very simple and ordinary, have more cultural life value than the towering Great Pyramid that can only be visited by future generations.
In other words, in a sense, the comprehensive protection and survival of the intangible cultural heritage of the 67 ethnic groups will in turn protect the sustainable survival of our 1.3 billion people.
For intangible cultural heritage to protect our survival, the key lies in how to turn cultural heritage into cultural capital.
One link needed here is the "social alchemy" from knowledge to industry.
Those who can play this alchemical role can only be experts in the humanities who have both a strategic vision and advanced theory of global culture and truly master local cultural resources.
Experts with single knowledge limited by the segmented horizons of disciplines are now unable to adapt to the needs of innovation, while experts with interdisciplinary knowledge are not tolerated by the existing academic system.
This is the grim and embarrassing reality we face.
It should arouse the awareness of high-level people in education authorities and start to solve it from the perspective of the national education system as soon as possible.
Fortunately, some positive changes can be seen in the discipline setting of the knowledge innovation base of the Phase II 985 newly approved in 2005.
Facts have proved that only financial capital without cultural capital and its alchemy cannot compete with the masterpieces of the international cultural industry.
Zhang Yimou has a keen artistic sense and an equally keen market awareness, but what he lacks is cultural heritage.
Therefore, it is really laborious and ungrateful to turn the new works that have been widely awaited into a showdown competition.
For him personally, it was really difficult.
Zhang Yimou's artistic sensitivity may be no less than that of "Star Wars" director Lucas, but as he grew up during the Cultural Revolution, his innate lack of literary literacy limited his personal fantasy ability; his lack of Chinese studies in turn limited his ability to explore and utilize local cultural resources.
Therefore, we can only piece together the work around the producer's huge money baton, and use color combinations and visual stimulation of the picture to make up for the lack of overall cultural content.
If he could carefully study the mythologist Campbell's book "Heroes of a Thousand Faces" before creating "Star Wars" like Lucas did, and personally consult this intellectual expert (Mark, Pearson, 2003:317), then he can be sure that his "Heroes" would not be so "short of breath" and would have attracted complaints in the intellectual community.
The classic example of "Star Wars" tells people what kind of "chemical" effect artistic sensitivity and imagination can produce if combined with the knowledge of cultural experts.How a small number of humanistic intellectuals and cultural experts in China (which is by no means a call for everyone to come) can transform their lofty spirit and professorship, consciously adjust their knowledge structure and academic capabilities, participate in the design and development of cultural and creative industries, and give full play to the professional knowledge and expertise that artists and technocrats cannot afford.
This should be a blessing to the country.
Every man is responsible for the rise and fall of the world.
References: Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture [M].
Translated by Liang Guangyan.
Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House, 2000.
tta.
Immaterial [A].
Translated by Chen Yongguo.
Visual subconscious [M].
Editor in chief by Wang Fengzhen.
Tianjin: Tianjin Academy of Social Sciences Press, 2002.
kerna.
Baudrilla: A critical reading [M].
Translated by Chen Weizhen.
Nanjing: Jiangsu People's Publishing House, 2005.(America) Wartime.
Modern myth connection [A].
Image economy [M].
Translated by Liu Shunyao.
Beijing: China Textile Press, 2004.
Baudrillard.The Ecstasy of Communication[A], The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays On Postmodern Culture [M].
Washington: Bay Press, 1983.
Boudieu.
Cultural capital and social alchemy [M].
Translated by Bao Yaming.
Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House, 1997.
Boudieu.
Sense of Practice (Volume 1)[M].
Translated by Jiang Zihua.
Nanjing: Yilin Publishing House, 2003.
Gao Propaganda.
Bourdieu's social theory [M].
Shanghai: Tongji University Press, 2004.
Toffler.
The shift of power: Knowledge, wealth and violence towards the 21st century [M].
Translated by Liu Bingzhang.
Beijing: Xinhua Press, 1996.
Michael Hart, Antonio Negri.
Empire-The Global Political Order [M].
Translated by Yang Jianguo.
Nanjing: Jiangsu People's Publishing House, 2003.
Horkheimer, Adorno.
Dialectics of Enlightenment [M].
Translated by Hong Peiyu.
Chongqing: Chongqing Press, 1990.
Ye Shuxian.
Anthropology questions the "view of development"[J].
Journal of Guangxi University for Nationalities, 2004,(4).
(America) Mark Pearson.
A long time ago-building a deeply rooted brand based on mythical prototypes [M].
Translated by Xu Jinfu.
Shantou: Shantou University Press, 2003.
This article was originally published in "Folk Culture Forum", No.
4, 2005.
Please refer to the original print publication for annotations