[Liu Tieliang] Intangible or physical?

Today, I will make a speech.

The title of the speech was agreed upon with Professor Zhang Shishan last night.

It will refer some recent reflections and ideas on the intangible cultural heritage protection movement to "Intangible or physical?" Let's focus on the topic.

There are two keywords for intangible cultural heritage, one is called intangible cultural heritage, and the other is called protection.

Of course, it can also be broken down into the following keywords, such as heritage and intangible culture, or cultural heritage, material cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage.

These are all things that we have to cover when reflecting.

The second problem is: the protection of intangible cultural heritage itself also needs reflection.

That is to say, I am a scholar, and of course I have to reflect on one of my working methods as a folklore scholar.

However, the working methods of folklore scholars and the government-led protection of intangible cultural heritage are two different tasks after all.

So does that work require reflection? It should be reflected.

Folklore scholars should speak on that reflection.

Folklore scholars can criticize this intangible cultural heritage protection work and help this work reflect.

So what should we reflect on? I think this is still related to the second issue I talked about, which is the issue of position.

Because the government says this is a government-led and social participation method of protection, but we all know that it seems to imply or imply an unquestionable premise, that is, many phenomena of folk culture or folk culture, the existence of many cultures, have already been in crisis-if there is no crisis, why are you protecting it?! Why is it in crisis? Our explanation is that in the context of globalization, the expansion of industrial culture and commercial culture has impacted our traditional culture, which was dominated by agriculture, so many of us are no longer able to protect it.

There is a problem with this idea.

Is your concern for intangible cultural heritage really based on the standpoint of the local people? For example, the first problem faced here is development, that is, do local people want to develop? Do the people want development? What needs do they have in development? Is it true that when encountering conflicts, people would rather choose a new way of life and have to give up some of their original folk culture? If so, do we choose development or cultural protection? There are not contradictions here, but they are not absolute contradictions.

If you keep telling people not to use tractors and use oxen to farm, that is protection, right? Do we want mechanization or do we want our original cattle farming culture? Before the cattle have left the fields and the machinery has not completely entered the fields, we certainly choose to enter the fields with the machinery and the cattle withdrawing, because our agriculture must move forward and the countryside must move forward.

But just when the cattle were really about to retire, we suddenly found a few cattle still wandering in a certain field, so we proposed to rescue and protect it, and said that the place should not be moved again! It seems that we still respect development in the overall situation and pay attention to protection in small places, but there is still a position issue here.

For those few rural areas that have not yet been developed, do you hope that they will also keep up with the development of most rural areas, or will they stay in their original undeveloped state forever? Many people knew that there was such a problem, but no one discussed it seriously.

We checked and found that there were almost no articles titled this, but these topics should be proper meaning in the protection of intangible cultural heritage.

I hope to see them.

Will protected villages never have access to phones? Never watch TV? Never go to the city to communicate? We hardly see such topics.

There is actually a question of position.

In my opinion, this position issue is worth checking.

No one regards this issue as a top priority or discusses it as a prerequisite, but regards the protection of intangible cultural heritage as a prerequisite.

If it is not protected, there will be no prerequisite.

The third question: Physical nature.

So why do we talk about physical nature from a question of stance? I want to say that my speech today mainly wants to reflect on a proposition of intangible cultural heritage.

A key word in this proposition is called intangible culture, because intangible culture is used to modify heritage, and it can also be said that intangible is one of the two categories of cultural heritage.

Cultural heritage is considered to have both material cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage.

One question we must reflect on is, is the nature of this so-called intangible cultural heritage really intangible? Why do we have to make such a question? Because there is a position problem on the issue of classification.

Because if you have a problem with classification, you may not respect the local people's understanding of your own culture.

If you don't respect the local people's understanding of your own culture, this culture cannot be protected.

Its meaning is missing.

It is protecting it according to the meaning you have redefined, and it is no longer its original meaning.

Even the meaning is wrong, how can you protect this culture? It was obviously a temple fair, but it became folk music here.

Why? Because the music played by a group of people in the temple fair is quite ancient.

It is said to be a kind of Taoist music that was widely popular in the Central Plains in the past and is still preserved here, so this is an ancient living fossil, so we will protect this.

What I mean is that I have observed that one of the so-called intangible cultural heritage can actually be explained by its physical nature.

Let me give a casual example.

When we consider ourselves folklore scholars, we may say that how folklore scholars view sickle is different from how physicists view sickle.

Physicists may view sickle from the perspective of mechanics and mechanics.

From the perspective of materials science, agricultural scientists may understand sickle from the perspective of its function and analyze sickle types.

Long-handled sickle, curved sickle, and various types can be classified.

However, the sickle in the hearts of folklorists points to the relationship between the sickle and people, that is, how does the human body feel the sickle? Only those who use a sickle can truly understand a sickle, and those who don't use a sickle can never understand a sickle.

This is a problem for folklore, not physicists.

Whether physicists use a sickle or not can be explained in terms of material nature, but we folklorists must use this sickle and do experience folklore.

Like the locals, I should also understand how to use this sickle, what feelings it gives me, how it acts on my body...

This has given me a series of rich experiences and feelings, which is what I need.

In other words, folklore grasps a physical aspect to understand our so-called intangible cultural heritage.

If our reflection on the protection of intangible cultural heritage should be combined with our thinking on this kind of experience, it will be very beneficial if it can in turn affect the protection of intangible cultural heritage.

We want to regard the protection of that selective heritage list as a measure of rights.

It is just an example of demonstration.

Each of us has our own culture, and each of us can feel our culture.

This is not the culture in the heritage list, but the entire culture of our life, so I advocate a universal protection.

At present, universal protection is only the ideal of folklore scholars.

It should actually be a goal of intangible cultural heritage protection.

In the final analysis, protection is not the end.

It should lead to the path advocated by our folklorists.

It should achieve the purpose proposed by our folklorists, and influence all our citizens to pay attention, rethink, re-experience, and re-review the culture in us.

This is called cultural consciousness.

If you overdo this protection work and separate it from universal protection, you will go the opposite, and you will make this protection work more and more irrelevant to people.

For example, the legend of Liang Zhu has become a protected object of this place, the story of the Cowherd and the Weaver Girl will be passed on to that place.

The Spring Festival is the object of protection by the Ministry of Culture, and it seems that it has gradually become irrelevant to us.

The culture that was originally shared by all of us has become a culture that is owned by individuals.

In this way, the protection of intangible culture has completely gone to the opposite side and has not met the demands of our cultural consciousness.

Therefore, my speech today should reflect on the protection of intangible cultural heritage from this perspective by reflecting on whether it is intangible or physical.

Make a reflection on the work.

I feel that reflection is very necessary academically.

In an overall work, especially work that is very closely related to our folklore, and in which many people are involved, we have the responsibility to not just follow it, but also constantly reflect on it, so that our folklore can truly have a foundation for its survival in today's era.