[Peng Zhaorong] Heritage Studies and Heritage Movement: Expression and Manufacturing
The heritage movement has become an important activity and event in contemporary society.
However, my country's academic community has relatively lagging behind in the research on heritage science, especially the theories, criticisms and complex relationships involved, and there has been little research on some theoretical issues.
This article attempts to discuss relevant issues.
These issues are not only related to the theoretical aspects of heritage science, but also have important reference functions for the heritage movement in my country.
a
It is an indisputable fact that heritage research has become a special discipline.
If we examine it from the perspective of traditional "discipline rules", heritage science does not seem to be "pure", that is, it is not exclusive and exclusive to a certain discipline.
The main reasons why this is so are: 1.
Heritage science is not a single subject field, unlike disciplines such as anthropology, history, literature, astronomy, and physics that have become recognized.
There are many disciplines and fields involved in heritage research, such as anthropological research of heritage, geographical research of heritage, political science research of heritage, historical research of heritage, artistic research of heritage, cultural research of heritage, management research of heritage, etc.
Different disciplines have penetrated their respective tentacles into it, and the characteristics, qualities, concepts, methods and means of each discipline have also been extensively infiltrated and transplanted into specific heritage research.
2.
What we call "heritage" today is strongly branded with modernity.
It is not only a proposition of the times, a social practice, but also a product with distinctive "discourse" characteristics.
Heritage is not so much property or wealth, but rather a symbol of empowered capital.
The fundamental reason is that heritage, as a special kind of property, has a resource nature, and people can explore, develop, utilize, exchange and trade it according to the needs of different societies and groups.
3.
Modern heritage combines the traces of industrialization, technicalism, the exchange quality of commodity society, the hype objects of modern media, and the management methods of public utilities.
It is also often used by politicians and administrative departments as capital to demonstrate political achievements and pursue performance.
Therefore, the inheritance theory is first expressed as the so-called "conspiracy theory".
The original purpose of the "conspiracy theory" is to summarize various related activities and movements to save historical heritage since World War II, and thus extend a comprehensive description of regulations, practices, etc.
①The "collusion theory" is actually the transplantation and transformation of "discourse theory" in different fields and contexts.（① P.
Howard,.
Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity, London & New York: Continuum, 2006, p.
36）.
The theories of heritage research appear numerous and complex, and the academic orientations are inconsistent.
One of them is that according to the specific historical situation of heritage, the heritage movement has become an important activity and event in contemporary society.
However, my country's academic circles have relatively lagged behind in the research of heritage science, especially the theories, criticisms and complex relationships involved, and there has been little research on some theoretical issues.
This article attempts to discuss relevant issues.
These issues are not only related to the theoretical aspects of heritage science, but also have important reference functions for the heritage movement in my country.
The theory emphasizes the motivation for the generation of heritage, which is called "motivation theory" motivation).
This theory mainly analyzes the wishes and motivations of Western governments in recent decades for practical activities such as rescuing and protecting various heritage.
Since the beginning of the last century, Western governments, social organizations and civil society groups have consciously carried out efforts to protect heritage, especially after the devastating destruction of European heritage in the two world wars.
These tasks were first carried out in France, and then in Russia, Germany and other countries.
Its objects are mainly the property and heritage of the old era left over from the war, such as palaces and ruins, etc., to "legalize" and "legitimize" those heritage with the hallmark characteristics of the country.
This is the will of Western countries to establish a "motherland" and create a new image.
It is the actual need of governments of various countries to adapt to social development and changes in the situation.
It is also a historical necessity to strengthen the sovereignty of nation-states.
In this context, the "national museum" of European countries has become a symbolic symbol and brand of this process-that is, to showcase the country's civilization and culture through various heritage in the national museum.
However, they have disputes over specific protection methods and means, with the main controversy focusing on the choice of whether to adopt destruction and reconstruction or effective maintenance.
In short,"motivation theory" explores the motives and reasons for the emergence of modern heritage science in a specific historical context, and connects it with the needs, transformation, and process of nationalization, legalization, and legalization of heritage.
Heritage theory not only expresses the contextual characteristics of a specific era, but also expresses its own characteristics and qualities.
The existence of heritage is inseparable from continuity.
The so-called "continuity theory" emphasizes the continuity of heritage.
This theory aims to illustrate that in the process of legalizing, legalizing, and nationalizing heritage, it is necessary to emphasize the legislative guarantee of heritage continuity.
Only in this way can recognized and symbolized national heritage be prevented from being interrupted or changed due to frequent changes of government.
Legislation is sufficient to ensure the continuity and stability of the heritage.
The legislative protection of heritage meets the objective requirements of self-continuity of the heritage itself.
This continuity is determined by the nature, characteristics and history of the heritage.
Since its objective, intrinsic, and historical needs belong to the "invisible process", more caution is needed.
Various legacies, such as art, handicrafts, historical texts, etc., all have intrinsic connections and logic that connect with the present.
The "continuity theory" of heritage focuses on the study of the continuity of heritage in various aspects.
For example,"Heritage and History" and "Heritage and Memory" are all aimed at explaining and emphasizing the continuity of heritage in social traditions.
To sum up, the "continuation theory" mainly emphasizes two intentions: the continuity of the heritage itself and the continuity of heritage protection.
Heritage research cannot be separated from the development and expansion of capitalism for a moment, and heritage and capital have naturally become a focus of research.
The "capital" form of heritage presents a special quality as cultural diversity.
The "theory of capital" has also become one of the important theories of heritage.
Generally speaking, the "capital theory" of heritage can be divided into two parts: one is the "cultural capital" of heritage, and the other is the "economic capital" of heritage.
The former is mainly a transplantation and transformation of French scholar Bourdieu's "Cultural Capital"; the latter emphasizes the capital expression and form of heritage in modern economic activities.
"Capital" is the key word of Bourdieu's "practical sociology".
In his view,"capital" is not only the "ticket" for people to enter the "social field", but also the necessary price to participate in social competition ①.
"Cultural capital" has complex forms and forms of existence, and also has the objective qualities of part of economic capital.
Therefore, it has not only become the object of competition for the interests and powers of all parties, but also become a commodity, or even a victim, for negotiation and balance of the interests and powers of all parties.
Strictly speaking, it is difficult for different types of heritage or from different places and ethnic groups, especially intangible cultural heritage, to pass evaluation to determine their "value".
This was originally a principle that international organizations recognized and formulated relevant laws and regulations.
However, the current assessment and selection of various heritage properties actually carry out the work of "distinguishing" their value.
The so-called "representative works" and "outstanding representatives" are intended to emphasize the value of those "selected" over other things, and this process itself contains elements and meanings of balance, consultation and compromise.
Those who receive "outstanding representatives" immediately gain great value in their economic capital.
It goes without saying that power plays a vital role in these complex relationships ②.
As for the economic performance of heritage, it is easy to understand.
Simply put, it refers to the original attachment and shrinability of value in the process of market economic circulation.
There is also a theory mainly reflected in the identity of heritage.
The generation and creation of heritage and the ownership and identification of heritage are interdependent.
No nation or ethnic group will create a heritage that they do not recognize or recognize but can be passed down for a long time.
"People need identification, and at the same time, the identification of one group of people often harms the identification of another group of people." ③ This is also the reason why we need to "add" and "set limits" when confirming the "humanity" of heritage.
For example, among the types of intangible cultural heritage, rituals are particularly important to a certain ethnic group.
However, in a specific ethnic ritual, some concepts, forms, symbols, sacrifices, etc.
that are given may just conflict with the values of other ethnic groups or even conflict with them.
Some religious wars in history originated from identification of heritage in different directions, which led to confrontation, confrontation, and confrontation.
Identity is a multi-level system and relationship network.
The external and concentrated expression of today's heritage identity is national identity, and this identity is closely related to the nation-state.
This also constitutes a theme in heritage research ①.
Judging from the scope of the heritage recognized so far, it includes international, intercontinental, national, regional, local, and critical border-related situations-including not only territorial boundaries, but also ethnic boundaries, but also cultural boundaries), family-family and personal conditions.
More importantly,"the factor of identity can also become heritage" ②, or heritage contains identity, and identity itself is also a special heritage.
(① Pierre Bourdieu, Practice and Reflection--Introduction to Reflective Sociology, translated by Li Meng and others, Central Compilation and Translation Press, 1998 edition, p.
147.②③ P.
Howard, Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity, p.
44, pp.
17-18.Peter Howard, Heritage:Management, Interpretation,Identity）
Heritage studies are highly practical, and this point needs to be emphasized even when discussing purely academic issues.
The protection of heritage is an applied, practical and professional systematic project.
Relevant professionals include folklorists, anthropologists, archaeologists, historians, environmental planning experts and other relevant scientists and engineering technicians ③.
The preservation and protection of heritage relies on ethnographic field surveys.
One of the principles of ethnography is that anthropologists "participate in observation" and practice it in the field and in situ, trying to discover and depict the source of symbols of a cultural system and the cultural significance and interpretation given in those specific contexts.
In addition, anthropology's important contribution to heritage research is also reflected in local research, cultural changes, including the subtle changes caused by the impact of large-scale modern tourism on heritage sites, etc.; it also conveys the "local voice" on behalf of the local area (local voice) ④.
The characteristics of anthropological research on heritage are also reflected in the study of "objects of ethnography".
For example, the study and description of folk handicrafts and technologies belong to the category of ethnography of objects.
Folk handicrafts and technologies have become the material objects of research by anthropologists, so they have distinctive ethnographic characteristics.
In turn, folk handicrafts are "created" by ethnographers.
Ethnography's study of "things" has formed a special paradigm-the study of things by ethnography has made it a special descriptive and revealing narrative method.
In a specific context, this kind of display "Ethnographic Gallery"(Ethnographic Gallery) has become a kind of "making of civilization" ④.
The anthropological ethnographic method is suitable for the study of cultural heritage, especially those from the original heritage of non-written nations, ethnic groups, and folk.
Objects have become the special cultural traditions and cultural expressions of these nations, ethnic groups, and groups, forming the so-called "textualizing objects / objectifying texts) ③.
On the other hand, ethnographic research not only integrates the disciplinary spirit of anthropology into its research object "things"-that is, the ethnographic research of material heritage includes clear goals and goals, and more importantly, it adopts a "cultural relative" attitude towards various heritage and relics of different ethnic groups, ethnic groups and places, not only affirms that their generation and existence have the same rights as any other heritage, We also spare no effort to appeal and defend the heritage of those nations and ethnic groups that cannot or do not receive equal rights in social reality.
At the same time, we must also explore through research the unique qualities of the nation accumulated, stored, and contained in those cultural relics.
second
The ethnographic study of "things" has distinctive characteristics.
From a phenomenological perspective, the survival of legacies as "things"(including special "intangible" forms) is on the surface objective, physical and palpable; in fact, they incorporate "subjective, descriptive and explanatory experience", which involves some interesting principles and elements.
When heritage is displayed in front of the public and tourists as a legacy of "things" and classified, they will undoubtedly become "physical evidence" of history.
Visual effects and experience recognition have become the most convincing support and support for audiences and tourists.
They believe that the objectivity of the heritage or heritage landscape they visit cannot be doubted.
On the other hand, through visiting heritage, people develop a sense of nostalgia, especially when this emotion is maintained with some political reasons and combined with the capitalized tourism industry, representing the so-called "low-cultural" heritage satisfies people's nostalgia.
①It is precisely because of the objectivity and authenticity of the physical form of heritage that to a large extent, the subjective expressive characteristics of the heritage presented, displayed, and displayed are concealed and concealed.
It can also be said that the "legacy" that people have identified, recognized, and believed so far is the result of subjective choice.（①② P.
Howard, Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity, p.
167, p.
150.③ M.
Hufford ed.) , Conserving Culture: A New Discourse on Heritage, Urbana and Chicago: University ofIllinois Press, 1994, p.
4.④ E.
Chambers,“Thailand's Tourism Paradox: Identity and Nationalism as Factors in Tourism Development”, inConserving Culture: A New Discourse on Heritage, p.
98.⑤⑥⑦ B.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett ed.) , Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998, p.
17, p.
21, pp.
30-34.⑧ A.
Synnestovedt, “Who Wants to Visit a Cultural Heritage Site?”in A.
Russell eds.) , Image, Representationand Heritage, New York: Springer, 2006, pp.
334-335.Alison Hems & Marion Blockley eds.) , Heritage Interpretation）
Let's ask: Why treat "these" rather than "those" as heritage? Why do people visit recognized cultural heritage sites? The answer is clear: heritage is just selective division, subjective description, empirical interpretation, purposeful publicity and commercial hype carried out by people in different historical contexts and according to different classification principles and standards.
The logical legacy becomes an expression, but the expression of the legacy is not simple.
In terms of the materiality of heritage, heritage must represent what, express what, and contain what.
These representations are relatively easy to understand and grasp, and physics, geography, etc.
can conduct quantitative analysis of the "signifier" materiality of heritage.
However, the society, history, era, ethnic group, geography and other expressions related to and belonging to heritage are more diverse.
The expression and being expressed, interpretation and misinterpretation, interpretation and over-interpretation, packaging and transformation of heritage have all become additional contents to the expression of heritage.
Today, the "heritage industry" has become a generally accepted concept in the academic community.
One of the important reasons is that heritage has generated a large amount of "added value" in the modern context and has been given the "second life of heritage".
In short, the expression of heritage itself is one aspect, and the expression of heritage as satisfying other social functions and meanings is another.
The additional, regenerative and extensible significance of heritage has become the most concerned part of heritage research today.
The added value of heritage is mainly reflected in the following three aspects: 1.
Past value; 2 .
Value displayed; 3 .
The value of difference.
Globalization has turned heritage that was originally limited to a certain place and belonging to a certain nation into an "export product" in the production and exchange of the heritage industry) ②.
The selection and manipulation of heritage transform it into a "media"--"expressed" according to a specific need and context.
This situation determines that the heritage presents multiple aspects in a short period of time.
Reorganization of the relationship between new expressions and expressed.
The expression of heritage has an intrinsic relationship with the ownership of heritage.
If we adopt a relatively narrow and simple attitude towards inheritance, i.e., treating inheritance as "property", then its ownership becomes even simpler.
The first thing people want to confirm is: Whose property is this? Whose ownership belongs to? In the West, the constitutions of almost all countries regard the protection and preservation of personal property as the supreme principle.
In the recent constitutional amendment, my country also made the protection of citizens 'personal property an important provision of the Constitution.
In other words, as long as any citizen's personal property is legitimate and legal, the state must protect it.
Treating human heritage as human property has a logical relationship both in terms of legislation and concept, and can therefore be established.
However, due to the addition of extremely vague concepts such as "human", the originally clear relationship has become complicated.
If we say,"This is Zhang San's legal property, then the Constitution must protect the legitimacy of his property." However, if "this is the property of mankind", does it mean that everyone has the legal right to obtain it? Such an inference is obviously absurd.
The concept of "human" has various corresponding relationships: individual groups, hierarchical classes, group-countries, we group and others, predecessors and descendants, men and women, government and people, past and present, as well as humans and other species, etc.
Because of this, in the study of heritage, the issue of the ownership of human property or cultural property has become an important topic of discussion.
Warren K.
Under the same proposition, J.
Warren first analyzed this from a philosophical perspective, and summarized these issues into the so-called "three rights"(3R) , namely, rights of ownership), rights of access), and rights of inheritance) ③.
In Warren's view, the most controversial issue of human heritage as cultural property is its ownership, which can be summarized as three major ownership issues.
Before talking about property rights issues, it is first necessary to make a rough classification of "cultural property" or "cultural heritage".
UNESCO has carefully divided the form of heritage to make it sensible and operable.
However, insufficient attention has been paid to the original nature and intertwined relationship of cultural heritage.
In the view of scholars, cultural heritage is first and foremost a relic related to the "past".
Therefore, who the "past" of cultural heritage belongs to must first be confirmed ①.
All mankind? Is it the country? Is it a nation? Is it a certain community? Is it a religious group? Is it a certain family lineage) or is it an individual? Only by clarifying these ranges can we help determine the legitimacy of the ownership of specific cultural property.
Since the recognized unit of expression in the world today is the state, or more specifically the "nation state" ②, UNESCO's requirement that all types of inheritance-related declarations are national has been expanded.) In connection with this, the "3Rs" debate at the national level can be carried out around many aspects, one of which is more special, that is, whether the national original attributes of cultural heritage and the transfer and change of these national original attributes can be repaid.
For example, a large number of historical heritage originally belonging to third world countries and colonial countries have changed ownership, and they are displayed and displayed in museums in established colonial countries such as the British Museum and the Louvre.
Due to various historical events and colonial wars in the past, heritage originally belonging to different countries has been stolen and plundered into the hands of other countries or foreigners.
These inheritances transferred the owners of the property through looting and theft, and gained the so-called "legitimacy" through historical and legal recognition in different countries.
To date, there is still no acceptable international rule on the ownership of these legacies.
From this, we can also clearly understand that the formulation of international rules is mainly controlled and controlled by Western powers, and they will not take the initiative to formulate international legal provisions that are unfavorable to them.
These seemingly extremely unfair and unjust historical phenomena and historical facts are all recognized in the name of "legitimacy" of the country.
Regarding the historical issue between the original nature of the heritage and the "legitimacy" of the change, some scholars have proposed another "3R" principle, namely Restitutment), Restriction), and Rights) ③.
Heritage has become less and less like an "established thing", but has been given more and more artificial factors and added more and more action colors ④.
If we look at this change in heritage from a historical perspective, a very interesting phenomenon will be highlighted, that is, the "history of heritage" is completely different from the "history of heritage studies".
If we place a certain kind of heritage in the inheritance, evolution, rights and responsibilities of a specific place and group of people, and regard these relationships as a main line, we can grasp its own logic and the internal ties of the group to which the heritage belongs.
If we conduct a structural analysis of heritage science in a specific context, we can clearly glimpse the role of "short-term" factors.
Specifically, the characteristics of application, action, administration, resource, sharing, utilization, commercialization, and transaction in heritage concept, classification, legislation, and management are becoming increasingly expanded and more serious.
trend.
The original nature of heritage more reflects the inherent continuation of various relationships in the "original ties" of heritage, as well as the emotions, loyalty, identification, restrictions and even taboos of specific groups towards heritage.
Today's external factors of heritage add to the "smell of money" of industrialization, technology and capitalism.
In view of this, the theoretical historical research orientation of heritage has been highlighted, such as memory theory, identity theory, and genealogy research.（①A.Synnestovedt, “Who Wants to Visit a Cultural Heritage Site?”in A.
Russell eds.) , Image, Representation and Heritage, New York: Springer, 2006, p.
335.② B.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett ed.) , Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage, pp.
150-153.③ K.
J.
Warren,“A philosophical Perspective on the Ethics and Resolution of Cultural Properties Issues”, in P.M.
Messenger ed.) , The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property: Whose Culture? Whose Property Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1993, p.
2.Mary Hufford ed.) , Conserving Culture: A New Discourse on Heritage）
In these complex relationships between different levels of cultural expression and identity, political identity at a certain level sometimes rises to the dominance of culture.
For example, we often use the concept of "national culture", which actually refers to the political community culture of the Chinese nation.
It is consistent with the political dominant value of the nation-state, but therefore downplays the cultural characteristics of traditional relics and realistic manifestations, that is, realistic and sustainable.
Sexual social relations.
So a question naturally surfaced: Who belongs to the specific national cultural heritage referred to? Which traditional type do you belong to? Which lifestyle do you belong to? Judging heritage from the perspective of cultural pedigree and historical relationships, it is impossible to find the source of symbolic historical facts and historical logic in terms of the original nature of the nation-state, but its source can be found in the pedigree clues of a specific ethnic group, family, descent, etc., but the same cultural heritage can become a common resource for different concepts, groups, classes, etc.
For example, the historical and cultural symbol "Confucius", as part of cultural heritage, to a certain extent, can not only belong to the Confucius family, but also belong to the representative heritage of the Chinese nation.
On the other hand, out of the need for identity, different groups, including political communities, geographical communities, community communities, and family communities, will divide and plunder the "prey" of heritage, making it fragmented, as if it were in the animal world.
Bloody scenes appear in the world.
Among them, the principle followed is "power discourse"-dividing different parts and components according to the size of power and the strength of power.
In this "struggle", the state has the greatest power and can arbitrarily obtain what it needs.（①③ K.
J Warren,“A philosophical Perspective on the Ethics and Resolution of Cultural Properties Issues”, in P.M.
Messenger ed.) , The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property: Whose Culture? Whose Property? p.
3, p.
4.② Peng Zhaorong: "On Nationality as a Historical Unit of Expression", published in "China Social Sciences", No.
2, 2004.④ M.
Hufford ed.) , Conserving Culture: A New Discourse on Hertage, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994, p.
5.⑤ S.
Hall, “Culture, Community, Nation”, in D.
Boswell & J.
Evans eds.) : Representing the Nation: AReader Histories, Heritage and Museum, London & New York: Routledge, 2005.
p.
41.David Lowenthal, The Heritage Crusade andthe Spoils of History Ian Russell ed.) , Images, Representations and Heritage:Moving Beyond Modern Approaches to Archaeology）
three
The intertwining of the heritage movement and the "heritage industry" is undoubtedly a major feature of modern technicalism.
In theory, we should understand heritage in terms of heritage itself, not anything else.
The problem is: the heritage industry is essentially commercial, but cultural heritage is not.
The heritage industry takes advantage of the huge appeal and appeal of heritage, including the qualities and characteristics of autonomy, survival and natural resources.
These characteristics of heritage are undoubtedly irreplaceable key factors for the commercial activities of the heritage industry ①.
The post-modern "heritage theory" incorporates the elements of "heritage manufacturing technology".
Modern technicalism has fundamentally transcended traditional barriers and not only changed people's working, living environment, rhythm and habits, but also changed people's cognitive system and thinking style.
When technology-based and social reproduction are combined into a "heritage industry", heritage will inevitably be alienated.
The most ironic thing about the coexistence and "symbiosis" of the two stems from their coexistence.
In other words,"the danger of heritage comes from the heritage industry" ②.
In a sense, what we call "heritage" today is the "product" of technology-based, and its roots come from the same "technology-bureaucratic organizational structure" ③.
Technologism has strengthened the discourse characteristics of the modern heritage industry.
The Heritage Movement is a product of the times when modern technology and modern politics collude.
The practical activity in the name of "heritage" has evolved into a social movement in the past three decades.
Its connotation and form, narrative and interpretation have become a huge gap relative to the traditional understanding of heritage.
There are many reasons for this situation.
In addition to the specific atmosphere and value orientation formed by contemporary social development and changes, another important reason is the emergence of the heritage industry.
According to the procedural requirements of the heritage industry, there must be manufacturing, production factors and processes for the so-called "heritage project".
Dr.
Howard P.
Howard gave an illustration of this: He gave a detailed list of the production processes and elements that made heritage a "modern heritage" ④.
From this schema, we can very clearly see how great a distance exists between the original, original and original heritage and the heritage we now see, come into contact with, and realize.
Referring to this formula, people can ask this: Is this still the heritage itself? If we look at this schema in reverse, we will make an intriguing discovery, that is, the outcome and destiny of "heritage" and the process of heritage creation are completely restricted and determined by the "intermediate form".
First of all, if there are no concepts and concepts, behaviors and actions such as "invention","design","selection","explanation","determination", and "adjustment", there is no possibility of heritage being recognized.
In other words, without these factors, people would not consider it a "legacy" at all.
Human ancestors left behind countless things in different forms, including artifacts, events, forms, knowledge, cognition, rituals, customs, concepts, etc.
The "heritage" we call today is just a drop in the ocean, and the vast majority of heritage is not recognized by us.
It can be seen from this that "heritage" is determined by social values and manufacturing procedures.
The composition of heritage must include an element of interpretation.
Constructivists simply believe that heritage is nothing more than interpretation; however, it is not a general explanatory theory, but a theory of knowledge and learning.
For example, one of the reasons why tourists visit heritage sites is to learn and experience them.
During the visit and travel, every visitor will explain the heritage based on his or her own knowledge background and experience.
The site provides visitors with a definite destination and allows visitors to gain knowledge recognition and experience recognition for practicing it.（① B.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett ed.) , Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage, 1998, p.
142.② R.
Hewison,“Heritage: An Interpretation”, in David L.
Uzzell ed.) , Heritage lnterpretation Vol.1) : The Natural and Built Environment, London & New York: Belhaven Press, 1989, p.
18.③ J.
Friedman,“Being in the World: Globalization and Localization”, in M.
Featherstone ed.) , Global Culture:Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, London: Sage, 1990.④ P.
Howard, Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity, pp.
186-187.Silke Von Lewinski ed.) ,IndigenousHeritage and IntellectualProperty Barbara T.
Hoffman ed.) ,Art and Cultural Heritage:Law, Policy and Practice）
A very interesting interpretation phenomenon has emerged in this process, that is, the same heritage is the same for every visitor, but the perceptions and interpretations obtained from different visitors will differ greatly.
The fundamental reason is that visitors have joined in their respective understandings, explanations and interactions ①.
If such a view can be established, or if it can be established logically, there will be no "heritage statement" with the same metaphor.
That is to say, we first admit that there is an objective existence of a specific heritage or legacy, but this "objective existence" is just an "existence" assumed to exclude any artificial factors.
At this level, its existence is meaningless-something that has no meaning to people cannot be "identified" as heritage.
Conversely, as long as it is a legacy, it must contain human factors: cognition, interpretation, memory, choice, identification, subjectivity, strategy, manufacturing, etc.
According to this, the composition of heritage must include touchable and intangible parts, which interact with each other to form a complete heritage community ②.
As we all know, the definition, understanding and interpretation of heritage will more or less bring the "shadow" of the times, politics, and power.
In this sense, today's heritage belongs to the "legacy of creation"(creating the heritage).
A large number of "secondary factors" are attached to it.
Specifically, due to the role of the contemporary large-scale heritage movement, heritage has become a "brand" with public value, accumulating many things that are irrelevant or even incompatible with the "native factors" of heritage.
The initiator of this situation is the "discourse of power".
Since contemporary society defines heritage with clear purpose, benefit and practicality, heritage often becomes a balance of mediation and consultation between various interest groups and countries.
The upsurge of globalization's emphasis on heritage projects has accelerated the speed of change in heritage survival and changed its direction.
In this process, large-scale tourism activities have become another important driving force for this process, while also strengthening the importance of administrative management ③.
Administration often turns heritage into a social public resource and allocates, manages and utilizes them.
Here, we want to emphasize the true respect for the subjectivity of heritage and the correct understanding and full understanding of the original form of heritage.
If this premise is not grasped well, the fate and consequences of the heritage will be worrying, and the heritage will also change its original nature and characteristics.
Since heritage is a special relic, it has its own survival pattern, which determines its corresponding local and spatial background.
The provisions of the World Heritage List in this regard include: 1.
The same historical and cultural composition.
2.
The same type of heritage within the characteristics of the geographical area.
3.
It is composed of the same geological form, the same biogeographic province or the same ecosystem type and shows that it cannot be separated as a series of heritage with outstanding universal value ④.
Each unique heritage has environmental characteristics, natural advantages and ecological structure.
Essentially, any species is ecological.
The diversity of organisms and even "cultural species" is inseparable from the ecological environment in which they arise, survive, evolve and develop.
The so-called "sustainable development" is first and foremost aimed at the background and foundation of the natural ecological environment.
According to the basic essence of cultural ecology, the relationship between man and the environment is first manifested in balance and adaptation.
It has two basic characteristics: the preservation, protection and protection of the ecological environment and the creation behavior based on harmony are the original purpose of ecogenetics.
Therefore,"heritage" in the strict sense can be regarded as ecological relics, relics and legacies of the natural environment.
Any heritage worthy of protection is also a model of harmonious coexistence between man and nature.
At the same time, people must realize that "world heritage is a fragile, irreparable and non-renewable resource that must be protected to maintain its authenticity and leave it to future generations to enjoy."（①② T.
Copeland, “Constructing Pasts: Interpreting the Historic Environment”, in A.
Hems & M.
Blockley eds.) ,Heritage Interpretation, London and New York: Routledge, 2006, pp.
83-84, p.
85.③ Claude-Marie Bazin,“Industrial Heritage in the Tourism Process in France”, in M.
Lanfant, J.
B.
Allcock and E.
M.
Bruner eds.) , International Tourism: Identity and Change, London: Sage Publications Ltd., 1995, pp.
124-125.④ Selected Works of World Heritage Related Documents compiled by the World Heritage Research Center of Peking University, Peking University Press, 2004 edition, p.
18.③ Myra? Shakley,"Tourist Management: A Case Analysis of World Cultural Heritage Management", translated by Zhang Xiaoping and others, Yunnan University Press, 2004, p.
1.
Barbara Kirshevblatt-Gimblett,Destination Culture: Tourism,Museums, and Heritage）
It goes without saying that the dominant values related to heritage around the world come from the United Nations.
Even so, we must be soberly aware that there are certain colonization factors hidden in heritage politics.
Specifically, the "heritage politics" pursued in a global context still carries strong metaphors of "European center" and "industrial history".
As long as we conduct a general review of modern Western history, it is not difficult to see the historical basis for this judgment.
Since the 1960s, Western society has been encouraging a summary of the leading values played by modern industry, science and technology, especially since the Industrial Revolution, in human society and the form of civilization.
In such a historical process, protecting "material heritage" has become an action to publicize the historical achievements and material achievements guided by the Western Industrial Revolution.
In short, encouraging historical research and summary of material heritage is related to the theme of so-called protoindustrial civilization ①.
Under the influence of this trend, after the 1960s, major Western countries showed an interest and enthusiasm for relics and history.
Many institutions were established one after another: the United Kingdom began in 1960, Sweden began in the late 1960s, the real beginning in the United States should be in 1974, Quebec in Canada began in 1976, and France's earliest ambiguous attitude in this regard began in 1973.
This period of history makes us realize that the "reorganization" of "human heritage" is inseparable from the political narrative of "Western-centered" ②.
This "political narrative" was later expressed through UNESCO, the larger "official discourse".
We cannot ignore the occurrence and development of this period of history.
On the one hand, we cannot underestimate the leading role of Western developed countries in the "material heritage" of mankind, including industrial technologism in modern human civilization; at the same time, we must also attach importance to the key role played by this short period of history in guiding the value of "heritage politics" at present.
This is quite helpful for us to understand the "sudden heritage movement", and also helps us to more consciously distinguish the independent value of "our own heritage" and avoid making it a "foil for others." It is also worth reminding that when heritage becomes a resource brand and name of modern tourism, we must be particularly vigilant against the evolution of heritage into a by-product of some kind of "neo-colonialism" ③.
Some scholars call it the "post-modernist heritage" and believe that it has formed the social landscape of postmodernism.
Under this background and the promotion of the "industrialized production model", on the one hand,"cultural heritage has become a profitable business, which makes it possible that the social atmosphere in which destructive events and behaviors on heritage have occurred in the past may resurrect" ④; on the other hand, it is also simultaneously carrying out the transformation and reconstruction of people's social cognitive system.（①② Claude-Marie Bazin,“Industrial Heritage in the Tourism Process in France”, in M.
Lanfant, J.
B.
Allcock,and E.
M.
Bruner eds.
) , International Tourism: Identity and Change, p.
113, p.
114.③ P.
Boniface & P.
J.
Fowler, Heritage and Tourism in “the Global Village”, p.
19.④ M.
Leanen, “Looking for the Future Through the Past”, in D.
L.
Uzzell ed.) , Heritage Interpretation Vol.1) : The Natural and Built Environment, p.
88.⑤ D.
L.
Uzzell ed.) , Introduction to Heritage Interpretation Vol.1) : The Natural and Built Environment, p.
3）
To sum up, inheritance is a piece of property and has the nature of capital.
Heritage is an expression with subjective and explanatory elements.
Heritage cannot escape the influence of politics and often becomes a symbol of "hijacked".
Heritage is closely related to technicalism and social reproduction, and has become a stage for "manufacturing" ④.
Among these complex relationships, there is a contradictory relationship between meeting the "needs" of modern society and "protecting" heritage.
Properly resolving this pair of contradictions not only tests our wisdom, but also tests our conscience.
(Source: Literature and Art Research; Editor: Jiang Xiaowen)(Author's unit: Department of Anthropology, Xiamen University)