[Chen Zhiqin] On the utilization and management of intangible cultural heritage as cultural resources
Summary: From the promotion of cultural heritage by UNESCO to the concept of cultural and ecological reserves with the characteristics of China's intangible cultural heritage protection proposed by the Ministry of Culture, we can think that our understanding of cultural heritage has gone through three stages: material cultural heritage → intangible cultural heritage → Cultural and ecological reserves as a whole protection).
Later, the productive method of protection advocated by the Ministry of Culture will not only promote the further resource utilization of intangible cultural heritage, but also promote the further clarification of the relationship between protection, utilization and development.
At the same time, problems that occurred in the previous stage of intangible cultural heritage protection work and the construction of cultural and ecological reserves will all be highlighted and concrete in the practice of productive protection in pursuit of economic value.
Regarding issues such as protection and utilization, sustainability and development, how to carry out scientific management has become a topic that urgently needs practical discussion.
Combined with Japan's experience and exploration, in the face of intangible cultural heritage as a new cultural resource, it is necessary for us to advocate the "adaptive management" method to manage resources more scientifically.
In the face of a new national cultural development important cause, it is also necessary for us to explore the possibility of applying the internalized development theory in the management of intangible cultural heritage, so as to take it from the people and benefit the people.
Keywords: Intangible cultural heritage, cultural resource management, Japan's intangible cultural property, adaptive management, internal development theory
1.
Practice and exploration of intangible cultural heritage protection
In 1972, the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted at the 32nd General Conference of UNESCO.
This Convention, which focuses on the protection of material culture, can be said to be a new step in reconstructing cultural values in the era of modernization and globalization.
The beginning provides a practical aspect for the world to understand and understand the principle of cultural diversity, and at least in some countries has begun the protection of material cultural heritage beyond historical relics and historical relics.
Thirty years later, the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage adopted by UNESCO in 2003 expanded the protection of cultural heritage to the intangible level, further enhancing the understanding and understanding of culture and heritage.
In the second year after the adoption of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage, my country announced the "Decision on Ratifying the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in 2004.
Then in 2005, the General Office of the State Council announced the "Opinions on Strengthening the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage in my Country".
In November 2006, the Ministry of Culture of the People's Republic of China also issued the "Interim Measures for the Protection and Management of National Intangible Cultural Heritage".
So far, China's intangible cultural heritage protection work has been fully launched.
On the basis of census and review, an intangible cultural heritage list system and a system for identifying representative inheritors of projects at the national, provincial, municipal and county levels have been established.
At the same time, some intangible cultural heritage museums, folk museums and training institutes have been built., and policies, regulations, personnel institutions and other aspects have also been greatly promoted.
If these work on intangible cultural heritage protection only follows a similar path to that of some foreign countries, then the concepts of "cultural and ecological protection" and "productive protection" advocated in recent years can be said to be China's unique exploration on the road to intangible cultural heritage protection.
Regardless of whether the final result allows intangible cultural heritage to be both protected and developed as originally intended, the concept itself is a practical exploration.
In June 2007, the Ministry of Culture officially approved the establishment of the first national-level Southern Fujian Cultural and Ecological Protection Experimental Zone in Fujian Province.
There are now 11 national-level cultural and ecological protection experimental zones.
The purpose is to implement overall protection in areas with rich and concentrated intangible cultural heritage.
It can be said that the protection of intangible cultural heritage has moved from a single project to an overall protection stage of cultural ecology with intangible cultural heritage as the core.
It has become the main content to be further developed in the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection based on the list system and the inheritor system.
The significance of the construction of cultural and ecological reserves can be summarized from three aspects:
The first significance is that it is more conducive to getting closer to comprehensive and true cultural phenomena.
UNESCO advocates the protection of cultural heritage based on the protection of cultural diversity.
If the protection objects are selected according to artificial standards in the practice of protection, it will inevitably violate the original purpose, because according to the intangible cultural heritage assessment standards, all cultural heritage that needs to be protected is included, and it may also be that cultural heritage that really needs to be protected is excluded.
Our culture is all-encompassing and colorful.
As people in life scenes, culture is an overall concept.
It is our responsibility to show the overall face of human life to present and future generations.
In this sense, at least "holistic protection" is beneficial.
With the process of modernization and globalization, the phenomenon of cultural integration and penetration will become more complex.
Although there are a large number of arbitrary segmentation of culture in the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection, the real realization of this concept of "holistic protection" There is still a long way to go, but its rationality should be paid attention to.
The second significance is that it is more conducive to providing space for the protection and inheritance of individual intangible cultural heritage.
In the intangible cultural heritage review process, perhaps due to the convenience of protection work, intangible cultural heritage is now divided into ten categories [1], but as many scholars have pointed out, this is not a rigorous academic classification.
From the perspective of folklore research, the first nine categories can be classified into the category of folklore.
Judging from the items that have been included in the national-level protection list, among the tenth category of "folklore" where belief culture accounts for the vast majority, if anyone who has experience in field research should understand that there are a large amount of content that can be called music, dance, myth, and legend.
If music and dance are included as separate items in the first nine categories, it will lead to Cultural segmentation phenomenon; Vice versa, if music, dance, myths, and legends that should be understood as part of folk customs are separated, it will also lead to cultural fragmentation.
Cultural relics, film and television, publishing, literature and art, education, etc., what we call culture, for example, from an administrative perspective, have been disintegrated by these responsible institutions.
However, in actual social life, culture cannot undergo such disintegration.
Although this is inevitable for any country in any era, the problem it brings is that it cannot comprehensively reflect the true overall cultural phenomenon of a place.
The concept of holistic protection is not just a process from individual intangible cultural heritage protection to holistic protection.
It not only allows us to reflect on the segmented understanding of "folk customs" that folklore has always been regarded as the object of research, but also allows us to reflect on the current situation of "culture" being segmented and understood in the practice of cultural heritage protection.
The third significance is that it is more conducive to understanding and protecting the overall cultural heritage.
Since the 1972 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, in the following thirty years, we have experienced a process of continuous improvement in our understanding of cultural heritage.
That is to say, our understanding of cultural heritage has gone through three stages: tangible cultural heritage → intangible cultural heritage → cultural ecological reserves protected as a whole.
The Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage proposed in 1972 mainly focuses on the protection of material culture, opening the way to understand the value of material culture and intangible culture in the context of modernization and globalization; 30 years later, the Convention on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage was proposed.
The object of its protection has been expanded to include intangible cultural heritage; in 2007, my country proposed cultural ecological reserves and began to form the concept of holistic protection.
Over the past 30 years, the understanding of culture and heritage has gone through the process of material culture, intangible culture and then to ecological and cultural reserves that combine material culture and intangible culture.
It is actually a very important step forward in re-understanding "culture".
The three stages of continuous improvement of understanding of culture and heritage have also given us a profound enlightenment, that is, understanding of cultural heritage is a dynamic process, and in the future it may be possible to overthrow some current concepts and methods, but the understanding of cultural heritage will eventually continue to become more in-depth and comprehensive.
Therefore, it can be predicted that cultural heritage should or must enter the fourth stage of understanding in the future, which is the three-in-one protection concept of man, culture and nature based on people-oriented approach.
If we make it clear that the purpose of protection is for the happiness of the people, which is the ultimate concern of all academic research), and the object of protection is "people" with culture, under such a premise, we may be able to understand some of the government's achievements and the economic value pursued.
If our purpose of protection is not "human culture" but is divorced from human "culture", the value generated in the process of utilizing intangible cultural heritage will not be reflected in the owners or owners of culture, and unfair cultural resources will be created.
Distribution of value.
In fact, the pursuit of economic value of intangible cultural heritage has been put on the agenda and has become a protection method based on the list system and the inheritor system.
This is the concept of "productive protection" proposed by the Ministry of Culture.
During the Lantern Festival in 2009, the "China Intangible Cultural Heritage Traditional Skills Exhibition" series of activities was held in Beijing, which proposed the new concept of "productive protection", which is to transform intangible cultural heritage and its resources into productivity and products through production, circulation, sales and other methods, generate economic benefits, and promote the development of related industries, so that intangible cultural heritage can be actively protected in production practice.
To realize the benign interaction between intangible cultural heritage protection and coordinated economic and social development, its purpose is to promote development through protection and promote protection through development.
The concept of "productive protection" first appeared in the introduction to intangible cultural heritage published in 2006, and the series of activities during the Lantern Festival in 2009 made "productive protection" the focus of discussion.
Since the implementation of intangible cultural heritage protection work, the relationship between protection and utilization and development is not only the focus of academic research, but also the problem faced by concrete practice.
The concept of productive protection will not only promote the further resource utilization of intangible cultural heritage, but also promote the further clarification of the relationship between protection, utilization and development.
In other words, a new cultural resource has been recognized.
Our understanding of this was relatively vague in the past, but now it becomes more and more clear.
Just as Fang Lili put forward the importance and necessity of "from heritage to resources" on the basis of inspecting the protection, development and utilization of cultural resources in the western region, she also pointed out: "Although the reality of 'from heritage to resources' has not attracted the attention of more experts and scholars, civil society has long been practicing it, and governments and people in various places have long developed and utilized intangible cultural heritage as a cultural resource.
It's just that this kind of development and utilization is disorderly and subconscious, and has not yet become an orderly and conscious behavior that has not attracted the attention of more experts and scholars."He also believes that" the development trend of international cultural heritage protection is From unitary protection to holistic protection, such as: from a single focus on cultural heritage to a focus on the relationship between cultural heritage and natural ecology; from a single focus on material cultural heritage to the protection of intangible cultural heritage; From paying attention to the historical value and artistic value of cultural heritage to paying attention to the cultural value of cultural heritage; from paying attention to single heritage protection to paying attention to the practical value of heritage.
This emphasis on the value of practical use is an emphasis on the value of its resources "Fang Lili, 2010:193, 190).
Regardless of the results of future practice, the promotion of "productive protection" at least gives us one reminder: it clearly expresses that intangible cultural heritage is a cultural resource that can pursue economic value.
In the protection and utilization of traditional culture, the economic value is mostly reflected in local tourism development, because the enthusiasm for economic benefits has always been controversial, and the concept of productive protection is not only reflected in tourism development, which can be understood as the beginning of grasping cultural resources such as intangible cultural heritage from an overall economic perspective.
Moreover, in the process of reproduction of intangible cultural heritage, due to the intervention of state forces, the value of intangible cultural heritage has also been diversified.
It is not only an economic resource, but the value of its political resources has also been further strengthened.
At the same time, it also explains that utilization in the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection is also a kind of protection, because the value of intangible culture is reflected in "the relationship between the people who inherit this culture and intangible cultural heritage" Suga, 2009: 30).
2.
Problems and misunderstandings in intangible cultural heritage protection
Since the launch of intangible cultural heritage protection, reflection on the intangible cultural heritage protection movement, which is "still in a state of constant exploration and needs to be improved", has also been launched in the academic community.
For example, An Deming pointed out in an article that many measures in protection work will produce new issues such as discourse hegemony and conflicts among cultural groups have revealed various unacademic situations generated in the list system and the inheritor system.
An Deming, 2008).
Regarding the practice of protecting intangible cultural heritage, we must recognize the limitations of such protection activities.
The series of operations of intangible cultural heritage starting from the review are in conflict with cultural equality and cultural diversity.
Sometimes they fall into a narrow nationalism and nationalism, and it is a process of cultural choice.
It is impossible for us to protect all cultures under national cultural policies, and there will be problems that what should be protected is not protected.
At the same time, many studies have shown that in the process of intangible cultural heritage protection, There have been many facts that new cultural heritage has been invented and created.
Reflecting on the past and looking forward to the future is an indispensable stage for any undertaking.
Clarifying some of the problems and misunderstandings will help future development.
In UNESCO documents on cultural heritage protection, the meaning of "protection" of material natural heritage and the meaning of "protection" of intangible heritage are different.
In the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, the English words translated into the word "protection" in Chinese are different.
The former, which mainly emphasizes the protection of material culture, uses "protection."The latter, which mainly emphasizes the protection of intangible culture, uses "safeguard", while the latter can actually be understood as implementing a "safeguard measure", which is different from using cultural relics culture to develop material culture in a broad sense."protection".
In this sense, intangible cultural protection cannot just stay at the level of fixed preservation as the protection of cultural relics and material cultures.
What is needed is a comprehensive and overall protection measure.
Because we must consider that non-material culture has factors that are more influenced by the "people" who inherit this culture than material culture.
Because it is "human culture", there are changes and development requirements.As we all know, at the beginning of intangible cultural heritage protection, there was a stage of completely separating material culture and intangible culture for understanding.
Later, under the theoretical discussion of some scholars, the current view that the two only focus on different points was formed.
If we consider it based on human culture rather than isolating culture from people, they are an impossible whole [2].
If we insist on distinguishing material culture from intangible culture, there is actually only one criterion, and that is whether its protection measures reflect the "presence of people."
Reflecting on the past, there seem to be two misunderstandings surrounding the protection of intangible cultural heritage: the first misunderstanding is that it is bound by artificial project classification and cultural types.
As mentioned above, the classification of the ten major categories of intangible cultural heritage should be set up for the convenience of cultural protection work, but we should pay more attention to some specific manifestations in actual society.
In practice, many things go beyond the classification system and cannot be operated according to this classification.
For example, in the process of folk inheritance or local protection practice, the legend of Liang Zhu actually presents a big cultural concept-Liang Zhu culture.
If we use folklore to position ourselves in protection, it will inevitably contradict social facts.
Chen Zhiqin, 2010a:29-31), so when adopting protection, we should not stick to the ten major categories, and our vision can be broader.
The second misunderstanding is that we have always replaced the culture of protecting people with a culture of protection.
When the Ministry of Culture proposed the construction of cultural ecological reserves, its purpose was to position it as a protection method that "focuses on the protection of intangible cultural heritage", which means that the protection of intangible cultural heritage is the main focus, but it needs to be considered under the premise of the overall cultural ecology.
Although this positioning was of progressive significance given the separation of material culture and intangible culture at that time, it still ignored the key factor-"people" and became an intangible cultural heritage protection of "people absent"[3].
Although the understanding of the three stages of cultural heritage has undergone meaningful and valuable constructions, our understanding of the cultural heritage that is mainly protected in practice is still at the surface level.
If there is no development in the next step, it will move towards materialism.
For example, museums established based on material display, or training centers established based on separation from the inheritance space, although these are methods of protection for the purpose of inheritance based on modern society, But it should not be the key to the problem.
We should focus on the land and people where we were born and raised.
With a clear understanding that culture is "human culture", we can avoid some phenomena of protection for the sake of protection in our work, or a phenomenon of moving towards materialism.
If we aim to create people with culture, the problem of cultural subject and the initiative of inheritors may also be solved.
From the interpretation of "protection" in the 2003 Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage to the "Opinions on Strengthening the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage in my Country" and the "Notice on Strengthening the Protection of Cultural Heritage" issued by the State Council in 2005, the two aspects of "protection","rescue","utilization" and "development" contained in the "protection" of intangible cultural heritage constitute the complete connotation of "protection" of intangible cultural heritage Wang Xin, 2011:97), has also become a consensus among people, and concepts such as cultural and ecological reserves and productive method protection may understand a direction for its practical exploration.
However, as far as the current situation is concerned, the cultural and ecological protection experimental zone has further promoted the large-scale construction of intangible cultural heritage museums and training centers, which has also brought two drawbacks: first, in order to concentrate on displaying projects, it has isolated people's lives and cultural heritage.
The relationship between people, people and culture is ignored in order to show protection performance.
In the list application system for intangible cultural heritage protection, there is a very vague definition of who culture belongs to and the "ownership" relationship of culture.
The main body applying for intangible cultural heritage is the local government, not the cultural inheritor.
Although there have been some changes in the application system recently, problems still exist.
The result of this is that the qualifications, honors, and funds obtained are unfairly distributed, and the social economic rights and interests of cultural inheritance groups are not protected.
Because of the protection of cultural heritage, these cultures are separated from the people and the public.
Therefore, the object of protection now is culture rather than the people who create and own culture.
Therefore, culture can be built into museums for protection, and people can be called out to build a place for inheritance, while ignoring the connection between people, culture and the society and the natural environment; as a government agency that promotes intangible cultural heritage protection, it is more about the reflection of government performance and the pursuit of economic value, and rarely pays attention to the protection of the economic rights and interests of the society of cultural heritage groups.
For example, taking the example of sacrificial customs in Yuling Village, Shaoxing City, it is an example of "a village where folk customs have disappeared and a local government that 'acquired' folk customs." In the process from the restoration of the local government's public memorial service to Dayu to the honor of the national-level intangible cultural heritage "Dayu Sacrifice", due to the large-scale construction of sacrificial squares and other facilities, not only was the entire Yuling Village relocated, but also the Dayu Sacrifice entered the national-level.
After the list, the people of Yuling Village could not even be fully guaranteed the right to enter the Yu Temple to sacrifice.
Chen Zhiqin, 2008:82-86, 2010b:36).
Another example is the case of osmanthus production folk customs in Xianglin Village, Shaoxing County, which is an example of "a village that 'throws away' folk customs and a business organization that creates folk customs." Xianglin Village, located in the western part of Shaoxing County, has more than 400 acres of osmanthus forest, and the villagers have a history of planting osmanthus trees for more than a hundred years.
However, in the process of local tourism development and cultural protection, the osmanthus forest has been divided from the village.
An isolation wall was built between the osmanthus forest and the village, which fundamentally changed the folk space of this village.
Chen Zhiqin, 2008, 86-89).
Moreover, if you carefully examine the above explanation of "productive means of protection", you can find that it has great limitations.
Most of it may only be applicable to folk arts and cannot cover all intangible cultural heritage.
This limitation reminds us of the 1950s when folk artists were organized to establish the Second Light Industry Industry to achieve foreign exchange through export.
It also reminds us of the movement of the Federation of Literary and Art Circles system to "serve foreign affairs for China" and "serve the past for the present" on cultural heritage at that time.
At the same time, problems that occurred in the protection of intangible cultural heritage and the construction of cultural ecological reserves in the previous stage will be highlighted and concrete in the practice of productive protection in pursuit of economic value.
For example, the issue of "all" of culture is related to the object of resource utilization; the issue of rights and interests of inheritors is also the subject of resource utilization; the other issue of utilization and development is the method of resource utilization.
Although productive protection has a certain historical inheritance, we need to make it clear that the main bodies before and after it are different.
In the past, the inheritors themselves passed on for their livelihood, but now they are passed on for protection under the leadership of the government.
These are completely different concepts.
Although measures such as "productive method protection" will lead to bias when applied to practice, we may as well understand it as a concept, which is a value expression in a cultural context, because we must pay attention to people's lives.
Taking into account the development of society, cultural inheritance groups must first be able to live while inheriting culture.
If "productive protection" can achieve benefits from the people, it will be a contribution to the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection.
From 2006 to 2011, at the national level alone, 1219 intangible cultural heritage items have entered the protection list, including 1530 items after the expansion project), and 1488 items have entered the list of representative inheritors of the project.
If we ignore the large number of potential inheritance projects and inheritors of intangible cultural heritage for the time being, and only face the increasing number of intangible cultural heritage that needs to be protected with the help of the country, how to live up to the expectations of the Chinese people and how not to abuse the people's financial resources are already an important cultural undertaking that we need to manage with all our strength now.
In the future, our understanding of cultural heritage will be further in-depth and comprehensive.
Therefore, our future setting of protection measures must be predictable, and the formulation of plans must also be developmentally and change from passive to proactive.
We used to always encounter problems and then imagine a planning goal.
If we had theoretical foresight, then our future planning would adopt a proactive strategy.
Recently, at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 17th Central Committee of China on October 18, 2011, the "Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Several Major Issues Concerning Deepening the Reform of the Cultural System and Promoting the Great Development and Prosperity of Socialist Culture" was adopted.
The country's attention to cultural development has entered a new stage.
As a result, the protection of intangible cultural heritage will also enter a very critical moment: On the basis of reflecting on the past and looking forward to the future, we should next raise awareness and strengthen management.
3.
Cultural Resource Management and Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection: Including Japan's Experience and Practice
In China, many scholars have introduced Japan's work on the protection of intangible culture.
Most of them believe that Japan has made many achievements in this regard.
However, Yuka Suga, a professor of folklore at the University of Tokyo in Japan, holds different opinions.
In fact, there are many documents introducing Japan's protection of intangible cultural property so far.
They basically focus on Japan's introduction of cultural policies and protection laws, and there are few discussions on protection practices and specific sites.
Therefore, we don't know much about Japan's specific protection effectiveness.
At the annual meeting of the China Folk Society held in Tianjin in 2008, Yuka made a speech on "What is the value of intangible cultural heritage? - A speech at the conference titled "Japan's National Intangible Cultural Heritage: Bullfighting in Echou" pointed out that Japan's protection of intangible cultural property is actually a kind of "passive protection"[4].
He took the 838th talk meeting of the Japan Folklore Society on December 14, 2008-"The Current Situation and Issues of the Administration of the Protection of Folk Cultural Property: Report from the On-site" as an example to describe the scholars reflected from the seminar at that time.
The pessimistic voice: "In modern times, folk culture is in a state of crisis","In 10 years, more folk customs will be extinct"; As for how to protect in the future, the four scholars from the protection practice scene who spoke at the seminar only put forward countermeasures such as "recording through survey reports and images" and "protecting through designation of cultural property".
Therefore, Professor Yufeng Suga believes that these are just some negative "protection" and lack the views of "effective use" and "survival".
The content of Suga's speech at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the China Folk Society was later published in "Cultural Heritage", issue 2, 2009.
Through the revival and reconstruction of Japan's Echō Bullfighting after the earthquake disaster, it not only clarified the importance of using folk culture to regional revitalization in the process of discovering the value as a "cultural resource" in bullfighting as a "cultural heritage," but also revealed the aspects of protection, He believes that "although the inheritors of local culture are the central force, external behavioral stakeholders [5] also play an important role." Yuka, 2009:110).
In China, taking the first batch of national-level intangible cultural heritage "Dayu Festival" in Shaoxing City as an example, it actually formed a multi-level inheritance main structure, but we did not pay enough attention to the initiative of the inheritors of local culture Chen Zhiqin, 2008:85, 2010b:36).
On the other hand, Japan, which mainly carries out protection activities by local cultural inheritors, has recently been constantly exploring the experience of using administrative agencies as the main source to drive local cultural inheritance.
In this regard, China's government-led protection practice can be used as a reference for Japan.
Aki Tokuaru, professor of folklore at the University of Tsukuba in Japan, clarified the current situation of the "utilization" of "folk culture" by local governments in Japan in his article "The 'Folk Culture' that has been 'used'-Taking the Revitalization of the Daitake, Hometown of Uto City, Kumamoto Prefecture, Japan", and discussed the significance of "utilization" led by the administrative department to regional residents.
Aki Tokuaru, 2009).
Japan's protection of intangible cultural property and local revitalization has gone through a process.
This aspect is also covered in Tokumaru Aki's paper: The "Law on Revitalizing Tourism and Industry and Commerce in Specific Regions through Implementing Activities to Effectively Utilize Local Traditional Arts" implemented in Heisei 4, 1992) is considered to be an epoch-making law that evolved from the "record-making" and "preservation" of intangible folk cultural property to the administration of cultural property that later tended to be "protected", and finally began to shift to "utilization"; This law, led by the Ministry of Trade and the Ministry of Industry, with the participation of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Autonomous Province, and Ministry of Education, contains the local purpose of "seeking tourism and the revitalization of industry and commerce in specific regions" and directly and clearly combines the tourism-oriented and commercialized folk arts and crafts, setting off a big discussion.
In order to revitalize local economic development, research has been carried out in countries such as the United Kingdom, Japan and other countries on the ripple effects of local vitality through the development of ancient streetscapes, etc., especially the protection of the natural environment.
For example, since around 2000, Japan has given new roles to the streets of some villages whose traditional functions have been lost.
The most significant one is the regeneration of the foot path, mainly taking the British public footpath as an example for traditional reuse.
As of 2009, there were 24 sites across the country.
As early as 1960, Japanese architects proposed the concept of "space in street space", which has the meaning of expanding residents 'daily lives.
In recent years, it has been regarded as an effective means of local revitalization in the practice of inheritance and regeneration.
Kurokawa Kishō, 1994:219-230; Masahito Kawamata, 2007:4).
Related to this, the traditional reuse of inheriting the ancient Japanese street road (foot path) into the British stream walking road (Foot path) is also beneficial to local individuals, communities, and society, such as promoting interpersonal communication and enhancing community vitality.
It was evaluated because the establishment of public walking paths in the UK contains the role of surrounding nature protection.
Therefore, it also raised the possibility that the reuse of traditional streets will contribute to natural environmental protection for society as a whole.
Quan Liuwei, 2010:60-61).
Such an integrated cultural protection practice that attaches importance to the lives of local people and local environmental protection should also be an issue that we need to discuss in depth in intangible cultural heritage protection.
Especially when intangible cultural heritage becomes an open new public cultural resource, its utilization and management, as well as its role in national and local cultural development, will be topics we need to pay attention to in the future.
The country's decision to promote the great development and prosperity of culture will surely promote further discussion on the issue of cultural resource utilization.
There has been a lot of attention and research in the academic community on the definition of cultural resources and their preservation and management issues.
Courses such as "Cultural Resources Science","Cultural Resources Theory", and "Cultural Policy Theory" have also appeared together in college education.For the explanation of "cultural resources", we can take the definition of "Cultural Resources Society" in Japan as an example: "The so-called cultural resources are the sum of precious materials that serve to understand the society and culture of a certain era and become clues to them.
We call it Cultural data body.
The cultural data body includes buildings and urban landscapes that are not collected by museums and databases, or tangible and intangible culture such as traditional arts and rituals "[6].
Gordon, professor of anthropology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong? Matthews once pointed out that there are two basic contexts that cause cultural resources, one is "country" and the other is "market", Mathews, 2000); while Shinji Yamashita, professor of anthropology at the University of Tokyo in Japan, adds the micro context of daily cultural practice of "family, workplace, school, and regional society", Shinji Yamashita, 2007:15-16).
Judging from our current practice of the protection of intangible cultural heritage, daily cultural practice, the three contexts of the country and the market all run through it and influence each other, which provides us with a diversified understanding of intangible cultural heritage protection.
approach, we need to understand the protection of intangible cultural heritage in the overall social structure, and the necessary management concepts and methods are increasingly showing their importance.
Takayuki Suga believes that when utilizing folk culture or cultural resources, the following three topics must be considered: first, the sustainability of cultural resources, second, the adaptive management of cultural resources, and third, the value of cultural resources.
Diversity (Kanayuki, 2007:174-177).
It is generally believed that cultural resources, unlike natural resources such as minerals, animals and plants, and water, are inexhaustible and there is no diminishing subtractability.
However, Takayuki pointed out that "the use of cultural resources does not bring about a decrease in 'quantity', but a diminishing state of 'quality' or 'value'.
For example, folk culture is frequently used as a tourist resource around the world.
Under such circumstances, it is as regressive as natural resources."He also proposed that although the first emphasis is placed on the economic value in the utilization of cultural resources, the spiritual value existing in it cannot be ignored; at the same time, in terms of the management of cultural resources, he advocated that adaptive management methods can be used to manage cultural resources.
The so-called adaptive management is a method suitable for managing resources whose future changes are uncertain.
It has attracted worldwide attention and has been widely used.
It is mainly divided into three stages: the first is the determination of goals.
For example, we must clarify what it is for protecting intangible cultural heritage and what specific goals are to be achieved; the second is the monitoring process to continuously adjust the goals set previously; The third is to find problems and provide feedback, which is to continuously improve and revise the plan.
As a cultural resource, intangible cultural heritage is also a resource with uncertain future changes.
Unlike natural resources such as oil, whose reserves and extraction can be quantitatively controlled.
In this sense, such a method will be useful for the future.
The management of intangible cultural heritage resources has practical significance and operability.
With the continuous advancement of national cultural development policies and intangible cultural heritage protection policies, the relationship between intangible cultural heritage protection and local revitalization will become more and more clear and receive attention.
In fact, in local economic and cultural construction mainly based on local tourism development, this relationship is already very close, but we often turn a blind eye to this based on cultural damage caused by tourism development.
In the future, when local development with the background of intangible cultural heritage protection becomes a development method that has to be recognized, it is necessary for us to advocate the use of "internalized development theory" to guide specific practices.
Japanese sociologist Kazuko Tsurumi proposed the "internal-style development theory" in the late 1970s to reflect on the Western modernization development theory.
There are two archetypes of the "internal-style development theory": one is China sociologist and anthropologist Fei Xiaotong; The other is Kunio Yanagida, a Japanese thinker and folklorist, and Kazuko Tsurumi promoted and universalized Fei Xiaotong's theory and method, and developed it into an "internalized development theory" used in multi-disciplinary research in Japan.
Among them, we are given feedback on the contemporary and universalization of Fei Xiaotong's thought, understanding of the self-knowledge and autonomy of China culture, and inspiration for the construction and application of China localization theory Chen Zhiqin, 2010c:108).
Endogenous development theory is a process of social change to diagnose and treat various evils caused by the modernization development theory based on Western Europe, or to prevent these evils; its main definition is: People and collectives in all regions create in a self-disciplined manner based on adapting to the inherent natural ecological system, following cultural heritage traditions), and combining external knowledge, technologies, systems, etc."," If endogenous development can be carried out on the scale of the earth, it will become a multi-family and diverse development Kazuko Tsurumi, 1989:43, 49-50).
Now, we urgently need to explore through investigation and analysis which places, groups and methods are conducive to the improvement of people's lives and the development of national and local development on the issue of protection, utilization and development of intangible cultural heritage.
This provides a theoretical basis for the practice of intangible cultural heritage.
Changing the phenomenon of lack of people and people in intangible cultural heritage protection and protecting intangible cultural heritage for the happiness of the people should be our main purpose in protecting intangible cultural heritage and protecting culture.
The recently adopted central government's decision to promote the development and prosperity of culture shows that cultural development has become the country's primary national policy and will surely show the future direction different from China, which focuses on economic development.
Intangible cultural heritage protection is also an important undertaking in cultural development.
The development concept based on traditional culture and aimed at "human growth"-the "Theory of Internal Development" is expected to be effectively applied in pursuing local development based on the development of cultural resources.
cited literature
An Deming, 2008, Henan Social Sciences, No.
1, 2008
Masahito Kawamata), 2007,"Activity Record of the Institute of Local Revitalization, Tokyo University of Science: 2006" 2007
Chen Zhiqin, 2008,"Guard and Promote" Essays of the 2nd Jiangnan Folk Culture Protection and Development (Jiaxing Haiyan) Forum) Edited by Wang Tian, Beijing: Popular Literature and Art Publishing House, 2008
Chen Zhiqin, 2010a,"Shandong Social Sciences", No.
1, 2010, National People's Congress Reprinted Newspaper Materials "Cultural Research", No.
5, 2010, reproduced in full)
Chen Zhiqin, 2010b, Cultural Heritage, No.
2, 2010
Chen Zhiqin, 2010c,"Cultural Subjectivity and the Master of History" Research on Fei Xiaotong's Academic Thoughts) Editor in Chief, Li Youmei, Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House, 2010
Aki Tokumaru, 2009, Folk Culture Forum, No.
5, 2009
Fang Lili, 2010, Jiangxi Social Science, No.
10, 2010
Kazuko Tsurumi, 1989,"On the Development of Internal Hairstyles" Edited by Kazuko Tsurumi and Kawada Kan, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1989
Kurokawa Kishō, 1994, Notes on Kurokawa Kishō, Tokyo: Tongwen Academy, 1994
Suga Feng, 2007,"Meditation on Ancient Villages"(Proceedings of the International Summit Forum on the Protection of Ancient Villages in China)) Edited by Wang Tian, Shanghai: Shanghai Dictionary Press, 2007
Yuka Suga, 2009, Cultural Heritage, No.
2, 2009
Izumi Ruki, 2010,"The Possibilities of Regional Public Resource Management: The New Relationship between Autonomy and the Environment", edited by Nobu Mitata, Toyoda Suga, and Masami Inoue, Tokyo:
Shinji Yamashita, 2007,"Resource Suyu Culture" Resource Anthropology, Volume 2), Tokyo: Hongwendang, December 19, Heisei
Wang Xin, 2011, Art Garden, No.
2, 2011
Mathews，Gordon，2000，Global Culture/Individual Identity: Searching for Home in the Cultural Supermarket.
London: Routledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]The National Intangible Cultural Heritage List is divided into ten categories: folk literature, music, dance, drama, folk art, acrobatics and competition, fine arts, handicrafts, traditional medicine and folk customs.
[2]For example, Liu Tieliang once discussed this issue in terms of "physical nature".
Please refer to the first issue of "Baimai Spring", an internal publication of the Institute of Folklore of the Institute of Literature, History and Philosophy of Shandong University, which is also published on the Folklore Online.
[3]Although there is now a "system for identifying representative inheritors of projects", most of them prefer a single or small number of inheritors in some skills.
In the true sense or in the sense of overall cultural inheritance, the inheritance subject or cultural owner, Undertaker) should be the concept of an inheritance group.
Therefore, in addition to the inheritor identification system, the intangible cultural heritage list system should also reflect the protection awareness of its inheritor groups, not just the protection of project implementation.
[4]Source: On December 27, 2008, Tianjin, Takayuki Suga delivered a conference speech at the 2008 Annual Meeting of China Folk Society: "What is the value of intangible cultural heritage? - "PPT) with Japan's national intangible cultural heritage: The bullfight in Echgo.
[5]The external behavioral stakeholders here can be: local governments, researchers, business operators, NPOs, etc.
[6]The purpose book for the establishment of the Cultural Resources Society was adopted on June 12, 2002): Japan Cultural Resources Society homepage http://www.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/CR/acr/overview/shuisho.html
(Author: School of Social Sciences, Shanghai University)