[Hu Xiaohui] What new things can the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage bring to China
[Abstract] The Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage of UNESCO may bring new frameworks, new ethics, new thinking and new measures to China and the world through the use and definition of new terms, that is, to inject moral standards and human rights concepts with universal modern values into China society).
Carrying out intangible cultural heritage protection is also a process of aligning the practice of protection with the value orientation of the Convention.
If we ignore these new things, we may not only misunderstand or even fail to understand UNESCO's good intentions and basic intentions, but also cause protection work to lose its direction or lose its value and significance.
If these new spirits and new concepts can be truly implemented, China society may take a tangible step towards modern civil society.
China folklore may also promote its transformation into a modern discipline and further open up the space for local public folklore.
[Keywords] Convention; intangible cultural heritage protection; new terms; new thinking
1.
China's intangible cultural heritage protection movement: Is the "old tune" repeated or the "old bottle" of new wine?
As we all know, UNESCO promulgated the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention ") in 2003, and China joined the Convention in December 2004.
In China, the concepts of "intangible cultural heritage"(referred to as "intangible cultural heritage ")," cultural ecological reserve "and the intangible cultural heritage protection movement are all new things that are directly inspired and promoted by the spirit of the Convention.
They have entered the daily lives of ordinary people from academic circles and media, and have the meaning of "in the old days, Wang Xie Tang and Yan Yan flew into the homes of ordinary people." [ii]Such a movement arising from the rapid generation of new concepts has given me a sense of alarm and illusion: it seems that the intangible cultural heritage protection movement is nothing more than another movement to the countless movements in contemporary China.
Is this kind of movement a repeat of the old tune or a new wine in an "old bottle"?
In June 2013, I had the honor to participate in the "Chengdu International Intangible Cultural Heritage Conference-Commemorate the 10th Anniversary of the Adoption of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage"[iii], and then participated as an observer throughout the entire process of the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Intangible Cultural Heritage Intangible Cultural Heritage "sponsored by the International Training Center for Cultural Heritage.
Through inspection and study, I have a different understanding of the concept and practice of intangible cultural heritage protection.
I found that my delusion about the intangible cultural heritage protection movement in China is not entirely wrong in terms of the current status of protection, but it is more a misunderstanding than an understanding of the spirit of the Convention.
The more critical issue is that if scholars view intangible cultural heritage protection with a passive and evasive attitude and cannot think about and open up its multiple practical possibilities with a positive attitude, then on the one hand, things may go worse.
Developing in the direction, on the other hand, it is likely that we will miss the opportunity again.
Because China's intangible cultural heritage protection practice in the past ten years has provided an excellent channel and platform for China to join the global pattern of the world at both the national and academic levels, and also provided a good opportunity for China society to quietly import international advanced values in a consistent form of cultural movements.
Of course, from a global perspective, the Convention only provides a broad framework for protection practice, and it reserves greater space and room for specific protection measures by each country.
Therefore, each country can formulate specific protection measures suitable for its own national conditions based on its own actual conditions, so that each country's protection practices have its own characteristics.
However, the premise for this feature to exist is that specific protection measures taken by each country must be consistent with the basic spirit and spiritual framework of the Convention.
Although China's intangible cultural heritage protection work has achieved obvious results, there is indeed still the possibility of further improvement, and there is also a lot of room for improvement in the spirit direction of the Convention.
At present, the biggest problem in the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection in China is that grassroots protection units in particular still do not understand the overall concept, which has resulted in the new spirit and new concepts of the Convention being assimilated, ignored or filtered out in specific protection practices and operations.
In other words, many of our protection measures and operational links are still out of touch with the basic spirit of the Convention and do not well reflect and implement the basic principles of the Convention.
Under the control of the strong inertia of old ideas and the strong inertia of the old system, it is difficult for us to cultivate a cultural soil and protection mechanism that truly implements the spirit of the Convention.
Therefore, although the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection in China has lasted for nearly ten years, and although the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Law of the People's Republic of China" has been promulgated, it is still not difficult for us to see such a situation: On the one hand, scholars who have a good understanding of the new terms and new spirit of the Convention have not participated enough in China's intangible cultural heritage protection movement, although scholars 'understanding needs to be strengthened and improved.
They even worry that the intangible cultural heritage protection movement will damage academic purity, so they adopt a passive attitude of deliberate avoidance; On the other hand, the government still plays a leading role in the actual protection process, and some government officials may not have much interest in the new terms and new spirit of the Convention.
Therefore, the reality is often that some scholars don't care much about what the intangible cultural heritage protection movement has done, while officials actually engaged in intangible cultural heritage protection work don't care much about the Convention or what scholars say.
Some government officials may not only ignore the opinions of scholars, but may even contradict the opinions of scholars, although scholars 'opinions may not be correct), but may also only use scholars as props, decorations or even tools that can be used."Government officials in some places regard intangible cultural heritage protection too much as an administrative matter, do not respect scholars enough, and interfere too much in experts' opinions from the perspective of government public opinion and political opinions; Pay no attention to the people's ownership status and ignore the people's interests, opinions and wishes; or adopt a passive attitude and go through the motions." [iv]These phenomena show that no matter what the motives and reasons for various unreasonable understandings and practices in reality, we need to clarify theoretically again: For what and for whom?
In view of this, what this article wants to discuss is not the specific operational steps of intangible cultural heritage protection, but the concept.
In other words, it is not what we have done, but what we should do in accordance with the requirements of the Convention.
In other words, intangible cultural heritage protection "requires some form of 'red line' as a norm in concept.
Without the certainty of protective restrictions, protective behavior becomes arbitrary activities that cannot implement mandatory restrictions and constraints." [v]Therefore, the question to be discussed in this article is: since we have carried out the intangible cultural heritage protection movement and the construction of "cultural and ecological reserves" under the guidance of the basic spirit of the Convention, what new things can the Convention bring to China?
2.
Overview of new terms in the Convention
To understand what is new in the Convention, we must first start with its own new terminology.
The new terms of the Convention are mainly reflected in the following aspects:
1)The difference between "intangible cultural heritage" and "folk customs"
The overall structure of the Convention reflects two potential characteristics: one is a pure "let..." structure, that is, the intangible cultural heritage of different communities, groups and sometimes individuals can be displayed, so that their cultural diversity can be protected and sustainable development; the other is a pure "for..." structure, that is, the protection of intangible cultural heritage is ultimately for people, in a word: for the community groups or individuals.
Because of this, the Convention has carefully chosen words and taken great pains in the use of important terms.
For example, the drafters of the Convention once considered terms such as folk heritage), non-physical heritage), cultural tradition and folk cultural tradition (and folk heritage), oral heritage (oral and intangible heritage), and intangible cultural heritage (intangible cultural heritage).
After repeated weighing and screening, they finally chose intangible cultural heritage (which literally means "intangible cultural heritage ")[vi].
However, patrimoine culturel immatériel intangible cultural heritage is still used in the French version of the Convention).
[vii]
The "intangible cultural heritage" advocated by the Convention) is different from the traditional "folklore" folk custom).
Although Bamoqubumo has sorted out the different meanings of these two terms [viii], I still want to further point out their fundamental differences: First,"intangible cultural heritage" is self-identified by local community groups and individuals.
It is a kind of self-recognition or authorization, while "folk customs" in the traditional sense are generally identified by external experts; In other words,"intangible cultural heritage" is not an objective thing defined by "outsiders" such as experts or officials like "folk customs", but a subjective thing self-identified by local people; secondly,"intangible cultural heritage" is living, changing and constantly being recreated, while "folk customs" in the traditional sense mainly refer to solidified customs and even the remnants of ancient customs in later eras; Third,"intangible cultural heritage" comes from the past, but also belongs to the present and future, while most "folk customs" in the traditional sense only belong to the past; fourth,"intangible cultural heritage" belongs to community or community member groups and individuals), regardless of high and low levels, while "folk customs" in the traditional sense belong to the people at the bottom, implying a distinction between high and low levels.
Therefore, as Zhou Xing pointed out, the concept of "intangible cultural heritage" and the intangible cultural heritage protection movement have actually imported a "new 'cultural view' from the international community" into China.
This cultural view "transcends the long-term occupation of Chinese culture and The 'class cultural view' in the field of ideology, its" connotation is basically 'common sense' of the international community,"although it" is by no means easy to reach broad consensus in Chinese society."But it will undoubtedly bring the end of the long-standing policy of "cultural revolution".
[ix]It can be seen that the long-standing slogan of "culture sets the stage, economy plays the opera" has just turned things upside down.
It should be "economy sets the stage, culture plays the opera", because what we really "play" is culture rather than economy.
2)The difference between "safeguarding" and "protection" and "preservation"
First of all, the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage adopted by UNESCO in 1972 mainly protects "tangible heritage" and emphasizes the universal value of heritage.
The 2003 Convention is mainly to make up for the shortcomings of the World Heritage Convention, that is, it mainly protects intangible or intangible heritage (intangible heritage) and living heritage), and tries to avoid using authenticity), Concepts such as integrity) and outstanding universal value).
In other words, since intangible cultural heritage is constantly being recreated, the term "authenticity" no longer applies when identifying and protecting intangible cultural heritage.
[x]Of course, in my opinion, the Convention does not abandon universal values, but uses it as a prerequisite for the formulation of the Convention.
Because the starting point of the Convention is a global perspective and overall concept, emphasizing the universal value of culture through cultural diversity.
The subtext of the Convention is that the intangible cultural heritage of each community is a human cultural resource and valuable asset with the value of human cultural diversity.
One of the original intentions of the Convention is to examine and present the intangible cultural heritage and diversity of each community or community from a global and human perspective, showing its uniqueness in the universality of culture.
The diversity of cultural heritage can only be recognized and presented on the universal premise of equality among all cultures.
This is a perspective from macro to micro, that is, the local, national or regional nature of culture is viewed from its humanity and universality.
As Qian Yongping pointed out, the transition from the World Heritage Convention to the Convention reflects a series of changes in UNESCO's concept of protection,"allowing researchers to break through the study of the objective existence of cultural heritage 'itself' and expand it to cultural heritage itself.
More factors have made cultural heritage created and inherited by different social groups have become the focus of protection attention"[xi].
Secondly, the Convention uses "safeguarding" when referring to the "protection" of "intangible cultural heritage" rather than "protection" or other terms.
"Safeguarding" emphasizes dynamic or ongoing protection, and protects the vitality or viability of intangible cultural heritage, which means ensuring the practice and inheritance of intangible cultural heritage.
It shifts the focus of attention from products and expressions to the development process and people themselves, and is therefore different from the preservation and conservation of tangible heritage and places);"protection" is static, passive defensive protection, usually referring to intentional protection measures taken by official agencies, while "preservation" is conservative, negative preservation, implying a view of cultural objectification.
[xiii]"safeguarding" means that heritage inheritors actively protect and inherit their own intangible cultural heritage.
Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Convention explains that "safeguarding" refers to "various measures to ensure the vitality of intangible cultural heritage", including "preservation" and "protection".
It can be seen that the extension of "safeguarding" is greater than the extension of "preservation" and "protection".
This selection of terminology and wording shows that the focus of "safeguarding" referred to in the Convention is not only on the dynamic, procedural and inheritable nature of intangible cultural heritage, but also on emphasizing that the main body of protection is the holder of intangible cultural heritage.
and the inheritor himself.
3)Community groups and individuals) voluntary, prioritized informed recognition
According to the Convention, the three basic principles for the protection of intangible cultural heritage are: First, the "heritage" that "communities, groups, and sometimes individuals regard as an integral part of their cultural heritage" can become intangible cultural heritage.
See Article 2); Secondly, only intangible cultural heritage that "conforms to existing international human rights documents, needs for mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and conforms to sustainable development" is worthy of protection and actually protected.
See Article 2); Third, in all aspects of protection,"efforts should be made to ensure the maximum participation of the communities, groups, and sometimes individuals that create, continue and inherit this heritage, and to engage them in active participation in relevant management" Article 15).Especially when formulating a local intangible cultural heritage list, we must not only respect the voluntary and preferential rights of local community groups and individuals to free, prior and informed consent, but also try to involve them in the formulation and protection of their own intangible cultural heritage list.
Of course, voluntary and prioritized informed recognition reflects respect for and protection of the rights of intangible cultural heritage inheritors.
This is not only the fundamental purpose of UNESCO in formulating the Convention, but also the core value of intangible cultural heritage protection.
Because the Convention "recognizes that intangible cultural heritage belongs first and foremost to community groups", and "many of its provisions have the expression of 'various communities, groups, and sometimes individuals', these contents pay attention to the rights and interests of intangible cultural heritage inheritance subjects and advocate adopting a variety of ways to allow intangible cultural heritage inheritance subjects to participate in every step of the intangible cultural heritage protection process." [xiv]This means that the Convention "also calls on all States parties to attach great importance to 'community participation' in communities in the protection of 'intangible cultural heritage'), actively promote the establishment of a 'human living wealth' system, and protect inheritors and their institutional protection.
Take practical measures." [xv]
3.
The new framework, new ethics, new thinking and new measures that the Convention may bring to China
It can be seen that if we ignore these new terms in the Convention, we may not only misunderstand or even fail to understand UNESCO's good intentions and basic intentions, but also cause protection work to lose its direction or lose its value and significance.
Through the use and definition of these new terms, the Convention may bring new things to China mainly in the following four aspects:
1)New framework.
Intangible cultural heritage protection is not only regional and local, but also international and global.
"We often see the following expression in the media: Intangible cultural heritage, also known as 'intangible cultural heritage', which is what we call' national and folk cultural heritage'.
This at least shows that the new concept of heritage, which was jointly constructed by UNESCO and the international community, including scholars in various fields and practitioners in various cultural traditions around the world, after years of hard work, is entering the process of 'localization' at the fastest speed and with the widest coverage." [xvi]However, I would like to remind everyone in particular that what cannot be forgotten or ignored in the process of localization of concepts is that the spirit of the Convention and the intangible cultural heritage protection work carried out in accordance with its spirit are fundamentally different from China's previous "national and folk culture protection" and the three integrated collection and collation of folk literature.
One obvious external difference is: In the past, the three integrated collection and collation of "ethnic and folk culture protection" and folk literature were only carried out within China or even in counties and cities in various provinces, autonomous regions, and have basically nothing to do with other countries or regions.
However, the protection work has been international from the beginning.
Although the protection work is carried out for specific intangible cultural heritage projects and is generally carried out in counties, cities or villages, our vision and philosophy for protecting these intangible cultural heritage are international.
Protection measures also have many internationally universally agreed commonalities.
In June 2013, when visiting the Qiang Village in Taoping, Sichuan with the students of the "Pacific Island Countries-Intangible Cultural Heritage List Formulation Training Course", I had an obvious feeling: these originally remote villages are like self-sufficient.
A paradise, but now it welcomes not only foreign eyes, but also from all over the world.
We can certainly say that this kind of tourism-style inspection is an interruption to the lives of local residents.
But we cannot ignore the curiosity and even desire of local people for outsiders and the outside world.
They may also want to communicate, be understood and recognized.
In 2009, the Qiang Lunar New Year ceremony entered UNESCO's list of intangible cultural heritage in urgent need of protection.
Taoping Qiang Village can be described as a microcosm or symbol of intangible cultural heritage protection: its own value, especially as intangible cultural heritage, is mainly awakened and recognized through external international attention.
In other words, an international perspective helps to awaken and enhance local people's awareness and value recognition of this culture, and the intangible cultural heritage protection advocated by the Convention very respects this self-recognition and value recognition of local people and uses it as the basis and premise.
2)New ethics.
The Convention particularly emphasizes the transfer of power and respect for rights in the process of intangible cultural heritage protection.
Although the selection of intangible cultural heritage projects is organized and implemented by UNESCO and governments at all levels in various countries, in this process, we must not forget that according to the Convention, the right to recognize the value of intangible cultural heritage ultimately belongs to the holders and inheritors of intangible cultural heritage.
In this sense,"it is not so much that intangible cultural heritage has value itself, but rather that it is the value generated because of its relationship with mankind." [xvii] In other words, according to the spirit of the Convention, if people in a community or community believe that their "intangible cultural heritage" has no value, there is no need to protect it, and may only need to record it.
[xviii] If they think it is not their own "intangible cultural heritage" at all, they may not need protection or recording.
Of course, if they do not want to participate in the "international chorus" of intangible cultural heritage and only want to sing solo or sing their own little tunes, then they should also be asked to do so, because they have such rights, and it is precisely such rights that require mutual recognition and protection.
The key issue here is that the value of intangible cultural heritage must be determined by its holder and inheritors themselves rather than outsiders.
In this sense, the relationship between people and things is the core of intangible cultural heritage value and the soul of intangible cultural heritage protection work.
German scholars even believe that the 2003 Convention was drafted around the concepts of "community" and "practitioners" rather than the concept of "heritage".
[xix]Article 2 of the Convention clearly defines "intangible cultural heritage" as "the various social practices, conceptual expressions, manifestations, knowledge, skills and related tools, objects, handicrafts and cultural sites that are regarded by communities, groups, and sometimes individuals as part of their cultural heritage." [xx]In this regard, it is necessary to prevent encroachment on rights and crude behavior that ignores people.
Otherwise, local communities, groups and individuals may be deprived of their cultural rights, and the boundary between tangible cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage may be confused.
In short,"the main difference between material cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage is: material cultural heritage emphasizes the material existence form, static nature, non-renewable and non-inheritable nature of the heritage, and protection also mainly focuses on the restoration of its damage and maintenance of the status quo; Intangible cultural heritage is a living heritage that focuses on inheritability, especially the inheritance of skills, technology and knowledge), highlighting the human factor, human creativity and human dominant position." [xxi]This brings another difference between intangible cultural heritage protection and China's previous "national and folk culture protection" and three integrated collections of folk literature: In the past, the participants were mainly experts and local cultural workers, and government officials intervened less, but now the intangible cultural heritage protection movement is led by the government, and "in the past, the government's cultural administration tended to exclude academia.
This time, the major changes in the administration of intangible cultural heritage have created an unprecedented pattern that requires the intervention of academics such as folklore.
This is because the new 'cultural outlook' and related concepts greatly [and] exceed the 'common sense' that cultural administrative agencies at all levels have long upheld." [xxii]
As pointed out in the "Chengdu Outlook" reached at the 2013 Chengdu International Conference, the Convention's groundbreaking definition of "intangible cultural heritage" has fundamentally reshaped the inheritors or practitioners of intangible cultural heritage and the officials, experts and institutions involved in protection.
[xxiii] This is a new type of ethical relationship.
This relationship emphasizes and calls for the comprehensive implementation and implementation of modern values such as democracy, equality and human rights in the process of intangible cultural heritage protection.
3)New thinking.
I would like to emphasize in particular that the Convention requires us to fundamentally seek a way of thinking and practice that is different from the past.
The Convention is not only a new spirit for China, but also a new exploration for UNESCO.
[xxiv] Furthermore, the intangible cultural heritage protection movement carried out around the world through contracting and ratifying treaties is a new concept and new practice for all ethnic groups and regions.
Therefore, all countries and regions that have joined the Convention need to constantly learn, explore and correct errors in the process of intangible cultural heritage protection, so that the spirit of the Convention can take root in their own countries and regions, and also make their own protection practices close to UNESCO's best protection practices.
Although the Convention provides not specific protection measures but an ideal framework and spirit, an in-depth understanding of the terms, provisions and spirit of the Convention can guide our intangible cultural heritage protection practices and help us determine which practices are in line with the requirements of the Convention and which violate the spirit of the Convention.
All our intangible cultural heritage protection practices and the work of "cultural and ecological reserves" should be carried out under the guidance and guidance of the spirit of the Convention, otherwise it may backfire.
This requires us to cultivate the spirit of the Convention and raise awareness of the Convention.
I believe that the "awareness-raising" and "capacity-building" mentioned in the Convention are not only aimed at holders and inheritors of cultural heritage, but also at scholars and officials engaged in intangible cultural heritage protection.
In other words, intangible cultural heritage protection is a dynamic process of learning and exploration, and it is also a brand-new China practice.
As Gao Bingzhong pointedly pointed out, not only is the establishment of the concept of 'intangible cultural heritage' recent, it integrates originally scattered objects into one category and becomes a new research field, looking forward to forming new theoretical methods, new talent teams and new disciplinary structures in the international academic community ", and" the concept of 'intangible cultural heritage' is forming a new field of social practice and academic activity." [xxv]Therefore, experts, managers and inheritors engaged in the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection in China need to become learning experts, learning officials or learning inheritors respectively, and they all need to raise awareness in intangible cultural heritage.
Build capabilities and cultivate new ways of thinking.
4)New initiatives.
The Convention encourages us to try new protection methods and measures in the process of protecting intangible cultural heritage.
"Integral protection" is an example.
Article 26 of the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Law of the People's Republic of China", which came into effect on June 1, 2011, clearly stipulates: "When determining the regional overall protection of intangible cultural heritage, the wishes of local residents shall be respected." Some people say that the so-called holistic protection means protecting the entire life and native state of living intangible cultural heritage, and protecting the vitality of intangible cultural heritage.
This is certainly good, but it still stays at the technical level.
What I want to emphasize is that in terms of concept, holistic protection should protect the original relationship between people and people and things.
This relationship is a relationship of mutual respect, tolerance, appreciation and understanding, that is, a kind of "I and you" relationship rather than the relationship of "I and it" that uses and materializes each other.
This may seem mysterious, but it can guide us in formulating specific protection measures.
Even though this concept certainly cannot guide or always determine our words and deeds in the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection, it can at least help us make basic value judgments on the measures, words and deeds.
Since intangible cultural heritage is a way of life, it is a whole, and this whole is also a tangible and intangible, spiritual and material whole, in which people are the core, which means that we must take equality, tolerance and mutual respect between people and culture as the basic stance, take humanism and respect for the environment and ecosystems as the core principles, improve social and economic inequality and human rights conditions, and attract universal participation, thereby promoting the grassroots democratic process and the awakening of human rights awareness.
The potential and value of intangible cultural heritage lies not only in the economy, but sustainable development also includes environmental quality and social equality.
Because without a good social system and environment, pure economic development cannot be fundamentally guaranteed and supported, and often lacks stamina.
In May and June 2013, I witnessed examples of intangible cultural heritage playing an important role in disaster prevention and post-disaster reconstruction at the Japanese Museum of History and Folklore and Taoping Qiang Village in Sichuan.
UNESCO is also increasingly emphasizing the role of intangible cultural heritage in avoiding conflicts, establishing peace and protecting the environment.
The irreplaceable role it plays in protecting the environment.
In specific protection practices, on the one hand, we should note that the intangible cultural heritage "community" or "community" referred to in the Convention is an equal relationship without administrative hierarchy or distinction between superior and inferior, which is especially different from the situation in China.
At present, China's intangible cultural heritage protection is declared and managed according to administrative divisions.
This model has its own convenience, but it also has limitations, because many intangible cultural heritage may be across provinces, cities or regions and are not limited to specific time and space.
scope.
Japanese scholar Tomiya Iwamoto pointed out that "Not only the Dragon Boat Festival, the Japanese also use Chinese characters, eat noodles and dumplings, and they must set boundaries of the field for the cultural elements enriched in the spread of space.
The most fundamental contradiction is brewing." [xxvi] Therefore, when we look at the intangible cultural heritage of each region, we also need to have an overall and holistic concept.
We cannot only see the local and regional nature of local culture and ignore the overall and human nature of culture.
This integrity is not only reflected in time and space, but also in the understanding that culture is not an isolated factor.
In other words, intangible cultural heritage is not an isolated cultural phenomenon.
To protect intangible cultural heritage, we must protect the ecological network and "relationship network" of intangible cultural heritage.
We cannot simply emphasize the economic benefits of intangible cultural heritage to local communities, because intangible cultural heritage also has environmental, social and cultural benefits, and these benefits may be long-term rather than immediate.
On the other hand, we should also note that cultural ecological zones cannot be museum-shaped.
Cultural and ecological reserves allow inheritors to live and work in them as masters), and they have the right to choose their own lifestyle, while museums only regard them as employee objects or objects).
[xxvii] If we ignore the free will of the inheritors and simply musealize or heritage intangible cultural heritage, then this is not only not to protect intangible cultural heritage, but also "life enclosed in museums cannot resist external influences and temptations, which may lead to becoming a shell culture." [xxviii]
In the eyes of many people, tourism and development cannot be carried out in cultural and ecological reserves, otherwise this cultural heritage will be distorted and distorted.
But I believe that cultural ecological reserves are not isolated areas or "enclaves", but places where living people live, work, produce and inherit their cultural heritage.
In accordance with the spirit of the Convention, over-development and over-commercialization should be opposed, but appropriate commercial development and utilization should be allowed, such as the development of commercial activities and tourism related to intangible cultural heritage, provided that such development and utilization should benefit the owner of intangible cultural heritage.
Benefit and benefit.
Whether mining, hydropower stations or real estate development is carried out in cultural and ecological reserves, the wishes and choices of local people should be respected and sustainable development should not be undermined.
Of course, these things are easier said than done in China, and they often read the scriptures incorrectly.
It should be added that what local people should be allowed to share is not only benefits, but also information.
The most important thing is to ensure that their rights are not violated or deprived.In this sense, I believe that it is not enough for China's intangible cultural heritage protection movement to simply transition from government-led to expert-led [xxix].
It still needs to continue to transition to a stage where the people are truly led by themselves to be close to the spirit of the Convention.
The profound meaning of intangible cultural heritage protection is to protect people's rights to create and inherit intangible cultural heritage, and not to use power to cover up or even replace everyone's rights.
Therefore, the theme of the 2013 Chengdu Intangible Cultural Heritage Festival is: "Everyone is a cultural inheritor."
4.
Conclusion: Enlightenment of modern values of the Convention and the possibilities of its implementation
Many people may not know that UNESCO is just a cultural organization.
It has no affiliation with the United Nations.
Its Convention is not fundamentally legally binding.
Moreover, the Convention is only an agreement between States parties, although it provides a conceptual framework and platform for various countries.
Protection of intangible cultural heritage provides a conceptual framework and platform, but the obligations of the Convention are only binding on States parties and are not binding on groups and individuals in intangible cultural heritage communities and individuals engaged in intangible cultural heritage protection work.
[xxx]Therefore, everyone engaged in intangible cultural heritage protection is free.
But the true meaning of freedom is that everyone is responsible for their actions, rather than doing whatever they want.
Those engaged in specific work and management on the front line can regard intangible cultural heritage protection as purely administrative work or political achievements, or they can regard it as the kind of brand-new cultural undertaking mentioned in this article.
Of course, the latter approach is very difficult under the current system.
However, what practical results will be achieved by China's intangible cultural heritage protection movement and what direction it will develop in the future will depend on the joint efforts of everyone engaged in this work.
As Zhou Xing pointed out,"China still lacks a social atmosphere and consensus that respects academic independence.
At a time when the administrative system is not accustomed to listening to scholars 'opinions, the freedom and independence of learning are often coerced and assimilated by power.
Therefore, the independent stance of folk scholars participating in the movement and the courage to put forward suggestions based on academic research are particularly important."[xxxi] Even if we cannot stop certain wrong practices, if everyone has standards for judging right and wrong, has developed the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and has the courage to tell the truth, this is particularly valuable), this society will still be saved, and the intangible cultural heritage protection movement will have a future and hope.
It should be noted that the protection model of the Convention is far from the current political establishment of China.
On the one hand, this makes it more difficult to protect intangible cultural heritage in accordance with the spirit of the Convention.
On the other hand, it also shows that the spirit of the Convention and its protection methods are of extraordinary necessity and urgency to China.
We cannot think that the existence of a person or a subject in modern times means that a modern person or a modern subject exists.
Without self-enlightenment and baptism by modern values of freedom, equality and democracy, even if you survive in the present, you cannot truly become a modern person or a modern subject.
Whether the spirit of the Convention can successfully inject moral standards and human rights concepts with universal modern values into China society), and whether China's practice of intangible cultural heritage protection can be aligned with the spirit and values of the Convention depends on the efforts of every practitioner.
If we can truly implement the new spirit and new concepts of the Convention, China society may take a tangible step towards modern civil society.
China folklore may also promote its transformation into a modern discipline and further open up the space for local public folklore.
Whether it is a discipline, a nation or a country, its strength does not absolutely depend on the number of people and the size of the territory.
After all, only by having the courage to recognize and assume the universal values of mankind can we truly become strong and gain universal respect and dignity.
[i] On July 9, 2013, the author was invited to give a lecture on the "Advanced Training Course on the Protection and Utilization of Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Construction of National Cultural and Ecological Reserves"(Taiyuan).
This article was revised according to the lecture; On November 8, 2013, the author participated in the seminar "Chinese Practice of Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection: Innovations and Issues" sponsored by the China Center for Society and Development Research at Peking University and the Department of Sociology at Peking University, and used this article as the speech draft.
[ii]As Zhou Xing pointed out: "The term 'intangible cultural heritage' is different from any other terms used to describe culture such as traditional culture, folk culture, folk culture, and national culture that are commonly used in domestic academia and media.
It is awkward, awkward and fresh, and its 'imported' nature and process are meaningful."Zhou Xing: " Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection Movement and China Folklore-The Possibility and Danger of "Public Folklore" in China,"Ideological Front, No.
6, 2012).
[iii]The conference was hosted by the Ministry of Culture, the People's Government of Sichuan Province, the National Commission for UNESCO of China, and UNESCO.
It was hosted by the People's Government of Chengdu City, the Sichuan Province Department of Culture, the UNESCO International Training Center for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region, and the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Division.
It was held at Shangri-La Hotel, Chengdu from June 14 to 16, 2013.
[iv]Huang Tao: "Mistake and Correction of the Government's Role in the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Recent Years", published in Cultural Heritage, No.
3, 2013.
[v]Gao Xiaokang: "Red Line": The Uncertainty of the Concept of Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection ", published in Cultural Heritage, No.
3, 2013.
[vi]For a review of relevant academic history and concepts, see Gao Bingzhong: "Intangible Cultural Heritage: Shaping as an Integrated Academic Concept", published in Henan Social Sciences, No.
2, 2007; Gao Bingzhong: "Culture and Politics of Daily Life", Beijing: Social Science Literature Press, 2012, p.
195; Zhang Chunli and Li Xingming: "A Review of Research on the Concept of Intangible Cultural Heritage", published in "Chinese Culture Forum", No.
2, 2007; Lu Jianchang and Liao Fei: "International Recognition of the Concept of Intangible Cultural Heritage", published in "Journal of Shanghai University", No.
2, 2007; Bamoqubumo: "Intangible Cultural Heritage: From Concept to Practice", published in "National Art", No.
1, 2008.
[vii]See the French version issued by the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Office: Testites fondamentaux de la Convention de 2003 pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine culturel immatériel, 2012.
[viii] See Bamoqubumo: "Intangible Cultural Heritage: From Concept to Practice", published in "National Art", No.
1, 2008, especially Part 3.
[ix]See Zhou Xing: "Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection Movement and China Folklore-The Possibility and Danger of" Public Folklore "in China," Ideological Front, No.
6, 2012.
[x]See Workshop on Inventing under the 2003 Convention at the National Level Participant), International Training Center for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region under the Auspices of UNESCO, Chengdu China 2013, p.
13.
[xi]See Qian Yongping: "From Protecting World Heritage to Protecting Intangible Cultural Heritage", published in Cultural Heritage, No.
3, 2013.
[xii]For UNESCO's use of the word "safeguarding" and the "pre-history" of the formulation of the Convention, see Wang Jiewen's "Research on Nordic Folk Culture 1972-2010", Beijing: Xueyuan Press, 2012, pp.
95-98, pp.
143-144, pp.
152-157.
[xiii] See Workshop on Inventing under the 2003 Convention at the National Level Participant), International Training Center for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region under the Auspices of UNESCO, Chengdu China 2013, p.
59, p.
121; Cécile Duvelle, Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention: 10 Years of Implementation, inInternational Journal of Intangible Heritage, Vol.8, 2013, pp.8-9。
[xiv]Qian Yongping: "From Protecting World Heritage to Protecting Intangible Cultural Heritage", published in Cultural Heritage, No.
3, 2013.
[xv]Bamoqubumo: "Intangible Cultural Heritage: From Concept to Practice", published in National Art, No.
1, 2008.
[xvi]Bamoqubumo: "Intangible Cultural Heritage: From Concept to Practice", published in National Art, No.
1, 2008.
[xvii][Japan] Suga: "What is the Value of Intangible Cultural Heritage", translated by Chen Zhiqin, published in "Cultural Heritage", No.
2, 2009.
[xviii] See Workshop on Inventing under the 2003 Convention at the National Level Participant), International Training Center for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region under the Auspices of UNESCO, Chengdu China 2013, p.
62.
This article was published in Cultural Heritage, No.
1, 2014)