[Huang Tao] On the protection subject of intangible cultural heritage
[Abstract] There is controversy in the academic community on the issue of who is the subject of intangible cultural heritage protection, but the view that the government is the subject of protection is dominant.
However, this view implies the paradox that the subject of intangible cultural heritage is not the subject of protection.
What is closely related to this is that there are also shortcomings in the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection such as excessive administration and lack of subjectivity among the people.
The provisions on the connotation and tasks of intangible cultural heritage protection in relevant authoritative documents issued so far at home and abroad also have the problem of mainly focusing on government work and not paying enough attention to community participation.
Intangible cultural heritage is fundamentally part of people's lives, and the inheritance and performance of intangible cultural heritage must follow the people's inherent methods and traditions.
The main body of intangible cultural heritage protection should be all parties in society, mainly community people, including inheritors, among which government departments are the key force in organizing and promoting it.
[Keywords] Intangible cultural heritage; protection subject; government; community people; inheritor [author's introduction] Huang Tao 1964-), male, Han nationality, native of Jing County, Hebei Province, PhD, professor, School of Humanities, Wenzhou University.
Zhejiang, Wenzhou, 325035)
1.
Raising questions
Intangible cultural heritage is a kind of social public culture dominated by folk culture.
There should be no doubt that its main body should be the public or the public.
The protection of intangible cultural heritage is a social work.
According to the 2005 "Opinions on Strengthening the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage in my Country" of the General Office of the State Council, intangible cultural heritage protection work is government-led.
In fact, in recent years, government departments have indeed played a leading role in the protection of intangible cultural heritage-let alone the merits and demerits of this positioning.
Intangible cultural heritage protection "is government-led" has also become a common saying in society.
Closely related to this is that the statement that the government is the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection is held or accepted by many people, and it can even be said to have become the mainstream voice in society and academic circles.
At the same time, it is also recognized that the main body of inheritance of intangible cultural heritage is the people of the community, including representative inheritors).
In this way, intangible cultural heritage has two different subjects: inheritance subject and protection subject, and the two are separated.
This theoretical issue closely related to social practice deserves serious discussion and come to a statement that is both in line with academic theory and beneficial to social work.
This discussion needs to distinguish between two issues: First, what situation has been formed so far in the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection in my country, that is, according to the current common operating model, who is the actual subject of intangible cultural heritage protection; Second, according to logic or theory, who should the subject of intangible cultural heritage protection be?
Regarding the first question, Liu Zhaohui stated this way: "Most research on heritage protection, especially on the protection of intangible cultural heritage, has encountered the dilemma of 'subjectivity': Is it cultural holders or government agencies, or are other social organizations the main body of heritage protection? The answer is obviously cultural holders.
However, a paradox arises here: the heritage protection movement in Western countries has established the dominant position of the government in heritage protection from the beginning, highlighting the ideology and power discourse of heritage protection, while ignoring the role and influence of the original subject of heritage.
Our country's government has also stipulated the basic principles and positions of 'government-led, social participation'.
Why does this 'paradox between heritage subjects and heritage protection subjects' occur?" [1] He believes that the main body of protection should be the cultural holders, namely the people and inheritors.
However, from abroad to China, intangible cultural heritage protection has formed a situation in which the government is the main body of protection.
I think this summary is relatively objective.
It is also worth noting that he believes that taking the government as the main body of protection is closely related or the same thing as the principle of government-led.
If this statement is true, we need to discuss whether the government should be the main body of protection and whether to adopt the principle of government-led.
1)Yuan Li clearly said: "In the process of passing down intangible cultural heritage, there are in fact two subjects closely related to the inheritance of intangible cultural heritage: one is the inheritance of intangible cultural heritage, and the other is the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
The so-called 'intangible cultural heritage'refers to what we usually call' intangible cultural heritage'." [2] He also proposed the composition of protection subjects: "The so-called 'intangible cultural heritage protection subjects' refer to those outside the inheritance circle and although they have nothing to do with inheritance, they play an important role in promoting the inheritance of intangible cultural heritage.
external forces.
This group includes our governments at all levels, academic circles, business circles, and news media." [3] When making the distinction between these two types of subjects, he emphasized that the government must strictly abide by the functional boundaries of the protection subject and must not excessively interfere or even replace the work of the inheritance subject:"If we mess up the functional differences between protection subjects and inheritance subjects, and the government, as the protection subjects, forgets its own job and personally participates in the inheritance of intangible cultural heritage, it will be easy to add foreign cultures such as official culture and contemporary culture that we are familiar with to change the original genes of intangible cultural heritage, turning 'folk customs' into 'official customs' and 'real heritage' into 'pseudo-heritage'."【4】
Regarding the second question, there are obviously different opinions.
Zhu Bing, director of the Cultural Office of the National People's Congress Education, Culture, and Health Committee, fully affirmed the necessity and core role of government administrative protection, but his statement of the role of the government was very precise: "Specifically speaking, the government should play three major roles: First, the role of protection, that is, the government should use administrative resources and means to avoid the disappearance of intangible cultural heritage to the greatest extent possible and leave cultural genes and blood for future generations.
The second is to help with inheritance.
The government is not the main body of inheritance and does not directly interfere in inheritance.
Instead, it takes measures to help support the inheritance activities of inheritors.
The third is a guiding role, that is, the government must play a guiding role in protecting society." [5] He believes that in addition to taking direct protective measures, the government plays a role of "helping to inherit" and "guiding", which accurately defines the role of the government.
It is worth noting that he used the word "guide" carefully and did not use the term "lead" once throughout the text.
At the end, he said: "It is necessary to make it clear that the people are the main body of protection work.
Because an important characteristic of intangible cultural heritage is that it comes from and thrives among the people, government administrative actions cannot do everything or replace everything.
The important responsibility of the government is to create a social environment conducive to the protection of intangible cultural heritage, including legal environment, policy environment, public opinion environment, etc., and guide and ensure that all sectors of society are invested in protection work." [6] His paper mainly discusses the issue of government administrative protection, and only mentions that "the people are the main body of protection work" without elaborating on it.
Zhao Deli said: "In the protection of intangible cultural heritage, the government is an indispensable and leading role.
Without government policy support and financial assistance, intangible cultural heritage cannot be properly protected.
Cultural scholars are the brains of the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
Because of their profound knowledge accumulation and less biased value stance, they will provide less utilitarian, more academic and human opinions and suggestions for the protection of intangible cultural heritage; the private sector is the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection.
Without folk culture and popular power, intangible cultural heritage will be difficult to survive and develop, and therefore will no longer exist." [7] He believes that the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection is the people and the public, but he believes that this is not inconsistent with the official leadership of intangible cultural heritage protection.
The reason for the official leadership is that the official has advantageous resources in policies and funds.
Ding Yongxiang believes: "The determination of the main body responsible for the protection of intangible cultural heritage is a major event related to the success or failure of my country's intangible cultural heritage protection.
Intangible cultural heritage is the common wealth of all people, and protecting it is everyone's responsibility, but scattered individual capabilities are limited.
As the representative of the people and the manager of society, the government plays an irreplaceable role in formulating policies for the protection of intangible cultural heritage, raising funds, and organizing personnel.
Therefore, the corresponding government departments are the responsible subjects for the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
Whether the government attaches importance to it or not is the key to the success or failure of intangible cultural heritage protection.
It is also very important to improve public awareness of protection and actively participate." [8] He adopted the term "responsible subject", mainly emphasizing that the inheritor can bear the responsibility of inheritance, but due to limited financial resources and power, he cannot bear the responsibility of protection.
Therefore, the government must assume the responsibility of protecting intangible cultural heritage.
Based on its context, its statement that the government is the main body responsible for intangible cultural heritage protection should be close to the view that the government is the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection.
From the opinions of the five scholars quoted above, it can be seen that there are great differences in society and academic circles on the dominant and main issues of intangible cultural heritage protection, and there are different views on "what has been" and "what should be".
In fact, in our country with a vast territory, there are indeed various practices and many related problems in the protection of intangible cultural heritage in various places.
Therefore, the relationship between the inheritance subject and the protection subject of intangible cultural heritage protection is worthy of theoretical clarification and determination based on social practice.
2.
The source and basis of the statement that "the government is the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection"
The statement that "the government is the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection" is not clearly stated in authoritative documents, but it is indeed recognized by many people.
Summarizing its source and basis, there are three main aspects: first, the level of affairs.
As mentioned above, there is a view that the government has the right, money, and responsibilities.
In the context of a market economy, only the government can shoulder the important responsibility of protecting intangible cultural heritage.
The people are unable to shoulder it, and the academic community is also willing but unable to do so.
Second, the factual level.
It is generally believed that since China launched the intangible cultural heritage protection project in recent years, the government has indeed played the role of the main body of protection.
If this is indeed a fait accompli, then it will be natural to have the government as the main body of protection.
Third, the policy level.
Statements in existing authoritative documents tend to say that "the government is the subject of intangible cultural heritage protection." We will discuss the logical or theoretical aspects of this issue in detail later.
The second and third levels are actually basically the same, that is, government actions are carried out in accordance with government documents; the actions of local governments are generally consistent and there are also differences in specific operations.
We can make some judgments based on what we have seen and heard, but after all, we have not conducted more comprehensive investigations and statistics, and it is impossible to say with certainty whether local governments have assumed the role of protection; so here we focus on analyzing the relevant explanations and provisions in existing authoritative documents.
To date, the following three authoritative documents with the greatest impact on China's intangible cultural heritage protection should be preferred: the Convention on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage adopted by UNESCO in 2003, and the "Opinions on Strengthening the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage in my Country" promulgated by the General Office of the State Council in 2005., and the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Law of the People's Republic of China" adopted at the 19th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the 11th National People's Congress in 2011.
Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage explains the meaning or task of "protection":"'Safeguarding 'refers to the taking of measures to ensure the vitality of intangible cultural heritage, including the identification, documentation, research, preservation, protection and protection of all aspects of such heritage, publicity, promotion, and inheritance, mainly through formal and informal education) and revitalization." 2)The various protection tasks listed here are all done by government departments and relevant social forces other than inheritors.
It is mentioned that the English word used in the "inheritance" Convention is transmission), which means inheritance.
Originally, it is generally a matter for cultural holders and inheritors, but the Convention immediately explains that "mainly through formal and informal education", pointing out that the "inheritance" mentioned here is also a matter for social forces other than inheritors such as government departments and not the people.
So it can be seen that the Convention, which we regard as the most authoritative document on intangible cultural heritage protection, does regard intangible cultural heritage protection as a matter for government departments.
This may also be because this convention is signed by governments of various countries, and the content of its provisions should mainly be what governments should do.
Zhu Bing clearly pointed out: "The nature of the 'protection' stipulated in the Convention is administrative protection."【9】
However, in other parts of the Convention, it also shows that the Convention pays special attention to intangible cultural heritage inheritors and attaches special importance to their participation in protection.
The preamble to the Convention states: "Recognizes the important role played by groups, especially indigenous groups, groups and sometimes individuals, in the creation, protection, maintenance and innovation of intangible cultural heritage, thereby contributing to the enrichment of cultural diversity and human creativity." Article 15 of the Convention states: "Participation of groups, groups and individuals.
When carrying out activities to protect intangible cultural heritage, States Parties shall strive to ensure the maximum participation of the groups, groups and sometimes individuals that create, maintain and inherit such heritage, and to engage them actively in relevant management." In fact, this clause has clearly stated that intangible cultural heritage holders, that is,"groups, groups, and sometimes individuals that create, maintain and inherit such heritage", should also be managers of intangible cultural heritage protection.
The clause uses the term "maximum" to mean that public participation is particularly important.
"Absorbing them to actively participate in relevant management" shows that both the people and the government are managers of intangible cultural heritage protection.
However, perhaps it was that when these documents were formulated, there were no specific provisions on public participation in the management and no more adequate emphasis was given, which led to the problem of too little public participation in intangible cultural heritage protection in various countries to varying degrees.
In fact, the situation where the government is the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection has resulted in many shortcomings.
It can be seen from these two words that the experts who participated in the formulation of the Convention also realized the importance of cultural holders in the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
However, judging from the entire content of the Convention, the Convention believes that protection is mainly a matter for government departments.
Although cultural holders are important, their participation in intangible cultural heritage protection is only a matter of hard work and is not necessary.
Although the main spirit of the Convention is not clearly stated, it does reflect the principle of "government-led" in intangible cultural heritage protection.
The above analysis can be briefly summarized as follows: Although the Convention notes the due status and role of cultural holders in the protection of intangible cultural heritage, it does not pay enough attention to this.
It has not yet paid attention to implementing this aspect into specific provisions and writing it into the Convention.
The extent to which the provisions are included.
Looking at the various articles of the Convention, there is no provision on how to ensure the "maximum participation" of cultural holders and how to "attract them to actively participate in relevant management." This makes it easy to turn two words that attach importance to the role of cultural holders into empty words.
In fact, there is indeed a major bias in the intangible cultural heritage protection work carried out by various states parties in accordance with this Convention.
That is, intangible cultural heritage protection has mainly become the matter of external forces such as government departments and experts, while cultural holders have basically become outsiders, and even opponents of intangible cultural heritage protection, which has a great negative impact on the effectiveness of intangible cultural heritage protection.
In view of this, relevant parties later paid more and more attention to the issue of "participation of communities".
In accordance with Article 15 of the Convention, in September 2007, the Second Meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage (Tokyo Conference) repeatedly discussed "community participation" and called on all States parties to work on intangible cultural heritage protection.
We attach great importance to this issue.【10】
Let's take a look at the statements on relevant issues in my country's authoritative documents on intangible cultural heritage protection.The "Opinions on Strengthening the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage in my Country" promulgated by the General Office of the State Council in 2005 is the earliest and most influential authoritative document, proposing the working principles of intangible cultural heritage protection: "Government-led, social participation, clear responsibilities, and Form synergy; long-term planning, step-by-step implementation, combination of points and aspects, and emphasis on practical results." Among them, the principle of "government-led" had a fundamental impact on the subsequent protection of intangible cultural heritage.
The document goes on to explain the specific government-led approach: "The government must give full play to its leading role and establish a coordinated and effective protection leadership mechanism.
The Ministry of Culture will take the lead in establishing an inter-ministerial joint meeting system for the protection of intangible cultural heritage in China to uniformly coordinate the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
The cultural administrative department and relevant departments must actively cooperate to form a synergy.
At the same time, relevant academic research institutions, colleges and universities, enterprises and institutions, social organizations and other forces are extensively recruited to jointly carry out the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
Give full play to the role of experts and establish an expert consultation mechanism and inspection and supervision system for the protection of intangible cultural heritage." These regulations are relatively appropriate and effective when applied to the work level of intangible cultural heritage protection, but they should not be used in all aspects of intangible cultural heritage protection.
In accordance with the government-led principle and the specific deployment of this document, the intangible cultural heritage protection work has been carried out from top to bottom, with great momentum and results.
However, there are also shortcomings such as too strong administration and too much government control, especially in Intangible cultural heritage performance and inheritance.
Since the scope of application of the "government-led" principle has been expanded infinitely, in many cases, the maintenance and inheritance of intangible cultural heritage is also dominated by the government.
For example, the time, place, program, content, etc.
of folk performances are determined according to the wishes of officials and the convenience of official activities.
To determine, rather than according to folk traditions and the will of the people, the authenticity of intangible cultural heritage will be seriously lacking.
The government-led principle and the intangible cultural heritage protection model carried out in accordance with this principle are the main source and basis for "the government is the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection."
If we compare the government-led principle with the statement "taking the government as the main body of protection", we can see that taking the government as the main body of protection further emphasizes the government's main role in intangible cultural heritage protection than taking the government as the main body of protection, and also ignores the people's role.
Another authoritative document on intangible cultural heritage protection is the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Law of the People's Republic of China" promulgated in 2011.
The regulation divides intangible cultural heritage protection work into two categories, one is preservation work and the other is protection work.
See Article 3 for details: "The state takes measures such as identification, recording, and filing to preserve intangible cultural heritage.
Intangible cultural heritage that embodies the excellent traditional culture of the Chinese nation and has historical, literary, artistic, and scientific value shall be protected by measures such as inheritance and dissemination." The subject here is "state", which is the bearer and implementer of two types of protection work.
In particular,"inheritance", which mainly belongs to cultural holders and intangible cultural heritage inheritors, is also expressed as measures taken by the government, rather than measures to encourage people to inherit.
The reason is that there is too much emphasis on the role of the government in intangible cultural heritage protection and insufficient attention is paid to the role of intangible cultural heritage inheritors.
Looking at the various provisions of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law, the deployment and regulations on the protection of intangible cultural heritage can be described as specific and detailed, but they are mainly for relevant government departments, especially the "government departments at or above the county level" mentioned in many places.
Relevant cultural administrative departments.
Of course, this may be because the regulation is mainly formulated for administrative protection by government departments, and its reasons are similar to those of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage.
But even so, using this regulation to guide and regulate the comprehensive work of intangible cultural heritage protection will easily lead to the mistake of excessive control by government departments and excessive administrative protection of intangible cultural heritage.
There are two main provisions in the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Law of the People's Republic of China" involving inheritors.
The first is Article 30:"The cultural authorities of the people's governments at or above the county level shall take the following measures as needed to support representative inheritors of representative intangible cultural heritage projects to carry out inheritance and dissemination activities: 1) Provide necessary inheritance sites; 2) Provide necessary funds to support them to carry out activities such as apprenticeship, art transfer, and exchanges; 3) Support them to participate in social welfare activities; 4) Other measures to support them in carrying out inheritance and dissemination activities." It should be said that these measures are well formulated and necessary.
The keywords used in these measures are all words such as "provide" and "support", which shows the reasonable relationship between government departments and inheritors.
If the entire intangible cultural heritage protection work is carried out in accordance with this tone, there will be no major problems in the relationship between government departments and intangible cultural heritage inheritors.
The other is Article 31:"Representative inheritors of representative intangible cultural heritage projects shall fulfill the following obligations: 1) carry out inheritance activities and cultivate successor talents; 2) properly preserve relevant objects and materials; 3) Cooperate with cultural authorities and other relevant departments to conduct intangible cultural heritage surveys; 4) Participate in public welfare publicity of intangible cultural heritage." These are indeed the obligations that representative inheritors of intangible cultural heritage should fulfill.
Article 31 is followed by the following words: "If a representative inheritor of a representative intangible cultural heritage project fails to perform the obligations stipulated in the preceding paragraph without justifiable reasons, the cultural authorities may cancel the representative inheritor qualification and re-recognize the project.
Representative inheritor; if the ability to inherit is lost, the cultural authorities may re-recognize the representative inheritor of the project." Since representative inheritors can receive benefits such as honor, funding, commendation, publicity, etc., and have due obligations, then those who refuse to perform their prescribed obligations and cannot inherit intangible cultural heritage should naturally lose some corresponding benefits or be punished accordingly., so these disciplinary measures seem logical.
However, operating in accordance with this regulation will create a situation: representative inheritors of course value the government's recognition, funding and publicity and will work hard to get it; once they get it, they are also afraid of losing and being punished by government departments.
This will inevitably lead to the inheritors catering too much to government departments and relevant officials, and will also place too much emphasis on these activities that the official requires to cooperate and despise inheritance activities at the daily life level.
From this point of view, this regulation on disciplinary measures seems a bit simple and stiff.
As a statutory clause, it should not be stated in such a general manner that people do not understand whether the qualification of inheritors will be revoked if one of them is violated or if it is violated if four of them are violated.
Instead, different penalties should be imposed according to different degrees of bad circumstances.
Among these four articles, we should focus on examining the first article, which is to measure the importance of specific intangible cultural heritage projects, the scarcity of inheritors, and the daily inheritance of intangible cultural heritage projects.
If this article is done well, if the others are not done well, criticism, education or other disciplinary measures can be given, but it is not appropriate to cancel the qualification of inheritors; if this article fails, doing well in other aspects will not help, and it is not appropriate to retain its representative inheritor qualifications.
In addition, the decision to revoke the qualifications of representative inheritors should not be decided only by government departments, but should be decided by a joint assessment organization composed of government departments, experts, public representatives, etc.
This will help avoid the disadvantages of over-administrative protection of intangible cultural heritage.
The reason for the appearance of such words in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law is that it overemphasizes the authority and leadership of government departments in the protection of intangible cultural heritage in terms of guiding ideology, while relatively underestimating the role of community people, including inheritors, experts, etc.
From the above analysis of the three representative authoritative documents, it can be seen that since the official launch of intangible cultural heritage protection, there have been drawbacks from the international to the domestic level of over-emphasizing government power and insufficient attention to community people's participation in protection.
These documents and the intangible cultural heritage protection work carried out based on these documents should be the main source and basis for the statement that "the government is the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection." However, intangible cultural heritage protection is a very special and complex social work and cultural activity, and its policies, practices, theories, etc.
need to be continuously improved and improved in practice.
The statement that "the government is the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection" is naturally worth discussing., make corresponding adjustments and improvements.
3.
The essence and disadvantages of taking the government as the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection
What does it mean to "take the government as the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection"? It is necessary to consider the meaning of "subject" first.
There are three meanings under the entry of "subject" in Modern Chinese Dictionary: 1)"The main part of a thing." 2)"Philosophically, it refers to a person who has the ability to understand and practice objects." 3)"Legally, it refers to a natural person, legal person or state that enjoys rights and assumes obligations in accordance with the law." The "subject" of the "protective subject" we are discussing should be the meaning 2) 3) above.
Then the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection is the implementer and main force of intangible cultural heritage protection.
Taking the government as the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection means that the government is the implementer and main force of intangible cultural heritage protection.
It can be said that the three authoritative documents analyzed in the second part of this article generally express this working principle.
If intangible cultural heritage protection is mainly a social work that is carried out by government departments to the end, then this principle should be no problem.
But the problem is that intangible cultural heritage protection is not entirely a social work.
The complete meaning of intangible cultural heritage protection includes two parts: first, the government-led organization and management part, and second, the maintenance and inheritance part mainly based on the people and inheritors of the community where the intangible cultural heritage project is located.
Moreover, intangible cultural heritage protection should have the second part as the goal and focus.
The work done by government departments is fundamentally for the maintenance and inheritance of intangible cultural heritage.
Naturally, those directly engaged in the maintenance and inheritance of intangible cultural heritage are the communities where intangible cultural heritage projects are located.
People and inheritors.
If the government is the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection, it means that government departments must not only undertake relevant administrative work, but also undertake or be responsible for the maintenance and inheritance activities of intangible cultural heritage.
This actually overburdens the government departments and cannot be accomplished.
If the authoritative documents and working methods of intangible cultural heritage protection adhere to this guiding ideology, it will inevitably lead to government departments exercising too much control in the protection of intangible cultural heritage, directly controlling the performance and inheritance of intangible cultural heritage, replacing the community people and inheritors.
The dominant position in cultural activities passed down from generation to generation will also hinder the authenticity of intangible cultural heritage.
The crux of the problem is that the government's becoming the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection will lead to a contradiction and defect that cannot be concealed: the holders and inheritors of intangible cultural heritage are not protectors.
Judging from the actual work effect, this kind of intangible cultural heritage protection mechanism will inevitably cause various drawbacks: using intangible cultural heritage protection as a political achievement project or a means of making money; engaging in intangible cultural heritage protection focuses on listing, formal display, and publicity, and does not pay attention to substantive protection and long-term inheritance; turning intangible cultural heritage protection into cultural administration, turning folk customs into "official customs", damaging the authenticity of intangible cultural heritage; Separating intangible cultural heritage protection from the community and the public, the public adopts a indifferent and passive attitude towards intangible cultural heritage protection, and even harms the survival interests of the people, leading to resistance and opposition among the people, and so on.
Let's take the Qiqiao Festival in a city and a county as an example.
The county has a well-established Qiqiao Festival, which lasts for seven days and eight nights from the 30th month of the sixth month to the 7th day of the seventh month of the lunar calendar.
Its beliefs, procedures and practices passed down from generation to generation have long been passed down by local people, especially women, as a natural way of life.
In the past few years, the county's Qiqiao Festival was upgraded to a national intangible cultural heritage.
As a demonstration site for the county's new rural construction, JY Village has become an important window for the city to showcase its iconic culture to the outside world.
In order to build a cultural city brand, the municipal government incorporated the county's Qiqiao Festival into the overall plan of the city's cultural construction, and held the fourth Qiqiao Cultural Tourism Festival from August 22 to 25, 2012.
During this cultural festival, JY Village and nearby XZ Village perform local begging ceremonies for leaders, news media and other important visitors.
The girls from JY Village who accepted the performance task had to give up their own festival time and the natural begging activities they wanted to carry out.
They spent a lot of time and energy preparing for and rehearsing the performance.
In previous years, there was no need to rehearse the begging rituals they had done in previous years), and performed for foreign visitors repeatedly according to the procedures, formations, and movements of relevant leaders and "guiding experts" directors.
The following is the investigator's description:
The relevant leading departments and full-time staff of the county and even the municipal government hastily guided local girls to "beg for cleverness" based on their own subjective understanding without having an in-depth understanding of the origin and cultural connotation of the Qiqiao Festival.
For example, the begging ceremony was supposed to be performed in seven days and eight nights, but they required the girls begging for cleverness to complete it in less than half a day.
Another example is the water-welcome link.
According to the tradition of Qiqiao Festival, it should be carried out after burning incense, kneeling down, and singing water-welcome songs by the well or spring on the morning of the seventh day.
However, the recording team of the city TV station took it for granted that as long as it was at the water's edge, it would be fine; even for the convenience of filming, the film crew even "guided" the girl Qiqiao to the lake to welcome the water.
"Guidance" like this was staged in turn at the 2012 Qiqiao Festival.
According to the instructions of the government department, at 8 o'clock in the morning of the seventh day, the girls will gather at the Zuoqiao Family in XZ Village to wait for leaders at all levels to come and observe and provide guidance.
Prior to this, all people begging for cleverness must put on makeup and wear clothes uniformly customized by the county government and distributed free of charge.
This kind of clothing is designed in accordance with the traditional costumes of the Qiqiao Festival, but the overall look is like the cotton-padded jackets worn by Xihe people in the past.
In order to better reflect the rural simplicity, the government distributed a bundle of black wool to each girl to use as a braid.
Since makeup and dressing began at 2 a.m.
on the seventh day of the seventh day, many girls who participated in begging for cleverness had to go to the old village committee one day in advance to prepare and spend the night there.
From 8 a.m.
to 12 noon, the Qiqiao girls received a total of three groups of guests.
For each batch, the girls would follow the previous unified rehearsal formation, kneel down neatly in the courtyard of the sitting Qiao family, repeatedly performing the so-called traditional aspects of welcoming Qiao, praying Qiao, entertaining Qiao, divination Qiao and sending Qiao.
The girls knelt on both sides of the courtyard, and the leaders walked through the special Shinto that used to welcome the Weaver Girl from the middle, observing the entire ceremony with a curious eye.
Sometimes, before the previous ceremony was over, some leaders took the initiative to switch to the next "channel".
The girls had to hurriedly adjust their formation and sing the corresponding ceremony songs.
Another example is Sister Jumping Ma.
It was originally a witchcraft activity that invited the gods to possess it.
According to tradition, performers must pray piously at the god table before they can start performing.
Unfortunately, the primary school teacher responsible for rehearsal regarded it as an ordinary entertainment activity, transforming the sacred dancing sister into a dance similar to street dance or rope skipping games.
Finally, after all the leaders had finished visiting, the girls took the 20 yuan from the government to have lunch.
The entire performance ended.
3)
The above example is a very typical case, and the practice seems to be very extreme.
However, in recent years, it has not been uncommon in the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection in various places.
This shows that excessive administrative control has seriously damaged the authenticity of intangible cultural heritage exhibitions.
Before the county's Qiqiao Festival became a national intangible cultural heritage project, although there was a crisis of weakening inheritance, after all, as a part of people's life, it flourished and passed down naturally according to tradition.
It has become a national intangible cultural heritage and gained authoritative recognition and lofty honors.
However, the traditional Qiqiao Festival has become such an officially controlled "cultural festival".
The local people have lost their subjectivity in the festival activities and become puppete-like actors who perform according to the will and preferences of foreign "experts" and the official.Imagine how the group of girls who were selected to perform to outsiders gave up their festive lifestyle and were required to start making up and rehearsing at 2 a.m., wear costumes and fake braids brought by others that they had never worn before, and follow the command of the foreign "director" and demonstrate to the visitors over and over again? Are they still begging for cleverness from the "Goddess Qiao" with a pious mood as they did on the Qiqiao Festival in the past? Obviously impossible.
This kind of performance is simply suffering.
Even if these girls volunteered to participate in such performances, it was definitely not the motivation in traditional begging activities.
Perhaps they were to satisfy their vanity to be photographed or visited, or to obtain a certain amount of labor costs, or to be apportioned by local cadres, etc.
If this continues, in fact, the true meaning of the tradition of begging for cleverness in the area has been lost, so the protection of this intangible cultural heritage project will really become "protective destruction." [11] Let's combine the previous analysis of relevant provisions of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law.
If we simply apply the relevant provisions of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law and say that if local people do not cooperate with these officially required performances and publicity activities, is it not fulfilling their obligations as representative inheritors? Can I cancel the local national intangible cultural heritage reputation? In fact, the provisions of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law do not say that the "inheritance activities" and "public welfare publicity" that have been carried out by representative inheritors are like this.
However, precisely because no more specific regulations have been made, official control of intangible cultural heritage protection in my country is widespread.
If there are too many cases, it can easily be mistakenly understood and implemented, resulting in serious negative effects.
4.
Reasonable definition of the subject of intangible cultural heritage protection
Generally, when talking about who is the subject of protection of intangible cultural heritage, most people do not delve into what the "subject of protection" means.
For example, what does the government need to do to truly be regarded as the subject of protection? Literally and common sense, the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection should be the main bearer and implementer of intangible cultural heritage protection.
In this way, it is necessary to first understand the main contents and tasks of intangible cultural heritage protection before we can determine what the protection subject needs to do and further determine who is the protection subject.
In the second part of this article, we quote the provisions on intangible cultural heritage protection tasks in the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law of the People's Republic of China.
It can be seen that the protection tasks stipulated in these two documents are mainly the matter of government departments and relevant agencies, and basically exclude community people and inheritors from the protectors, which will inevitably lead to the conclusion that the government is the subject of intangible cultural heritage protection.
Although the Convention also mentions: "Efforts should be made to ensure the maximum participation of the groups, groups, and sometimes individuals, that create, maintain and inherit this heritage, and to engage them to actively participate in relevant management," but because there are no more specific regulations, the full and effective participation of community people and inheritors is not guaranteed or necessary.
The "Intangible Cultural Heritage Law of the People's Republic of China" also regards intangible cultural heritage protection as a matter for government departments and relevant institutions at all levels.
The provisions involving inheritors also place representative inheritors under the support and management of the government, and do not absorb or even mobilize community people and inheritors to participate in management or even assume the important responsibility of protection.
Whether in terms of theory or practical protection, this understanding and definition of intangible cultural heritage protection is problematic and urgently needs adjustment and improvement.
We have noticed that UNESCO uses different English terms to express "protection" in the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
The former uses safeguarding, and the latter uses protection.
What is certain is that UNESCO did not make the distinction between these two terms unintentionally, but deliberately considered it.
It chose different terms because it recognized the different objects and tasks protected by the two conventions.
Historical, cultural heritage and natural heritage mainly exist in material form, and their protection is mainly to adopt administrative measures to protect and display their material form.
Intangible cultural heritage mainly exists in an intangible form.
Its main form is living and is the activity of inheritors.
Its protection focuses on maintaining the living existence and inheriting vitality of intangible cultural heritage, and recognizes that intangible cultural heritage conforms to changes, adjustments, development and innovation that occur naturally due to changes in the social environment.
This kind of intangible cultural heritage protection cannot be accomplished mainly by administrative means.
The key reason is that this kind of protection must be accomplished through inheritors.
In fact, to have a scientific definition of the "protection" of intangible cultural heritage, we must have a full and in-depth understanding of the objects of protection.
The most important thing is to realize that intangible cultural heritage is a part of people's lives or a way of people's lives.
This means at least three aspects: First, since intangible cultural heritage is part of people's lives, people should certainly be the masters of their own lives, then they are of course the masters of intangible cultural heritage, and the owners of intangible cultural heritage are of course an important part of the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection.
Second, since intangible cultural heritage is part of people's lives, people will of course decide how to live their own lives, rather than being directed by others.
The time, place, process, etc.
of intangible cultural heritage exhibitions will of course follow their own habits and traditions, and they should also have a big say in how to protect intangible cultural heritage that is part of their lives.
Third, since intangible cultural heritage is part of people's lives, and intangible cultural heritage protection focuses on protecting the survival and development of this lifestyle, then a larger share of protection tasks must exist in daily life, and should be done by the people in the long term.
In daily life, external identification, commendation, publicity, guidance, preservation, etc.
are short-term and have a small workload compared with the continuous inheritance tasks in daily life.
Therefore, the definition of intangible cultural heritage protection tasks must give a large share of the work of the inheritors, and its importance must be fully affirmed and emphasized.【12】
In this way, the overall task of intangible cultural heritage protection should include two parts: the first part is organization and management work, which is dominated and dominated by the government; the second part is maintenance and inheritance work, which is dominated by community people and inheritors.
These two parts are indispensable, but judging from the relationship between the two, the first part of the work serves the second part, and the second part is fundamental and targeted.
Starting from this concept of intangible cultural heritage protection, we can define it as follows: the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection is the main force of all social parties, mainly community people including inheritors, including relevant government departments, education and scientific research units, public opinion media, data preservation and display venues, enterprises, etc., the most important part of which are the community people and relevant government departments.
The community people are the main bearers and fundamental force of intangible cultural heritage protection, and are the leaders in the inheritance level of intangible cultural heritage exhibitions; Government departments are the leading force in initiating, organizing, promoting and managing, and are the leaders at the organizational and management level.
The relationship between protection and inheritance also needs to be discussed here.
The above-mentioned authoritative document on intangible cultural heritage protection separates inheritance and protection, believing that inheritance is not protection and is subject to protection, so the inheritors are also placed outside the protectors.
After the above discussion, we can see that this expression is inappropriate.
Theoretically speaking, inheritance can be divided into two types: conscious inheritance and unconscious inheritance.
Intangible cultural heritage protection is a concept put forward in view of the inheritance crisis of traditional culture in modern society.
Therefore, it can be said with certainty that when these cultural projects, later called intangible cultural heritage, were still suitable for the living soil of the time in traditional society, their inheritance behavior generally cannot be said to be protection.
In modern society, when cultural projects can still meet people's living needs and people engage in these cultural activities without cultural awareness, we can also say that this is not protection; but when people stick to and engage in these cultural activities out of their cherishing and loving their ancestral culture, it should be an act of protection.
In fact, when it comes to the inheritance activities of traditional cultural projects in modern society, it is difficult to clearly distinguish which inheritance behaviors are conscious inheritance and which are unconscious inheritance.
Given that general traditional cultural projects were produced and flourished in traditional society and most of them are not very suitable for modern life, the author prefers to believe that at least those inheritance activities that we identify as excellent traditional cultural projects should be protective behaviors.
As for the inheritance activities that have been identified as representative inheritors of intangible cultural heritage projects, they are more conscious inheritance and naturally cannot be excluded from intangible cultural heritage protection.
The living nature of intangible cultural heritage determines that intangible cultural heritage protection must be a long-term and continuous matter in people's daily lives, rather than a commendation or show outside community life.
In this way, the main task of intangible cultural heritage protection should naturally be the responsibility of cultural heritage holders, not people from outside the community.
That is to say, the inheritance and protection of intangible cultural heritage are integrated and inseparable.
Fundamentally speaking, intangible cultural heritage is the lifestyle and historical and cultural tradition of the people in the community where they are located.
It enables the people to enhance their cultural awareness and consciously and proactively take measures to pass on the intangible cultural heritage.
This is the most important and arduous task of intangible cultural heritage protection.
The main body of inheritance and protection of intangible cultural heritage should not be completely separated.
The holders and inheritors of cultural heritage are of course the main force of protection.
This is in line with logic and theory.
To say this is not to underestimate the important role of the government in the protection of intangible cultural heritage or reduce the government's protection responsibility.
The government is the initiator, organizer, manager, supporter and promoter of intangible cultural heritage protection.
These roles are the key to the development and sustainability of intangible cultural heritage protection.
Their importance is obvious.
Moreover, the government must also promote and organize the public to assume the responsibility of protecting the main body.
This task is more arduous and more important than that of government departments directly engaged in protection work.
Let's give a further explanation through a case.
Jiangdu Village, Changtai County, Fujian Province every year from the seventh to ninth day of the ninth month of the summer calendar, the Lian family competes with pigs to sacrifice to their ancestors and the "three princes".
The three princes sacrificed were three loyal and patriotic heroes of the Southern Song Dynasty: Wen Tianxiang, Zhang Shijie, and Lu Xiufu.
The ceremony took place in Sanzhong Temple and the small square in front of the temple.
The festival time was originally in June of the summer calendar, but was changed to September in 1989 to avoid the hot weather.
This activity began in the Ming Dynasty and was suspended in the 1950s.
In 1982,"Pairing Big Pigs" was resumed, and in 1989,"Pairing Big Pigs" was resumed.
Originally, pigs were the main sacrifice in the sacrificial ceremony.
Villagers made a big fuss about this sacrifice.
Competition for big pigs became the most distinctive activity of the festival.
Jiangdu Village has a population of more than 5100 people, most of whom are descendants of the Lian family.
The area is rich in granite, and the stone mining and processing industry in the village is well developed.
There are more than 150 stone processing companies, which bring considerable income to the villagers.
In 2006, the village's annual output value reached 780 million yuan, and the per capita income was more than 20,000 yuan.
There are more than 100 shops in the village, high-rise buildings can be seen everywhere, dotted with supermarkets, banks, entertainment venues, etc., making it a small town with good economic development.
In October 2012, the village still held the festival as usual.
Different from previous years, during this festival, the village will be visited and inspected by a higher-end academic conference representative.
Here, we look at the protection subject of this cultural activity by analyzing the relationship between local people, government and scholars during this festival and inspection activities.
The academic conference attended by the representatives who came to inspect was the "Cross-Strait Cultural Heritage Academic Seminar".
The organizers were the Ethnic Cultural Heritage Professional Committee of the China Society of Anthropology and Ethnology and Xiamen Institute of Technology.
Representatives at the conference included universities and scientific research institutions from both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
Scholars, inheritors of certain intangible cultural heritage projects in Fujian Province, as well as leaders of the China Society of Anthropology and Ethnology and the Xiamen City Federation of Social Sciences.
It is worth noting that the two leaders of the China Society of Anthropology and Ethnology also have higher administrative cadre levels: one executive vice president of the society is the former deputy director of the National Ethnic Affairs Commission and currently the deputy director of the Religious Affairs Committee of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.
He is a deputy ministerial cadre who has retired to the second line; the secretary-general of the society is currently the deputy director of the Research Office of the National Ethnic Affairs Commission and is a department-level cadre.
According to established practice, participation of higher-level officials can improve the "level" of news reporting and other aspects of meetings; inspections with such officials will also receive attention from local government departments and receive higher-standard reception.
However, at this meeting, these two higher-level official representatives appeared as leaders of the research society and representatives of the meeting.
Except for sitting on the rostrum at the opening ceremony of the conference, they appeared as ordinary representatives on all other occasions.
The meeting arranged an inspection of Jiangdu Village.
If reception is arranged through the channels of the county government, it is likely to affect the natural conduct of the sacrificial ceremony and cause great interference with the authenticity of the folk activity performance.
The initiator and main organizer of the meeting was Professor Liu from Xiamen University of Technology.
She had taken students to the village for field surveys in the past.
This time, she directly contacted the Jiangdu Village Committee and only said that the conference representatives would go for an inspection.
She specifically instructed them not to receive special treatment and discussed the general arrangements for reception and inspection.
On this day, when more than 40 conference representatives arrived at Jiangdu Village by car, it was already past 5 o'clock in the afternoon.
Representatives first went to the village committee.
I saw two round tables placed in the middle of the courtyard.
On each table were four steaming large basins.
Inside were fragrant local farmers 'meals, vegetables, and soups.
A circle of plastic stools was neatly placed around the courtyard.
Delegates, including two senior cadres, served their own meals and ate them either sitting or standing in the yard.
They all said that the farm food was very delicious.
After dinner, the village sent people to lead them to visit and kill pigs.
I went to the family that raised the "pig king" back then.
This year's king pig was 960 kilograms, breaking the historical record.
Competition for big pigs is a competition to select who has the biggest and fattest pig.
Families who raise the "king pig" will receive high glory.
Families in the village are divided into 24 groups, and three groups compete every year.
This way, every family will only have the opportunity to participate in the pig race once in eight years.
Starting from the evening of the seventh day of the lunar new day, families participating in the pig race killed the pigs one after another, washed them, dressed them up, wrapped the whole pig in red and decorated it on a cart, and pushed it to the front of Sanzhong Temple at around eleven o'clock in the evening to participate in the pig race sacrificial ceremony.
On that day, after visiting the slaughter of the "Pig King", the conference representatives rushed to Sanzhong Temple.
It was past seven o'clock in the evening, and there were still more than four hours before the pig race began.
Gezi opera is being performed on the stage in front of the temple.
It is the Little Baihuaxiang Opera Troupe invited by the villagers from Longhai City with donations that is performing a costume opera.
However, most of the representatives couldn't understand the play and had no other activities planned for the time being.
They could only find places around Sanzhong Temple and sit down and wait for the pig race to begin.
After eleven o'clock, families participating in the pig race successively brought in the pigs.
There were more than a hundred pigs in total and they were put on shelves in the small square in front of the temple.
The pig heads were lined up in more than ten rows in the direction of the temple.
The scene was very spectacular.
The whole village also came to watch, and the square in front of the temple was crowded with people and noisy.
At about 12 p.m., the organizers of the Big Pig Competition announced the top few big pigs participating this year on the small square stage, and invited the director of the China Society of Anthropology and Ethnology to make a brief speech on behalf of foreign scholars and officials.
The sacrificial ceremony officially began at three o'clock in the morning and ended at five o'clock.
At 12:30 p.m., the conference representatives began to gather and went back to the small courtyard of the village committee for supper.
It was already past 2 o'clock in the morning when they returned to the hotel.
Several conference representatives stayed at the sacrificial site to investigate.
According to villagers, at the end of the sacrificial ceremony, each family would cut off the pig's head and take their pigs home.
The pig brought back cannot be sold.
The local government thinks it is unlucky to sell the pig.
It should be used to invite relatives, friends and neighbors to come and eat it at home, and give them the inexhaustible pork to take away.
In the past, they gave four to five taels to relatives and friends per household, but now they give four to five kilograms.
The pork that cannot be delivered will be frozen.
The banquet should be sumptuous, and good cigarettes and good wine should be served.
The main body of inheritance and protection of the "Big Pig Race to the Three Lords" activity in Jiangdu Village is obviously the villagers surnamed Lian in the village.
The time, place and procedures of the sacrificial ceremony are completely carried out in accordance with folk customs.
The overall festival activities are organized by "Jiatou".
Jiatou is a trustworthy person elected by everyone and may not necessarily be a village cadre.
The villagers said: "Village cadres don't care about these matters."In fact, the village committee provided policy support and encouragement, and was responsible for contacting and receiving inspection activities by outside visitors.
However, it did not directly interfere in the festival activities, allowing the pig racing ceremony to be carried out completely in accordance with folk traditions.
Conference representatives are also strictly in the position of observers and researchers, and feel very fruitful from experiencing the unique folk activities of "original ecology".
What is valuable is that local cadres, foreign officials and scholars have given due respect to the folk traditions of the event.
If the village committee changes the time or method of pig racing and sacrifice for the convenience of the visitors, it will damage the authenticity of folk activities.
At present, the village's "Big Pig Sacrifice to Three Dukes" activity has not entered the intangible cultural heritage list at all levels, but the "Big Pig Praying for a Good Harvest Year" activity in Shanzhong Village, Changtai County has entered the fourth batch of intangible cultural heritage list in Fujian Province in 2012.
Because the two belong to very similar folk activities, it can be concluded that although this activity in Jiangdu Village has not entered the list, its nature and value are close to the latter, and it is also an intangible cultural heritage worth recognizing and cherishing.
When it has not entered the intangible cultural heritage list, there are few protection measures from the outside world, mainly because the people of the village are spontaneously inheriting and protecting it.
At present, its inheritance power is still very strong, and people's enthusiasm for participation is very high.
It can still be passed down well without receiving more official recognition, commendation and funding.
If it can enter a higher-level intangible cultural heritage list, it will receive more attention and support from the outside world, and local people will have higher enthusiasm for inheritance; if the protection ideas are correct, it can naturally be inherited and protected more completely as a registered intangible cultural heritage project, but if the protection ideas are incorrect, it will also suffer "protective damage."
Notes:
1)Regarding the principle of "government-led", the author has conducted a special discussion in "Mistake and Correction of the Government's Role in the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Recent Years" Cultural Heritage, No.
3, 2013).
The author advocates that the term "government-led" should be revised to "government-driven".
2)Two "protections" appear in this quotation.
The first "protection" is safeguarding in English in the Convention, and the second "protection" corresponds to ptotection.
Regarding the difference between the two English languages, there are two explanations currently seen: first, ptotection is protection in the general sense, and safeguarding contains the meaning of "rescue" and has the meaning of time and urgency; Second, the English word "protection" in the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage is Protection.
Its essential meaning focuses on the preservation and permanent survival of material forms, while safeguarding refers to all-round protection and focuses on the living maintenance and protection of intangible cultural heritage to ensure its vitality and enable it to be continued and developed in a living manner.
3)Liu Xian, a 2011 postgraduate student in folklore at Wenzhou University, conducted an 8-day field survey in JY Village in August 2012.
The information in this article about the Qiqiao Festival here is based on his survey.
References:
[1] Liu Zhaohui.
Village society and intangible cultural heritage protection--Also on the paradox between heritage subject and heritage protection subject [J].
Culture and Art Research, 20094):29-36.
[2][3][4][11] Yuan Li.
Research on the Main Body of Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection [J] Journal of Chongqing University of Arts and Sciences Social Science Edition), 20093): 2, 1-8.
[5][6][9] Zhu Bing.
Government behavior and institutional construction in the protection of intangible cultural heritage [J].
China National People's Congress website www.npc.gov.c, release date: 2007-01-11.
[7] Zhao Deli.
Leading, Principal and Subject-Role positioning in the protection of intangible cultural heritage [J].
Journal of Baoji University of Arts and Sciences, 20061):72-74.
[8] Ding Yongxiang.
On the subject responsible for the protection of intangible cultural heritage [J].
Journal of Guangxi Normal University, 20084):9-13.
[10] Bamoqubu Mo.
Intangible cultural heritage: From concept to practice [J].
National Art, 20081):6-17.
[12] Huang Tao.
Mistake and correction of the government's role in the protection of intangible cultural heritage in recent years [J].
Cultural Heritage, 20133):8-14.
(This article was published in Henan Social Sciences, No.
1, 2014, pages 109-117.
The full text of "Cultural Research", No.
5, 2014, is excerpt from pages 50-59 of Renmin University of China's newspapers and periodicals.)