[Bamoqubumo] Folklore Ethics and Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection

Speaking of ethical issues in folklore, the first thing I thought of was attending the course training of the 5th Folk Scholars Summer School in Turku, Finland in August 1999.

The fourth workshop was dedicated to "Folkloristic Research Ethics".

Indian scholar Sadhana Naithani summarized the discussions in the workshop into a very intuitive relationship diagram, which I later used in teaching graduate field surveys.

ethical issue diagram

Naisani believes that the circle is used as a picture because ethical issues are often cyclical.

In other words, ethical issues run through the process of folklore activities, and there is no need to set a clear beginning or end.

Inside this circle there is a crossed cross, with both ends of its vertical axis connecting folk fields) and folk scholars and researchers), and both ends of its horizontal axis connecting narrators (field objects) and publishing knowledge products).

The reason why folklore scholars are placed at the bottom is because the ethical relationship of the entire circular expression is formed precisely because of the emergence of folklore scholars.

There are three circles around the word "ethics": the innermost inner circle represents the core of the discussion, which is "ethics", the second circle classifies all issues into one in four arcs, and the third circle shows various issues.

Various issues are also the types of issues that the workshop has been discussing.

The discussion follows this relationship diagram, and the order is counterclockwise, that is, from folklore scholar to narrator to folklore to publishing, and finally back to folklore scholar.

The first arc focuses on two types of issues, one is the balance of objects, and the other is interpersonal relationships.

The so-called balance of objects refers to how folklorists and narrators discover themselves in the balance of power.

This relationship may be formed between rural and urban areas, or in a cross-cultural context, or even between any other balance of power.

Another type of problem is interpersonal relationships, which refers to the process and relationship that stems from this balance of power between folklore scholars and narrators.

The second arc deals with the ethical issues of rights and ownership.

One of them involves individual ownership of tradition, or ownership based on interpretation of tradition.

For example, will a narrative that a narrator has completed become his or her personal narrative? Does he or she have further personal rights to his narrative? Or is this right community-related? With this thorny issue in mind, let's turn to the third arc, which describes the relationship between folk customs and their publications.

First, the transformation of oral nature into written words, or thus into any other form, involving basic issues including transcription and translation; second, the process of selection, which generally uses the word "documentation", may sound neutral but in fact represents a seemingly reasonable choice: choosing from a large collection of materials what can be documented and further choosing what can be published; third, the issue of archiving, which involves more complex ethical dilemmas.

When it comes to publication, the fourth arc between publications and folklore scholars raises at least two ethical questions.

One is the issue of copyright, and the other is the issue of gains and losses.

This is not only the gain of material benefits, but also the issue of spiritual intangible gains and losses.

Naishani pointed out that these problem classifications are based on different associations, and their combinations may come from different situations and may not always have the same associations with each other.

The circle in the middle also shows that as long as there is a collection of folk customs, all these types of issues will merge, so the ethical issues encountered during the research process will continue to grow.

[1]

As one of the discussants of the workshop, American scholar Karen Miller summarized the following list of key issues after reviewing a large number of cases, echoing and complementing Naishani's diagram.

1)Research Purpose: Define the purpose and goals of the research.

2)Impact statement: Should all scholars write detailed explanations of the reasons for their research? 3)Responsibility: Are we responsible for both archival materials or investigation objects? And does this have to be a necessary dichotomy? What are the responsibilities of scholars towards funding institutions that support research? 4)Survey objects: Protect information providers, but also protect the interests of collective communities other than individuals.

5)Informed consent: In all cases, should informed consent be obtained from every respondent before initiating a study? Should we allow respondents to view and edit all transcribed survey data)? 6)Right of access: Is the primary relationship in fieldwork established with institutions or individuals? What is the impact of a community adopting some kind of alliance as a result of such a choice? Access to the use of archives for commercial interests and the subsequent risk of abuse or deprivation of these materials.

Access to archives in the Internet technology environment.

Local people's access to and recovery of finished data originating from themselves.

7)Reciprocity: In what ways can researchers give back to the communities, individuals or families they work with? 8)Ownership of materials: This includes ownership of individuals or communities, intellectual property issues protected by copyright, and how we conceptualize or question the ownership of cultural information.

[2]

As early as 1988, the American Folklore Society published "AFS Ethical Statement: Principles of Professional Responsibility"[3].

Ten years later, the Nordic folklore community also launched a debate on whether a folkloristic code of ethics was needed, and this workshop at the Finnish Summer School in 1999 was a continuation of this debate.

[4]In 2010, the Secretariat of the China Folk Society also made a motion on whether to formulate an "ethical code" that the academic community would abide by, but it ultimately failed.

[5]In fact, around 2004, the thinking on academic ethics in China's folklore circles gradually deepened in the debate on "fields and texts," and the field of "hometown folklore" proposed by An Deming has also triggered many scholars 'self-reflection on field ethics.

With the development of intangible cultural heritage protection, the role, position and role of folklore scholars in it, as well as specific technical routes and on-the-spot research strategies, are often entangled with disputes over ethical issues, but relevant discussions are not sufficient, and speculative articles are rare.

[6]Even today, Naisani's "Ethical Relationship Map" and Miller's "List of Ethical Issues" still have instrumental and directional significance for us to think about ethical issues in folklore.

It is true that we can continue to move in this direction, and even add a fourth or fifth circle to divide increasingly prominent ethical concerns, including the many issues that trouble us, into more specific and more detailed connections, in response to today's academic development trends and discipline construction orientations.

The third issue of "Research on Ethnic Literature" in 2016 published for the first time the "Ethical Principles for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" officially adopted by the 10th Ordinary Session of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as the "Principles ").

The promulgation of these twelve principles can be traced back to at least the "Recommendation for the Protection of Traditional Culture and Folklore" adopted in 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Recommendation ") at the UNESCO level.

It is clearly stated in the chapter" Communication of Folk Customs "that" Encourage the international scientific community to adopt a set of ethical guidelines to ensure that traditional culture is treated in an appropriate manner and respected." [7]This "Recommendation" is the precursor to the final launch of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention ").

Nine years since the Convention came into force, countries have also encountered various ethical challenges in their protection practices.

The Principles are put forward in the context of the debate on addressing challenges.

On the one hand, there are increasing concerns surrounding the increasing threats to intangible cultural heritage-including commercialization, commercialization and de-contextualization-and on the other hand, they reflect the general demand of States parties in urgent need of ethical methods and guidelines in the implementation process.

Experts who participated in the development of the Principles came from different disciplines and unanimously reiterated that ethical concerns should not be directed at the essence of living heritage itself, but should focus on conservation efforts.

They believe that the development, promotion and implementation of ethical principles for the protection of intangible cultural heritage can help achieve increased sensitivity in terms of cultural norms, integrity, transparency and proper conduct, and prevent any form of disrespect and ethical, legal or commercial improper use of intangible cultural heritage.

Therefore, the promulgation of the Principles will greatly strengthen the efforts of relevant communities, groups and individuals to protect intangible cultural heritage, and will also guide relevant fields such as cultural heritage, museums, anthropology, folklore, tourism, media and intellectual property rights.

Efforts to protect the common heritage of mankind and thereby promote respect for intangible cultural heritage.

In order to deepen the discussion of academic ethical issues, the editorial department of "Research on Ethnic Literature" successively issued invitations to many scholars in parallel disciplines such as folklore, folk literature, anthropology, sociology, and history to discuss in writing to facilitate strengthening Interdisciplinary dialogue.

The topic set up in this issue is "Ethics of Field Investigation".

Peng Zhaorong's "Code of Homeland Heritage", Chen Yongchao's "'harmlessness 'means morality "and Shi Aidong's" Scholars are Vulnerable Groups in the Field "all start from their respective field research experiences, explain personal ethical views, or uphold humanistic care, summarize field strategies, or reflect on field relations.

Each has deep insight, tension, and is thought-provoking.

It should be said that this set of written talks is a key to the continuous discussion in "Study of Ethnic Literature" intended to form relevance.

As the relationship map drawn by Nisani shows, ethical issues will appear in different ways at different stages of academic research, and will not end; and Miller's list of eight issues is far from exhausting the challenges we already face for today's folklore research and intangible cultural heritage protection.

What is worth looking forward to is that the "Study of Ethnic Literature" plan to continue to organize scholars to conduct discussions on a number of ethical issues, and written talks, dialogues, Simina, roundtables, special forums and other methods can also serve the purpose of strengthening dialogue, promoting academia and serving society.

The discussion direction, and the words in this period can be compiled into text and continued into a series of special manuscripts.

Therefore, this set of written talks can also be regarded as an invitation for joint discussion, and everyone is welcome to pay attention and actively participate.

Notes: [1] FFSS 99,"Workshop IV: Folkloristic Research Ethics," FFN 20, 2000 11).

[2] FFSS99, “Workshop IV: Folkloristic Research Ethics,” FFN 20, 2000 11).

[3] American Folklore Society, “AFS Statement on Ethics: Principles of Professional Responsibility,” AFS News, New Series, 19881), http://www.afsnet.org/? page=Ethics，2016-04-23.

[4] Ulrich Marzolph,“A Code of Ethics for Folklore Studies: An invitation to participate in an interdisciplinary debate,” FFN 14, 1997 11).

Lauri Honko, “Do we need a folkloristic code of ethics?”FFN 21, 20013).

In addition, Wang Jiewen conducted a relatively systematic review and analysis of relevant discussions on ethical issues in the Nordic folklore community in the book "Research on Nordic Folk Culture (1972 - 2010)"(Xueyuan Press, 2012 edition).

[5] CFS: Does or how does the China Folk Society formulate its Academic Ethics Code?

China Folklore Network, http://www.example.com tid=18266，2016-04-30。

[6]The papers worth mentioning here include: Lu Wei's "Reflecting on the Academic Ethics of Folklore and Folk Literature","Folk Culture Forum", No.

5, 2004; An Deming's "Theoretical Reflection on Folklore Research","Folk Culture Forum", No.

4, 2005; Zhu Xiuli's "Conflict in the Role of Hometown Folklore Researchers","Folk Culture Research", No.

3, 2006; Liu Tieliang,"Feeling Life's Folklore","Folklore Research", No.

2, 2011; Diao Tongju,"Academic Ethics of Folklore: Who gave us the right to spy? --- Talking from the Puzzles of Personal Field Research "," Folk Studies ", No.

6, 2013; Zhang Duo," Field Ethics of Field Emergencies-Reflection Caused by an Adventure "," Folk Culture Forum ", No.

6, 2014.

[7]In 1989, the "Recommendation on the Protection of Folk Works" was adopted at the 25th Plenary Conference of UNESCO.

Its original English title was Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore, which should be literally translated as "Recommendation on the Protection of Traditional Culture and Folklore." For relevant information, please refer to Bamoqubumo's article "Intangible Cultural Heritage: From Concept to Practice", published in Issue 1 of National Art, 2008.

This translation is a retranslation by the author.

Bamoqubumo, Researcher at the Institute of Ethnic Literature, China Academy of Social Sciences) The article was originally published in "Research on Ethnic Literature", No.

4, 2016