[Zhu Shenghui] The connection and game of "intangible cultural heritage" discourse in the field of folk culture
pick
Summary: Since the intangible cultural heritage protection movement has been launched in China for more than ten years, a unique discourse system has been established.
The country, the market, and the academic community have produced administrative discourse, industrial discourse and knowledge discourse on intangible cultural heritage respectively.
The first is that at the national level, folk culture is incorporated into the "intangible cultural heritage protection system" with the directory as the core and cultural reconstruction during the transition period through cultural policies and administrative systems, and then integrated into the main theme of the national narrative; secondly, market operations transform heritage resources into Cultural capital, in the prosperity of cultural industries and tourism, promotes folk culture to both rejuvenate and mutate; Finally, academic elites carry out multi-disciplinary integration and classic operation through intangible cultural heritage discourse, extending academic discourse from colleges to social public fields and intervening in cultural practice.
The formation of the above-mentioned discourse types reflects the process of discourse engagement and game around "intangible cultural heritage" in the folk cultural field, and has become an excellent window for perspective on contemporary China's cultural transformation and cultural politics.
Keywords: Intangible cultural heritage; discourse; folk culture; transformation
The Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection Movement has been launched in China for more than ten years, bringing unprecedented changes to the folk cultural field.
The originally marginal folk culture has attracted widespread attention and become popular for a time.
In this craze of "intangible cultural heritage", many forces are involved and various discourse is noisy.
The folk cultural field has become an excellent window to see through contemporary China's cultural transformation and cultural politics.
Only his words can best illustrate the intertwined process of power, ideology, capital and knowledge production behind the upgrade of "folk culture" to "intangible cultural heritage".
This paper intends to start from a discourse perspective and examine the administrative discourse, industrial discourse, and knowledge discourse of intangible cultural heritage at three levels: national, market, and academic.
The first is how to incorporate folk culture into the "intangible cultural heritage protection system" with the directory as the core and cultural reconstruction during the transition period through cultural policies and administrative systems at the national level, and then integrate into the main theme of the national narrative; the second is how market operations transform heritage resources into cultural capital, and in the prosperity of cultural industries and tourism, folk culture is both revitalized and mutated; Finally, it is how academic elites can carry out multi-disciplinary integration and classic operation through intangible cultural heritage discourse, and extend academic discourse from colleges to the social public sphere and intervene in cultural practice.
By analyzing the discourse connection and game around "intangible cultural heritage" in the field of folk culture, it aims to promote the reflection of the "intangible cultural heritage" movement and the healthy development of folk culture.
1.
Administrative discourse of intangible cultural heritage
1.
National narrative and cultural policies in the perspective of cultural reconstruction
The protection of intangible cultural heritage in China should be understood in the context of cultural reconstruction, which needs to be understood in conjunction with the modern transformation of China society in today's world.
From the national level, since the 16th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, a series of strategies such as "cultural system reform","cultural soft power" and "cultural power" have been proposed, indicating that the ruling party has an increasingly clear understanding of the importance of cultural construction.
and increasingly clear propositions.
At the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the timely proposal of the great goal of "China Dream" clarified the tone and path of cultural construction.
Therefore, how to restate and structure "China" identity has become a cultural and political issue that has attracted much attention.
The timely entry of intangible cultural heritage has created an opportunity for us to develop a conceptual system, discourse system and knowledge system to re-understand traditions and use them to describe and construct the identity and universal values of Chinese civilization.
On the issue of how to rebuild cultural continuity, some scholars have shown a tendency to grand historical narratives.
For example, Xiao Fang pointed out that "the evaluation and understanding of the rescue and protection of intangible cultural heritage should be examined from the perspective of the historical process and philosophical culture of China culture over the past century"; for example, Ma Guoqing sorted out the development of folk culture in China society in the past century.
It was deconstructed and rebuilt by revolution and national discourse, and then formed a new cultural tradition in the socialist context, and entered the entire process of the national discourse system as "intangible cultural heritage".
It can be said that this narrative represents a tendency among scholars to integrate the expression of "intangible cultural heritage" into the narrative and ideological construction of the country's main theme, and use the country's strong discourse power to provide legal protection for the legalization of "intangible cultural heritage".
This is also the national situation where "intangible cultural heritage" can rapidly develop into a movement with widespread participation across the country in China.
The introduction of foreign intangible cultural heritage discourse has had a great impact on China society: in terms of cultural concepts, the shift from focusing on elite culture to absorbing folk culture; in terms of cultural policies, the ideological color has been gradually diluted and the shift from cultural revolution policies to cultural protection policies; In terms of cultural development strategy, a three-dimensional pattern covering multiple levels of culture at the upper, middle and lower levels is formed.
Specifically, cultural policies related to intangible cultural heritage mainly include two aspects:
On the one hand, it is cultural undertakings and cultural industry policies involving cultural heritage protection.
Since the 16th National Congress of the Communist Party of China proposed dividing cultural construction into two major parts: cultural undertakings and cultural industries, relevant discussions have been made in major national strategic plans and government work reports over the years.
The status of cultural construction, with the development of public welfare cultural undertakings and commercial cultural industries as the main body, has shown a significant upward trend in the overall strategic structure of the country, and the social benefits of cultural undertakings take precedence over the economic benefits of cultural industries.
Among them, the content of the cultural heritage part is classified into the cultural undertakings part and intersects with the cultural industry, and its proportion in the national cultural policy is also increasing day by day.
On the other hand, there are macro policies in which intangible cultural heritage intervenes and are related to national transformation and changes.
For example, the "Western Development" strategy, which takes into account the overall development of the eastern and western regions, the "New Socialist Rural Construction" and the "Urbanization" strategy, which coordinate urban and rural economic and social development, are all related to the vital interests and development prospects of folk culture.
Therefore, they have also attracted the attention of many cultural scholars, especially folk scholars, who have a different focus on economic politics than scholars in other fields.
Consider more forward-looking the fate of weak folk culture and ethnic minority culture in the wave of globalization and modernization.
Therefore, the protection of intangible cultural heritage will be directly affected by national cultural policies and cultural heritage administration at the practical level.
The localization process will also inevitably involve all aspects of social reality, which will further test the government's ability to integrate with the international community and promote it to grassroots society.
Decision-making and execution capabilities.
(2) The list mechanism and inheritance path in the construction of the intangible cultural heritage protection system
Based on previous successful experience in the field of material cultural heritage and cultural relics protection, my government responded immediately in the international "intangible cultural heritage" protection action, attaching great importance to it from top to bottom, and extensively mobilizing it through organizational structures, laws and regulations, and protection systems.
With the improvement of other aspects, we have gradually explored and established a set of "intangible cultural heritage protection system" that conforms to China's national conditions.
The heritage list system at the core of this system is particularly worthy of attention, especially the accompanying "heritage" issue cannot be ignored.
The directory system means that it uses "selectivity" as a structural element and based on the "value judgment" of cultural heritage held by different social groups to artificially divide complete cultural events in life and complete the identification of heritage and non-heritage.
When folk cultural events enter the institutionalized "intangible cultural heritage" application and national approval process as "projects", in fact, they need to complete several key aspects such as scope of meaning (naming), relationship model, expression framework, subject rights and interests, subject scope, etc.
Only then can they be finally transformed into heritage.
The heritage of small local communities has been upgraded to the heritage of the country and the large community of mankind.
It has gone through a complex process in which the particularity of value has been generalized into universality, the diversity of values has been graded into representativeness, and the freedom of values has been replaced by the legitimacy of the state.
Sex, differences in values have evolved into exclusiveness of rights and interests, and negotiation of identity of values has become integration of ethnic groups.
Different entities have different understandings of the value of heritage, which brings about many contradictions in the application of the list.
The first is the contradiction between the "internal values" upheld by cultural holders as insiders and the "external values" added by outsiders and recognized by society.
Although according to the concept of the Convention, the main body of intangible cultural heritage is the general public as creators and inheritors, in the actual operation process, what we often see in the "protection unit" column on the heritage declaration is a government unit, scientific research institution, school or enterprise as the main body of administration.
As for whether it can become a heritage and what kind of value it has, it is up to outsiders such as the government and scholars to decide.
In order to upgrade it to a higher-level heritage, the culture of the regional society must be packaged to comply with externally formulated standards.
Secondly, there is the paradox between contemporary and historical heritage value.
On the one hand, folk cultural events require legitimacy given by "heritage knowledge and practice derived from modern society"; on the other hand, the practice of heritage protection points to the "continuation of vitality" of traditional cultural expressions.
The result of this paradox is that in the current intangible cultural heritage review, there is an inappropriate practice of replacing traditional standards with contemporary standards.
Finally, there is the tension between the holistic appearance of cultural heritage and the dual distinction of value.
Today, the biggest trouble encountered in the recommendation and selection process of the list of representative works of "intangible cultural heritage" is still the field related to folk beliefs.
The ideological color given to heritage makes the value judgment surrounding heritage be measured within a superstitious framework, and the judgment is made according to the policy of "taking the essence and removing the dross." Living folk culture itself is a holistic existence.
If we follow the dichotomy of "essence" and "dross" of the old heritage concept, it will inevitably destroy the original appearance of intangible cultural heritage.
The above-mentioned contradictions surrounding the value assessment of the heritage list lie fundamentally in the value attributes of the heritage, its ownership and voice.
This requires us to move from discourse to non-discourse level, that is, from knowledge to the core of power operation.
This set of modern knowledge about heritage carried by the United Nations Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention is also a power framework, a global "game".
Once an object requests to enter this game, it must accept this set of knowledge and power.
Discipline.
As a result, the "value serialization" of the directory between different cultures is caused, which deviates from the concept of cultural diversity in actual implementation, forming "cultural unification"; the "territorialist provisions" of the directory trigger cross-border cultural spread.
Friction and disputes between neighboring nation-states.
Within the same culture, the state can achieve control over the ideology of the people through institutional "registration" and organizational "ordering"; the intangible cultural heritage standards created by the directory allow people to compete among different ethnic groups, or within a certain ethnic group.
The rights of subject, expression and benefit sharing of cultural events are engaged in rights games to promote the formation of a new relationship system.
2.
Discourse on the Intangible Cultural Heritage Industry
1.
Capitalization and productive protection of heritage in the context of cultural industries
The two major ideological trends of "intangible cultural heritage" and "cultural industry" arrived in China almost simultaneously at the beginning of this century.
The former found an entry point for the recovery of China's traditional culture since the mid-1990s, and the latter found an opportunity for China to call for strong economic transformation.
In China, the concept of "cultural industry" was officially proposed in the proposal of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the "Tenth Five-Year Plan" in 2001, marking the first time that the development of cultural industries has been included in my country's national economic and social development plan.
Internationally, the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions adopted by UNESCO in 2005 reflects the strategic significance of culture in the economic field from the perspective of international law.
Against the favorable domestic and international background, the cultural industry has made great progress all the way, colliding with the vigorous intangible cultural heritage movement and sparks.
Intangible cultural heritage, which has resource value, immediately became the target of the cultural industry.
Through industrial development and relying on market methods, heritage resources have been capitalized and transformed, and the appreciation of their own value and the expansion of their role space have been realized.
The concept of "cultural capital" was proposed by the famous French sociologist Bourdieu, who expanded the concept of capital and economic interests from the material field to the fields of symbols, culture and various non-material activities.
Due to the value-added effect of cultural capital, local governments are keen on industrial development of intangible cultural heritage driven by both political achievements and economic interests.
On the one hand, folk culture that has entered the intangible cultural heritage list is well-known and more likely to bring economic benefits, and often becomes the object of industrial development; on the other hand, folk culture developed through tourism or cultural industries is considered to have more protective value and often becomes an intangible cultural heritage project actively declared by local governments.
However, those folk cultures that cannot be included in the directory or cannot bring benefits are ignored and rely on their own vitality to continue or die out.
There have always been two routes: conservative and radical.
In practice, the conservative route faces the disadvantages of excessive investment and static protection; the radical route has the problem of too prominent the economic value of heritage and deviating from the purpose of the United Nations heritage protection.
Against this background, a new route to compromise the two-productive protection emerged.
Once the concept of "productive protection" was proposed, it opened up a gap in the "industrial development" of intangible cultural heritage and caused controversy.
Most scholars approve of the development of the cultural industry, but are only concerned about the excessive industrialization and development caused by its involvement in the intangible cultural heritage field.
Through an analysis of "cultural industry" and "cultural industrialization", Feng Jicai pointed out the harm caused by commercial profit-seeking behavior to culture.
For example, items in cultural heritage that cannot enter the market are put aside, such as ethnic languages in ancient villages.
and folk literature (folk epics, legends, stories, ballads, etc.) is the fastest disappearing intangible cultural heritage.
Therefore, the productive protection of intangible cultural heritage is different from industrial production on the assembly line.
It also inherits and protects the spiritual culture contained in the heritage.
What it must adhere to is precisely the core and essential skills and values of intangible cultural heritage.
Specific to the practice of productive protection, some scholars actively explore the ideal path for the resource transformation of a large number of intangible cultural heritage in rural areas, and propose the "craft countryside" paradigm of original ecology, settlement inheritance and development and the "design industry" paradigm that condenses traditional cultural elements and spirit.
Combination of "industry" paradigm.
In cities, the productive protection of intangible cultural heritage takes on a different attitude and trend from that in rural areas.
Some scholars have examined the positive interaction between cultural heritage protection and the economic development of cultural industries from the perspective of "entrepreneurship", and from the entrepreneurial behavior of intangible cultural heritage inheritors themselves and among the entrepreneurial groups of young people and college students who rely on inheritors to practice intangible cultural heritage entrepreneurship, they have discovered how the inheritors 'knowledge, skills, technology and other "physical capital" is transformed into "symbolic capital" through modern media and creative industries.
In short, for the issues of productive protection and industrial development, the starting point and destination should be based on the community as the main body and sustainable livelihoods as the purpose.
(2) Local heritage tourism and cultural performances
Heritage tourism is popular nowadays, which not only satisfies modern people's nostalgia and consumption of tradition, but also satisfies tourists 'interest and experience of "others" and "foreign cultures".
For the protection of intangible cultural heritage, heritage tourism provides a perspective and practice from the cultural industry.
It is also helpful for exploring the inheritance of folk literature heritage and folk heritage in addition to the productive protection of craft folk arts and crafts.
Heritage tourism is a continuation of the heritage process after the list application.
It allows the culture rooted in the regional society to be further re-encoded through "de-contextualization" and "re-contextualization".
We can also regard it as a kind of "cultural performance".
At present, the more common types of performance are folk literature heritage based on individual narratives and folk heritage featuring public performances.
Therefore, performance theory helps us interpret the full complexity of negotiations and games triggered by heritage in local societies.
What cannot be mentioned here is the accompanying phenomenon of so-called "folklore" closely related to heritage tourism.
Some scholars believe that it represents "folk customs that have been extracted from the context and are transformed or even invented for specific purposes." This concept, which has long been outdated in the world of folklore, has become a hot academic topic in China and a medium for the transformation of contemporary China folklore with the rise of heritage craze.
For heritage tourism, we may wish to regard it as a folklore phenomenon and process, interpret it from the perspective of performance theory, and bring the multiple related subjects into the inspection field.
Here, some ethnographic cases are taken as examples to illustrate its dynamic complexity and thinking about the inheritance and innovation of "intangible cultural heritage".
First, against the background of changes in traditional views in academia, heritage tourism provides a new understanding of "folk customs in context." Scholar Yang Lihui focuses on the guide's lyrics and the tour guide's narrative performance.
Through the integrated application and retelling of the myth of Nuwa in the Wa Palace Scenic Area in She County, Hebei Province, he vividly demonstrates the mythism in the context of heritage tourism, showing four major changes: the organic integration of oral tradition and written tradition, the narrative performance is centered on situation and tourists, the myth is more systematic, and the localization of myth is more prominent.
Furthermore, how to construct continuity between the conspicuous and public performances in cultural performance events and the spontaneous, unplanned and optional performances in daily life contexts is a folkloristic phenomenon that we need to pay attention to as a whole.
Secondly, the heritage declared in the list comes from the local area and returns to the local area to promote the development of local economy and culture.
Therefore, heritage tourism provides an investigation of power relations based on the local society, which not only implicitly or explicitly reflects the presence of the state, but also displays the multi-part narrative of the local subject, highlighting the multi-level of nationality, locality and identity.
During the process of tourismizing the heritage of the Dai New Year Festival in Jinghong City, Xishuangbanna, Yunnan Province, scholar Li Jing focused on how the local government not only continued the national ceremonial function of the Dai New Year Festival, but also constructed a localized narrative that reintegrates with the tourism economy and local development as the fulcrum.
From the internal perspective of cultural change, this case demonstrates the multi-level discourse and power flow and power flow actively shaped by multicultural subjects at different levels such as the Dai and Han ethnic groups, the cross-border Mekong geo-cultural circle, and the religious cultural circle through local festival spaces.
The dynamic process of operation.
Third, the traditional life and pursuit of modernization of local people, the protection and development of intangible culture, the identification and consumption of culture, and the characteristics of tourism double-edged sword are all testing the way to break the situation of heritage tourism.
This requires us to first In terms of understanding, complete the conceptual transformation from "cultural commercialization" to "tourism culturalization".
Scholar Zhang Qiaoyun conducted a field survey of disaster tourism and heritage tourism in Abazhai of the Qiang people in Sichuan after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake.
He found that the transplantation that was out of touch with local people's lives and the "duplicity" reconstruction made the village an official display and an "imaginary Qiang" scenic spot for tourists to consume.
At the same time, the conflict and controversy over whether the "sacred elements" and "performance elements" in the Qiang Shibi culture can be displayed separately also forces the author to think about a way to develop heritage tourism and folk traditions.
The above-mentioned ethnographic cases provide contemporary scholars with valuable thinking and practice on heritage tourism.
The fly in the ointment is that they do not pay enough attention to the discourse and practice of local people.
In heritage tourism, faced with the strong intervention of external capital and power, local people often have no dominant power or say in their own culture, and the game launched by various forces around interests has also brought many new contradictions to local society.
For example, the material level shows the contradiction caused by "public" and "private" heritage resources; the social network level shows the contradiction between "acquaintance society" and "stranger society" under power; the spiritual level shows the contradiction between "subject" and "object".
These all require our attention in the research of heritage tourism.
After all, people's psychological feelings, verbal expressions and behavioral styles in social changes are the most worthy of concern.
3.
Knowledge discourse on intangible cultural heritage
(1) The path of canonization of modern knowledge-based and intangible cultural heritage
The generation of the discourse system of "intangible cultural heritage" is a process of transformation from "living world" to "modern knowledge-based".
Intangible cultural heritage is undergoing a transformation from the unitary expression of cultural holders to the diverse expressions of cultural others, and from traditional expressions to modern expressions.
With the help of scholars, it is seeking a "classic" path of protection, inheritance, and innovation.
"Knowledge type" is a concept put forward by the French philosopher Foucault.
It expresses the rules and relevance of knowledge production from the perspective of discourse practice.
According to the modern disciplinary paradigm, the research objects stipulated by intangible cultural heritage must be rationally described and organized, and must pass the test of antecedent theories in the "conventional paradigm" before entering the knowledge field.
As a result, the life world experienced by the body and the world explained by theory are knowledge-based incompatibilities.
Therefore, the knowledge production of intangible cultural heritage must complete the process of "transforming traditional expressions into modern expressions." However, the conversion process inevitably has numerous contradictions and difficulties.
First, traditional expressions are no longer effective when encountering changing spatio-temporal contexts and modern lifestyles; second, the limitations of scholars as "cultural others" in recording and interpreting intangible cultural heritage also constitute a crisis of expression; Third, the intervention of foreign entities has brought about the interference of multiple expressions on traditional single expressions; Fourth, emerging media and high-tech and other modern expression methods have refreshed and surpassed the limitations of traditional expressions, but there are also problems such as insufficient depth.
The issue of "canonization" of intangible cultural heritage was raised against the background of the transformation from traditional expressions to modern expressions.
It reflects the joint efforts of official authority and the elite to re-establish and standardize the country through the assessment of the value level of folk culture.
The process of cultural order.
"Classicization" refers to the formation process of classics, including key links such as "who identifies classics, what is recognized as classics, and what standards are used to identify classics".
First of all, intangible cultural heritage itself is a product of "value reassessment".
After the rapid transformation of society brought about the rupture of traditional world outlook and values, UNESCO's new concepts and new discourse on intangible cultural heritage entered China, screening and enhancing the value of the rich and marginal folk culture in the original living world.
Only when local values rise to universal values shared by all mankind can they become "intangible cultural heritage." The value judgment of "intangible cultural heritage" includes multiple indicators such as qualitative evaluation, quantitative evaluation, and level evaluation [30]36-47.
As a result, between the "meta value" of folk culture itself and the artificial value of "intangible cultural heritage", there has been a classic process of modern knowledge-based analysis.
Secondly, the formation of intangible cultural heritage classics is inseparable from the operation of ideology and cultural power.
The process of canonization is also a process of grading and standardization.
The state provides legal protection through the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Law of the People's Republic of China"; provides institutional protection through the construction of the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection System"; protects the legal status of folklore, intangible cultural heritage and other disciplines in the national education and scientific research system through subject organization; conducts positive publicity and reporting on intangible cultural heritage through the media to create public opinion and expand influence; Through external exchanges and cultural performances, intangible cultural heritage can "go global" and represent the cultural image of China internationally.
These peripheral forces have opened up a smooth channel for the canonization of intangible cultural heritage.
Among them, the application and selection process of the "directory system" and "representative inheritors" are the only way to be classicized.
Finally, the process of canonization of intangible cultural heritage must include its reverse "de-canonization", or it can also be called "popularization" and "secularization".
There are a large number of "non-classics" in addition to "classics", which are the soil that nourishes "classics".
They together constitute the whole of folk culture that has never been distinguished by value.
In fact,"canonization" reflects an elite thinking.
Classics of elite culture have their own authors and are personalized works; while the creators and inheritors of intangible cultural heritage classics come from ordinary people."Even if they are canonized, they are still passed down and accepted in people's lives." The famous "Homer Problem" in the field of epic poetry (the issue of authorship of Homer's epics) provides a case of how to view the canonization of intangible cultural heritage that is different from elite culture.
In contemporary society where popular culture is prevalent, science and technology are developing, and media are changing, the inheritance context of intangible cultural heritage is also constantly changing, and its canonization is also facing more challenges.
Some folklore scholars who pay attention to consumer culture, urban culture, and youth subculture are trying to discover how "intangible cultural heritage" classics strengthen themselves with the help of the market behavior of mass culture in new media forms such as cartoons, film and television dramas, video games, and online jokes.
Carnival vitality and obtain strategies and ways to recreate traditional traditions.
At the same time, we should not forget that, similar to the classics of elite culture, the classics of intangible cultural heritage are also a never-ending process of re-interpretation, re-interpretation, and re-construction.
(2) Discipline integration and practice return from a reflective perspective
The introduction of "intangible cultural heritage" as an integrated concept has proved to be a way to bring forth the new and form a new field of social practice and academic activity.
On the one hand, the opportunities brought by intangible cultural heritage have enabled traditional humanities and social disciplines such as folklore to move from the edge to the center, from desk research to field surveys, responding to the needs of real life and enhancing the development of applied research.
However, it inevitably faces the problems of academic reflection and subject positioning under the new situation in order to cope with new crises and challenges.
On the other hand, relying on the complete structure of the international heritage system and echoing the development of domestic cultural heritage protection work, some universities and scientific research institutions have successively put the discipline construction of "heritage science" on the agenda.
Discipline integration around "intangible cultural heritage" is not only a game process that seeks the right to speak in disciplines, but also a process in which knowledge production is involved in social practice.
In this massive "intangible cultural heritage" movement, the destiny of folk culture "as a movement and as an academic" is closely intertwined.
Some scholars cannot help but worry about the positioning of academia and current politics and the feasibility of "public folklore" in China, which also encourages the discipline to rethink the issue of knowledge practice from a reflective perspective.
Many scholars took advantage of this excellent situation to introduce the subject concept of "public folklore" prevalent in the United States to China, hoping to use it as a reference for the development of folklore in China.
However, China's "public folklore" inevitably encounters embarrassment in the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection.
For example, there are contradictions between job classification and academic classification in species, as well as contradictions between the national policy evaluation system for intangible cultural heritage protection and the academic evaluation system for folklore in terms of value judgment.
There are also scholars who are worried that the intangible cultural heritage protection craze as a "movement" will soon pass, but then where will folklore go? In this regard, scholar Zhou Xing believes that at present, academia in China is not independent and can easily be coerced by politics.
Therefore,"public folklore" is not suitable for establishing a separate portal.
Instead, it can be better on the extension of the professionalism of folklore.
In this case, it is necessary to explore the practical character of folklore itself and call for "the return of practice of folklore in the intangible cultural heritage era."
However, this return to practice must first be based on the reflective perspective of the discipline before it can be constructive.
Bourdieu believes that a holistic science of all human practices-including knowledge practices-can only be obtained through a reflective return to scientific practice itself.
The only way to transform the practice of knowledge from professional ideology into science is to reflect on the very nature of our efforts to objectify the social world.
The practice of folklore in the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Era" includes not only the life practice of people, but also the knowledge practice of scholars.
The above-mentioned practice of China's "public folklore", scholars 'clear sense of discipline ontology in the face of the threat of the intangible cultural heritage movement, and scholars' reflection on the connection and game between themselves and all parties in the field of folk culture, including the newly adopted "Ethical Principles for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" by UNESCO, all belong to scholars 'consciousness of knowledge practice.
In view of the current "absence" and "aphasia" phenomena of cultural subjects and inheritors in grassroots communities in the application and protection of intangible cultural heritage, it is more important to pay attention to people's life practices.
In this process, it is indispensable for scholars to intervene in their vision and knowledge practice as others, and consciously shoulder the responsibility of "presenting people's lives and expressing the voices of ordinary people, and discovering the main will and practical wisdom of the people and ordinary people.
obligation".
Conclusion
Through the analysis of intangible cultural heritage administrative discourse, industrial discourse, and knowledge discourse, we can see how the forces of the country, the market, and academic circles proceed from their respective interests and each takes what they need in the process of intervening in the folk cultural field.
Start the connection and game of discourse.
Therefore, it is necessary for us to reflect on the problems and shortcomings of heritage, capitalization, and canonization in the "intangible cultural heritage" movement from the perspective of folk culture, give the public subject sufficient right to speak, and promote the diversification and democratization of heritage discourse practice.
The realization of transformation.
(Please refer to the original text for annotations and references) This article was originally published: "Central Plains Culture Research", No.
3, 2017