[Zhu Gang] Community Participation: Core Principles for Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection, Their Establishment and Practice
pick
Important: The Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage adopted by UNESCO in 2003 and the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage adopted in 2008 do not clearly define the concept of community, but only specify the relationship between intangible cultural heritage projects and their holders groups is placed at the core of conservation practice.
To understand and grasp the core principle of "community participation" for the protection of intangible cultural heritage, we should conduct an in-depth study based on the text analysis of the Convention and its "Operational Guidelines", and clarify the relevant background of the Convention's promulgation and its relationship with other UNESCO international standard instruments.
Keywords: Intangible cultural heritage; community; community participation; authenticity/authenticity; empowerment Article number: 1003-2568 (2017) 05-0042-08 China Map Classification number: K203
Document ID: A Author: Zhu Gang, PhD, Associate Researcher, Institute of Ethnic Literature, China Academy of Social Sciences, Visiting Scholar, Yanjing Society, Harvard University, USA.
Zip code: 100732
In the field of intangible cultural heritage protection, community-related concepts, such as "community participation","community informed consent","community intervention" and "community identification", are often widely disseminated without review and analysis.
Take "community participation" as an example.
Most studies do not explain it, but regard it as a path or tool to solve problems.
Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage adopted by UNESCO in 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 2003 Convention) and the "Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" adopted in 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Operational Guidelines") do not clearly define communities and community participation.
We can only understand the status and role of communities in heritage recognition, protection and management through the context of the Convention's provisions and the relevant interpretation of the Operational Guidelines.
As for what community participation means in the protection of intangible cultural heritage, we need to clarify it from the relevant conventions issued by UNESCO; we need to further understand it through text analysis and even with other international standard instruments, including declarations and recommendations."intertextuality".
It should be noted that the groups of intangible cultural heritage holders involved in the 2003 Convention are all described as "the communities, groups and individuals concerned" or "communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals".
The terms "community" or "community participation" discussed in this article include three interconnected entities: community, group and individual, and are used to refer to the holder of intangible cultural heritage or the subject of intangible cultural heritage and its inter-subjectivity.
1.
Community: Highlights of Academic History
Since Liang Qichao, community and society have generally been translated as "society" indiscriminately.
Common translations in academic circles include Wu Wenzao's "natural society" and "man-made society", Fei Xiaotong's "etiquette and customs society" and "legal society", and Lin Rongyuan's "community" and "society".
In the 1930s, American sociologist Robert E.Park visited China.
Fei Xiaotong, then a student at Yanjing University, and other students thought about it before translating community into "community." Since then, with the spread and development of social anthropology in China, the corresponding relationship between community and the word "community" has also stabilized relatively.
For example, the methodological basis of early social anthropology in China was "observing China society from the perspective of community." Mr.
Wu Wenzao believed that communities were the research unit and methodology for "people's actual lives" that could be observed.
Bronislow Malinowski is generally believed to be the pioneer of the community research method.
This method was passed down and developed by Mr.
Fei Xiaotong, and successfully transplanted it from the study of "simple societies"("Mariners in the Western Pacific") to the study of "complex societies"("Jiangcun Economy").
Although European and American academic circles later conducted in-depth reflection on this functionalist research method, the core of the debate seems to be whether the methodological issue of the overall society can be studied through community field surveys in a certain sense of time and space, that is, whether a certain community can represent the whole society, or whether a "small place" can be regarded as a microcosm of the "big society".
However, the scope of theoretical reflection on the methodological "representativeness" of small communities and communities in the 1950s and 1960s does not seem to involve the meaning and definition of the word community.
As early as 1887, Ferdinand Tonnies made a classic distinction between society and community in his book "Community and Society".
Community was defined by him as "all intimate, private and exclusive co-existence" and "a complete unity of human will in a primitive or natural state." Since then, this definition of community has become the mainstream of academic circles, and has gradually been cast into a rigid concept that is not very flexible.
After Tannes, Margaret Stacey criticized the proliferation of concepts of community or community in sociology in an article in 1969, arguing that the semantic superposition of such vague concepts was not of any benefit to our understanding of what community was.
It can be seen that during this period, scholars did not reach a basic consensus on the community.
In 1983, after the publication of Benedict Anderson's famous book "Imagined Community-The Origin and Spread of Nationalism", community in the sense of "community" once became a key word that scholars are eager to pursue.
In other words, the term community, as a strictly academic observation object, dates back to the 1960s, and for the next 30 years, the concept has maintained considerable theoretical popularity.
Anderson finally used "fraternity" to define community.
Since then, the analysis and interpretation of community or community has begun a new round of semantic superposition.
He wrote this way: "The nation is imagined as a community……a profound, equal love for comrades.
Ultimately, it is this fraternity that has driven millions of people over the past two centuries to be willing to kill or die leisurely for the nation-this limited imagination." Since then, different scholars have held their own opinions to explain or criticize the concept of community, adding a bit of chaos to its complex academic history.
In the mid-1990s, Graham Day and Jonathan Murdoch clearly pointed out that their predecessors Colin Bell and Howard Newby sounded the death knell for community research, but community is still an academic concept of "severely injured but not falling down." [Explanation: The author himself has made necessary corrections to the chronology errors in this statement, and sincerely apologizes to all readers here-CFN Editor's Note]
In the 21st century, community or community remains a deeply influential concept in social sciences and has penetrated into the field of cultural heritage.
In Europe, there is discussion of social inclusion in French social policy research; in North America, there is heated debate on civic engagement in the United States; and globally, there is international dialogue triggered by the new concept of "intangible cultural heritage" and reflection on the lack of local perspectives in post-colonial heritage identification and management.
Affected by this series of ideological trends, many issues with community (community) as the core have been pushed to the forefront of public policy research.
However, Zygmunt Bauman once soberly pointed out that this "intoxication with community (community)" actually carries the hierarchical implication of class, race or ethnicity: the white middle class-centered social system effectively excludes other groups of people relative to it from view, and the community or community becomes a theoretical fulcrum of nostalgia, further delimiting itself to underdeveloped groups influenced by modernity.
Since Tannis's time, the theoretical presupposition that communities are stable, safe, and with a sense of belonging formed in the process of conceptualization of communities still largely determines people's way of thinking.
Scholars often take for granted what a community should be, ignoring the importance of community members 'local knowledge in community definition (and heritage identification).
In the above sense, we can understand the political implications of the concept of community entering the field of cultural heritage: defining a certain human group as a community, and artificially labeling a certain practice or a certain place as a "heritage".
The process has diverse political and cultural implications.
The protection and management of cultural heritage was once only an active stage for state institutions, experts and scholars.
National interests or heritage value were paramount.
Communities were actually in a situation of being "seized of power": community members had to undergo "re-education", and the state or Experts told them what to do, what value their heritage has, why they should protect it, and so on.
This process of naming cultural practices or natural sites as heritage is regarded by some folklore as a form of "metacultural intervention." This intervention sets the premise of a value structure, as well as the potential threats to that value and the moral responsibility to interpret it.
Therefore, only by always being alert to the potential risk of "power grab" in the protection of cultural heritage and truly using the community as the cultural basis for "empowerment" and equal dialogue can we truly understand the core position of community participation within the framework of UNESCO conventions and practice systems.
Judging from the entry of the concept of "community" into the field of cultural heritage and its development process, the object of reflection on UNESCO's concept and practice of protecting intangible cultural heritage is precisely the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage adopted by the organization in 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Convention) and its lack of community perspective and status in the management of cultural heritage in material forms.
As a result, the 2003 Convention shifted the previous emphasis on cultural sites and cultural objects to the "people" as the subjects of heritage and the cultural expressions, concepts, knowledge, skills and practices they inherit.
In other words, identifying intangible cultural heritage and its holders, establishing the core position of community participation in heritage management, and stipulating the responsibilities and powers of States parties, such a set of heritage protection discourse with profound accumulation and clear directions and its practice system, the basic idea is to empower communities (including groups and individuals).
It places the community at the core of the international heritage protection discourse system and related practices, and then achieves the purpose of protecting intangible cultural heritage by supporting the cultural practices of inheritors to continue the living inheritance of heritage.
Focusing on communities and inheritors is also the key to the 2003 Convention's obvious differences from other international conventions.
Although the 2003 Convention and its related documents do not define communities, they "bind" the relationship between heritage and the community holding it.
Only the inheritors and practitioners of intangible cultural heritage and the culture they constitute are the most dynamic subjects in the identification, protection and management of intangible cultural heritage.
The 2003 Convention is based on changing the original situation where states, institutions, and experts determine the value and management of heritage, thereby empowering communities within the framework of international law.
At the practical level, it requires States parties to ensure community participation in heritage protection to the greatest extent possible.
The entire process.
2.
The development process and theoretical sources of community participation
UNESCO's efforts to protect intangible cultural heritage go back to 1952.
After decades of development, UNESCO has formed the current mechanism and framework for the protection of intangible cultural heritage; in 1966, it adopted the Declaration of Principles of International Cultural Cooperation; in 1970, the "Venice Conference" was held; in 1972, it adopted the "Protection of World Culture and Natural Heritage Convention; in 1982, the" Intangible Cultural Heritage Branch "was established; in 1989, the" Recommendation for the Protection of Folk Works "was adopted; In 1997-1998, the "Plan for the Declaration of Representative Works of Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity" was launched; in 2003, the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage was adopted; in 2006, the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage came into effect; In 2007, the "Chengdu Conference" and "Tokyo Conference" of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage were held to formally establish the "Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity" and the "List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Urgent Need of Protection", calling on all countries to attach great importance to community participation.
The important role in the protection of intangible cultural heritage; the "Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" was adopted in 2008.
As of May 12, 2017, 174 of UNESCO's 195 member states have acceded to the 2003 Convention.
Looking back on the development history of intangible cultural heritage protection, it is not difficult to find that the concepts of "intangible cultural property" and "living national treasure" certification system put forward by Japan in cultural heritage protection are precisely the United Nations.
Important theoretical sources for the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
Under the active promotion of former Director-General Koichiro Matsuura, UNESCO drew on the practical experience of Japan and South Korea to launch the "living human treasures" system in 1993, and announced a total of 90 "masterpieces of oral and intangible heritage of mankind" in three batches in 2001, 2003 and 2005.
The above efforts are mainly aimed at some disappointment or dissatisfaction among the international community with the many issues raised by the 1972 Convention and the 1989 Recommendation on the Protection of Folk Works, and the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage adopted in 2003 can also be regarded as UNESCO's response to these issues.
The core concept of the 1972 Convention is the "universal value" of material heritage, emphasizing the concept of cultural and natural heritage shared by all mankind.
This is also an important reason why the Convention was criticized by all parties after it came into effect, because many scholars believe that it gives legitimacy to a Western-centrism and even Western-centrism values and evaluation system.
Therefore, the 2003 Convention needs to achieve a paradigm shift, that is, from the European-style archives management paradigm to the "intangible cultural heritage" protection paradigm based on the East Asian model (Japan and South Korea's human national treasure).Therefore, the inherent intertextuality between the 2003 Convention and the 1972 Convention should be an important dimension for us to analyze community participation.
The 2003 Convention circumvented previously controversial terms such as "authenticity" or "authenticity." The concept of authenticity was rooted in the Western discourse system of heritage protection in the 19th and 20th centuries, and was later further recognized in The Venice Charter (1964).
It is deeply intrinsically related to the concept and practice of European cultural protection, as well as European cultural background, heritage characteristics, protection needs and other specific aspects.
The 1994 Nara Documents further expanded the concept of authenticity, believing that authenticity can change with the changes of the times and social and cultural contexts.
However, it was not until 2005 that the Nara Document officially entered the Operational Guidelines of the 1972 Convention.
However, it is clear that the World Heritage Convention has not yet been able to fully absorb the expanded concept of authenticity in the Nara Document, so the evaluation system that uses the deep participation of the community as the definition of heritage value has not yet become the basis of the Convention.
Although the Nara Document has brought many changes to the Convention, such as respecting the diversity of culture and heritage, attaching importance to the authenticity of heritage and its attribution characteristics from a cultural perspective, and trying to identify heritage from a multidisciplinary and community intervention perspective, these important theoretical perspectives have not received enough attention, which further limits the functions and roles played by the community.
In addition, within the framework of the 1972 Convention, UNESCO has issued several important documents emphasizing community participation.
For example, the 2002 Budapest Declaration emphasized "active community participation in the recognition, protection and management of world heritage at all levels." In 2012, in order to assess the impact of the Nara Document on the theory and practice of world heritage protection, UNESCO held an expert meeting in Himeji City, Japan.
After the meeting, the "Himeji Recommendations" were formed, which once again mentioned: "More methods, forms and systems are needed to ensure community participation in the formulation of strategies for overall heritage management." In short, to understand community participation in the protection of intangible cultural heritage, discussions on authenticity in the field of material heritage, and even documents that have important influence on the concept of world heritage protection such as the Nara Document and the Himeji Recommendations should be included in the researcher's academic vision.
3.
Establishment and practice of community participation principles
Looking back at the 1972 Convention, it is not difficult to find that the concept of "community" has only been used independently once: Among the five provisions "In order to ensure that active and effective measures are taken to protect, preserve and display the cultural and natural heritage within its territory, each State Party to this Convention shall do its best according to its specific circumstances", the first thing pointed out is,"Adopt a general policy aimed at enabling cultural and natural heritage to play a role in social life and integrating heritage protection into comprehensive planning plans"(Article 5, paragraph 1).
It is worth noting that the so-called "social life" here should be "life of community", because its drafting language is English, and its expression should be based on English.
As for why "society" is used in the Chinese Covenant, it may be related to the fact that the concept of "community" had not yet entered the field of cultural policy in the Chinese context at that time.
So, let's go back to the 2003 Convention and its Operating Guidelines.
Although these two basic documents have repeatedly used the specific set of terms "communities, groups and individuals concerned", similar to the 1972 Convention, the Convention text does not directly define or explain this term.
However, through the relevant expression of "Article 2: Definitions" of the Convention, we find that "communities, groups and individuals" are actually the core of intangible cultural heritage protection.
This shows that the definition of intangible cultural heritage is "looking downward", relying on communities, groups and individuals to regard it as an integral part of cultural heritage and constantly recreate it in the process of adapting to the environment.
At the same time, such cultural heritage also provides communities and groups with a sense of identity and continuity.
The third paragraph of the "Article 2: Definitions" section of the 2003 Convention explains "protection":"Protection" refers to various measures to ensure the vitality of intangible cultural heritage, including the identification, documentation, research, preservation, promotion, inheritance (especially through formal and informal education) and revitalization of all aspects of such heritage.
This paragraph is of great significance in the Convention because the concept of protection is the key to connecting protection measures at the national level with protection activities, policies and projects at the international level.
In the sense of heritage protection, relevant communities ensure and maintain the vitality of intangible cultural heritage while creating, continuing and inheriting their intangible cultural heritage.
The reference to "communities, groups and individuals" appears in the plural form (communities, groups and individuals) in the English version of the 2003 Convention, including the preamble, which notes that the Convention has taken note of the fact that different communities, groups and individuals may be involved in the same project.
At the same time, the Convention has repeatedly emphasized the central role of communities in the process protection of intangible cultural heritage.
"Identify and determine the various intangible cultural heritage on their territory with the participation of communities, groups and relevant non-governmental organizations"(Article 11, paragraph 2);"When carrying out activities to protect intangible cultural heritage, States parties shall strive to ensure the maximum participation of the communities, groups, and sometimes individuals that create, continue and inherit such heritage, and to attract them to actively participate in relevant management"(Article 15), equal emphasis should be placed on community participation in the preparation of the list and specific management of "intangible cultural heritage"(Article 12).
In addition, the Operating Guidelines also state that "practitioners and inheritors should be involved in the formulation of educational plans and invite them to go to schools and educational institutions to explain their heritage"(paragraph 107, article 5);"Relevant communities, groups and relevant individuals have expressed their free will respected and informed in advance, agree to raise awareness of their intangible cultural heritage, and ensure the broadest participation in awareness-raising actions"(paragraph 101, article 2).
In addition, judging from the inclusion criteria of the Convention's "Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity","List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Urgent Need of Protection" and the selection criteria of the "List of Excellent Practices", the "Operation Guidelines" and the three types of application forms also stipulate that the submission of materials should be completed with the participation of the community.
At the same time, specific evidence needs to be provided to show how relevant communities participated in the preparation of application texts and the formulation of project protection plans.
And how to promise to continue to participate in the implementation of relevant protection measures or how to express their willingness to share excellent practical experience.
In other words, it is necessary to ensure that relevant communities participate in the entire process of project application and protection, and can submit application materials to UNESCO on the premise of "respecting their wishes and prior informed consent." It can be seen from the above facts that the 2003 Convention pays more attention to the collective practice, inheritance and protection of heritage projects than the 1972 Convention, and determines its holder group and its interactive relationship from the three main dimensions of communities, groups and individuals directly related to the project (including inheritors and practitioners), and it is a community, group and individual of plural rather than singular nature.
As a result, the subject scope and inter-subject nature of a certain "intangible cultural heritage" project have been emphasized.
Article 15 of the 2003 Convention states: "When carrying out activities for the protection of intangible cultural heritage, States parties shall strive to ensure the greatest participation of the communities, groups, and sometimes individuals that create, continue and inherit such heritage, and actively engage them in relevant management." This further clarifies the relationship between relevant communities, groups and individuals and heritage from the dynamic process of "creation, continuation and inheritance." The Convention attaches importance to protection, which should be based on the extensive participation of heritage holders or heritage subjects, and emphasizes the role of intangible cultural heritage subjects from a practical perspective.
Because there are no practitioners, there is no way to inherit heritage projects.
Protecting intangible cultural heritage means not only paying attention to concepts, forms of expression, art and handicrafts, but also paying close attention to inheritors and practitioners, as well as their communities and groups.
In addition, unlike material heritage, intangible cultural heritage is present and requires living inheritance to continue and maintain its vitality.
Therefore, to ensure the sustainable development of intangible cultural heritage, the overall inheritance system of living cultural heritage needs to be studied and protected.
This means that the main actor in the protection of intangible cultural heritage points to the specific community to which the specific heritage project belongs.
In other words, community participation at the operational level mainly refers to the participation of individual members or community representatives of relevant communities in the specific process of formulating and implementing specific protection plans.
The result of this process is the protection plan, which mainly targets a series of issues related to the inheritance of heritage by inheritors in the cultural context of a specific community or in a specific community.
Paragraph 120 of the "Operating Guidelines" states: "When promoting and disseminating information on heritage projects included in each list, attention should be paid to presenting heritage projects in their own context and paying attention to their value and significance to the relevant communities, rather than Focus on their aesthetic appeal and entertainment value." Under the framework of the 2003 Convention List, there are also clear requirements in the project application form to provide a relevant statement of the current social function and significance of the application project to the community.
For example, in the "List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Urgent Need of Protection", U.3 stipulates that "a protection plan should be formulated to enable relevant communities, groups or relevant individuals to continue to practice and inherit the heritage project", and it also requires additional detailed timetables, specific activities, Explanation of human resource allocation and funding investment.
Therefore, within the framework of intangible cultural heritage protection, the value of heritage is understood as the value recognized within the relevant community rather than externally, and the recognition process of such value must be with the participation and informed consent of the community.
Finally, the most fundamental reason why the 2003 Convention abandoned the concept of "authenticity" is precisely the core position of the community in heritage recognition, that is, the power to carry out heritage related practices and even innovate heritage is in the hands of the community.
"Authenticity" conceptually presupposes the illusion of "originality".
It is a cognitive perspective of guests or others.
It is incompatible with the variation and innovation of living intangible cultural heritage as communities, groups and individuals interact with the environment.
Therefore, during the practice of the 2003 Convention, the Intergovernmental Committee Review Body (formerly the Advisory Body and Subsidiary Body) has repeatedly pointed out that the concept of authenticity will mislead and rigidize people's understanding of intangible cultural heritage.
Therefore, the 2003 Convention's circumvention of the concept of authenticity was actually intentional.
After the tenth anniversary of the Nara Document, the 2004 Yamato Declaration pointed out that "the concept of authenticity of tangible cultural heritage is not related to the identification and protection of intangible cultural heritage." In 2011, when reviewing intangible cultural heritage projects in urgent need of protection, the UNESCO Advisory Body (now the review body) also pointed out that "intangible cultural heritage" always changes over time, so living form, recreating and continuous development are the norm of intangible cultural heritage; the 2003 Convention does not focus on whether a heritage project is "original" or "authentic", but how the heritage project reflects the current lives of heritage practitioners.
Conclusion: Difficulties in community definition and heritage protection and others
Some folklore scholars have pointed out that while the 2003 Convention created a directory system different from the 1972 Convention, it also potentially created an exclusive directory system.
Establishing the directory itself is not only an act of excluding others, but also a process of creating meaning.
In this process, heritage is identified and evaluated in a system with community participation as its core (non-Western preset standards), and at the same time, more meaning and value will inevitably be added to the heritage itself.
Whether it is tangible material cultural heritage or intangible intangible cultural heritage, its main value and significance are framed within a series of evaluation criteria and lists.
The list itself is a specific context for understanding the heritage items included in it, and regardless of the background of these heritage items, their relationship with other heritage items is bound to become a source of discourse.
This shows that when we understand and discuss the issue of community participation in the protection of intangible cultural heritage in the sense of international law, the various discourse practices within and outside the list, as well as their internal connections and interactions, will surely constitute a theoretical vision and academic space for the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
Within the scope of international law, it is not without precedent for the 2003 Convention to involve communities, groups and individuals.
In the field of international human rights and environmental law, the concept of community was once rampant and widely discussed by all parties.
However, the 2003 Convention is different from other international laws in that it uses the reference to communities, groups and individuals in official instruments of cultural heritage for the first time.
Therefore, while the Convention brings some new practices to the field of international law, it also enhances people's understanding of the meaning of communities, groups and individuals in this field.
As Bamoqubumo said: "'Community 'is the most reflective term in the 2003 Convention.
Respect for community and community participation are the basic prerequisite for implementing' various measures 'to protect intangible cultural heritage.‧‧‧‧‧‧而将非物质文化遗产的价值认定赋权给相关社区和群体，正是许多民俗学者和人类学家在这份国际法律文书的订立过程中苦心谋求的‘保护之道’。It is no exaggeration to say that 'losing' the community is losing the cornerstone of the Convention." By 2015, the concept of community-based protection was more clearly emphasized in the "Ethical Principles for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" approved by the Intergovernmental Committee.
Although the 2003 Convention and its Operational Guidelines do not clearly define "community", we must also clearly realize that during the drafting process of the Convention, experts and scholars from the UNESCO think tank tried to define "community, group and individual".
The intergovernmental organization organized an expert meeting in Paris in 2002 and prepared a "glossary", which defines a community as follows: "A community is people who are interconnected and share a sense of belonging." In 2006, the organization held another expert meeting in Tokyo, Japan.
Similar key terms were once again discussed in a concentrated manner.
Relevant provisions on requirements for community participation in list preparation and heritage protection were also drafted at this meeting.
It defines communities, groups and individuals respectively: First,"A community is a network composed of humans.
The sense of identity or belonging generated in its shared historical connections stems from the group's commitment to intangible cultural heritage.
Practice, inheritance".Second, the group includes people who share the same technology, experience and special knowledge within and outside the community.
Therefore, as supervisors, practitioners and apprentices, they play a specific role in the practice, reproduction and inheritance of intangible cultural heritage at present or in the future.
Third, individuals are persons with unique skills, knowledge, experience or other characteristics within and outside the community.
As supervisors, practitioners (sometimes apprentices), they play a specific role in the practice, reproduction and inheritance of intangible cultural heritage at present or in the future.
Due to the sensitivity of the definition of community and the fact that communities also have "non-fixity" and "heterogeneity", the above definition is destined to become the object of criticism from all parties.
However, since the relevant discussions themselves do not involve clear case background and object allegations, and define communities, groups and individuals strictly in accordance with the spirit of the 2003 Convention, scholars, experts or practitioners who proposed relevant definitions have not only been deeply involved in the drafting and preparation process of the Convention, but also accumulated certain experience in the development process of the Convention.
Therefore, even if these definitions were either deleted or revised during the subsequent drafting of the "Operation Guide", the role played by these previous efforts in the development of the conceptual system of intangible cultural heritage cannot be ignored.
To sum up, in the more than ten years since the implementation of the Convention in 2003, as some efforts to "define communities" have gradually drifted away,"community participation" as the basic principle for protecting "intangible cultural heritage" is moving towards a more open and inclusive diversified collaborative action, and how to play the central role of the community still faces many challenges.
This is precisely the necessity that requires us to deeply trace the basic strategies and development process of protecting intangible cultural heritage at the international level from a theoretical level.
(The original title is: "From 'Society' to 'Community': Defining the Subject of Intangible Cultural Heritage towards Opening"; there are revisions to the publication of this website.
The article is contained in "National Art", No.
5, 2017.
The annotations are omitted.
Please refer to the original version of the publication)