[Hu Xiaohui] Practical paradigm of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage
pick
Objective: The Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage advocates a new practical paradigm through new texts and new terminology, that is, the fundamental significance of intangible cultural heritage protection is not to protect intangible cultural heritage itself, nor to simply protect cultural diversity., but to protect the rights of communities, groups and individuals to create and inherit intangible cultural heritage, prevent public power from infringing on individual rights, and respect human rights and dignity in the process of protection.
The process of fulfilling the contract to protect intangible cultural heritage is actually a process of establishing a new type of ethics between people.
We not only talk about ethical codes at the operational level, but also promote and implement in China the cultural custom of respecting each other's rights and dignity through this protection.
This is a practice that the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage attempts to establish in different countries and regions.
paradigm.
Keywords: Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage; Practice Paradigm; Community; Cultural Rights; New Ethics
About the author: Hu Xiaohui, PhD, researcher at the Institute of Literature, China Academy of Social Sciences.
UNESCO's Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention ") is the most important international legal instrument in the field of cultural heritage protection in recent years.
After more than ten years of performance practice, China's intangible cultural heritage (hereinafter referred to as intangible cultural heritage) protection has entered a deep water area and a critical stage.
It was difficult for us to have a good understanding of this convention at first.
Only after years of practice and gradually accumulating some experience and lessons can we look back at the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention and have a better new understanding.
It is indeed timely and necessary to hold a training class on the Convention at this time.
We really need to figure out what the intangible cultural heritage protection practice advocated by the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention wants to do and what it was supposed to do.
In my opinion, the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention wants to provide a channel for each State party to practice universal values through compliance.
At least compared with the 1972 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention is a new text.
It advocates and promotes a new practical paradigm through new terms and new concepts.
1."Community" or "Community"
Comparing the 1972 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage with the 2003 Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, on the surface, it is a shift from material and tangible heritage to intangible cultural heritage, but in fact it is a transformation from objects to people.
Some foreign scholars have pointed out that the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention regards communities, people and practitioners as the core of defining the concept of "intangible cultural heritage".
They are not only inheritors of intangible cultural heritage, but also adjudicators of intangible cultural heritage.
This is equivalent to requiring States parties to ensure that different subjects of intangible cultural heritage participate in various practices of intangible cultural heritage protection.
Although this convention has not yet established the core position of these entities in the performance process, it has recognized that communities, groups and individuals are inheritors of intangible cultural heritage and play an important role in the practice of protecting and spreading intangible cultural heritage.
So, how to understand the very important concept of community in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention? The Chinese text uses "community", which can also be regarded as a translation of this English word.
"Community" is generally a concept used in the fields of sociology and anthropology, and mainly refers to people who form family and work relationships through face-to-face contact in a specific area.
It can be seen that there is a limitation on "community", which is that in a specific area or region, and in a certain geographical area where they live together, groups with these relationships form a community.
There are two explanations worth noting in the New Oxford English-Chinese Dictionary: one is community, which emphasizes that a group of people live together in a certain place and practice common ownership; the second is community, which mainly refers to the entity of a nation or country united through common interests or interests.
Although the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention does not specifically define community, in 2002, the UNESCO website provided a glossary of intangible cultural heritage terms in English and French.
This was released after some experts of the organization specifically discussed and reached consensus.
Therefore, it is equivalent to an internal evidence rather than an interpretation imposed on the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention from the outside.
This glossary interprets community as a group of people who believe they share a certain connection.
It can be seen that community refers to a person or a group of people.
It is not an abstract thing, nor is it just a geographical entity, but a inheritor and practitioner of relevant intangible cultural heritage projects.
In 2006, UNESCO held an expert meeting in Tokyo on the issue of community participation in the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
Experts attending the meeting further pointed out that communities refer to networks of people that form a sense of identity and connection through inheritance or intervention in intangible cultural heritage.
In other words, it is composed of a group of people who play a special role in intangible cultural heritage and practice.
For example, cultural custodians, performers and apprentices.
This understanding is of great significance to how we view the new paradigm of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention.
It can be concluded that the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention" is community-centered, and in fact it is people-centered.
The so-called people-centered means people-oriented.
It can be seen that community mainly refers to a community in the sense of cultural sharing, rather than a community in the sense of sociology and anthropology.
On the one hand, the same community may not necessarily inherit the same intangible cultural heritage, and people in the same community may not all be inheritors and practitioners of the same intangible cultural heritage project; on the other hand, many intangible cultural heritage projects have been jointly inherited and practiced by different communities and even different ethnic groups.
Therefore, scholars such as Regina Bendix believe that individuals committed to maintaining, revitalizing or recreating a cultural tradition do not need to share a national identity, but can form a community of practice through shared political or economic interests.
This shows that the practical community of intangible cultural heritage can also be an imaginary community.
As a result, its focus is obviously not on geographical scope.
In comparison, the concept of "community" mainly emphasizes people living together in a certain geographical area.
There may be different ethnic groups and different senses of belonging and identity.
Therefore, putting the concept of "community" in the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention" will cause big problems.
When identifying the subjects or inheritors of intangible cultural heritage, if the Chinese concept of "community" with a strong regional flavor is used to refer to them, it may cause some misleading or even obscuring.
"Community" emphasizes more people formed by common interests, common sense of identity, and common sense of belonging, and is not necessarily limited to a certain geographical area.
Therefore, we have changed the word "community" in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention to "community".
2.
Legal connotation of intangible cultural heritage
The Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention replaces folklore (folklore or folk creation) with the new word intangible cultural heritage (abbreviated as ICH), intended to indicate that the objects it wants to protect are not folk customs in the traditional sense.
First, the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention" stipulates that intangible cultural heritage requires self-identification by local communities, groups and individuals, which is a primary condition.
In other words, they must first obtain their own recognition and authorization, especially in the process of applying intangible cultural heritage projects, including the process of formulating the list.
They must obtain their formal recognition and consent in terms of procedures, and they cannot be crossed.
Who determines the value of intangible cultural heritage is a core issue that needs to be discussed.
However, unfortunately, the provisions of the "Intangible Cultural Heritage", the "Operational Directions for the Implementation of the Convention for Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage" and the "Ethical Principles for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" do not express this issue clearly enough and even cause contradictions.
Second, intangible cultural heritage is living and constantly recreated.
Intangible cultural heritage has a future, because it is alive, so it comes from the past, but also belongs to the present and future.
When we protect intangible cultural heritage, we cannot keep looking back, but we must also look into the future.
Third, the value directions of "intangible cultural heritage" and "folk customs" are exactly the opposite.
Folk customs in the traditional sense have long been regarded as feudal superstitions in China and cannot be put on the table.
Some have to be interrupted, and some can only be carried out quietly in secret.
Since the introduction of intangible cultural heritage protection, the situation has changed, because it is no longer called folk custom, but called intangible cultural heritage.
As a result, intangible cultural heritage is endowed with positive energy and positive value.
In the past, the so-called folk customs were endowed with a certain negative value, but now after becoming intangible cultural heritage, it is like "turning over serfs singing", but now it is "turning over".
It can be seen that the concept of "intangible cultural heritage" has completely been given a value and meaning that was not found in the past by "folk customs".
Moreover, it is based on the cultural politics of ownership and requires us to re-understand and correctly apply it from the perspective of legal thinking.
Therefore, we should realize that this definition of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention "has the potential to change the character and management of heritage by putting people back at the center of the system." In countries with relatively weak legal awareness, this is particularly important, but it is most easily ignored.
The Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention defines "intangible cultural heritage" with three elements: the expression of this heritage is its objective element; the human community is its subjective or social element; and cultural space is its spatial element.
If you compare the Chinese text with the English text, you will find a difference: there is another sentence in front of the article on the definition of intangible cultural heritage in English: For the purposes of this Convention, but in the Chinese text, this article was omitted.
In English, placing this sentence before these items indicates that the definitions of these items below are for the purpose or intention of this Convention.
This is by no means necessary for us to accurately understand the overall practical purpose of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention.
In the Chinese text, intangible cultural heritage must be a community, group, and sometimes individuals "regard" these projects as part of their cultural heritage, but in English, it is recognized as part of their cultural heritage.
This "recognize as" not only refers to "regard", but also refers to recognition, that is, legal recognition.
In other words, it must be a community, a group, or sometimes an individual officially recognized as its intangible cultural heritage in order to be regarded as an intangible cultural heritage.
This is not casual recognition, but requires legally binding informed consent.
In 2002, the definition of "intangible cultural heritage" in the Glossary of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention published by UNESCO on its website put the phrase "For the purposes of the present Convention directly at the forefront, intended to emphasize: For the purpose of the current Convention, what intangible cultural heritage refers to or means.
The following is an attributive limitation, emphasizing that two conditions must be met: the first condition must be an intangible cultural heritage recognized by the community and individuals as their heritage; the second condition must be consistent with the universally accepted principles-human rights, equality, sustainability, mutual respect among cultural communities-consistent intangible cultural heritage.
These are two limiting conditions that need to be met at the same time for intangible cultural heritage.
3.
What is "protection" and its conditions
Safeguarding is used when talking about intangible cultural heritage protection in the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention", which is a general concept.
Safeguarding is a compound word, safe is safety, and guarding is guarding, which together means to be on the side to protect its safety, and when it is in progress.
From the literal meaning of the word, we can see how we should position the role of those who protect intangible cultural heritage: where should our government, our scholars, our cultural workers, and intangible cultural heritage protection workers position themselves? The "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention" uses the first-level concept of safeguarding when emphasizing the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
Only when explaining what safeguarding is, does protection and preservation be included in the protection measures contained in safeguarding.
Therefore, the words protection and preservation are actually subsidiary concepts and do not have the nature of a first-level concept.
Conceptually, safeguarding is dynamic, emphasizing the need to protect the vitality or viability of intangible cultural heritage.
Different from the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, safeguarding's protection means allowing heritage inheritors to actively protect and inherit their own intangible cultural heritage, so it is used when it is in progress.
In addition, the word also means that the so-called "protection" in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention has shifted from national protection means to international protection activities, policies and plans.
It refers to the interaction of the three levels: local, national and international.① The focus of intangible cultural heritage protection is on the dynamic process involving local people, rather than protecting dead objects.
Therefore, some scholars believe that in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, safeguarding and viability are synonymous, and the viability and sustainable development of intangible cultural heritage depend on the commitment, ability and willingness of the intangible cultural heritage inheritor to inherit its intangible cultural heritage.
Therefore, this meaning and measure of "protection" also reflects the purpose of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention that is centered on community, group, and sometimes individuals.
Protection is generally static and passive in nature, and mostly refers to effective measures taken by official agencies.
Preservation is more materialistic and preserves things.
However, the Chinese text does not make a distinction and translates protection as "protection".
In fact, the two "protection" have different meanings.
The safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention emphasizes the dynamic, procedural and inheritable nature of intangible cultural heritage on the one hand, and emphasizes that the main body of protection is the holder and inheritor of intangible cultural heritage on the other hand.
It can be seen from English that another word that should be paid attention to in the definition of "protection" in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention is revitalization, which means "rebirth" and "rejuvenation".
What it means is, when intangible cultural heritage declines or even is on the verge of extinction, how to make it come alive and give it new vitality.Although during the discussion of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, experts had a very heated discussion on whether to include the word in the provisions of the Convention, the Glossary of Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention published by UNESCO on its website explains this word from two levels: in terms of the practice of cultural communities, it refers to the revival and reinvention of social customs and images that are no longer in use; in terms of cultural policies, it refers to encouragement and support for the above practices.
The so-called commercialization, contextualization and re-contextualization of intangible cultural heritage are also included in the meaning of this word.
Therefore, from the definition of "protection", this word also shows that when we protect intangible cultural heritage, it is indeed necessary to use some artificial means to resurrect and revitalize intangible cultural heritage.
This is already reflected in the definition of intangible cultural heritage in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention.
The Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention promotes new practices, not simply to create some directories and new hierarchical protection.
This involves the scope and conditions of protection.
When the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention" defines intangible cultural heritage, there is a sentence immediately below.
The Chinese sentence is "In this Convention, only existing human rights documents are considered in accordance with the existing human rights documents", but there is also a sentence in front of the English language, which means "For the purpose of this Convention, consideration will only be placed on such intangible cultural heritage..." This shows that the definition and requirements of the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention on intangible cultural heritage and its protection conditions are all for the purpose of this Convention.
Without this sentence, the following definition would have no purpose and purpose.
Therefore, this sentence is very important, but it has been diluted in the Chinese text.
Another thing worth noting is the word "only".
The Chinese word "only" is easy to be skipped by us, but in English "solely" is very obvious.
Because this word "only" strictly limits the scope of protection of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, it further reflects the principles and value selection criteria of the Convention.
The Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention does not protect all intangible cultural heritage, it only protects intangible cultural heritage that meets its conditions.
Therefore, intangible cultural heritage must first be identified by the community, group or individual themselves, but this is only a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.
Of course, intangible cultural heritage should be identified first by these three types of subjects, but this is not enough.
It must also comply with more general international human rights instruments.
It cannot be said that it is over just because our own holders recognize it.
We also need external international attention, which is largely a view of universal values.
Therefore, in addition to special conditions, there are also general conditions.
This reflects the protection principles and value selection criteria of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention.
What exactly does intangible cultural heritage need to protect? From a practical perspective, it is of course necessary to protect different cultural diversity and intangible cultural heritage of different regions and different ethnic groups.
However, these new terms and qualifications show that the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention actually has more fundamental demands, that is, to increase the proportion and value considerations in terms of human rights, mutual respect and sustainable development.
At the beginning, the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention particularly emphasized that its starting point is three international human rights instruments, namely, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" means The Universal Declaration on Human Rights in English, which should be translated as the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".
This "universal" is not optional, but involves an understanding of the core concepts of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention.
Here is a reminder to everyone why universal is used in English instead of world.
In fact, when Zhang Pengchun, the Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations, served as vice chairman of the Commission on Human Rights and was responsible for drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he particularly emphasized that the declaration should be universal, that is, it should be universally accepted by peoples of different religious and cultural backgrounds.
Its universal goal is to humanize man and raise the moral character of man.
The Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention also has similar practical purposes and general demands.
Regarding the scope of intangible cultural heritage protection, attention should be paid to the fourth aspect of Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention,"Knowledge and practice related to nature and the universe." Many scholars, including some experts from the United Nations, understand this aspect mainly from the perspective of traditional medical knowledge, which is too narrow.
This article should include some important contents of intangible cultural heritage.
For example, for folk beliefs or religious beliefs and religious practices, it should include the relationship between people and transcendental objects.
But unfortunately, the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention does not clearly define it here.
There is also a very important point, that is, free, prior and informed consent of the community, group, and individual.
This is a practical principle of intangible cultural heritage protection.
Unfortunately, the emphasis on this practical principle in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention is still not clear enough.
The author summarizes it into three conditions: the first is that only "heritage" recognized by the intangible cultural heritage inheritors themselves can become intangible cultural heritage (see Article 2); the second is that only if it does not violate international human rights documents and can promote intangible cultural heritage that respects each other and conforms to sustainable development is worthy of protection and is actually protected (see Article 2); The third is to maximize the participation of intangible cultural heritage subjects in various practices to protect and manage their own intangible cultural heritage (see Article 15).
Especially when formulating an intangible cultural heritage list, we must not only respect the voluntary and priority rights of local communities, groups and individuals to informed recognition, but also allow them to participate as much as possible in the formulation and protection of their own intangible cultural heritage lists.
In Article 1 of the "Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage", U4 clearly stipulates that when applying for intangible cultural heritage, intangible cultural heritage subjects should participate as widely as possible and have prior informed consent.
Therefore, Janet Black believes that if there are no cultural practitioners and inheritors involved in the formulation and implementation of protection measures, the protection of intangible cultural heritage will fail and there will be no protection.
4.
Which authenticity and whose original ecology
This involves the issue of respect for the rights of intangible cultural heritage subjects to inherit and recreate.
We say that intangible cultural heritage must enter daily life, how can we enter it? Recently, everyone has been debating whether it is necessary to hold intangible cultural heritage training courses.
This kind of training is not in line with the spirit of the Convention.
Some experts believe that training represents standardization, homogenization or de-China, and even ignores the fundamental differences between tangible cultural heritage such as cultural relics and intangible cultural heritage, the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention.
They neither look at the large number of research results of foreign scholars on intangible cultural heritage, nor carefully ponder the rational purpose and practical spirit of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, but they preach it everywhere."Intangible cultural heritage is the most stable cultural DNA of a nation.""Cultural relics cannot be changed, and intangible cultural heritage certainly cannot be changed.
This misuses the concept of authenticity of material heritage to the field of intangible cultural heritage.
From November 1 to 6, 1994, the World Heritage Committee held a meeting in Nara, Japan.
45 representatives from 28 countries formed The Nara Document on Authenticity for the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
The document points out that the information resources for judging the authenticity of cultural heritage include "form and design, materials and matter, uses and functions, tradition and technology, location and background, spirit and emotion, and other intrinsic and external factors." But as Sophia Rabadi has pointed out, even this authenticity cannot be understood as static and unchanging.
More importantly, if the concept of authenticity of tangible cultural heritage is used for intangible cultural heritage, it will solidify and essentialize intangible cultural heritage.
The reason why the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention" and the "Implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" The Guide "no longer uses concepts such as authenticity, integrity, and outstanding universal values is precisely to avoid this understanding and practice of consolidating and essentializing intangible cultural heritage.
Therefore, this paradoxical pursuit of authenticity obviously runs counter to the basic spirit of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention and easily misleads China's intangible cultural heritage protection practice.
These experts use the pretext of pursuing the original ecology of the so-called intangible cultural heritage to morphize and genize intangible cultural heritage, and treat intangible cultural heritage with the mentality of treating residential buildings.
It seems that the more broken the better, the better it is, and wherever it is broken, the better it is.
If we protect intangible cultural heritage from this standpoint, we need to be more vigilant, because this will lead to the musealization of intangible cultural heritage, that is, fixing intangible cultural heritage in a certain place and in a certain form, which in itself is not in line with the spirit of living inheritance and re-creation required by the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention.
Article 8 of the "Ethical Principles for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" further clearly stipulates: "Authenticity and exclusiveness should not constitute problems or obstacles to the protection of intangible cultural heritage." Some experts in China have not seriously understood this.
They are still using authenticity and exclusiveness to constitute problems and obstacles to the protection of intangible cultural heritage in China.
For a specific intangible cultural heritage project, even if it can be traced back to what stage or point can it be said to be true or false? Intangible cultural heritage is only relative true and false, not absolute true and false.
We may be able to use two simple criteria to view this relative authenticity: the first criterion is whether the inheritor himself sincerely believes it to be true.
There is an acceptance issue here.
For example, acceptance and recognition by the majority of people in the community where the inheritor belongs is required, because the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention regards their own identification as the primary criterion; the second criterion is that since intangible cultural heritage is also heritage, it must have a certain degree of inheritance and inheritance.
If it is just invented and has not been passed down, it is not intangible cultural heritage.
The definition of "intangible cultural heritage" in the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention" includes the requirement of "being passed down from generation to generation", which is also the inherent meaning of the concept of "heritage": the Modern Chinese Dictionary defines "heritage" as "generally refers to the material wealth or spiritual wealth left over from history"; the Oxford Advanced English-Chinese Dictionary also defines heritage as the history, traditions and characteristics that a country or society has had for many years and regard as unique.
However, we must realize that in the process of inheritance and production, intangible cultural heritage will inevitably change, and certain things will inevitably be sacrificed.
Therefore, we must prevent the kind of "authentic illusion" pointed out by Ahmad Skunti.
The author believes that how to keep intangible cultural heritage alive and re-creative in accordance with the spirit of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention and how to safeguard the rights of inheritors are important issues that we must think about.
It may not be appropriate to directly ask China's intangible cultural heritage students to paint ukiyo-e or famous Western oil paintings, but it is okay to offer courses in Western art to allow them to increase their academic support.
Because it is through mutual learning that many intangible cultural heritage inheritors can learn from each other's strengths, which further stimulates their awareness of inheritance and innovation, improves their innovation capabilities, and may further highlight their uniqueness, rather than inevitably bringing about so-called homogenization.
How can we maintain the vitality and re-creativity of intangible cultural heritage if we prevent intangible cultural heritage inheritors from learning from each other, broaden their horizons, and communicate with others? Who has the right (rather than the power) to intervene and stop them? Some people use the excuse of retaining the so-called "nostalgia" to oppose the re-creation of intangible cultural heritage.
In fact,"nostalgia" is not originally a beautification and imagination of the past of a certain place, but a kind of hope that has been misplaced in the past., is a desire for freedom that has not yet been arrived and has not yet been realized.
In accordance with the spirit of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, intangible cultural heritage includes not only traditions inherited from the past, but also contemporary practices.
Its so-called "protection" should never be to suppress the further development of intangible cultural heritage, because intangible cultural heritage itself is characterized by processuality and variability.
If the concept of intangible cultural heritage is only limited to the inherited "traditional" components, it will lead to its musealization.
Therefore, the most important thing is to fully incorporate the actual inheritors of intangible cultural heritage into the entire process of protection and let them assume responsibility for their own sustainable development process.
So, what exactly is original ecology? Is the original ecology required by the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention the same thing as what some people call the original ecology? What criteria do we use to judge good and bad? Are good and bad individual subjective standards or universal objective standards or rational standards? From what standpoint should we stand to judge? What criteria does the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention provide for us to determine intangible cultural heritage and its value? These are all issues that require us to think deeply.
5.
Is the ultimate goal of protection intangible cultural heritage or cultural rights
It should be noted that the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention brings a practical framework for protection at the local, national and international levels.
The protection of ethnic and folk culture previously implemented in China was only an internal matter of the country.
From the country down to various provinces (municipalities directly under the Central Government), cities and counties, it has basically nothing to do with other countries.
However, intangible cultural heritage protection is regional, international and global.
More precisely, it is first international and global, and then regional.
The implementation activities proposed by the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention" go from international to domestic, and then to a certain region.
This can at least show that on the one hand, the global influence of international organizations has touched the lives of people living in the most remote places; on the other hand, it has popularized and implemented an important anthropological concept, that is, a belief in common humanity for different peoples in the world.
The practical framework provided by the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention is not only regional and local, but also international and global.
Therefore, whether it is practice or research, intangible cultural heritage politics is an international and global undertaking.
We cannot work behind closed doors, cannot just focus on the so-called China characteristics and China experience, but must learn from other mountains to attack our own jade.
Even from a practical perspective, without the international protection practice of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, our intangible cultural heritage protection work may not be carried out at the national and local levels.
The value of some cultural relics in the past may have been lost if we determined their value ourselves, but now the value brought by intangible cultural heritage is not the case.
What the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention" brings is to awaken the three local entities-communities, groups and individuals-to the value of their own intangible cultural heritage through external international attention.
The value of a certain place's intangible cultural heritage is not only a matter of self-determination, but also an issue of international recognition.
Even having an international perspective inspired this place to realize the value of its own culture.
Through the protection of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, value can be given to those that do not originally have much value; great value can be given to those that have originally little value.
Of course, it is also possible that what used to be of great value is now of small value.
Therefore, intangible cultural heritage is a value constructed by society, and heritage or intangible cultural heritage is also a self-aware tradition.
In this regard, we need to guard against the two extremes of nationalism and internationalism: nationalism emphasizes that heritage is only beneficial to the country, while internationalism tends to exclude local communities.
Although the value of intangible cultural heritage needs to be determined by its holder and inheritor, it does not exclude external influences and even must have an international perspective.
In other words, we must have the vision of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention so that we can have a new understanding of our own intangible cultural heritage value and have self-awareness of the local intangible cultural heritage value.The Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention specifically emphasizes at least two points.
These two points may be very difficult for China to implement, but they are indeed very important to China.
The first is the transfer of (public) power that is not explicitly stated in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention.
The second is the issue of respect for the (private) rights of communities, groups and individuals.
Since the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention basically adopts a public law model, it stipulates the responsibilities and obligations of public power, including corresponding penalties for failure to fulfill obligations, but the protection of private rights is obviously insufficient.
Therefore, we still need to adopt private law protection for intangible cultural heritage in the future.
According to the spirit of the Convention, since the right to recognize the intangible cultural heritage value first belongs to the holders and inheritors themselves, their own choices and cultural rights need to be respected.
In other words, in the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection, modern values such as democracy, equality and human rights need to be implemented and implemented.
Especially in China, this is of great significance, that is, through intangible cultural heritage protection, reshaping the relationship between protection officials, experts and relevant staff, including non-governmental organizations, and establishing a new type of ethical relationship.
Articles 11 to 15 of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention clearly stipulate the obligations of States parties.
In particular, Article 15:"Participation of Communities, Groups and Individuals" begins in English with Within the framework of its safeguarding activities of the intangible cultural heritage.
This shows that the protection of intangible cultural heritage by States parties is carried out within a protection framework, and the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention clearly assigns responsibilities and obligations to States parties.
The Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention does not advocate that communities, groups or individuals conduct independent intangible cultural heritage protection practices outside the framework of the government.
Moreover, judging from the reality of China, it will be difficult for private individuals to protect intangible cultural heritage without leaving the government framework in a short period of time.
This is why we need to establish new ethical relationships among governments, experts, intangible cultural heritage protectors, including non-governmental organizations, and intangible cultural heritage inheritors, at the very least "strive to maintain a certain balance when protecting intangible cultural heritage."
6.
The new ethics of intangible cultural heritage protection: people-centered
To sum up, this requires us to practice new ethical principles and true rule of law.
Because intangible cultural heritage protection has brought unprecedented practices and contacts, there are at least three-level relationships from the international to the national to the local.
In addition, how can officials or cultural management cadres engaged in intangible cultural heritage protection in a region interact and interact with intangible cultural heritage inheritors? This is both a new ethical issue and a new management issue.
The new ethics is particularly important to China, because China has a tradition of big government and small society for thousands of years.
In this case, the role of ethics is greater than the role of law, so ethics is more important.
The center of the new ethics is community.
Since community mainly refers to people, the new ethics advocated by the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention is actually people-centered.
The so-called people-centered approach means using fair rules to protect the equal rights and dignity of people.
In this regard, what the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention wants to do is reflected in two aspects: one is the selection process, which hopes to be transparent and open; the other is the selection criteria, which hopes to be equal and fair.
It embodies concepts that China are not familiar with, because we generally tend to want fair results directly.
However, the new concept brought to us by the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention is to use rule fairness and procedural justice to ensure substantive justice and result justice.
In other words, fairness of rules and justice of procedures are more important than substantive justice and justice of results.
We cannot just look at the level of results that does exist in reality, because even if procedural fairness and justice are achieved, there is no guarantee that every result will be fair and just.
However, if there is no procedural fairness and justice, fair and just results will be even more insecure and unpredictable.
Therefore, although the third-level list of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention itself and the fourth-level Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection List currently implemented in China may not have achieved fair rules and procedural justice in some aspects, this is different from what the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention actually wants to do.
What the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention requires us to do is to ensure the fairness and fairness of the selection results through the transparency and fairness of the selection process and the fairness of the selection criteria.
The protection of intangible cultural heritage advocated by the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention aims to create a relationship of mutual respect, mutual tolerance and appreciation among people.
This relationship is not only a relationship between people, but also a relationship between us in treating intangible cultural heritage, because the foothold must also fall on our relationship with intangible cultural heritage inheritors.
This involves a question: Who is the subject of intangible cultural heritage? The intuitive feeling tells us that whoever inherits and practices is the subject; whoever inherits and practices is the subject.
Our feelings generally tell us that a certain intangible cultural heritage belongs first to the person or group that inherits it, no matter which ethnic group or region he or she belongs to.
But logically speaking, no matter which ethnic group or region the subject of intangible cultural heritage belongs to, it must first be an ordinary person, which is exactly the opposite of our feeling.
The new concept that the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention" wants to bring to us is to go against our feelings and let us make up for the universal "person" of the subject of intangible cultural heritage, at least let us not forget this universal "person".
This is also the fundamental reason why the sentence "for the purpose of this Convention" not only cannot be dropped, but should instead be given great attention.
The Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention stated at the beginning that it would refer to three international human rights instruments, also to highlight this meaning.
The "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention" hopes that when we protect specific intangible cultural heritage and determine specific intangible cultural heritage subjects, we will add the general person in this bracket.
In other words, we should first regard people from different regions and ethnic groups as general people, and then regard them as special people, such as Zhuang (people), Wa (people), Dai (people), Qiang (people), and so on.
If the universal person in the brackets is lost or consciously or unconsciously checked out, our intangible cultural heritage practice will deviate from the spirit of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention and major deviations will occur.
According to the spirit of the Convention, intangible cultural heritage protection must protect a bottom line, that is, human rights.
Let's first protect this common thing that we can all agree on, and then talk about special things, and then talk about who are the intangible cultural heritage subjects in different regions and different ethnic groups.
When protecting intangible cultural heritage, we must first treat these different intangible cultural heritage subjects as human beings and respect their cultural rights, equal status and human dignity.
On this premise, we will discuss their particularity.
Therefore, the reason why human rights are universal is precisely because they are universal ethical principles inferred in an interactive and mutual-subject manner.
In layman's terms, there are at least two main points: one is to treat others as you want others to treat you; the other is to treat people as people so that you can truly become people.
Because this is actually a mutual and mutual relationship between people.
Therefore, the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention and the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions have jointly built a new concept to promote cultural modernization and build a new type of basic culture, namely human rights culture, through the protection practices of various states parties around the world.(human rights culture).
There are two aspects to this: one is the legal framework, including the Convention, to prevent public power from infringing on private rights, which is mainly a matter at the government level; the other is the social level, which is moral and ethical autonomy, which is related to the core concepts and new concepts of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention.
It is precisely because the new ethics are so important and the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention fails to make detailed provisions that UNESCO has recently issued the "Ethical Principles for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage." This is a supplement to the provisions of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention.
Although it is only an ethical principle, it has also made progress in the protection of private rights.
The second article particularly emphasizes that the "right" of communities, groups and individuals to continue their intangible cultural heritage should be recognized and respected.
The author would like to focus on Article 6, that is, intangible cultural heritage "should not be subject to external evaluation of value or significance." Regarding "value or meaning", you can also make a different understanding.
The English word value can be understood as a more abstract, immeasurable value that cannot be measured by money.
It refers to the abstract or immeasurable value of intangible cultural heritage.
When contrasted with value, worth can refer to a specific value that can be measured in money, that is, a visible value.
However, according to the requirements of Article 6, the evaluation of these two values of intangible cultural heritage should not be subordinate to external evaluation, so the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention" should disintegrate itself.
This article focuses on the reflection that some experts on the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention are not clear enough in their principled positions and are even wavering.
One point they have not considered clearly, at least not clearly expressed in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, is that internal identification is only a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition.
There must be general conditions for external identification.
If there is no external identification, what should I do if the list of intangible cultural heritage is formulated? Reporting from regions to provinces, provinces to countries, and countries to UNESCO, how can these level-by-level declarations not have external value and significance judgments? If "we should not be subject to external value or significance judgments", how should our entire intangible cultural heritage protection work proceed? This article should really be revised in the future, otherwise it will leave us at a loss.
Of course, the provisions of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention do not clearly define the status of a community, but allow states parties to retain the right to use it at will in the process of seeking protection mechanisms.
Despite this, according to the requirements of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, intangible cultural heritage protection should be government-guided rather than government-led.
Leadership and guidance are different.
After more than ten years of practice, can governments at all levels in China gradually transfer part of public power, and can they move from leading first to guiding, and finally towards being led by the intangible cultural heritage inheritors themselves? The government just stands by and protects the safety of intangible cultural heritage subjects, which is crucial to China's institutional innovation and the cultivation of new cultural habits.
As Janet Black pointedly pointed out, one of the most important aspects of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention is that it gives relevant cultural communities, groups and individuals a core role related to intangible cultural heritage, which is unprecedented in the field of international law.
Therefore, the continuous practice of intangible cultural heritage protection entirely depends on the ability and willingness of these cultural subjects.
Intangible cultural heritage protection needs to democratize the entire practice process, understand cultural heritage law and human rights thinking, especially in developing countries, where local people need to play a greater role.
Without the participation of intangible cultural heritage inheritors and practitioners, intangible cultural heritage will have no current existence and no future.
Therefore, any practical action aimed at protecting intangible cultural heritage must rely on the efforts, cooperation and active inheritance of the cultural community and its members.
This requires government agencies to adopt new forms of operation, change the traditional top-down approach, and establish cooperative relationships with intangible cultural heritage inheritors and practitioners.
In addition, an important step and institutional manifestation of the implementation of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention in China is the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Law").
A simple comparison between the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Law" and the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention" will reveal the changes in China and localization.
The two principles and three systems of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law, as well as the encouragement and support for citizens, legal persons and other organizations to participate in the protection of intangible cultural heritage, as well as the emphasis on respecting the wishes of local residents, all reflect the practice of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention.
paradigm.
However, unfortunately, the premise of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention protecting human rights and the distinction between communities, groups and individuals have not yet been reflected as they should in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law.
The "Intangible Cultural Heritage Law" is still a government-led model, which can easily lead to the situation that insufficient attention is paid to the rights of intangible cultural heritage inheritors in the process of protecting intangible cultural heritage, resulting in the financial aid and subsidies that some inheritors deserve not being in place.
In fact, what grassroots people and inheritors of intangible cultural heritage really think and what they need most means what we need as protectors, administrative officials, and scholars.
In today's China, where the problem of food and clothing has been solved, is the major issue at the grassroots level daily necessities, rice, oil, salt, sauce, vinegar and tea, or is it a seemingly irrelevant issue of dignity and rights? American folklore scholar Kelly Feltault met a fisherman while working on a folk conservation project and asked her: "If you can't protect my ability and rights to fish, how can you protect my culture?" This fisherman, like many of us intangible cultural heritage inheritors, does his own thing and lives his own life at the grassroots level of society.
In fact, we are the people at the grassroots level, and we are the same as the people in many aspects.
Therefore, his problem is also our problem.
What the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention" wants to express is some practical norms or even some ideal paradigms.
These practical norms and ideal paradigms will not be realized immediately or fully in reality, but they can allow us to understand what intangible cultural heritage protection is supposed to do., what is the rational purpose of protection.
Intangible cultural heritage protection is not only about protecting a specific intangible cultural heritage project.
Although specific protection is also important, the deeper thing and what brings greater significance to our living a good life lies in the new concepts and new practices of intangible cultural heritage.
The performance practice of intangible cultural heritage protection is a very important step and manifestation of globalization and modernization.
The fundamental significance of intangible cultural heritage protection lies not in protecting intangible cultural heritage itself, nor simply protecting cultural diversity, but in protecting the rights of communities, groups and individuals to create and inherit intangible cultural heritage.
The most fundamental thing is to prevent public power from infringing upon individuals.
Rights, respect human rights and dignity in the process of protecting intangible cultural heritage.
The process of fulfilling the contract is actually a process of establishing a new ethics between people.
We not only talk about ethical codes at the operational level, but also promote and implement the cultural custom of respecting each other's rights and dignity in China through intangible cultural heritage protection.
This is a practical paradigm that the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention attempts to establish in different countries and regions.
(See the original text for annotations and references.) The original text is contained in "National Art", No.
4, 2017