[Ahmed Skunti] Reflections on Intangible Cultural Heritage and Its Heritage
Abstract: Heritage, especially the heritage of intangible culture, will have two main consequences.
On the one hand, heritage can lead to distortions in the relationship between heritage and its production and locality or society in which it is located.
Having undergone de-regionalization, even if it maintains contact with its geographical origin, it can still be reproduced in any corner of the world.
On the other hand, the production of intangible cultural heritage must come at the expense of certain components: especially for its holders and practitioners, intangible cultural heritage, including themselves, has changed.
One of the above two dimensions is the external perspective and the other is the internal perspective.
These two dimensions combine the global and local levels, allowing the two levels to define each other, and thereby create an "authentic fantasy." This "fantasy" becomes the factual basis of the inheritance process.
Keywords: Intangible cultural heritage; heritage production; heritage; local; global; author profile: Ahmed Skunti, Introduction to the National Institute of Archaeology and Heritage Sciences of Morocco
Currently, we are at a turning point in human history, full of uncertainties.
Since ancient times, humans have never been more mobilized and enthusiastic about protecting the heritage of the past than today, especially in the context of large-scale contact between different societies and consumption-oriented overexploitation of resources.
This awareness of heritage protection comes from a prerequisite, that is,"local production" and a transformation of its models and mechanisms; at the same time, it also comes at a cost that when all or almost all heritage around them has disappeared, panicked people look for coordinates repères (and milestone bornes) to maintain their destiny in drastic change.
It is in this context that the production of heritage, whether sites, relics, practices or ideas, arises; the production of this heritage can appropriately be regarded as a "traditional invention"(invention de la tradition).
However, if heritage, especially intangible heritage, becomes heritage, it will have two main consequences.
On the one hand, patrimonialization (patrimony) can lead to distortion (distortion) between the heritage and its place or society).
Having withstood the legacy of déterritorialization, it can still be reproduced anywhere in the world, even if it maintains contact with its geographical origin.
The mobility of people and the commodification of culture have led to the flow of heritage from all over the world on an intercontinental and even global scale.
Today, the virtual dimension of the Internet has further deepened the de-regionalization of cultural heritage.
On the other hand, the production of intangible cultural heritage will inevitably pay a certain price, making the constituent elements of cultural facts (faits culturels) heritage.
These legacies are no longer and can no longer remain the same; especially for the holders and executors of the inheritance, the inheritance or even themselves cannot remain the same.
The above two dimensions, one is the external perspective and the other is the internal perspective.
These two dimensions combine the global and local levels, allowing the two levels to define each other, and thereby create an "authentic illusion ").
This "fantasy" is the factual basis of the inheritance process.
In this context, on the one hand, there are local actors (action d'identification) of intangible cultural heritage, and on the other hand, there is the UNESCO-led standardization work (travail de normalisation).
The identification of intangible cultural heritage is implemented in the process of mutual penetration of the two.
There are many local and cross-regional issues of this kind, and they have not attracted attention and been carefully studied.
This paper plans to trace the history of attention in the field of heritage from both local and international levels, interpret this issue, and elaborate on the main steps in the process of identifying, identifying and visualizing cultural events.
Cultural projects have gained dual status after this process, becoming a symbol of identity for the local community and becoming a human heritage.
This article will use the author's experience in participating in the drafting of the 2003 Convention for the Protection of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and participating in the recognition of the intangible heritage of Morocco at the local level.
Through dual local and global perspectives, it will try to critically and constructively analyze and clarify the implementation and operation of the heritage process in both large and small scales.
1.
Production of intangible cultural heritage
Today's legacy in people's eyes has not always been like this, but has been transformed under the influence of various factors.
In the beginning, heritage is not "given" and its creation is influenced by a number of key factors.
As a result, some scholars such as Regina Bendix believe that "cultural heritage does not exist, it is created." The construction of this heritage can sometimes promote a veritable worship, breed a strong sense of nostalgia, strengthen people's sense of identity, or even intensify certain forms of chauvinism, and may thereby increase or trigger conflicts.
The construction of this heritage has aroused doubts among some scholars, such as David Lowenthal, who famously said: "Cultural heritage suddenly blooms everywhere." However, this paper does not deny this extremely complex process of heritage, but aims to observe what elements are included in the intangible aspects of heritage in today's different human societies.
Dr.
James Clifford has an outstanding definition of heritage: "Heritage itself is a sense of tradition." Heritage involves many interests.
The first is the economic consequences of interference in inheritance: business creation and job creation, investment, tourism and foreign exchange earnings.
Secondly, there are the political consequences.
Because inheritance in the broad sense is used in elections, it stimulates a struggle for power between groups and individuals; this struggle and distribution of power is based on equivalence with the real or assumed economic status of the group and individuals vis-à-vis each other.
Moreover, the consequences for society are reflected in the pursuit of social reputation,"salience" and symbolic capital by these groups and individuals.
Finally, the cultural consequences are reflected in the fact that interference with heritage establishes a strong identity.
This homogeneous, eternal identity is sometimes used as a tool to mobilize people.
Heritage is first connected to the region, place and community on which it relies.
However, the difference between intangible heritage and material heritage is that intangible heritage is inherent and symbolic in its location; second, intangible heritage is not attached to its location in a decisive and sustainable way.
The complexity of the contemporary world is reflected through de-regional resources and through the expansion of "cross-regional" translocaux () and transnational transnationaux () networks.
This complexity is also reflected in the growth in the number of individual organizations, the significant development of migration flows, remote intervention by staff in distant places, the expansion of channels for international cooperation, and the rapid development of tourism.
As a result, local communities are greatly obscured, actual local communities are regarded as outdated, while another virtual community is favored.
Compared with local internal resources, members of this virtual community rely more on external resources.
These external resources are connected to other individuals through countless networks of relationships.
A place here refers to an area occupied by a community both individually and collectively.
The symbols of a place are tangible and their foundation is material.
Behind the strategy of utilizing places is the concept of collaborative synergy.
These strategies are practical and personalized.
Local heritage, whether material or intangible, is of vital value to government departments, groups and individuals.
Whether heritage is abandoned or recognized, whether it is destroyed or protected, the above-mentioned parties will recognize the importance of heritage in social construction, although specific social construction projects are sometimes contradictory.
After the status and title of intangible cultural heritage have been realized, the relationship between intangible cultural heritage and its location, and between intangible cultural heritage and the society that produced it has been distorted.
Intangible cultural heritage has been de-regionalized to some extent and has lost its material connection for survival.
The foundation of intangible cultural heritage in its location has also been cut off to varying degrees or at least partially cut off.
Today, the Internet is participating in the process of de-regionalization and "virtualization" of this legacy.
In the past, a large amount of intangible cultural heritage could not be perceived, but now they are vividly displayed in front of the public through various websites.
These websites range from amateur to professional websites; from informal to official; from blogs to other personal websites.
The number of websites is too large to count.
However, the direction and destiny of these intangible cultural heritage components are different.
Relevant national policies often lead to the grading of intangible cultural heritage, with certain types being given priority, while those that are not valued often belong to minorities or groups that are not valued.
In an area that has lacked professional accreditation for decades, including at the international level, political standards are often dominant.
There was a generation between the adoption by UNESCO of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) and the Convention for the Protection of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003), suffice it to point out here.
The lag in the identification and protection of intangible cultural heritage not only involves governments of various countries, but also affects the entire human society.
The production of intangible cultural heritage is also a process of "recycling" some cultural facts that have become heritage.
In the past, these cultural facts were abandoned, changed or disappeared.
But today, these facts often receive great attention.
However, when actors as individuals or organizations engage in the identification and identification of intangible cultural heritage, they are convinced that it is beneficial to the preservation of a large number of cultural expressions that are living or threatened with extinction.
They feel they are trying to extend the life of intangible cultural heritage projects because their original functions are on the verge of extinction.
If a new feature is not created for them, these projects risk extinction.
But what the actors did not expect was that these intangible cultural heritage projects were no longer and could no longer remain the same; these heritage projects, including their holders and implementers, had become others.
Heritage projects survive at the expense of the disappearance of certain elements that constitute their so-called "authenticity".
Treating these projects as heritage brings an unexpected new dimension to them.
The actors believe that the projects are "authentic", have not changed from the prototypes, and are being produced at the same time as always.
However, this is just an "authentic fantasy".
However, this fantasy is needed and even forms the basis of the inheritance process.
The rationality of the actions and interventions of the actors has been proved and strengthened by a series of factors.
These factors include a belief in the "authenticity" of intangible cultural heritage projects, a belief that intangible cultural heritage projects are rooted in the distant past and their immutable characteristics.
Through its episodic expression, authentic fantasy involves a reflection of the "invention of tradition".
In this regard, today's large number of cultural expressions bring a strong sense of mission to individuals, groups and societies to revitalize or continue such traditions rooted in human society.
The government, on the other hand, clearly relies on its monopoly of the media to take advantage of these "constructions ") and often over-utilizes such" constructions ".
On the other hand, there is not just "one" intangible cultural heritage.
Intangible heritage covers a wide range of areas, ranging from intangible aspects of material heritage sites, buildings and cultural relics to the most intangible categories of stories, poems, songs, prayers, smells, etc.).
What's more, pure immaterial is illusory: in fact, is there something immaterial? Because all intangible heritage items clearly have their material aspects: people hold these items through their brains and bodies, books retain traces of these items, and audio-visual carriers preserve their sounds and images.
Without this material dimension, intangible cultural heritage projects cannot be shared and cannot survive.
In order to understand and enhance understanding of intangible cultural heritage, as members of human society, we need to take into account the material dimension.
We need to use one of our own perceptions of vision, hearing, smell, taste and touch to understand intangible cultural heritage according to its materiality or immateriality.
Intangible cultural heritage is fragile, but it has strong vitality.
Unlike material heritage that was instantly destroyed at the meeting, such as the Bamyan Buddha in Afghanistan, intangible heritage can last for a longer time, and its lifespan far exceeds that of its holder and its carrier.
Even viewed from a long-term perspective, intangible cultural heritage transcends every generation that has passed it down from generation to generation, and it will not disappear so completely and easily.
On the contrary, intangible cultural heritage is self-regulating, concealing and sometimes for better reproduction depending on changes in circumstances), narrowing or expanding its scope, and even dispersing and combining the microscopic elements that make up itself into newly incorporated cultural factors, etc.
Compared with individuals, the transversality of intangible heritage projects gives these projects a longer life.
They are passed down from generation to generation just as genes are passed down from ancestors to future generations.
The inheritance of intangible heritage projects between people can almost completely correspond to the inheritance of genes.
The former is even often regarded as the latter: the children with the best parents are the ones most similar to themselves in every way, including in terms of the knowledge or skills they have the most.
But this same sublimation can also make a difference at a time of major cultural transformation: a craftsman will tell his son that if he receives a school education, does not follow the path of father and son inheriting, no longer accept the knowledge passed on to him by his father, and is likely to not inherit his father's profession, what are the benefits? Whether it is interruption in continuity or continuation in interruption, it is a way to adapt and survive, or a way for intangible heritage to disappear actively or passively.
Time is another important dimension of intangible cultural heritage.
Intangible cultural heritage may seem the same at different moments, but it will never be exactly the same, even if it looks very similar from a historical perspective.
Intangible cultural heritage is changing and flowing, and is never expressed in the same way; on the one hand, it is similar to itself, but at the same time it is different from itself.
It is this that constitutes its essence, unity and character.
As for its authenticity, it does not exist.Intangible cultural heritage is in the process of continuous "re-creation"(the term from Article 2 of the 2003 Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage is used here) and is implanted in the cultural process of a specific group or society.
Different characteristics have different meanings for each individual and group of people as a whole.
This makes it seem out of place when faced with concepts that are seen as deeply rooted, loyal to its original appearance and fixed authenticity.
Today, when people fix intangible cultural heritage on a certain material carrier (image, text, audio-visual, digital), what people keep is only a copy of it at a certain moment, because we can neither guess its past manifestation nor predict its future evolution.
The different manifestations of these intangible cultural heritage, whether in the past or in the future, may never be known to us.
In addition, we may be able to understand the music score, songs, dances, literary works, rituals, etc.
of the work itself), but we may never be able to understand the creative process, especially collective creation, as is often encountered in traditional communities.
Finally, the contemporary form of "heritage perception"(la sensibilitépatrimoniale) is different from the ancient complex attached to ancestral objects, relics, portraits or buildings.
This emotional connection also allows specific projects of intangible cultural heritage to be verified.
In recent decades, this difference has been reflected on the one hand in the huge scope covered by intangible cultural heritage, and on the other hand in the nature of motivations, that is, the role inspired and characteristics endowed by people's subjective motivations.
Differences in coverage are reflected in today's great interest in the heritage of the past among people around the world, from the most enclosed villages to the carpeted offices of UNESCO! Differences in nature and their formation are due to the large inclusion of various differences in the relations between societies and cultures, which leads these societies and cultures to actively adopt various measures, such as tourism policies, in order to maintain differences from other societies and cultures and develop strategies.
Be able to utilize intangible cultural heritage.
The above briefly outlines some misunderstandings in the process of recognizing, protecting and promoting intangible cultural heritage, but these misunderstandings do not prevent countries and international organizations from paying attention to this thorny issue.
In the following, the author will discuss UNESCO's normative actions from a macro perspective, and then quote some cases from Morocco from a micro perspective to illustrate the problems, and also explain the significance of thinking about the challenges faced by such actions.
2.
From material to non-material: The road full of thorns
Reflecting on the processes, mechanisms and policies for the protection of what we today call "intangible cultural heritage" can be traced back to the adoption by the UNESCO General Conference of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, hereinafter referred to as the "Convention"").
At that time, some people had already put forward opinions calling for attention to the value of the intangible heritage of mankind.
The bias towards architectural heritage caused by the 1972 Convention was quickly questioned by a large number of third world countries and was considered to be beneficial to industrialized countries, especially Western European countries.
In addition, in the French context, the World Heritage List reflects the "abuse of architectural heritage"(abus monumental).
This statement seems reasonable.
It was not until the 1980s that relevant reflections gradually formed an important but limited influential document.
On November 15, 1989, the 25th session of the UNESCO General Conference held in Paris adopted the Recommendation pour la sauvegarde de la culture traditionnelle et populaire (hereinafter referred to as the "Recommendation").
There are two main points worthy of attention in the "Proposal": one is the concept and the other is the legal status.
The first point involves the concept of "traditional culture and folk culture".
At this time, the concept of "oral heritage" has not yet been mentioned, let alone "intangible cultural heritage".
The Recommendation therefore uses the concept of "traditional culture and folk culture", with the modifiers reflecting the level of understanding in the humanities and social sciences at the time: on the one hand, the dilemma encountered in expanding the concept of heritage to cover the intangible aspects of culture, and on the other hand, the grading of various heritage items that make up culture, including "elite projects" passed down through formal education channels and "folk projects"(éléments populaires) based on oral tradition).
The second point is related to the legal status of the Recommendation.
The "Recommendation" is defined by UNESCO as a legal instrument and stipulates as follows: "The Conference formulates relevant guiding principles and norms, aiming to formulate regulations for solving problems on an international scale, and invites member states to adopt domestic legislation or other forms to proceed to implement the above principles and norms in territories under their jurisdiction based on the specific characteristics of the problems they face and their own constitutional provisions."
Relevant regulations that have been promulgated are sent to member states and do not require domestic approval.
Since the "Recommendation" appears to be relatively mild and flexible, it does not form binding force on member states.
In 1989, the "Recommendation" established an overall framework for the recognition and preservation of this heritage, known as "traditional culture and folk culture." However, the methodological and epistemological issues raised in the process of protecting intangible heritage have not only not been resolved, but have instead emerged in large numbers, despite years of practice in protecting such heritage.
The legislative protection of intangible heritage also involves many complex legal issues, such as the applicability of the concept of "intellectual property" in this field, and the legislative protection of information providers, information collectors and collected materials.
Finally, the "Recommendation" lists some measures to protect expressions of "traditional culture and folk culture" through international cooperation.
The limitations of the "Proposal" soon became apparent.
Because it does not have the binding force of a convention-type normative instrument, the "Recommendation" has little effect in protecting the intangible cultural heritage of mankind.
It is worth mentioning that not only professionals from member states lack expertise in this field, but also experts from UNESCO.
UNESCO has therefore implemented a number of measures for this cultural heritage.
In response to these measures, at the initiative of Juan Goytisolo, a Spanish writer who settled in Morocco, and some local Morocco intellectuals, the UNESCO Cultural Heritage Service and the Morocco National Commission for UNESCO organized an international expert consultation meeting.
The conference was held in Marrakech in June 1997 and mainly discussed the protection of cultural spaces.
It was at this meeting that a new concept in the cultural anthropological sense of the oral heritage of mankind (le patrimoine oral de l'humanité) was established.
In particular, the meeting recommended that UNESCO create an international title to reflect the value of "masterpieces" in this type of heritage.
After the meeting, the government of Morocco proposed a draft resolution with the support of a large number of other member states.
The draft was adopted at the 29th session of the UNESCO General Conference.
In accordance with this resolution, the proposal to create an international designation was discussed at the 154th and 155th meetings of the UNESCO Executive Board.
In November 1999, the Executive Board decided to create a program called "Declaration of UNESCO's Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity".
The author participated in the preparation of the application materials for the first batch of representative works of oral and intangible heritage of mankind by "Jima Ervena Square" in Morocco during 2000-2001 and the application materials for the third batch of representative works of oral and intangible heritage of mankind by "Mussem de Tan-Tan" in 2004-2005.
During this period, after being exposed to the actual local situation in the field, the author quickly felt the complexity of these concepts formulated by UNESCO experts.
In the "Candidate Project Identification"(Justification de la candidature) item in the application form, there is a question specifically about whether a heritage project can be regarded as a "masterpiece embodying human creative talent." So what is a masterpiece? The Museum of Natural History of Lyon questioned this concept through an exhibition in 2002.
The exhibition's designers asked several seemingly simple questions: "Can we identify a masterpiece?" How to identify it? Why does an object become a masterpiece?" The exhibition designers did not answer these questions, but invited visitors to find answers on their own.
The exhibition also features quite diverse exhibits, such as contemporary Inuit statues, Formula One car seats, or ancient Egyptian carvings made of black limestone from the 5th century BC.
The concept seems entirely subjective, and attempts to come up with a consensus definition may be futile.
In 2001, since the first batch of representative works were announced, doubts raised by some UNESCO member states about this title also confirmed the contradiction.
These countries criticize the elitist nature of the title, arguing that the selection criteria for the title reflect more personal likes and dislikes or social positions on these cultural expressions than the intrinsic matrix of cultural expressions; this means that the title of intangible heritage is entirely a political judgment.
Comparing the first and second lists of representatives published, we will immediately question the interpretation of the standards approved by the jury members appointed by the Director-General of UNESCO) and how this interpretation can translate local recognition into local (preparation for application through recognition decisions at the national level).
The actual work is very difficult, and we can fully understand the jury and understand that it needs to invoke other criteria in addition to those related to the content of the relevant heritage project, such as whether the project is in good condition? Is it rooted in a cultural "tradition"? Has the relevant protection plan been prepared in accordance with the document provisions of the plan?
In the face of doubts about the concept of a "masterpiece", especially for reasons that would seem too lengthy here, people began to prepare a new international instrument.
At its 31st session in 2001, the General Conference of UNESCO decided to create a binding normative instrument and invited the Director-General to submit to it a report on the status of intangible cultural heritage and a draft international convention.
31 C/Resolution 30, 2 November 2001).
At the 164th session of the UNESCO General Conference, the Executive Board decided to recommend that "the Director-General convene one or more intergovernmental expert meetings...
the first of which could be held in September 2002 to determine the areas covered by the draft convention and promote the drafting of the convention." 164 EX/Resolution 3.5.2, May 2002)
Since then, three intergovernmental expert meetings have been held at UNESCO headquarters (September 23 - 27, 2002, February 24-March 1, 2003, and June 2 - 14, 2003).
The author participated in the first and third meetings as a representative of the Morocco government.
The outcome of these three meetings was the promulgation of the draft Convention.
The draft was adopted at the 32nd session of the UNESCO General Conference in October 2003.
Shortly before this, in August 2003, an international seminar was held in Assilah, Morocco, to discuss the procedures, related issues and key points for the creation of the Convention.
Before the final text of the Convention was adopted, there was a heated debate, but the debate was always constructive.
Compared with the 1989 Recommendation and the Representative Works Plan established in 1999, the Convention is innovative in several aspects, mainly manifested in the following: the characteristics of the Convention make it a binding instrument for member states that join the Convention; abandoning the controversial concept of "masterpiece" and adopting a more appropriate name of "intangible cultural heritage"; using the preparation of domestic lists as the basis for building an intangible cultural heritage list; UNESCO establishing a funding mechanism to implement the Convention.
In summary, there was a gap of 15 years between the 1989 Recommendation and the 2003 Convention.
The work during this period was reflected in the evolution of concepts, changes in methodology, and a more proactive and voluntary approach.
However, what is interesting is that the final result was formally based on the 1972 World Heritage Convention.
So, if we know that we will ultimately seek inspiration from a World Heritage Convention that has been around for a generation to create a new international normative instrument, why do we wait so long? In addition, it should also be pointed out that the spirit of the 1972 World Heritage Convention has always shrouded the drafting process of the 2003 Convention.
Most of the experts who participated in the debate from 2002 to 2003 still remember this.
Even if they argued that the two "conventions" covered different areas and required different methods, they were always referring to the 1972 World Heritage Convention.
Defend it.
However, the arguments implicit in the 2003 Convention still remind people of the close connection between tangible and intangible heritage.
conclusion
In recent years, intangible cultural heritage has become a major factor in building identity at the local, regional and national levels.
UNESCO builds identity at the international level by finding the most effective ways to protect it.
Since the "Recommendation" adopted in 1989 quickly showed its limitations, after a series of preparatory work, the "Declaration of Representative Works of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity" plan was implemented in 1999.
Although the plan sparked discussions and resulted in three batches of 90 recognized and recognized intangible cultural heritage projects, the plan still has flaws, such as its use of the controversial concept of "masterpiece" and its lack of binding on member states.
UNESCO has thus embarked on the preparation of a new normative instrument, the Convention, which was adopted in 2003 and entered into force in 2006.
UNESCO's normative actions aim to assist member States and communities that hold intangible cultural heritage in protecting their heritage.
These legacies have in fact become the common heritage of mankind.
The context of these normative actions is the ongoing heritage process, and they sometimes inspire or promote this process.
Faced with social and economic problems, as well as cultural changes, communities and groups have fallen into increasingly serious difficulties.
This hidden dilemma is both confusing and worrying.
However, this process of inheritance, which is gradually divorced from the original self-identity in one's eyes, has also become a driving force to find oneself.
Although this search is never completed, it has always provided nourishment for new hopes and sometimes new illusions.
Facts in the cultural anthropological sense are in danger of extinction and require new functions, and are therefore regarded as cultural heritage worth protecting.Through corresponding efforts, various actors, regardless of their status, have entered a "heritage era"(temps patrimonial).
This era has triggered an extensive competition facing numerous challenges.
"Real fantasy" comes from the beliefs of each actor.
They want to use all means to extend the vitality of their ancestors 'achievements, but in fact, the key to the problem lies more in the present, especially in the future, than in the past.
(This article was published in the 4th issue of "Research on Ethnic Literature" in 2017; see the original text for annotations and references)