[Zhang Duo] Community participation, community absence or communitarianism?

Abstract: Among the international conventions on the protection of intangible cultural heritage and their series of documents, communities, groups and individuals have a high status in the design of the system for identifying and protecting intangible cultural heritage.

In particular, the "Ethical Principles" published by UNESCO in 2015 highlighted the importance of communities.

These systems have been designed and implemented in the specific case of Hani intangible cultural heritage in China, from which we can see some common problems and puzzles in various places.

In the Hani cases examined, the compilation and application subjects of oral tradition intangible cultural heritage lists were unreasonable, which was not conducive to the protection and survival of oral traditions.

Lack of community participation can lead to unclear compilation of lists, while improper community participation can also lead to communitarianism.

Academic considerations of "community" in intangible cultural heritage protection often encounter difficulties for the main body in practical work.

Keywords: Hani nationality; intangible cultural heritage; community; community participation; communitarianism Author profile: Zhang Duo, Doctor of Literature, postdoctoral fellow of China Academy of Social Sciences

In the summer of 2012, I first entered the Hani village in the hinterland of Ailao Mountain to conduct field surveys on folk literature.

At that time, Honghe Prefecture was making every effort to apply for the "Honghe Hani Terrace Cultural Landscape" to the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage List.

Application for cultural heritage has become a top priority in County A ①, County B, County C and other places in the core area of terraced fields.

"Honghe Hani Terrace Cultural Landscape" was successfully included in the World Heritage List in 2013.

Prior to this, Hani Terrace in Honghe Prefecture had obtained multiple heritage identities such as "Globally Important Agricultural Cultural Heritage" and "National Intangible Cultural Heritage".

2012-2016 In 1999, my field surveys in Ailao Mountain were always accompanied by "cultural heritage".

It can be said that the Hani society in Ailao Mountain District ② has entered the era of "cultural heritage".

Intangible cultural heritage is different from cultural landscapes and agricultural heritage.

It can even be said that intangible cultural heritage protection is directly related to the survival of Hani terraced heritage.

Judging from the distribution of all Hani intangible cultural heritage projects in China, projects in Ailao Mountain Area account for the vast majority.

See the list below.

It can be seen that Ailao Mountain Area is not only the core area of terraced heritage, but also the core area for the inheritance of Hani traditional culture in China.

With the deepening of field research, I gradually discovered that there are many issues worth discussing in the protection of Hani intangible cultural heritage.

For example, for a certain cultural event shared by the entire Hani society in Ailao Mountain, only a certain county applies for intangible cultural heritage and protection.

Another example is that some intangible cultural heritage projects overlap each other.

These problems exist in many places, not just in Hani areas.

Therefore, this paper intends to explore how to grasp the fundamental starting point and foothold of "community" at all levels and stages of intangible cultural heritage work through field investigation cases.

Government departments at all levels in Hani inhabited areas have made many achievements in the protection of cultural heritage of ethnic minorities in China, effectively promoting the protection of multiple cultural heritage represented by the "Red River Hani Terrace Cultural Landscape." Previously, the author had a special article discussing the overlapping phenomenon of multiple cultural heritage projects in the Hani Terrace Community ③.

As far as intangible cultural heritage protection is concerned, the issue of community positioning is more complicated.

And based on these practices, it is necessary to further reflect on the discussions among China folklorists on community issues in intangible cultural heritage protection in 2016-2017.

1.

Understand the lack of community in the preparation of the list

List compilation is an important tool for the protection of intangible cultural heritage.

It is mainly divided into two systems: the international list at the UNESCO level and the national list at the level of each State party.

China's National Intangible Cultural Heritage List consists of four levels: country, province, city and county.

Its project classification generally refers to UNESCO's International List, but it also has China characteristics, such as "traditional cultural protected areas." The compilation of the intangible cultural heritage list in China is generally a government-led model.

Academic circles have criticized the shortcomings of the government-led model.

Among them, Ma Qianli's discussion is more constructive.

He used cases of intangible cultural heritage community participation in the Philippines and Italy to clarify that the community-led, bottom-up list compilation model is a correction of the government-led model.

In the compilation of the intangible cultural heritage list in China, in addition to reflecting ethnic information ① in the project name, it generally does not reflect ethnic information ② alone.

However, if you summarize the intangible cultural heritage projects of the same ethnic group, you can see many hidden problems.

The Hani people are a unique ethnic group in Yunnan Province, so all national intangible cultural heritage projects of the Hani people are selected from the provincial directory of Yunnan Province.

The following table is a summary of the Hani projects in the first, second, third and fourth batches of provincial directories of Yunnan Province.

List of Hani Provincial Intangible Cultural Heritage Projects in Yunnan Province ③

First of all, we need to make it clear that no intangible cultural heritage list is perfect, and even UNESCO's intangible cultural heritage list is flawed.

This article compiles the provincial intangible cultural heritage projects of the Hani people into a list.

The purpose is to get out of the "administrative-level" list and change the perspective to better understand the grassroots frontline intangible cultural heritage protection work.

The main ones that identify Hani intangible cultural heritage projects are county-level cultural centers, that is, government agencies that perform administrative functions of intangible cultural heritage protection.

Specifically, among the staff of these county-level cultural centers, there are many Hani intellectuals and professionals who participated in the "three sets of integration" of folk literature in the 1990s.

In the process of identifying intangible cultural heritage projects, the county cultural center takes the lead in the declaration and implementation of protection, and can be said to be the most direct guardian of intangible cultural heritage projects.

So, can the declaration and protection of the county cultural center reflect, represent and safeguard the opinions and rights of the community? Taking the "Hanihaba" ④ project declared by County A as an example, we can get a preliminary understanding from the information disclosed by County A Cultural Center:

County A successfully applied for the national-level intangible cultural heritage "Hanihaba" project in June 2008, and successfully applied for the national-level intangible cultural heritage "Sacrifice to the Village God Forest" project in June 2011.

There are currently 2 national-level projects,...

The county party committee government attaches great importance to the inheritance and protection of intangible cultural heritage, formulated the "National Intangible Cultural Heritage List Protection Implementation Plan" and established an inheritance center and thirty inheritance points.

So far, 67,000 yuan has been invested to build the "Hanihaba Inheritance Center" in Qingkou Village, and ZXH, the national intangible cultural heritage inheritor, has been invited to the inheritance center to inherit Hanihaba.

30 ethnic cultural inheritance base stations have been established in the county.

Among them, Qingkou,...

seven ethnic cultural inheritance base stations in Xinjie Town have been built.

Thirty inheritance base stations have inheritance activity locations.

The inheritors carry out inheritance activities regularly and irregularly, and generally use traditional festivals to carry out teaching activities.

Developed and supported 50 inheritors of national culture; in order to further inherit and protect Hanihaba, in 2011, the construction of inheritance base stations was further intensified and 10 key inheritance base stations were built: Lingjiaotang Village,...

and 50 inheritors who carry out inheritance activities internationally [2].

The above-mentioned government public information mainly shows the protection situation of the "Hanihaba" project, which shows that its protection is difficult and powerful.

If the communities inherited by "Hanihaba" are mainly villages, then these protection measures basically take care of typical villages and reflect community participation.

However, the situation of its early application for projects did not reflect community leadership.

According to the author's field survey in 2015, the application process mainly referred to the opinions of several Hani scholars in County A, such as LSR ④.

In other words, only a limited number of inheritance-related individuals had prior knowledge and consent for the application of the "Hanihaba" project, while most of the inheritance-related parties (communities) listed above did not have the knowledge and consent to participate in the application stage.

However, if we look at it from the perspective of grassroots cultural centers, it is almost impossible to allow all inheritance-related parties (mopi, singers) in the entire A County to participate in all aspects of the declaration.

First, this will consume huge manpower, material resources and time costs, but will not be conducive to the protection of "Hanihaba".

Second, there are many local Mobi and singers who are good at singing Haba in County A (the above quotations can also be confirmed), making detailed statistics difficult, making it difficult to draw up a list of prior knowledge and consent.

Third, the concept of intangible cultural heritage is more an extension of national policies for County A.

The local area lacks consciousness, and explaining intangible cultural heritage to relevant parties is itself a problem.

Therefore, it is more in line with the actual work rules for local elites who are recognized to be able to identify "Hanihaba" on behalf of the county community to lead the application work, and then specifically identify key groups for protection work after application.

An intangible cultural heritage list declaration method such as County A belongs to a "technical community vacancy" and does not violate the principles of intangible cultural heritage ethics.

Of course, this technical absence can only be used as a stopgap measure to deal with the lack of actual working conditions, and intangible cultural heritage protection work should pursue higher goals.

In economically underdeveloped areas, the working conditions of grassroots cultural centers are very limited, and they should not be required to strictly follow UNESCO requirements.

However, if the work at the list preparation stage (i.e.

the project application stage) can refer more to UNESCO's concepts of relevant communities, deviations in subsequent protection work can be avoided.

Take the teaching points of "Hanihaba" mentioned in the above quotation as an example.

Some teaching teachers use "Hanihaba" as a "song" for public teaching and display, but do not effectively intervene in the inheritance system of Modi apprentices or family traditions, which leads to the "Hanihaba""De-contextualization".

Some teaching sites are very effective.

For example, since Dongpu Village is the residence of the famous Mopi ZXH masters and apprentices, ZXH, as a national intangible cultural heritage inheritor, can effectively use these conditions to inherit.

But in fact, ZXH is the inheritor of the "Four Seasons Production Tune"(A2) project, not the inheritor of "Hanihaba", and the "Four Seasons Production Tune" is only part of the "Hanihaba" oral tradition.

It can be seen that during the compilation stage of the list, it was precisely because of insufficient understanding of the behavior of "Hanihaba" in the community that some deviations in the subsequent protection work were caused.

The importance of community participation during the list preparation stage is also reflected in the relationship between small communities and the overall region.

From the Ailao Mountain area, the community means a learning system for the "Hanihaba" project, especially the "Hanihaba", because the core part of "Hanihaba" is often sung during rituals.

So the question that arises is, since the "Hanihaba" project should be identified and protected by the Mopi and singer groups, can the Mopi in County A represent the Mopi in other Hani inhabited areas? In the entire Ailao Mountain District, except County A, County B, County C, County D, County E, County G, etc.

are all Hani inhabited areas.

There are countless excellent Mobi, and they almost do not participate in the "Hanihaba" intangible cultural heritage project inheritance and protection.

The main reason is that the main unit for "Hanihaba" to apply for national-level intangible cultural heritage is County A Cultural Center, so County A Cultural Center is also the responsible unit of the project.

For some projects, such as the Hani multi-voice music "Planting Rice Folk Song"(B1 in the table), the provincial directory is declared by County B Cultural Center, while the national directory is expanded and changed to Honghe Prefecture.

For the Hani multi-voice music project, this change is very reasonable and timely, because multi-voice music is distributed across counties A and B, and the cross-border problem is solved by applying for the national directory by Honghe Prefecture, the higher-level administrative district.

However, the "Hanihaba" project cannot carry out this operation because its distribution is ethnic and spans multiple prefectures and cities in Yunnan Province such as Honghe Prefecture, Pu 'er City, Yuxi City, and Xishuangbanna Prefecture, unless the Yunnan Province Intangible Cultural Heritage Center is the responsible party for protection.

Therefore, such intangible cultural heritage projects can easily lead to the absence of community in actual work and lack of overall consideration.

In China, intangible cultural heritage projects such as "Gesar" that use national power to protect are after all a minority.

However, as far as the actual situation is concerned, projects like "Hanihaba" are indeed not something that County A Cultural Center can carry, and at least require a provincial policy framework to protect them.

The consequences of the absence of communities during the compilation of the "Hanihaba" project list are not only affected by the inheritance itself, but are more directly reflected in the chaos of the provincial intangible cultural heritage list.

The items in the table,"Four Seasons Production Survey"(A2),"Min Bian Mi Bian"(A5),"Hani Apecongpo"(A6), and "Duma Jian Collection"(A7), are in fact all content covered under the framework of "Hanihaba".

"Four Seasons Production Tune" and "Hani Apecong Slope" are both written records of singer ZXH's singing.

"Duma Jian Shou" was compiled by intellectuals in County C who compiled one of the "Hanihaba" Soqzyuq Hovqtuv Massol "into an epic, named after the name of the goddess in the epic" Duma Jian Shou "(Yunnan Nationalities Publishing House, 2004).

Small communities declare intercepted fragments of large oral traditions as intangible cultural heritage projects, which is in fact not conducive to the protection of Hani oral traditions.

This nesting of intangible cultural heritage list items reflects the deep participation of local intellectuals (especially folk literature collectors and compilers) in project application.

Of course, local demands to take into account their own cultural, political and cultural industry interests should be understood and respected.

Local intellectuals have no fault with the localized practice of oral traditions.

The "Duma Jane Collection" declared by County C has formed a complex relationship between oral tradition, written text, and public culture.

The issue that needs to be discussed here is, assuming that the community (inheritance stakeholders), especially the representative singers, determines that "Duma Jianshou" is a different project from "Hanihaba", can this identification alone be included in the intangible cultural heritage list? "Duma Bamboo Collection" is obviously a relatively recent "epic work" extracted from the "Hanihaba" tradition.

If we respect and recognize the identification of the Hani community in County C and then enter the provincial and national lists, then the interests of other Hani communities will be harmed.

"Hanihaba" is a project applied by County A.

If it is unwilling to add County C as a protection unit through the expanded list, it will lead to the application of new projects such as "Duma Jane Collection".

Of course, the application for this project has the obvious intention of highlighting the regional cultural characteristics of County C.

The result of this fragmented application for cultural heritage will instead lead to the lack of overall protection of "Hanihaba" in County C.

Therefore, the absence of a community is not only a matter of rights and interests between a specific community and other communities, but also a major issue in the compilation of the entire intangible cultural heritage list.

The unclear list directly leads to deviations in the protection of specific projects.

2.

Communitarianism and cultural divisions

Communities are the key to the protection of intangible cultural heritage.

UNESCO specially published the "Ethical Principles for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" in 2015, using 12 ethical principles closely related to "communities, groups and individuals" to highlight the importance of "community entities" in protecting intangible cultural heritage.

Article 1 of the Ethical Principles states: "Relevant communities, groups and individuals should play a primary role in protecting the intangible cultural heritage they hold." [3]Article 3 adds: "Mutual respect and respect and mutual appreciation of intangible cultural heritage shall be established in interactions between States parties and between communities, groups and individuals." (The quotation is the same as before, and the following is the same.) That is to say, while the community highlights itself as the subject of identifying intangible cultural heritage, it should also take into account other communities and respect each other.

So how to define the community subject of Hani intangible cultural heritage? Similar to the previous example of "Duma Jane Collection", if the Hani community in County E believes that the creation epic "Min Bian Mi Bian" is its own intangible cultural heritage, then implementing protection work according to this community entity will inevitably lead to local entities increasingly regard "Min Bian Mi Bian" as a local epic work.This ignores the oral tradition of the mythological motif of "making heaven and earth", such as "Min Bian Mi Bian","Mudi Mi Di","Ao Se Mi Se" and "Yan Ben Huo Ben", which are told in different dialects.

They are the creation myth shared by the Hani people in the entire Ailao Mountains.

Moreover, oral epics are not "works", which is already common knowledge in oral poetics.

The increasingly prominent result of localization is selective protection of intangible cultural heritage protection, thereby establishing new cultural divisions.

Moreover, such segmentation can easily lead to the "de-contextualization" opposed by Article 10 of the Ethical Principles.

Although in the study of folk literature,"Hanihaba" is an overarching oral tradition that can include items such as "Min Bian Mi Bian" and "Duma Jian Shou", the reality is not that simple.

First, the "Hanihaba" declared by County A is not "Hanihaba" in the overall sense.

The applicant still regards "Hanihaba" as an epic work of a place, and its meaning is not in the overall oral tradition of the Hani people.

Second, as an overarching oral tradition,"Hanihaba" does not have clear boundaries or clear definitions.

This ambiguity and inclusiveness are also the vitality of its oral tradition.

Therefore, it is impossible to clearly define what "Hanihaba" contains in the compilation of the intangible cultural heritage list.

Third,"Hani Haba" is a grand oral genre shared by the entire nation.

This understanding is mainly possessed by a few scholars engaged in the study of oral traditions, but most Hani singers do not have this understanding.

Then, in accordance with the ethical principle of highlighting community entities, academic research should not interfere with the community's identification of intangible cultural heritage projects.

However, is this reasonable?

Article 6 of the Ethical Principles states: "Each community, group or individual should assess the value of the intangible cultural heritage it holds, and such heritage should not be subject to external judgments of value or significance." This article directly creates the embarrassment of whether academia can intervene in the identification of intangible cultural heritage.

As mentioned above, if the community determines that intangible cultural heritage is mainly based on the interests and standpoint of "localization" and divides the intangible cultural heritage originally shared by many places into unique local cultures (especially small places), it will not only create new cultural areas.

Separation, but also violate the basic spirit of "mutual understanding and mutual appreciation" of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention.

Article 12 of the Ethical Principles also clearly states: "The protection of intangible cultural heritage is the common interest of mankind and should therefore be carried out through cooperation between parties at the bilateral, subregional, regional and international levels; however, communities, groups and individuals should never be alienated from their own intangible cultural heritage." The 12 articles of the "Ethical Principles" seem thorough and comprehensive and take into account the concerns of all parties, but their actual operation is full of contradictions and difficulties.

This situation, which highlights the possibility of a community deviating from the original intention of protecting intangible cultural heritage, was summarized by Lu Wei as "communitarianism".

The main logic of Lu Wei's discussion of "communitarianism" is: First, folk elites, as actors (actors) in performance, promote "communitarianism" based on the "sense of community" of "a certain" and "specific community" because they hold community power.

Second, community propositions that do not accept the value or meaning judgment of objective universal principles (such as human rights principles) are called "communitarianism"; all open and open community propositions should not be called "communitarianism"[4][5].

Lu Wei's opposition to "communitarianism" is mainly aimed at Article 6 of the "Ethical Principles", particularly emphasizing that the will of the community cannot undermine the principles of universal human rights.

Lu Wei's criticism of Article 6 of the "Ethical Principles" seized on the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention and its operating guidelines to strengthen the dominant position of the community, which may encourage the "localism" and "elitism" that exist in the protection of intangible cultural heritage at the local level."nationalism".

Especially after the publication of the "Ethical Principles", if the State party and its domestic local governments misunderstand and implement the "Ethical Principles" at all levels, it will lead to the will of small places, small communities, and small groups damaging the interests of regions, subregions and even other State parties (or the general interests of mankind).

However, Lu Weizhi's criticism was biased in that he did not regard the "Ethical Principles" as a whole, but isolated Article 6 for analysis, which ignored the "Ethical Principles" efforts to take into account the interests of both inside and outside the community and the principles of universal human rights.

Moreover, the "Ethical Principles" cannot be viewed separately from the resolutions of the 10th Ordinary Session of UNESCO on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage or even the Convention.

Moreover, UNESCO does not tend to give a clear concept definition of "community/community" in order to avoid endless academic elite debates ① and leave room for practical operations in different places.

After all, intangible cultural heritage is essentially a practical work of intergovernmental cultural governance and must face complex cultural and political situations.

The author believes that "communitarianism" should attract the attention of intangible cultural heritage protection practitioners.

The essence of the phenomenon of communitarianism is the dilemma of defining the main body of intangible cultural heritage communities.

Who has the right to identify intangible cultural heritage? Who is the subject responsible for intangible cultural heritage protection? Once these key issues enter academic discussions, they often disagree.

As far as the practical work of intangible cultural heritage protection of the Hani people in China is concerned, if it is a cross-county intangible cultural heritage, the intangible cultural heritage holder of a certain county should not be the spokesperson of the entire region, but should take into account the interests of each county.

This requires coordination at the state, city or provincial level.

The county cultural bureau (cultural center) should not become or endorse the community's main body in the declaration and protection of intangible cultural heritage, but should only play the role of providing policy support and public services to government agencies.

In An Deming's words, government forces should take a stance of cultural dialogue, overcome the stance of strong interference, and equally participate in protection work as cultural coordinators [6].

The academic community should also actively participate in the decision-making consultation on the preparation of the initial level (county and county level) intangible cultural heritage list to assess the relationship between local interests and the overall cultural interests of the region, nation, and country.

Or when applying from county and city directories to provincial and national directories, academic colleagues closely related to the project should participate in the adjustment, merger and screening of the directory.

That is to say, the author does not agree that "communities, groups, and sometimes individuals" have the power to identify a certain intangible cultural heritage without hesitation and include it on the list.

The author agrees that the community is leading and participating in the entire process of identifying and protecting intangible cultural heritage projects., and enjoy relevant benefits.

Especially for the compilation of intangible cultural heritage lists, the list itself means cultural diversity, and the subtext is mutual respect.

Just as Gao Xiaokang judged the 2001 World Declaration on Cultural Diversity: "From cultural diversity to cultural diversity" means that protecting cultural diversity should no longer be a cultural display and gaze of others, but should be the consciousness of cultural subjects and respect for different cultural subjects [7].

The most difficult thing in reality is "respect for different cultural subjects."

In short, the existing provincial-level intangible cultural heritage of the Hani people involves the interests of four prefectural and department-level administrative units: Honghe Prefecture, Pu 'er City, Yuxi City, and Xishuangbanna Prefecture.

Specifically, in Honghe Prefecture, it also involves the interests of County A, County B, County C, County D, and County F.

In the separation of these administrative units, the overall manifestation of the Hani intangible cultural heritage has been largely weakened, and the effective protection of nature has also been affected.

Especially for intangible cultural heritage projects such as oral tradition (folk literature), the list compilation and protection planning are very different from those of other intangible cultural heritage projects, and the ethical concerns to be considered are also more special.

The protection of the intangible cultural heritage of the Hani people should draw on the macro design and protection ideas of Gesar (Si) er and "Hua 'er", and should not be subject to small communities in a fragmented manner.

As far as contemporary China's national conditions are concerned, not only the Hani people, but also ethnic minority intangible cultural heritage protection projects involving large-scale survival should consider macro and open working ideas, and it is not appropriate to position community entities in a small place that actively declares.

3.

Limits, validity and scale of community participation

In the discourse of intangible cultural heritage protection,"community participation" is a common term.

Zhu Gang conducted a detailed review and analysis of this concept, and believed that in UNESCO's intangible cultural heritage terminology system,"community" and "community participation" include three types of interactive entities: "community, group, and sometimes individuals", and the same project may involve multiple entities.

At the operational level, community participation mainly refers to the specific process of specific entities participating in the formulation and implementation of protection plans [8].

Yang Lihui also pointed out that in the protection of intangible cultural heritage, the importance of the community is not limited to participation and informed consent, but also because when applying and formulating protection measures, the community is placed at the center and regarded as a key subject [9].

Previously, Zhou Chao also analyzed the important position of community participation in intangible cultural heritage protection from an international legal perspective [10].

So far, the Hani people have not had a single intangible cultural heritage project that has entered the UNESCO list, so there is no way to match UNESCO's intangible cultural heritage practice from the Hani people's case.

However, the Honghe Hani Terrace centered on Counties A, B and C has long become a "world cultural heritage" and a "global important agricultural cultural heritage".

This is precisely a typical case of multiple heritage communities.

Therefore, the protection of Hani intangible cultural heritage is unique, and the docking of heritage work at multiple levels must be considered.

Although the Hani community (groups and individuals) has not yet undergone the harsh, lengthy, multi-party negotiation and internationalization baptism of applying for the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage List, the principles and concepts of UNESCO's Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection have been transmitted to the Hani community through the governments of the State party, and It has had an irreversible practical impact on the community, that is, heritage.

Take the Hani Brown Fan Dance (E2 in the Table) as an example.

This project is currently the only national-level intangible cultural heritage of the Hani people in Yuxi City (2011, the third batch of national-level intangible cultural heritage lists).

In June 2014, the author went to Yangjie Township, D County, Yuxi City to conduct field surveys and visited NWS, a core member of the Brown Fan Dance Project who applied for intangible cultural heritage.

NWS is a Hani cadre at the local cultural station and is famous for his superb palm fan dance skills.

NWS is the core member of the city, county and national intangible cultural heritage projects applying for the Brown Fan Dance Project.

He loves Brown Fan Dance very much and is also familiar with the performance and dance of various Hani musical instruments.

During his decades of cultural work at the grassroots level, he actively promoted the stage performance of brown fan dance, and led several teams to perform outside the province.

Therefore, he actually has three identities: within the community, outside the community, and a local government agency.

The palm fan dance is a very basic and common folk ritual dance of the Hani people in Ailao Mountain District.

It has a profound foundation in folk life and is widely distributed in counties where the Hani people live in Honghe Prefecture, Yuxi City, and Pu 'er City.

In the traditional life context of the Hani people, the brown fan dance is an important part of the funeral ceremony and has ceremonial functions such as simulating creation, communicating ancestors, and connecting life and death.

At present, this dance movement is gradually out of the funeral context and can be performed in non-funeral occasions.

But in general, the palm fan dance is generally a ceremonial dance, and many Hani communities avoid dancing the palm fan dance in living places and non-ceremonial occasions.

For example, when I was investigating in Sharatuo Township, County A in 2016, the villagers made it clear that the palm fan dance could not jump.

It can be seen that brown fan dance has shown cultural diversity in modern folk practice.

If the staged (generally referred to public performances adapted to non-ceremonial contexts) brown fan dance is a de-contextualization (or even commercialization) of the funeral brown fan dance, does the entry of the staged brown fan dance into the intangible cultural heritage list violate UNESCO's "Ethical Principles"? Is this community-led form desirable?

The author observed that the brown fan dance has formed extensive cultural identity in the Hani inhabited area of County D, especially in Yangjie Township.

Although the NWS is the core leader of the heritage process, in terms of results, the local community basically recognizes the palm fan dance (including in non-ceremonial contexts) as an intangible cultural heritage that maintains its own cultural identity, so such intangible cultural heritage projects are ethical.

Therefore, the "limits" of community participation do not necessarily have to avoid the leadership of local elites and local governments.

But the key to the issue lies in the validity of community participation, that is, whether the actual effect promotes the survival and sustainable development of intangible cultural heritage projects.

At the same time, the issue of mutual respect must also be considered, especially the fact that the palm fan dance itself has cultural diversity within the Hani people.

Related to the palm fan dance, the "Hani Mochacha"(C6) and the "Tongnini Dance"(E5) declared by County C are also funeral-related events.

"Motuocha" is the special name for high-level funerals of the Hani people.

There are usually some conditions for holding Motuocha, such as the high moral character of the deceased, the large number of people participating in the funeral, the large number of oxen killing sacrifices, etc.

But in fact, one of Mo Tuotuo's most core rituals was the palm fan dance led by Mo Pi.

At funerals, Tongni dances are often danced.

Therefore, as a funeral ceremony, Mo Thoo itself included "Hanihaba", palm fan dance and Tongnini dance ①.

There are similar situations.

The Quran drum (E1) declared by County F and the Duran drum (E4) declared by County B are actually the sacrificial dances in the "Sacrifice to the Village God Forest"(C1) ceremony declared by County A and County E.

Digu drum will also dance on the "Zaza Festival"(C4) declared by County A.

Strictly speaking, inspiration and ground inspiration are the same ritual dance.

In other words, the overall sacrificial culture shared by the Hani people in Ailao Mountain District was selectively declared separately by each county.

So as a practical work of intangible cultural heritage, how to protect these projects?

While intangible cultural heritage work attaches importance to the validity of community participation, it also needs to innovate protection measures based on actual conditions, such as overall protection.

Hu Xiaohui has long called for this point: "We also need to have an overall and holistic concept when looking at the intangible cultural heritage of each region.

We cannot only see the local and regional nature of local culture and ignore the overall nature of culture.

and humanity." [11]For example, if County C coordinates related projects such as Motuochu, Tongnini Dance, and "Duma Jianshou" for protection planning, it can well make up for the unclear subject caused by overlapping list preparation.

For cross-state and city projects, there is no need to stick to administrative divisions and project categories.

For example, County E of Pu 'er City, Counties A and F of Honghe Prefecture can carry out cross-regional cooperation on "Sacrifice to the Village and God Forest" and Yongfu, and these tasks will undoubtedly require the help of the government to complete them.

We should not overemphasize the central position of the inheritance group and ignore the areas where the government should play a leading role.

Of course, making full use of the "extended list" in the existing intangible cultural heritage list is also a pragmatic approach.

In the final analysis, the nesting and even duplication of intangible cultural heritage projects in Hani counties is due to the unclear positioning of community entities in the list preparation process and insufficient understanding of the importance of the community.

Therefore, community participation must be related to overall protection; while focusing on the community, we must also regard academic circles, government, and market as common but differentiated subjects of intangible cultural heritage protection, and carry out collaborative practice with the goal of promoting the survival of intangible cultural heritage projects.

How to coordinate the government, scholars, local elites, and inheritors (groups) involves the scale of community participation, and this is precisely where UNESCO's Ethical Principles can play a role.

The preface to the "Ethical Principles" clearly states: "These ethical principles can serve as the basis for developing specific ethical codes and tools that apply to local sector conditions." Regarding UNESCO's Ethical Principles and related international instruments, Chaogokin summarizes them into five core values, namely: in line with the fundamental position of ensuring the central role of communities, groups and individuals; in line with existing international human rights documents; in line with mutual respect; in line with the needs of sustainable development; in line with the overall interests and common concerns of mankind [12].

The "Five Conformity" principle actually sets standards for all parties involved in intangible cultural heritage protection.Government agencies and organizations with strong power and resources should respect the subjective will of intangible cultural heritage holders and take their benefits as the goal of protection plans; as intangible cultural heritage holders, they must not only respect and appreciate the intangible cultural heritage of other communities, but also abide by international human rights standards and universal human values; other participants in intangible cultural heritage protection (especially professional scholars) should also take the sustainability of intangible cultural heritage projects as their work goal and equally participate in the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection.

In UNESCO's discourse on intangible cultural heritage protection,"community" is an operating term that is unstable, heterogeneous and has great flexibility ②.

Judging from the basic concept that intangible cultural heritage protection emphasizes the dominant position of the community, there is no need to summarize and analyze all intangible cultural heritage projects of a nation at the same level.

Regardless of the ethnic group, country, religion, or class attributes, the cultural heritage of every community should enjoy equal status and should be respected and appreciated.

This paper compares the provincial intangible cultural heritage projects of the Hani people in order to combine field research and explore community subject issues based on understanding grassroots intangible cultural heritage protection work.

The Hani people themselves are a nation with outstanding cultural diversity.

They have made many achievements in the protection of intangible cultural heritage.

Their practice of multiple cultural heritage protection has also contributed experience to world cultural undertakings.

In view of the difficulties encountered by community entities in the protection of intangible cultural heritage in various Hani communities, only by combining the solutions provided by relevant UNESCO conventions and documents with local realities can the level of actual intangible cultural heritage protection work be improved.

(This article was published in Northwest Ethnic Studies, No.

2, 2018.

See the original text of the publication for annotations and references)