[Yuka Suga] Crossing the "Mistake Dichotomy"
Now, our society has entered the era of cultural heritage.
In such an era, traditional culture inherited from ancient times has become a matter of great attention, and some values of culture that did not seem to exist in the past are constantly being discovered.
Long years are necessary to discover new values in ancient culture, but such values have only been discovered in recent decades.
However, these values are not discovered naturally.
They are closely related to the world's political and economic dynamics and are discovered artificially.
100 years ago, there was no intangible cultural heritage.
Perhaps someone will argue this way: "No way! China's Kunqu Opera, paper-cutting and flowers, which are listed as intangible cultural heritage by UNESCO, have a history of more than hundreds of years.
Therefore, intangible cultural heritage already existed 100 years ago." As said, some intangible cultural heritage like this is not only hundreds of years old, but may even have a history of thousands of years.
However, such a long history is that each culture has its own history, not a history of intangible cultural heritage.
Of course, 100 years ago, the concept of intangible cultural heritage itself did not exist.
Therefore, in that era, it was impossible to understand various cultures as intangible cultural heritage and discover their value as intangible cultural heritage.
In other words, 100 years ago, these cultures were not intangible cultural heritage, but just the cultures of their respective individuals.
As the culture of that era, it had certain value in the society of that era, and was considered necessary by the people at that time.
But its value is not the value of modern "heritage" now called intangible cultural heritage.
From this point of view, it is advisable to set the stage before reaching the era of cultural heritage as the "pre-cultural heritage era" and draw a clear line from the current era of cultural heritage.
Then this "pre-cultural heritage era" came the "anti-cultural heritage era", which was exactly the same as the modernization and modernization of society, economy, politics and culture.
In this era, the value of traditional culture inherited from ancient times is not only underestimated, but can even be said to be an era when traditional culture is actively denied and eliminated.
In Japan, after the beginning of modern times in the mid-19th century, Western European culture was introduced in large quantities and its value was highly evaluated.
In sharp contrast, people no longer review the original traditional culture.
However, the times were different.
In China, we also saw the infiltration of Western European culture, and the May Fourth New Culture Movement and other movements to improve old culture emerged.
In addition, during the period of high economic growth that began in the 1960s, Japan was praising new modern culture.
On the other hand, local traditional culture was regarded as worthless culture, backward culture, rustic culture, and vulgar culture.
In contemporary China, because of the Cultural Revolution, traditional culture, especially culture related to beliefs, was labeled as "superstition" and became the object of denial.
However, what is quite ironic is that this "anti-cultural heritage era" after the 19th century has also become an era where the value of cultural heritage is born.
From a global perspective, in an era when the trend of negating traditional culture in the past is on the rise, as a reaction, the value of folklore-folk customs has been explored.
As a result, folklore that examines these folk customs has been born.
We must pay attention to this.
Therefore, in modern times, the negation of original culture discovered its value and formed an opportunity for sports to conduct research on it.
Whether in Japan or China, after the "pre-cultural heritage era" when the value of traditional culture was not yet understood, the "anti-cultural heritage era" came.
Unexpectedly, folklore was born.
However, in that era, in the final analysis, local folk culture and traditional culture were only "folk customs" rather than intangible cultural heritage.
The term intangible cultural heritage or "heritage" is now a very important keyword for folklore.
Therefore, sometimes folklore is given vitality, and sometimes folklore is fooled, but this term and the concept itself are not created by folklore, but are political terms arising from global cultural policies.
The idea of grasping culture with a long history as "heritage" became the mainstream after the 1970s.
After the Second World War, the framework of international joint organizations was formed, and the world's cultural policies were carried out around UNESCO.
At the beginning, the understanding of culture was not "heritage" but "property" 1.
For example, in the Hague, the Netherlands, in 1954, the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict was signed, which here is just "cultural property".
In addition, the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import,Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property signed in 1970 is still understood as "property" here.
At that time, the culture that was the object of protection was mainly "excellent" and "beautiful" art works such as paintings and carvings-that is, material culture was the object, but at that time, it might only be grasped in terms of "property".
The Law on the Protection of Cultural Property, which came into effect in Japan in 1950, was originally regarded as artistic material culture and tangible culture as "property".
However, in the 1970s, a worldwide milestone era on cultural resources was entered.
In 1972, after the famous Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was signed, significant changes have taken place in the way of grasping traditional culture from "property" to "heritage".
In 1973,"El Cóndor Pasa's original song" Where to Find Old Dreams "(" Song of the Eagles "), composed based on folk songs from the Andes Mountains in South America, became popular in the United States.
Although it produced huge economic benefits, its benefits were not even returned to the Andes Mountains, where the song originated.
The Ambassador of Bolivia criticized this and sent a letter to the Director-General of UNESCO Affairs, proposing to protect folk inheritance within the framework of copyright.
Taking this as an opportunity, attention to intangible culture has gradually increased.
Later, as is well known, in 2001, with the adoption of the "UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity", the "Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity" was promulgated, and in 2003, the "Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage" was signed.
The framework for heritage protection has thus been expanded to include intangible culture.
In the following ten years, meritocracy 2 was formally eliminated, and people focused on a culture with community as the main body.
At the same time, global politics surrounding intangible cultural heritage had a huge impact on cultural policies around the world.
If you are a folklore scholar, there is no one who does not know about this.
To be precise, we are living in the right time of the era of cultural heritage.
Moreover, as a hot spot in the era of cultural heritage, what is attracting the world's attention is "China".
If you understand China's intangible cultural heritage protection policies and related conditions, you may be able to understand the present and future of the world's intangible cultural heritage.
With this in mind, in October 2013, at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Japan Folklore Society, an international academic seminar entitled "Intangible Cultural Heritage Policy Hotspots·China-Learning from the Experience of China Folklore" was held.
Four China folklore scholars who participated in the policy or academic dynamics of China intangible cultural heritage and conducted in-depth research on this were invited to give speeches.
At the seminar, many important points were discussed, among which the most important one was difficult to give clear answers: the first was the question of the necessity of social practice for folklore scholars; conversely, the second was the question of negative influence on the discipline in practice.
Chen Qinjian, the main advocate of the former opinion, believes that simply being closed in the world of learning can hardly be said to have completed the mission of folklore scholars, and folklore scholars should actively make contributions in society.
Shi Aidong is the main advocate of the latter opinion.
He believes that although the intangible cultural heritage protection movement can see both positive and negative impacts on folklore, if the issue is looked at more carefully, the positive impact is only temporary.
Academically, it will lead to the neglect of basic academic activities such as the theoretical construction of folklore, and as a "negative legacy", it will leave a negative impact on future generations.
The two propositions may seem to be contradictory opinions, but they are actually problems that exist in the consistent relationship between the outside and the outside.
If the social practice of folklore scholars as Chen advocated is extremely advanced, problems that hinder the academic progress of folklore may arise as revealed by Shi Shi.
On the other hand, if the academic centralism of folklore advocated by Shi is extremely promoted, the deviation between society and folklore will lead to a reduction in the significance and sense of existence of folklore in society, as Chen pointed out.
This debate is very similar to the situation in the United States in the second half of the 1980s.
It is a discussion between academic folklore scholars and public folklore scholars, and the debate has not yet ended.
Nowadays, although the presence of public folklore in American folklore is growing, even so, differences in views on practice between public folklore scholars and academic folklore scholars are still evident.
In fact, it is difficult for academic folklore scholars to agree with public folklore scholars 'political participation and external interference in local culture; on the other hand, public folklore scholars also find it difficult for academic folklore scholars to agree that academic scholars have little social influence-even few people know the name of the subject and make no contribution to society.
Although it is now in a seemingly calm state, the mistrust between academic folklore scholars and public folklore scholars remains deeply rooted.
Regarding such differences of opinion between practical affirmations and practical negatives in society, Dr.
Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, a well-known American folklore scholar, proposed Thesis 1 that contains important perspectives that transcend this divergence.
Based on the development of public folklore, she believes that folklore has been strengthened as an institutional discipline-but not an academic discipline, thus expanding the career scope of folklore learners, and folklore has been successful in recruiting students.
2 However, this also breeds the danger of "advocating" without criticism of the opinions of governments and other departments providing research funding.
On the other hand, academic folklore scholars are separated from such "support" and believe that this can lead to critical discussions.
3.
Furthermore, Korschenblat-Kibret also pointed out the authority of "cultural ownership" and "representation of representational behavior", the constructiveness of folk art, and the objectification of cultural objects "-these issues that can be discussed due to public folklore, that is, scholars 'social practice.
However, Korschenblat-Kibret also believes that academic folklore scholars can use ethnographic research to explore the impact of public sector behavior-changes in groups related to these behaviors, such as government officials and public folklore scholars themselves, so as to give full play to the role of academic folklore scholars.
At the same time, she pointed out that dividing academic folklorists and public folklorists is a "erroneous dualism".
From what Korschenblat-Kibret said, it seems that she has limited academic folklore scholars to a type of "supervisors" for public folklore scholars and the government.
However, we should think more actively and deeply about the relationship between academic folklore scholars and public folklore scholars, and further about academic and social practice issues.
Based on the heated debate at this seminar, we once again realize that the practice of folklore scholars in society is not a simple issue that can be clearly affirmed and denied.
Simplifying this issue and making it black and white will inevitably lead to being stuck in the "wrong dualism" and unable to extricate itself.
Avoiding falling into the "false dualism" and skillfully maintaining the balance between academia and practice is what folklore expects today.
However, maintaining such a balance is easier said than done.
As can happen with all systems, the protection system of intangible cultural heritage will lose its freshness and become obsolete in the future.
If we continue to promote the assessment and registration of intangible cultural heritage, as the number increases sharply, the value brought by its "title" will be lost.
Fearing this, UNESCO began to limit registered projects to keep the number very small.
However, compared with the problem of quantity, the system will gradually lose its novelty and its power as a system.
In the near future, such an era will inevitably come, and it is not an exaggeration to call it the "Post-Cultural Heritage Era".
In this "post-cultural heritage era", we must think from now on about how folklore can become a dynamic discipline and how folklore can contribute to society.
I am sure that the topics raised by China folklore scholars at this seminar will become the starting point for future discussions in Japanese folklore.
Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to the four scholars Chen Qinjian, Ye Tao, Shi Aidong and Chen Zhiqin who brought detailed and meaningful information to this seminar and launched a lively discussion, as well as colleagues from the China Folklore Society who provided their best cooperation during the preparation stage of the seminar!
(The original text is contained in "Folk Culture Forum", No.
02, 2014, with the annotations omitted, and refer to the original issue for details)