[Peng Mu] The contemporary nature of intangible cultural heritage: Time and the inheritance of folk traditions
pick
Summary: Representative by the 2003 Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage, folk traditions have experienced a process of cultural heritage on a global scale in the second half of the last century.
In the historical process from exploring the protection of folk customs to the formation of the Convention, several documents on "cultural heritage" formulated by UNESCO show subtle changes in the definition and interpretation of relevant concepts in the definition and interpretation of folk customs: folk customs have transformed from cultural products produced by continuous history to current practices that are related to history in some way.
By analyzing the social historical and political and cultural background of the formation of these documents, the article explores the knowledge production and knowledge/discourse-related power processes behind their evolution, and points out that this evolution is deeply related to the changes in time, space and spatio-temporal relations in the historical process from modernization to post-modernity.
Keywords: time; space; present; folk tradition; heritage author profile: Peng Mu, associate professor, School of Liberal Arts, Beijing Normal University Foundation project: National Social Science Foundation project "Research on Cultural Identity, Identity Politics and the Production of American Folklore Knowledge" Project Number:17 BZW172) Phased Achievements
1.
Definition of heritage: Long history and current practice
In September 2003, UNESCO adopted the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as the "2003 Convention") at the 32nd General Conference.
As of September 5, 2017, 175 countries have joined.
At the 12th Ordinary Session of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, which concluded on December 9, 2017 in Jeju Island, South Korea, a total of 470 projects from 117 countries were included in the three categories of the "2003 Convention" list/roster, of which a total of 38 projects were included in my country.
As an ancient country with a long history and culture, the projects selected in my country all have a long history.
For us, whether the time is long or not is obviously crucial to what can be called a heritage.
This is just like the definition of "heritage" in the Modern Chinese Dictionary: "Generally refers to the spiritual wealth or material wealth left over from human history." However, in the basic definition of intangible cultural heritage in the 2003 Convention, there is actually no requirement whether the time is long.
Article 2 of the 2003 Convention provides the basic definition of intangible cultural heritage:
Refers to the various social practices, conceptual expressions, manifestations, knowledge, skills and related tools, objects, handicrafts and cultural sites that communities, groups, and sometimes individuals regard as part of their cultural heritage.
This intangible cultural heritage is passed down from generation to generation and is constantly recreated as communities and groups adapt to their surrounding environment and interact with nature and history, providing these communities and groups with a sense of identity and continuity, thereby enhancing cultural diversity.
Respect for human creativity.
Here, the timeliness of intangible cultural heritage is only limited by "passing down from generation to generation", and the focus of the whole sentence is actually "constantly recreating", that is, in terms of its current function and significance.
If in the text of the "2003 Convention", this view of time that weakens history and strengthens the present is only a concise expression of one sentence, then it was clearly explained and practiced in the review after the Convention came into force in 2006.
In fact, at least since the review report of the fourth ordinary session in 2009, on the key issue of how to understand the definition of intangible cultural heritage, that is, the interpretation and review of Article 2 of the Convention, the relationship and proportion of the project's current social function and culture between the significance and the historical dimension of the project is an issue that has been repeatedly discussed.
The review body has repeatedly pointed out to each contracting party that in filling out the application form, there is no need to elaborate too much historical information about the project, and what needs to be focused on is the current function and significance of the intangible cultural heritage project.
For example, in the horizontal issues that emerged in the review proposed by the advisory body in 2012 and 2013 and in the memorandum for filling out the application form in 2014, diluting history and highlighting the current situation are issues that have been repeatedly emphasized.
Both the review reports of the 9th Ordinary Session (2014) and the 10th Ordinary Session (2015) mentioned that the State party's description of the project should not focus on historical aspects, but should focus on its current social functions and practical significance to the relevant communities." The 10th review report also clearly elaborated on the relationship between intangible cultural heritage as a contemporary practice and history: "Intangible cultural heritage is always a living practice after all...
although it can be carried out around the interaction of the community with its history."
Obviously, the intangible cultural heritage as defined in the 2003 Convention points to a contemporary practice.
Although it has a historical dimension, this historical dimension can be very short in the span of time.
For example, the masterpiece project "Filete porteno in Buenos Aires, Argentina" included in 2015 is a folk practice formed in urban space by Italian immigrants in the early 20th century in the face of a new social and cultural environment.
Bangladesh's "Mangal Shobhajatra Festival Customs to Celebrate Pahela Baishakh New Year" was included in 2016 as part of traditional New Year celebrations and started in 1989, which means it has a history of less than 30 years! From this point of view, although the definition of "2003 Convention" has the limitation of "passing down from generation to generation", the time it refers to does not actually have a specific depth requirement.
This is not so much a way to express timeliness, but rather a way to emphasize inheritance.
In this definition, what really emphasizes is that these legacies are in the process of "constantly recreating" in their current situation.
Obviously, the key to the definition and consideration of intangible cultural heritage is not to emphasize whether a certain cultural practice has a long history, not its duration in time, but its current significance and its re-creation practice.
If we compare this view of time reflected in the "2003 Convention" with UNESCO's first convention on cultural heritage, namely the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage adopted in 1972, hereinafter referred to as the "1972" Convention ""), and several documents related to intangible cultural heritage before the adoption of the "2003 Convention", namely the 1989 "Recommendation for the Protection of Folk Works"(hereinafter referred to as the "Recommendation"), The 1998 "Regulations on the Proclamation of Representative Works of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity" is hereinafter referred to as the "Representative Works Regulations".
We will see that in the more than 30 years of the expansion of cultural heritage from material culture to intangible culture, UNESCO has reflected subtle changes in time in the definition and interpretation of several concepts related to "cultural heritage": heritage has changed from a cultural product produced through a continuous history to a current practice related to history in some way.
How is such a change possible? What are the historical and social reasons? Based on several key UNESCO documents during the formation of the 2003 Convention, this paper explores the social historical and political and cultural background of the documents 'formation, analyzes the evolution of folk traditions in their temporal definition in the process of heritage, and explores the knowledge production and knowledge/discourse related power processes behind them.
UNESCO's 1972 Convention defines cultural heritage as follows:
For the purposes of this Convention, the following items are "cultural heritage"
Cultural relics: buildings, stele carvings and stele paintings, archaeological elements or structures, inscriptions, caves and combinations of outstanding universal value from a historical, artistic or scientific perspective;
Building complex: A single or connected building complex that has outstanding universal value in terms of architectural style, uniform distribution, or combination with the environment and scenery from a historical, artistic or scientific perspective;
Sites: Places such as human projects or joint projects of nature and man and archaeological sites that have outstanding universal value from a historical, aesthetic, ethnographic or anthropological perspective.
The "Proposal" defines folk customs as follows:
Folk customs or traditional popular culture) is all that cultural groups create based on traditions, expressed through groups or individuals, and are considered to reflect the group's expectations in terms of cultural and social characteristics; its standards and values are passed down orally through imitation or other means.
Among them, its forms include language, literary works, music, dance, games, mythology, rituals, customs, handicrafts, architecture and other art.
The "Representative Works Regulations" replace folk customs with "oral and intangible heritage", and generally follow the definition of the "Proposal":
According to the above-mentioned Recommendation, the term "oral and intangible heritage" is defined to mean "all creations from a cultural community that are based on tradition, expressed by a group or individuals, and are considered to be in line with the community's expectations as an expression of its cultural and social identity; whose norms and values are passed down orally through imitation or other means, in the form of language, literature, music, dance, games, mythology, etiquette, customs, handicrafts, architecture and other art." In addition to these examples, traditional forms of communication and information will also be considered.
In the historical development of the above three documents and the "2003 Convention", we not only see the trajectory of the formation of the concept of intangible cultural heritage, but also see the changes in the relationship between the concept of cultural heritage and time and history, and the historical process of the inheritance of folk traditions through the concept and practice of intangible cultural heritage.
2.
The present and the past: The timeliness of heritage protection
The concept of heritage and its practice formed in the process of modernization embody a special timeliness, that is, it is a current practice but is essentially related to the past time.
This is also the result of the division of time between the past and the present in the process of modernization.
As Dr.
Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, an American folklorist, said,"Heritage is a new way of cultural production that calls on the past." Inspired by the denial of simultaneity proposed by Johannes Fabian when he critically reflected on the academic history of anthropology, Korschenblatt-Kibret regarded timeliness as a key feature of cultural heritage, pointing out that heritage practice embodies the special connection between the past and the present in time, presenting multiple juxtapositions in contemporary time constructed by modernization:
The core of the cultural nature of heritage is time.
The non-contemporaneity of history, heritage and habit clocks) and the temporality of things, people and events create a tension between the contemporary and the contemporaneity (a confusion of evanescence and disappearance), as discussed above, and a paradox: possession of heritage as a sign of modernity.
This is the condition for making global heritage possible.
As we all know, folklore, as a discipline, originated from the process of modernization, and originated from the seemingly continuous construction of the present and the past in time, which is actually the binary opposition between modernity and tradition.
The concept of heritage and its related practices also emerged from the same historical process, bearing the imprint of modernity.
Dr.
Astrid Swenson used detailed historical data to show and compare the formation and development of the concept of heritage and related practices during the modernization process of France, Germany and the United Kingdom from the late 18th century to the early 20th century.
It is reflected in the search for the origin of national culture when each nation-state identity was formed.
It is also related to the position of religion in the process of industrialization, urbanization and secularization.
It is also reflected in the popularity of historical exhibits in various world expos and exhibitions that began in the mid-19th century.
In this process, heritage has become a reflection of national cultural identity, but its display and protection practice has always been related to the exchanges, dialogue and international competition among countries during the global rise of capitalism, showing an international background, which has also become a precursor to international heritage protection promoted by the League of Nations and the United Nations after the war.
The concept of cultural heritage formed during such historical processes, like anthropology and folklore formed during the same period, holds a single-line evolutionary view of global history and culture.
European civilization was placed at the apex of history, and the achievements of other cultures were separated from their respective veins and classified into linear historical order.
Cultures are itemized), classified and arranged in a classification way that transcends their specific contexts, forming a kind of transcultural list).
Any sorting requires a classification and arrangement standard.
Here, time, the time that was universalized and abstracted after the Enlightenment, becomes the most basic classification clue.
Fabian pointed out that in the Judeo-Christian tradition, time is linear and the medium of sacred history, while pagan time is cyclical.
In the process of modernization, we did not invent a new linear time, but secularization of Judeo-Christian religious time, generalization and universalization of this time.
Linear universal time appeared during the Renaissance and developed rapidly in the Enlightenment era, which also became the foundation of anthropology.
The same is true for folklore, which is the fundamental reason why the study of historical origins dominated the mainstream during the origin period of the subject.
The arrangement of global cultural history based on this linear view of time has two interesting characteristics in terms of time.
The first is the concept of relics in folklore and anthropological research.
The concept of relics by anthropologist Dr.
Taylor Bumett Tylor is deeply influenced by the early British folklore concept of antiquities.
The basic feature of whether expressed as antiquities or relics is that although these phenomena exist at the present, their significance and value do not belong to the present in essence.
They are "defaced history, or some historical relics that have escaped the ship of time." They "can only be in a state of destruction, and they symbolize absence, Recession and loss build and emphasize the gap between the past and the present." Remnants are broken fragments left by past life, and their value lies in building past history.
As materialization representations of the present and the past related, they show a special timeliness, that is, they are the mixture and intermediary of the past and present time.
Before the discipline of folklore turned to the study of contemporary practice in the mid-to-late last century, it can be said that the entire academic object of folklore was this kind of relic that seemed to exist at the present but essentially belonged to past traditions.
Therefore, folklore is a historical discipline facing the past.
The second characteristic is the non-simultaneity that Fabian pointed out in the system of linear ordering of global cultures.
Fabian believes that from the beginning of the discipline of anthropology, its discourse practice has defined scholars and their subject objects-those who lived in the same era as them in the fields-as cultural others such as primitive people and barbarians, and therefore at different times.
The contemporaneity of the latter is fundamentally denied by the discourse of the discipline: "This is a continuous and systematic tendency to place the research objects of anthropology in a different time from contemporary producers of anthropological discourse.It is this non-contemporaneous nature that has made the analysis and ranking of world cultures in folklore and anthropology for a long time become a discourse practice of an unequal power discourse system.
In fact, these two characteristics are two sides of the same coin.
Fabian's criticism pointed out: the artificial non-simultaneity behind the concept of legacy and the unequal power relationship it embodies.
The special historical value given to the legacy stems from its non-simultaneity constructed by discourse and its obscured and blurred current nature.
On the whole, the concept of cultural heritage and its protection practices dating back to Europe are also in the same intellectual discourse system based on a linear view of time, reflecting the complex timeliness intertwined between the present and the past and the power relationships behind it.
The complete value of cultural heritage lies in past history.
The existence we are facing today is the result of the end of the historical process.
All we can do is to keep it as it is or minimize the erosion of time.
Judging from the relationship between the time of the object and the present, the "1972 Convention" to the "Recommendations" undoubtedly reflect this concept of non-simultaneity and legacy.
Three linear time of authenticity, historical products and cultural heritage
The protection of cultural heritage at the UNESCO level began in the 1960s when Egypt and Sudan asked the United Nations for help regarding Nubian sites.
In order to protect the site from inundation by artificial lakes caused by the construction of the Aswan Dam, many countries participated in conservation actions.
This international cooperative conservation has received international resources worth US$40 million.
Originally regarded as the heritage and its protection of the domestic affairs of various countries, it was understood for the first time as the cultural heritage of all mankind that transcends national borders, attracting the attention of the international community and UNESCO.
As a development of this action, the 1972 Convention clearly points to this heritage of all mankind: cultural heritage begins to be examined at a level that transcends national borders.
So, what are the criteria for this review? In the definition of cultural heritage in the "1972 Convention" quoted above,"outstanding universal value" is undoubtedly the core criterion, and historicity is this "outstanding universal value" full of ambiguity and possibility.
The first qualifying dimension.
Specifically, as far as the review principle of cultural heritage is concerned, it is the issue of authenticity that reflects the imprint of time and history.
The 1994 version of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention clearly states that in order to have "outstanding universal value" as defined by the Convention and be included in the World Heritage List, cultural property must meet one or more of the following criteria and pass the authenticity test.
The following criteria all explicitly or implicitly reflect the criteria of time, such as "a historical period","disappeared civilization or cultural tradition","special stage of human history", etc.
Authenticity is "to satisfy the authenticity test in terms of design, materials, craftsmanship or background environment.
If it is a cultural landscape, it is the authenticity test in terms of its unique personality and constituent elements." The committee emphasized that reconstruction would be acceptable only on the basis of a complete and detailed record of the original appearance and without any degree of speculation." In terms of the determination of authenticity, this place obviously inherits the spirit of the 1964 International Charter for the Protection and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter), emphasizing:
The purpose of protecting and restoring monuments is to protect them both as historical witnesses and as works of art...
Monuments cannot be separated from the history they witness and the environment in which they arise.
Monuments may not be relocated, in whole or in part, unless it is necessary to protect them or is justified by vital national or international interests...
The restoration process is a highly professional exercise whose purpose is to preserve and display the aesthetic and historical value of monuments and is based on respect for original materials and solid documentation.
Once speculation occurs, it must be stopped immediately.
In addition, even so, any inevitable additions must be distinct from the composition of the building and must have modern markings.
It can be seen that the authenticity of cultural heritage as defined in the "1972 Convention" lies in the long history condensed in the materiality of its original materials, that is, the extent of its extension in linear universal time.
In the reclassification, comparison and sequencing of global cultural creations in a unified and single linear view of time, the so-called "outstanding universal value" of material cultural heritage lies in their long history.
The value of material cultural heritage not only lies in that it still exists in today's time and space, but also in that it witnesses the passage of time.
It is the visible history itself and a fragment left over from the past today.
Its value can be accurately measured through the span of time.
Therefore, it is possible to distinguish outstanding from non-outstanding.
Such a linear view of time naturally favors cultural creations that are good at resisting the erosion of time.
Therefore, the "1972 Convention" is regarded by non-Western countries as the spokesperson of the monumental heritage concept of developed Western countries.
Its essence is a reflection of the European Enlightenment philosophical concept and is to judge global diversity with the Europe-centered cultural heritage concept and time concept.
How to judge historical witnesses that contain completely different views of time? For example, Japanese buildings are mainly wooden structures, but reflect two completely different views of time.
Although there are buildings similar to Europe that protect raw materials as much as possible, there is also a tradition that is continued through continuous reconstruction, such as the Ise Shrine, which was built in the 7th century.
The main hall of Ise Jingu Shrine is rebuilt every 20 years in accordance with tradition, called the Shinian Palace, and it has been rebuilt 62 times so far.
On the one hand, this is a tradition that lasts for thousands of years.
On the other hand, the real buildings have a history of only 20 years at most.
It is a tradition that strives to remain unchanged through continuous creation and a cycle of time.
It is precisely out of dissatisfaction with this Eurocentric view of cultural heritage that the Nara Conference in November 1994 reinterpreted the authenticity of the "1972 Convention" and adopted a broader definition of authenticity, considering not only the materials of the memorial, but also its design, form, use, function, technology and other factors, especially the derived spirit and feeling, and finally recognizing that each culture defines value and authenticity differently.
A single standard cannot be adopted.
The change in the definition of authenticity has changed such a single linear view of time to a certain extent, recognizing that heritage is not the end and end of the past historical process, but still has the possibility of continuous creation.
It is also the definition of authenticity that this change allows intangible cultural traditions containing different time dimensions to enter the process of heritage.
After the 1972 Convention came into effect, it was questioned by non-Western countries, mainly because cultural heritage that did not conform to European concepts could not be recognized and protected.
In 1982, UNESCO established an Expert Committee on the Protection of Folk Customs.
In the summer of the same year, the World Conference on Cultural Policies held in Mexico officially expanded the definition of cultural heritage and integrated it into intangible cultural heritage:
The cultural heritage of a nation includes the work of its artists, architects, musicians, writers and scientists, as well as the work of anonymous artists, the expression of the national spirit, and the value system that gives meaning to life.
It includes both tangible and intangible works (language, rituals, beliefs, historical places and monuments), literature, art, archives and libraries (both tangible and intangible works), both tangible and intangible works (language, rituals, beliefs, historical places and monuments), literature, works of art, archives and libraries.
The meeting affirmed the value and significance of folk customs (folk customs) in building national cultural identity).
But precisely because heritage is regarded as the end and outcome of a historical process, a completed product), UNESCO's protection of folk customs begins from the perspective of intellectual property.
The Bolivian government made recommendations to UNESCO in 1973, hoping to protect folk customs from the perspective of intellectual property rights.
The motivation was that the folk song "The Song of the Mountain Eagle" in the Andes Mountains of South America in the early 1970s was sung by American pop singer Paul Simon.
It became popular around the world and achieved huge commercial profits.
However, no source was given on its album.
Although the motivation for protecting folk customs from an intellectual property perspective is to resist domestic and foreign exploitation of folk customs achievements during the commercialization process, practice has proved that protecting folk traditions from an intellectual property perspective is not feasible.
Samantha Sherkin, an expert at the Intangible Cultural Heritage Division of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage, has written an article that traces in detail the long process of UNESCO exploring legislation to protect folk customs between the adoption of the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952 and the formation of the Recommendation in 1989.
Until the mid-1980s, the World Intellectual Property Organization and UNESCO jointly held many expert meetings to discuss the possibility of cooperation in protecting folk customs.
However, the difference was whether to take measures from the perspective of intellectual property law should protect individual folk customs achievements or focus on the overall protection of folk customs practices? In other words, the perspective of intellectual property protection must regard folk customs as completed concrete products and as the result of past history.
So how to view the continuous creation of folk customs in reality? This fundamental disagreement led to the eventual withdrawal of the World Intellectual Property Organization from cooperation discussions in 1985.
The protection of folk customs in the Recommendation is carried out by UNESCO alone outside the framework of intellectual property protection, marking a milestone in UNESCO's process of folk customs protection.
However, the Recommendation still reflects the contradiction between protection from an intellectual property perspective and cultural perspective, and the influence of intellectual property ideas has not been eliminated.
Although Dr.
Lori Honko has participated in the UNESCO Expert Committee since 1982 and has been directly involved in the writing of the text of the Recommendation, judging from the definitions quoted above, the Recommendation basically defines folklore as a completed historical product.
The nature of folk customs as the result of historical processes has not changed.
The only difference is that the "Proposal" strives to protect the established folk traditions as a whole.
Although the "Proposal" recognizes that folk traditions have the dual nature of the past and the present in time: "emphasizing the particularity and importance of folk creation as an integral part of cultural heritage and modern culture," its focus is on the national level.
From top to bottom, relying on experts to organize and research protection of folk customs.
The first protection measure proposed is identification), which aims to complete the "Standardized Classification of Folk Works: i) compile a general classification table of folk works to guide this work around the world,ii) compile a detailed compilation of folk works, and iii) Organize regional classification of folk works, especially through field pilot projects." Then there is the preservation and conservation of folk customs in museums, archives and other institutions).
Although the latter three measures, preservation, dissemination and maintenance protection, involve the inheritors of folk traditions and their current inheritance and creation, the specific measures and support focus on researchers of folk traditions.
In other words, the protection of the "Recommendation" focuses on academic research and data collection and collation by folklore experts.
It is hoped that from the perspective of experts, an academic research protection system for folklore matters can be completed on a global scale.
The core of this is to use UNESCO's international platform to record, organize, classify and sort global folklore from a level beyond specific countries, and build a global standard typology system.
This was also one of the guiding principles for formulating the "Proposal" at that time.
To a certain extent, this is no different from the various motifs and typological indexes that folklore worked hard to complete in the early stage, but the scope of the typological system at this time expanded from oral literature to the whole of folk life.
The folk traditions here are essentially completed folk matters, folk customs that can be abstracted as academic objects, not folk customs as life itself.
The objects of protection are not the people who are the subjects of folk customs inheritance, but the matters themselves.
Here, folk customs are still regarded as historical and completed creations, and this global system must be a classification and sequencing guided by a linear view of time.
Although the introduction of the "Proposal" has gone through twists and turns, it has not brought success.
In fact, it was even very failed.
Since the document takes the form of a "recommendation" directly targeting member states, but does not confer any powers on UNESCO, no action can be taken.
In 1999, at the Washington Evaluation Conference after the 10th anniversary of the Recommendation, Noriko Aikawa, then Director of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Department of UNESCO, admitted that after the Recommendation came into effect, UNESCO member states responded very negatively.
Only six countries responded to the requested action progress report.
However, international political and economic development in the early 1990s made countries realize the important practical significance of their national cultural resources: after the end of the Cold War, Eastern European countries were reshaping their national identities, Latin American countries were rethinking the integration of diverse cultural identities, and globalization caused by market expansion has promoted countries to pay attention to the diversity of local cultures.
In this context of the international community, more and more member states have raised their needs to UNESCO for the protection of folk traditions.
In the early 1990s, UNESCO began to seek the possibility of protecting folk traditions from a new perspective.
Paying attention to the current inheritance and practice of folk traditions, and paying attention to inheritance subjects and communities became one of the guiding ideologies for folk protection.
The "2003 Convention" is the result of this effort, and it reflects a completely different framework and thinking from the expert-based and research-based protection of the "Recommendation".
IV.
Heritage and contemporary nature of folk traditions
From the 1982 Mexico Conference when folk traditions were recognized as part of cultural heritage to the adoption of the 2003 Convention, folk customs completed its process of heritage at the international level.
With its new identity as "intangible cultural heritage", folk traditions have somewhat gotten rid of the negative meaning of the concept of "folklore" and become an important cultural resource in contemporary life.
If the understanding of the main function of folk customs at the Mexico Conference in the 1980s was still based on its value in building cultural identity, then by the Rio Conference in 2002, it had been linked to cultural diversity in the fight against globalization and had more and more important practical significance.
Due to space limitations, this article will not dwell on the entire historical process, but only focuses on the two key turning points.
One was the 1997 Morocco Conference and the other was the 1999 Washington Conference.The former directly contributed to the promulgation of the Representative Works Ordinance and paved the way for the formation of the "2003 Convention"; while the latter thoroughly reflected on the folk protection ideas of the "Proposal" and realized the transformation of the framework ideas for heritage protection from folk customs as historical products to folk customs as current practice processes, and also completed the transformation of folk customs as intangible cultural heritage from history to the present.
Although there were still many different voices after these two meetings and even after the announcement of representative projects, and every meeting in the drafting process of the "2003 Convention" was filled with fierce struggles between products and processes, in the end, it was intangible cultural heritage prevailed as a contemporary creation and process.
In June 1997, UNESCO held a small meeting entitled "International Consultation on the Preservation of Popular Cultural Spaces" in Marrakech, Morocco.
The meeting was held at the initiative of Juan Goytisolo, a well-known Spanish writer living in Marrakesh, with the original direct purpose of saving Jemaa el Fna Square in Marrakesh from being damaged by local urban renewal plans.
At least since the 17th century, this square has been a space where folk musicians, storytellers, divination, and vaudeville gathered and performed.
Goitisolo and others organized the Conservation Society and used his relationship with Federico Mayor, then Spanish Director-General of UNESCO, to enter the UNESCO agenda, ultimately turning local crises into global issues.
Human geographer Thomas M.
Schmitt wrote a detailed review of how the Morocco Conference made the protection of somewhat accidental specific cultural spaces a turning point in the legislative protection of global intangible cultural heritage.
One of the connecting concepts in the middle is the topic of this conference: "cultural space".
In 1992, a new category was added to the concept of cultural heritage in the "1972 Convention": cultural landscape), hoping to include some intangible cultural heritage.
The concept of "cultural space" is based on its direct connection with the concept of cultural landscape.
In fact, the original purpose of the Morocco meeting was to explore the possibility of protecting intangible cultural heritage in a specific physical space, represented by the cultural space of Jima Erfuna Square.
That is, whether intangible cultural heritage can be placed into a specific physical space site similar to material cultural heritage, so that it has better certainty and stronger operability.
The conclusion of expert discussions at this meeting was that Jima Erverna Square is a special case in the world, and intangible cultural heritage is full of liquidity and is difficult to be limited by limited specific space.
Because the meeting was triggered by the specific urgency of the space crisis, the meeting was ultimately quite effective and even achieved a milestone: it was recommended to use the concept of oral heritage of humanity (oral heritage of humanity) and establish a simplified system in the form of a list (list) of the "1972 Convention".
After discussions at the 154th and 155th Executive Board meetings of UNESCO in 1998, the concept was expanded and revised to "Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity".
In 1998, the United Nations General Assembly finally confirmed and adopted the "Regulations on UNESCO Declarations of Representative Works of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity" and launched the plan.
Goitisolo served as the chairman of the original jury committee.
However, precisely because the original motivation of the Morocco Conference was to protect the real crisis of specific cultural spaces, in the Representative Regulations formed after the Conference, cultural spaces not only became a concept that was focused on definition, but also became one of the first two major heritage areas of intangible cultural heritage.
One of them is not only juxtaposed with the other major field, forms of popular or traditional cultural expression, but also ranks first.
However, using specific physical space as a criterion for defining and classifying intangible cultural heritage is not very operational, and this spatial focus in intangible cultural heritage protection has not been maintained for a long time.
Bamoqubumo has also recently noticed a decrease in the "cultural space" category of heritage on the Intangible Cultural Heritage List.
Due to space limitations, the spatial dimension in cultural heritage protection will be discussed in a separate article.
The representative work plan caused fierce controversy from drafting to implementation.
In particular, developed countries opposed the adoption of a new intangible cultural heritage convention in addition to the "1972 Convention".
It was the 1999 Washington Conference that made this possibility clearer.
In June 1999, UNESCO collaborated with the Smithsonian Institution of the United States to convene a conference on "A Global Assessment of the 1989 Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore: Local Empowerment and International Cooperation".
The purpose was to evaluate the global effectiveness of the Recommendation, which had been adopted ten years ago, and explore an effective framework for the protection of folk customs.
The conclusion of this evaluation is very clear: the concepts and protection model embodied in the Recommendation are completely outdated in the political, social and cultural context of the 1990s, and a completely new model needs to be created.
The final report of the conference pointed out that the biggest problem with the "Proposal" is that it is "too rigidly limited to records and archives institutions, reflecting that the purpose of protection is products rather than producers of traditional culture and folk customs.
Some balance must be sought between two needs: the need to record and the need to protect practices related to creating and cultivating products that can later be recorded.
So the focus of protection must shift to the community." The report also pointed out that most participants believed that the word folklore used in the "Proposal" had negative connotations and was quite problematic.
It was suggested that in the future, we should absorb the fundamental changes in the definition of folklore in the current folklore community and no longer regard folklore as a specific single matter., but understand it as a social behavior, an event that creates or recreates, the knowledge and value that contributes to this behavior, and the social exchange model that creates this behavior, and then pay attention to the subject of action.
Based on the conclusions of the Washington Conference, the new interpretation of folklore brought about by the academic transformation of European and American folklore circles since the 1960s and 1970s has been reflected in UNESCO's conservation philosophy.
Marked by this meeting, with the participation of several American folklore scholars from the Smithsonian Institution, the transformation of American folklore theory from history to the present has been completed, and has had a fundamental impact on UNESCO's conservation practice at the international level.
At this meeting, folklore as a concept was explicitly abolished.
In response to the recent Morocco conference, folk traditions transformed into "intangible heritage," thus completing the conceptual heritage process.
Under a new framework, new possibilities have been gained.
The contemporary nature of intangible heritage is fundamentally confirmed theoretically, and its core is the contemporary practice of the people, namely the subject of folk customs.
When neither the stretch of time nor the specific physical space could become the external basic categories and guidelines for classifying and ranking folk practices, UNESCO's intangible cultural heritage protection finally chose to seek the defining dimensions from within folk practices.
This was the fundamental reason why the practitioner/community became the center in subsequent review and protection.
Defining intangible heritage from the perspective of practitioners is ultimately reflected in the "Ethical Principles for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage" adopted by the 10th Ordinary Session of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2015, which clearly states: "Every community, group or individual should assess the value of the intangible cultural heritage it holds, and such heritage should not be subject to external value or significance judgments." Of course, these fundamental changes are full of twists and turns, from the time scholars put forward suggestions to the time they are finally reflected in the text and practice of the convention, and academic concepts are always entangled and opposed to the wrestling of international politics.
Kiko Aikawa, who has served as director of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Department of UNESCO since 1993, once reviewed in detail the historical process of UNESCO from the early 1990s to the promulgation of the "2003 Convention".
In the heated discussions at some meetings, different countries, especially those developed countries that benefited from the 1972 Convention, once strongly questioned the relevant resolutions that had been adopted and even almost endangered the implementation of the Representative Works Regulations.
The focus is the dispute between product and process behavior.
When the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention was finally adopted in October 2003,"there were no objections, but there were eight abstentions.
They came from the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, The Russian Federation, the United States, Canada and Switzerland."
5.
From history to the present: the condensation of time and space
What is interesting is that in the process of heritage since the second half of the last century, folk traditions have transformed from legacies of historical depth into current action processes, showing what Regina Bendix called temporal thickening, that is, shortening the time span required to enter the ranks of heritage.
Based on Korshenblatt and Kibret's discussion of the timeliness of cultural heritage, Bendix further pointed out that "As we focus on the past of glorious culture, we encounter increasingly new phenomena.
Some people may even say that for some cultural innovations, their heritage and their gradual development in daily life occur simultaneously...
A typical example is electronic cultural heritage,"because of rapid technological innovation, it has threatened the first generation of electronic culture and knowledge.
The process of time condensation in the process of cultural heritage is actually not special.
In fact, this is fundamentally a reflection of the changes in time, space, and spatio-temporal relations in the historical process from modernization to post-modernity.
As American theorist Dr.
Frederic Jameson pointed out,"I view the transition from modern to postmodern times as the absolute superiority of space over time.
In a profound and productive sense, the modernist classics are obsessed with the nature of time.
It is obsessed with deep time, memory, the continuous Bergsonian duree, and even the moments of Joyce's Bloomday." Modernity is fundamentally related to timeliness.
Folklore originated from the binary opposition and division between tradition and modernity, originated from nostalgia for the past, and fundamentally from concern and fascination with time: "I think not only Bergson, but also Thomas Mann and Proust, modernists are obsessed with deep time.
This fascination is actually rooted in the imbalance of the modernization process, which has resulted in the coexistence of slow rural time and the dazzling pace of urban and industrial development." When folklore, which pays attention to rural time, was enthusiastic and persistent in origin analysis and historical context, as well as the sense of urgency to rescue, record and protect ancient customs and traditions arising from the disappearance, all profoundly reflected the characteristics of time focus in the historical context of that time.
The complete meaning of folk practice is defined as pointing to the past era.
Folk practice with traditional colors in modern life is fragmented and a relic, and folk custom is the past in the present.
Since the 1980s, in the current postmodern and global era of social production, space has replaced time as a more important decisive factor.
Jameson called this the end of timeliness, which is manifested in the attention of the body and the moment: "I call this the end of timeliness, everything ends in the body and the moment.
What is worth looking for is a strengthened present, whose moments before and after no longer exist.
Our view of history has also been affected.
No other society in the past had as few functional memories and a poor sense of history as ours now." The extensive discussions and discussions on space by theorists such as Foucault, Lefebvre, and de Seto also reflect the academic community's new understanding of the changes in social life.
To a large extent, the change in temporal dimension and concentration in time span of folk traditions from being paid attention to and constructed in the process of modernization to being legalized at the global level is a reflection of temporal changes in this historical process.
The twists and turns of folk traditions in the process of inheritance reflect that in the process of modernity's transformation into post-modernity, when the temporal standards change, compared with the cultural heritage that is more or less fixed in specific time and space and has boundaries, folk traditions are more difficult to manipulate and control in time and space, because it is full of liquidity and often crosses borders and changes constantly.
Precisely because of the complex spatio-temporal characteristics and relationships of folk traditions, their heritage is ultimately achieved by pointing to the current community subject and grasping it through the community subject, that is, focusing on the body and the moment.
But on the other hand, from a macro perspective, the review and listing of the "2003 Convention" actually represent a spatial juxtaposition oriented to the present and present moment.
Because the items included do not have a sequence of time clues between them, they all emphasize their current significance and value in their specific communities, that is, their significance and value in their respective existence spaces.
Therefore, the "2003 Convention" directory system presents a spatial relationship.
The specific cultural space fundamentally determines the significance of the project.
This is also the fundamental reason for opposing de-contextualization and repeatedly emphasizing re-contextualization in the practice of intangible cultural heritage review and protection.
Although the fundamental significance of intangible cultural heritage projects depends on their original significance in the cultural space of their community, the initiative of listing representative works, excellent practices, and urgent need of protection itself gives the project the possibility of transcending the internal significance of its own cultural space.
Due to the title of "human intangible cultural heritage" it has obtained, it has been related to the practice of other cultural spaces, and has achieved a new understanding and interpretation in the hierarchical juxtaposition of the global space between the world and national levels.
In this way, the cultural diversity emphasized by the "2003 Convention" itself is also a spatial relationship, because different cultures are simultaneous in time, and the so-called diversity is actually a spatial distribution, which is also reflected in the list's desire to include more countries to achieve a wider geographical distribution.
In this way, the "2003 Convention" and its review and directory system embody a transcendental spatial relationship that transcends the cultural space of specific regions.
This is undoubtedly the epitome of the relationship between time and space in the current era of globalization.
Local folk traditions are included in the directory system because of their local nature, but they have gained the ability to transcend local nature, showing the profound connection between local nature and global nature.
(This article was published in "Research on Ethnic Literature", No.
4, 2018.
The annotations are omitted, and refer to the original publication for details)