[Gong Haoqun and Yao Chang] Towards Critical Heritage Research: Knowledge Confusion and Paradigm Transformation in the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage

Abstract: Folklore in the era of intangible cultural heritage seems to be entering a period of weakness.

Folklore's research and reflection on the current situation of intangible cultural heritage protection have failed to effectively promote the renewal of subject theories and methodologies.

Intangible cultural heritage itself is the result of the interaction between international discourse and the current political, social and cultural needs of China.

However, domestic intangible cultural heritage research rarely conducts international comparisons and rarely draws on foreign cutting-edge theories and methods.

There is a lack of overall understanding of the particularity and universality of the problems arising in the process of intangible cultural heritage protection in China, which limits the development of new ideas for intangible cultural heritage research and intangible cultural heritage protection to a certain extent.

In this case, learning from foreign critical heritage research results may become a necessary step for folklore in the intangible cultural heritage era to get out of the bottleneck.

On the other hand, drawing lessons from the basic theories of critical heritage research in international academic circles does not mean thinking about issues outside the context of contemporary China.

On the contrary, the basic theory of critical heritage research helps us to relativize the research objects and no longer dwell on the question of "whether heritage is good" or "whether heritage is good", but to more clearly understand the action logic of different subjects in heritage politics, and better think about the relationship between heritage as a process of cultural practice and the social and cultural context of contemporary China.

Keywords: Introduction to the author: Gong Haoqun 1976-), female, native of Hunan, Doctor of Anthropology, associate professor of World Ethnology and Anthropology Research Center of China University for Nationalities, researcher of the Collaborative Innovation Center for China's Cultural Going Global, Beijing Foreign Studies University; Yao Chang 1994-), female, native of Heilongjiang, a 2016 master's candidate at the World Ethnology and Anthropology Research Center of the University for Nationalities of China.

Beijing, 100081) Fund Project: This article is the phased research results of the general research project of the China Culture Going Global Collaborative Innovation Center of Beijing Foreign Studies University "" Research on the Connotation and Construction Ways of the China Asia Interactive Anthropological System "project number: CCSIC2017-YB04), and the general project of the Beijing City Social Science Foundation" Research on the Protection and Utilization of Cultural Heritage in the Xiaotaihou River Basin in Beijing "project number: 18 SRB006).

Introduction: Folklore and Knowledge Confusion on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage in my Country

Since the China government joined the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2004, an intangible cultural heritage protection movement characterized by administrative leadership, extensive social mobilization and clear institutional construction goals has been vigorously launched in China ①.

As a result, my country's folklore community has been deeply involved in the intangible cultural heritage protection movement, and has produced a group of intangible cultural heritage protection experts, new disciplinary growth points and new academic discourses.

At the same time, we should also note that as folklore scholars gradually deepen their research on the intangible cultural heritage protection movement, strong reflective discourse has also emerged within the discipline of folklore, forming different views that may contribute to academic debate.

Overall, there is an inherent tension between the high affirmation of the value level based on the historical dimension and the criticism and reflection on the practical level based on the realistic dimension: while the basic concept of intangible cultural heritage protection has been highly praised, many scholars have put forward reflections and criticisms on the main pattern of intangible cultural heritage protection movement, the disciplinary positioning of folklore, and the methodology of folklore research, which has formed an inherent tension in intangible cultural heritage research.

This tension not only comes from the gap between concept and practice, but also reflects some confusions and even dilemmas in the intangible cultural heritage protection movement and the production of folklore knowledge.

First of all, a group of scholars represented by Gao Bingzhong highly affirmed the value of intangible cultural heritage protection.

Gao Bingzhong believes that the protection of intangible cultural heritage has evolved into a widely participatory social movement.

By disseminating new cultural concepts, new laws and new public cultural policies have been formulated, highly affirming the value of many cultural matters originally denied by previous revolutions, and using the ecological concept of cultural symbiosis and the cultural mechanism of mutual recognition, it has terminated and even subverted the concept and logic of cultural revolution in modern times.

It provides a public cultural framework for the construction of a nation-state and social development [Note], marking the shift of China society from self-negation-oriented "cultural introspection" to self-affirmation-oriented "cultural consciousness"[Note].

Zhang Juwen and other scholars believe that the rise of the intangible cultural heritage protection movement proves that China's traditional culture has a self-healing mechanism derived from harmonious but different cultural concepts, and reflects the efforts of China society to rebuild its national identity: "In nearly two centuries of violent revolution, historical modern/Western advanced/civilized based on binary opposition ideologies; After traditional/China backward/superstitious), under the influence of external forces of the intangible cultural heritage protection movement, China culture is undergoing a completely different non-violent change, which is consistent with its internal logic." [Note] Zhou Xing regards heritage as a path for folk beliefs to gain legitimacy, and believes that through cultural heritage, folk beliefs can be de-stigmatized and desensitized.

[Note] The above views all emphasize from different aspects that intangible cultural heritage protection has a positive role that cannot be ignored in reaffirming and stimulating the cultural vitality of civil society.

However, in recent years, many scholars, especially young scholars, have reflected and criticized the specific practical process of the intangible cultural heritage protection movement.

The author summarizes it into three aspects: first, the subjective issue in the intangible cultural heritage protection movement, represented by issues such as who defines heritage and who it belongs to; second, the subject positioning of folklore, that is, what role should folklore scholars play in intervening in the process of intangible cultural heritage protection movement? How to evaluate and reflect on the consequences of academic intervention? The third is the methodological issue on intangible cultural heritage protection and intangible cultural heritage research, that is, how to conduct a holistic study of intangible cultural heritage in the context of contemporary China society.

These three aspects of issues are not isolated, but are interconnected and involved.

In the final analysis, answering all three questions requires us to rethink the relationship between knowledge and power, and how to establish a more consistent realistic connection between the past, present and future through reflexive knowledge production.

1) Subjective issues in the intangible cultural heritage protection movement

China's intangible cultural heritage protection movement has a strong government-led nature.

In the process of defining, attributing and policy decision-making of heritage, the government can easily become a strong entity, while the subjectivity of civil society is often ignored.

Liu Zheng 'ai pointedly raised the following questions: How to define the "traditional culture" that needs to be protected? Who defines it? Are we scholars or governments) or practitioners? What are the criteria defined? She also distinguished two different essentialism in the process of inheritance: the first one includes political nature and unequal power relations, which means that scholars and relevant power departments ignore the feelings of local people, impose their own values on each other, and bring cultural differences absolute; the second is the choice made by local people, using the words of scholars and the government, and operating an "original" culture according to their expectations, which is strategic [Note].

She advocates respect for heritage subjects and opposes the separation of cultural matters from context.

[Note]

Wang Jiewen pointed out that rescuing, protecting, developing and utilizing in a materialized manner fundamentally has the disadvantage of ignoring the main body of cultural heritage.

The main body of cultural tradition still does not receive the attention it deserves.

Governments, scholars and cultural companies all regard the people as objects of enlightenment.

Therefore, local people have not been given basic initiative.

"Liberating rather than consolidating the context in which 'intangible cultural heritage' exists is the best protection of intangible cultural heritage, both at the theoretical and practical levels; and this context is also best defined by the communities that generate and preserve the intangible cultural heritage." [Note] Liu Zhaohui proposed the paradox of the separation of heritage subjects and heritage protection subjects in the process of identification and protection of intangible cultural heritage, and advocated that through participatory protection, the "top-down" practical model and the "bottom-up" combination of participatory emotions creates an overall protection model for intangible cultural heritage.

[Note]

In the above discussion, scholars have criticized and reflected on the role played by folklore scholars in intangible cultural heritage protection, which also reflects the disciplinary positioning of folklore in the process of participating in intangible cultural heritage protection: What research position should folklore scholars hold? How do folklore scholars participate in intangible cultural heritage protection?

2) The subject positioning of folklore, that is, what role should folklore scholars play in the process of intervening in the intangible cultural heritage protection movement? How to evaluate and reflect on the consequences of academic intervention?

Intangible cultural heritage protection is considered to have created a new era of folklore.

Some scholars call it the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Era of Folklore", and others have proposed the concept of public folklore or practical folklore.

These concepts are all based on the basic fact that folklore scholars act as experts between civil society and the government, participate extensively and deeply in the specific practice of intangible cultural heritage protection, and thus gain a certain voice in the country's public cultural field.

However, some people of insight are also deeply aware that the intimacy between folklore scholars and the intangible cultural heritage protection movement should be the object of reflection.

Whether the use of professional knowledge of folklore can truly promote the long-term vitality of intangible cultural heritage among the people has become a question worth considering.

In his article, Zhou Xing discussed the possibilities and dangers of public folklore in China.

He pointed out that practical and applied research on intangible cultural heritage will promote folklore to grow into a public knowledge, but we must also be vigilant against the danger that academics may be assimilated by administrative power.

He believes that the issues of absence, absence and lack of voice in grassroots communities and local residents 'culture during the entire intangible cultural heritage declaration process should be reviewed, and the tendency of over-development, over-commercialization and musealization, as well as the possibility of damage caused in the name of protection should also be vigilant.

[Note]

Liu Xiaochun discussed the problems that arise in the process of heritage from the perspective of local and public nature of intangible cultural heritage.

He believes that heritage means extracting intangible culture from the specific living context, discovering, understanding, utilizing, and specialization, dataization, and subject by third parties other than the inheritance body, and incorporating it into the government's cultural development strategy and becoming a cultural product with political, economic and cultural values; In this process, once intangible culture as local knowledge becomes universal knowledge and culture, it will cause divisions within the local knowledge system, and may cause another kind of damage while protecting it.

[Note]

Wang Jiewen proposed that we should fully realize the identities of the public and folk scholars as practical subjects, as well as their free will and moral responsibilities as practical subjects; subject ethics should become a professional ethics that is universally observed and practiced.

[Note] Hu Xiaohui proposed that the return to the practice of folklore in the intangible cultural heritage era is not aimed at adapting to the current power relationship, but should actively shape a new political culture characterized by democratic participation.

[Note] These discussions highlight the challenges faced by folklore in the intangible cultural heritage protection movement.

In my opinion, the challenge comes from two aspects: first, the issue of disciplinary stance.

Are folklore scholars satisfied with accepting the role of experts hired by the government, or do they adhere to the folk nature of intangible cultural heritage? The second is the methodological issue in intangible cultural heritage protection and research, that is, whether to conduct overall research and protection on intangible cultural heritage, or whether to separate intangible cultural heritage from the local context and make it an exhibit in the public cultural space.

3) Regarding the methodological issues of intangible cultural heritage research, that is, how to conduct a holistic study of intangible cultural heritage in the social and cultural context of contemporary China

Since the 1990s, China's folklore circles have advocated the restoration of folk events into the living world for research.

[Note] The context turn in folklore research and the overall ethnographic research orientation have gradually become the consensus of folklore circles.

[Note] However, in the protection and research of intangible cultural heritage, how to examine intangible cultural heritage in the social and cultural context of contemporary China has not yet become the focus of folklore.

The lack of social and cultural context in contemporary China will make it difficult for researchers to clearly understand the political and social driving forces behind the intangible cultural heritage protection movement and their consequences, and it will be difficult to discuss the people of our era through intangible cultural heritage research.

A common problem faced by mankind.

In the study of intangible cultural heritage, contemporary China's social and cultural contexts not only include local social contexts related to intangible cultural heritage, but also include the transformation of state power and social governance methods, the relationship between China's academic and political discourse and Western-led heritage discourse, and the complex connection between heritage industry and economic capital in the context of globalization.

In this sense, intangible cultural heritage research is a study on the intangible cultural heritage protection movement, as well as a study on contemporary China and the world.

Intangible cultural heritage is the path or method of research, not the purpose of research itself.

The above three aspects are intertwined in the reflection of folklore scientists on the current situation of intangible cultural heritage research and protection.

Yue Yongyi and Cai Jiaqi took the Fanzhuang Dragon Pai Association in Hebei, which has attracted much attention from folklore circles, as a case study to reflect on the role played by academia in the process of intangible cultural heritage and the current heritage politics in China.

Their research found that in the process of seeking legalization and evolving towards so-called national cultural symbols, the significance of the intangible cultural heritage dragon card to local society will be weakened, resulting in a lack of vitality.

The author believes: "There is already a need to seriously and comprehensively evaluate the value of the intangible cultural heritage movement under the control of the world cultural discourse system to individuals, society, the country and Chinese civilization.

Thus, grassroots and exquisite local culture can truly have its subjectivity, autonomy and pride in civilized China, and in reverse influence the 'intangible cultural heritage' and 'intangible cultural heritage' that have the hegemony of others 'discourse." The author even advocates that "China folklore, which is advancing in sync with the intangible cultural heritage movement, should get rid of the shackles of intangible cultural heritage and only regard intangible cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage as a part of folklore research, thus giving the discipline itself a broader world and deeper academic thinking." [Note] This discussion has a strong spirit of disciplinary reflection and also reveals several dilemmas faced by folklore and other disciplines in participating in the process of intangible cultural heritage protection: how does folklore handle its relationship with the intangible cultural heritage protection movement? Is it an active intervention or question or withdraw? Is the intangible cultural heritage protection movement an opportunity or a constraint for folklore to realize its academic ambitions? How to deal with the relationship between China's local discourse on intangible cultural heritage protection and world heritage protection? What does the public aspect of public folklore mean? Does it mean getting the right to speak from public power departments, or does it aim at the cultural rights of civil society?

Folklore in the era of intangible cultural heritage also seems to be entering a period of weakness.

On the one hand, folklore is increasingly gaining the right to speak in the intangible cultural heritage protection movement and has achieved remarkable results; on the other hand, from the perspective of the pattern of knowledge production, the theoretical context of folklore research on intangible cultural heritage is relatively scattered, and research and reflection on the current situation of intangible cultural heritage protection have not yet promoted the update of subject theories and methodologies.

Intangible cultural heritage itself is the result of the interaction between international discourse and the current political, social and cultural needs of China.

However, domestic intangible cultural heritage research rarely conducts international comparisons and rarely draws on foreign cutting-edge theories and methods.

In this case, learning from foreign critical heritage research results may become a necessary step for folklore in the intangible cultural heritage era to get out of the bottleneck.

Basic theories of critical heritage research: a new academic perspective

The many problems faced by intangible cultural heritage research and protection in China are not unique.Since the 1980s, Western academic circles have established the problem area of heritage research and advanced heritage research to a new stage through multidisciplinary participation and mutual dialogue.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the most remarkable development in the field of international heritage research has been the formation of critical heritage studies.

Critical heritage research not only proposes systematic theories and methodologies, but also forms an international academic organization represented by the Association of Critical Heritage Studies.

The organization held its first conference in Sweden in 2012 and received 500 participating papers.

[Note] The International Journal of Heritage Studies has become an important position for critical heritage research.

By organizing columns on critical heritage research, it has had widespread academic influence.

The author will mainly learn from the main points put forward by archaeologist Laurajane Smith, an important representative figure in critical heritage research, in his book "Uses of Heritage", and review the professional papers on critical heritage research published in the International Journal of Heritage Research in recent years, in an attempt to clarify the basic theory of critical cultural heritage research for reference by domestic academic circles.

Before proceeding, two aspects need to be clarified.

First, Western academic circles have not excessively distinguished between the three categories of heritage, cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage in terms of theoretical coverage.

In their view, the concept of intangible cultural heritage is a supplement and deepening of the concept of cultural heritage.

From the theoretical level, the basic theory of critical heritage research has universal applicability.

Second, critical heritage research does not deny the value and necessity of heritage protection, but attempts to provide a perspective to re-recognize heritage, that is, the value and significance of heritage do not exist naturally, but are jointly constructed by different actors in power relationships.

In the final analysis, the goal of critical heritage research is to use heritage as a research path to understand the important issues we face together in this era and their internal logic.

1) Heritage is a process of cultural practice, and all heritage is intangible)

Some domestic scholars have pointed out that international scholars have realized that the practice of "heritage" is a historical and social invention: "'heritage 'cultural practice is a creative activity to creatively select, name and reorganize' past 'cultural resources based on' present 'needs." [Note] In fact, not only is "heritage" regarded as a process of cultural practice, heritage itself is also regarded as a cultural and social process.

Smith pointed out that heritage is not equated with "things" but rather cultural and social processes in which the memory activities generated create paths to understand and participate in the present world; concepts about heritage are always used to construct, reconstruct, or negotiate the present.

Identity, social and cultural values and meanings.

She believes that in this sense, all heritage is intangible).

She also proposed that heritage is also discourse, a form of social practice: discourse not only organizes concepts like "heritage" and the way they are understood, but also the way we act, the way we practice society and technology, and the way knowledge is constructed and reproduced.

[Note]

Treating heritage as a process of cultural practice rather than a solidified cultural form is the basic starting point for critical heritage research.

This basic setting makes the focus of the issue no longer on the "authenticity" of the heritage, but on the various social discourses and social practices that arise around authenticity.

Smith discusses the action, power and initiative in heritage politics from aspects such as "heritage is experience","heritage as identity","intangible heritage","memory and remembrance","heritage as performance","heritage and diversity of places" and "discordant heritage".

The actions and thinking that run through heritage are not only related to the past, but also closely connected to where we are heading in the future.

[Note]

Smith clearly proposed that the essence of heritage is "a cultural process or embodied performance", which specifically includes three levels, namely, heritage creation at the institutional level, heritage creation by various communities, including heritage experts, and heritage creation at the individual level.

[Note] Among them, the role analysis of heritage experts is the core part of critical heritage research.

2) Deconstruction and criticism of authoritative heritage discourse

One of Smith's most important contributions was to propose the concept of the "Authoritative Heritage Discourse"(AHD), which is used to refer to a discourse that naturalizes assumptions about the nature and meaning of heritage, characterized by concepts related to nation-state and ethnicity, defining immortal cultural values through memorabilia and aesthetics.

Authoritative heritage discourse is also a set of professional discourse that gives experts the privilege to judge the past and its material manifestations, and to guide and define professional heritage practice.

The opposite of experts and authoritative discourse is mass discourse and practice.

They are influenced by expert discourse, but they cannot be equated with expert discourse and may pose challenges to authoritative discourse.

Therefore, heritage can also be understood as discourse related to the control and negotiation of social meaning, as well as practice related to the creation and re-creation of identity.

[Note]

In Smith's view, authoritative heritage discourse relies on the power and knowledge declarations of technical and aesthetic experts, and is institutionalized through national cultural institutions.

This is a set of self-referential discourses that constantly legitimizes itself and the value and ideological basis of this discourses, and leads to a series of special consequences.

The primary consequence is to establish authority about itself and make it a reality by building and legalizing what heritage is, defining who has the ability to speak for it, and defining its nature and meaning.

In the process, a series of heritage boundaries were established.

The first is to construct heritage as something that is passively participatory, and heritage is not seen as an active process or experience, thereby separating the concept of heritage from present and present values, aspirations, and active use of heritage, making it limited to something of the "past"; the second is to ensure that heritage becomes a reasonable object of analysis and a responsibility goal for relevant experts and a range of forms of professional knowledge.

The power relationship behind authoritative heritage discourse affirms that some people have the ability and authority to speak for heritage while others cannot; affirms the experience and values of the elite while excluding the historical, cultural and social experience of marginalized groups, thereby limiting extensive discussion of the social and cultural values that are assumed; Heritage is seen as the process of receiving wisdom and knowledge from various experts, thereby establishing a top-down relationship between experts, heritage and visitors.

[Note] Specifically, Smith summarized the role played by experts in heritage politics into three aspects, namely, expert knowledge provides an epistemological framework for defining the meaning and nature of heritage, and heritage is reduced to a technical process of management and protection; Experts usually strive to maintain their privileged status; and heritage as expert knowledge is integrated into the governance proposition "governance thesis", becoming one of the means of control and production identification in the present day.

[Note]

The deconstruction and criticism of authoritative heritage discourse comes from researchers 'profound reflection on the relationship between knowledge and power.

It breaks the path of legalizing knowledge generated by objectifying heritage in heritage research.

At the same time, heritage experts have become part of the heritage landscape and even become a key point for us to understand the logic of power operation in heritage politics.

Some domestic scholars have paid attention to the impact of authoritative heritage discourse on the heritage manufacturing process [Note].

However, there is still a lack of detailed research and analysis on the formation mechanism, expression form of this discourse in China and its complex relationship with national and local society.

3) Building an inclusive and dialogue heritage process

While deconstructing and criticizing authoritative heritage discourse, critical heritage research also demonstrates new possibilities for future heritage research and protection.

Building an inclusive and dialogue heritage process has become an important goal of critical heritage research.

If we recognize heritage as a cultural production process, then this means that people can negotiate the identities, values and meanings behind heritage, and can use it to challenge and redefine their place in the world.

Therefore, legacy is also a political resource or process full of struggle and negotiation.

Heritage as cultural practice is full of tension between given identities and competitive identities, and theorizing this will have an impact on academic analysis, heritage practice, and related policies.

[Note]

Dr.

Rodney Harrison, another representative figure in critical heritage research, emphasized that heritage is essentially a political choice about selective memory, protection and interpretation of society.

Researchers should not only consider the official-led discourse on heritage, but also see the connection between heritage, place and identity at the local level.

There are multiple competitions for interpretations and meanings of the past in heritage discourse, among which there is tension between the concept of state-led national heritage and community initiative.

[Note] Faced with the tension in the discourse of heritage, Harrison emphasizes connectivity and dialogue, advocating the connection between heritage and contemporary social, economic, political and environmental challenges.

He proposed building a space for tolerance, democracy and dialogue, bringing together politicians, bureaucracy, experts and ordinary citizens in decision-making about heritage to produce new ways of looking at, thinking and acting, thereby understanding heritage as a dialogue.

Cultural practice process.

[Note]

4) Critical heritage research needs to respond to important issues facing the contemporary world

Treating heritage as a process of cultural practice and criticizing authoritative heritage discourse also means re-embedding heritage into history and society for review.

Critical heritage research opposes the essentialist perspective of studying heritage for its own sake, and attempts to understand today's world from the perspective of heritage, where heritage becomes a method or research path rather than a research purpose.

Dr.

Tim Winter clearly stated that critical heritage research is not just critical research on heritage protection policies, but should demonstrate important issues arising from heritage and facing the contemporary world.

Heritage research should try to connect with other areas of public life, such as climate change, sustainable development, multiculturalism and conflict reconciliation.

Heritage culture is an expression of contemporary social and political life and changing governance models, and is closely related to the formation of identity and global capital production methods in the post-industrial era.

Critical heritage research needs to explain the relationship between research objects and today's regional and global changes.

[Note]

All in all, the basic concepts and concepts formed by critical heritage research have important reference significance for China academic circles.

The subjectivity issues faced by China's folklore circles in the protection of intangible cultural heritage, the role of folklore scholars and the expectations for a comprehensive study of intangible cultural heritage mentioned above can all be reflected in the existing results of critical heritage research.

Respond to and obtain theoretical support from them.

At the same time, drawing on the basic theories of critical heritage research in Western academic circles does not mean thinking about issues outside the context of contemporary China.

Towards critical heritage research: Context and issues in contemporary China

At the end of this article, we need to return to the issue mentioned at the beginning of the article: there is an inherent tension within folklore on the issue of intangible cultural heritage protection.

The affirmation of the value level of intangible cultural heritage and the criticism of the practical level of intangible cultural heritage protection coexist.

How should we understand and explain this inherent tension? In this regard, we should not avoid it, but should study how this tension is concretely reflected in the discourse of heritage as cultural practice and builds the social reality of today's China.

In my opinion, this tension is actually a projection of the inherent tension of China society.

At the same time, it also needs to be understood in the special context of contemporary China.

The affirmation of the value dimension of the intangible cultural heritage protection movement highlights the special context of contemporary China's post-revolutionary era.

Among them, scholars have their own positive positions, but generally speaking, they believe that intangible cultural heritage protection corrects the "tradition that denies tradition" in the process of China's revolution and is a positive affirmation of the value of people's subjectivity and folk traditional culture.

These statements may require answering several questions: first, how to view the continuity between the revolutionary era and the post-revolutionary era? If the revolutionary era caused the so-called break between tradition and modernity, does today's intangible cultural heritage to some extent mean the break between the revolutionary era and the post-revolutionary era? Second, how does the role of state power play in heritage politics and the logic of power operation change? If the state power established its authority by denying the value of traditional culture in the revolutionary era, what kind of political effect does the state power bring today through its high affirmation of traditional culture?

The author believes that to explain these issues clearly, we need to conduct a genealogy analysis of China's authoritative heritage discourse, see the evolution of authoritative heritage discourse since the socialist revolution, and analyze the realization process of state power.

Simply put, the authoritative heritage discourse during the socialist revolution does not kill traditional culture with a stick, but distinguishes the essence and dross, advanced and backward, revolution and reactionary, and conducts selective inheritance by evaluating the value of heritage to revolution.[Note], the development of folklore in China is closely related to the formation of authoritative heritage discourse during the revolutionary period.

Today, there has been no fundamental change in the situation where the government is led and scholars participate in the construction of authoritative heritage discourse.

The change lies in the standards of heritage evaluation.

The value of heritage to revolution has been replaced by the value of heritage to national identity and the value of heritage to social and economic development at the local level, and the relationship between heritage and local areas and the emotional connection between heritage and local people may be weakened.

In the process of heritage management, memory and forgetting always coexist.

While some heritage is endowed with eternal value, another part of the heritage may be abandoned and forgotten [Note].

Some scholars use the term "crisis of accumulation of history" to refer to the fact that an accumulation crisis occurs when different contradictory aspects of history are arranged at the present time.

Heritage discourse always includes both remembrance and forgetting.

We must not only focus on the aspects that are protected, but also on those parts that are abandoned that are considered lacking significance to the present and future.[Note] Whether in the revolutionary era or in the post-revolutionary era, the dominant role of state power, expert participation and the construction of authoritative heritage discourse, selective memory and forgetting are all the definite connotations of heritage politics, and also the social reality that we still need to face and reflect on today.

Criticism of specific issues arising in the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection also needs to be reconsidered in the context of contemporary China, especially the role of the state and ordinary people's understanding of the state.

There is no doubt that the formation and construction of national heritage was promoted in a specific historical context, especially during the transformation process of modern countries [Note]; the World Heritage Protection Movement represented by UNESCO has strengthened the country's role as a heritage owner,"'heritage 'as a political expression of national public resources is the most important feature of modern heritage "[Note].

Scholars pay attention to the subjective issues in intangible cultural heritage protection.

They usually believe that the state and government-authorized experts are on the strong side, while the local people are on the weak side.

The imbalance of power between the state and society has led to the protection of intangible cultural heritage.

Many problems.

These studies certainly have certain explanatory power for some cases.

However, the dichotomy of state and society may be more based on the imagination of scholars, and it is difficult to explain the social driving force for the widespread development of the intangible cultural heritage protection movement.

For many ordinary people, the name of intangible cultural heritage represents recognition by the country, and this recognition is meaningful in itself.

The intangible cultural heritage process of Fan Zhuanglong Card Association certainly has state power and expert discourse at play, but how local people evaluate and understand this process may be the most interesting thing.

People's subjectivity does not mean exclusion of state power, but means how ordinary people "imagine, understand, comment, and criticize social life" within the framework of value cognition of "state"[Note].

The practice of intangible cultural heritage protection is not only a practice led by the government and experts, but also a concrete practice process of ordinary people's national theory.

Contemporary China's nationalism and its comprehensive absorption of social construction projects are another important context for the rise of the intangible cultural heritage protection movement.

In specific research, in addition to focusing on the practice of ordinary people's state theory, we must also see the initiative played by different levels of government departments in it.

Some scholars have conducted research on Zhejiang's heritage manufacturing process in the process of promoting the construction of beautiful villages, and found that local officials and villagers have reconceptualized the heritage, thereby building local historical relics and characteristic industries into areas that meet the requirements of beautiful rural construction."Ecological and Cultural Heritage"[Note].

This case reflects the inherent malleability of heritage and the special extension path of heritage in contemporary China.

In addition, the "nostalgia" accompanying the rise of urbanization and developmentism has also become an important part of contemporary China's heritage discourse.

When the author participated in the survey of folk culture in the Beijing Canal Belt, local government officials repeatedly emphasized the need to absorb folk cultural heritage and reproduce nostalgia in the construction of urban public culture.

How nostalgia, which is an element of official discourse, and nostalgia, which is an emotional expression of urban citizens, jointly spawn new cultural practices is also a topic that today's folklore scholars need to pay attention to.

In my opinion, today's intangible cultural heritage research and intangible cultural heritage protection must eventually return to an understanding of the practical issues of contemporary China.

If the Western heritage discourse originated from the Enlightenment and was carried forward in the later Romantic and Nationalist movements [Note], then the heritage discourse of contemporary China was generated in the context of reform and opening up and a new understanding of the relationship between China and the world.

At the same time, it also carries the accumulation of China's revolutionary history in modern times.

China's heritage politics not only reflects the universal problems that arise in international heritage research, but is also full of particularities and complexities, and is reflected in its complex intertwining with historical processes such as nationalism, developmentism and urbanization.

Intangible cultural heritage can still be an integrated academic concept-meaning integrating previously scattered research objects into one category and forming a new field of social practice and academic activity [Note].

However, we need to strengthen the reflective dimension in this field, making intangible cultural heritage an overall social fact.

This requires us to take the discourse and practice of intangible cultural heritage as the research object, carry out more in-depth and detailed field investigations and research, promote dialogue among intangible cultural heritage protection subjects, and develop China folklore research and practice in the intangible cultural heritage era.

A new paradigm.

(This article was published in "Cultural Heritage", No.

5, 2018.

The annotations are omitted and refer to the original text for details)