[Kang Li] Practical Dilemma, International Experience and the Action Philosophy of New Cultural Conservatism
Abstract: The promulgation and implementation of the 2003 Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention") has attracted widespread attention to intangible cultural heritage and its protection work around the world.
This concern is not only reflected in the increase in the number of States parties to the Convention and the deepening of relevant practices in various countries, but also reflected in the gradual internalization of the working principles constituted by concepts such as multilateral dialogue, mutual respect, and community-centered practices emphasized in the Convention and its related international instruments.
It is only in the process of internalization that the above-mentioned international concepts and the complex cultural facts of the State party create various phenomena of "acclimatization".
Examining the dilemmas and experiences revealed by these phenomena and exploring the action philosophy of new cultural conservatism behind them will help seek more possibilities for the China model of intangible cultural heritage protection, so that the above concepts will not become a constraint and become a driving force for promoting the revitalization of rural areas in China and the sustainable development of intangible cultural heritage.
Keywords: rural revitalization; intangible cultural heritage protection; new cultural conservatism; cultural multilateralism principles
Whether based on academic speculation or work purposes, it is extremely necessary to review the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection.
If this kind of provincial inspection is included in the strategic framework of rural revitalization, it means that we must pay more attention to the search for reference examples and reflection on practical difficulties.
Therefore, the beginning of this article is a Mills-style discussion, starting from a practitioner's practice of protecting the Suzhou Kesi tradition, and gradually moving to the discussion of "rural revitalization and intangible cultural heritage protection", which is related to social structural transformation and cultural inheritance.
Discussions related to grand topics such as history.
1.
Traditional practice of folk elites and new cultural conservatism
The full name of Suzhou Kesi in the list of China's national intangible cultural heritage is "Suzhou Kesi Weaving Skills." In September 2009, it was included in the UNESCO List of Representative Works of Human Intangible Cultural Heritage as part of the "China Sericulture and Silk Silk Skills" project, in conjunction with weaving techniques such as Hangluo, silk silk, silk cotton, Sichuan brocade, and Song brocade, as well as silk production customs such as rolling silkworm flowers and sweeping silkworm flower fields.
My first encounter with Suzhou Kesi was during a research activity in 2018 to understand the status of intangible cultural heritage protection in Suzhou.
What impressed me deeply in the field at that time was not only the exquisiteness and complexity of the keri technique itself, but also the figure of Chen Wen, an elite practitioner of keri culture-the founder of Suzhou's "Zhencaitang" keri art museum.
Strictly speaking, Chen Wen, who graduated from an arts and crafts design major, is not a silk craftsman in the traditional sense.
She has multiple roles such as a silk designer, a skill promoter, and a cultural and creative producer.
This kind of overlap of roles is not uncommon among intangible cultural heritage protection practitioners, but Chen Wen is one of the few practitioners who will discuss the development direction of the inheritance group industry from a macro perspective and admit the importance of policy support when talking about skill inheritance.
She said: "We are now able to support ourselves well and have a slight surplus.
We need more inclusive policies to help us pass on this culture." This rational expression with macro concerns allowed me to see the clear cultural consciousness in Chen Wen.
This communication of consciousness often appears in her personal narratives.
In the study of folklore, the formation and expression of conscious consciousness often becomes an important basis for researchers to distinguish the internal structure of the target group.
Chen Yongchao once proposed the concept of folk elite to clarify the heterogeneous composition of cultural groups.
In Chen Yongchao's research, folk elites refer to "individuals and their combinations who have obvious voice and control over a specific folk custom and actually lead the integration and variation of that folk custom." Chen Wen, who describes herself as a bridge between painters and craftsmen, fully demonstrates her leading role as a folk elite in her practice of protecting the tradition of Kesi silk: currently, there are less than 300 weavers engaged in the Kesi silk industry in Suzhou, and nearly one quarter of them are from the team of "Zhen Cai Tang".
In addition to assisting the museum in restoring its collection of Kesi works, what accounts for half of Chen Wen's Kesi practice is the launch of a series of art and daily necessities made using the Kesi process.
In the interview, Chen Wen explained her original intention in practice as follows:
Today, if we blindly repeat the traditional expression form of "Golden Peony" that is far from daily life, then the work is treated coldly.
It is not the fault of the work, but the person who made it did not show it to the audience in a good way.
There are so few people doing it now.
What reason is there to waste the limited energy of the weavers and make some poorly explained works? What I want to present is not a product, but a culture and a different mood.
Because of this, Chen Wen seemed very calm when announcing her confidence in inheriting.
She said: "In fact, we are all adhering to our beliefs.
Despite the difficulties of the moment, we will persist." Because of this, I confirmed her elite status in the protection of Kesi culture.
As a folk elite, Chen Wen repeatedly emphasized in his narration that he not only had the feeling of inheriting the silk silk culture, but also had the expectation of win-win benefits for practitioners and the silk silk tradition.
As a researcher, from Chen Wen's narrative, I can see her efforts to maintain an effective link between the tradition of silk carving and contemporary life.
This means and process of traditional things by giving "traditional" value symbols to new things, and then "creating effective links between current discourse and past discourse" is called traditional practice.
In traditional practice, there is hidden the cognitive premise of practitioners, that is, tradition is an interpretable discourse creation with cultural continuity, and its boundaries will remain open due to the diverse practices of the subject.
In the case of Suzhou Kesi alone, I think the way in which Chen Wen was able to complete his local empowerment and sustainable development of the Suzhou Kesi project is a typical traditional practice.
However, the popularity of Chen Wen's traditional practice cannot stop doubts from conservatives in academic circles.
In the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection in China and the recent rural revitalization, there has always been two positions of debate, namely, whether we should adhere to cultural traditions and adhere to their authoritative production of social order, or whether we should recognize and follow cultural traditions.
The procedural characteristics of inheriting the past and creating the present? Obviously, Chen Wen's practice follows the latter position.
If we analyze the fundamental differences between the above two positions from the perspective of action philosophy, we will find that this controversy reflects the very different attitudes of cultural conservatism and modernism towards tradition in the traditional/modern framework in modern and contemporary social trends: the former insists on "relying on some 'sacred','absolute' or 'authoritative' thing in traditional culture to maintain social order," while the latter advocates the elimination of sanctity and subversion of order in completely opposite directions.
When it contradicts the trend of thought of modernism, cultural conservatism is criticized for being "unwilling to reflect on the cultural traditions it adheres to" while adhering to the natural laws of a certain cultural tradition.
However, after the 1990s, as the international situation turned towards "ideological conflicts in the post-Cold War era clearly giving way to economic competition and cultural confrontation, and the traditional polarization pattern was replaced by multipolarity", the trend of cultural conservatism gradually changed.
Although it still confronts modernism at the level of value judgment on traditional culture, in terms of action, the previous principle of adhering to authority has gradually transformed into the principle of harmony that favors peaceful dialogue and cooperation.
In order to distinguish it from traditional cultural conservatism, academic circles call this trend of thought, which advocates value rationality, advocates humanistic spirit, and tends to be diverse and inclusive, New Cultural Conservatism.
Obviously, new cultural conservatism adheres to the tradition of return, not the kind of tradition with absolute authority and without change that cultural conservatism emphasizes.
Because, when it clearly emphasizes the principle of "advocating harmony, initiating cooperation", it already shows that fans of new cultural conservatism have calmly accepted the openness and diversity of cultural traditions.
This gradual change in stance is exactly consistent with the cognitive premise of traditional practice mentioned above.
In this way, the long-entangled dispute between the two factions will have room for reconciliation.
Seeking this kind of reconciliation can, at the micro level, provide academic support to respond to doubts for those who are carrying out traditional practices in the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection; at the macro level, it can also provide a philosophy of action for the purpose of empowering intangible cultural heritage protection locally and multilateral collaboration.
2.
Analysis of the pros and cons of the paradigm dilemma and international examples based on intercultural dialogue
The 2003 Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage once clearly explained the significance of its promulgation at the international level, that is,"it also noted that there is no binding multilateral document on the protection of intangible cultural heritage to date." This emphasis on cultural multilateralism stems from the evolving needs of the world's political landscape.
This emphasis is not only reflected in the text of the Convention and related international instruments, but also continues in the process of identifying the ownership nature of intangible cultural heritage projects and ethical reflection.
At the end of 2017, during the 12th session of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, states parties had an extremely heated debate around draft resolution 8 of the 2017 annual work report of the review body Evaluation Body.
The texts of the draft resolution and the final resolution are provided as follows:
[Draft Resolution]: Reminds States parties that the Convention does not seek to establish a system of ownership through, for example, geographical indications, intellectual property rights, professional certification, and that any item included in the Convention's lists does not mean exclusive ownership of a cultural expression.
[Resolution]: Reminds States parties that inclusion in the list does not seek to establish a system of ownership through, for example, geographical indications, intellectual property rights, professional certification, and that any item included in the Convention's lists does not mean exclusive ownership of a cultural expression.
People who had been at the meeting or watched the video recorded at the time would describe the scene as follows: During the debate, the draft resolution was constantly asked to be deleted and repeatedly asked to be added as the speaker's position changed, until Finally, the content presented above became an integral part of the final resolution of the meeting.
Comparing the text of the draft resolution with the final resolution, we can find that the specific content of the resolution is not the focus of this debate.
This fierce debate, which lasted for nearly an hour, on the surface, was clear about the Convention's attitude towards the ownership of intangible cultural heritage, but in essence, the representatives of the states parties participating in the debate expressed their views on the rationality and legitimacy of the resolution.
The seesaw on the issue truly staged a "good show" to defend the basic principles of cultural multilateralism for all audiences present or absent.
1) Modelling of international principles and working frameworks
There are four categories of intangible cultural heritage protection under the Convention, namely,"List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Urgent Need of Protection" List of Urgent Need of Protection),"Representative List of Representative Works of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity","Plans, Projects and Activities that best embody the principles and goals of the Convention","List of Excellent Practices") and List of International Assistance.
The selection criteria and performance rules for these four categories of directories constitute the basic framework for the protection of intangible cultural heritage at the international level.
This framework can be refined into nine steps, namely identification), documentation), research), preservation), Protection), promotion), promotion), inheritance), revitalization)).
Each step contains a systematic work process involving different entities.
The nine steps inherit and support each other in terms of working methods, concept implementation, standard verification, etc., jointly building a system that can promote the implementation of intangible cultural heritage protection practices by 178 contracting countries.
A huge working network.
The effectiveness of this network-based framework has been verified in past practice in many countries.
In addition, UNESCO has also proactively responded to the complex problems encountered by the framework in various practical operations through successive revisions of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage.
However, some "stubborn diseases" are difficult to cure.
For example, whether it is working principles generated by concepts such as multilateral dialogue and mutual respect, or intangible cultural heritage concepts such as community participation and cultural space that are embodied by principles, they will all encounter misunderstandings, dismemberments and misuse in different cultural contexts.
For another example, the framework construction to embody cultural multilateralism not only provides reference standards for specific practitioners, but also creates a pattern trend for different intangible cultural heritage projects when formulating and implementing their protection plans.
Of course, we should be clear that there is still an essential difference between this standardization of the working framework formed by the internalization of international principles and the homogenization of specific practices.
The intertextual connection of the former within the model framework has laid the tone of focusing on the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection practice, focusing on the community, and participating from multiple actors.
Overall, it has a positive role in promoting the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
The latter is more like a specific dilemma caused by simply imitating the working model regardless of the context of cultural generation, just like the practical dilemmas we can see in relevant practices in various countries.
For example, there is no restriction of retro thinking in social practice projects, possible de-contextualization behind stage performances and museum displays in performing arts projects, and excessive commercialization common in traditional handicraft projects.
Take over-commercialization as an example.
Relevant international instruments of the Convention have clearly stated that communities, groups or individuals involved in intangible cultural heritage projects should become the main beneficiaries of their heritage.
Under this premise, it would have been a good thing to commercialize intangible cultural heritage and related resources.
As a practical means, commercial practice can not only meet the main needs of heritage holders to adapt to globalization and social transformation, but also provide opportunities for stakeholders to realize their subjective aspirations of "aiming to enrich the people".
However, in the protection practice of many projects, what we see is that "benefits" are simplified to the acquisition of economic benefits, and the inheritance of cultural heritage is subject to the control of the consumer market.
The reason is that in the non-genetic process, it only imitates the external form and lacks connotation attention.
The "Ethical Principles for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage" promulgated in 2015 and relevant research results in recent years in academic circles have pointed out the difficulty of controlling the commercialization of cultural heritage, and also demonstrated the impact and harm of advocating the uniqueness of economic profit on intangible cultural heritage protection: The existence of the simplified model will cause excessive consumption of cultural heritage, which in turn will eliminate the complexity of cultural heritage traditions under the control of consumer capital.
In this deconstruction, what is ignored is the cultural significance and social function of intangible cultural heritage in its associated communities.
In fact, in the framework of the Convention,"benefit" refers to the multi-faceted impact of intangible cultural heritage on relevant communities when it realizes its cultural significance and social functions.
In other words, the "benefits" in "community benefits" include multiple levels of meaningful production, such as the expectation of the generation of the subject's cultural consciousness, the provision of a sense of cultural identity and continuity, etc.
As far as China's social reality is concerned, the practice of intangible cultural heritage protection is an important platform and means to realize the rural revitalization strategy.
Therefore, under the framework of rural revitalization, when we discuss the survival of intangible cultural heritage and its "benefits" to the communities we belong to, we must carefully consider the possible consequences of measures such as productive transformation and industrial development that blindly tilt towards the consumer market.
2) International experience in the "Directory of Excellent Practices"
Difficulties and opportunities sometimes go hand in hand.
If we follow the action philosophy of new cultural conservatism, we will find that the overall working framework for intangible cultural heritage protection will certainly bring many implementation difficulties, but because the principles of multilateral cooperation and intercultural dialogue run through the framework, practitioners of intangible cultural heritage protection have explored a way to reduce implementation risks, that is, to obtain examples from the experience of other countries that can be used by their own countries.
This approach is the "List of Good Practices" in the Convention.
The list was established to achieve the protection, cooperation and international assistance of intangible cultural heritage at the international level, and to identify excellent practical plans, projects and activities within all States parties that best reflect the principles and goals of the Convention) for publicity and promotion, with special attention to the appropriate effectiveness of this excellent practical experience in developing countries.
For example, in response to the above-mentioned dilemma of over-commercialization of traditional handicraft projects, we can find effective experiences for reference in Austria's "Regional Centres for Craftsman: a strategy for safeguarding the cultural heritage of traditional handicraft" project.
This project was included in the "Excellent Practices Directory" in 2016.
In its inclusion resolution, it clearly pointed out the important reason for the inclusion of the project, that is, it provides a strategy or model that can be used for reference to deal with the protection of endangered traditional handicrafts under the impact of industrial production and global trade.
This project describes in great detail how the three regional handicraft textile, carpentry, painter and painting protection centers established in 1991, 1999, and 2008 respectively can be established between producers and consumers, the inheritance of traditional skills and experience systems and industrial production Build a bridge between modern art innovation, thereby achieving the ecologically rational use of local resources to produce high-quality products), The economy provides work and training opportunities and creates economic benefits) establishes a "mutual trust" collaboration mechanism with society) Sustainable development at three levels.
If we trace the specific measures at the first two levels one by one, we will find that this project provides a lot of experience that enables multiple actors to work together, especially in increasing the economic income of practitioners and promoting the intergenerational inheritance of relevant knowledge and skills.
In addition, what is even more impressive is that the project's efforts at the social level, that is, the stakeholders participating in the "mutual trust" collaboration mechanism, include not only artists and educational institutions that are common in similar practices in other countries., businesses, etc., but also extremely rare medical institutions: the Textile Protection Center established in 1991 chose to cooperate with local psychiatric hospitals when conducting protection and promotion practices.
The center's attention to the interaction between the psychotherapy process and textile skills has triggered the country's public to pay attention to the public value of traditional handicraft activities from a neurological perspective.
As mentioned earlier, the benefits that communities should derive from their cultural heritage are far more complex than a single commercial benefit.
To clarify the levels and trends, we need to deeply understand the nature of the connection between practical subjects and cultural contexts in heritage practice, so as to inherit intangible cultural heritage that provides a sense of identity and continuity to relevant communities, groups or individuals.
On this issue, the Bulgarian project included in the "Good Practices List" in 2017 can also provide experience.
The name of the project is Bulgaria's "Bulgarian Chitalishte/Community Cultural Centre: Practical experience in safeguarding the vitality of the Intangible Cultural Heritage".
In the formulation and implementation of protection plans, in addition to the standardized "prescribed actions", the most eye-catching experience of the project lies in its emphasis on intergenerational inheritance and its tolerance for the diversity of participants.
In the application form for the project, there is this paragraph:
The community cultural center known as chitalishte is a key factor in the inheritance of Bulgaria's intangible cultural heritage.
They are institutions where community members share and exchange common values in an informal manner.
Whether they are elderly or young people, all community people feel at home in many of the buildings in chitalishte.
As organizers, direct participants or spectators of various activities, community members voluntarily go there in their spare time.
The elders in the community are the leaders of the center and they attract young people, especially their children and grandchildren...
All people in the community who are willing to join the center, regardless of their ethnic and cultural identity, are eligible to become members of chitalishte.
Therefore, chitalishte can promote awareness and understanding among individuals and groups of different cultures.
Multilateral cultural cooperation and intercultural dialogue have always been the basic purpose of intangible cultural heritage protection practice.
The exchange of skills, experiences and emotions between similar or different projects in different communities often does not completely resolve community boundaries.
In most interactive practices, boundary awareness is still a significant marker.
But in the project of the Chilishta Community Cultural Center in Bulgaria, that boundary was broken.
Respect and acceptance of diverse identities, as a melting of cultural hierarchies and cultural power structures, must be closely related to the cultural context and social structure of the community.
Although it is not necessary to copy the overall model of this project in China practice, this experience can still provide a reflective perspective.
3.
Conclusion
Whether it is the determination of working principles at the international level, the protection of specific projects at the national level, or the active inheritance of folk traditions that are not included in lists at all levels at the local level, these practices carried out in the name of intangible cultural heritage must have the responsibility to achieve the following purposes, namely: enhance respect for cultural diversity and human creativity; increase awareness of intangible cultural heritage; and promote mutual respect and appreciation among States parties and among communities, groups and individuals; Achieve the practice and coordination of multilateralism at the cultural level, especially traditional cultural level.
Based on this fact, under the framework of rural revitalization, when we are looking for reference models for creative transformation and innovative development for China's intangible cultural heritage protection, we should be vigilant about various intentional or unintentional "unique" theories.
We must not succumb to the limitations of the current practical dilemma, nor must we stop at the "backward look" of tracing the historical imprint of intangible cultural heritage, but must carry out inheritance, promotion and revitalization based on the "present" and benefiting the people.
From the traditional practice of Kesi in Suzhou to the excellent practices in the international directory, we can see the possibility of "Tao being parallel without contradictory".
Therefore, what needs to be reiterated again is that only by grasping the balance between the new cultural conservatism that puts the main body first and cultural multilateralism based on mutual respect can the inheritance and protection of intangible cultural heritage become people's cultural consciousness and China.
Only then can it be possible to implement China's rural revitalization strategy in a true sense.
(This article was published in "Folk Customs Research", No.
1, 2020.
The annotations are omitted.
See the original issue for details)