[Lin Haicong] The ethical dilemma of "animal use" in the protection of intangible cultural heritage
Abstract: Relying on the international platform of UNESCO, many countries have introduced the spirit of dialogue and sustainable development concepts of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage to carry out local and national cultural heritage protection in the context of globalization and modernization.
However, in the process of localization, due to the different views of nature and culture of people from various countries, many "intangible cultural heritage" projects involving animals in application and protection work at different levels face conflicts or dilemmas between cultural diversity and animal protection, and the priority issue of choice between the two intrinsic values of "cultural diversity" and "biodiversity" in practice is also highlighted.
Based on the practical nature of "intangible cultural heritage" protection, when special species resources are involved, whether based on the spirit of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage or human creativity, culture should be appropriately transferred to the protection of animal resources; When it comes to the issue of whether animals are handled appropriately, we should fully understand the two basic principles of "sharing by mankind" and "sustainable development" contained in the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage, and enrich the cultural and ecological choices of people of all countries.
Diversity.
By practicing the core spirit of the Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage, communities with different cultural concepts may be able to re-establish the "Tower of Babel" for cultural exchanges.
Keywords: animal ethics; intangible cultural heritage; cultural exchanges; biodiversity; sustainable development
introduction
Since 2013, the "Litchi and Dog Meat Festival" in Yulin City, Guangxi has attracted widespread attention nationwide.
The so-called "dog meat powder" who support eating meat and dog lovers who oppose eating dog meat have engaged in a protracted verbal confrontation over the preservation and abolition of the custom.
This divisive social debate and cultural confrontation between different groups reached its peak in 2014, with the two sides arguing on two different logical levels: "Can we eat dogs" and "Should we eat dogs?" The confrontation continued into 2015.
Fortunately, the two parties began to move towards rationality and restraint.
Looking back at the entire incident, the most intriguing thing is the official attitude of Yulin City and its response strategies.
The local law enforcement department believes that "the current law only requires quarantine requirements for dogs at the place of origin and has no slaughtering and quarantine regulations," so it is impossible to forcibly ban eating dog meat.
Although both officials and local people have repeatedly stated that "eating dog meat on the summer solstice" is not an officially sponsored festival, but just a local custom with a long history and in line with the seasons, the local government has changed it to the "Litchi Dog Meat Festival" and then declared it as the first batch of intangible cultural heritage projects in Yuzhou District, which will then be declared to the autonomous region level.
Officials may think that assuming the "heritage application" is successful, according to the provisions of the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Law of the People's Republic of China," this traditional custom and its inheritance will be protected by law.
Through the "cultural" operation of "intangible cultural heritage", the local custom of "eating dog meat" has been recognized by both legal discourse and cultural discourse, and the "intangible cultural heritage" must endorse the legitimacy of local groups eating dog meat.
However, the "heritage application" plan was ultimately not implemented due to public opposition, and the controversy caused disappeared.
However, does a project such as dog meat eating custom, which involves "The Use of Animals within Intangible Cultural Heritage" and is subject to huge social controversy, meet the requirements for recognition of "intangible cultural heritage"? If we carefully read the United Nations Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention") and the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Law of the People's Republic of China"(hereinafter referred to as the "Intangible Cultural Heritage Law"), we will understand that it is inappropriate to include projects that have failed to reach consensus and are controversial in the "intangible cultural heritage" list.
It violates the basic spirit of international and domestic documents related to "intangible cultural heritage": seeking cultural respect among communities.
So, when the protection of "intangible cultural heritage" encounters the problem of "animal use", how should we make the appropriate choice between animal protection and cultural diversity? In the specific operation process, how should our "intangible cultural heritage" work declare, identify and protect different "cultural expressions" and calmly respond to doubts from public opinion?
1.
Changes in animal protection concepts
First, let us review the changes in animal concepts in human society and understand the cultural context in which this problem arises.
Westerners actually have a long academic history of recognizing animals.
From ancient Greek times to the Middle Ages, many philosophers and thinkers have discussed the relationship between humans, gods, and animals and the classification of animals, which in a sense also reflects the influence of Western theology on human concepts of animals.
Academic works such as "Humanity and the Natural World" by British scholar Keith Thomas, and "The Good Life" co-authored by Swedish scholars Orvar Lofgren and Jonas Frykman have clearly talked about the transformation of Western people's understanding of animals from wild to pets, and the transition of living habits towards animals from hunting to animal protection.
Although Western religious theology believes that humans and animals are both creations of God and has a certain romantic color, we must admit that it is based on "anthropolocentrism."
The cultural concepts in the 1911 edition of the Swedish Encyclopedia well reflect the trend of modern animal concepts.
When the book defines "culture", it clearly points out that it is "moral and intellectual development".
At the social level, it should be reflected in "peaceful coexistence among nations" and at the individual level, it should "have the power to comprehensively develop" and "treat animals and other living beings well." This cultural concept has promoted fundamental changes in human attitudes towards animals, which in turn will affect the cultural creation and adjustment of daily life in modern society.
To the present day, some Western ethicists have reconsidered the above-mentioned traditional understanding of nature, triggering the rise of the "animal rights movement".
The most representative views are Peter Singer and Tom Regan.
Singer believes that human "species discrimination" leads to human exploitation of animals.
In fact, animals with feelings have moral rights, so we should give animals equal rights.
But his vegan stance based on human attitudes was regarded by Reagan as a bioethics that "preferred utilitarian".
On the basis of criticizing Singer's animal ethics, Reagan re-recognized the inherent ethical value of animals.
He radicalized that animals have their own emotional world and preferences, can make behavioral choices independently at their will, and are also the subjects of life like humans.
Although the two hold fundamentally different interpretations of animal moral views, their views have become the theoretical basis of animal conservationists.
Modern people have begun to re-recognize the mutual relationship between humans and animals, and consciously change human attitudes towards animals.
Extreme and violent attitudes have inspired a group of conservationists to pay close attention to the living conditions of animals, participate in the "animal rights movement", and have spawned a cross-professional field, An animal research model that focuses on animal subjectivity.
Some scholars have even deliberately created a new term "Animal") different from "Animal" to refer to "animals" including humans, thereby breaking the binary division between humans and non-human animals in the past and emphasizing spiritual continuity and commonality between different species.
However, due to the current inconclusive conclusion in the field of natural sciences on whether animals have the subject's will and emotional ability to choose language and action, this ethical animal protectionist stance has also attracted many academic criticism.
Dr.
Hal Herzog, an American expert on human-animal interactions, once wrote in "Why are dogs pets?" Pigs are food?-- The book "Moral Problems between Humans and Animals" contains a humorous and comprehensive response to many of the above-mentioned animal activists.
He believes that people's perception of whether animals have thinking and moral abilities is the result of empathy from people's self-emotional projection.
The results of psychological experiments do not support these views.
People's choices of food and pets are limited by their own culture.
It is not pure "animocentrism." In fact, whether scientists describe the behavioral habits of animals or people domesticate pets in daily life, these behaviors are all shaped by the social culture of thinking and language, and are an anthropomorphic cultural logic.
Looking back at the emergence of animal protection and nature concepts in China, according to many environmental history studies, they have also experienced a relatively complex process of cultural change.
3 Dr.
Mark Elvin believes that the attitudes of ancient China towards nature are contradictory."On the one hand, they believe that nature is not an image or reflection of transcendental existence, but a part of transcendental power itself.
Wise men want to learn from nature and realize that humans cannot recreate nature.
On the other hand, they domesticated, transformed and utilized nature to an extent that is virtually unmatched in the pre-modern world." Many scholars have pointed out that infiltrated by religious cultures such as Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, China's thoughts of "harmony between man and nature" and "love of things" actually regard the whole world as a unity, advocating respect and love for natural life, and re-understanding the emotional and value connection of life between man and nature.
These concepts already inherently embody the idea of harmonious coexistence between man and nature.
Different from the Han Chinese concept of animals, the view of nature of ethnic minorities is most prominent in religion and mythology.
In particular, some ancient creation myths indicate that some ethnic minorities believe that "man and animals share the same ancestor", reflecting a non-Anthropocentrism of equal coexistence of nature, and taboos in diet and production customs.
Although the ancients already had the concept of protecting life, these concepts did not regard animals as independent objects of understanding to think about the relationship between humans and animals.
Instead, they were implicit within the framework of religious views and cosmology, and had mysticism and scientism.
The dual color of doctrine.
The real rise of the concept of animal protection in China is the ideological product of modern society in the process of modernization.
As early as the Republic of China, Lu Bicheng, a newly educated woman living in Europe and the United States and believing in Buddhism, imitated the organizational purpose of the London Society for the Prohibition of Animal Abuse, and advocated the establishment of the "China Animal Protection Society" with the Chinese people.
At the same time, she wrote to the Chicago Animal Slaughtering Society to consult on how to avoid the pain of slaughtered livestock.
As a "cosmopolitan", Lu Bicheng believes that being kind to animals is conducive to cultivating the kindness of all mankind."Although the plan is set in China, the results will last in the world, and there is no doubt." In 1934, the National Government promoted the "New Life Movement", which also clearly stipulated that cruelty to animals was prohibited, and even introduced relevant laws and regulations as the basis for punishment, with the intention of improving social customs.
To contemporary times, in 1992, China established the first legal animal protection organization, the "China Small Animal Protection Association," to strive to protect animals from abuse and oppose any violent act of abuse or killing animals.
In recent years, the China government has continuously cracked down on illegal activities of smuggling and indiscriminate killing of wild animals, and actively fulfilled its basic obligations under international documents such as the Convention on Biological Diversity.
At the same time, relevant legislative bodies have also begun to consider promulgating the Animal Protection Law of the People's Republic of China and soliciting opinions extensively from society.
These actions reflect that China, from the government to its citizens, has begun to pay increasing attention to modern social issues such as animal rights and protection of the natural environment, and send a signal of positive cooperation to the international community.
In the international arena, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity actually constitute the legal basis of the Convention.
On the one hand, heritage protection, as a global cultural practice, is not only directly restricted by the development status of animal resources, but also restricted or even resisted by the natural and animal views of different communities and countries.
Certain special traditional handicrafts and religious rituals and customs will gradually disappear and become unsustainable.
On the other hand, some countries or regions are doing the opposite, using heritage protection and "cultural diversity" as reasons to reconstruct the "cultural tradition" of their domestic animal resource development, with the intention of breaking through international efforts in environmental protection, political discourse criticism and international convention restrictions on animal resources, such as Japan's "whaling" issue.
All in all, human beings are constantly changing their understanding and positioning of animals through production practices, recreational life and symbolic imagination.
It has prompted human beings to consider how to coordinate conceptual differences between communities and strive to seek cultural diversity and biodiversity.
Balance, with a view to promoting the modern issue of "sustainable development" of the earth.
It is in this cultural context of changes in animal concepts that contemporary "intangible cultural heritage" protection encounters the dilemma of ethical choice between cultural diversity and biodiversity.
2.
The dilemma between biological and cultural diversity for "intangible cultural heritage" protection
In order to more intensively discuss the ethical dilemma and cultural tension between biological protection and cultural development caused by "animal use" in intangible cultural heritage, let us turn our attention to case practices in China.
The following will analyze the treatment model of animal use in "intangible cultural heritage" projects from three perspectives: project application, public opinion publicity and protection practice.
First of all, according to the list of four batches of national intangible cultural heritage representative projects and three batches of expanded lists currently announced by the State Council, based on the specific use of animals as the classification standard, the corresponding "intangible cultural heritage" projects can be divided into three categories: "processing materials with animals","using animals as activity media" and "using animals as production objects".
The specific project classification is as follows: As shown in the above table, we can first feel at a glance that the relationship between "intangible cultural heritage" projects as culture and animals is so close, and it runs through life content such as food, clothing, housing, transportation, medical and sports and festival celebrations in different ethnic areas.
Among them, the project of "using animals as production objects" is an animal husbandry production model that conforms to the weather, regulates hunting and killing, and conforms to the laws of nature.
It is essentially conducive to the survival and reproduction of animals, and there is basically no controversy.
What really sparked controversy among public opinion were certain specific projects under the two categories of "using animals as processing materials" and "using animals as activity media".
List of representative projects of national intangible cultural heritage related to animals, classification and specific project overview table
The first is that during the project application and identification process,"animal use" was "discovered" as a "problem" in the practice of "intangible cultural heritage" protection.
The most typical case is the "Yi Torch Festival", which uses animals as the medium of activity.
The "Yi Torch Festival", also known as the "Fire Sacrifice", is related to the Yi people's worship of fire.
The main purpose is to pray for a bumper harvest in the coming year.
On the first day, the gods of ancestors and livestock were invited home, on the third day, they were sent back, and on the second day, various folk competitions were held, including bullfighting, sheep fighting, cockfighting, horse racing, wrestling, etc.
In 2006, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces jointly declared the "Torch Festival and Yi Torch Festival" as the first batch of representative national-level intangible cultural heritage projects, which were approved by the State Council, and were not questioned by any group at all levels in China.
However, in March 2013, the China government submitted application materials to the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee"), hoping that the "Yi Torch Festival" could be included in the "Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity" in 2014.During the two-year review cycle, from multiple discussions in subsidiary bodies of the committee to the final review at the ninth regular session of the committee, the project caused huge controversy because it involved bullfighting, sheep fighting, and cockfighting activities.
Although bullfighting, sheep fighting, and cockfighting are just folk activities held on the second day of the "Yi Torch Festival", and the committee's resolution also recognized that the "Yi Torch Festival" is not only "carrying various cultural expressions and practices passed down from generation to generation", but also "a harmonious channel for inter-ethnic dialogue and cultural exchanges, thus enhancing mutual understanding and respect between communities", noting that the application of the project respected the wishes and obtained the consent of community members, However, considering that the application materials "involve components of animal fighting", the committee believes that it is necessary to add "components involving animal fighting Animal Fights" and "Certain components of the festival involving The use of live animals for entertainment", in order to "explain whether these elements are related to respecting the sensitivities of different communities, groups and individuals, Respect for consistent requirements for sustainable development "and" how to encourage dialogue among communities with different sensitivities." The committee finally decided to return the application materials for the "Yi Torch Festival" to the submitting country for supplements, and requested China to submit the application materials again in the next round for review by the committee.
The uniqueness of this decision is that the two reasons given for returning are both making a fuss about the "constituent element" of "animals" and believing that the animals in the project are used for "entertainment".
Therefore, it is questioned whether the "Yi Torch Festival" fully considers the possibility of dialogue and communication between "communities" with different sensitivities.
In fact, we must acknowledge the rationality of the committee's reasons, and the basis for this decision can be found in the Convention: Article 2,"Definition", clearly states that the identification of intangible cultural heritage must comply with "the need for mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals and comply with sustainable development"; Article 3,"Relationship with other international instruments", also clearly states that the protection of biological resources and the maintenance of biodiversity related to sustainable development take precedence over the protection of cultural heritage.
Of course, the "Yi Torch Festival", which is a local knowledge and has social integration functions, is in compliance with national laws and regulations and customary laws and customs.
According to the provisions of Article 19 of Chapter 5 of the Convention, the "Yi Torch Festival" and the Yi people have every reason to be respected by the international community.
Although the decision contained cultural misinterpretations of the "animal use" of the "Yi Torch Festival", the reason why the committee made this decision was more from the perspective of "exchanges between different cultures" and "sustainable development of mankind".
The result of careful deliberation from a more detached and idealistic perspective closely follows the basic principles of the Convention and is beyond reproach.
However, compared with the worse result, the decision to "return supplementary materials to the reporting country" shows that the committee also considered the cultural development values of "cultural diversity" and "diversity of cultural expressions", and made an encouraging compromise between the two values involving local and international.
It is precisely because of the understanding of the international community's sensitivity to "animal use" and the cultural prejudice of others 'misunderstanding of the main culture that the application and promotion of certain projects have drawn on the experience of all parties and strived to avoid conflicts between animal protection and "cultural expressions" inherited from "intangible cultural heritage".
The "Intangible Cultural Heritage" project "in Nanhu District, Jiaxing City, Zhejiang Province, whether it is the specific description of its project application form or the external publicity on the international exchange platform, not only traces its origin to" Islamic Eid Adha ", it believes that the" Intangible Cultural Heritage "is a reflection of Hui culture and a traditional national sports activity of the Hui people." In addition to having a long history of development, it also emphasizes that its form is "different from Spanish bullfighting and other killing styles, In cruel bullfighting, tearing the bull reflects the beauty of wrestling between man and the bull, and there is no bloody or brutal scene." When some media reported on the "intangible cultural heritage", they would title it "China style bullfight", emphasizing its special form, that is,"Jiaxing Cove is different from bullfights in other places in China.
It is a fight between two oxen, but like Spanish bullfight, it is a struggle between man and bull, but it is not as bloody as Spanish bullfight" to show its civilization.
Han Haihua, the inheritor of the "intangible cultural heritage", also mentioned in an interview that "throwing cattle with bare hands does not harm cattle also reflects the harmonious coexistence between man and animals, man and nature." Whether it is official words, media writing or inheritors 'rhetoric, we can clearly feel the regional uniqueness of this "intangible cultural heritage" and weaken the use of animals.
Even though "whipped cattle" does not involve ecological issues such as the scarcity of animals and the destruction of biodiversity, different groups in Jiaxing still adopt a more moderate "animal protection" discourse to describe "whipped cattle" as intangible cultural heritage.
It is obviously inspired by the fact that Spanish bullfighting faces sharp criticism from animal conservationists internationally, so as to alleviate or eliminate value prejudices and cultural misunderstandings in international publicity.
As a result,"Crushed Ox" was finally included in the list of the fourth batch of national intangible cultural heritage representative projects, which also provided a relatively successful experience for all parties to deal with the problems of "animal use" in "intangible cultural heritage" projects that "use animals as the medium of activity".
Another example is the local government mentioned above that "cultural tradition" of "dog-eating customs".
This "intangible cultural heritage" practice is worthy of discussion.
It is true that the consumption of dog meat in China has a long history and is closely related to the ancient culture of sacrifice and banquet.
However, with the strengthening of animal protection concepts in contemporary society, the custom of eating dogs has been strongly opposed by many dog lovers and animal protection organizations.
The so-called "Litchi Dog Meat Festival" in Yulin, Guangxi, and the "Hutou Dog Meat Festival" in Jinhua, Zhejiang have caused great controversy.
This article does not intend to intervene in the judgment of which is right and wrong between "diversity of cultural expressions" and "animal protection rights", but the huge controversy caused by dog-eating customs and dog meat cooking technology in society itself reminds us that animal elements should be treated with caution in the identification of "intangible cultural heritage", and "intangible cultural heritage" should be avoided from being instrumented as a defense excuse for cultural disputes.
Some "intangible cultural heritage" projects require rare wild animals as processing materials, and China has joined the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and is a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Therefore, China's trade in wild animals is strictly restricted by international conventions, and the protection and inheritance status of related "intangible cultural heritage" projects is naturally restricted and hindered by practical conditions.
For example, the biggest problem facing the inheritance and protection of "ivory carving", a national-level "intangible cultural heritage" shared by Guangzhou, Beijing and Changzhou, is the extreme scarcity of ivory as a raw material.
China's ivory mainly comes from overseas sources.
Although international conventions restrict small-scale transactions according to quotas within a certain period of time, it still cannot meet the needs of China for this "intangible cultural heritage" handicraft, and its inheritance and protection situation is extremely serious.
In sharp contrast to China's scarcity of ivory resources is Japan, the world's first legal importer of ivory.
Because it adopts a strict internal control system for the sale of ivory and complies with the relevant provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Japan has obtained the qualification certification of the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Ivory can be steadily and legally imported over the years, which is used to develop Japan's "root payment" craftsmanship and make private seals.
Recently, China's law enforcement agencies cracked down on smuggled ivory products and gathered them to completely destroy them.
The State Forestry Administration issued a document to temporarily ban the import of African ivory within one year.
This is not only a concrete action to protect wild animals, but also a good international image for China, so as to strive to apply for legal qualification certification for imported ivory from CITES in the future, and win favorable objective development conditions for the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
Similar to the controversy of ivory, a Peking Opera actor recently posted a sky-high price of "Diancui" on his Sina Weibo account, which attracted the attention and criticism of many netizens.
"Diancui" involves two national-level "representative intangible cultural heritage projects" in the category of traditional handicrafts, namely "drama costume and drama equipment making skills" and "silk inlay making skills", and it is related to two traditional dramas: Peking Opera and Kunqu Opera.
National "intangible cultural heritage" is directly related.
In addition to the controversy caused by the actor's remarks in response to public doubts, what is more important is that the raw materials used in the "dot green" process on the head come from kingfisher feathers.
We can see from legal and regulatory materials that currently common kingfisher species in China are all "three-haired animals" and are protected by relevant laws, which has aroused strong public attention and doubts.
This incident just shows that Chinese people's legal awareness of ecological environment and animal protection has indeed increased.
conclusion
In July 2010, the State Forestry Administration issued a notice on "Further Standardizing Wildlife Watching and Exhibitions", not to eliminate this popular folk skill through administration, but to guide intangible cultural heritage such as "Yongqiao Circus".
In the process of inheritance and protection of intangible cultural heritage, the means of corporal punishment of animals should be adjusted and new concepts of emotional communication and cooperation between humans and animals should be developed.
This case has actually made practical exploration on the issue of coordinating cultural development and animal protection, and will have positive enlightening significance for the subsequent relevant "intangible cultural heritage" protection work and policy introduction.
In fact, in addition to UNESCO's Convention advocating that "intangible cultural heritage" should respect the cultural values of different communities and efforts should be made to promote dialogue and exchanges among cultural subjects, Article 4 of China's Intangible Cultural Heritage Law also clearly emphasizes that "intangible cultural heritage" should be "conducive to enhancing the cultural identity of the Chinese nation, conducive to safeguarding national unity and national unity, and conducive to promoting social harmony and sustainable development." Moreover, some "intangible cultural heritage" projects involving animals are still in the process of living inheritance, and are even commercialized and produced on a large scale.
Their "historical, literary, artistic, and scientific value" is not outstanding.
In terms of cultural values and concepts, it is still difficult to fully build social consensus.
The local government's practice of including these projects in the "intangible cultural heritage" list may be thoughtless and inconsistent with the cultural spirit conveyed in many legal documents on the protection of "intangible cultural heritage".
Therefore, traditional customs involving "animal use" must be carried out on the premise of fully building consensus and complying with the sustainable development of biology when applying for registration in different levels of "intangible cultural heritage" lists and their protection and publicity processes.
This is also the core spirit of the Convention and the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law.
As Lévi-Strauss said,"Diversity has nothing to do with isolation between communities, but with the relationships that unite communities." Only in this way can communities with different cultural concepts be able to re-establish the "Tower of Babel" of cultural exchanges.
In addition, we also need to clearly distinguish whether traditional customs involving "animal use" are ritual links or other social practices: if animals are used to gather the identity of folk subjects, the core link of "cultural expression forms" is completed, and is consistent with the sustainable development of animals and the environment, this situation should be fully respected and recognized by other communities; if other social practices use animals for utilitarian purposes such as entertainment, economy, and diet to satisfy personal desires, the scope, method and degree of "animal use" can be appropriately adjusted according to the situation.
More importantly, many "animal use" is not the core element of some "intangible cultural heritage" projects.
It should be understood that the core of "intangible cultural heritage" protection is knowledge, skills, practice and the conceptual expressions they carry, rather than materialization.
Form carrier.
Therefore, we can completely choose to process and produce alternative materials to protect and continue these "intangible cultural heritage" projects, or record the production process and process in detail before production and processing can be resumed in the future.
(This article was published in "National Art", No.
1, 2016.
The annotations are omitted.
See the original issue for details)