[Han Chengyan] An analysis of the subject of intangible cultural heritage and the subject of protection
Abstract: Intangible cultural heritage protection is a public cultural undertaking involving all mankind and the whole society.
It requires all parties to actively play corresponding roles, give full play to their respective advantages, and assume specific responsibilities.
Establishing positive and promising identities in all aspects has become a constructive theoretical work for intangible cultural heritage protection.
Among them, it is a useful attempt to treat all relevant aspects as a "subject".
Defining the subject of intangible cultural heritage and the subject of intangible cultural heritage protection is actually an identity framework for exploring and establishing a division of labor and cooperation for intangible cultural heritage protection, a public cultural undertaking.
Keywords: intangible cultural heritage subject; intangible cultural heritage protection subject; folk culture; public cultural undertakings
From the National People's Congress's approval of accession to the Convention on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2004 to the promulgation and implementation of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law of the People's Republic of China in 2011, the protection of intangible cultural heritage has become a routine public cultural undertaking in our country."Intangible cultural heritage" has also been localized from a strange foreign concept to "intangible cultural heritage" and has become a familiar name to the people.
However, theoretical support for intangible cultural heritage protection is still weak.
As a social practice that has a great weight in the country's public life, it should be a very meaningful attempt to deepen the understanding of intangible cultural heritage protection from the perspective of practical subjects.
The concept of "subject" is the key word in the theoretical method of modern philosophy and social science that regards people as active actors with intrinsic consistency.
The intrinsic driving force of "modernity" is that people's endless pursuit and innovation are incorporated into various systems.
The philosophical basis of this driving force is the recognition of human initiative, and one of its manifestations is the establishment and use of the concept of "subject".
The Renaissance and Enlightenment in Europe rediscovered "man", and the ideological consciousness and action basis for man to be human is that man regards himself as a "subject" and becomes an agent in his relationship with the object.
The concept of subject that we take for granted today was mainly established by German philosophers such as Kant, Hegel and Marx.
Kant affirmed people's ability to use reason, moral ability and aesthetic ability, and theoretically demonstrated the possibility of people being human.
Hegel used the categories of logic and history to describe the liberation of man from the natural state, the formation of self-awareness, the expression of reason, and the development of social awareness and the spirit of the times.
The individual in itself becomes the practitioner who consciously acts for himself, and the isolated individual has universal reason, virtue and aesthetic power.
This means that man becomes the subject in his relationship with the object world.
A free person becomes a free subject, which means independently using reason, practicing morality, playing roles and assuming responsibilities) and feeling beauty.
Marx's affirmation of man as the subject was expressed through the innovation of the concept of "practice" in his early philosophy.
Aristotle divided human activities into "theory","practice" and "making".
Because the labor represented by "making" was borne by slaves in ancient Greece,"making" was devalued as the labor of slaves.
Marx regarded labor as an example of practice and a symbol of human creativity.
On the one hand, he broadened the scope of ancient philosophy limiting practice to the relationship between people, and on the other hand, he affirmed labor to transform the world as practice, and affirmed human initiative in the concept of practice.
Human attributes are manifested in creation and purpose in production practice and social practice, and one's subjectivity is confirmed in objectification.
Subject goes from general philosophical concepts to practical philosophical concepts, and can be widely applied to the study of social life.
It should become the basic concept of social science.
The subject is relative to the object or object.
When an individual or a group with internal identity plays an active role in thought, will, and social practice, uses ideas to influence the object, uses methods to transform the object, and expresses itself in this process, realizes itself, completes itself, the individual or group is the subject, and the initiative to provide ideas, the intention to transform the object, and the ability to influence the object is the subjectivity of the person or group.
Although similar content has the same expression in concepts such as rational economic man and meaning-seeking actor, social science insists on using the concept of "subject" and is still an option with broad consensus.
Subject is the conceptualization of the attributes and functions of thinkers and actors.
Its typical example is the individual, but it does not refer to the individual itself.
When a group or community can form an idea, promote the collective will, and act with goals, it is also regarded as a subject.
As a public cultural undertaking of the human community, cultural heritage protection is a project jointly carried out by public departments, individuals and their organizations in various ways.
Participants in protection work all come together based on independent choice and voluntary dedication, and commit and agree on their own roles in agreed rules and procedures, thereby each playing a main role.
People have various daily identities.
When he enters the realm of practice, he becomes the subject.
When people in society participate in the protection of cultural heritage, they become the main body of public cultural practice and should assume their roles and fulfill their responsibilities.
One of the special benefits of adopting the subject concept to treat various parties involved in intangible cultural heritage protection is that parties with different identities in daily reality can interact in the same working identity, which may bring new benefits to protection practice.
It is helpful for government departments, professional societies, expert teams and intangible cultural heritage groups to be treated as subjects in protection work.
1.
The main body of intangible cultural heritage
It is a basic theoretical understanding to discuss the subject of cultural heritage protection as public practice and its related concepts.
Not only at the level of protection, but also in terms of cultural heritage itself, the concept of subject needs to be introduced.
As for material cultural heritage, because they belong to natural landscapes and historical buildings, we are not always able to define their main body, but only know their jurisdiction and owner.
We can say that the China built the Great Wall, but we cannot say that the activities of the Beijingers left the Peking Man site in Zhoukoudian; we know that the French built the Louvre, but we are not sure that the ancient Greek architectural sites in Athens have a building relationship with today's Athens residents.
Therefore, the 1972 World Cultural Heritage Convention can only define the countries that undertake protection obligations, and does not determine the cultural creators of heritage projects, because heritage projects are either nature suspended by the creators, or people who have long since died.
The state can either claim to be the owner of a heritage because of the continuity of history, or become the owner because it owns territory.
In this case, the state is mainly the manager and establishes a special agency to carry out protection and development and utilization work).
In contrast, the 2003 Convention on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage supports the recognition of the main body of intangible cultural heritage projects, namely "communities, groups, and sometimes individuals." Recognizing this difference is of special significance for us to more accurately understand intangible cultural heritage and the subjects of intangible cultural heritage protection.
For the protection of intangible cultural heritage, it is necessary to clarify who is the subject of intangible cultural heritage.
The first step in doing so is to retrieve the hidden owner during the word-creation process of "intangible cultural heritage", that is, to "reveal" the main body of "folk customs" and "folk culture".
It is not enough for us to see "people" or "folk" again.
We also need to transform "people" into "people" and "human beings", because "intangible cultural heritage" is designed to ensure that "people" are no longer just "people".
Intangible cultural heritage protection is to empower the "people" and make them people-oriented and human.
In fact, the four empirical manifestations of the immateriality of intangible cultural heritage are the manifestations of the subject, so the immateriality is also the attribute of the subject.
Intangible cultural heritage cannot be without people or separated from its main body; when the practitioners and inheritors of intangible cultural heritage actively play their role, it is the time when their subjectivity can be publicized.
The subject of intangible cultural heritage is not the same as the owner of intangible cultural heritage.
The subject is used for the subject-object relationship of philosophy, and the master is used for the belonging relationship of property.
We use "subject" to mean that people provide concepts, give form, inject meaning, and inherit traditions in the generation and demonstration of intangible cultural heritage, and "master" to mean that people are the creators and owners of intangible cultural heritage.
The subject and the owner can replace each other in some contexts, but they must be distinguished from each other in some contexts.
For example, brick carving, as a folk craft project, was created and invented by craftsmen of past generations."Min", as a collective noun, is the creator and owner of this skill, and therefore the "master".
However, the specific inheritor is only the subject of the event at the inheritance site of this project.
He can be the owner of the brick he is carving, but not the master of this brick carving skill.
For another example, if we tell the story passed down by grandma, we are the subjects of the story, but we are not the masters of the story.
If the main body of folk customs is the "people", can we infer that because the "people" are invisible when folk customs are transformed into intangible cultural heritage, the main body of intangible cultural heritage is still the "people"? This is not a question that can be answered simply by no means.
From folk customs to intangible cultural heritage, the invisibility of "people" has its inevitable necessity.
In the context of intangible cultural heritage, conditions are needed for "people" to return to the front desk.
On the surface, if a folk custom becomes intangible cultural heritage, whoever the "people" are, the performer of the intangible cultural heritage project will still be.
The epic "Imakan" in Tongjiang, Heilongjiang Province, as the speakers of national folk culture, is the Hezhe people in Jiejinkou.
After becoming an intangible cultural heritage, they are still the speakers and singers.
From this point of view, it seems that A is still A.
Equating the subject of folk customs with the subject of intangible cultural heritage appears from time to time in the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
Some differences in evaluation and the failure of measures stem from the understanding that simplifies the problem.
We can add another question: Can the "people" themselves transform folk culture into intangible cultural heritage? The answer to the negative is clear.
"People" practice their own folk customs and live their own lives.
They do not need to promise anything to the outside world, and in fact, they have no way to promise anyone.
However, when folk customs projects are transformed into intangible cultural heritage projects, external government departments and professional teams must intervene, internal organizations must promote collective action, internal and external organizations must negotiate to reach some consensus, and they must commit to each other to assume their respective responsibilities.
"Min" reorganizes and defines themselves during the application process of intangible cultural heritage projects in exchange for external parties such as the government and professional teams and the public) to rename the project as intangible cultural heritage masterpieces while giving themselves a new respect.
status.
A must become A+ to complete the declaration process, and the process of declaring as intangible cultural heritage also promotes A to become A+.
In this regard,"people" are the main body of folk customs, and have become the main body of intangible cultural heritage with new definitions, new missions, and new roles in the new structural relationship.
The transformation of the main body of folk culture into the main body of intangible cultural heritage requires a series of transformations.
First, from a subject in itself to a conscious subject.
Folk life is usually a state of freedom, but folk customs become intangible cultural heritage."People" must have a conscious understanding of their own culture, which is often generated through connection and comparison with the outside world.
Only when "people" realize the value and significance of their cultural projects to them, and realize their wider position, can they have the confidence to enter the process of applying for intangible cultural heritage masterpieces.
Secondly, from the subject of accidental actions to the subject of active pursuit of goals.
Folk life is always undergoing various changes, and various members of the "people" are always pursuing their own values and achieving their own goals.
However, on the whole, these actions are often inconsistent and consistent, and are determined by chance.
As the largest conceptual system and practical framework supporting folk culture in this era, intangible cultural heritage protection provides a common direction for the development of folk culture.
Knowing this and deciding to join this trend of the times is a timely choice for the subjectivity of the "people".
In the beginning, they may rely on external information, but applying for intangible cultural heritage projects will really stimulate their initiative.
Thirdly, from self-sufficient subjects to cooperative subjects.
"People" live their own folk life and often enjoy themselves, but entering the process of applying for intangible cultural heritage must be based on the cooperation of multiple parties: mainly the cooperation between "people" and government departments and professional teams, and the lack of any of the three parties It is difficult to generate intangible cultural heritage projects.
This is a new type of construction of social relations between the "people".
The consequence is not only participating in creating an intangible cultural heritage project, but also transforming all aspects of the "people".
Intangible cultural heritage protection, by helping to promote the main body of folk culture to become the main body of intangible cultural heritage projects, shapes the "people" as conscious, proactive, and cooperative cultural practitioners, and becomes a master of subjectivity in the public life of their communities and the country.
Therefore, the transformation of folk culture into intangible cultural heritage is the same process and through the same mechanism as the transformation of folk customs into the main body of intangible cultural heritage.
Intangible cultural heritage involves three categories of subjects.
First, the main body of representative works of intangible cultural heritage.
Representative works of intangible cultural heritage are culture in life, occur in specific communities, and are the real life of specific groups of people.
All ethnic groups have historical achievements and outstanding performances in ideals, morality, and skills.
However, if they only exist in documentary records and memories, they will not have the chance to become masterpieces of intangible cultural heritage.
This project can be seen in the real life of real people, that is, practical subjects can be found in life.
It is the first subject of intangible cultural heritage, which often has certain restrictions on whether a wider range of cultures can apply for intangible cultural heritage projects.
Because of the settings or conditions of the first subject, intangible cultural heritage protection is not so much a tribute to a specific culture, but rather a search for the fairest opportunity possible so that all groups of people may be respected because of their own culture.
Because as long as they have their own life, every country and every group of people have the opportunity to be recognized and respected for their cultural heritage selection.
This is the progress of the world cultural heritage from the 1972 Convention to the 2003 Convention.
What they want, because the latter places real people, their groups, and communities in a key position.
Second, the main body of intangible cultural heritage projects.
A group performs a national folk culture in a community, which is usually jointly inherited by a larger group of people and nationalities.
The small group that performs the project is the main body of intangible cultural heritage masterpieces, and the large group that jointly inherits the culture is the main body of this intangible cultural heritage.
Small groups satisfy the intangible life, vitality, oral nature, etc.
of this culture), and large groups satisfy its cultural heritage conditions, because the widely circulated fact is that a project is confirmed as a cultural heritage.
Better proof.
The fact that Imakan was interpreted by the group in Tongjiang Street Jinkou proves that it is a living culture, and the larger Hezhe ethnic group's integrated connection with Imakan in history is that it serves as a Hezhe ethnic cultural heritage.
The subject of a specific intangible cultural heritage project is the second subject of intangible cultural heritage.
It and the first subject jointly support the intangible nature of a project and the value and status of cultural heritage.
Third, identify with the community of intangible cultural heritage projects.
The first and second subjects of intangible cultural heritage exist as practitioners of the project before it is transformed into intangible cultural heritage, and the third subject is generated during the process of the project starting process entering the intangible cultural heritage sequence.
The first two types of subjects are the subjects of the project's existence as folk culture, while the latter type of subject is the subject of its transformation into intangible cultural heritage.Intangible cultural heritage is a cultural project carried out by a social entity that regards itself as a cultural community, such as a county, province, and country.
The projects come from various groups of people, regions, ethnic groups, industries, etc.), but no matter which group of people they come from, all projects are regarded as common cultural heritage within the region.
This community is the third subject of intangible cultural heritage and assumes many responsibilities for intangible cultural heritage protection, such as media publicity, campus entry, museum display, inheritor funding, etc.
The main body of Imakan is the inheritance group of Jiejinkou and the wider Hezhe ethnic group.
It is still a county, region, province, country and even human community that lists it as its own masterpiece of intangible cultural heritage, because it is also included in UNESCO's List of Human Intangible Cultural Heritage in Urgent Need of Protection.
2.
Practical subjects of intangible cultural heritage protection
Some scholars have emphasized the importance of accurately understanding the protection subjects of intangible cultural heritage for the division of roles in intangible cultural heritage protection.
Some people often confuse the two types of subjects involved in the work of intangible cultural heritage, that is, the subjects of intangible cultural heritage are the people who practice, inherit, and identify with intangible cultural heritage; The main body of intangible cultural heritage protection is the relevant parties involved in the protection of intangible cultural heritage, including but not limited to government departments, especially cultural authorities, professional workers and scholars, public welfare organizations, profit-making organizations involved in intangible cultural heritage, and intangible cultural heritage subjects who are directly related, such as singers, storytellers, craftsmen, ceremonies of various ceremonial activities, and the public who identify with this culture, etc.
There are even situations where the subjects of folk culture are confused with the above two types of subjects, resulting in many cognitive misunderstandings.
In fact, the main body of folk culture, the main body of intangible cultural heritage and the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection work overlap and have different parts.
Even if they overlap, because they are in different relationship structures, the responsibilities and expectations of their respective roles are different.
There are often voices in academic circles criticizing intangible cultural heritage projects for narration away from their native environment.
This actually confuses the project's identity as folk culture and as a masterpiece of intangible cultural heritage.
As a national folk culture, it is their duty for the residents of Jiejinkou, especially the inheritors of Imakan, to perform Imakan during festivals, because this is their life.
On their children's birthdays and other happy days, locals present fish skin decorations to their children and relatives and friends.
It is also their life.
However, among them, representative inheritors of intangible cultural heritage projects were invited to demonstrate their skills in intangible cultural heritage communication activities in the county and Beijing, and participated in seminars for intangible cultural heritage inheritors to learn other knowledge and artistic skills.
They also fully comply with the requirements of the Convention on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage.
It includes the requirements of indicators such as inheritance, dissemination, and promotion.
In the scope of national and folk culture, they live in one social relationship; in the scope of intangible cultural heritage protection, they fulfill their duties in another working relationship.
We can criticize certain behaviors within the scope of national and folk culture in daily life, or within the scope of intangible cultural heritage protection as public affairs, but it is difficult to reasonably criticize behaviors in another category with the scale of one category.
The subjects of intangible cultural heritage protection involve many aspects.
Judging from the different identities and roles of the participants, there are roughly three parties and five subjects.
One side is the government, which determines that intangible cultural heritage protection is a public cultural undertaking; the other side is a professional team, which provides professional services as a public welfare undertaking; the other side is the main body of intangible cultural heritage, subdivided into individuals, groups, and communities.
These five entities should all play an active role in the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
For intangible cultural heritage protection as a public matter, the government is the leading body.
The government signs international conventions on behalf of the country and continues to participate in Member States 'conferences and special committees to assume the international obligations of the conventions; The government is responsible for establishing a national system for intangible cultural heritage protection, including legal systems such as the national intangible cultural heritage law and the implementation regulations of the intangible cultural heritage law of provinces and municipalities), administrative systems such as departments, divisions, and sections specifically responsible for intangible cultural heritage management, national intangible cultural heritage protection centers and provincial, city and district centers, etc.), four-level lists and inheritors systems and other special systems and special systems for intangible cultural heritage protection such as the construction of cultural and ecological reserves, the construction of productive protection bases, the revitalization plan of traditional crafts, and the digital protection plan, etc.).
The government provides institutional conditions and project guidance, and living culture in daily life has changed from folk culture to a fourth-level list of representative works of intangible cultural heritage.
Then, it is still the government that provides financial assistance and evaluation indicators to promote the dissemination, inheritance, and even promotion of the list projects.
The transformation of "folk" culture into intangible cultural heritage, that is, the transformation into "public" culture in the sense of the community.
This transformation cannot be completed by "folk" alone, nor can it be completed by the government alone, or even by "folk" and the government.
It can be accomplished through the joint efforts of both parties, but the fact is that it can be completed only with the intervention of a professional team.
At the international level, many scholars in folklore, anthropology, and museology around the world put forward the "Recommendation for the Protection of Traditional Culture and Folklore"(1989) after years of research.
It took more than ten years of repeated research to produce the 2003 Convention on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage.
In China, from the integration of ten sets of folk literature and art as preliminary preparations, to the intangible cultural heritage census, representative project application and review after the concept of intangible cultural heritage protection is introduced, many professional teams such as folklore, anthropology, and art provide professional services.
process.
Professional services for intangible cultural heritage protection either appear in the form of individuals or groups such as research groups or expert committees.
However, no matter what form they appear in specific scenarios, professional services are actually a collective role of the academic community, because the actual professional services are supported by disciplines and require cross-field cooperation.
The main body of intangible cultural heritage is not only the object of government-led intangible cultural heritage protection work, but is also the main body of this work.
Intangible cultural heritage entities appear in the form of individuals, groups, and communities respectively.
In China's current social governance system, intangible cultural heritage entities appearing in these three forms are not subordinate to the cultural authorities that lead the protection of intangible cultural heritage, because in daily life, individuals or groups do not belong to that institution, and even grassroots communities are still autonomous.
No government department has the right to order individuals, groups, or communities what to do.
It can only guide people what to do through consultation.
Therefore, intangible cultural heritage subjects must also be treated as subjects in intangible cultural heritage protection work.
Intangible cultural heritage protection means that the government, as a public sector, takes necessary measures to ensure the vitality of intangible cultural heritage and ensure that intangible cultural heritage subjects have the enthusiasm, ability and resources to continue to inherit intangible cultural heritage.
If there is no intrinsic motivation, intangible cultural heritage protection will only become superficial and will be doomed to fail.
Intangible cultural heritage subjects are also one of the three parties in intangible cultural heritage protection, and usually appear in the form of individuals, groups, and communities.
Among them, some projects are declared in the name of individuals, such as some ancestral secret recipes of traditional Chinese medicine, clay figurines and clay sculptures, and the exclusive skills of bow and arrow making, and the representative inheritor system also directly recognizes the individual's status as the subject of intangible cultural heritage protection; Most practitioners of intangible cultural heritage projects are from a local group, or even the vast majority of people in a place.
For example, folk projects, this is the main body of community significance.
"Community" is one of the three forms of intangible cultural heritage subject in the 2003 Convention, and is an important form that can include two other subject groups and sometimes individuals.
It includes the owners and practitioners of intangible cultural heritage projects.
Inheritors and beneficiaries.
In the Ethical Principles, the status of communities is more directly and clearly defined, with particular emphasis on the fact that respect for them should be given high priority.
The three parties involved in intangible cultural heritage protection all have the common mission of protecting intangible cultural heritage, which is the basis for inevitable cooperation among the three parties.
However, when cooperating to protect intangible cultural heritage, the three parties bear their respective responsibilities and obligations, and can also have their own interests.
Only when each party can claim its own interests will all parties have the motivation and motivation to play their own unique roles.
We should not regard the common mission as the only motivation for all parties to participate, and require each subject to be pure in terms of motives.
It is only necessary to guide and manage the unique demands of all parties, rather than deny things.
This raises a theoretical question for us: the three parties and five entities involved in intangible cultural heritage protection not only have their own motivations but also form a common goal, not only play their own roles, but also form a joint action.
Then, they are in a One should be regarded as a subject in the sense of goal and joint action?
Subject is the conceptualization of the attributes and functions of thinkers and actors.
Its typical example is the individual, but it does not refer to the individual itself, but is referred to when it is highlighted that the individual is the thinker and actor.
When a group or community can form an idea, promote the collective will, and act with goals, it is also regarded as a subject.
As mentioned above, we divided the subjects of intangible cultural heritage into three types, of which the third subject is the community that identifies with intangible cultural heritage.
In line with this, the three parties and five subjects of intangible cultural heritage protection should also serve as one subject in the sense that intangible cultural heritage protection is regarded as a joint action.
Therefore, the main body of intangible cultural heritage protection must be defined at two levels.
The first level is the three parties and five subjects that exist naturally as individuals, organizations, and institutions.
The so-called three parties are the government, professional fields, and intangible cultural heritage subjects, while the five entities are government departments, professional teams, and communities, groups, and individuals as intangible cultural heritage subjects.
Three parties and five entities are not a complete list, but only a list of the main representatives.
For example, professional teams can also be subdivided into scientific research teams, teams in the field of mass communication, teams in the museum series, education and training teams, etc.
The second level is the totality of cooperation functions and is actually a community.
At this level, natural subjects participating in intangible cultural heritage protection play different roles, bear different responsibilities, and jointly achieve the goal of intangible cultural heritage protection.
Therefore, all parties involved function as one subject in protection practice.
The wider the participants this collective body includes, the better the overall effect of protection.
Therefore, at the limit, this body is a community as the third intangible cultural heritage body.
The third intangible cultural heritage subject appears in the process of intangible cultural heritage protection both as a participant in the process and as a result of the process and as a cultural community created by recognition of intangible cultural heritage.
It is obviously the collective subject of intangible cultural heritage protection actions itself.
The subjects of intangible cultural heritage and the subjects of intangible cultural heritage protection have been hot issues of concern to the academic community in recent years.
Some scholars have put forward very targeted views in conjunction with the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
Yuan Li believes that the main body of inheritance of intangible cultural heritage is the people themselves.
In addition to the main body of inheritance, there is also an intangible cultural heritage protection main body composed of the government, academic circles, business circles and news media.
On the surface, both protection subjects and inheritance subjects are born based on heritage protection, but in fact the two have completely different functions.
The inheritance subject is responsible for inheritance, and the protection subject is responsible for the publicity, promotion, and promotion of intangible cultural heritage and other peripheral work.
Liu Zhaohui saw the problems caused by excluding the inheritors of intangible cultural heritage holders from the subjects of intangible cultural heritage protection, while Huang Tao included the inheritors of intangible cultural heritage protection, and analyzed the different roles played by both the inheritors and the government as protection subjects.
These thoughts give us inspiration and reference for conceptual construction.
First of all, it is meaningful to distinguish between the subjects of intangible cultural heritage projects and the subjects of intangible cultural heritage protection actions and processes.
However, it is also necessary to discover the past life of the subject of intangible cultural heritage: in the free state of folk culture, there is another subject, namely "folk".
Only when folk culture becomes a masterpiece of intangible cultural heritage due to the intervention of the government and the professional community does intangible cultural heritage subject emerge.
In other words, when the same daily life culture is in a state of freedom, the identity or role of its subject is "folk"; when it appears as an intangible cultural heritage representative, the intangible cultural heritage subject appears.
Secondly, it is reasonable to include intangible cultural heritage subjects (intangible cultural heritage inheritors) into the subjects of intangible cultural heritage protection.
The "non-materiality" of intangible cultural heritage such as its living nature, physical nature, and verbal nature fundamentally requires that the subject of intangible cultural heritage must be the subject of intangible cultural heritage protection, because without them, there can be no protection practice.
However, our conceptual construction adds subjects at an integrated level, that is, subjects produced by multiple subjects playing their respective roles to form a common collective action.
The tripartite cooperation between intangible cultural heritage protection entities is not only a working relationship, but also a political relationship.
Its successful operation and formation of cultural models and social mechanisms are of great value to China's modern country construction.
For a long time since the May 4th New Culture Movement, the mainstream of the government and the intellectual community criticized or even denied folk culture.
Only a small number of folk literature works were reprocessed and used politically at that time, and only a few scholars in disciplines such as folklore and anthropology once sympathized with the cultural and political situation of the "people".
China's practice of intangible cultural heritage protection has rebuilt the relationship between the government, scholars and folk cultural subjects, given the three parties the opportunity to jointly own intangible cultural heritage protection subjects, and established effective cooperation mechanisms in practice.
This is a progress in the country's cultural field and a manifestation of the new relationship between the government, the intellectual community and the public.
In this regard, intangible cultural heritage protection is not only a country's cultural undertaking, but also a country's political undertaking.
In the Convention on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage and its supporting work guidelines and ethical guidelines for the protection of intangible cultural heritage, communities are used as the subject side by side with the government, groups, scholars, etc.
This is the literal content of these documents.
We found in these documents that there is another concept behind the various goals and measures of intangible cultural heritage protection, which is the concept of cultural community.
The English word "community" in the basic document of intangible cultural heritage protection is community, which means "community".
Article 2 of the Convention states the definition of intangible cultural heritage, which states that intangible cultural heritage "provides a sense of identity and continuity to these communities and groups," which means that intangible cultural heritage provides identity to the community.
In this sense, recognition of the community is generated by recognition of the intangible cultural heritage.
We have previously analyzed the three categories of subjects of intangible cultural heritage, namely, the first subject of representative works of intangible cultural heritage), the second subject of intangible cultural heritage projects), and the third subject of establishing an intangible cultural heritage list), and the third subject is actually a cultural community.
The main body of intangible cultural heritage ranges from specific individuals and groups to a community community or community as an integrated or whole), and establishes an internal relationship through consultation to confirm common intangible cultural heritage and feels culturally integrated); intangible cultural heritage protection is to recreate a larger range of individuals and groups into an internal relationship through the integration of representative works lists, and form cultural identity for a larger range of communities.
(This article is published in "Folk Customs Research", issue 3, 2020, with the annotations omitted, see the original issue for details)