Developing concepts of intangible heritage

Munjeri (2004) examines the difference between tangible heritage and intangible heritage and debates the issues of intrinsic values, policies, and qualities of authenticity of cultural heritage. The values of heritage (e.g. objects, collections, buildings) are given and recognised by people in society. They can understand the values of tangible heritage through intangible expression, which can establish a link between society and values. In addition, societies, norms, and values can form an equal partnership, and intangible heritage works in a triangular relationship between natural heritage, cultural heritage, and spiritual heritage. Hence, this reveals that tangible heritage and intangible heritage are symbiotic, not in opposing positions.

Deacon, et al. (2004) adopt the definition of the UNESO 2003 Convention and examine cultural policies and financial implements for the safeguarding of intangible heritage in certain countries and regions (e.g. Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada) as well as elements of international instruments for the purpose. The UNESO 2003 Convention brings a new definition different from the past misconception of heritage, which was restricted to

buildings, places, and objects. In addition, Kurin (2004) states that the UNESCO 2003 Convention, currently in international law, was approved by some countries, excluding Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the United States, who abstained from voting (see also Smith & Akagawa, 2009: 3), inasmuch as the UNESCO 2003 Convention is a challenge to previous thinking of certain Western countries. Intangible heritage is spiritual and differs from tangible objects; yet, people will not know the heritage they hold is intangible heritage if the term has not been disseminated and explained.

UNESCO has launched a series of programmes since the Convention for the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1972. Kurin argues that most of the framers of the 2003 Convention assumed that “intangible cultural heritage is traditional culture and ruled out all sorts of things” (p. 69) and suggests the definition should include a broader range of cultural activities, such as contemporary entertainment, unique recipes, and sports.

Smith and Akagawa (2009) examine various debates and concepts from various countries reflecting on the development and influence of the UNESCO 2003 Convention, exploring uses of intangible heritage and negotiations with practical polices in diversity. The Western ‘authorized heritage discourse’ bears the brunt of the challenge to the definition of material

heritage (see also Smith, 2006). Among the debates, Aikawa-Faure (2009) indicates that prior to the UNESCO 2003 Convention, the Recommendation Safeguarding of Traditional Culture

and Folklore 1989, the promotion of Living Human Treasure system 1993, and the Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, created in 1997 and adopted by the Executive Board in 1998 (UNESCO, 2001c), have been related activities in preparing for the implementation of the 2003 Convention. In particular, the 1997 Proclamation categorised intangible heritage as ‘forms of popular or traditional expression’ and ‘cultural spaces ‘, which is defined as “places in which popular and traditional activities are concentrated” (UNESCO, 2006: 4).

Referring to the Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, Arizpe (2004) affirms that it introduced a new understanding between intangible cultural heritage and cultural diversity. The meaning of intangible heritage is given by people’s creative achievements, and most intangible heritage is brought about by historical

and social practices and has intercultural influences as well as distinctions between different countries and communities. This is a sense of identity which reflects cultural diversity and cultural relatedness in the globalised world. In addition, the safeguarding of intangible heritage and cultural diversity are to harmonise other cultures and seek their intimate cultural roots. Arizpe’s views are more or less the same as Howard (2003), that understanding and minimising the disputes of different cultural groups are respectful to managing heritage. ‘Cultural roots’ raises another debate on the ‘authenticity’ of heritage, however, especially

when it is immaterial and intangible.

Remarkably, Byrne (2009) argues that the UNESCO 2003 Convention is not applicable to every cultural practice. UNESCO tried to appeal for documents of intangible heritage; however, this may challenge indigenous groups’ ownership and intellectual property rights (see also Fairclough et al., 2008), though they are deemed to be difficult to determine or even not significant concerns when safeguarding intangible heritage (see also UNESCO, 2009e). Those groups’ emotions, memories, or beliefs are likely to be neglected to some extent. In addition, Byrne believes that UNESCO’s inventory is a process materialisation of intangible heritage, and he would rather regard social practices, traditions, and skills as ‘intangible’ than ‘intangible heritage’. If people would like to be involved, they should engage and build

genuine and equitable relationships with local communities. The following will exemplify how people manifest their ‘intangible heritage’ in their communities.

In virtue of the adoption of UNESCO 2003 Convention, Lira, et al. (2009) gather a wider range of discussions on intangible heritage from scholars and experts with different views to raise related issues including: (1) the collection and preservation of intangible; (2) practices in arts; (3) global identity and local diversity; (4) sustainability, creativity, and continuity; (5) policies and management (6) cultural tourism; (7) museological preservation; (6) education; (7) living communities; (8) intangibility of tangible heritage. These debates show that

intangible heritage is comprehensive and make people consider the kind of criteria of recognition of intangible heritage is proper from different aspects. Performances and tourism are linked to the market mechanism as well. With this regard, from discussions in Lira, et al. (2009), it is shown that heritage tourism is not only a commercial exchange (Busby, 2009) but also the national or regional identity of communities (Park, 2009) and political expression in some cases (Li & Hu, 2009). In addition, education plays a role to propagate and transmit concepts and skills, sometimes with new media (Matos, 2009), and helps to understand their significance; it may also ensure the sustainable development of intangible heritage (Yuruk, 2009).

Meanwhile, Lira & Amoêda (2009) highlights the significant themes of intangible heritage, including the immateriality of heritage, conceptual and museological intangible heritage, as well as presenting certain practical cases as models. In sum, this volume constructs a tangible framework of persistent intangible heritage to demonstrate they are in coexistence and mutually involved. Pearce (2009) emphasises that human culture was based on physical objects, whereas it now also expresses non-immaterial content, such as the performing arts, crafts, and ritual practices. Following Lira, et al. (2009), in terms of UNESCO’s inventory of intangible heritage, Lira, et al. (2011) collect inclusive examples as

UNESCO (2001a) argues that a woman’s sphere is easy to be devalued because of ‘traditional’ perspectives. They are often dominated by men, who become privileged

reproducers of intangible heritage of their communities; however, they actually make contributions to the transmission of intangible heritage. Therefore, UNESCO leads us to rethink intangible heritage and promote women’s priorities and perspectives. Of note is

Sutherland-Addy (2001), which reveals that there are academic studies in the areas of women and development in Africa. She uses a multi-disciplinary approach to understand a woman’s knowledge and life situations and suggests that it requires further investigation in Africa, as well as encouraging the role of women as creators, custodians, protectors and transmitters of intangible heritage. In addition, Moghadam & Bagheritari (2005) indicate that, when implementing the UNESCO 2003 Convention, importance needs to be attached to the human rights of women. They raise a central question for UNESCO with respect to preserving intangible culture and promoting cultural diversity on the one hand, and promoting gender equality and women’s participation on the other.