The hill of crosses in Lithuania, where cross crafting is a longtime tradition.
How
to weigh the worth of one language against another– by the number of speakers, its
role in history, the beauty of its poetry?
A ritual celebration may be seen as an under-exploited asset, prompting commercial
investment...and turning it into a activity staged for tourists. |
We
can be swept away by a traditional wedding dance or entranced by the poets of a vanishing
language–but defining this intangible cultural heritage is far from simple, as UNESCO’s
efforts to safeguard endangered masterpieces go to show
Traditional Kunqu opera
of China, Nôgaku theatre of Japan, Kutiyattam dance in India. Men’s polyphonic
choral singing from Georgia. The ancient knowledge of crafting Lithuanian wooden
and metal crosses. The Niagassola Sosso Bala musical tradition of Guinea. In a new
programme, UNESCO proclaims these, among others, “masterpieces of intangible cultural
heritage.”
Intangible cultural heritage is a technical term used by experts, not by shamans
or musicians. It generally refers to immaterial aspects of culture–ephemeral products
like stories and language itself, as well as to the beliefs, values, and forms of
knowledge and skill that give cultures their vitality. This heritage can, for example,
include wedding dances and funeral laments, artisans’ skills and orally conveyed
knowledge of farming.
It can even include festivals and spaces where people gather, such as the wondrous
Djamaa el-Fna square in Marrakesh. You might find its traces in a museum–plants used
by a traditional healer, for example–but it is mostly the living, oral tradition
of a people. It is not culture under glass!
Japan’s
living national treasures
Scholars have long recognized the intangibility of culture. In the 18th and 19th
centuries philologists, folklorists and others tried to document the world’s oral
traditions. Yet the term “intangible cultural heritage” is relatively recent. In
1950, Japan initiated a living national treasures programme to recognize the great
skills of masters of the traditional arts.
Similar programmes began in Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, the United States and
France. Intangible heritage is seen as an asset or resource to be protected, appreciated,
utilized and managed–an idea traceable back to the Meiji period. In the West, meanwhile,
jurists recognized the idea of intellectual property as an asset, defining copyright
and patent as putting an idea into material form. But collective, cultural creation
that was unwritten or unrecorded remained problematic–it still does.
In the 1970s, discussion of UNESCO’s World Heritage List, which later came to include
natural landscapes, stimulated broader thinking about the need to safeguard intangible
cultural heritage. Meetings of experts ensued, recommendations were developed and
the technical discussions continued until they reached a pinnacle in May 2001, when
UNESCO’s Director-General Koïchiro Matsuura proclaimed the first 19 Masterpieces
of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity.
Why so long for this concept to make it into international consciousness? Well, for
one, it has suffered the problem of vagueness long associated with the term “culture.”
“Heritage” and “intangible” just compound the difficulty. Second, there’s a terminology
problem–what to call it? It is hard to imagine the term “intangible cultural heritage”
sliding off the tongue of any laureates.
Vagueness and terminology aside, interest in the subject has grown with public awareness
of globalization. On the macro-level, cultural resources, in a similar way to natural
resources, seem to be endangered or disappearing. Of more than 6,000 languages still
spoken on the planet, linguists predict that 50 to 95 percent will not last through
the next century. The great majority are not written and lack any tangible form.
When a language dies, there is a startling loss of knowledge and expression accumulated
over generations.
On the micro-level, many people do not want to accept a social universe of homogenized
global consumers bereft of ancestors, stories, and meaningful experiences. Local
cultural reassertion is a way of saying, “my world may have become bigger, but I
still have a place within it.” In less benign circumstances, intangible cultural
heritage has captured the world’s attention when conflict over the practice of religions
and the expression of ethnicities has turned violent.
Questions of how best to understand and respond to intangible cultural heritage sparked
debate among the jury considering nominations for the UNESCO’s designation as intangible
“masterpieces.” First, there is the question of definition. A staged performance
of an ancient play may have many tangible elements–written scripts, a temple theatre
and elaborately crafted costumes. Yet does the fact that it is a performance render
the tradition intangible? How long does the cultural practice have to be around before
it is called tradition? Does it have to be widely shared among a people? If people
alter their practice to respond to changing circumstances, should the tradition be
seen as a successful adaptation to be treasured or as a deprived derivative to be
shunned?
As hard as it may be to define this heritage, the question of its value looms larger.
To some extent, every language is a masterpiece. How to weigh the worth of one language
against another in determining value and significance–by the number of speakers,
its role in history, the beauty of its poetry?
But perhaps more difficult is the question of if and how to preserve the wide range
of this heritage. Is it more important to safeguard vanishing or fragile traditions
than popular, vital ones? To preserve the tradition, it is necessary to preserve
the ability of people to practise it. We might like the look or sound of the tradition,
but its continued practice would condemn people to labour with low pay and terrible
conditions.
The strategies used also spark debate. In some cases, intangible cultural heritage
may be viewed as a national treasure meriting government support, tax breaks, or
subsidies.
Looming
dangers
This
can be positive, but it can also turn a practice controlled by the community into
an institution controlled by bureaucrats. In other cases, a ritual celebration may
be seen as an under-exploited asset prompting commercial investment. This may bring
funding support, but it may also destroy the very meaning of the tradition, turning
it into an activity staged for tourists. The very recognition of the value of intangible
cultural resources can initiate or exacerbate conflicts–people within the society
fighting for control over the tradition, people from the outside affecting the power
balance within. Importantly, there is the question of what is being preserved–is
it the tradition itself as product (for example, the song), is it the documentary
record of the tradition (the recording), or the people (singers) and process (the
singing)?
Finally, there is the issue of who decides. Nations belonging to UNESCO must nominate
those cultural traditions for consideration as treasures. Many nominations may be
put forth with the best intentions, but some might reflect narrow interests of a
group in power. Some minority traditions may be overlooked or even censored from
consideration. Given that many folk traditions arise as forms of resistance to national
domination, the idea of national nomination may be flawed.
As member of the jury and an anthropologist, I was skeptical about the ability to
define and select intangible cultural treasures and address the many questions that
could be raised about the concept and its applicability. I still have my doubts about
the particulars. They will surely be refined as UNESCO’s programme evolves.
But I must say that I was impressed with UNESCO’s selection of the first 19 “masterpieces.”
One could take heart that in the age of globalization, local cultures have survived,
and sometimes even flourished. One would appreciate that in an age of constant innovation,
tradition had some lasting value. The power and tenacity of the selected traditions
and their practitioners was palpable. One can only hope that with local, national,
and now international action plans in place, they will continue to inspire future
generations. |
