{"word_count": 602, "character_count": 4521}
The UNESCO 2003 Convention for theSafeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage heralded the beginning of anew era pertaining to global (and local) cultural politics. It clearly departedfrom previous, more rigid definitions and understandings of cultural heritage,instead promoting an understanding of culture as evolving, integrated,subjective and diverse. According to the Convention, it is the communities,groups and individuals—the heritage “bearers”, not experts—that define ICH,imbue it with meaning and value and work towards its safeguarding andmanagement. Today, the Convention hasalready been ratified by almost 180 State Parties and the concept of ICH isglobally operational. However,as the international standard encounters respective national heritage regimes,many controversies and tensions arise pertaining to its interpretation,translation and actual implementation at local levels. Heritage actors indifferent countries are often struggling to reconcile already existing heritageframeworks with the principles of the ICH Convention, which frequently resultsin the global standard being subject to transformation and reconceptualizationin its implementation process. The challenges and paradoxes becomeparticularly noticeable in the encounter between the abstract ideal and theconcrete uses and manifestations of ICH. One specific andoften-discussed issue here concerns the marketization and economicconsiderations in and of ICH. This is because ICH is by definition“living heritage,” it belongs to its “bearers” and is deeply entangled withtheir daily lives. Unlike tangible heritage, it is also explicitly allowed tochange over time. Hence, as long as it is some “bearers’” wish, marketizationmay be perfectly in line with the spirit of ICH. At the same time, however, heritagepolicy-makers, administrators and experts oftenstress that uses of ICH for the market must be avoided, with the boundariesbetween what might be acceptable degrees of marketization and what would beover-marketization remaining anything but clear-cut. Similar situations anddebates exist pertaining to the issue of staging ICH, which often detachescultural practices from their original environments and contexts and explicitlyturns ICH into a tourism resource. This workshop is the outcome of a collaboration betweenthe “UNESCO Friction” project based at the École des hautes études en sciencessociales (EHESS) in Paris, France and the Institute of Anthropology of ZhejiangUniversity in Hangzhou, China. Researchers on both sides have engaged inempirical studies on how the concept of ICH is operationalized and put intopractice, including the many challenges that this involves. The “UNESCOFriction” project explicitly traces the social life of theUNESCO 2003 Convention, investigating the entire policy chain that links theinternational arena with national heritage institutions and local heritageprograms in China, Greece and Brazil. Researchers at Zhejiang University haveconducted studies on how ICH is implemented in China at national and locallevels. We both believe in an engaged approach to the study of ICH and so this workshop is designed to bring togetherdifferent actors involved in the ICH field—scholars, administrators,policy-makers and “bearers”—to engage in a discussion and exchange about the tensionsthat exist between the normative ideas and principles underlying ICH on the onehand and its uses and manifestations on the other. The workshop aims at generatinga better understanding of what the challenges are that different involved actorsat different levels face in bringing to life an idea that was conceived at theglobal level and subsequently travels down to national and local levels, oftenbeing appropriated, reinterpreted and even transformed in the process. Specifically,the workshop wants to understand: how do different ICH actors at different(administrative) levels and in different capacities reconceptualize ICH?use ICH for the market in the contextof its safeguarding and management? evaluate/assess the marketization of ICH? To address these questions, theworkshop includes, but is not limited to the following five themes: Understandings of ICH and its market uses at different (administrative) levels.Community participation: marketization as heritage self-determination.Staging intangible cultural heritage and tourism.Transmitters of ICH: Benefits, reputation and competition.Cultural Industry: Intangible Cultural Heritage Production-oriented Safeguarding Bases (非物质文化遗产生产性保护基地).   