History of Chinese Intangible Cultural Heritage(ICH) Studies

The Perspective of Intangible Cultural Heritage Studies

Since folklore studies and the newly emerging intangible cultural heritage (ICH) studies share the same subject—folk culture—and since the scholars initially involved in the rescue, documentation, and research of ICH largely came from the field of folklore, it was naturally assumed that ICH was merely a temporal and social task within the scope of folklore studies.

However, some astute scholars soon realized that this unprecedented undertaking was vastly different from traditional folklore studies. Not only were the tasks distinct, but their nature, methods, and objectives were entirely different. Notably, in 2004, Xiang Yunju’s Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity was published. This was the earliest work to systematically construct and describe the knowledge framework of ICH, and today, it is seen as embodying the basic form of ICH studies. It not only revealed a vast new academic space but also demonstrated a distinct academic perspective—the perspective of ICH studies. This perspective differs from that of folk culture studies and folklore studies.

From the standpoint of heritage, the identification, rescue, and protection of ICH are not merely a re-investigation and reorganization of folk culture but an effort to “take stock” of our nation’s historical and cultural wealth—this stock is heritage. This is an entirely new task, perspective, and academic field awaiting exploration and construction. This academic field is ICH studies.

ICH studies approach folk culture from the perspective of heritage, but not all folk culture qualifies as ICH. ICH consists of the representative works of historical culture, the cultural classics selected and recognized for contemporary transmission. When an object acquires the attribute of heritage, it gains additional qualities, meanings, values, and social functions—none of which can be explained by folklore studies. An object can belong to multiple knowledge domains and academic fields simultaneously. For example, the Florence Cathedral is both an architectural classic and a treasure of heritage studies. While they share cultural connotations, each field has its own academic focus. Architecture studies its construction, design, aesthetic features, and creativity, while heritage studies focus on its historical characteristics, archives, classification, key preservation methods, and how to ensure its long-term transmission. ICH studies, however, prioritize its existence and vitality, making it a science of preservation and continuity—a discipline that did not exist before.

The Mission and Characteristics of the Discipline

As a living culture, ICH is highly susceptible to change and loss, requiring meticulous care and transmission. This mission naturally falls to ICH studies, a responsibility not shared by folklore studies. The mission of folklore studies is to document folk life and construct folk culture, delving deeper into exploring and presenting a nation’s ethnic identity.

Folklore studies focus on the past manifestations of folk culture, while ICH studies emphasize the living present of ICH. Folklore treats folk culture as historical sedimentation; to folklorists, folk culture is relatively static, stable, and unchanging. ICH scholars, however, view ICH as a cultural life—dynamic, evolving, and applied, full of uncertainty amid societal transformation. The work of folklore studies is to summarize history and describe the present, while ICH studies seek to explore reasonable pathways for ICH to thrive in the future through research on existing heritage.

ICH studies exist to sustain the life of ICH and ensure the continuity of cultural heritage. This mission inherently defines its instrumental nature. It is both a pure academic pursuit—striving for precision, clarity, completeness, rigor, and depth—and a practical theory, constructing knowledge for ICH and addressing its challenges, thus remaining closely connected to contemporary ICH protection practices. ICH studies openly declare their direct service to ICH, even to the point of being applied by ICH itself.

To this end, ICH studies is a field science. It operates in the field—understanding, discovering, exploring, and validating from start to finish. The education of ICH studies must also take place in the field. The field is the folk, the living folk culture. Only by seeking answers in the field can we obtain practical solutions, grasp the essence and spirit of ICH, and fully comprehend its needs and the academic mission of ICH studies.

ICH studies devoid of academic mission are pseudoscience. Therefore, ICH education must include responsibility education. The goal of ICH education is to cultivate two types of professionals: researchers and managers of ICH. However, for ICH, which only entered the global protection agenda at the beginning of this century, there is a lack of research, understanding, and scientific management or managerial talent. The academic mission of ICH studies carries an urgent practical imperative.

Core Tasks

ICH studies involve three core tasks: archiving, protection, and transmission. Archiving primarily addresses the history of ICH, protection is the perpetual priority, and transmission ensures the continuity and permanence of heritage. In ICH studies, these tasks are both practical and central academic content.

Archiving

Archiving refers to the creation of records. Folk culture is created by the people for themselves. Once a folk custom or craft vanishes, it leaves no trace. Thus, the primary task of ICH studies is to create archives for each ICH item. These archives are not administrative records for government departments but academic, documentary repositories. Archiving itself is academic work—the most fundamental and foundational task.

Archives preserve history and document today for tomorrow.

The methods of investigation and documentation must align with the unique characteristics of each ICH item, and the organization of materials and compilation of archives must be professional. Given the immense diversity of ICH forms in China, establishing archiving standards is a priority for research and determination.

Protection

ICH protection is the core of ICH studies. ICH studies must provide scientific concepts, standards, and methods for ICH protection.

The ultimate goal of heritage protection is the authenticity of material cultural heritage and the original ecology of intangible cultural heritage. Protecting authenticity means preserving material heritage intact and ensuring the historical and cultural information it carries is not lost. Protecting the original ecology means maintaining the ICH’s inherent cultural form and living state. Determining what constitutes original ecology is key, and establishing protection standards requires academic support.

Regarding protection methods, the most significant milestone was China’s enactment of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Law in 2011, providing legal assurance for ICH protection. Other methods include inventory protection, institutional protection, inheritor protection, museum protection, and educational protection, gradually forming a system. However, one question remains: How does ICH studies influence protection practices?

Transmission

Folklore studies and heritage studies differ in their attitudes toward transmission. Folklore studies do not artificially intervene in the transmission of folk culture, whereas ICH studies actively promote transmission to ensure the survival of ICH.

Yet, how can such promotion avoid negative interference? What approaches are scientific rather than counterproductive? These questions must be answered and resolved by ICH studies itself.

In the contemporary era, ICH transmission faces a thorny and epochal challenge: ICH originally emerged from the spiritual and cultural needs of the people—it was a form of spiritual and cultural life for the populace. However, in the era of the market economy, this enchanting local culture is inevitably transformed into a tool or commodity for tourism. If the essence and function of ICH undergo fundamental changes, does it risk existing in name only? What, then, must be preserved in ICH transmission? Which aspects must remain unchanged? How should it exist and be transmitted? Faced with such epochal challenges, ICH studies must provide practical and effective responses in thought and theory.

Focus Areas

(1) Regionalism
One of the goals of safeguarding cultural heritage is to preserve cultural diversity—the uniqueness of each culture. This uniqueness often stems from its regionalism, especially in folk culture.

Folk culture is more regional than elite culture because the latter is created by individuals, while the former is collectively created and collectively endorsed. ICH carries this collective nature. As the saying goes, “Customs vary within five miles, and traditions differ within ten.” This is the characteristic and essence of folk culture, and even more so of ICH.

The regionalism of ICH is its most important cultural feature. In modern society, the more regionally distinctive an ICH is, the more it serves as a cultural emblem of that place. Yet, the regional characteristics of most ICH items remain uninterpreted. Delving into and clarifying them is an unavoidable task for ICH studies.

(2) Aesthetic Individuality
ICH studies emphasize the aesthetics of ICH. In folk culture, all expressions are conveyed through beauty. Different forms of beauty reflect and highlight the uniqueness of different regions. Folk beauty has another trait: it is both individual and collective. Elite beauty is purely personal creation, while folk beauty is collectively created and collectively endorsed by a community. Thus, this regionally shared beauty is also its individual beauty.

The aesthetics of ICH permeate the entire discipline of ICH studies. We must approach ICH through an aesthetic lens—appreciating, understanding, evaluating, protecting, and transmitting it. To achieve this, we must cultivate aesthetic and cultural literacy.

(3) Inheritors
Inheritors are often discussed in anthropology but are not a primary focus in folklore studies, which emphasizes folk phenomena. In ICH studies, however, inheritors are crucial because ICH resides within them. Inheritors are the custodians of ICH. Without inheritors, ICH ceases to exist.

As ICH scholars, we must not only focus on “representative inheritors” but also broadly observe all natural inheritors to comprehensively understand and grasp the ICH in question. This is because vast amounts of historical information and technical details are not confined to a handful of “representative inheritors” but are dispersed among the broader community of natural inheritors. It is important to note that the roles of ICH scholars and government administrators differ—each has its own responsibilities, and collaboration is essential. ICH scholars must proceed from cultural principles and adopt a forward-looking perspective.

We have begun using oral history methods to document the intangible heritage preserved by inheritors. This is the most vital “heritage content” of living ICH, comprising two parts: the memories in the inheritor’s mind and the skills in their hands or body. ICH studies place great emphasis on inheritors’ oral histories. Only oral histories can transform the intangible, dynamic, and uncertain “heritage content” into definitive written records. However, current oral history efforts are often superficial “survey records,” failing to delve into the inheritor as a “person” or explore deeper cultural dimensions. The textual and writing methods also lack innovation. Without extended research on inheritors’ oral accounts, we do not truly possess the ICH in question.

(4) Skills
The transmission of ICH hinges on the transmission of skills. Skills are the essence of ICH and the value of inheritors. The scientific summarization of ICH skills, comprehensive documentation of key techniques, and emerging transmission pathways and methods are all focal points for ICH scholars.

(5) Living State
ICH studies focus on the living state of ICH, particularly its ecology and changes. In modern society, ICH is increasingly influenced by economic life and contemporary aesthetics, leading to both passive and active transformations. Our attention to ICH centers on three aspects:

1. Whether traditional skills are maintained, whether traditional tools are used, and whether traditional procedures (craft, performance, or custom) are followed.

2. Whether the historical classics of the ICH are preserved.

3. Whether transmission is orderly and whether complete, faithful inheritance has been achieved.

Interdisciplinary and Cross-Disciplinary Engagement

ICH studies is independent. Given its broad scope, it inevitably overlaps or connects with existing disciplines, necessitating intersection, integration, and collaboration. From the perspective of constructing ICH studies as a discipline, the primary fields requiring interdisciplinary engagement are as follows:

• Folklore studies

• Art studies

• Ethnology

• Management studies

• Law

• Archival studies

• Visual anthropology

• Oral history

• Museology

• Cultural heritage studies

As a latecomer among disciplines, ICH studies shares research subjects with folklore and art studies, making it inevitable to integrate knowledge from these fields during its theoretical construction. This “adopt what is useful” approach will remain relevant for a long time. Simultaneously, disciplinary distinctions must be made. Blurring these distinctions would obscure the independence of each field and hinder their development. Differentiation is necessary to clarify the unique nature, mission, characteristics, values, standards, and directions of each discipline.

China is a multi-ethnic nation. Many ethnic minorities lack elite culture or even written languages, so their history and cultural identity are primarily expressed through ICH. Protecting the ICH of ethnic minorities requires collaboration with ethnology.

In contemporary ICH protection practices, the most immediate and frontline efforts manifest in management. Therefore, ICH protection must integrate the principles, knowledge, and methods of management studies. ICH studies should establish “ICH management studies” in this regard. ICH education must cultivate managerial talent for ICH protection, especially for frontline efforts.

Legalizing ICH management is an inevitable path for protection work, and advancing this requires collaboration with legal studies.

After ICH is identified, the primary task is documentation and archiving. Archiving standards must incorporate archival studies. However, the living and dynamic nature of ICH makes its documentation a novel endeavor, necessitating intersection with visual anthropology.

Another field requiring interdisciplinary engagement is oral history. Inheritors’ oral histories are a unique investigative and research method in ICH studies, used to uncover and document the intangible heritage carried by inheritors. These oral histories must be archival and documentary in nature, differing in writing and textual form from other types of oral histories. The potential of inheritors’ oral histories is vast, but current research has yet to reach an academic level.

Museums are a vital means of ICH protection. They serve as spaces for preserving, collecting, displaying, and promoting ICH, with multifaceted functions requiring support from related disciplines. Traditional museum collections and displays are primarily material, lacking intangible dimensions. Current ICH museum exhibitions remain superficial, falling far short of their potential.

Additionally, ICH studies must address the material aspects of ICH. Some ICH items have material carriers, such as paper-cutting, stone carving, and Ming-style furniture craftsmanship. These ICH items rely on material works to showcase their intangible, exceptional skills. Moreover, a wealth of material folk artifacts, daily utensils, and production tools bear witness to the unique cultures of their regions. The current challenge is the absence of a knowledge system for identifying, authenticating, classifying, and dating “folk artifacts.” However, as ICH protection efforts advance, the study of “folk artifacts” is poised to become an academic hotspot at the intersection of ICH studies, cultural heritage studies, and museology, potentially emerging as a new research direction within ICH studies.

Conclusion

ICH must construct its own knowledge system. The rapid rise of ICH studies stems from its deep roots in the field, drawing from a robust and abundant source of life. The highest goals of any academic discipline are to build its knowledge and theoretical systems and to tangibly serve related societal endeavors. Faced with the protection and transmission of hundreds of thousands of diverse ICH items across China, ICH studies has a long and challenging road ahead.