Hope in the Name of Utilization, or…
A conference was held last fiscal year on the theme of “intangible cultural heritage in crisis” to discuss how to treat intangible cultural heritage elements in crisis throughout Japan, with a particular focus on elements that are facing a crisis due to the lack of successors as a result of Japan’s shrinking and aging population. It attracted a large audience and served to promote mutual awareness of the issue, but as the theme was rather downbeat, we decided to focus on the next step and selected “utilization” as the theme of this year’s conference.
As I have shared last year, I visited a town called Numata located near Asahikawa city in Hokkaido to conduct an investigation precisely a year ago, and encountered a case where a festival had been held every year until the previous year but was no longer able to be held from the year I visited due to the lack of children. The festival had simply become a gathering of local townspeople to drink omiki (sacred sake). The same thing is happening throughout Japan.
A ritual of visiting deities called Appossha in Fukui prefecture is also facing a decrease not only in the numbers of performers but also in the numbers of children on the receiving side of the ritual. Furthermore, as with the case of Akita’s Namahage event that I introduced last year, an increasing number of households are tending not to welcome visiting gods into their home for the reason that they do not want to frighten their children or they do not want their house dirtied. This can be said to be a crisis that has arisen due to a change in values. Under this situation, how should we think about the utilization of intangible folk cultural properties?
As noted by Mr. Harashima from Tottori prefecture in his presentation last year, we should perhaps share the understanding that in the case of intangible folk cultural properties, performing them equals utilizing them. By performing them, people will spend money, things will circulate, and on an emotional level, young people may take an interest.
In the minds particularly of people who engage in cultural property protection, the term “utilization” tends to be associated with the risk that properties will be taken advantage of and used for unintended purposes. However, in his presentation, Mr. Sori from Wakayama prefecture pointed out that each of us should probably think about how we could conversely take advantage of this situation and shape the future. I lastly talked about how such revitalization movements from outside will likely increase rapidly in the future, leaving aside their pros and cons. I noted that this trend is inevitable, and precisely because it is inevitable, I suggested that administration bodies and researchers keep a close watch so that reasonable changes are considered particularly from the standpoint of successors.
Discussions about utilization and protection frequently end with this type of conclusion, but here let us take a step forward and think about what specifically we should do. As you probably know, the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties was revised last fiscal year, and the revised law will come into force this fiscal year. Explanatory materials released on the Web by the Agency for Cultural Affairs mention “folk dances” and “festivals” and illustrate examples related to intangible folk cultural properties. This suggests that the utilization of such intangible folk cultural properties is at least envisioned. The materials say the revised law aims to gain a comprehensive grasp of regional cultural properties, including undesignated properties. This is simply common sense. Before cultural properties can be utilized, they must, in principle, be discussed from the perspective of protection. Furthermore, the revised law will provide for the valuation, repair and management of cultural properties, the establishment of guidance facilities, and promotional activities, as essential measures for the protection and utilization of cultural properties. These measures, however, have conventionally been undertaken by museums and the cultural property administration, so the revised law will not necessarily be presenting any new utilization scheme.
More specifically speaking, the revised law will stipulate concrete ideas on how nationally designated cultural properties shall be utilized and applied. A “preservation and utilization plan image” is presented under “Important Intangible Folk Cultural Properties” in the section on “Preservation and Utilization Plans for Individual Cultural Properties” in a report by the Council for Cultural Affairs. Here, too, the information provided is simply common sense. Matters such as the gathering and training of human resources and repair of tools, for example, have already been implemented to date. Seen in this light, the revision of the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties simply aims to direct more effort to what has always been done until now, and does not bring up the issue of how cultural properties should be utilized. Mention is made in the section on “utilization and application for contribution to regional revitalization, etc.,” but only slightly. I imagine you are struggling at this moment with how to interpret the information and how to go about implementing measures in your communities.
Under the present circumstances, no one is telling you in any specific terms how to utilize intangible folk cultural properties. I think pondering how best to construe this situation is an extremely important part of thinking about the utilization of intangible folk cultural properties. When you hear the term “utilization,” utilization as tourism resources probably comes to mind immediately. That is not necessarily the only avenue of utilization, but protection and utilization tend to be regarded as two opposing concepts. How, then, should we think about utilization?
As a reason for the conflict between protection and utilization, I imagine you fear that utilization will cause a change, and change deviates from the concept of protection.
Assuming this is so, I wish to propose an idea from a different perspective. As an example, the focus of UNESCO’s intangible cultural heritage system differs considerably from Japan’s concept of cultural property protection. Citing a passage from a book written by Satoru Hyoki (Folk Performing Arts as Cultural Properties / Cultural Heritage, Bensei Publishing, 2018), Japan’s cultural property system is basically such that “under Japan’s way of doing things, the protection of traditional forms and styles by the guidance of experts and administrative bodies is still today placed at the center of the principle of protection.” This implies a rejection of change. In the case of UNESCO, on the other hand, the principle differs to begin with, and so the system deviates from Japan’s concept of cultural property protection.
Let us then take a look at UNESCO’s policy. To put it simply, UNESCO’s policy concerning intangible cultural heritage places importance on diversity above all else. This issue has been taken up as a theme of a conference in 2017, so please refer to the conference report for details. By “diversity,” UNESCO states that the process of change itself is intangible cultural heritage. Thus, it dismisses the notion of authenticity. It rejects expressions that a property is “legitimate” or that it is “traditional” and “the oldest,” and approves new changes. This process of change, UNESCO says, is precisely what intangible cultural heritage is about. Therefore, with respect to the aforementioned policies for protection and utilization, the very notion of change differs. From this perspective as well, it seems we ought to rethink the issue once again.
Three days ago (December 17 & 18, 2019), an international forum was held at Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties to discuss the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and intangible cultural heritage. Here are some of the views that were presented in the forum. It is being said around the world that intangible cultural heritage can be significantly utilized and applied to achieving the SDGs. How, then, shall it be utilized? The field of intangible cultural heritage consists of many areas, and various values can thus be assumed to exist. For example, “scientific values” can be assumed in the areas of “traditional knowledge” and “disaster preparedness”—areas that are not yet widely known in Japan. “Political values” can be assumed in the study of the intangible cultural heritage of minority races and indigenous peoples, as well as in the utilization of intangible cultural heritage as a national PR strategy or as a local identity. Furthermore, “economic values” can be assumed when considering intangible cultural heritage as tourism resources and commercial tools, as is also commonplace in Japan.
Needless to say, all values pose various potential problems. For example, political values would create conflict if they are used excessively, and economic values cause one side to profit at the expense of the other. International forums on intangible cultural heritage frequently focus on these three values. However, there is another value that needs to be discussed. That is “social values,” which the Japanese, in particular, are extremely consciously aware of. I believe that Japan should call attention to the social values of intangible cultural properties, such as their role as a religious symbol, a form of entertainment or a welfare component. Such uses should be emphasized more. However, this awareness is not readily understood worldwide. Social aspects naturally include problems such as the aging and declining population issue, but they are undoubtedly extremely important elements when thinking about the utilization of global intangible cultural heritage.
Who, then, should use such values? Until now, they were only used by local systems of tradition or by spiritual realms such as local religions. However, in recent years, they have also begun to be used in school education, museums, and government projects. What happens as a result of this is that change necessarily becomes a premise to the inheritance of intangible cultural heritage, or intangible cultural heritage is recorded and documented before any change occurs. Such trends have begun to take shape.
Allow me to give one last example. In September, I visited Bhutan at the foot of the Himalaya. There, I observed a dance depicting an animal called yak. I saw this same yak dance more than twenty years ago, but this time, the head mask was different. The head mask used today is a cute mask that was purchased in India. When I asked the village headman why the mask was changed, he explained as follows: “The villagers lost interest in the festival, and few people were left to see the yak dance. However, when a new head mask was purchased in India and brought to the village, the yak dance performed wearing the new mask became wildly popular. Seven to eight years have passed since then, and there are now opinions that the traditional mask is better after all, so we are thinking of returning to the traditional mask from next year. The change might ignite people’s interest once again.” I am not certain whether the village really intended it, but I realized that both adopting a new style and returning to the traditional style constitute the utilization of intangible cultural heritage.
KUBOTA, Hiromichi (Department of ICH, TOBUNKEN)