跨界視角下的遺產(chǎn)

文/丁光

國(guó)際思辨遺產(chǎn)研究協(xié)會(huì)（ACHS）第四屆文化遺產(chǎn)世界大會(huì)于2018年9月1—6日在位于中國(guó)杭州的浙江大學(xué)召開，會(huì)議以“跨界視角下的遺產(chǎn)”為主題。ACHS成立于2010年年初，目前擁有來自85個(gè)國(guó)家的近3000名會(huì)員。本次大會(huì)吸引了40多個(gè)國(guó)家的500多位學(xué)者，這是亞洲迄今為止規(guī)模最大的國(guó)際遺產(chǎn)大會(huì)。

哈佛大學(xué)教授邁克爾·赫茲菲爾德（Michael Herzfeld）發(fā)表了題為“思辨性遺產(chǎn)：思辨的文化重要性以及對(duì)遺產(chǎn)研究的啟示”的主旨演講。他對(duì)“批評(píng)”和“批判”進(jìn)行了分析，他說“批判”及其同源詞，危機(jī)（來自希臘語Krisis，判斷）應(yīng)該包括從歷史學(xué)與人類學(xué)的角度對(duì)批判的概念在不同的文化評(píng)價(jià)中給予充分的認(rèn)可，缺乏批判會(huì)導(dǎo)致學(xué)術(shù)危機(jī)。目前的遺產(chǎn)研究模式不利于跨文化、跨國(guó)和跨學(xué)科的理解，并且阻礙了比較研究的批評(píng)性。他強(qiáng)調(diào)了思辨性遺產(chǎn)的必要性及其對(duì)遺產(chǎn)研究的啟示。

赫茲菲爾德教授認(rèn)為我們應(yīng)該介于實(shí)證主義和后現(xiàn)代主義之間的中間立場(chǎng)。實(shí)證主義認(rèn)為現(xiàn)實(shí)世界是物質(zhì)世界，它對(duì)認(rèn)知世界的關(guān)注較少，而后現(xiàn)代主義則顛覆客觀的歷史意識(shí)。我們承認(rèn)物質(zhì)世界的存在和可知性，每次的觀察都增強(qiáng)了我們對(duì)世界的理解，但我們?nèi)匀涣粝铝艘恍]有關(guān)注或忽視的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，它需要我們繼續(xù)觀察，其他人類學(xué)家可以彌補(bǔ)我們忽視的內(nèi)容并提出批判性的觀點(diǎn)?！芭行浴敝形牡囊馑际恰吧魉济鞅妗?，批判性不是負(fù)面的意思，它用來幫助我們發(fā)現(xiàn)自己思考的局限性。

布里斯托大學(xué)的Angela Piccini博士認(rèn)為，以社區(qū)的視頻收藏和檔案為基礎(chǔ)的當(dāng)代創(chuàng)意實(shí)踐和研究，催生了新的遺產(chǎn)見解。為港口城市的協(xié)作、思辨和烏托邦式經(jīng)驗(yàn)提供總體方法理論，為當(dāng)代以社區(qū)為中心的城市規(guī)劃提供信息。視頻收藏在文化遺產(chǎn)的文獻(xiàn)記錄和正在進(jìn)行的實(shí)踐中發(fā)揮著關(guān)鍵作用。

東京大學(xué)的Akira Matsuda就“19世紀(jì)以來日本對(duì)‘舊物’的欣賞”發(fā)表其觀點(diǎn)。由于其歷史遺產(chǎn)的特點(diǎn)，遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)首先由民族國(guó)家進(jìn)行制度化。然而，如果我們把遺產(chǎn)定義為一種社會(huì)媒介，人們通過它認(rèn)同過去，那么遺產(chǎn)就是一種適用于任何社會(huì)的人類條件，它既不屬于“優(yōu)等名族”，也不是現(xiàn)代社會(huì)獨(dú)有。

瑞典林奈大學(xué)的Cornelius Holtorf教授一直在與瑞典核廢物部門合作，進(jìn)行一系列項(xiàng)目，為減少后代健康風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。林奈大學(xué)還與幾家考古公司合作，進(jìn)行考古遺產(chǎn)研究為社會(huì)作出貢獻(xiàn)?！堵?lián)合國(guó)2030年議程》、有17項(xiàng)可持續(xù)發(fā)展目標(biāo)和歐盟的“地平線2020”計(jì)劃鼓勵(lì)所有學(xué)科的研究人員以新的方式思考學(xué)術(shù)研究與社會(huì)福利之間的相互聯(lián)系。

倫敦大學(xué)學(xué)院的Rodney Harrison教授認(rèn)為，遺產(chǎn)不僅關(guān)乎過去，而且關(guān)乎我們的現(xiàn)在與未來。他主管的“遺產(chǎn)未來”項(xiàng)目與許多機(jī)構(gòu)合作，其研究?jī)?chǔ)存了大量的“資源”和“資產(chǎn)”。他說，我們目前的做法和決定（關(guān)于語言、文化資源和自然資源）將是塑造未來的原始資源。我們今天做的每一個(gè)決定都將使未來成為可能。通過這種方式，遺產(chǎn)創(chuàng)造了未來。

英國(guó)卡迪夫大學(xué)的譚鐳就東亞木結(jié)構(gòu)建筑遺產(chǎn)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展發(fā)表了演講。她說，由于當(dāng)?shù)夭块T缺乏定期維修和保護(hù)，這些木結(jié)構(gòu)建筑的狀況將很快惡化。此外，這些遺產(chǎn)地在現(xiàn)代社會(huì)背景下，惠及當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)，然而其潛力尚未得到充分討論和挖掘。目前的管理部門缺乏足夠的動(dòng)力來考慮這些建筑的可持續(xù)性發(fā)展。

浙江農(nóng)林大學(xué)的張煜考察了申遺對(duì)運(yùn)河的意義和價(jià)值的評(píng)估，并將其與當(dāng)?shù)厝藢?duì)運(yùn)河的理解進(jìn)行了比較。她質(zhì)疑申遺是否受“遺產(chǎn)權(quán)威話語”的影響，掌握著物質(zhì)性和專業(yè)性特權(quán)。她認(rèn)為，作為一個(gè)活生生的遺產(chǎn)地，遺產(chǎn)專家應(yīng)該從多樣性和多元文化的方式去理解中國(guó)大運(yùn)河。

浙江大學(xué)的劉朝輝教授致力于大運(yùn)河上的船民與大運(yùn)河之間的關(guān)系研究。他的民族志田野調(diào)查表明，大運(yùn)河上的船民實(shí)際上被排除在當(dāng)?shù)剡z產(chǎn)管理系統(tǒng)之外，甚至被排除在主流社會(huì)之外。他們不僅是活態(tài)遺產(chǎn)的重要標(biāo)志，他們的生活方式、傳統(tǒng)知識(shí)和文化遺傳都是大運(yùn)河非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)的組成部分。該研究提出了如何將他們視為遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)的主要利益相關(guān)者，他們對(duì)于遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)以及運(yùn)河的遺產(chǎn)價(jià)值意味著什么。

（作者單位：浙江大學(xué)外國(guó)語言文化與國(guó)際交流學(xué)院）

The 4th World Conference on Cultural Heritage of ACHS was held in Hangzhou, China, from September 1 to 6 2018, at Zhejiang University,with the theme of "Heritage from a Cross-border Perspective". ACHS was founded in early 2010 and currently has nearly 3,000 members from 85 countries. The conference attracted more than 500 scholars from more than 40 countries. It is the largest international heritage conference in Asia dedicated to the topic of heritage.

Keynote speaker professor Michael Herzfeld from Harvard University made a speech on “Critique as Heritage: The Cultural Significance of Dispute and Its Implications for Heritage Research”. He illustrated the difference between “criticism” and “critique”. He remarks “Critique” and its cognate, “crisis” （from the Greek krisis） - should include a historically and anthropologically robust recognition of the various cultural evaluations of the concept of critique itself. An absence of critique leads to a crisis of the intellect. The current method of heritage research does not favor cross-cultural, international, and interdisciplinary understanding and impedes the critical work of comparison. He emphasized the importance of critique and its enlightenment on heritage research.

Professor Herzfeld states the militant middle ground of our attitude is that we should go between positivism and postmodernism. Positivism holds the real world is the material world, it pays less attention to the cognitive world, while postmodernism subverts the objective historical consciousness. We agree that there is a material world and it’s knowable.We enhance our understanding of the world every time through our observations, but we still leave some notions neglected and need to carry on our observation. Other anthropologists can supply a gap of what we have neglected and raise critical ideas. Thus Critique is not negative, we can improve the intellect by absorbing critique andfind the limitation of our thoughts. “Critique” means “Re fl ect Carefully, Discriminate Clearly”in Chinese. Criticism is not a negative meaning. It is used to help usfind the limitations of our thinking.

Dr. Angela Piccini from the University of Bristol suggests that contemporary, creative practice and research that works with community-focused video collections and archives generate new heritage insights and can be used as a critical methodological assemblage for collaborative, speculative and utopian experience of the port city to inform contemporary, community-focused urban planning.Video collections play a key role in the documentation and ongoing performance of cultural heritage.

Akira Matsuda from the University of Tokyo made a speech on “The appreciation of ‘Old Things’ in Japan Since the 19th Century”. Heritage protection first is institutionalized by the nation-state because of this historical legacy. Yet, if we define heritage as a social medium through which people identify with the past, heritage is a human condition that applies to any society, neither exclusive to “the dominant group” nor to modern society.

Professor Cornelius Holtorf from Linnaeus University, Sweden has been doing the projects with the Swedish nuclear waste sector with the aim of reducing serious health risks for future generations. Linnaeus University is also in collaboration with several archaeological companies to work in society where archaeological heritage processes can make a contribution.The United Nations Agenda 2030 with 17 broad Sustainable Development Goals and the European Union's Horizon 2020 program encourage researchers in all disciplines to think about the interconnections between academic research and societal benefits in new ways.

Professor Rodney Harrison from University College London holds that heritage is primarily not about the past, but instead is about our relationship with the present and the future. His project “Heritage Futures” has involved with a number of partner organizations whose heritage conservation practices create and store what have become known as 'resources' and 'assets'. He says current practices and our decisions （on languages, cultural resources and natural resources） would be the raw resources modeling the future. Every decision we have made today will make the future possible. In this way, heritage makes the future.

Lui Tam from Cardiff University, UK made a speech on the topic of sustainable conservation of timber architectural heritage in East Asia.She said without a maintenance framework and regular caretaking by the users, in many cases, these timber buildings would start to deteriorate much sooner. Moreover, the potential of these heritage sites to benefit the local community through their conservation and adaptation within the context of the contemporary society is far from sufficiently discussed and explored. There is not enough motivation from the current management authorities to consider the long-term sustainability of these sites.

Yu Zhang from Zhejiang Agricultural and Forestry University examined the meanings and values given to the canal in the nomination dossier and compared them with local people's understandings of the canal.She explored whether the nomination dossier had been influenced by the ''Authorized Heritage Discourse'' that privileges materiality and expertise. She suggests that as a living heritage site, the Grand Canal of China needs to be understood in more diverse and more cultural ways.

Professor Zhaohui Liu from Zhejiang University has been studying contemporary boatmen on the Grand Canal and their relationship with it. His ethnographic field work reveals that the boatmen are actually excluded in contemporary heritage management system and even from the mainstream society. As they are not only a vital token of living heritage, but also their lifestyle and traditional knowledge and cultural survivals are the constituting parts of Intangible cultural heritage of the Great Canal. The study poses the question, how to treat them as primary stakeholders in the heritage conservation? What do they mean for the heritage conservation as well as the heritage values of the canal?