|
Abstract Defining what is valued as ''heritage'' in the complexities of Chinese historical ''neighborhoods'' has been a challenging task in line with current criteria of heritage preservation in China.The idea of what constitutes heritage in the government and experts' documentation is very much dominated by Western heritage discourse that tends to deny indigenous values of heritage by favoring a high culture of ''monuments，'' ''authenticity，'' immortality,and the West.As a result,''mundane'' architecture,temples,historical sites and cultural practices associated with unrecognized traditional values,either material or intangible,are endangered by the processes of globalization and urbanization.The study attempts to explore a non-Western approach to the study of Chinese heritage based on two cases of heritage recovering projects-the Shuitingmen Neighbourhood in Quzhou City and Dongwushan Village in Fuyang.Quzhou,renowned for its rich cultural remains and its Southern Confucian Lineage,is included in the list of National Historical and Cultural Cities by the central government of China.The project is focused on the investigation of local neighborhood culture and the interpretation of oral histories and local gazetteers compiled by Confucius scholars in the past.This gives us a window to see how ancient Chinese made sense of heritage,place and the past,and how to value and utilize it in the present.The paper contends that they usually saw heritage as a means to secure sustainability of present enterprises by making judgments through the perspective of the past.For them,heritage was a carrier of virtue,and could be a site,a tree,or even glasses on the site.As long as people in the present value it with admiration,it becomes a site of heritage.Thus it is the discourse that is capable of activating a sense of virtue instead of the materiality of the past per se that is considered essential to the recovery of heritage and its meanings.Confucian scholars developed a unique discourse of ''authenticity'' in their recording of cultural heritage,which is usually termed as ''cut-and-paste method.'' The discourse,on the one hand,maintains the authenticity of source materials in terms of text,but on the other hand,embeds the authors' historical inquiry for ''understanding the boundaries between heaven and man (or the relation between nature and the human-made),and the transformation of ancient and modern times.'' In the ancient Chinese perspective,what constitute the ''meaning'' of heritage are historical activities tied to the site,describable in the subtle textualization of ''living and doing'' which cannot be conceptualized in forms of abstract terms,either metaphysical or scientific.This marks a difference from contemporary heritage practice in China where heritage is usually represented through theoretical statements imbued with judgmental language,analytical categories,and scientific thesis.Confucius explains the style of historical discourse: ''I would rather reveal the world in its depth and clarity through subtle descriptions of actual events rather than carry my thought in empty words.''
Enlightened by ancient Chinese Sages,we embark on developing an indigenous,non-Western approach to the meaning-making of cultural heritage.The paper demonstrates an instance of heritage description about a family temple site where no authentic materials from the past are identifiable.The narrative is constructed using heterogeneous forms of fragmented texts,such as site description,memory tales,tourism brochures,records in local gazetteers,genealogy family books,Chinese classics,etc.,each being seen as an epitome of discourse,a picture of the past.Confucian strategy of ''cut-and-paste'' is employed to weave fragments together readably in a morally concerned order.The narrative maintains rigidity and authenticity in text composition,and also opens up the creativity,multiplicity and fluidity in terms of meaning-making possibilities.In so doing,the boundaries between material and non-material heritage,and that of monumental and mundane,and authentic or inauthentic are blurred in order to seek out the past while actively embracing the present.The implications of this inquiry may move us beyond the Authorized Heritage Discourse,opening up cultural space to not only recognize competing heritage discourses,but also to engage in different ways of making ''heritage.'' Moreover,it may reclaim an ancient heritage discourse which allows the past to shed light on the present holistically in the linguistic fabric of authentic description.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012, Vol. 42 
