Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Grounded in long-term ethnographic research with the Chinese ethnic Qiang people, this article advances heritage safeguarding as a method to interrogate the evolving role of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) in post-disaster cultural reconstruction. Safeguarding is not reducible to the transmission of ICH items, nor is it a neutral instrument of preservation. Instead, it unfolds as a multi-layered, multi-subject practice: at once a state policy framework, an economic development scheme, a social renovation experiment, a community’s recovery pillar, and after all, a lived cultural horizon. Case studies of Qiang New Year and Embroidery after the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, and the Wa’er’ezu Festival during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrate how safeguarding sustains ritual continuity and cultural resilience while entangling communities in projects of nation-building, tourism, and political legitimation. Methodologically, safeguarding as a method foregrounds grounded inquiry into the cultural contexts, social-ecological relations, and historical sensitivities that shape ICH’s present and future. It highlights how pluralised participation – by governments, practitioners, scholars, communities, and private actors – renders heritage a contested site where authenticity, standardisation, and economic imperatives collide. Safeguarding is shown not merely as survival, but as a collaborative force of transformation, reframing heritage as both a terrain of negotiation and a method of critical inquiry.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: