Safeguarding Intangible Cultural

Heritage in the 2003 UNESCO

Convention: a critical appraisal
by Richard Kurin

Richard Kurin is the director of the Smithsonian Institution Centre for Folklife and Cultural
Heritage which produces the Smithsonian Folklife Festival, Smithsonian Folkways Recordings,
and other cultural educational programmes. He is an anthropologist and author of The
Reflections of a Culture Broker (Smithsonian). He serves on the UNESCO jury for the
Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity and participated
in conferences and meetings of intergovernmental experts to draft the Convention.

Can UNESCO help local cultural traditions around

the world survive and even flourish in the face of
globalization? No one really knows, but with a new
International Convention for the Safeguarding of the
Intangible Cultural Heritage it may be better
equipped to do so.

At the biennial meeting of General

Conference of UNESCO in Paris on 17 October
2003 some 120 Member States voted for the
multilateral treaty; scores more registered their
support subsequently. No one voted against it;
only a handful of nations abstained – Australia,
Canada, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and
the United States among them. For the
Convention to now become international law it
needs to be ratified by thirty states parties.

This article considers the nature of

intangible cultural heritage, the approach,
consequences, problems and possibilities
suggested by the new Convention.

66 ISSN 1350-0775, no. 221–222 (vol. 56, no. 1–2, 2004)

Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ (UK) and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148 (USA)
 Intangible Cultural Heritage in the 2003 UNESCO Convention
Richard Kurin

What is intangible cultural heritage? Historical background

The Convention following common practice, Well-meaning people have thought about how to
describes intangible cultural heritage in the form save, protect, and preserve the world’s living
of a list, as oral traditions and expressions – such cultural heritage for at least several hundred years.
as epics, tales, and stories, performing arts – The specific idea of an international legal
including music, song, dance, puppetry and instrument to do so has a two-track history that
theatre, social practices, rituals and festive formally extends back to the 1950s.
events, knowledge and practices concerning
nature and the universe – for example, folk One track is a technical, legal one and
medicine and folk astronomy, and traditional concerns the ownership of cultural property.
craftsmanship, as well as the sites and spaces in Multilateral discussions in the 1950s considered the
which culturally significant activities and events idea of copyright and its application to folklore and
occur. A more generative, categorical definition traditional culture. Copyright is a means of assuring
is somewhat illusive. It is the culture that people continued artistic and intellectual activity, as well as
practise as part of their daily lives. It is beliefs social benefit, by encouraging commercial rewards
and perspectives, ephemeral performances and for the creators of particular tangible cultural
events that are not tangible objects of culture products for a specified period of time. Could
like monuments, or paintings, books or artefacts. traditional forms of expression – ancient songs and
It is often described as the underlying ‘spirit’ of a folk tales for example be covered by copyright law?
cultural group. The technical, somewhat Should nations regulate and exert some form of legal
awkward term ‘intangible cultural heritage’ was control over such expressions on their territory, and
selected because of the many difficulties cultural their commercial exploitation by others? While
workers and scholars have encountered in an such has been the subject of both national and
international, comparative context, with the use international law, the extent of regulation is still an
and misunderstanding of such terms as ‘folklore’, open question being considered by the World
‘oral heritage’, ‘traditional culture’, ‘expressive Intellectual Property Organization and others.
culture’, ‘way of life’, ‘folklife’, ‘ethnographic
culture’, ‘community-based culture’, ‘customs’, The other track was a more diffuse,
‘living cultural heritage’, and ‘popular culture’. nationalistic one, oriented to social and cultural
Many people – educated experts as well as policy. Japan, in the post Second World War era,
community members from around the world who had begun a serious programme to offer
hold such heritage will not know what government recognition and support to those
‘intangible cultural heritage’ means. Since the traditions that embodied its national cultural
success of many safeguarding efforts will depend patrimony. The programme grew in reaction to the
upon public acceptance, disseminating and concern that ancient, royal, and local traditions
explaining the term itself will take considerable would disappear in the wake of modernization and
work. thus diminish national identity. In its benchmark

ISSN 1350-0775, No. 221–222 (Vol. 56, No. 1–2, 2004) 67

DEFINING THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE

Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties (1950), global mass culture raised the question of whether
and its revision (1954), the government defined valuable traditions, practices, and forms of
tangible and intangible cultural properties, and knowledge rooted in diverse societies would
people as ‘living treasures’, – all national resources survive the next generation. As the pace of cultural
and assets to be protected, appreciated, utilized transformation and displacement picked up,
and managed – not for commercial profit, but for scholars and community advocates have sought
the very survival of the civilization. A variety of means of encouraging contemporary linkages to
other national programmes grew from these roots their distinctive cultural past. Numerous
and in response to similar concerns in the Republic governments, too, became sensitive to the
of Korea, the Philippines, the United States, importance of publicly asserting the value of their
Thailand, France, Romania, the Czech Republic, national cultures in various forums that bestow
Poland and other nations. and reflect international prestige.

The formal effort to safeguard intangible Renewed attention to the issue of local,
cultural heritage through UNESCO began three national and regional cultural survival resulted in a
decades ago in 1972 with the acceptance of the series of UNESCO-sponsored regional conferences
Convention for the Protection of World Cultural and on the topic, and culminated in a global conference
Natural Heritage and the initiation of the World at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington in
Heritage List – a programme oriented towards the 1999. That conference found the UNESCO
international recognition and national support for Recommendation to be a somewhat ill-construed,
the restoration, conservation, and preservation of ‘top-down’, state oriented, ‘soft’ international
tangible monuments, sites, and landscapes. Bolivia, instrument that defined traditional culture in
with the support of several other nations, proposed essentialist, tangible, archival terms, and had little
addressing oral traditions. Little action followed impact around the globe upon cultural
for a decade. A variety of experts’ meetings were communities and practitioners. The conference
held in the 1980s, and in 1989 UNESCO issued a and a subsequently published book – Safeguarding
Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Traditional Cultures, called for a more dynamic
Culture and Folklore. This defined practices that view of cultural traditions as ‘living’ and enacted by
countries could put in place to preserve communities. It envisioned a community-involved,
their intangible cultural heritage. Very participatory approach to safeguarding efforts in
few did. any formal convention that might be developed.
This gave the movement towards a convention an
By the mid-1990s, international awareness added boost, especially given the appointment of
of and discourse about the consequences of the Japanese diplomat, Koı̈chiro Matsuura, as
globalization had increased dramatically. Many Director-General of UNESCO.
cultural observers around the world believed that
local, regional, even national, traditions were Under Matsuura’s leadership UNESCO
devalued or endangered or both. The onslaught of instituted a programme, Masterpieces of the Oral

68 Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ (UK) and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148 (USA)
 Intangible Cultural Heritage in the 2003 UNESCO Convention
Richard Kurin

and Intangible Heritage, which pointed to the value Recognizing intangible cultural heritage in the
of such traditions. In 2001, the first nineteen Convention
Masterpieces were proclaimed – ranging from
Chinese kunqu opera to the balaphone tradition of Not all human cultural activity is defined as
Guinea, from Sicilian puppetry to the disappearing intangible cultural heritage in the Convention.
oral tradition of an Amazonian rain-forest First, the Convention has as its purview forms of
community, from the practice of Dominican con- experience that are aesthetically or conceptually
fraternities to the ‘cultural space’ of Morocco’s elaborated. The Convention is focused upon
famed Jemaa El-Fna Square in Marrakesh. The ensembles of action that people name as traditions
Masterpieces programme was very well received, and regard as meaningful – not mere utilitarian
despite considerable conceptual and practical actions. Second, the Convention views heritage as
problems about the criteria for selection. It did have something shared within and symbolically
immediate and significant impacts – bringing identified with a cultural community, and
public attention to and validation for traditions, traditional in that it is socially transmitted from
and encouraging local and national governments one generation to the next. Most of the experts
to develop action plans to safeguard them. The who helped formulate the Convention assumed
programme was seen as a corrective to the that intangible cultural heritage is traditional
World Heritage List. That list generally excluded culture and ruled out all sorts of things – avant
the cultures of many states, particularly those in garde theatre, video games, pop music, Bollywood
the southern hemisphere, because they lacked choreography, contemporary state rituals,
monuments and sites. The Masterpieces McDonald’s recipes, American football,
programme offered a form of international astrophysics and university legal studies. But the
recognition more suited to the particularities of definition, as given in the Convention, can
those cultures with strong intangible traditions. encompass a broader range of activity than the
framers assumed. Such cultural forms as rap music,
Buoyed by the conferences and the success Australian cricket, modern dance, post-modernist
of the Masterpieces programme, advocates for a architectural knowledge, and karaoke bars all
convention argued that such would inspire symbolize cultural communities (albeit not
worldwide attention and also voluntary donations necessarily ethnically or regionally based) and pass
of significant funds to support safeguarding on their own traditions (though not usually
activities. A preliminary draft convention was genealogically).
crafted, following closely the language and
structure of the World Heritage treaty. Three Recognizing intangible cultural heritage in
meetings of intergovernmental experts in Paris and terms of the Convention is not that obvious and is
endorsements by various meetings of cultural sometimes befuddling. Verbal expressions of a
ministers accomplished the technical, legal, and particular language – for example stories, tales and
diplomatic work needed to bring the Convention sayings are considered intangible cultural heritage,
to the UNESCO General Conference. but not a language as a whole.

ISSN 1350-0775, No. 221–222 (Vol. 56, No. 1–2, 2004) 69

DEFINING THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE

The differentiation of intangible from Understandably, UNESCO does not want to

tangible heritage might also be puzzling. Craft support or encourage practices inimical to human
items, such as magnificently elaborate Lithuanian rights such as slavery, infanticide, or torture. Yet
crosses are tangible, but the knowledge and skills the standard is not without controversy. Is female
to create them intangible. Tools are tangible, but genital mutilation a legitimate part of intangible
plans, if thought are not, but if drawn are. This cultural heritage to be recognized by the
makes safeguarding most interesting because Convention or not? Is a religious tradition that
sometimes the preservation of the tangible and includes Brahmins, but excludes non-Brahmins
intangible are intimately conjoined. For example disqualified as intangible cultural heritage because
tangible textual scripts, costumes, props and stage of its discriminatory quality? Is a musical tradition
settings are part and parcel of a performance where only men play instruments and only women
tradition like India’s Sanskrit Kutiyattam theatre sing inequitable, and thus contrary to human rights
and Japanese Nogaku theatre. For many peoples, accords? Determining what is allowable or not as
separating the tangible and the intangible seems intangible cultural heritage under the Convention
quite artificial and makes little sense. For example, will be a difficult task.
among many local and indigenous communities,
particular land, mountains, volcanoes, caves and Similarly problematic is the ‘mutual
other tangible physical features are endowed respect’ clause in the Convention. Intangible
with intangible meanings that are thought to be cultural heritage is by definition something used
inherently tied to their physicality. Similarly, it is for community self-definition. Many cultural
hard to think of the intangible cultural heritage of communities though, define themselves in
Muslims on the hajj, Jews praying at the western opposition or resistance to others. Their very
wall of Jerusalem’s temple, or Hindus assembling identity as a people or community relies on their
for the kumbh mela as somehow divorced and victory over or defeat by others. Their defining
distinct from the physical instantiation of songs and tales may celebrate the glory of empire,
spirituality. Given that the Convention, in effect, victorious kings, religious conversion, or
operationally makes the intangible tangible, the alternatively resistance to perceived injustice,
conceptual distinction and separation of the two martyrdom and defeat – not the mutual respect of
domains is problematic. peoples. The Convention’s standard is quite
idealistic, seeing culture as generally hopeful and
Furthermore, according to its explicit positive, born not of historical struggle and conflict
provisions, not all intangible cultural heritage is but of a varied flowering of diverse cultural ways.
recognized for the purposes of the Convention. Including the ‘mutual respect’ standard can
To be recognized, intangible cultural heritage however disqualify much of the world’s traditional
must be consistent with human rights, exhibit culture from coverage by the Convention.
the need for mutual respect between communities,
and be sustainable. This is a very high and one The standard of ‘sustainability’ is
might say unrealistic and imposing standard. noteworthy but problematic. Consider that the

70 Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ (UK) and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148 (USA)
 Intangible Cultural Heritage in the 2003 UNESCO Convention
Richard Kurin

whole treaty is about safeguarding heritage own resources, coupled with those of the
thought to be endangered to some degree or community for such purposes, as well as seeking
other. The very fact that a tradition is endangered UNESCO aid and recognition for those traditions
means that it is not sustainable in its current form deemed particularly valuable and especially
or in its current context – hence the need for endangered. Once the Convention is ratified, a
national or international intervention. Yet by UNESCO fund generated by voluntary members’
definition a tradition to be recognized as dues and donations will be established. UNESCO
intangible cultural heritage under the Convention will also form an international committee and an
and thus worthy of safeguarding, must itself also internal unit to oversee the work, assuring that
be sustainable. The provision, though well safeguarding efforts are based upon empirical
meaning, is confusing. Sustainability here is an research, sound assessment and regular
ideal to be achieved, not an eligibility requirement evaluation. The committee will also oversee two
for action. Cultural workers will have to figure international ‘lists’. One will be a list of
out the degree to which a tradition may be ‘representative’ – one might have preferred the
sustained – much more a matter of professional term ‘exemplary’ intangible cultural heritage. This
judgement than legal stricture. will incorporate the items already designated as
Masterpieces of Oral and Intangible Heritage by
Duties and obligations under the Convention UNESCO. It will be comparable to the World
Heritage List. The other list will be that of
The Convention commits nations to develop endangered cultural heritage – those traditions
inventories of their intangible cultural heritage and recommended to UNESCO for immediate
to work with local communities, groups and safeguarding work by the international
individual practitioners on various, appropriate community.
means of ‘safeguarding’ those traditions. The
Convention calls upon nations and communities Are the obligations the Convention
to develop action plans for safeguarding culture. imposes reasonable? Are the foreseen impacts
Safeguarding those traditions entails their research and outcomes beneficial? Are the Convention’s
and documentation, education and transmission, envisioned actions adequate to the stated need?
appropriate legal protection, and forms of public
recognition and support. Those action plans will The largest obligation imposed by the
be formulated with expert involvement, and Convention is that it commits national scholars
presumably, to be good, will be based on research, and public servants to the task of composing
community input, and comparison with other such comprehensive inventories of intangible cultural
interventions. Safeguarding, according to the heritage. There was considerable debate among
Convention, must be done with the permission, international experts over the usefulness of
co-operation, and substantive decision-making inventory making. For most, it was deemed a
involvement of the relevant communities and rational way of identifying and itemizing intangible
practitioners. National governments may use their cultural heritage as a prelude to management – just

ISSN 1350-0775, No. 221–222 (Vol. 56, No. 1–2, 2004) 71

DEFINING THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE

as is done for other cultural ‘property’ like The difficulty of working with and
monuments and archaeological sites. For critics, engaging far-flung isolated communities in safe-
this is a huge, never-ending task, using a guarding activities is logistically and sociologically
historically discredited methodology challenging. This, anthropologists, folklorists, and
misconceiving culture as atomistic items, and linguists usually surmount, albeit imperfectly. The
bearing little relationship to the goal – as if such challenges will be considerably greater in cases
inventories in themselves could encourage cultural where the cultural community constitutes a very
vitality. The former prevailed, arguing prudent large ‘national’ group within a state. Large or
management; with the latter anticipating that significant groups might, through cultural
making inventories will divert resources and assertion seek their own civic or political
public servants away from the task of working with autonomy or even independence from the state
specific communities on actual safeguarding party. Working with such communities –
activities. particularly those defined as indigenous peoples –
will not just be a technical challenge, but rather
A second large obligation for states grows call upon very sophisticated political and legal
from the Convention’s appropriate recognition that skills given a variety of other national and
those who practise the traditions should have the international treaties, often of a contentious
major responsibility for their safeguarding; states- nature.
parties have to work with them to do so. The
problem is how. Efforts by governments to involve The third major obligation for states is
cultural communities appropriately recognizes to charge a specific national entity with
local agency, but on the downside might require developing action plans to safeguard its
the formalization of social relations that detract intangible cultural heritage. Most nations have
from the tradition. Most cultural communities are not done this. The typical situation is that
constituted informally. Cultural exemplars are within a nation a variety of governmental units,
more respected than they are elected. Identifying university departments, and other organizations
who speaks for the cultural tradition being have developed rather uncoordinated plans to
safeguarded is no easy task – will wise women and address one or another aspect of safeguarding
exemplary storytellers have to be elected as such? work.
A cultural community may also be beset by
factionalism. Developing a means of working A 1995–99 UNESCO survey of actions
together is also difficult. There are often great undertaken by nations to safeguard intangible
status differentials between public officials and cultural heritage revealed a lack of institutions in
experts on the one hand and the practitioners of the field and a paucity of effective programmes.
the tradition on the other. Bringing community Many countries have good programmes in place
participation into play has been a great challenge to research and document intangible cultural
for many cultural projects in the past and will heritage – though there are never enough trained
continue to be so in the future. researchers, equipment or supplies, and time to

72 Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ (UK) and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148 (USA)
 Intangible Cultural Heritage in the 2003 UNESCO Convention
Richard Kurin

meet the need. Most nations have developed some Given the disparate state of current
form of archives documenting intangible cultural programmes, one would anticipate widely differing
heritage, but they generally lack the resources strategies and capabilities of nations in formulating
adequate to keep up with cataloguing and their action plans. Many do not have experience in
preservation functions. Many are also challenged developing such plans and carrying them out.
to digitize their collections and make them Many plans now in place often reflect antiquated
accessible to the tradition bearers and the general cookie-cutter approaches, full of assumptions
public, whether in analogue or digital form. about the nature of tradition and its preservation.
Dissemination and valorization programs for There is, around the world, a real lack of study and
intangible cultural heritage typically take the form assessment of best practices. The Convention does
of organized festivals, exhibitions, audio not mandate any particular strategies for
recordings, films, videos, books, conferences, safeguarding work.
educational materials, and increasingly web pages.
But overall, nations lack the human and fiscal National action plans may indeed enhance
resources to produce these forms of intangible particular traditions and their practitioners, but
cultural display in a regular, high-quality manner. they may also have unintended, negative
Formal legal measures for the protection of consequences. The revival and revitalization of
intangible cultural heritage vary greatly around traditions may, to ensure sustainability, turn
the globe, with a wide variety of consequences for religious practices, for example, toward tourist
traditional culture – intended and unintended. A and commercial endeavours. The Convention
number of governments provide stipends and seeks to have the safeguarding of intangible
direct support to tradition bearers through ‘living cultural heritage integrated with other state
treasures’ and apprenticeship programmes. These interventions – planning for development,
are intended to promote both the status of building institutions, fostering scientific research,
tradition bearers and the transmission of the formulating laws, budgets and government
particular tradition, but do so only for a miniscule operations. This is most appropriate. Yet the
portion of the population. Large-scale projects question of how to accomplish this remains.
where government agencies or non-governmental
organizations work closely with the cultural The Convention: drawbacks and obstacles
community to help perpetuate intangible cultural
heritage, tying it in with economic development, Aside from the programmatic obligations, the
cultural enterprise, and comprehensive Convention imposes upon states obligations that
educational efforts are few and far between – may prove drawbacks and obstacles to its success.
though there are encouraging programmes such For one, the Convention calls upon nations to take
as the development of community-based ‘necessary measures’ to ‘ensure’ the viability of
museums, local-level cultural industries, and even intangible cultural heritage. ‘Necessary measures’
community-controlled cultural tourism can be quite extreme. Surely no one rationally
operations. envisions the Convention as safeguarding the

ISSN 1350-0775, No. 221–222 (Vol. 56, No. 1–2, 2004) 73

DEFINING THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE

transmission of intangible cultural heritage argument for national control over traditional
through such coercive forms as legally requiring cultural expressions, and those who sought to
the sons and daughters who practise a tradition to leave such a debate to future treaties – such as a
continue in their parents’ footsteps. No cultural looming UNESCO accord on cultural diversity, as
treaty should ensure results through the denial of well as those under consideration by the World
freedom promised under human-rights accords, Trade Organization and the World Intellectual
with the opportunity for social, cultural, and Property Organization. The ‘savings clause’
economic mobility. essentially postpones the discussion of who owns
culture, and leaves to this Convention a more
A similar over-reach of the Convention programmatic orientation.
regards its envisioned results. ‘Safeguarding’ is
defined as ‘ensuring the viability of the intangible The Convention: adequate for the task?
cultural heritage.’ No cultural intervention can
‘ensure’ such an outcome. Culture changes and The big question about the Convention is whether
evolves. Practices of the past are discarded when or not it is up to the task envisioned. Can it really
they cease to be functionally useful or symbolically safeguard living cultural practices among the
meaningful to a community. UNESCO and diversity of the world’s people?
Member States need not guarantee through
financial and symbolic rewards the survival of The inventories and lists by themselves
those customs and practices, beliefs and traditions may have value for recognizing and valorizing
that the community itself wants to discard. Nor various traditions, but will hardly save them. The
should they encourage particularly harmful ‘representative’ list that will incorporate the
practices, or ‘freeze’ cultural practices in the guise Masterpieces programme will probably continue to
of preserving cultural diversity or defending include those traditions that are colourful,
against cultural globalization. The true aim of the poignant, have long histories, and a good measure
Convention to is to aid traditional cultural of national, if not international, popularity. The list
practices and their practitioners so they have the of endangered intangible cultural heritage will note
opportunity to survive and even flourish, but not their worthiness for international support, but
guarantee such an outcome. not necessarily occasion action plans adequate to
sustain them.
Another technical consideration and
possible drawback is the consistency of the The Convention tends to reduce intangible
Convention with other international accords. The cultural heritage to a list of largely expressive
Convention has what is called a ‘savings clause’, traditions, atomistically recognized and conceived.
which says it has no effect on any rights or The actions it proposes miss the larger, holistic
obligations regarding intellectual property. This, aspect of culture – the very characteristic that makes
too, was a matter of considerable debate between culture intangible. This is the intricate and complex
those who wanted the Convention to bolster the web of meaningful social actions undertaken by

74 Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ (UK) and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148 (USA)
 Intangible Cultural Heritage in the 2003 UNESCO Convention
Richard Kurin

individuals, groups, and institutions. Thousands of the future course of safeguarding practice. It will
human cultures today face a myriad of challenges. help implement definitions and criteria, select
Whether they survive or flourish depends upon so projects, examine best practices, review plans,
many things – the freedom and desire of culture make recommendations for funding, consult with
bearers, an adequate environment, a sustaining communities and other experts, and in the end,
economic system, a political context within which assess results and Convention impacts.
their very existence is at least tolerated. Actions to
safeguard ‘tangibilized’ inventoried items of cultural Importantly, this committee can provide a
production are unlikely to safeguard adequately the core function with regard to the improvement
larger, deeper, more diffuse intangible cultural in cultural work, hopefully galvanizing the
patterns and contexts. Saving songs may not protect intellectual tools and organizational efforts which
the ways of life of their singers, or the appreciation have lagged behind the need to safeguard
due by listeners. Far greater more holistic and intangible cultural heritage around the world.
systematic action is likely to be required. Heretofore, experts have not developed the theory
and practice for saving languages, ensuring the
Conclusion continuity of musical traditions over hundreds of
years, applying the rich and disparate knowledge
The International Convention for the Safeguarding of folk communities to contemporary life, or using
of the Intangible Cultural Heritage has come a long living cultural resources in a wise and sustainable
way from the much more conceptually way for economic development. Fortunately, now,
problematic Recommendation that preceded it. this deficiency can be addressed.
Given the both the subject matter and the nature
of international treaties, perfection is an illusive The Convention does some very good
attainment. Yet the desire of Member States and things. It reinforces the idea that the practice of
experts to do at least some good for endangered one’s culture is a human right. It seeks government
cultures and traditions outweighs the fears of recognition and respect for the varied cultural
doing inadvertent harm or nothing at all. The traditions practised by people within its
Convention is clearly a work in progress wherein jurisdiction. It seeks to bolster the idea that all
experts and community people, policy-makers cultures give purpose and meaning to lives and
and scholars will try to figure out how to thus deserve to be safeguarded. It privileges the
safeguard cultures over the coming years. The culture bearers over the state. It suggests that forms
Convention itself sets out a viable means of of safeguarding be integrated with legal,
addressing the problems and legitimate concerns educational, and economic development efforts
raised by critics. This is to be done through the where appropriate so that culture retains its vitality
formulation of an international committee of and dynamism. Now, with this Convention, a
cultural experts under the auspices of UNESCO, mechanism will be put into place at the
elected by the General Assembly for the international level where those efforts may be
Convention. The committee will help determine energized and improved to take on the task. While

ISSN 1350-0775, No. 221–222 (Vol. 56, No. 1–2, 2004) 75

DEFINING THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE

doubts persist about the institutional machinery

and the ability of the Convention to attract
adequate external funding appropriate to the level
of need, the Convention may still provide an
important opportunity. For cultural advocates
around the globe, and for many communities
and tradition bearers, the International Convention
for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage is a welcome addition to the tool-kit of
resources available for accomplishing valuable
cultural work.

76 Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ (UK) and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148 (USA)
 Intangible Cultural Heritage in the 2003 UNESCO Convention
Richard Kurin

Ó Miguel Gandert

12

12. The Oruro carnival, Bolivia, was proclaimed by UNESCO as a masterpiece of the oral and intangible heritage of humanity in 2001. The cultural
memory is embodied in these practices, not in the object.

ISSN 1350-0775, No. 221–222 (Vol. 56, No. 1–2, 2004) 77