Cultural Sustainability and Resilience in the Tourism Context a Case Study of Hue, Vietnam

Uppsala U niver sity log otyp e

SAMINT-HDU 21032 Degree project 30 credits June 2021

Cultural sustainability and resilience in the tourism context A case study of Hue, Vietnam

Nguyen Thi Hong Lam

Maste r’s Pro gra m in S ustain able D estina tion D evelo pme nt

Master’s Program in Sustainable Destination Development

Uppsala U niver sity log otyp e

Cultural sustainability and resilience in the tourism context A case study of Hue, Vietnam

Nguyen Thi Hong Lam

Abstract Cultural heritage confronts the notion of change, both in the development process and in the tourism context. In the tourism context, as being used as a unique selling point, it is unavoidable that cultural heritage facing commercialisation and commodification, or even vulgarisation due to being forced to change to meet the market demand and tourists’ expectations. Hence, the question is that, if change is inevitable, what are the potential risks that cultural heritage might face in the tourism context, and how to maintain its significance, which are attractions for tourists in the first place? The overall aim of the study was to use the notion of change as a lens to investigate the concept of authenticity as well as the relation between sustainability and resilience in culture. The study’s objectives approached based on a qualitative method, with semi-structured interviews focusing on the perspective of the cultural heritage community – a group of people who work closely with cultural heritage - local community, practitioners, researchers, authorised agency, and tourism stakeholders. Concerning cultural heritage's interpretation based on its existing definition, the intertwined and interdependent relationship between the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural heritage was investigated. An authentication process was introduced. Resilience thinking in culture was given as proposals. In this study, a case study in Hue, Vietnam with two examples – Nhã nhạc (the court music) and áo dài (long dress or tunic) were examined regarding the notion of change in relation to the concept of authenticity, sustainability and resilience. Faculty of Scie nce and Tec hnolo gy, Up psala Unive rsity. Plac e of public ation Vis by. Sup ervis or: Error! Re feren ce so urce not f ound. , Subjec t r eade r: An na Ka rlströ m, Exa mine r: Ulrik a Pers son -Fisc hier

Faculty of Science and Technology Uppsala University, Place of publication Visby

Subject reader: Anna Karlström Examiner: Ulrika Persson-Fischier

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... 1 List of Figures ...... 4 List of Tables ...... 5 1. Introduction ...... 6 1.1. Statement of Interest ...... 6 1.2. Statement of Purpose ...... 8 1.3. Outline of the Thesis ...... 9 1.4. Methodology ...... 11 1.4.1. Research approach ...... 11 1.4.2. Research design ...... 12 1.4.3. Research process ...... 16 1.4.4. Ethics ...... 17 1.4.5. Data analyse ...... 18 2. Cultural heritage ...... 20 2.1. Defining cultural heritage ...... 20 2.1.1. Existing definition ...... 20 2.1.2. Redefine ...... 25 2.1.3. Intangibility ...... 29 2.2. Authenticity ...... 31 3. Cultural heritage in the tourism context ...... 38 3.1. Authenticity in tourism discourse ...... 39 3.2. Authentication process ...... 45 3.2.1. Knowledge transfer ...... 45 3.2.2. Value cognition ...... 46 3.2.3. Authenticity judgment ...... 47 3.3. From tourists’ perspective ...... 49 3.3.1. Knowledge transfer ...... 49 3.3.2. Value cognition ...... 50 3.3.3. Authenticity judgment ...... 51 3.4. From local community’s perspective ...... 52 3.4.1. Knowledge transfer ...... 52

3.4.2. Value cognition ...... 53 3.4.3. Authenticity judgment ...... 54 4. Sustainability and Resilience...... 56 4.1. Sustainability and Resilience ...... 57 4.1.1. Sustainability ...... 57 4.1.2. Resilience ...... 62 4.1.3. Sustainability and Resilience ...... 64 4.2. Can culture be resilient? Or needs to be resilient? ...... 69 4.2.1. Merit ...... 70 4.2.2. Demerit ...... 72 5. Case study ...... 76 5.1. Nhã nhạc cung đình Huế (Vietnamese Court Music) ...... 77 5.2. Áo dài (long dress or tunic) ...... 79 6. Findings and discussion ...... 83 6.1. Intangible aspect of cultural heritage ...... 83 6.1.1. In terms of language ...... 83 6.1.2. Intangibility ...... 86 6.1.3. Elements constitute heritage ...... 88 6.2. Cultural heritage in the tourism context ...... 92 6.2.1. Authenticity...... 92 6.2.2. Change ...... 94 6.3. Sustainability & Resilience...... 104 6.3.1. In culture ...... 105 6.3.2. In tourism ...... 106 6.4. Recommendations ...... 109 6.4.1. Opportunities ...... 109 6.4.2. Challenges ...... 110 6.4.3. Suggestions ...... 112 7. Conclusion ...... 115 7.1. Intangibility ...... 115 7.2. Authenticity ...... 115 7.3. Sustainability ...... 116 7.4. Limitation and further research ...... 118

8. References ...... 119 8.1. Bibliography ...... 119 8.2. Documents and texts of law ...... 125 9. Appendix ...... 127 9.1. Interview guideline (Vietnamese version) ...... 127 9.2. Interview guideline (English version) ...... 128

List of Figures

Figure 1 Community-Centred Tourism Framework as a mechanism for degrowing tourism ...... 68 Figure 2 Nhã nhạc cung đình Huế ...... 78 Figure 3 Áo dài ...... 81

List of Tables

Table 1 Backgrounds of the interviewees...... 15 Table 2 The extension of cultural heritage concept ...... 24 Table 3 Existential authenticity (Wang, 1999) ...... 41 Table 4 Authenticity in heritage discourse and tourism discourse ...... 43 Table 5 Cool authentication and Hot authentication (Cohen & Cohen, 2012) ...... 46 Table 6 Authentication process ...... 48 Table 7 Traditions of sustainable tourism and setting the limits to growth (Saarinen & Gill, 2019) ...... 58 Table 8 A sequence of resilience concepts (Folke, 2006) ...... 63 Table 9 The distinction between the concepts of resilience and sustainability...... 65

1. Introduction

1.1. Statement of Interest In terms of language, culture is “one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language” (Williams, 1987, p87). Culture is “everything that is socially learned rather than biologically inherited”; thereby, it can be seen as our second nature (Barthel-Bouchier, 2012, p11). As nature with its biodiversity grow with people, so does culture. Culture changes as it is constructed and transmitted by people within a group or community from generation to generation. It can be our identity with the outside world, function as a link to unite individuals in a community at different levels; however, it can also cause conflicts and divide people, especially when it comes to heritage.

Not everything can be heritage; it needs to be selected. Heritage is culture or remains from the past that is formed and selected by people in the present. Consequently, disputes and conflicts arise in the process of creating, selecting to maintaining the heritage value. Heritage is about history and associated with history, but not the same as history. As the representation of people, heritage is constructed over time as people develop their identities. Therefore, it is not only about history or the past; instead, heritage is the link that connects people and things from the past to the present and the future. As put by Harrison (2010, p11), heritage is a process of collective memory and re- considering and selective value. Accordingly, as representing people who generate it, in some way, heritage changes.

Therefore, when these two terms – ‘culture’ and ‘heritage’ come in pair, this combination becomes even more complex. Also, since these words differ in languages, thus, they can be perceived differently between people depending on their native language. For instance, there is no exact translation from the English word heritage into Vietnamese language. The word ‘heritage’ [di sản] alone is used mainly in the law terms, which can be interpreted as inherited property, while at a smaller scale as family, there is another word used for heritage [gia truyền]. Therefore, heritage is often difficult to convey in words: you need to experience it, even to sense it, to ‘understand’ heritage.

It can be seen that to some extent; cultural heritage connotes clash. However, ultimately, differences would not divide people; dynamic in constant change and (re)creating would contribute

6 to the diversity that makes cultural heritage richer over time. Cultural heritage allows people to associate with others as individuals at the group or community level.

Regarding this matter, tourism has the possibility to bridge these beautiful things on an even broader scale. By influencing people from different communities and cultures to exchange knowledge and enhance tolerance through tourism, the Earth thereby becomes a global community (Budeanu, 2016, p287). Tourism provides the chance for a culture to reach beyond its community. The main purpose for an outsider tourist is to discover new things and learn about differences and diversity in culture. However, the ‘relationship’ between cultural heritage and tourism is more complicated than that. At the early stage, some conservationists argued that tourism could negatively impact a destination’s cultural heritage because of culturally inappropriate behaviour and ignorance from tourists (Ruggles & Silverman, 2009, p7). Later, the attitude towards tourism shifted due to recognising positive impacts, such as cultural education and contribution to conservation work (ibid.).

In the tourism context, the complexities of the interactions between factors involved make it very challenging to use cultural heritage as a resource. One of the essences of cultural heritage is that it is not something written in stone; instead, it is constantly being created and changed over time. In the context of tourism, cultural heritage is placed in a broader social context and is influenced by economic factors. Then it becomes more complicated to define a change, whether it is a truly natural change or economically driven but on behalf of nature. And regarding maintenance and change, the question is what is at its core, what is its authenticity?

As a stranger to this subject, in the beginning, I found these issues unexpectedly complex but also fascinating. To define ‘authenticity’ is not simple. There are no fixed forms to be filled in or criterion with checkboxes to tick to answer if something is authentic or not. As my naïve question in the very first lecture with Anna Karlström - authenticity, how problematic can it be?

Later, I realized that the complexity could be one of the most significant challenges in dealing with cultural heritage, but also its attraction.

Moving toward (or keep ourselves in) sustainability is all about people. But the question is which people? People in tourism discourse – stakeholder, tour operators, tour guide, tourist, etc.; or people within local community – authority, policymakers, heritage management, scholars,

7 practitioners? It seems like groups of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ are fairly divided when categorising this way.

However, in my opinion, the distinction is depending on the vision and mission. People who from the same community and share the same culture do not imply that they aim at the same goal concerning using their cultural heritage. Likewise, ‘outsiders’ might not merely ‘being outside’ in terms of attitude toward conserving cultural heritage; sharing the mutual aim would raise the feeling of belonging due to respecting the same value.

Therefore, in the era of globalisation and increasing the needs to connect to the world, the pair of ‘cultural heritage’ and ‘tourism’ has the possibility to bring us closer to the dream of sustainability.

I believe that acknowledging the diversity in culture and the differences in this world, is not enough to contribute to enhancing knowledge; beyond that, tourism can be the chance for both ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’ to retreat inward, reflect and have a better understanding of ourselves.

1.2. Statement of Purpose The primary purpose of this study is to determine the core elements that constitute cultural heritage, and to investigate how the various actors involved in using cultural heritage as a resource in the tourism context affect one another. Subsequently, it also aims at identifying how understanding can contribute to developing tourism towards sustainability.

Objectives:

 To understand the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural heritage and the relation between them  To investigate the internal and external factors that affect using cultural heritage as a resource in the tourism context  To analyse the term ‘authenticity’ in order to determine the notion of change in cultural heritage in different circumstances, in development history and the tourism context  To identify how acknowledgement of sustainability and resilience contribute to implementing cultural heritage in practice

Research questions:

 How do existing definitions of cultural heritage influence how it is perceived? What is intangibility in cultural heritage?  How does the interaction between tourists and the host community affect the interpretation of cultural heritage? In the context of tourism, what changes in cultural heritage, if any, need to be managed?  How to use cultural heritage as a resource in the tourism context toward sustainable destination development?

Importance of the study

This study aims to advance the understanding of the relationship between tangible and intangible aspects and the intangibility of cultural heritage. Also, an authentication process is introduced in order to identify the notion of change in cultural heritage through the term authenticity as an associated issue. This study also attempts to utilise the interdependent relationship between sustainability and resilience in thinking and planning to develop a destination sustainably.

The contributions of the study are four-fold.

Firstly, by analysing the existing definition of intangible cultural heritage, this study illustrates the gap in defining cultural heritage by separating tangible from intangible. Secondly, I ascertain the interaction between actors involved using cultural heritage in the tourism context through investigating an authentication process from different perspectives. Thirdly, the relationship of sustainability and resilience, as well as the potential of applying resilience thinking in implementing cultural heritage in the tourism context are revealed. Finally, issues related to using cultural heritage in the tourism context, namely opportunities, challenges and suggestions, are pointed out in relation to sustainable destination development.

1.3. Outline of the Thesis This study is built on a framework that consists of three main themes as a supporting structure to fulfil the study’s objectives.

Based on the idea that the existing definition from UNESCO on categorising cultural heritage into tangible heritage and intangible cultural heritage (ICH) is inexplicit and has not emphasised ICH’s nature. I argue that UNESCO - as a prestigious international organisation on behalf of cultural conservation, their definition affects cultural heritage is perceived in general and being used as a resource in the tourism context in particular. In addition, in heritage tourism, UNESCO has been seen as a trustworthy third party in providing information for tourists.

Therefore, in the first half of the study, related issues will be discussed.

Firstly, the intertwisted relation between tangible and intangible aspect constitutes cultural heritage will be investigated, as well as the development history of ICH as a result of cultural understanding and tolerance. A need to redefine to fill the gap will be proposed.

Secondly, concerning information in the tourism context and cultural sustainability, the concept of authenticity of cultural heritage will be identified. To date, the notion of authenticity has only been investigated based on its negotiated significance or single parts of the authentication process; the dynamic with contribution from social actors involved is still understudied. Thus, based on relevant literature, an authentication process will be introduced in this study to investigate the complexity of authenticity from both perspectives – local community and tourists as authenticating agents in the process.

Thirdly, as sustainability is the discussion's focus, with the emergence of resilience as ‘the new sustainability’, the relationship between those terms will be investigated. As resilience consists of adaptive learning, that means it connotes the notion of change. Additionally, since cultural sustainability implies the matter of maintaining and continuity, thus it would be useful to examine it through the lens of change. Thereby, as associated with resilience and sustainability, the notion of change will be discussed. Subsequently, implementing cultural heritage with acknowledgement of resilience in the tourism context will be given as proposals.

In the second half of the study, a case study with two examples of two different kinds of cultural heritage will be given. The findings from the case study will be referred to by the framework to examine stated arguments.

1.4. Methodology In this study, the research object is three focus points: the intangible aspect of cultural heritage, the concepts of authenticity of cultural heritage in the tourism context, and issues related to sustainability.

The goal is to investigate the diverse understandings and viewpoints regarding the themes and related concepts among people who work closely with cultural heritage in various ways in the context of tourism. Thereby, a conclusion will be expectedly drawn based on information from their perspectives.

1.4.1. Research approach As mentioned previously, this study is approached based on a supporting structure built up from relevant literature on cultural heritage, authenticity, sustainability, and resilience. Thereby, the associated matters will be examined through information from a case study. The process regarding the case study will be explained as follows.

Data collection is conducted through semi-structured interviews. According to Bryman (2015, p446-447), as one of the most common methods in qualitative research, qualitative interviewing gives the researcher the flexibility in conducting the interview and the opportunity to have a deep understanding of a subject through focusing on the interviewee’s viewpoint.

A general interview guideline was prepared beforehand. It followed the ‘Formulating question for an interview guide in qualitative research’ to ensure that all stated issues in the study will be asked in semi-structured interviewing (Bryman, 2015, p469). The flexibility with semi-structured interviews provides space for both interviewer and interviewees to convey and express themselves naturally. Moreover, having a guideline can be seen as setting a clear focus initially, which allows the interviewer to fully pay attention when interviewee sharing their view rather than depending too much on the guideline. In addition, this can help to keep the dialogue in the intended direction and provides a flexibility to jump between questions not necessary in the fixed order. The process, therefore, runs ‘smoothly’ without interviewees feel being interviewed. Notes were taken during the interviewing when needed.

A list of interview questions was designed based on the literature review. Questions were designed based on Kvale’s nine-question types (1996 cited in Bryman, 2015, p473-475) and six

11 types of research question by Denscombe (2010, cited in Bryman, 2015, p7). However, since participants have different background, professionals, and experience in the various related field, the structure was not followed in order, rather depends on the flow of the dialogue and information. As experts and officials are, to some extent, knowledgeable about academic terms, they were not very much interested in further discussing it; while other interviewees seemed like spending time thinking around when reflecting on it from their understanding and tried to put it into words as good as they can.

Due to the Covid-19 outbreak, the initial plan to conduct in-person interviews were unsuccessful because of travelling restriction; also, interviews with senior practitioners, as originally planned, were not made since they are not familiar with technology.

1.4.2. Research design According to Bryman (2015, p60) a case study is suitable for qualitative research since it is viewed as “conducive to the generation of an intensive, detailed examination of a case”. Therefore, in this study, Hue was specifically chosen as the destination to analyse to fulfil the stated objectives. Firstly, because of its location in the central region, which is one of Vietnam's most exciting tourism centres, Hue itself is also a popular tourism destination with famous heritage attractions. Secondly, the two examples were selected to investigate - Nhã nhạc (Vietnamese court music) and áo dài (long dress or tunic), to some extents, they are both closely connected to Hue in particular. The former is the court music which was served in the Le and Nguyen dynasty in the past. The latter was evolved from an outfit worn at the court of the Nguyen Lords – áo ngũ thân (five-panel tunic). Additionally, another reason for choosing these was to identify the intangibility, the tangible and intangible elements that constitute the two types of heritage – tangible heritage and ICH. While Nhã nhạc is inscribed by UNESCO in Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, áo dài has been seen as an unofficial ‘national costume’. In addition, two examples were used to investigate and identify the concept of authenticity in the tourism context, as well as in its development history regarding the notion of change. In addition, with the advantage in diversity and integrity of cultural environment ranging from natural heritage, cultural heritage to cultural landscape and typical local tradition, according to the author’s personal conversation (in Feb 2021), Hue is attempting to become ‘the first city of heritage in Vietnam’ at national level in terms of focusing on culture as the direction development with the vision of 2045. Therefore,

12 the study took place in Hue was timely as concerning ‘hot topic’ – cultural heritage, tourism, and sustainable development.

To determine which individuals to inquire about interviews, firstly researches concerning two examples’ development history were conducted. After that, professionals and researchers were individually reached out to explain the study purpose and express interest in having their participation. The decision to contact potential participants was based on their specialities and their roles in the focus group. According to Bryman (2015, p501), setting a focus group based on a specific topic help emphasising and exploring in-depth, and they are selected because they “are known to have been involved in a particular situation” (Merton et al., 1956, p3 cited in Bryman, 2015, p501).

As the objectives of this study, the focus group is a group of people working with cultural heritage in various ways, which is addressed as ‘cultural heritage community’ – a combination of ‘heritage community’ concept and ‘global heritage community’.

‘Heritage community’, according to the definition from the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (2005, Article 2), “a heritage community consists of people who value specific aspects of cultural heritage which they wish, within the framework of public action, to sustain and transmit to future generations.” ‘Global heritage community’ defined by Barthel-Bouchier (based on the work ‘global professional cultures’ of Anthony King), refers to “who form part of a professional community dedicated to the values associated with a cosmopolitan approach to heritage conservation” (Barthel-Bouchier, 2012, p22). The difference between the two terms is that, while ‘heritage community’ including both professionals and amateurs who interested in local or national heritage, ‘global heritage community’ refers to the group of people who have the same professionals at international level, where they tend to resemble each other due to sharing the interest in heritage. Moreover, Barthel- Bouchier (2012) claims that the concern about the role of heritage conservation in terms of “how much culture of the past will form part of a future” should be involved all of us.

Additionally, ‘community’ in this sense is understood as in ‘community-based sustainability’, which according to Getz and Timor (2005) and Selin (1999) (cited in Saarinen, 2006, p1130) is referred not only hosts but also actors involved in the tourism context.

Thus, in my opinion, since the tourism industry consists of national and global factors, the group of involved people should be broadened, including all professionals and amateurs at global scales to enhance and exchange understanding of cultural heritage cross-border through tourism activities. For instance, stakeholders and artists who get inspiration from cultural heritage and use it as a resource in their work to provide goods to the tourism market, which I believe could bring a ‘new breath’ to cultural heritage. In this sense, they also do conservation work. By doing so, cultural heritage is no longer old things but as a “living history incorporating social processes of both continuity and change” (Barthel-Bouchier, 2012, p9). Therefore, in this study, my target group constitutes implementing cultural heritage in the tourism context. It ranges from officials (at national and commune levels), experts and scholars (professionals, researchers, master student) to the stakeholder (in the tourism industry).

In addition, since sustainability is the focus of the study’s discussion, in both heritage discourse and tourism discourse, the viewpoints from senior and junior generations in the cultural heritage community were also taken into consideration to investigate the understandings regarding heritage conservation from both perspectives. Besides, as the difference in gender did not make distinction in the result, thus it was not categorised.

Below is a table of brief interviewees’ backgrounds, expertise and roles in the cultural heritage community. Depending on their positions, interviewees play different roles in the cultural heritage community in the tourism context, thus, their views and perspectives also differ. However, there are mutual concerns among them.

Also, although the case study regarding cultural heritage in Vietnam, and in some way concerning Vietnamese culture, one interviewee has Czech nationality. As stated in the Statement of Interest sub-section, the most important thing is that people in this focus group have the same vision and attitude towards cultural heritage used sustainably as a resource in the tourism context.

As the focus group in this study is who constitutes implementing cultural heritage in the tourism context, namely ‘cultural heritage community’; thus, interviewees participant in the study will be coded in the discussion with the short form ‘CHC’ and a number. Two cases kept names published with their consents. The purpose behind is that to acknowledge their contribution to this study and, particularly for me, a better understanding of this field. However, to facilitate cohesive discussion flow, their names will also be labelled.

Interviewee Professional background Generation Nationality Length of / Location interview Phan Thuan Vice-Chancellor of the Institute of Senior Vietnamese 50 Thao, PhD Research and Conservation of /Vietnam minutes CHC 1 Music Hue Academy of Music Prof. Nguyen Director of the Nguyen Van Senior “ 75 Van Huy, PhD Huyen Museum; minutes CHC 2 Founding Director of the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology CHC 3 University of Social Sciences and Senior “ 65 Humanities; minutes Vietnam national institute of culture and arts studies CHC 4 Commune Culture Chamber Chief Senior “ 85 Hạ Mỗ village minutes CHC 5 Department of Cultural Heritage Senior “ 150 Ministry of Culture, Sports and minutes Tourism CHC 6 Cultural trip leader Junior “ 110 Cultural project assistant minutes Friends of Vietnam Heritage (FVN) CHC 7 Tour guide Junior “ 60 Sun travel, Saigontourist travel minutes CHC 8 Start-up founder Junior Czech 50 Travel agency minutes CHC 9 Master student Junior Vietnamese 140 Culture, Style & Fashion /UK minutes Nottingham Trent University Table 1 Backgrounds of the interviewees

1.4.3. Research process The research process consists of researching the potential topic, collecting archival material and literature study, finding contacts, narrowing the study focus, conducting interviews, and analysing data.

Besides reaching out to specific professional people in the study field, research to extend diverse understanding was conducted. Since cultural heritage has been a topic for discussion in Vietnam recently, public posts were made on related-topic Facebook pages to connect with people interested in the study. Also, the network of Sweden alumni in Vietnam became a channel to reach people. Fortunately, some people read the posts and actively contacted the author. After the interviews, some interviewees were even willing to introduce their contacts if further information beyond their realm was needed. However, due to the study’s scope and time matter, a difficult decision to limit data had to be made; but their help and thoughts are deeply appreciated by the author.

Archival material was collected and and scholarly literatures studied to trace the development history of the two examples in the case study - Nhã nhạc and áo dài. The archival research took place during the research period and before conducting interviews. In the case of Nhã nhạc, from preliminary research, it was soon discovered that the information from public sources is inconsistent, even conflicted at some points. Thus, a more reliable source was found and relied on, that is PhD dissertation of Phan Thuan Thao – who is primarily responsible for preparing documents to inscribe Nhã nhạc to UNESCO’s list in 2003. This allowed the interview with her later regarding relevant issues to have a more in-depth view and be updated from her publication about Nhã nhạc, for which data was collected in 2012. Relevant literature on áo dài was also studied in order to outline issues related to stated interview questions, as well as to have efficient dialogues with interviewees.

The period of interviews took place in April and May 2021. The interviews were initially planned to be conducted in person; however, due to the Covid-19, all the interviews were carried out through video call, using Zoom. On its upside, conducting online interviews is flexible, as well as time and cost-saving (Bryman, 2015, p492). In total, there were nine in-depth interviews.

During the interviews, although the guideline was not exactly followed due to keeping the dialogue’s flow, themes and focus points were clearly determined before the process, which

16 allowed reviewing the interviews in a broad picture and more accessible in coding and organising the analyse. The data were transcribed and translated into English. The interviewees’ information was coded or kept for publishing in the study based on their preference.

1.4.4. Ethics The interviewer's background and the study's purpose were informed through email to potential participants as a request for participating and at the beginning of the interview, to prevent ‘lack of informed consent’ (Bryman, 2015, p129). In the email, the content of the study was specifically individualised for each potential participant based on their specialities. By doing that, they could easily relate to their work field, see the possible contribution that could be made with their knowledge, and then had a sense of engagement to the study, which convinced them to agree on participating and be more ‘passionate’ when sharing information. This also helps the author understand the interviewees by being familiar with their terms (Bryman, 2015, p471). Transparency and privacy were considered by asking permission to sound recording and using the information in the study.

Due to the circumstance, the interviews were not conducted face to face; therefore, the interviewer’s video camera was kept open during the interview to decrease the stress caused by distance and create the atmosphere as close as possible. Body language was observed since all the interviewees voluntarily turned their camera on as they might feel comfortable and connected with the interviewer by doing so, since, through exchange information by email back and forth, a mutual trust had already been built up. In addition, although the time zones in Vietnam and Sweden are different, the appointment was set at the most convenient timing based on interviewees’ schedule.

The interviews were conducted in the participants’ native language, Vietnamese. This advantage enhanced the validity in conveying comprehensibly the interview questions, better flow of dialogue, and creating a comfortable atmosphere. Conducting interviews in the mother tongue was helpful for both the interviewer and interviewees. This allowed the interviewer to convey the exact message through interview questions, and participants feel comfortable expressing personal understanding, experience and opinions. The information was conducted and received with the most convenient choice of language; loss of data through the help of the third party was prevented. Besides, since the interview questions are adapted based on the differences between Vietnamese and English language in interpreting specific terms in this study, more in-depth and nuanced in the

17 words’ meaning were discovered. In addition, few academic terms in the interview questions were explained around to give interviewees essential ideas without putting the interviewer’s understanding into the explanation.

The ten criteria for successful interview by Kvale (1996 cited in Bryman, 2015, p473) was kept in mind when conducting the interviews. Especially, the additional criteria ‘balanced’ added by Bryman (ibid.) was very helpful to be aware of the dynamic of talking and listening, which seemed to make interviewees more comfortable and then opened up during the interview process.

Two interviewees were proposed to refer their names to credit their contribution to the interviewer’s understanding in general and in the study particularly. All the interviewees were promised to update the study's outcome regarding how their input contributes to the study’s objectives and further discuss as knowledge exchange with the interviewer in the future.

1.4.5. Data analyse All of the interviews were between 50 – 150 minutes. 8 out of 9 interviews were recorded and transcribed by the author with interviewees’ consent. Transcription started right after the interviews to achieve best possible results (Bryman, 2015, p86). The interviews were transcribed by the author, which according to Heritage (1984 cited in Bryman, 2015, p479), is a way to correct the natural limitation of the interviewer’s memory; examine thorough and able to repeat the interviewees’ answers; allow the data to be used; prevent potential accusation or biases. In addition, transcribing interviews immediately after conducting allowed review of the whole process, collecting data, and learning new things to develop in the following interviews. Especially as the role of interviewees in the cultural heritage community differ but to a certain extent, connected together, reflecting after an interview allowed the author to add more in-depth questions in the next interviews with others.

Without supporting audio transcription software with Vietnamese language, transcribing was incredibly time-consuming. However, by relistening and taking time to comprehend an interviewee’s viewpoint and reflecting with others', it facilitated sorting out information from interviews into main themes. As conducting interviews, the interviewer had to do different tasks, such as keeping the dialogue on track, engaging interviewees in the interview, and even giving examples when necessary; therefore, reviewing the interview allowed the interviewer to figure out new insights. In addition, as reflecting the whole interview, the interviewer was able to analyse

18 how and why points were made by interviewees, and whether there are connections between those answers as the consistency of the interview. Besides, during the interviews, new and in-depth perspectives pointed out by interviewees, not in the question outline, were placed aside, later brought up with other interviewees. If there were mutual concerns, those points would be discussed as sub-themes in the study. By doing that, the study’s objectives were analysed from a holistic view based on main themes. The data was later analysed based on relevant literature and used to examine stated arguments.

2. Cultural heritage Cultural heritage has been defined through numerous official documents (proclamations, recommendations, conventions, charters, and codes) of UNESCO, ICOMOS and at different levels (regional, national, multinational organisations). It is evident that the concept of culture has the history of being viewed through a Western-oriented lens with its values and norms (Barthel- Bouchier, 2012, p11; Marie-Theres & Ringbeck, 2015, p174), and heritage concept is known to have originated from Western (Vecco, 2010, p321); therefore, it is unavoidable that these definitions were criticised on its lack of adequate and emphasising on materials (Ruggles & Silverman, 2009, p5).

Following this direction, issues around defining cultural heritage will be discussed in this section. In the first half, relevant documents contributing to a comprehensive definition of cultural heritage will be discussed. The issue relates to intangibility will also be investigated regarding two kinds of cultural heritage – tangible heritage and intangible cultural heritage. In the second half, I argue that in order to define accurately cultural heritage, the notion of authenticity should not be disregarded; instead, it needs to be determined with concerning factors involved.

2.1. Defining cultural heritage 2.1.1. Existing definition Cultural heritage has been through a long history of transformation processes. It widely ranges from purpose of protecting cultural heritage in different historical contexts to keeping up with new occurred understanding in cultural diversity, shifting orientation, and intangible expressions (Ruggles & Silverman, 2009, p3). The aim is to adapt circumstances, and to have an inclusive and coherent definition of cultural heritage.

Tracing back to the early beginnings, in the 1904 Madrid Conference and the 1931 Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments, the need to protect artistic and archaeological fabric was stated although without the detailed defining the concept of heritage (Vecco, 2010, p322). The Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Hague Convention) was adopted in 1954 with the need for preservation of cultural property in times of war. However, cultural property was defined very broadly as “movable and immovable”. Later, in 1964 the ICOMOS International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of

Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter) which underpinned for restoration and preservation with a set of principle (Ahmad, 2006, p293), a definition of heritage is given for the first time (Vecco, 2010, p322), and recognized that the new additional material could be used to preserve the monument; however, the distinction with original fabric needs to be clear in order to respect historic evidence (Ruggles & Silverman, 2009, p4). After that, in 1972, a static definition was provided by UNESCO’s Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention) which is considered as the most successful of all UNESCO conventions in recognizing heritage as a set of cultural heritage (monuments, the wholes, and sites), and natural heritage (geological or biological formations striking for their beauty or scientific value). Nevertheless, culture, heritage and identity were solely interpreted in material terms until the Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policies in 1982. This declaration acknowledged the transformation process from the material understanding of heritage to including intangible expressions in cultural terminology; and recognized identity-developing function of culture (Marie-Theres & Ringbeck, 2015, p156). However, although the human actor had occurred in previous charters and documents, the preservation work still focused on tangible aspect, until UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Cultural and Folklore in 1989 in regard to the impact of industrialization and mass media on traditional patterns of culture (Ruggles & Silverman, 2009, p8). This recommendation called for the international cooperation in heritage conservation, also adopted the new understanding of sustainability from the Brundland Report (UN, 1987) (Marie-Theres & Ringbeck, 2015). The ICOMOS Nara Document on Authenticity (1994) then put cultural property in consideration of culturally context; and authenticity was acknowledged that not only as the initial stage of objects but also by attributed meanings. In this document, the cultural differences between East and West was recognized, as well as cultural diversity and the role of the community (Akagawa, 2015, p115). After that, besides natural and tangible heritage, intangible cultural heritage (ICH) has been included officially in the definition of cultural heritage in 2003 UNESO’s The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICHC), as it follows:

The intangible cultural heritage means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and

groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. (Art.2)

ICH is manifested inter alia in the following domains:

(a) Oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage; (b) Performing arts; (c) Social practices, rituals and festive events; (d) Knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; (e) Traditional craftsmanship. In the 2003 Convention, cultural understanding was put forward, and developed with inclusions from previous declarations and conventions, intangible expressions also were seen as part of heritage and cultural contextualization was taken into account. In regarding to the relation between heritage and identity, establishing of the 2003 Convention succeeded fully embrace the global diversity of cultural heritage from geographical point of view, and stepped forward in cultural understanding and conservation. It supplemented previous documents with new understanding in cultural development.

In the table below, related documents contributing to the 2003 Convention is summed up to demonstrate the shift in focus and adopted new understandings according the needs of each historical contexts.

1904 1931 1954 1964 1972 1982 1989 1994 2003

Type Madrid Athens Hague ICOMOS UNESCO UNESCO UNESCO ICOMOS Nara UNESCO Conference Charter Convention Venice Convention Declaration Recommendation Documents Convention Charter Notion Restoration Restoration Protection Conservation Protection Cultural Safeguarding Acknowledgement Safeguarding & Restoration policies

Focus Ancient Historic Cultural Monuments & World Policies Traditional Cultural property Intangible buildings monument property Sites heritage Cultural & Cultural Folklore Heritage

Context Abandonment Disappearance Damage in Industrialization armed & mass media conflict

Orientation Western Western Western Western Eastern Eastern & Western

New Movable & Increased Cultural Intangible International Including cultural Intangible understanding immovable tolerance to heritage & expressions cooperation context Cultural change Natural Heritage Heritage Identity- Responsibility for Authenticity developing sustainable Outstanding function of protection Inclusion of universal culture attributed meanings value Source: Elaboration of the author Table 2 The extension of cultural heritage concept

According to the table above, it can be seen that when dealing with cultural heritage, the historical context and purpose when documents establishing, play a crucial role in defining, evaluating, and setting the primary object of preservation. In the early stages, due to the influence of Western view and conservation purposes in that period was to protect historical monuments as much as possible (Havinga et al., 2020, p282; Vecco, 2010, p324); the aim, therefore, focused heavily in maintaining the material. Later, value was acknowledged that not only lay in the material of the building but also in the interrelationship between built form and sociality. That understanding lifted the strict on maintaining physical object and accepted new material retaining historical meaning and original purpose. The acceptance of renewal of material culture or continuing the original value was evident for the preservation process's inclusion. It was not only about maintaining the material aspect of an object but also the extendable value in it. The understanding of cultural heritage then was advanced by determining its authenticity. Since then, ‘authentic’ does not merely mean ‘original’, moreover, the cultural context and attributed meanings to cultural heritage also need to consider in measuring it. According to Ruggles & Silverman (2009, p8), the feeling to an object as its attachment can be strong as much as even when the object no longer exists but the value is still remained. Therefore, ICH is not merely a new kind of cultural heritage, moreover, “it presents a radical paradigm shift from the objective nature of material culture to the subjective experience of the human being” (ibid., p11).

2.1.2. Redefine I argue that there is a need to redefine cultural heritage since the existing definitions are inclusive, yet inexplicit in determining its nature. This ‘gap’ may cause imbalance in orientation, then result in erroneous focus and confusion in conservation work when implementing the terms in practice.

Firstly, although establishing late, compared to the World Heritage Convention 1972, the 2003 Convention was quickly accepted worldwide (Marie-Theres & Ringbeck, 2015, p154). In short period of time (2008-2013), 327 expressions of intangible cultural heritage from 98 countries was inscribed on the list, that number was “remarkable” compare to the World Heritage Convention 1972 (ibid.). As of July 2020, 180 states out of 195 UNESCO Member States have ratified, approved, or accepted the convention (UNESCO’s website).

(Source: Intangible Cultural Heritage, UNESCO’s website)

Marie-Theres & Ringbeck also notice that at the beginning, except for China, France, India, Japan and Spain, the major countries were seeking to be inscribed in the ICH list are those that are still under-represented on the World Heritage List. Therefore, they argue that the Convention was published attempt to “vitalize” those countries’ culture (Marie-Theres & Ringbeck, 2015, p154). As discussed above, focusing on physical appearance of heritage has been criticized due to Eurocentric viewpoint; however, there are concerns about the focus has been shifting extremely towards on ‘Asiacentrism’, which is evident in increasing number of inscribed intangible heritages from Asia (Havinga et al., 2020, p285; Marie-Theres & Ringbeck, 2015, p154).

Secondly, ICH in fact, is not ‘intangible’ per se, in terms of its appearance. Performance, practice, melody, language or knowledge can be restored, recorded into documents, or formed in objects. With the acknowledgment of intangible expressions of cultural heritage, UNESCO meant to point out the new kind of cultural heritage to separate and distinguish with the material form of heritage which had been known as cultural heritage. However, by defining it as ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage’, the consequences may result in leading preserve the wrong ‘thing’.

Since ICH can be documented into objects, which means that in this sense, it is material. The immaterial aspect here, is the underlying value and constantly conducting by people who generate this type of heritage. Thus, if focus on the ‘cultural forms of intangible heritage’ it falls into the trap of protecting the material, instead of immaterial – value, meaning, dynamic element and then ‘protect it as found’ not enhancing further development. As Kurin (2007, p13) claims, “if a form of ICH is living it will, by definition, change over time”, thus ‘living’ in this sense, needs to be understood as keep changing as the way to stay alive; the form, therefore, need to be changed to keep up with it. In other words, it can be argued that both tangible heritage and ICH have tangible and intangible aspects in them. Tangibility in case of tangible heritage is material objects, buildings, and sites; and with ICH, is documents, objects. Intangibility is the underlying values, meanings, and dynamic element which make heritage valuable and create its significance.

Therefore, I argue that by defining and dividing cultural heritage into tangible heritage and intangible cultural heritage, UNESCO has lessened the intangibility in both concepts. In the case of tangible heritage, the intangible aspect (historical value, spiritual value, etc.) might be disregarded and stressed on the material protection instead of finding a way to maintain both tangible and intangible aspect. In ICH’s case, setting the word ‘intangible’ to identify this type of cultural heritage, however, as in tangible heritage, intangibility here is not merely understood as its form but in fact, the practice performed by people, as Kurin (2007, p12) claims:

“Intangible cultural heritage was, foremost, living heritage as itself practiced and expressed by members of cultural communities through such forms as oral traditions, song, performance, rituals, craftsmanship and artistry and systems of knowledge. ICH was not the mere products, objectified remains of documentation of such living cultural forms (Seitel 2001a). It was not the song as recorded on sound tapes or in digital form, or their transcriptions. ICH is the actual singing of the songs[…]This means that ICH cannot retain its designation as such if it is appropriated by others who are not members of that community – whether they be government officials, scholars, artists, businessmen or anyone else.”

Besides, the semantic issue in the existing definitions also needs to be addressed in terms of how the idea of cultural heritage is conveyed and formed in word, which can be problematic when transferring the understanding.

Firstly, it should be noted that there still is a ‘gap’ in understanding the vision of conservation work. Marie-Theres & Ringbeck (2015, p165) point out that while in the 1972 World Heritage, the term ‘protection’ is used concerning the need to preserve the heritage of humanity for future generations; in the 2003 Convention, ‘safeguarding’ is used to emphasize the dynamic elements of ICH. Nevertheless, according to Titon, (2016a, p10), in the English language, safeguarding connotes preservation, not conservation.

Secondly, as pointed out by Smith & Campbell (2017, p26), there are the tautology of “intangible value” and misrecognition of ICH. According to the authors, using ‘intangible value’, in particular, has become widely and appears to be increasingly in international and national policy documents, academic text and correspondence while the phrase ‘tangible value’ is used less frequently (ibid., p30). For instance, as cited in Smith & Campbell (2017, p31), the preamble of the draft national heritage policy statement of the New Zealand maintains that “heritage values include both tangible value (e.g., archaeological, architectural, or technological values) and intangible values (e.g., traditional, spiritual, symbolic, or commemorative associations” (Archifact, 2014). Therefore, it can be seen that two terms “make sense” when it comes in pairs or be implied when the other is used; otherwise, the interpretation can be confusing. Sedan (2018, p116) claims that cultural heritage can be categorised into “intangible form”, such as folkloric traditions, symbols, rituals and values; and “tangible form” are induvial sculptures and installations in specific representations. However, Wells (2020, p21) argued that there is a contradictory in using words. In terms of language and interpreting the meaning, value is not considered material, so it cannot be ‘tangible value’. Similarly, intangibility is immaterial; thus, it cannot be in ‘form’.

In addition, according to Smith & Campbell (2017, p28), the intertextuality is also a critical issue that needs to take into account since not only how the interaction between the texts but also with things “said” and “unsaid”. ICH itself consists of vague and ineffable elements; thus, an unclear definition can lead to miscommunication and misunderstanding. When taking on meanings in practice, vagueness in words creates room to assumption (ibid.). For instance, ‘intangible value’ may also be used interchangeably with ‘intangible heritage’, and since ‘intangible value’ is considered as a factor constitutes heritage, in other words, intangible heritage becomes the secondary to tangible heritage (ibid., p32). Therefore, in order to determine accurately cultural heritage, these actors involved need to put into consideration.

2.1.3. Intangibility In attempting to translate the significance of the concept of cultural heritage, scholars have tried to determine its underlying ideas to have a better understanding of the two aspects: tangible and intangible (Caust & Vecco, 2017, p1). As discussed previously, the core value of cultural heritage lies in people (Wells, 2020, p21); and according to Smith (2006, p54), heritage a mentality, a way of knowing and seeing; therefore, all heritage is intangible.

In the case of tangible heritage, the limitation in defining cultural heritage first came from the urgency and need for conservation in history, which resulted in giving priority to material and then aim at it as a goal to preserve according to the pressure of certain periods of time. Therefore, it is inevitable the lack of cognition of the intangible aspect in valuing and implementing cultural heritage. It can be seen that acknowledgement of intangibility was later exhibited through the shift from solely focusing on material and maintaining the conditions to tolerance to change and adding new material with respecting historical evidence. For instance, in the Burra Charter (ICOMOS, 1982), the principle for conservation of cultural significance in a site, no longer based on its “intrinsic quality” but “our ability” to recognize the certain values, such as aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value (Vecco, 2010, p323).

In addition, the original purpose of built sites was addressed. As pointed out by Ruggles & Silverman (2009, p3), at an international congress of architects in Madrid (1904), the architects argued that a functional use for historic buildings was necessary; in fact, “in architecture utility is one of the bases of beauty”, and monuments were considered ‘living’ or ‘dead’ based on its ability to serve the original purposes. It can be seen that the intangible aspect had been recognised, in this case, the underlying meaning in the monumental object is human usage which represents “the interrelationship of the built form and human society” (ibid.). Furthermore, the authors claims that in a profound sense, “one of the goals of heritage preservation was to maintain the relationship of a resident community to its patrimony so as to prevent the historic building or precinct from becoming a mere fossil” (ibid., p7).

In the case of ICH, intangibility is understood not only in terms of its expression but also its underlying value and being constantly constructed by people to represent themselves, as the way to keep it viable. Living expressions and traditions are things need to be preserved (Marie–Theres & Ringbeck, 2015, p153). As Kurin (2007, p13) puts,

“If a form of ICH is living it will, by definition, change over time. An art form that might have originated from a peasant’s utilitarian response to a particular need might have grown, over time, into an elite art practiced in a royal court, or have acquired a sacred meaning, only to later become a common skill for making market crafts and trade items, and even later to be transformed into the means of making decorative tourist goods.”

Therefore, the intangibility here should be understood as the constant change and dynamic in interpreting it. As tangible and intangible aspects interdependently constitute cultural heritage (Ruggles & Silverman, 2009, p6; Vecco, 2010, p323), emphasising the importance of intangibility does not imply that the conservation of material is no longer necessary, instead, tangibility indeed needed to take into account and should not be disregarded. Acknowledging the intangibility assists in conceptualise cultural heritage comprehensively and then lays out the foundation in advancing conserve it. Thus, it can be argued that the continuity and viability were understood as extending the purpose of the built heritage in the case of tangible heritage; and as further development in intangible heritage expression. This gives cultural heritage the dynamic in change and contributes to the conservation goals. In addition, another viewpoint for this distinction between ‘tangible’ and ‘intangible’ is in terms of damage. While the loss in a material object can be visible to the naked eye (Barthel-Bouchier, 2012, p10), the intangibility can be tricky to recognise; it may also take us a long time to realise what we have lost. As put by Smith & Waterton (2009, p292), the subject for heritage management, neither the cultural material nor intangible expression as in ICH; in fact, it is the values and meanings that are symbolized and represented through heritage.

Thus, to transmit it “in the full richness” (Venice Charter, 1964), cultural heritage needs to be (re)defined accurately, contextually, inclusively, above all, clearly. Especially from UNESCO, as the organisation that sets and supervises policy at the international and national level, their work impacts how cultural heritage is debated, regulated, and managed, and even how people perceive it, especially with the emerging of globalisation. Therefore, an accurate definition can function as a compass for authorised organisation and even practitioners in finding the direction to preserve and enhance cultural heritage, with as needle always points to its core value. Moreover, in the tourism context, the inscription from UNESCO is perceived as an essential channel in providing information by international tourists to authenticate the value of the heritage (Bak et al., 2019, p919). Additionally, when cultural heritage is used as a resource in the tourism context, confront

30 with new circumstance and external impacts, to some extent, it may need to change. Thus, authenticity is necessary to be determined, not only to hand on to future generations (Venice Charter, 1964) but also in the face of change and maintenance.

Accordingly, in the following sub-section, the issue of authenticity, which in my opinion is defined by the intangible aspect, will be discussed.

Also, as stated above, in my opinion, defining and categorizing cultural heritage into tangible heritage and ICH is not entirely accurate since both types have intangibility in them. Thus, this way of classifying may lessen the intangible aspect in the case of tangible heritage; and in ICH’s case, it may result in solely focusing on maintaining the expression instead of its dynamic in constructing and interpreting. Therefore, in this paper’s scope, mentioning tangible heritage and ICH is according to this understanding.

2.2. Authenticity It would be important to point out that there are two terms of heritage, official heritage and unofficial heritage, which could affect determining the notion of authenticity.

These two terms were introduced by Harrison (2012). Official heritage refers to “a set of professional practices that are authorised by the state and motivated by some form of legislation or written charter” (Harrison, 2012, p14). This includes object, buildings and landscapes are officially chosen, placed on a heritage register and conserved for their significance (Harrison, 2010, p8). Unofficial heritage is used to point out “a broad range of practices that are presented using the language of heritage but are not recognised by official forms of legislation” (Harrison, 2012, p15). This also includes building or objects; however, their significances are valuable for individuals or communities and not legislatively protected by the state; or this term refers to “less tangible ways as sets of social practices that surround more tangible forms of both official and unofficial heritage” (ibid.). In short, the former is heritage recognised and authorised by official forms of legislation, while the latter is not. Another distinction between the two terms is that unofficial heritage could represent a smaller-scale group compared to official heritage, such as local or community level.

In relation to official heritage, Smith (2006, p11) introduced the concept of an ‘Authorised Heritage Discourse’ (AHD), which is dominated by western perception as a set of ideas of heritage

31 which “acts to constitute the way we write, talk and think about heritage”. According to Smith (2012, p537), AHD is “a Eurocentric discourse of expertise that stresses the so-called commonsense aspects of heritage as monumental, material and innately of value to national narratives”. Within AHD, heritage is defined, assessed, and managed based on its framework (Smith & Waterton, 2009, p290). Also, according to Smith (cited in Harrison, 2010, p27), AHD focus primarily on materiality rather than practices or the intangible attachment between people and things.

Thereby, it can be seen that the essential difference between the two terms is its relationship with authorised actors and with people.

Firstly, in the case of official heritage, being authorised registration means that being “set apart from the ‘every day’ and conserved” for its significant value (Harrison, 2012, p14). Being set apart, in this sense, is not only in terms of ‘standing out’ due to the significance assessed by authorised actors, which has been criticised by Smith & Waterton (2009, p300), that AHD emphasises solely on material, monumental, national significance, and privileges the heritage of elite classes. The excluding is also in terms of relationship with its surroundings; as Harrison (2010, p11) states, it becomes ‘outside’ of the everyday. The object, place or practice is separated from its context; consequently, the involvement of people become passively. For instance, as ICH is framed by AHD, although the Convention 2003 aims to support community and other sub-nation expressions of heritage, acting, however, relies on each nation. This has created the disconnect between ICH and its community root in some cases (Akagawa & Smith, 2018, p6). Additionally, AHD removes heritage from its historical context and turns it becomes the symbol, namely, national character, specific time in history, or typical building; by that, heritage’s particular meaning is replaced by “a series of newly created associations” (Harrison, 2010, p28). Representativeness in heritage recognises, in some way, prevent this hegemonic; nevertheless, as Harrison (2010, p26) points out, it “still taxonomic in nature and still involve the production of list heritage.”

Secondly, in terms of value, there is the assumption that heritage is an intrinsic value of an object, place or practice (Harrison, 2010, p25). Thereby, when a thing is defined based on values ascribed by people playing the role of authorised agents, consequently, the process of assessing heritage value is simply “uncovering” the existing value in it (ibid.). Moreover, to qualify for heritage status, things must be evaluated against a series of criteria of values which are asserted by

32 professionals and experts who act upon the state and involved in assessing and managing heritage; and over time, these values become “reasonably fixed and unquestioned” (ibid.). Therefore, official heritage with authorising process is considered as the top-down approach; in contrast, unofficial heritage is created by the bottom-up relationship between people and object, place and practice (Harrison, 2010, p8).

It can be argued that accessibility is different between the two kinds of heritage. Accessibility, in this sense, can be understood as defining, interpreting, using, and constructing. With official heritage, people are limited in (re)identifying since heritage is defined, assessed and managed by fixed criteria by authority actors. Thus, the continuity of heritage is not maintained due to being separated from its base and lack of involvement from people. Accordingly, the value is not constructed constantly by people who generate heritage which, according to Smith (2006, cited Harrison, 2010, p26), need to be “constantly re-evaluated and tested by social practices, needs, and desires.” In the case of unofficial heritage, this process may differ since people could freely access it. Thus, the difference in accessibility in official heritage and unofficial heritage could create a difference in determining authenticity.

The term ‘authenticity’ is known to have originated in museum’s usage for of measuring purpose of an object’s value, whether it “worth the price” or “worth the admiration” (Trilling, 1972, p93). The assessment of authenticity is conducted differently depending on the perspectives used to approach (García-Almeida, 2019, p412). For instance, in the tourism context, interaction between social elements can create complexity in identifying authenticity. One of the criteria for inscribing by UNESCO is to acknowledge not only cultural diversity but also human creativity, therefore, there is a need of authenticity recognition (García-Almeida, 2019, p412; Jokilehto, 2006a, p2). As states clearly in the Nara Document (Article 10, p47):

“Authenticity, considered in this way and affirmed in the Charter of Venice, appear as the essential qualifying factor concerning values. The understanding of authenticity plays a fundamental role in all scientific studies of the cultural heritages, in conservation and restoration planning, as well as within the inscription procedures used for the World Heritage Convention and other cultural heritage inventories.”

Authenticity had been required as a condition, since the designation of World Heritage Sites (UNESCO, 1972) to determine the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). However, the initial

33 criteria used to measure the authenticity mainly focus on an object’s ‘originality’ and ‘physical dimensions’ – design, artisanship, material, and setting (Jokilehto, 2006a, p8; Lawless & Silva, 2017, p149). Although the mission to identify authenticity is clearly stated in the Venice Charter, however, it was reviewed to be aware of Western-oriented definitions and emphasize on permanence which was reduced the concept of authenticity to physical characteristics (Jokilehto, 2006a, p3; Karakul, 2016, p484; Ruggles & Silverman, 2009, p5). In the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994), a more comprehensive set of criteria for authenticity was first introduced, which included the implications of cultural context and intangibility. Authenticity is linked with:

“Aspects of the sources may include form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, and spirit and feeling, and other internal and external factors.” (Article 13)

However, the guideline on authenticity did not appear in the Operational Guidelines for World Heritage Sites until 2005 (Lawless & Silve, 2017, p149). By setting a “universal definition” of ICH and dismissing the concept of authenticity in the 2003 Convention, it created a gap in understanding this term (Su, 2018, p919). In addition, the incompatibility between the notion of authenticity and the viability of ICH was referred to in the UNESCO Sub-Regional Capacity- Building Workshop in 2008 (Karakul, 2016, p484) and later, in 2015, UNESCO articulated in Ethical Principles for Safeguarding ICH that “authenticity and exclusivity should not constitute concerns and obstacles in the safeguarding ICH” (Article 8), which is, in my opinion, a bit confusing and could create contradictions.

In terms of continuity, it can be argued that factors involved, such as human creative and social context, could create unpredictable changes in ICH; thus, defining authenticity becomes more challenging.

But, how can it be possible to carry a thing, fulfil critical accessibility, and freely interpret without acknowledging its authenticity? For instance, in the tourism context, in the face of challenges to change and interaction between social elements, cultural expression should be evaluated regarding its authenticity; if not, it could blur the core value and be distorted. As Heidegger (1993, cited in Jokilehto, 2006a, p5) claims that a truthful and authentic contribution can occur at different degrees of scope, constancy, and lucidity of knowing its truth.

Moreover, awareness of constantly recreating of ICH does not imply that the determining authenticity should be disregarded, instead, it needs to be conceptualized and be defined within the context which it belongs, and without being judged “within fixed criteria” (the Nara Document, 1994, Article 11; Vecco, 2010, p323). Especially in the case of ICH as being embodied in people (Logan, 2007), and the value and significance are not in the heritage itself but in the interaction between the inheritors and its practice (Smith, 2006), authenticity thus, should not be identified based on static historical authenticity (Jokilehto, 2006a, p7). As the centrality of ICH, practitioners’ subjectivities give space for constructing, however, it “should be underscored in the theorisation of the authenticity” (Su, 2018, p921). This understanding impacts not only the conservation work but also people who generate heritage in constructing their cultural identity (Vecco, 2010, p323). Therefore, it is significant and imperative to investigate and conceptualise the notion of authenticity. Also, the understanding of attribute from both tangibility and intangibility to cultural heritage implies that authenticity should be identified based on those aspects.

On the one hand, it can be seen that the acknowledgement of intangible aspect contributes to understanding inclusively the concept of authenticity. According to Jokilehto (2006a, p2) the notion of authenticity has mainly been discussed regarding to the concepts of ‘continuity’ and ‘change’ and the notion of ‘truth’. The aspect of truthful cannot be narrowed down to physical or tangible but also including the intangible aspects and the meaning attributed to physical beings. According to Prof. Paul Philippot, Director Emeritus of ICCROM (cited in Jokilehto, 2006b, p2), “the authenticity of a work of art is a measure of truthfulness of the internal unity of the creative process and the physical realisation of the work, and the effects of its passage through historic time”. Thus, it can be argued that, authenticity is the matter of truthfulness. This truthfulness can be examined in terms of historical evidence as material, also can be determined by people who generate heritage.

On the other hand, it is important to point out that there is a question whether or not, value should be used as criteria to identify the authenticity. Because by doing so, it falls into the trap of “assumptions that value is inherent” and “denies the possibility that how and why things are valued may change over time, and between different people, groups, or stakeholders” (Smith & Campbell, 2017, p31). However, it should be noted that ‘valuable’ and ‘be valued’ are not the same. A thing may not be valued by people at some points of time, it does not necessarily mean that thing is not

35 valuable. According to Su (2017, p37), from constructivist approaches, Stovel (2007, p21) points out that there is discussion over the term authenticity, whether it is a “value in its own right”, or it should be applied as “the ability of a property to convey its significance over time”. It can be seen that, while the former links with the term ‘valuable’, the latter can be interfered as being recognized and decided by people, which relates to the term ‘be valued’. The significance here, can be understood as its original purpose or function, as well as underlying value. In this paper, the term ‘value’ will be used according to this understanding, distinguishing the two term ‘valuable’ and ‘be valued’ when desirable.

Thus, in contrast with the argument of Harrison (2010, p25) that “the idea that heritage is inherent and that its significance is intrinsic to it leads to a focus on the physical fabric of heritage”, in my opinion, there are certain values (significance/ function), which is inherited from the previous stages to the next, namely ‘underlying value’; and they are inherent. Thereby, emphasising on it could shift the focus away from materiality of heritage.

Thereby, the expression and interpretation conveying that value may differ over time and within the community; however, in a more profound sense, a thing is considered authentic as long as it represents the people who generate heritage. The questions are, to what extent, how much “value left” can be considered as “authentic”? And, which value? Also, how to measure such immaterial things? If it is possible, then, by who?

These issues will be investigated further in the next section, especially in the tourism context, where value cognition is made, not only by the host community but also tourists.

Therefore, authenticity is neither for describing ICH nor tangible heritage, but a judgment (Park et al., 2019, p100) and a product in heritage-making process (Su, 2018, p920). Authenticity of an object or expression is defined by its intangible aspects. Based on Jokilehto’s idea about three related issues of authenticity “creative process, the documentary evidence and the social context” (Jokilehto, 2006b, p2), I argue that authenticity can be identified based on one of three criteria:

• Time-constructed: in terms of historical value, which have physical appearance, and can be measured by material evidence.

• Value-constructed: An object or expression can be considered authentic, as long as it composes the original value (historical value, spiritual value, aesthetic value, etc.) or intended purpose, or the value constructed over time while maintain the core meaning.

• Be recognised: by people who generate that heritage, and “to be shared by all individuals as individual” (Kant cited in Brâncoveanu, 2018, p15) that it represents to them through its “aesthetic, historic, scientific, social value, etc” (Vecco, 2010, p323). The object’s intrinsic quality should not be the criteria but the ability of the community to recognise themselves in it.

However, as stated previously, the function of authenticity is not the same between heritage field and tourism field (Smith, 2006, p40; Su, 2018, p923). In the context of tourism, heritage is put in a broader social context, thus, besides museum-linked usage, the notion of authenticity becomes more complex in understanding. In addition, ‘authenticity’ also plays as an essential factor in implementing cultural heritage as a resource in the tourism context, for instance, to attract tourist (Jokilehto, 2006a, p8), and as a measure of product quality and tourist satisfaction (Park et al., 2019, p99). Thus, the notion of authenticity will be discussed further in the following section when cultural heritage is used as a resource in the context of tourism.

3. Cultural heritage in the tourism context As discussed in the previous section, the notions of authenticity and integrity in ICH studies are critically required since the discourses on authenticity influences not only the approach to heritage but also its conservation work. Nevertheless, due to the intersection of two constituted aspects (tangible and intangible), cultural context and constantly changing as ICH’s nature, identifying authenticity becomes an incredibly complex task.

Especially in the tourism context, when cultural heritage is used as a resource and attraction in a destination, the unpredictability in social dimension becomes even more numerous and diverse. Hence the function of authenticity in tourism studies is different from what has been used in heritage counterpart. Authenticity is a vital driving force motivating tourists in heritage tourism, that makes the desire for authentic experience become one of the main trends in tourism (Park et al., 2019, p99; Zhu, 2012, p1496). Thus, defining authenticity in the context of tourism not only enhances the competitiveness of the destination where the heritage is located, but also plays an essential role in promoting ICH as a sustainable tourism resource (García-Almeida, 2019, p418; Kim et al., 2019, p426). In addition, since heritage tourism is considered as a unique sector with the supply that usually precedes demand (Timothy, 2011 cited in García-Almeida, 2019, p413), it is crucial to determine authenticity towards cultural sustainability in a destination.

In this section, cultural heritage using as a resource in the tourism context will be discussed, focusing on the notion of authenticity. First, the notion will be compared and contrasted in two discourses, heritage and tourism. Later, an authentication process will be introduced in which authenticity is understood as a fluid and negotiated concept. Authenticity will be put in an investigation to identify how it is being made as a result of a social process from different perspectives. Tourists and local community, in this sense, not only will be viewed as consumers and suppliers of heritage (Bak et al., 2019, p919) but also in terms of knowledge transfer, they are both senders and receivers; exchange and affect one another. In addition, value is also a complex term since being perceived differently between those actors, which is the main determinant of how authenticity is defined. Besides, regarding authenticating process, UNESCO with the role of “a trustworthy third party” (Bak et al., 2019, p. 919) in the tourism industry will also be examined in this section.

3.1. Authenticity in tourism discourse As stated previously, the function of authenticity is different between heritage and tourism studies. The concept ‘authenticity’ had been examined within tourism studies and approached from different perspectives: objectivism, constructivism, and postmodernism. The distinction between two field studies depends on how the concept is approached: object-related or activity-related.

Firstly, from the object-related approach, which applies in both heritage and tourism studies, authenticity is considered existing in the object itself and can be measured by “an absolute and objective criterion” (Su, 2018, p922; Wang, 1999, p351). Although, according to Stove (2007, p21-22), there still remains confusion in heritage studies that whether authenticity is a “value in its own right” or “the ability of a property to convey its significance over time”. In tourism studies, with object-related approach, namely objective authenticity, refers to the authenticity of originals, “ genuineness or realness” (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006, p299); therefore, the original and the fake as tourism resource are clearly distinguished (Bortolotto, 2007; Hafstein, 2004 cited in Kim et al., 2019, p423). As MacCanell (1973, 1976) claimed when the term authenticity was introduced into sociological tourism studies, there are ‘staged authenticity’ – a limited culture on a front stage, provided by host community to tourist, and ‘genuine authentic culture’ – occurs in the backstage and to which tourists have limited access. However, according to Wang (1999, p351), authenticity in tourism can be differentiated into two separate issues: tourist experiences (or authentic experiences) and toured objects. As authentic experience is understood as the cognition of the originals, then if this authentic experience is made by tourists based on the ‘staged authenticity’ or toured object, therefore, it still can be considered as inauthentic “even if the tourists themselves might think they have achieved such experience” (Wang, 1999, p351-353).

Another object-related authenticity in tourism studies is constructive authenticity which concerns not the originals but the toured objects. Authenticity in this sense, is understood as “the result of social construction”, not in the object itself as being “inherently authentic” (Wang, 1999, p351). As such, according to Culler (1981, cited in Wang, 1999, p251), what tourists’ quest, in fact, is symbolic authenticity. Constructive authenticity depends on individual perspective and interpretation, which refers to the authenticity projected onto toured objects by tourists or tourism producers in terms of their imagery, expectations, preferences, beliefs, powers, and so on (Kim et al., 2019, p424; Park et al., 2019, p101; Wang, 1999, p351). From tourists’ perspectives,

39 authenticity is constructed and projected by their “own beliefs, expectations, preferences, stereotyped images, and consciousness onto toured objects, particularly onto toured others” (Wang, 1999, p355). From local community’s perspectives, authenticity is understood as a “contemporary understanding of the past culture”, where the original ones, which transformed based on contemporary understandings, are still considered authentic (Zhou, Zhang, Zang, & Ma, 2015, p30 cited in Kim et al., 2019, p424). Therefore, “there are various version of authenticities regarding the same objects” (Wang, 1999, p352) since actors tend to bring their own perspective and understandings when interpreting the object. Therefore, according to a sum-up from Park et al. (2019, p100), constructive authenticity is a negotiable (Cohen, 1988), contextually determined (Salamone, 1997) and flexible judgment and/or valuation (Moscardo & Pearce, 1999).

Secondly, from activity-related approach, which mainly used in existential authenticity in social and anthropological studies of tourism, authenticity is identified in the relation with the subjectivity of people through their experience, feelings, and identity (Su, 2018, p923). The ontological perspective in this approach facilitate examining tourist motivations and experiences (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006, p81; Wang, 1999, p350). Authenticity here is understood as a “human attribute signifying being one’s true self or being true to one’s essential nature” (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006, p299), and as a “socially constructed concept” (Cohen, 1993, p374) concerns tourism objects and its actors. Existential authenticity, therefore, refers to a potential existential state of being that is to be activated by tourist activities. Existential authenticity emphasizes people themselves in terms of their identity and experience rather than concerning tourism resource. From this perspective, host communities’ reproduction or alteration of their culture is still authentic because they choose and decide how to present their culture to others. The concept was classified by Wang (1999, p361) into two dimensions: intrapersonal authenticity, which concerns self- making (or self-identity) in a tourism context and interpersonal authenticity, which concerns the relationships between tourists and their families or fellow tourists.

Objective Subjective Approach Object-related Activity-related Objective authenticity Constructive authenticity Existential authenticity Intrapersonal authenticity Interpersonal authenticity Subject Object Tourist Tourist Tourism producers Objective Object itself Toured object Tourist activities Process Cognition of the Authentic experience in The authenticity of authenticity of original tourism & the authenticity toured object & of toured objects existential authenticity Outcome Authentic experience in The authenticity of toured Existential authenticity tourism object Source: Adapted from Wang (1999)

Table 3 Existential authenticity (Wang, 1999)

Authenticity is constructed by the feelings and experience in social processes from both constructive and existential approach; the distinction between these authenticities is the extent of subjectivity. While constructive authenticity is “external of projection of expectations”, existential authenticity involves “internal fulfilment” (Cook, 2010 cited in Park et al., 2019, p101).

It is important to note that these three discourses of authenticity are not on the same level. Objective authenticity is a type of authenticity; existential authenticity refers to a state of being, constructive authenticity relates to “the process of social construction” of the other two types (Cohen & Cohen, 2012, p1296). It can be seen that the individual perspective and subjectivity of actors participating in the tourism context are highly addressed in constructive and existential authenticity. However, the objectivity in objective authenticity should not be disregarded; instead, it should continue to “carry conceptual value” (Behlhassen & Caton, 2006, p855) and functions as a “reference point”, especially in heritage tourism (Chhabra, 2010 cited in Kim et al., 2019).

Authenticity as a ‘state of being’ includes a philosophical aspect of the self in context (the external world) and a reflection of how true one is to oneself in balancing the two-part of one’s

41 being, rational and emotional (Ram et al., 2016, p111). As Heidegger (1996 cited in Steiner & Reisinger, 2006, p303) claims that there are “no enduring self like an object” to be real or not, and thereby, ‘authenticity’ is understood as “being themselves existentially”. As nothing can be authentic all the time, one can be authentic this time and possibly inauthentic in another time. Tourism context is where ‘selves’ are projected and encounters one another; and one’s self has the chance to encounter in more situations than daily life. Authenticity here is reified through the interaction and intersubjective encounter of three selves: practitioners, object, and tourists. Each self is tested in the changed circumstance compare to daily life. Wang (1999, p351) claims that tourists feel they are more themselves and “freely self-expressed than in everyday life because they are engaging in non-ordinary activities, free from constraints of the daily”. ‘Self’ of tourists is brought into the context when they compare their ‘self’ (history, value, cultural heritage) with culture in the destination. ‘Self’ of an object can be understood as itself as in objective authenticity or toured object where it is shaped by the recreation of practitioners and tourists’ understandings. ‘Self’ of practitioners is changed depending on circumstance. Since role-playing in daily life can cause the loss of identity that comes with inauthenticity; thus, tourism gives them opportunities to them distance from their norms and look at their life from different perspectives (Turner, 1973; Brown, 1996; Handler, 1986 cited in Steiner & Reisinger, 2006, p306). By doing that, they will be able “to live and know the self in other ways” (Neumann, 1992, cited in Wang, 1999, p358) or find an authentic self when they “feel themselves to be in touch both with a “real world” and with their “real” selves” (Handler & Saxton, 1988 cited in Wang, p351).

Moreover, authenticity - this such “slippery” concept (Belhassen & Caton, 2006, p854; Karlström, 2015, p29) has been enriched on its debate by recent understandings both in heritage discourse and tourism discourse. The notion of authenticity has been further developed based on interaction and integration between different factors, for instance as in, performative authenticity, subjective authenticity, and theoplacity authenticity.

Performative authenticity is noticed in both heritage discourse and tourism discourse. While Wang’s existential authenticity (1999) is the “state of being”, performative authenticity emphasises the process of “becoming” authentic (Karlström, 2015, p31; Zhu, 2012, p1495). In heritage discourse, according to Karlström (2015, p31), an object becomes authentic through a process of actively worship the “material past”. The authenticity of a thing is not merely in terms

42 of static science evidence, instead, be created by religious practitioners with the experience of the original and the alternative perception of materiality and preservation. While in the tourism discourse, according to Zhu (2012, p1499), the ‘becoming process’ is examined from practitioners’ viewpoint, through their performance constantly interacting with the external world. Performative authenticity here has nothing to do with objective or constructive authenticity, instead, link to existential authenticity, since the notion of authenticity in this sense resides in the subject – the practitioners.

The centre position of the practitioners in making, interpreting and maintaining their ICH is further emphasised in subjective authenticity. Su (2018, p924) claims that when ICH practitioners “feel more authentic in themselves”, it means that they are already connected with intrapersonal and interpersonal to “a certain extent”. In other words, the practitioner’s subjectivity is the critical attribute of ICH.

From a different approach, Belhassen et al. (2008, p685) attempt to reduce the gaps in three main categories of authenticity by integrating these notions in theoplacity authenticity. The authors argue that authenticity is the combination of “the elements of place, belief, action, and self, which exist in dialogue and which act together to produce the complex notion of authenticity”. It can be seen that in this understanding, the objective authenticity is not dismissed; also, the importance of the social factor in both constructive authenticity and existential authenticity is clearly demonstrated. To give a better understanding, the table below is summed up of mentioned concepts of authenticity in heritage discourse and tourism discourse.

Heritage discourse Objective Objective Object- authenticity Performative related Constructive authenticity Theoplacity Subjective authenticity Subjective authenticity Activity- Existential Performative authenticity related authenticity authenticity Tourism discourse Source: Elaboration of the author

Table 4 Authenticity in heritage discourse and tourism discourse

As discussed above, authenticity is the ability to convey the ICH’s value (Su, 2018, p924), a self-judgment (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006, p311). Therefore, it can be argued that authenticity is a self-judgment based on the ability to convey the value of an object or expression. In the tourism context, this judgement is made by both locals and tourists. In this context, the term ‘authenticity’ is not solely understood as original; instead, being constructed by people participating in tourism activities through their perspectives, and interpretations. Due to not perceiving ICH from the same position, the authenticity judgment proceeds differently between them. Moreover, their perceptions on what constitutes authenticity may also differ. Therefore, in order to investigate how the judgment is made on authenticity and whether there is a difference between two sides - local and tourists, it is crucial to identify the process by which authenticity is constructed from their perspectives, which according to Cohen & Cohen (2012, p1296) still remain understudied. Due to its “deeply affect” all parties involved in the tourism context (García-Almeida, 2019, p412), understandings of authentication process facilitates determining core issues in authenticity’s perception of tourists and locals, which may affect one another; as well as its impact on ICH interpretation, if any.

Authentication can be seen as a social process (Cohen & Cohen, 2012, p1296), and since authenticity is a self-judgment based on the ability to convey the value in ICH, in order to designate something authentic, it requires ‘value cognition’. Therefore, based on the conceptual approach from Cohen & Cohen (2012, p1298) on two processes: “cool” authentication and “hot” authentication, and incorporating with understandings of knowledge transfer (García-Almeida, 2019) and value cognition (Su et al., 2020), I propose a authentication process of ICH – a social process of three stages: knowledge transfer, value cognition and authenticity judgment (knowledge transfer  value cognition  authenticity judgment). This process can be proceeded differently between tourists and local community since their perceptions of heritage value and authenticity are not the same.

In the following sub-sections, first, the overview three stages in the authentication process will be interpreted; and later the authentication process will be investigated separately from tourists and local community perspective.

3.2. Authentication process 3.2.1. Knowledge transfer García-Almeida (2019, p410) claims that the authentication, in fact, is the knowledge transfer process through museums, trained tour guides, from practitioners to tourist, and over generations (intergenerational transfer) in the local community. The process can either enhance or destroy authenticity. The knowledge transfer processes, in this case, is not a mere transfer of knowledge per se; rather, receivers construct the knowledge by integrating the inputs and their prior knowledge. This understanding of knowledge construction is likewise related to constructive authenticity and existential authenticity when both tourists and locals interact their knowledge with one another. The author also points out that ICH has a vital knowledge element due to its complexity, which makes transmitting the underlying knowledge as its authenticity becomes challenging in tourism development.

In terms of knowledge transfer, this understanding is in line with the Cohen & Cohen’s authentication process:

Criterion Cool authentication Hot authentication Basis of authority Scientific knowledge claims, Belief, commitment, devotion expertise, proof Agent Authorized person or institutions No single identifiable agent, performative conduct of attending public Approach Formal criteria, accepted procedures Diffuse and incremental Role of public Low, observer High, imbricated, participatory Practices Declaration, certification, Ritual, offerings, communal accreditation support, resistance Temporality Single act, static Gradual, dynamic, accumulative Conducive to Objective authenticity Existential authenticity personal experiences of

Continuance Dependent on credibility of agent Reiterative, requires continual (re)enactment Impact on dynamics Stagnating effect, fossilization Augmentative and of attraction transformative Source: Cohen & Cohen (2012, p1303)

Table 5 Cool authentication and Hot authentication (Cohen & Cohen, 2012)

3.2.2. Value cognition It is essential in talking about value to note that there are two issues regarding understanding the term ‘value’ in value cognition that needs to be clarified to answer questions pointed out by Havinga et al. (2020, p285), ‘what is valued’ and ‘why it is valued’ (McClelland, 2013) and ‘why it is valuable’ and ‘how valuable it is’ (Fredheim & Khalaf, 2016), which often intersect and used interchangeably.

Firstly, value of cultural heritage, according to Throsby (2010) & Velthuis (2008) (cited in Su et al., 2020, p810), can be divided into economic value and cultural value. Cultural value consists of social value, historical values, aesthetic values, spiritual values, and symbolic values (Avrami et al., 2000). According to Su et al. (2020, p826), economic value is viewed as tangible, while the rest are considered as intangible values, which are “difficult to quantify”.

I argue that ICH does not have economic value itself, rather, the cultural value in it can transform into economic value. In other words, cultural value in ICH can bring economic benefit by using ICH as a resource in practice. For locals, economic value is demonstrated as benefits gained from tourism activities, and for tourists, economic value is shown by their willingness to pay when perceiving and measuring cultural value.

Secondly, value here is understood differently between locals and tourists. Also, as discussed in previous section, ‘valuable’ and ‘be valued’ are not the same.

From the local community’s perspective, referring ‘valuable’ - it is the ‘underlying value’ made by the intangible aspect, which practitioners see as representative themselves (Bessière, 2013, p278). Likewise, Jokilehto (2006a, p11) claims that culture identity of a community is formed by its value and significance through a negotiated process within the society. As Havinga et al. (2020, p284) point out:

Significance can be defined as “a combination of all the values assigned to an object”. Such a value is an “aspect of importance that individuals or a society assign(s) to an object”. […] This heritage value is assigned or attributed to so-called “attributed”, “which are also referred to as features”. Therefore, the attributes indicated the “what”, the things currently conveying or representing the cultural values. The values indicated the “why”.

However, on the one hand, this underlying value (‘valuable’) seems to maintain. On the other hand, how a thing is valued may change over time (Smith & Campbell, 2017, p31). This will be discussed further in the next sub-sections.

From tourists’ perspective, value here can also be separated into ‘valuable’ and ‘be valued’, which is ‘expected value’. While the term ‘valuable’ refers to the underlying value mentioned above, the term ‘be valued’ regarding how a thing benefits them. Tourists may or may not recognise the underlying value (‘valuable’) same as locals, which mainly depends on the knowledge transfer stage.

Therefore, authenticity is not a value per se; instead, the value needs to be identified in order to determine authenticity.

3.2.3. Authenticity judgment According to Xie (2011 cited in Cohen & Cohen, 2012, p1297), designating something as authentic relates to issues of power which including crucial stakeholders in the process, namely governments, tourism business, tourists and ethnic communities. In this study, acknowledging knowledge transfer, cool and hot authentication, and value cognition which discussed above, I argue that locals and tourists indeed involve in identifying authenticity, consciously or unconsciously.

In the authentication process, the judgement on authenticity is made after two stages - knowledge transfer (as in cool authentication and hot authentication) and value cognition. While cool authentication is about static evidence related to objective authenticity, hot authentication links with the interaction between social actors at the destination, which refers to constructive authenticity and existential authenticity. Nevertheless, since constructive authenticity regards the process of social construction on meaning-making, it spans from cool authentication to hot authentication.

In other words, in terms of timeline, authenticity judgment, in fact, is the result of pre- authenticity and on-site authenticity. While pre-authenticity is mainly about cool authentication, on-site authenticity emphasises interaction and reflection at the destination.

Pre – authenticity On-site authenticity Authentication Cool authentication Hot authentication process stage Objective Constructive Existential Outcome authenticity authenticity authenticity Knowledge Ongoing Ongoing Expectation transfer Value Reflective Ongoing Perception cognition Authenticity Reflective Reflective Decision judgment Source: Elaboration of the author

Table 6 Authentication process

According to the table above, it can be seen that there is no clear divide between the knowledge transfer stage and the value cognition stage. Knowledge is transferred before and during the trip, with the outcome is the expectation. At the value cognition stage, the coolly authenticated knowledge is tested (revise or built-up) through hotly authenticating; this is when the perception of authenticity occurs. Later, the decision on whether a thing is authentic or not is made as a reflection from previous stages.

However, notions of authenticity mentioned above are investigated from local’s perspective as people who generate heritage; I have not found related studies are viewed from tourists’ viewpoint – where tourist see themselves as subjective position, thereby their perception on objectivity, subjectivity may differ with local’s. Since authenticity judgment from local and tourist affects one another, it is worth examining both sides, especially in the case of performative authenticity regarding the process of becoming authenticity.

Since authenticity depends on the perceptions of tourists and locals; and “their viewpoints are real in their own right” (Cohen, 1988 cited in Wang, 1999, p355). Therefore, authenticity is a

48 perception in observers’ own right. Authentication is defined as a process by which something – an object or performance – is confirmed as “original”, “genuine”, “real”, or “trustworthy” (Cohen & Cohen, 2012, p1296). In the next sub-sections, the authentication process will be investigated from both tourists’ and local community’s perspectives.

3.3. From tourists’ perspective It can be said that to identify whether an object is authentic or not and ‘how authentic’ it is, it depends on which perception is used to ‘measure’ authenticity. In the tourism context, tourists play an essential role in the destination’s development. Not only in terms of economic contribution or environmental impact but, their perceptions also have a significant impact on the destination’s culture.

3.3.1. Knowledge transfer At this early stage of the authentication process, the knowledge transfer can be divided into the Cohen & Cohen (2012) cool and hot authentication.

Firstly, according to García-Almeida (2019, p412, 415), the first knowledge transfer process occurs when tourist searching information, obtaining data, insight about ICH at the destination before the trip and information is transferred from a source or sender to a receiver through different channels. These channels range from unofficial (tour operator, travel agents, travel websites, material, people who have experienced) to official (who issues certifications, accreditations), namely authorized institutions as in Cohen & Cohen (2012)’s cool authentication. Information from other tourists who have experience at the destination also can be seen as hot authentication, even it is provided before the trip due to it “tends to be customized as a result of the interaction with the potential tourists” and “include in their message their perception or even feelings about its authenticity” (García-Almeida, 2019, p415-416).

Regarding cool authentication, Cohen & Cohen (2012, p1299) point out that according to MacCannell (1976, p14), in the tourism domain, “the level of authentication is very low” compare to other domains, such as art or medicine; and tourism products “rarely formally certified” “as genuine or original”. According to the economic framework about search and experience goods from Klein (1998), García-Almeida (2019, p415) states that the ‘intangible’ nature of ICH causes tourists to be uncertain about the potential satisfaction; in particular, ICH’s performance can be recreated and constructed over time, therefore compare to tangible heritage, ICH is less

49 informative. In this case, UNESCO can be seen as an important channel in this knowledge transfer process. In the study about the tourism-enhancing effect of being inscribed on the UNESCO List, Bak et al. (2019) state that the difficulty in measuring the value creates the information gaps about ICH compared to tangible heritage due to its cultural context. This makes identifying attractiveness challenging, which is essential to identity in developing a tourist destination (Park, 2019, p100). Therefore, the authors also argue that UNESCO's inscribing even matters more, likely to gain more benefit in terms of attracting tourists (Bak et al., 2019, p917, 925). It can be seen that in the tourism context, the inscription has a remarkable impact on tourists’ decision, or even as an “important marketing tool” (Caust & Vecco, 2017, p1).

Secondly, according to Cohen & Cohen (2012, p1301), while cool authentication is typically constituted by single acts, hot authentication is built up gradually, in an ongoing process. It can be seen that, based on the information before the trip, tourists may already have their own expectation and perception of authenticity; however, it is constructed in knowledge transferred through toured object and locals at the destination. As pointed out by García-Almeida (2019, p416) that tourists’ perception of authenticity then increases by learning at the destination (Van Winkle & Lagay, 2012) and “the message of authenticity can be reinforced in ‘at destination’ referrals” (Wang et al., 2006).

3.3.2. Value cognition Tourists’ perception of ICH authenticity is affected by their value cognition (Yi et al., 2018 cited in Su et al., 2020, p808). Value, thus, needs to be recognised for them to determine something is authentic. According to Wang (1999, p355), authenticity is constructed and projected by one’s “own beliefs, expectations, preferences, stereotyped images, and consciousness onto toured objects, particularly onto toured others.” It can be seen that tourists’ prior knowledge before the trip be tested with the on-site knowledge where they have interaction with local and then hotly authenticated their expectations.

From tourists’ perspective, it should be noted that the term ‘value’ here can be understood as ‘be valued’ (which is expected to benefit them) and ‘valuable’ (as underlying value). As discussed previously, tourists may recognise one or both types of value, depending on the knowledge transfer stage. Thereby, this expectation of value (be valued and/or valuable) influence their perception of authenticity.

Here, there could be two scenarios.

One, before the trip tourists do have expectations created from the knowledge transfer stage, then the value cognition stage is when those expectations are compared with the reality, and later authenticity is judged based on all that information (Knowledge  Value  Authenticity).

Another one, no research is conducted, or no information is received before the trip; in this case, the authentication process may proceed the other way around. The knowledge transfer now is conducted at the destination; any information is provided authentic will be received authentic as that by them. The value is also recognised at that point. Thereby, by accepting a thing as authentic, knowledge is gained on-site; and value is identified (Authenticity  Value  Knowledge).

3.3.3. Authenticity judgment At this stage, to be able to judge something is authentic, tourists need to compare their expectation with things on-site and see how they fit; then, a perception of authenticity later be created. This expectation and perception are used as a reference for them to make reflection and reach a judgment on authenticity.

Value here could be understood as expected value which may be formed into some sort of criteria. However, as discussed previously, from tourists’ perspective, they may recognise the underlying value as locals (‘valuable’); and/or how things benefit them (‘be valued’), which depending on the process of knowledge transfer stage.

As stated above, authenticity judgment is the result of pre-authenticity and on-site authenticity. Pre-authenticity is object-related and a product of cool authentication process where tourists start building up their expectation. This constructive authenticity extends from cool authentication to hot authentication, where expectation and perception continue being revised and being formed. Then the interaction on-site with locals provide space for existential authenticity.

It can be seen that the knowledge transfer stage, in the case of tourists, plays a crucial role in the authentication process. Not only providing information about the destination, but knowledge in the transferring stage may also influence tourists determining what value to be expected, and later affect defining authenticity.

3.4. From local community’s perspective 3.4.1. Knowledge transfer To young generation. García-Almeida (2019, p413) argues that the young generation in the knowledge transfer process “can feel two opposing forces” due to how they perceive ‘authenticity’. According to Steiner & Reisinger (2006, p299), authenticity can be viewed as a “human attribute signifying being one’s true self or being true to one’s essential nature”. Therefore, the author claims that within the young generation, on the one hand, they reflect a ‘future orientation’ associated with the idea of being true to oneself by carrying the tradition as their understanding in the contemporary cultural environments. On the other hand, they reflect a ‘past orientation’ by “keeping values and cultural elements that the society and relevant groups have embedded” which relates to being true to ‘one’s essential nature’ (ibid.). In order to carry, transmit, and enhance ICH, locals themselves need to identify the heritage significance and underlying value in their heritage. The self-identity here needs to ‘keep pace’ with their ‘self’ in the present, not only the ‘self’ in the past.

It can be seen that two terms ‘valuable’ and ‘be valued’ is the main determinant of the ‘gap’ between generations. In this sense, the authentication process can also be applied to investigate the differences in their reflection and perception of authenticity.

From tourist to local. As discussed above, the knowledge about ICH is transferred from local to tourist through toured objects. However, according to Cohen & Cohen (2012, p1304), the public’s constitutive role is evident in the hot authentication of object, sites or events of touristic interest. Tourists, therefore, play a significant role in constituting, transforming and co-producing the tourist places (Knudsen & Waade, 2010; Noy, 2009; Edensor, 2001; Baerenholdt et al., 2004 cited in Cohen & Cohen, 2012, p1304). As Lacy & Douglass (2002, p 5,7 cited in Cohen & Cohen, 2012, p1305) claim that tourists sites are spaces “within which multiple interpretations of a single ostensible culture can be negotiated, contested and consumed (whether by natives or outsiders)” in “furtherance of cultural, political and economic goals”. A destination can be viewed as a new ‘cultural environment’ for both tourist and locals, where their perceptions of authenticity are tested in a particular circumstance. Tourists’ perception of authenticity is tested with the one before the trip; locals’ is tested with their daily life ones.

In terms of knowledge transfer, in this sense, senders are tourists and receivers are locals, and knowledge transferring is tourist’s perception (their perspective and interpretation) of ICH which possibly affects how local interpret their ICH. Steiner & Reisinger (2006, p310) point out that there are concerns about “host unbale to be authentic because they must pander to tourist expectation” (Boorstin, 1961, 1964); “tourism can affect host cultures” (MacCannell, 1973). However, the authors then claim that the staging pseudo-events can be viewed as being free in “deciding how to present themselves to others”. Likewise, Cohen & Cohen (2012, p1302) argue that existential authenticity can be seen as an “experiential reflection” of participants in the process of hot authentication. In other words, existential authenticity is how perceptions of an object are “hotly” authenticated by tourists and locals. Therefore, “so long as tourism imperative do not mandate certain decisions or certain possibilities, they can encourage authentic engagement with hosts’ destiny and heritage” (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006, p311).

3.4.2. Value cognition In a study investigating how ICH inheritors value their heritage, Su et al. (2020, p825) point out that while tourists measure ICH's value based on their own experience, inheritors evaluate ICH's value based on the contribution of ICH to society. In their findings, value cognition has a positive effect on self-identity and self-identity reflects value cognition. Likewise, Verplanken & Holland (2002, cited in ibid., p824) state that value cognition may constitute an essential part of an individual's concept of self, thereby, foster establishing its identity. Su et al. (2020, p808) also claim that value cognition of an object affects an individual's attitude toward it, and then they tend to adopt a particular behaviour. As people who hold ICH, value cognition can be seen as the most crucial task, especially with the young generation who will in charge of carrying, constructing and enhancing their ICH.

However, as discussed in previous sub-section, value here is should be understood as ‘valuable’ (underlying value) and ‘be valued’ because over time, a thing may be valued differently. Thus, ‘valuable’ is the significance of heritage which, according to Hanvinga et al. (2020, p284), is "a combination of all the values assigned to an object" and that is "the reason for regarding heritage as important, and thus are the reasons for its conservation". From locals perspective, it is the underlying meaning which represents themselves, acknowledge locals "knowing one's self" - know what to carry (authenticity), why to carry (see the value in it) then they can decide how to carry it.

By deciding how to carry it, individuals within the community can decide based on how they value that heritage at the present time. The value is their own value as individuals and the value of their heritage, which is not only the inherent knowledge but also the intrinsic of the object itself. By doing that, they can stay true to themselves and at their essential nature.

In the emerging of globalization, practising ICH is not solely serving the local community; it has been put in the social context with the incursion from the outside world. Moreover, as discussed above, tourists' performances impact the places they participate in and implicate in the proceedings and co-produce it (Cohen & Cohen, 2012, p1304). Since authenticity is the ability to convey the ICH's value, by focusing on the following questions "which attributes represent heritage value, what aspect of the attribute conveys this value, and thus to what extent aspect of this attribute need to preserve" (Havinga et al., 2020, p285), local people can determine what need to preserve, to what extent and what can be changed or adapted. As Kierkegaard (1985 cited in Steiner & Reisinger, 2006, p300) puts it, being authentic is “being in touch with one’s inner self, knowing one’s self, having a sense of one’s own identity and then living in accord with one’s sense of one’s own identity”.

3.4.3. Authenticity judgment In the case of local community, authenticity judgment is also the result of pre-authenticity and on-site authenticity. Pre-authenticity here is understood as in cool authentication, while on-site authenticity refers to hotly authenticated practices (performative authenticity, subjective authenticity, theoplacity authenticity) with or without interaction with tourists.

As subjectivity in conducting performances of practitioners has been taken up a large part in this study, in this sub-section, how a thing is coolly authenticated will be identified to provide a holistic picture of the notion of authenticity from the local’s side, significantly when cool authentication affects authenticity judgment not only directly but also indirectly (which supposed to be subjectively made by local people who generate heritage).

Firstly, according to Cohen & Cohen (2012, p1304), since local community reserve the rights to express themselves in response to the changed circumstance in tourism, tourists’ performance, to some extent, co-produces the destination. It can be argued that the tourists’ perception of authenticity affects how ICH is be implemented. Also, as discussed above, this perception of tourists can be made through two processes: cool authentication and hot authentication. At the pre-

54 authenticity stage, the information tourist received in that period is cool authenticated. That coolly authenticated information constitutes their expectation. Therefore, as a co-producer of the destination, in this sense, cool authenticating indirectly affects how local community interpret their ICH.

Secondly, the destination is also directly coolly authenticated from both the national and international level. Cohen & Cohen (2012, p1307) point out that the power to coolly authenticate that is exercised “from above”. UNESCO has been noted that having “a hegemonic position in the domain of cool authentication”, which give them “power in the selection, preservation and conservation of the potential sites from a basically Occidentalist perspective, often overriding national or local preferences or interests” (Hitchcock et al., 2010 cited in Cohen & Cohen, 2012, p1307). The authors also state that due to the lack of independent authentication institutions in the tourism domain globally, the local government is often in charge of designating something as authentic, which has been criticised by top-down governance and lack of locals involved (ibid.).

According to Steiner & Reisinger (2006, p311), authenticity is “a self-judgement” and “always about free choices” to make; likewise, as Kurin (2007, p12) claims, “ICH cannot retain its designation as such if it is appropriated by others who are not members of that community – whether they be government officials, scholars, artists, businessmen or anyone else.” Nevertheless, as national and international authorised organisations, there are concerns about the locals’ authentication process affected by ‘their opinions’, which have been considered as important materials in the cool authentication process.

4. Sustainability and Resilience As ‘a three-billion-a-day business’ industry (World Bank, 2012, p11), tourism’s economic benefit hardly goes unnoticed with evidence of generated jobs and income. However, there is an increasing concern about social and environmental impacts from tourism activities (Budeanu et al., 2016, p286). The environment in the face of negative impacts on its capacity from tourism activities (Hall et al., 2015, p24; Rutty et al., 2015, p36). In terms of social impact, tourists nowadays do not travel to a place to observe only; they are keen to be engaged with the destination. On the one hand, it fosters understandings of cross-culture and brings a sense of respect to the host destination. One the other hand, to some extent, tourism indeed affects the destination and becomes a part of social and cultural change (Budeanu et al., 2016, p290).

In the last decades, sustainability has become a critical policy framework in development- oriented towards tourism which help frame involved factor’s thinking and planning. Broadly speaking, although it could be defined slightly different depending on different perspectives, sustainable tourism refers to minimise the negative and maximise the positive social, economic, and environmental impact of tourism in a destination. However, not only because attempting to become a sustainable industry, tourism itself is a ‘wicked problem’ due to the interaction of three elements at different scales among internal agents and also external participation. Thus, research on sustainability in tourism can be done based on areas of concerns; due to the paper’s scope, this section will be focused on the social element only concerning cultural sustainability. Applying cultural heritage in the tourism context towards cultural sustainability refers to culture’s capacity to maintain its authenticity, identity in the face of change in the new circumstance, and culture's ‘development’ in adapting and enhancing by transmitting over generations.

Therefore, in this section, in the first half, the overview of the conceptual dimension of sustainable development, sustainable tourism, and cultural sustainability, as well as the integration and interdependence between them, will be given. Later, in the second half, the emergence of the concept of resilience as ‘new sustainability’ and its relationship with sustainability and issues regarding resilience towards cultural sustainability will be investigated. In addition, ‘merit’ and ‘demerit’ of applying resilience understanding in culture will be analysed to answer questions that whether becoming resilient is the pathway to culture ‘develops’ towards sustainability?

4.1. Sustainability and Resilience 4.1.1. Sustainability 4.1.1.1. Sustainable tourism A starting point to this analysis is the most well-known political conceptualisation of sustainable development presented in the World Commission on Environment and Development’s report “Our Common Future” by Gro Harlem Brundtland (1987, p43),

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

The idea of sustainability was built into tourism development by the early 1990s as a result of several interrelated processes. Since the 1960s and 1970s, when the intensive tourism growth was recognised negatively, and later when the societal context supported the focus on environmental concerns and global inequalities, a demand for a guide and limit tourism growth occurred (Saarinen, 2014, p2). In line with the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainable development, sustainable tourism is tourism development that aims to meet “the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future” (World Tourism Organization, 1993, p7). Later, the roles and needs of industry are included in the definition as according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Tourism Organization (WTO), sustainable tourism as “tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities.” (UNEP, 2005, p12; Saarinen, 2019, p17).

It is important to point out that, while ‘sustainable tourism’ refers to fulfil the needs of the industry and tourism actors (locals and tourists), and all are taken into consideration; ‘sustainable development in tourism’ emphases on the destination “which terminologically is seen as respecting the ethical aspects and elements of the ideology of sustainable development” (Lew et al., 2016 cited in Saarinen & Gill, 2019, p18). However, due to involving numerous different factors, there still a lack of an exact definition (Saarinen, 2014, p3; Kim et al., 2019, p425) because the concept can be defined differently depending on which perspective is used to approach. That differences exhibit in the limits to growth in tourism development is shown on the table below:

Background Resource-based Industry-based Community-based Orientation Environment Industry Community (physical) Origin/manifestation Carrying capacity Wise use, Participatory model Product cycle planning Limits to growth Object/ measurable Relative Constructed/ negotiated Resource and system view Static Dynamic Dynamic/ static Time scale Long Short Short-medium Governance Institution Market-oriented Collaboration Source: Saarinen & Gill (2019, p18)

Table 7 Traditions of sustainable tourism and setting the limits to growth (Saarinen & Gill, 2019)

According to the table above, it can be seen that there are contradictory between resource- based and industry-based (or activity-based). The former sets clear boundaries to tourism’s incursion to prevent environment from harming, and tourism actors need to find a way to cope with the environment without significantly changing the resource and its integrity (Saarinen, 2014, p4). The latter emphasize the needs of the industry itself, refers to tourism-centric approaches with economic-oriented and its resource base, where developing is economic-driven and the environment is modified to fit with industry’s purposes without basing one the static interpretation of the limits to growth (Saarinen, 2014, p5; Saarinen & Gill, 2019, p18). Also, the limits in this sense, are not depending on the destination’s capacity and its original resource to absorb tourism, instead, on the industry and its (in)capacity to generate growth (ibid.). This conflict in vision and priority make foster sustainability in tourism can be problematic.

This clash in the relation between resource-based and industry-based can be fixed by utilising participatory planning and collaborative governance thinking from community-based perspective. In this perspective, limits to growth in tourism are put in the broader set of actors than the environmental issues or the industry, and thereby, it is socially constructed based on negotiations and participation (Saarinen, 2014, p6). The community approach creates a broader stakeholder context and collective action for sustainable tourism planning and development, in which host

58 communities and other local stakeholders and the needs to empower them are placed in a central position of the process (Saarinen & Gill, 2019, p19).

4.1.1.2. Cultural sustainability (in the context of tourism) The term cultural sustainability was first introduced by World Commission on Culture and Development (WCCD) in 1995 as “inter- and intra- generational access to cultural resource” (WCCD, 1995 quoted in Axelsson et al., 2013, p217 cited in Thimm, 2019, p207). In the past decade, the idea has been developed by folklorists (e.g., Feltault, 2006; Titon, 2006, 2009 cited in Titon, 2016b, p493). However, culture dimension has received scant attention. According to Suntikul (2018, p1203), the reason is partly because it not explicitly addressed in the three pillars (ecological, economic, and social) of sustainability. Some scholars have proposed that cultural sustainability needs to be considered equal to the three pillars or even as an overarching concept to consolidate their sustainability concerns (Bender & Haller, 2017; Dessein et al., 2015 cited ibid.). Thimm (2019, p207-208) sums up works around the term cultural sustainability. The concept has six principles: material and non-material well-being, intergenerational equity, intra-generational equity, maintenance of diversity, precautionary principle, maintenance of cultural system, and recognition of independence (Throsby, 2013); and seven storylines: heritage, vitality, economic viability, diversity, locality, eco-cultural resilience, and eco-cultural civilization (Soini & Birkeland, 2014). Since, cultural sustainability is still a new concept and broad in its interpretation, it has small portion in tourism studies (Thimm, 2019, p208).

According to Saarinen & Gill (2019, p17), “sustainability is a desired state with three core principle need to take into consideration – holism, intergenerational equity, and intrageneration equity”, the term ‘cultural sustainability’ therefore should be build up based on this understanding, especially in the tourism context. As indicated in the table 7 above, it can be argued that cultural heritage in the context of tourism can be viewed and managed from two perspectives: resource- based (as human resource) and community-based.

Firstly, from resource-based perspective, I argue that the resource in this sense is local community’s cultural heritage.

According to Saarinen (2006, p1127), the notion of resource-based sustainability should not narrowly be perceived as purely environmental issues; instead, it consists of social, cultural, political, and economic matters which can be compared and evaluated concerning touristic and

59 non-touristic condition. Likewise, Muler-Gonzalez et al. (2018 cited in Higgins-Desbiolles, 2019, p15) state that in relation to carrying capacity and social exchange theory, the resource is understood not only physical but also social and cultural.

On the one hand, in terms of being constantly socially constructed, in a way, culture is infinite. However, on the other hand, culture is also an unrenewable resource (‘unrenewable’ in this sense should be understood as its authenticity or underlying value), since it is embodied by people, losing the underlying value could change at its core nature. In that way, culture would be destroyed and disappeared. As resource-based perspective refers to the limits to growth for tourism activities without harming nature resource; cultural heritage, thus, also needs to be preserved/perceived as ‘a nature resource’ by setting limits to ‘incursion’ of tourism; otherwise, it could be harmed by tourism activities.

Moreover, as representing people identity, heritage has been viewed as a social preoccupation in the centre of tourism development politics and the source of specificity (Bessière, 2013, p275). Nevertheless, as Saarinen (2014, p5) pointed out, industry-based development is not primarily based on the static interpretation of the limits to growth; instead, the environment is often modified to suit the industry economic development purpose. Accordingly, when cultural heritage is used as a resource in the tourism context, industry-driven development could pose a risk on it. The impact would be easily going unnoticed at the beginning, but it will increase over time. Additionally, the impact on society is not that evident as in the ecological environment, and it may, at first, be explained on behalf of adapting the new environment or culture promoting purpose.

Furthermore, according to Buckley (1999, 2003 cited in Saarinen, 2006, p1127), the limits to growth and impacts are evaluated based on the resource used in tourism and “the assumed or known natural or original (non-tourism) condition”. However, it is not always easy to identify the original non-tourism of the resource and distinguishing between changes caused by tourism activities and others (natural or human-induced processes) (Collins, 1998 cited in Saarinen, 2014, p5).

In this case of cultural heritage, it can be argued that this issue refers to the notion of ‘authenticity’. Authenticity in this sense does not imply as fixed boundaries as in natural resource; rather, it can be seen as the underlying value of cultural heritage, which should be considered concerning tourism impact. This is in line with Suntikul (2018, p2013) that there still is a ‘culture

60 gap’ in sustainable tourism research about the extent to which culture can be affected in practice. It explains why determining authenticity in cultural heritage is vital to conserve and use sustainably as a resource in the tourism context. Also, as discussed previously, authenticity is not simply static science evidence as in ‘objective authenticity’ but a nuanced concept depending on factors involved. Thus, unlike resource in the physical environment, in the case of cultural heritage, its resource condition and the impact are not evident and challenging to measure.

In addition, as cultural heritage represents people, in some ways, it ‘develops’ based on their contemporary lives and identity. In the same line, young generation may perceive their cultural heritage differently compared to their ancestors, also have their own way to carry the tradition according to their perspective, and how they would 'go with it' in their future. In order to construct their values and norms, they need to decide what elements in heritage can keep, need to be improved, or changed depending on circumstances (Marie-Theres & Ringbeck, 2015, p155). Accordingly, the condition of this (human) resource is changed over time; therefore, it may not stable.

Consequently, the critical question “which impacts are objectively acceptable and to what degree” (Saarinen, 2006, p1127), in the case of cultural heritage, could be problematic, with various types of authenticity as discussed previously.

Secondly, from community-based perspective, as Saarinen (2014, p6) states, while the impact of tourism exists in a physical “reality”, as in the resource-based world; however, in the world of meanings and human preference, whether the change in value and perceptions are acceptable or not, “depends on specific (societal and/or individual) values, attitudes, knowledge and priorities concerning the role and impacts of tourism.”

Accordingly, issues regarding cultural heritage used in tourism need to be put in negotiated relationship with the participation of actor involved, who, according to Saarinen (2014, p6) are “special social, cultural, political, or economic actors who possess sufficient knowledge and power over the chosen indicators and criteria”.

Thus, it can be argued that in this sense, people play different roles in the discourse, use their expertise and perspective to contribute to thinking and planning. This constructive approach gives aiming sustainability the extension and dynamic in limiting the growth; however, the central and

61 priority of the development should be clearly determined to prevent overlap and conflict between actors.

As further claimed by Saarinen (2014, p6), this approach is associated with the issues of power and knowledge. Therefore, it is possible to argue that this is also a matter of responsibility and set limit. Setting limits, in this sense, should be understood as the limitation of actors’ participation. The issue of power should also be in pair with responsibility. Thereby, if CHC is a negotiated and participated ‘team’, involved actors would cooperate. Subsequently, the participation of actors is not only in terms of contributing their voices in thinking and planning; beyond that, their contributions should support one another as in a reciprocal relationship. It only can be efficient if each actor aware of their roles and interaction with other counterparts.

4.1.2. Resilience As discussed previously, the impact of tourism activities is evident. However, such questions, “which impacts are objective acceptable and to what degree” (Saarinen, 2006, p1127; Collins,1998 cited in Saarinen, 2014, p5) and whether those changes can be forecasted in order to develop a mechanism to withstand interfering are still left unanswered.

Both sustainability and resilience have the original concept of idea in ecology. While sustainability emphasises pointing out the limit, resilience refers to change as the constant state in socio-ecological systems (Saarinen & Gill, 2019, p20). According to Folke (2006), engineering resilience represents the narrow interpretation, focusing on the efficiency of function, constancy of the system bounces back to a single and stable equilibrium after resisting disturbance and change. As exhibited in mechanics, for instance, when a spring is compressed and then released (Titon, 2016b, p494). The equilibrium is assumed that exist before a change or disturbance occurs (Saarinen, 2019, p20). The resistance to change as the time returning to the previous state is often addressed in terms of recover (Folke, 2006, p257). However, this theory was criticised because it is different in actual practice where “recovery is affected by the frequency and extent of disturbances and by the spatial heterogeneity of ecological system”, which makes prediction of recovery difficult or even impossible (O’Neill, 1999 cited in ibid.). Also, ecologists realized that there is no external nature supporting bounce back, and maintain the stability of a dynamic, balanced state of equilibrium (Titon, 2016b, p494). Thus, ecological/ ecosystem resilience or social resilience represents a broader, dynamic resilience thinking, focusing on the persistence and

62 robustness of a system in response to change. Resilience here is understood as the capacity to absorb disturbance by undergoing change and still maintaining essential function, structure, identity, and feedbacks (Walker et al., 2004 cited in Folke, 2006, p259; Gunderson et al., 2009, p xiv-xvi cited in Titon, 2016b, p494). In a broader social-ecological context, socio-ecological resilience is based on integrating ecological and social processes, which refers to the idea of adaptation, learning, and self-organisation.

Resilience concepts Characteristics Focus on Context Engineering Return time, efficiency Recovery, constancy Vicinity of a stable resilience equilibrium Ecological/ecosystem Buffer capacity, Persistence, Multiple equilibria, resilience withstand shock, robustness stability landscapes Social resilience maintain function Social-ecological Interplay disturbance Adaptive capacity Integrated system resilience and reorganization, transformability, feedback, cross- sustaining and learning, innovation scale dynamic developing interactions Source: Folke (2006, p259)

Table 8 A sequence of resilience concepts (Folke, 2006)

Adaptive management process is inspired from ecosystems behaviour and ecosystem management, which emphasises “learning to manage by change rather than simply to react to it” (Folke, 2006, p255). From an evolutionary perspective, the vital element of a resilient system is its adaptive capacity (Simmie & Martin, 2010 cited in Saarinen & Gill, 2019, p20) which is crucial in a condition constant state of change (Adger, 2000; Berkes et al., 2003 cited in ibid.). According to Titon (2016b, p495), adaptive management is coupling resilience theory to sustainability encourages the practice. The author further claims:

“Adaptive management identifies the vulnerable and resilient aspects of a system, ecological and/or cultural, formulating strategies to strengthen the vulnerable and promote the resilient. Adaptive management anticipates disturbance, responds to change, and understands that different conditions require different response.” (ibid.)

Adaption to change can be organised as either passive or active adaptive management (Adger, 2006 cited in Saarinen & Gill, 2019, p21). While passive adaptive management learning is based on experienced situations and outcomes of a changing environment, active adaption and adaptive management refer to searching for knowledge and information before decisions and actions are made (ibid.). Therefore, it can be seen that a resilient system not only resists change but also sustain itself by adaptive learning.

Since resilience consists of passive and active learning, resilience thinking may involve a wider aspect of possible change forecast to redesign mechanism that can absorb disturbances. Resilience, thus, is not solely an ability to bounce back to the previous form, but rather give the system the flexibility to adapt to new circumstance and with the change/risk forecast element through adaptive learning, it may create a new balance to resist shock. Resilience in this sense does not imply that lessening the idealistic of sustainability (as the desired state) and make it more ‘manageable’; instead, it should be viewed as giving flexibility in tackling missions. In addition, the forecast ability should enhance the endurance of the system.

4.1.3. Sustainability and Resilience As discussed previously, sustainability is an ideal concept. Therefore, when the concept of resilience was adapted from ecological system to other disciplines, it had been seen as a promising direction. While sustainability and resilience are “highly linked and complementary” (Butler, 2017; Lew, 2014 cited in Saarinen & Gill, 2019, p22), however, there has been discussion on the relation between the two concepts.

Some argue that sustainability is a goal, and resilience is the strategy to achieve that particular stage, and resilience is not a sufficient but necessary condition for sustainability (Espiner et al., 2017, p1390). Others claim that resilience represents the new sustainability (Saarinen & Gill, 2019, p22).

Or, there is no such a thing as sustainability, due to its very idealistic aim? It is something approachable, but we never actually ‘get’ there?

The distinction between the two concepts is shown in the table below:

Resilience Sustainability Origin Ecology Ecology Function Adapt to new circumstance Set fixed limits Type Ability Capacity Capacity Adaptive Carrying Time scale Short-term Long-term Source: Elaboration of the author

Table 9 The distinction between the concepts of resilience and sustainability

Maybe neither sustainability nor resilience is the goal or strategy. Sustainability instead can be viewed as the principle to design developing and function as boundaries of growth’s limit to keep things on track, and resilience gives things the flexibility to change in order to adapt to the new circumstance without losing its core function. Thereby, to develop sustainably, things need to have both – sustainability (fixed limits and core value) and resilience (adaptiveness and flexibility). As a majority of contemporary ecologists claim that in the complex system, disturbance changes, in fact, can be seen as a benchmark and “there is no natural balance at a climax equilibrium point, but rather any number of tipping points that, when passed, bring about regime shifts to different states of temporary equilibria, some more desirable than other” (Pickett & White, 1985, p155-156 cited in Titon, 2016a, p24). Therefore, instead of determining the exact positions of sustainability and resilience in tourism development, there is a need to identify two related issues which impact how the two concepts are perceived and function.

Firstly, as pointed out previously, there are no exact working definitions of sustainable tourism; moreover, defining has been a challenge partially due to the scale of tourism. Essentially, it does not grow, but as a dynamic phenomenon with the fluid of constantly participating of external factors, if critically interpreted, in a way, it grows, which is contrary to the fundamental of sustainable development. In other words, sustainable tourism is required to plan at a growing size or at least at unfixed scales, where tourism is put into a ‘larger ecosystem’, confront the complexity of interaction among system components at the destination and its counterparts. The participation of external agents in a destination, equivalent to those agents turning into internal tourism actors at a larger tourism unit scale. Since management is not merely conducted at a destination but also involved parties, that is the reason the concept sustainable tourism can be seen as a “realistic and

65 suitable target” to achieve at a small-scale (Clarke, 1977 cited in Saarinen & Gill, 2019, p17). In this respect, Daly (1993, p267-268) claims that two terms – growth and development, should not be used interchangeably because the former refers to getting bigger, whereas the latter emphasises getting different. Therefore, as highly influenced by changes in its operational environment at different scales (Saarinen & Gill, 2019, p22), the limit in tourism should not be understood only in setting the boundaries for growth but also in defining sustainable tourism, since if trying to aim at a large and fluid scale, this task would be impossible to address.

Furthermore, the idea of sustainability is not only about setting limits to growth but also the matter of responsibility (Saarinen, 2014, p8). As partly build on the same grounds as sustainability in tourism (ibid., p2), to identify whether something can be resilient, responsibility needs to be clearly clarified among tourism actors. In terms of tourism management, there is a need to identify ‘whose responsibility’ and for what, among actors (Sharpley, 2013, p385). Thus, determining scale also facilitate clarifying involved parties in order to move forward a sustainable tourism concept. For instance, on the one hand, as people who generate cultural heritage, locals have a right to enhance their culture within the community and in the tourism context; also, according to Hill (2011 cited in Suntikul, 2018, p2103), community-level participation in tourism decision-making positively affect cultural sustainability. On the other hand, authorised at national and international levels also need to provide comprehensive policy recommendations in management without interfering with their heritage. Thus, the question is that to what extent local community can control and decide and they need to leave it to experts.

Secondly, at different scales, there are differences in priority. Limiting to growth, using resources sustainably, and sustainable development are ideal but may insufficient. The process, indeed, needs to have a vision to aim. However, solely setting sustainability as the goal itself is extremely broad and, to some extent, vague. Moreover, in principle, sustainability is the desired state when three pillars are developed equally and reach their balance; however, it is different in practice with “the economic pillar is often considered taller than the rest” (United Nations, 2012, p4). Therefore, it can become an impossible task for a private economic driven sector as tourism which economic purpose is in its nature. Balance in three elements is a must, but without clearly determine what is the priority in development can lead development in tourism hardly to achieve its sustainable ‘dream’. For instance, as the earliest understanding of sustainable development -

‘wise use’ (Gifford Pinchot, 1910), in fact, conflict with the fundamental of sustainability since it is designed based on extractive industry-based and their benefit-oriented (Saarinen & Gill, 2019, p16).

Therefore, priorities in tourism development towards sustainability could differ depending on its scale. However, local well-being needs to be placed in the central position, and the development should be towards socially sustainable development.

This is in respect with the proposal concerning just degrowth in tourism introduced by Higgins- Desbiolles et al. (2019, p11). One of the suggestions for a degrowth transition is to re-evaluate and shift value. Thereby, “tourism must be returned to ideas of hospitality and connection” (ibid, p14). In order to achieve sustainability and degrowth in tourism, the attitude towards the relationship between tourists and local community needs to be shifted away from supply/demand as well as seeing tourism as an industry where the focus is solely on products and services. Instead, the well- being of local community needs to be placed in the centred of the development, as indicated in the figure below:

Governments must involve community in decision- making, planning & implementation

Tourism Industry Tourist must Businesses should transition to Local seek social contract mindset of guest Community to do business & rather than Centred negotiated right of consumer tourism access

Tourism Industry Associations & DMOs must transition to service mindset for communities & serve the public good

Source: Higgins-Desbiolles et al. (2019, p12)

Figure 1 Community-Centred Tourism Framework as a mechanism for degrowing tourism

4.2. Can culture be resilient? Or needs to be resilient? In ecosystem, resilience approach used to be understood as “endangered renewable resource would naturally recover when harvest rates were reduced to a more sustainable level” and “such recovery was predictable under the balance of nature paradigm” (Titon, 2016a, p24). According to ecologists, resilience is the ability to recover from a shift regime of “a desirable equilibrium to a less desirable one” (ibid., p23), and sustainability can be seen as the old “balance of nature” equilibrium paradigm. However, such ‘resilience is new sustainability’ perceptions are hardly accepted among conservationists and who working in culture discourse (ibid., p24). Ecologists also emphasise that measuring how resilient a system is, based on how quickly and fully it returns towards its previous state. However, they further state that it does not mean bouncing back entirely to the previous state; in fact, it consists of change. The important key to note here is that “a resilient system recovers to the point where it is able to retain sufficient integrity to keep performing its core functions” (Gunderson et al., 2009 cited in Titon, 2016a, p23). According to Titon (2016a, p23) and Folke (2006, p255), resilience thinking means living with a degree of unpredicted factors with considering minimise it by learning from both successes and failure in order to strengthen its resistance. Resilience thinking, thus, requires adaptive management, which “anticipates and reacts to, changing circumstance, changes in values, and changes in knowledge” and “acknowledge the deep uncertainties of resource management” (Titon, 2016a, p23). Hence, according to the author, resilience in the social realm, represent “a culture’s ability to retain its cohesion while recovering from disturbance” (Titon, 2016b, p494).

Returning to questions stated earlier in this section, can culture be (or needs to be) resilient, whether becoming resilient is the pathway to culture ‘develops’ towards sustainability, according to Titon (2016b, p486), resilience can be seen as “a strategy to help sustain a community’s expressive culture.” Thereby, in the tourism context, resilience of culture can be understood as how culture adapts to new circumstance/environment in response to a social demand from both tourists and locals. The host community needs to absorb tourism to a certain extent as the culturally pure old environment is replaced by the performing environment due to the demand from tourism; accordingly, culture confronts with change and disturbance comes from external and internal agents.

This can be seen as challenges and also opportunities. On the one hand, being given adaptiveness and flexibility in constructing their cultural heritage, practitioners have the ability to convey and performance freely, young generation also have a chance to attach their perspective, thereby, cultural heritage’s values are enhanced. On the other hand, it may become a significant challenge, in the case of culture. A lack of understanding and recognition within the local community can result in misinterpretation, simplification, distortion of expression, fictional representation; creating a ‘brand-new’ cultural heritage from young generation. However, misusing and misleading can be prevented if passive and active learning in resilience thinking is utilised. Adaptiveness and flexibility will function best when understanding and recognising the underlying are perceived as an ‘anchor’ in the new environment. Knowledge from adaptive management also gives the local community the activeness in anticipation of the less desirable equilibrium. Disturbance and change, thus, would not come ‘all of a sudden.’

In the following sub-section, understanding of resilience in culture will be investigated. Hypothesise that culture can be considered as a system; its ‘merit’ and ‘demerit’ will be used to identify how it functions with acknowledgement of resilience. Thereby, ‘merit’ here should be understood as the positive result from applying resilience understanding in sustaining cultural heritage as a desirable state, while ‘demerit’ refers to a less desirable result. I argue that awareness of two sides of the same coin would facilitate implementing cultural heritage as a resource in the tourism context.

It should be noted that there is a slight difference between those pair terms advantage – disadvantage, pros – cons; merit – demerit in my usage emphasise on its co-existing. To the proper extent, it could result in merit; otherwise, the outcome may be its demerit.

4.2.1. Merit Resilience is not merely referred to as a bouncing-back mechanism to resist shocks, but also to the concept of renewals, regeneration and re-organization following disturbance (Bellwood et al., 2004 cited in Folke, 2006, p257) and adaptive learning (ibid., p259). In the context of tourism, culture’s continuity in the face of disturbance, such as incursion from outside world and transmitting knowledge over generations. However, according to Folke (2006, p259), “in terms of recombination of evolved structures and process, renewal of the system and emergence of new trajectories”, disturbance can also be seen as the opportunities.

Firstly, from the practitioners’ perspective, as discussed in the previous section, acknowledging existential authenticity and performative authenticity in the tourism context, with the adaptive capacity of resilience, may give practitioners the ability to convey the dynamic, subjectivity freely, and therefore enhance the values. As put by Matero (2003, p.viii cited in Suntikul, 2018, p2104), conserving ICH does not imply that maintaining its fixed form, but rather “ensuring the continuing contribution of heritage to the present through the thoughtful management of change.” Also, as constantly changing and being socially constructed is at the nature of cultural heritage; additionally, ICH itself embodied by people and determining authenticity lies in their hand; hence, applying resilience thinking can enhance the local community's ownership in terms of practitioners’ subjectivity. As adaptive management consists of passive and active learning, it may resist disturbance and move to a new equilibrium and anticipate change.

Secondly, as Gunnestad (2006) points out when dealing with resilience and culture, it is crucial to focus on the relationship between generations because culture is strongly related to what we receive from a generation and try to pass to the next. Also, the notion of identity is related to the construction based on one’s experiences and value gained through history; in addition, according to UNESCO (2009), ICH is not only about inherited traditions from the past, but also contemporary practices (Marie-Theres & Ringbeck, 2015, p155, 160). Thus, from the local youth perspective, applying resilience thinking may create space for the young generation to preserve their heritage to sustain and transmit.

According to Dangi & Jamail (2016, p10), cultural heritage has the potential to contribute to two dimensions of community empowerment, namely, psychological (foster community pride and self-esteem) and social (contribute to community cohesion and well-being). As a community- based resource, cultural heritage highly implies that the limits to growth are socially constructed. Strong adaptive capability and consistent participation of involved parties are important to build a sustainable community to support changing and managing unpredictable circumstance (Tao & Wall, 2009; Laessoe, 2010; Makelworth & Caric, 2009 cited in Budeanu, 2016, p286). However, as adaptive capacity is the resilience’s significance, in the case of cultural heritage, in order to be resilient (or ‘develop’ toward cultural sustainability), it is critical to determine which parts can be resilient (change, adaptable, flexible) and which parts need to be maintained, since adapting the

71 new circumstance can result in ‘fading’ the core meaning or the essential function, that is in contrast with the fundamental of cultural sustainability and resilience thinking.

4.2.2. Demerit It can be argued that in a fluid dynamic environment, the flexibility of resilience thinking facilitates cultural heritage adapting in a new environment. However, it can also be a two-edged sword of implementing cultural heritage in the context of tourism. Lacking understanding and recognition can result in misinterpretation, simplification, distortion of expression, and fictional representation; or creating ‘a brand-new cultural heritage’ from the young generation. Thus, the matter of ‘authenticity’ plays a crucial role here. As discussed previously, in the tourism context, cultural heritage is in the face of change and disturbance from internal and external factors.

Firstly, from external factors, for tourism purpose, cultural heritage is no longer conducted in a locally pure environment but take place with tourists’ participating. As put by Budeanu (2016, p287), tourism has the potential to contribute to this transformative change by influencing people from different communities and cultures to see the Earth as a global community. The author also states that adaptive ability contributes to a society’s survival and continuation, which “requires re- examination of core values and their expression through social institutions, processes and individual actions”. According to Bessière (2013, p282) the external perspective indeed, affects local’s interpretation and representation. For instance, in an example given by the author, it can be seen as a two-way process heritagisation in tourism promotion. On the one hand, heritage conducting involves processes of specification and qualification aim to meet consumer expectation (ibid.), which can be seen as providing material for cool authentication. On the other hand, the author points out that the legitimisation of heritage in heritage promotion, including not only local recognition but also through tourism’s presence and consumption. Moreover, since tourism is often seen as an industry that principally places more emphasis on the economic dimension and the present context, and with customers’ needs and values are driven factors (Saarinen, 2014, p7), thus, when cultural heritage is used as a resource in the tourism context, economic-driven development and lack of essential knowledge can result in destroying it (García-Almeida, 2019, p410). Therefore, implementing cultural heritage in the tourism context with resilience thinking but lack of authenticity recognition can result in ‘chasing’ to meet tourists’ expectation because of economic benefit and then losing their core values.

Secondly, according to Bessière (2013, p282), shared value recognition among involved actors can be viewed as ‘heritage awareness’, which is in the process of selecting and adopting a cultural heritage, and that is necessary for constructing social value. The author also claims that the sense of collective ownership occurs when presence of external actors (with their perspective) taking place. This confrontation – an encounter between internal and external actors, forces the internal ones, at some points, to reposition themselves and rethink their value system and allows for a ‘heritage realisation’ (ibid.). This can be seen as in the value cognition stage in the authentication process. Thus, when confronting the change, “whether these changes are acceptable or unacceptable depends on the specific, the touristic discourse, and one’s specific (societal) values, attitudes, knowledge and priorities concerning the role and impacts” (Proctor, 1998 cited in Sarineen, 2006, p1130).

Therefore, it can be seen that in the case of young generation, the authentication process plays a vital role when applying resilience thinking. Lack of essential knowledge and value cognition can result in the demerit side. For instance, in the case of traditional religious festival in Bhutan (Suntikul, 2018, p2110), while tourists are excluded from becoming insiders (due to fixed tour and lack of information about the performance), the young generation loses the connection with the heirs of their tradition; therefore, they tend to redefine the practice and then, are becoming outsiders. The reason for this partly comes from the intermixed position of local youth with tourist as audience member where they share place and perspectives. According to interviewed abbots, change is not in the meanings of Buddhist values, but in the understanding of local youth; as they see the festivals as “platforms for commercial activities and recreation, rather than as sacred for cultural events.” The original purpose of the festival has shifted from education to entertainment, mainly among local youth. Lack of knowledge about the performance’s meaning, young local, attend the festival without a sense of respect. They reflect the Tercham (naked dance) as something “embarrassing”, they “feel strange”, and “do not want to carry out” the traditional performance. Local youth did not perceive the performances as a manifestation of a shared identity with their seniors, only as a “religious entertainment.” Consequently, they lose the connection to inheritance from the past.

Moreover, the issue of authenticity is in a critical position since the ‘disturbance’ comes from external actors (tourism, modernisation, globalisation) and transmitting over generations. As

73 discussed earlier in the previous section, young generation tends to carry the tradition in two ways; past orientation and future orientation. Yet not mentioned about losing value in transmitting process since young generation engages with their cultural heritage in a different environment compared to their ancestors; constructing with insufficiency knowledge about their own culture, in the face of adapting with the new environment in the context of tourism, it can lead to change the very nature of the heritage. Also, as being authentic themselves, they may attach their own understanding/perspective in the contemporary cultural environment when carrying the tradition. Hence, by given adaptiveness and flexibility from resilience thinking but failing to identify their ‘authenticity’ can be result in creating and adopting ‘a brand-new’ cultural heritage.

In the tourism context, cultural heritage is in the face of inevitable ‘disturbances’ which comes from the outside local community (tourists, modernity, globality) and the inside (knowledge transmitting process, young generation’s perspective, new understandings). Thus, resilience thinking is worth considering when implementing cultural heritage in the context of tourism in order to deal with the uncertainties in resource management (Gunderson et al., 2009 cited in Titon, 2016b, p495) as well as in terms of disturbances. However, adaptiveness and flexibility may result in unintended negative consequences; that is why value cognition and authenticity awareness critically matter. It not only fosters engagement within the local community, especially in the case of young generation, about their roots and then raises sense of self-pride and a sense of responsibility to carry and conserve their heritage; it also keeps them on the ‘right track’ when cultural heritage is used in different contexts and in the face of change.

It can be argued that the concept of resilience closely associates with the notion of change. Change here is understood as in the changed state as a new equilibrium compared to the previous ones before disturbance occurred; also, as in terms of adaptive learning, either passive learning or active learning in order to strengthen a system’s resistance. Nevertheless, it should be emphasised that resilience thinking focuses on change but critically requires maintaining essential function. Additionally, it may involve the possibility to create a mechanism that can absorb disturbances. In other words, resilience is neither merely responding to change nor change to adapt; furthermore, it gives the system the flexibility and forecast ability that would enhance the system's endurance.

However, as mentioned above, resilience thinking is applied to a system. Therefore, hypothesise that culture can be considered a system; in this sense, resilience thinking might be

74 understood in a more profound sense. As culture is the reflection of a group or a community, it needs to be changed to represent accurately people who generate culture. Thus, change here is not solely in response to disturbance from the external factor but also due to the internal force. Therefore, the subject for maintaining is not the physical appearance or intangible expression but rather the intended purpose, value, and meaning of an object/ event. Since culture is a social process, what can be considered the core might not be plain, clear and fixed. Therefore, based on passive learning, what is maintained over time will be revealed as the core, which subsequently can be used in active learning. Accordingly, in the case of culture, in this study, the notion of change as one of the elements that constitute the concept of resilience will be discussed. Change in this sense should be viewed as a result given by adaptiveness and flexibility from resilience thinking in a new circumstance. Change will also be investigated concerning continuity in cultural sustainability.

5. Case study In Vietnam, cultural heritage is defined as tangible and intangible cultural heritage. In this section, two examples of heritage in Vietnam will be investigated in order to find the answer to raised questions in previous sections regarding the intangibility of heritage, the notion of authenticity when heritage is implementing in the tourism context, and sustainability. Hue is chosen as the destination to investigate, with two examples are Nhã nhạc (Vietnamese court music) and áo dài (long dress or tunic). Interestingly enough, both examples were perceived as representations of the country at some points in history. Nhã nhạc was considered as national music (Phan, 2016, p68), and in fact, one of the songs in the court music was used as the national anthem in 1945 by Tran Trong Kim’s administration (ibid., p121); it was also introduced in diplomatic occasions (ibid., p26, 30). In the case of áo dài, it has been widely recognised as an unofficial national costume (Nguyen, 2016, p77) and used in most tourism image about Vietnam.

Hue is the city of Thua Thien Hue province located in the centre of the region. The town lies about 540 km south of Hanoi - the capital, and 630 km north of the second biggest city – Ho Chi Minh city. Due to its location, Hue has a long history spanning from the formation of Thuan Hoa in 1558 when the Dang Trong dynasty built military camps in the region to the founding of Phu Xuan in 1687. In 1802, the emperor Nguyen Phuc Anh selected Hue as the royal capital with the establishment of the Nguyen Dynasty, and from then, the new city was planned and constructed on a large scale to meet with functions of capital. The city took the shape of the Nguyen Dynasty with the palace, government offices, ritual facilities, and continuing served as the administrative centre of Southern Vietnam until the last feudal – Emperor Bao Dai in 1945. Hue was the capital city of Vietnam for approximately 150 years; thus, the impact of royal lifestyle and customs can still be seen on Hue and Vietnam’s characteristics as a whole. The significant influences have a wide range from architecture, customs, cuisine, religion to local lifestyle.

In recent years, Nhã nhạc has been conducted in historical places for national official ritual occasion, in Duyet Thi Duong theatre and at certain public locations free of charge for audience. Áo dài have been promoted in the tourism context as a popular cultural product, not only in Hue but also famous tourism destinations in the central region. Especially, since these two examples at some extent relate to Hue image, in festival Hue - the biennial event since 2000, with much public

76 attention, performance of both Nhã nhạc and áo dài have been occupied a prominent place in the event.

5.1. Nhã nhạc cung đình Huế (Vietnamese Court Music) As the last feudal capital of Vietnam, historical and cultural vestiges still are retained in Hue. The two most famous cultural heritage are the Complex of Hue Monuments, which inscribed in the UNESCO List of the World Cultural Heritage (1993), and Nhã nhạc - the Vietnamese Court Music which is listed as a Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity by UNESCO (2008).

According to Phan (2016, p12), ‘Nhã nhạc’ (Nhã means elegant, beautiful, systematic, and exemplary; nhạc means music) is a term using for court music in general in East Asia countries with different in writing and pronouncing. It is understood that Nhã nhạc is elegant music that served for gods and kings. The court music is known to have originated in Chu dynasty in China (1122 – 256 B.C.) then spread to Japan (8th century), Korea (South and North) (12th century), and Vietnam (15th century) (Phan, 2016, p80; Akagawa, 2015, p167). Depending on its host country, the court music had specific content changes to adapt to the host culture and historical contexts. However, common significances are maintaining, which creates the cohesion and diversity of the court music in East Asia.

Nguyen dynasty court orchestras were inherited from previous dynasties and existed along with Nguyen dynasty from 1802 to 1945 (Phan, 2016, p15). Nevertheless, the historical development of Nhã nhạc was intermittent. In period 1802 – 1868, it reached its peak, and the first sign of decay occurred, 1868 – 1945 was decay, and 1945 to the present day has been a period of disruption and recovery (ibid, p23). In specific, according to Phan (2016, p30), in 1970 – 1975, Nhã nhạc was institutionalised under the government of South Vietnam and was considered as a national tradition heritage besides other tangible cultural heritages; 1975 – 1992, not only the case of Nhã nhạc but other royal culture products in general, were also perceived as evidence of the feudalism; therefore, lack of care was given; and from 1992 to the present is the period of recovery.

In its historical development, the performing environment of Nhã nhạc had been changed and shifted back and forth depending on management policy at certain periods. Nhã nhạc was formed at the birth of the royal environment; due to the flow of turbulent history with the collapse of Nguyen dynasty, most performers had to move out and practice the music for living outside the

77 palace. It was 1802 – 1868 period when the shift from royal to folk ‘environment’ occurred. Since then, the court music spread into folk environment and existed in the new environment from 1868 to 1945. During this period, Nhã nhạc was influenced by folklore music; for instance, change in musical instruments, which is used to create sound effects as denoting greatness and majesty in royal place but unfamiliar in folk music had been replaced. However, although the two environments are distinct, according to Phan (2016, p11), interestingly, the differences, in fact, not “overwhelm, eliminate” each other, instead “adorn, complementary, diversify” one another. Also, it should be noted that since the social class distinction in Vietnam is not strict as in China (Phan, 2016, p19), thus the influence of the music was made without much conflict or great barrier. Then from 1945 to the present day, when brought back to its initial royal environment with an attempt to conserve and promote, significant elements of folk music had penetrated the court music. Therefore, as Phan (2016, p13) claims, practising in different ‘cultural environments’ and then adapting and adopting in a new environment by musicians and performers; those various transformations, in fact, create the significant characteristics of Vietnamese court music with the ones from neighbour countries. In the case of Vietnam, the court music consists of both national (Vietnam) and local (Hue) characteristics.

Source: Tổ quốc website (https://toquoc.vn)

Figure 2 Nhã nhạc cung đình Huế

Nhã nhạc was reconstructed in the early days of Nguyen dynasty with regard to its political purpose. As influenced by Confucianism, music at that time was seen as an educational tool believed to have effects on people sentimental and encourage them to pursue good. Music was not merely for performing purpose but also constituted philosophical element that assisted Nguyen dynasty in establishing the social order. Music was also a reflection of society and representation of moral, ethical factors, which means that it can be analysed to investigate a country's social and political status (Phan, 2016, p68). Therefore, a strict and well-organized orchestra can represent a wealthy developed dynasty that Nguyen dynasty aimed to assert the nation’s status with China (ibid. p48). Due to its purpose and performing in royal ritual and religious ceremonies to communicate with gods and serve kings, the settings and sound effect was designed to create the ‘atmosphere’ of magnificence, prestige, power, and majesty.

Nhã nhạc successfully maintains court orchestras of the previous dynasties (Le dynasty 1427 – 1788), diversifies previous dance, creates rich variations based on Le dynasty’s orchestras, new dances, and new chamber music types. Besides performing in ritual and religious ceremonies, Nhã nhạc is also the “source of inspiration of contemporary Vietnamese music” – Tài tử Nam Bộ (Phan, 2016, p134; UNESCO Hanoi cited in Akagawa, 2015, p167).

5.2. Áo dài (long dress or tunic) The most well-known Vietnamese costume – áo dài (long dress or tunic) is evolved from an outfit worn at the court of the Nguyen Lords in the 18th century – áo ngũ thân (five-panel tunic). When it comes in pair with nón lá (palm-leaf conical hat), for most Vietnamese people, the combination reminds them of being particularly evocative of Hue.

The current form of áo dài was transformed several times. One “did not leave a name” but had a significant contribution to the process is Lemur Nguyen Cat Tuong (Nguyen Thi Chan Quynh cited in Tran, 2013, p349), who can be seen as “the nation’s first modern designer” in inventing the Vietnamese áo dài (Nguyen, 2016, p79-80). Although it was a lack of evidence to show that Lemur is who invented áo dài since the term ‘áo dài’ had not been used at that time until possibly around the mid-twentieth century, his design was referred to as Lemur or Lemur-style tunic (Nguyen, 2016, p97). Also, the characteristic raglan sleeves in the contemporary áo dài did not appear in his design back then. Nevertheless, the other key features as the fundamental of áo dài, the mandarin collar and tight sleeves, were first introduced in his illustration in 1934.

Before Lemur in the 1930s, Vietnamese women mostly wore the five-panel and the four-panel tunics (Nguyen, 2016, p83). Those types differ in design, and while the former worn with trousers, the latter is paired with a long skirt. Due to its designs, the four-panel tunic is more suitable for working in the field; thus, was preferred by women in rural areas, while urban women tend to choose the other one. However, the class distinction based on practical reasons was not only hinted at the design but also the outfit’s colour. According to Nhat Thanh (1970, p212 cited in Tran, 2013, p350), since 1910, the trousers’ colour could communicate about wearer’s background and even social status, for instance, the while colour trousers are generally more difficult to keep clean; thus, only wives and daughters of senior officials use it. Later around 1920, the traditional dull earth tones and black colour trousers were rejected due to being considered “drab and old-fashioned” and then be replaced by the white ones (Trịnh Thục Oanh cited in Nguyen, 2016, p 85). From hesitation, white trousers later widely accepted by all women (Nhat Thanh, 1970, p212 cited in Tran, 2013, p349). Also, vibrant colours and imported fabrics were applied (Trịnh Thục Oanh cited in Nguyen, 2016, p 85). It can be seen that there was a desire to change among Vietnamese women.

However, for Lemur, those changes were important but not sufficient. So far, it had been limited in colour and fabric, and most women still used the “older frumpy tunic with black baggy pants” (Lemur, 1934 cited in Nguyen, 2016, p85). In his opinion, women’s clothing:

“must be suitable with the climate or our country, with the weather in all seasons, with one’s shape and size, with the bodily form of each woman. In addition, it must be neat and tidy, simple, bold, aesthetically pleasing and respectful. No matter what, it must have the characteristics of our nation.” (Lemur, 1934 cited Nguyen, 2016, p88).

According to Nguyen (2016, p78), what Lemur contributed to the modern áo dài is, in fact not in its physical design but cultural production. On the one hand, his design aimed at customising the imperfection of women; on the other hand, Lemur also introduces light exercises that help them “correct these imperfections” (Lemur, 1934 cited in Nguyen, 2016, p97). He believed that modern and beauty are not merely physical appearance or though fashion design, rather a lifestyle. It should be noted that while informing about the “unfamiliar” of the design (ibid.), Lemur also claimed that his work “against Confucian norms of female modesty” which consider the breasts - “the most signifier of motherhood and sexual difference” is “virtuous and modest”; visually links to

“immoral” (ibid., p100). It can be shown in his design, the form-fitting bodice exhibits his view about it, while the long front and back flags give the wearer the elegance needed.

Source: Visit Hue

Figure 3 Áo dài

At that time, design by Lemur Nguyen Cat Tuong was viewed as a representation of modernity’s forces overtaking Vietnam (Nguyen, 2016, p77). Lemur-style tunic is a combination and cultural exchange between East and West. As a person working in the fashion industry, he saw physical appearance as not merely about beauty; beyond that, the social ideals of feminine beauty and refection of interference between tradition and modernity. Not only by observing and

81 comparing the standards of beauty in Europe and the United States, Lemur also tried to “filter” details suitable for Vietnamese women and then invented a modern design (Lemur, 1934 cited Nguyen, 2016, p117). He believed that the design exhibits “aesthetic imaginings of the modern nation,” which can be considered as ‘national costume’ in terms of catching up with the reformation process (ibid., p97).

When his design was criticised as “Franco-Annamite” and simply applied what in Western clothing to the Vietnamese one (Thanh Tam, 1934 cited in Nguyen, 2016, p116), in response, Lemur claimed that the hybrid of Western influence and Vietnamese tradition was intentionally designed. Firstly, due to the French colonisation, its influence was evident in various aspect of Vietnamese culture – customs, intellect, politeness, literature and art, even food and language. Secondly, his work only is introducing what, in his view, is beautiful and would work in Vietnam's circumstance; in the end, it is Vietnamese women who choose what aspects in foreign cultures they want to adopt (ibid., p117). Therefore, in his opinion, it is reality, and one could do nothing but find a way to accept it. So does modernity (ibid., 112).

6. Findings and discussion It should be noted that in this study, my focus is on the notion of ‘change’. Change of cultural heritage here should be viewed as a part of the development history and in the tourism context. Change will be used as a lens to investigate its relationship with the concept of authenticity, for instance, to determine which elements need to be maintained and which elements can be changed. Also, as one of the elements that constitute resilience thinking, change will be identified regarding examination of the possibility of applying the resilience concept to culture.

The interviewee’s opinions will be divided into four sub-sections, namely, intangible aspect of cultural heritage, cultural heritage in the tourism context, sustainability and resilience, and recommendations. Within sub-sections, related issues that participants raised during the interviews will be bold as headlines. Subsequently, a conclusion will be drawn based on a holistic view from involved actors.

There were questions had answered, as well as new ones were raised. Ultimately, all credit to the interviewees, for their passionate and inspiring talks.

6.1. Intangible aspect of cultural heritage 6.1.1. In terms of language Heritage [di sản]

The answers from all interviewee about heritage appeared in both two kinds of cultural heritage - tangible heritage and ICH. The role of UNESCO as a trustworthy source was evidently shown, even as a reference point for them [CHC 6, 7, 9] in acknowledgement of a thing as heritage. According to CHC 6, heritage is things that exist in old times, no longer able to see as it was in the past, the appearance in the present is solely its reconstructed version. History is the most important element of heritage, in CHC 7’s opinion. Likewise, CHC 8 argued that heritage also intertwisted with the notion of history, but in a slightly different manner from CHC 6’s. In his opinion, heritage is not merely about the past; instead, it makes him think about “what we do or designate at the present which will be the next generations’ heritage.” In addition, heritage is not necessarily be recognised by ‘someone’ [CHC 6, 7]. The intangibility of heritage for them [CHC 6, 7, 9] is representativeness.

CHC 6 argued that the term ‘heritage’ itself in Vietnamese language, primarily used in law field; thus, without the context, ‘heritage’ is interfered with as ‘cultural heritage’. Therefore, there is no gap in understanding, neither the word ‘heritage’ alone nor in pair with the word ‘cultural’ [culture].

Interviewees [CHC 6, 7, 9] stated that depending on who they talk with, heritage, therefore, could be something national representing at international scale or more personal at national scale. CHC 9 added that when she was in Vietnam, heritage is more like personal ‘things’ which she has close connections with; however, after living in the UK for a while, she tends to link heritage with something that presents Vietnam as a whole, which in her opinion, as a way to show her identity.

It can be seen that this result in line with Smith & Waterson (2009, p293) that heritage associated with a sense of place. Place in this sense is not only in terms of belonging in a physic or geography place but also the place of an individual in society; as put by the authors, “at an international level, nation-states use heritage to negotiate their sense of ‘place’ in relation to each other” (ibid.).

Also, all the interviewees illustrated heritage linking with history. Nevertheless, while other interviewees connect heritage with things in the past and in some way relating with their present, in the case of CHC 8, he placed his present as the past of the next generations. Thus, it can be seen that the concept of heritage closely associated with continuity of time, past – present – future.

In addition, it would be useful to point out that, in Vietnamese language, due to the influence of Chinese language, there is Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary that is often used in formal texts. Therefore, the word ‘di sản’ (heritage) as a Sino-Vietnamese word might not be familiar in daily life language. Since in Vietnamese language, there is a combination ‘gia truyền’ (similar to family heirloom), which refers to things that are inherited over generations within a family, for instance, cooking recipes, handcraft skills, etc. Thus, the word ‘heritage’ might sound formal to interviewees due to they usually perceive it from formal channels such as the media; consequently, it may have broader representativeness to them, and also they have other words to describe more personal inheritance.

Culture [văn hóa]

CHC 6 stated that usually, Vietnamese people tend to assume heritage as something visible. However, when the word ‘heritage’ pairs with ‘cultural’ [culture], it seemed pretty obvious to Vietnamese-speaker interviewees that heritage has an intangible aspect. It explains the reason when being asked what ‘culture’ to them, they [CHC 4, 6, 7, 9] came up with ‘manner’, ‘lifestyle’, ‘traditional costumes’, which differ from the answer from Czech-speaker interviewee CHC 8.

According to interviewees [CHC 6, 9], culture is built up in a community, where they share perspective, lifestyle; it could come in different forms and scopes. Interviewees [CHC 4, 6, 9] further claimed that it needs to be preserved. Especially in tourism context, according to CHC 4, where culture could tell a lot about a local community, the environment in this sense is not merely understood as natural environment but also ‘the atmosphere created by people.’

Intangible

In terms of the word ‘intangible’, (which in Vietnamese language, literally translated as ‘immaterial’), interviewees [CHC 7, 9] answered that first things came to their mind is something is untouchable, unseen, unable to grasp. CHC 9 further explained that since it is changeable, especially by human, it also implies that there is no fixed form compared to ‘tangible’ things. For CHC 7, it is something that you could not use your sense to make observation, but rather ‘sense it by your mind.’ They [CHC 7, 9] found it quite tricky to separate tangible heritage and intangible cultural heritage.

CHC 5 claimed that, at present, indeed, there is a lack of comprehensible understanding when a lot of people do perceive the intangible aspect in tangible heritage as ICH. It is evidently shown when interviewees [CHC 6, 7, 9] were asked what áo dài is to them, tangible heritage, or ICH (since Nhã nhạc is inscribed as ICH by state and UNESCO). One of them thinks it is tangible heritage as it is material; the others see áo dài as ICH because it is ‘movable’ and ‘unfixed form’ in terms of different designs of it.

In this case, it can be seen there is a difference in how people perceive cultural heritage between official heritage and unofficial heritage. Nhã nhạc is officially recognized as ICH; thus, people tend to not question about its ‘form’, while in the case of áo dài, although being seen as heritage

85 by a majority, due to the confusion between tangible and intangible aspect, people have not perceived it accurately.

It is in line with what CHC 5 also further stated that, by categorising into two kinds, people outside the field find it difficult to understand and create a risk of confusion; according to him, some people even see ‘something is not tangible heritage, then it is ICH’.

Interestingly, after answering those questions, while junior interviewees [CHC 6, 7, 8, 9] said that they would like to have more time to ‘think it throughout’, scholars were not very interested in discussing those terms. [CHC 3] argued that dividing into tangible heritage and ICH as we used it at present facilitates heritage management; also, since we are all aware of the intangible aspect of heritage itself, it is not highly needed to find another way to address it.

6.1.2. Intangibility Spiritual element

When being asked about the intangible aspect, CHC 4 stated that the spiritual element needs to be maintained in cultural heritage in general not only in tourism context. He further gave an example about one temple in his town. According to villagers’ oral traditions, the temple was built in 571. In 1940, the whole temple was burnt. Later, in 1941, villagers decided to rebuild it. He pointed out that the temple still has the same meaning for them even it is new. Since the old temple was constructed with the existing material at that time, due to historical context, not much care was given back then; thus, it was not in good condition. He pointed out, comparing keeping it without preservation properly may result in destruction, which can be perceived as a lack of taking care of the Spirit and interpreted as a bad sign; constructing a new one in the same place instead, in fact, assists worship. In addition, villagers’ well-being at that time were much better than in the past; therefore, this could be seen as a chance for villagers ‘show their willing hearted to the Spirit and their ancestors by contributing good material for constructing. According to him, when it comes to religion and belief, the material is not much matter; it could be any appropriate ways to provide the best condition for worship needs of community and maintain its spiritual value.

In this case, firstly, in terms of the notion of authenticity, it can be seen that materiality as objective authenticity does not play an important role. Instead, it is performative authenticity since in villagers’ perspective, the thing needs to be preserved and maintain is the Spirit and their

86 spiritual needs. Hence, the temple was constructed not only by the physical material but also built up by the process of villagers’ belief.

Secondly, the authentication process can be seen through the authenticity judgment on the temple, which was based on sharing the same value among villagers. For them, what considered valuable and be valued is the Spirit and villagers’ spiritual needs. They have the same knowledge (belief) and value the same thing (spiritual needs); thus, although the temple was built by new material, for them, it is still authentic. Also, using better quality material in constructing the temple is accepted by all of them as an appropriate way to show their devotion.

However, regarding to religious belief, it should be noted that there are some certain ‘rules’ need to be strictly followed, for instance, the location and setting and so forth. However, this matter will not be discussed due to this paper’s scope.

Image

Interesting enough, although acknowledgement of the existence of intangibility, interviewees [CHC 6, 9] admitted that it is difficult to capture such thing. They still need to have an ‘image’ of that object or expression in their mind to link with thoughts.

It can be argued that, as mentioned in previous sections, the intangible aspect is the core meaning which is shaped and formed in an object and expression. Furthermore, CHC 6 argued that an image is conducted based on information that a person collected before; and the image is an easier way to picture it. For instance, manner is something very vague; thus, in her opinion, that is a reason why such thing has been silently lost without notice. She claimed that if the intangibility of heritage is lost, it will affect its tangibility.

Intangibility of a place

The value attachment in a place is evident in an example from CHC 4’s village. As he explained, in his town, there is a communal courtyard used to honour local intellectuals and scholars in the past. With the significant historical value, in the present, the courtyard has been come into use again to honour local students who have excellent performance in study. He aims to extend and enhance the spirit of pursuing knowledge, raise a sense of connection between people and place, and encourage young generation to live up to the valuable tradition created by their ancestors'

87 thousands of years ago. Also, folk games conducted near that area exhibits to local young about how villagers in the past used to play and study; accordingly, he believes it could reduce time local youth spending with electronic devices and social media; moreover, foster physical activities, social interactions.

This case is in line with the notion of heritage pointed out by Harrison (2010, p11); the communal courtyard and its surrounding are materialised by the villagers' "memories, hopes and dreams." Moreover, intangibility as an underlying value is attached in objects and through rituals. In this case, the tangible aspect is the physical place while the intangible aspect is the practices, activities conducted in the place; through all that, the intangibility is maintained. As puts by Harrison (2010, p38), “being able to connect one’s self to the past, and the collective past of others via the recollection or recreation of specific memories and histories, is a form of cultural capital that relates to heritage.”

Likewise, in the case of Nhã nhạc, CHC 1 also pointed out that, in the present, Nhã nhạc is conducted in the same old place as in the past. Although it is no longer have the rituality, the existence of tourists and music in places, in her opinion, is a good thing, because it makes the place ‘lively’ again.

Therefore, in contrast to the argument from Dawson Munjeri (2004, p13 cited in Smith & Akawaga, 2009, p292) that “the tangible can only be understood and interpreted through the intangible”, in my opinion, in fact, the intangible can only be understood through the manifestation of the tangible.

6.1.3. Elements constitute heritage Story

CHC 6 claimed that materiality is not the most important element constituted heritage, since even a thing is simple in appearance, but the information contained in it (historical value, history development, how it is used in special occasion) create its own story. For instance, when those things are used as gifts, the valuable meaning is attached and represented through the material; it makes the gesture more meaningful. Thereby, “when you see it, it will tell you the story.” Therefore, if that thing is heritage, which implies that the story is ‘bigger’ and contains a broader meaning. She claimed that it is the story that makes heritage ‘heritage’ and why it is crucial and

88 need to be inherited and enhanced. Thus, without acknowledgement, it is only a normal thing, has no special meaning [CHC 6, 7, 9].

Emotional attachment

Likewise, according to CHC 9, heritage consists of stories and emotional attachment created by experience over time. Although not prefer wearing áo dài, CHC 9 added that the image of áo dài does raise emotions for her. She shared that, once she by chance hear an old song about Vietnam with a lyric about the country’s landscape and áo dài, which she used to hear several times when was in Vietnam, but now living aboard that melody strangely catch her in emotion.

Spiritual element and religious element

It is essential to point out that spiritual and religious elements occurred at different points during the interviews but mentioned by all interviewees.

CHC 8 stated that heritage consists of several elements in his opinion; however, due to the religion in Czech, he could not think of any holy thing linked to heritage.

In the case of áo dài, CHC 9 pointed out that, since the dress does not have the religious elements, change is possible to make, and the debate would be much less complex and conflict.

Spiritualising the performance can be seen as the most critical factor in conducting this type of performance [CHC 2, 3, 4]. CHC 4 emphasised a need to divide between the ‘staged performance’ where the practitioners merely present the dance or song with the ‘actual performance’ where is necessarily required to have the spiritual element. Likewise, in the case of Nhã nhạc, CHC 1 also pointed out that, on the one hand, in the tourism context, performance is conducted to suitable with its purpose in that context. On the other hand, in official ritual occasion, practitioners need to precisely follow the music’s restrict rule since, in this case, the ‘audience’ is not human but gods – who/thing judge not only practitioners’ instrument playing skills but also their sincerity.

It should be pointed out that, when talking about artistic products, a very common expression in Vietnamese language is ‘cái hồn’ (the soul), which could be interpreted as the soul of an object or performance. According to my interpretation, this expression is used referring to a state (or a standard) when a practitioner being able to transfer all essential required elements/aspects into the object/performance, and the observers can see it (or sense it, to more precisely). It could be

89 exhibited through technique or sometimes in more biased senses. An object or performance may not highly be valued even it followed the exact rule since the soul is not received by the audience. In this case, it can be argued that the soul is not merely of the object itself, instead, it is a ‘new soul’, which is added of a part of the practitioners which only can be sensed by the audience through the performance. Observers (within the community that generates heritage) may not precisely know what they look for; however, they could ‘sense’ it. It means that local people may already have the perception about the object/expression, and when practitioners perform it, local people compare how the performance ‘fit’ with their perception. In other words, it could be understood that practitioners completely understands their heritage (heritage’s soul), with their knowledge and skill, they able to transfer the soul from the former one and integrate with their perception (practitioners’ soul), then form all the knowledge to an object or expression. In this sense, practitioners themselves can be seen as means or medium.

Another related-meaning term is ‘cái thần’ (the spirit), which is similar to the term ‘aura’ in English language. Both ‘the soul’ and ‘the spirit’ are used as adjective words to describe the character of an object or performance. In my own understanding, as a Vietnamese speaker, this type of expressions inferred that all expected value is successful transfer into an object or performance. Sometimes, these words can also be used as compliments to the practitioners.

To conclude this sub-section, there are some main points revealed based on the findings.

With the complexity in meaning and interpretation, cultural heritage consists of both tangible and intangible aspects. However, as categorised into tangible heritage and intangible cultural heritage by UNESCO, to some extent, both aspects constitute heritage is confusedly intertwisted; as well as intangibility has been lessened in the case of intangible cultural heritage.

It can be seen that the classifying does create confusion in understanding among interviewees who not familiar with specific terms in this field. While intangible aspect (in terms of heritage’s value) is recognised in both tangible heritage and ICH by all interviewees; at the same time, there is an incomplete understanding regarding intangibility in ICH. They do not comprehend the intangibleness, as UNESCO intendedly to point out. Except for knowledge interviewees, other interviewees perceived ICH solely as something that cannot hold. They missed the fact that, when those performances are stored, recorded; in that sense, it appears in material form. It can be argued that the word ‘intangible’ in ICH is perceived as the ‘form’ of heritage, not its dynamic nature.

Moreover, since cultural heritage is divided into tangible and intangible, it is unavoidable that tangible heritage is used as the reference point for ‘figuring out’ the other type, which is naturally complex to capture. Thereby, the intangibleness in terms of constantly constructing (dynamic element) as ICH’s nature is completely lost.

Additionally, it can be seen that in some cases, for instance, the performance consists of the ritual, spiritual or religious element, the aspects of tangible and intangible are intertwisted and unseparated. Therefore, it would be slightly inaccurate to divide cultural heritage simply into tangible heritage and ICH since in both kinds, the two aspects, tangible and intangible, enhance and complement one another

In examples of ‘cái hồn’ (the soul) and ‘cái thần’ (the spirit), the authentication process from local’s perspective is shown. From the knowledge transfer stage and as a community member, they may already have the perception of an object or performance; it may or may not be objective authenticity, then be constructed individually as constructive authenticity. Subsequently, when experiencing it, they – locals and practitioners compare their perceptions to each other. Consequently, based on the value cognition, the performance could be perceived as authentic to some locals or inauthentic in others’ opinion. The authenticity judgment, thereby, is made very subjectively.

In addition, in terms of successful transferring expected value into an object/performance, the two expressions – ‘cái hồn’ (the soul) and ‘cái thần’ (the spirit) can be understood as the merit side of resilience thinking. The performance's value is enhanced when the practitioners fully understand their cultural heritage and then attach their subjectivity (knowledge, skill and perspective) when performing and forming it into an object or expression. The soul of the performance is maintained by the soul of the object/ expression (the core value/meaning) and enriched with the practitioner’s soul. Thereby, the intangibleness in ICH is constantly constructed over time and might also differ between practitioners. The objective authenticity in this sense is the rule or structure of the performance, which is essential but not sufficient; since there might be still missing ‘something’. Therefore, with full awareness about cultural heritage, the flexibility and adaptiveness from resilience thinking on the merit side can foster both constructive authenticity and existential authenticity in conducting a performance.

6.2. Cultural heritage in the tourism context In this sub-section, the interviewees’ perspective on authenticity of cultural heritage in former environment and in the tourism context, will be investigated.

Two examples – Nhã nhạc and áo dài will also be analysed from different viewpoints. Besides, a narrative journey will be brought up to determine a part of authentication process.

Also, the role of UNESCO in authenticating heritage and the notion of change will be discussed.

6.2.1. Authenticity CHC 9 argued that ‘authenticity’ is a vague term. For instance, in the case of áo dài, if traced back to its very origin, in fact, it said to has originated from China. However, with the current appearance in form and details, the relation hardly exists between them. Culture, in her opinion, is all about appropriation, inspiration, and adaptation.

From a tourist’s perspective, CHC 8 claimed that tourists tend to value authenticity because they look for ‘authentic experience’, not ‘inauthentic experience’ created by the popularity of a destination.

To better understand CHC8’s argument, it would be useful to have a short narrative behind his journey. On the first time he visited Vietnam, CHC 8 did not do any research about the country, since as a Czech, “it would be fun to have an adventure” in a country very different from his; he preferred the uncertainty. After the visit, he fell in love with the country, especially the people. He came back and forth several times and even lived with a Vietnamese family during that period. He also mentioned that at that time, he only saw two foreigners near the neighbour area. He did not go to popular places at all until his family came to visit him, and they travelled around together. On that trip, things that happened in the destinations, in his opinion, is ‘not Vietnam’, “it is not a lie [fake], but it is not true”. People, the thing he loves the most about Vietnam, did not behave the same as he sees in daily life.

In this case, the concept of cool authentication, hot authentication and the authentication process from tourists’ perspective was shown. Before visiting Vietnam, CHC 8 had no expectation as well as perception about the destination. As his purpose was to experience anything the country offered, thus, there was no knowledge transferred in terms of cool authentication. Instead, information he got in the destination was hotly authenticated; subsequently, value cognition stage

92 occurred, then judgment on authenticity was made. Later, when experiencing the country as a tourist (with other fellow tourists and visit famous sites), things presenting at the destination apparently is not ‘his Vietnam’ compared to the perception of the country constructed after living as a local, which in his perspective, is authentic Vietnam, not what appeared in the popular places. It can be argued that his own perception of what Vietnam is exhibited as ‘criteria’, which functions as the reference point for him to compare and made a judgment.

Interesting enough, when asking about ‘authenticity’, I struggled to explain the concept without putting my own understanding or academic interpretation. Interviewees also seemed to have a difficult time capturing the idea, but when I mentioned ‘something similar to the soul’, they immediately got the idea and were able to explain more. Later, some of them concluded that ‘as long as they are able to see the soul in that object’, it is authentic. The soul, in this case, depends on individuals’ perspective. They may look for different things, which means that the significance of an object or expression is not the same in perception between them.

As discussed previously, these differences among community members could come from the knowledge transfer stage. Later, the notion of authenticity is individually constructed by local people based on the value cognition stage since what is considered valuable or/and be valued might differ. Consequently, authenticity is judged differently among local people. However, I assume that as a community that generates heritage, there are some mutual specific elements that make them see the object or expression representing themselves and being transferred what they all expected.

In terms of authenticity in the tourism context, CHC 9 stated that in her opinion, what is presenting in tourism nowadays, it is not authentic Vietnam. She gives examples about souvenirs; at a store, sellers mainly provide something exotic or ‘looks cool’ for tourists, but Vietnamese people no longer use those things in their life. It is put on sale only to meet market demand and tourist quest; it has nothing to do with representing Vietnam.

In this case, it can be seen that information about a destination from travel agency, media, etc., as cool authentication affect tourists’ expectation, and at some extent, indirectly influence the destination. For instance, if tourists have the idea from a source that a specific thing represents the destination, they may tend to look for the item when they arrive. Consequently, to meet the market demand, the destination may provide that thing to gain economic profit.

In terms of value, CHC 5 stated that authenticity could not be determined as ‘original’. Also, characteristic of the value changes over time, therefore how heritage is valued depending on the time. This is in the same line with my argument that value cognition, there are two kinds of value - ‘valuable’ and ‘be valued’, and even within the community, those values may be perceived and recognised differently.

The role of UNESCO

Although in the interview questions, UNESCO is not mentioned, however, all interviewees acknowledge this international organisation’s in inscribing cultural heritage. Some interviewees [CHC 4, 7] even see the status given by UNESCO as being worldwide recognised with heritage. However, none of them directly linked or associated it with authenticity.

It can be argued that in this sense, among Vietnamese interviewees, the inscribing from UNESCO with heritage is solely about being recognised, it may not affect how they see it as authentic or not.

Besides, [CHC 3] pointed out that there has been a misunderstanding of ‘inscribed in the UNESCO’s list’ with ‘be recognised by UNESCO’, which according to her, should not be used interchangeably.

6.2.2. Change 6.2.2.1. In development history Nhã nhạc case

As discussed previously in the case study background, in its development history, Nhã nhạc had been changed and adapted due to historical context, from royal to folk environment, and later back to the royal environment. The first transformation of Nhã nhạc is when being leaked to folk environment, significant elements of royal music and folk music gradually penetrated and affected one another to some extent. On the second time, Nhã nhạc came back to its initial environment, with influences.

It can be seen that the environment is the critical factor of Nhã nhạc’s transformation. In fact, this change created the significance of Nhã nhạc, which makes it differ from the court music in other neighbour countries. This significance is the integration of royal music with folk music

94 influence. Accordingly, elements constitute a cultural environment, namely, audiences, space, and time the performance taking place, therefore, changed over time.

Nowadays, attempt to reconstruct and preserve, Nhã nhạc is brought back to its initial environment and a new environment – tourism context. In this case, Nhã nhạc now have more than its original ritual purpose.

It raises the question of whether, in a new cultural environment (if tourism context can be seen as that), Nhã nhạc will be transformed again? Does this change differ from previous ones?

In the following sub-section, these questions will be discussed further.

Áo dài case

In the case of áo dài, it was shown that the difference in approach affects the perspectives toward an object or performance.

With a speciality in culture, style and fashion, as part of CHC 9’s study, áo dài is the subject to investigate regarding the interpretations of Vietnamese women through their traditional dress. While interviewees [CHC 3, 6, 7] saw áo dài as an image of Vietnam, from CHC 9’s viewpoint, the costume does not have cultural element; instead, it is merely an object – an item of clothing. According to her, change in áo dài has been become a topic for debate in Vietnam because it is attached to traditional and cultural value as a presentation of the country.

CHC9 stated that she personally ‘do not like wearing áo dài’ and ‘as it has not shown who I am as an individual’. Moreover, since the costume has a long development history, and at present, society perception of wearing-áo dài Vietnamese women has attached to the costume. There is public opinion of conservative Vietnamese, social pressure in body image, beauty standards, aesthetic, and even social class. Therefore, the questions are not about whether or how change in áo dài would affect culture; but rather, it should be changed to reflect people – the wearers. In other words, it is not outer affect inner, but the inner should reshape and form the outer.

In this case of CHC9, the notion of authentication can be seen through how a thing is value or perceived as valuable are different within the local community. This is consistent with Harrison (2010, p25) claims that heritage is not inherent, and its values could not be seen as intrinsic (Smith, 2006). Although áo dài is considered by many Vietnamese people as their unofficial heritage, with

CHC 9, the representativeness is still missing. She acknowledges the value of dress; however, in her opinion, it is not valued as heritage which represents her as an individual or identity of Vietnamese women. Instead, in CHC9’s viewpoint, áo dài is only valued as an item of clothing with high aesthetic value. Subsequently, her authenticity judgment on the dress might differ with other Vietnamese fellows, since with her, the dress is merely an artistic object, without any cultural or representative attachment. Thus, it can be argued that within the local community who generate heritage, the perceptions on authenticity might not be the same due to the two stages of the authentication process – knowledge transfer and value cognition.

According to CHC9, maintaining the design implies that, in some way, we are ‘heading’ back to the past. As the most common image of a Vietnamese woman wearing áo dài appear in press nowadays is an elegant lady with formfitting design; in her viewpoint, to a certain extent, it sets a model to Vietnamese women, implying that to be a Vietnamese woman is being elegant. She questioned [the author, maybe also herself] “So if I am not elegant, I am not a Vietnamese woman then?”

Furthermore, she claimed that it should be changed to suitable for women in the present needs, rather than public opinion or conception. It can be seen that the social pressure may differ in time. In the past, there were anxieties of modernisation and Westernization, abandon tradition and even lose traditional value; in the present, there is a worry about losing tradition or even its ‘perfect stage’ (some interviewees [CHC 3, 6, 9] argue that áo dài had been achieved its perfect point, it should not be changed any single things).

Moreover, in the case of áo dài, in its development history, there were concerns about getting influence and mixing as hybrid garment could lead to other things follow and it could lose Vietnamese characteristic; however, as Lemur claimed, that was Vietnamese women who choose which aspect of the Western culture to adopt and fit with them the most. Therefore, it can be argued that by making choices and accept something or not, in some way, they expressed the Vietnamese characteristics since people from other cultures may not do the same. Therefore, it is still Vietnamese.

In addition, the authentication process’s value cognition stage can be shown in this case. Although confronting criticism from society on being westernised and losing tradition, eventually, Vietnamese women accepted the change. Hence, it can be argued that among Vietnamese women,

96 they do share the same value, which is considered valuable and be valued by the majority of them. This might be the desire to express themselves, the conception of beauty standard or being bold in trying new things which were ‘absorbed’ and blended with their tradition; consequently, these characteristics are symbolised through the material – áo dài.

Besides, according to CHC 6, as a secondary resource, a practitioner who has several years’ experience in making áo dài claimed that except for some required instructions essentially, the most crucial thing that needs to be maintained is the technique. The outcomes should show the preciseness of the tailor in small details, in even tiny stitches. This information is also the same as what CHC 5 experienced in traditional villages making áo dài.

Added by CHC 6, in her opinion, not only technique, but ‘story’ is also a thing that needs to take into consideration, “as long as having those factors, we can go further.” Likewise, CHC 9 also stated that being creative is effectively applying technique and attaching innovation.

Therefore, it can be seen in both examples, change occurred in their development history to adapt to a new circumstance and selectively adopt new things. By doing so, change is a way to enrich itself, and as a step in the development process.

CHC 5’s argument is in the same line with Jokilehto (2010, p62) that in ICH, transmitting over generations involves change which may result in being richer or gradually lost. However, CHC 5 claimed that if the ‘amplitude’ of change is too large and draw away or drift away from the core, it will eventually become something else, no longer as it is. On the other hand, if change fluctuates/oscillate around the core/axis and people who generate heritage still can see ‘things’ in it, then that change will be kept.

This argument can be linked with the demerit side in resilience thinking. As stated in previous sections, the two sides, merit and demerit, are co-existing. The critical point is that these notions differ in the extent of understanding the system’s core/significance comprehensively. From CHC5’s viewpoint, it can be argued that when change reaches the extreme point in the demerit side, the object/expression will no longer as it is; instead, it might shift to creating a new thing.

6.2.2.2. In the tourism context Change

Most interviewees [CHC 1, 3, 6, 7, 9] expressed a positive attitude towards change in the tourism context.

In the case of Nhã nhạc, CHC 1 stated that there is no change due to tourists’ demand. However, if any, tourists could indirectly influence tourists in terms of performance designed for the tourism context. It should be noted that it does not come from the tourists’ side, instead, from authorised operators. They intentionally select specific songs that have melody suitable for cheerful tourism atmosphere and first-time tourists. According to CHC 1, it is appropriate since the nature characteristic of Nhã nhạc is ritual music which may difficult to grasp for almost audiences (be confirmed by other interviewees [CHC 6, 7, 9] as tourists), thus, in the context of tourism, it is reasonable to choose songs to fit the surrounding the most, as long as the formality of royal music is well presented. She further pointed out that those songs selected still among Nhã nhạc songs, not completely different or be picked up from other places. Other than that, there are not actively change from practitioners’ side since Nhã nhạc has a very strict rule, it is impossible to change because if doing so, it is no longer ritual music. Moreover, she emphasised that a dismissive or careless performance could be punished by God and the Spirit.

The important thing should be noted, according to CHC 1 is that, as development history of Nhã nhạc, the music was switched back and forth between royal and folk environment. At present, when it places in royal environment for reconstructing and preserving purpose, the significance of royal environment should be critically paid attention to; if not, there could be a change in musical characteristic in its core nature. Besides, the staged-outfits, which is criticised in her study in 2016, as updated by her, is replaced by reconstructed-costume, the same as in the past.

In this case, it can be shown the crucially important role of people who work in heritage management.

Firstly, if they are aware of the intertwined and interdependent relationship between the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural heritage, heritage management would not fall into AHD, which is criticised by Smith (2006) due to primarily focusing on materiality rather than practices or the intangible attachment between people and things. For instance, in the case of Nhã nhạc,

98 being conducted simultaneously in its former environment (royal and historical place), Nhã nhạc maintains the core function in ritual events and national occasions. Thereby, it is not set apart from the ‘every day’ and conserved for its significant value or be received passive involvement from people who generate it. In addition, in the present, Nhã nhạc functions as a cultural product in the tourism context. Therefore, acknowledging the music’s significant characteristic and awareness of the influence of the environment on it, Nhã nhạc is thoughtfully managed and conducted by selecting specific songs suitable in the tourism context. Consequently, change here does not negatively affect Nhã nhạc, and the music is not be separated from its nurturing environment. Additionally, as official heritage, the financial support by the state prevents Nhã nhạc from change due to economic force.

Secondly, in relation to authenticity and constantly constructing, the communities are still the ones who decide which parts are their cultural heritage and which ones are not; however, it needs to be based on a complete understanding of their own cultural heritage. This can relate to the terms merit – demerit in resilience thinking. Disturbance is inevitable, not only in the context of tourism but also in its development and existing process. Therefore, the authorised agency should not set the fixed framework in terms of management but rather provide supportive policies that function as a structure for the local community to build up their cultural heritage. Nevertheless, any framework should be based on constructive dialogue and exchange of knowledge between the local community, scientific community and authorised agents. In the tourism context, it may involve stakeholder and related actors. Thereby, management would not be something ‘frame’ cultural heritage; instead, it facilitates conducting and foster enhancing the value.

Regarding the notion of change in the tourism context, CHC 3 argued that sticking to what is considered ‘authenticity’, there will be very limited space to bring cultural heritage into the stage. In the same line, CHC 6 stated that change in the tourism context is acceptable. It is unfair to ask practitioners to maintain ‘the exact old things’ since if performing is how they make a living; economic benefit indeed needs to be considered. As she further questioned, “what is the point of conserving cultural heritage? Isn't it about the people? Because if the product could not be sold and they cannot support themselves by doing it, how to live, to practice?”.

CHC 7 also claimed that it is reality and inevitable. Speaking from his experience, some changes are evident while some are not. For instance, to connect and engage with tourists, at some

99 places, practitioners actively attach ‘bonus performance’ – which could be something familiar to tourists, trendy, or humorous, and those performances are received positively as feedback from tourists. However, he also admitted that, indeed, how much change is acceptable is problematic since such ‘bonus performance’ sometimes is distorted, which may influence how tourists perceive the actual performance.

It can be argued that, in term of tourists’ impact, they might not affect the destination’s culture directly or visibly as in ecological environment. By adapting tourists’ expectation/perception of the destination, in this sense, tourists' appearance does affect the destination indirectly. However, it is till local people in the destination are the ones who decide change or not, and to what extent. Thus, it would be inaccurate to ‘blame’ it all on tourists or tourism.

From a different perspective, CHC 2 pointed out that there are various forms of change in ICH that had been occurred in the tourism context, for instance, simplifying, shortening the length of the performance. Especially, in ritual practice, from having great spirituality, it becomes a staged performance solely. No one knows whether, at that point, in the performance, the practitioners are connected with the Spirit or not; all audiences could see is they ‘look like being spiritualised.’ Such performance, sadly, very attractive for tourists. In the old times, to perform, the practitioners have to have the connection with the Spirit, and with its support, the strength has been given to practitioners to perform passionately and even be able to do dangerous performances. Nowadays, they can practice everywhere; the performance is commodified or, even worst, intentionally stimulate and amuse tourist. According to CHC 2, in Vietnam, it has happened over 20 years.

He further claimed that there are two attitudes towards this issue. One supports change and argues that it is necessary. Another is “very careful in criticising” those activities. In his opinion, in a more profound sense, changing in the spirituality of human beings is gradually changing in their trust. The performance’s appearance is still visible, but trust is lost. The practitioners might feel hesitant at first, but overtimes, they keep performing on the stage, they get used to it, and they no longer believe that there are God or the Spirit. They used to practice and behave with acknowledgement of God and the Spirit, wish to be blessed by them, and have a fear of not giving the fullest when practising. But now, they can perform everywhere; thereby, in their belief, there is no holiness. It implies that those performances are lost its spirituality.

100

Having the same point of view, CHC 5 also stated that there are certain types of heritage which should “never ever” be used for tourism purpose and critically required careful consideration from local community and authority.

Therefore, both CHC 2 and CHC 5 claimed that the question is not only how much change is acceptable or unacceptable, moreover, do we really need to do it? To ‘bring it all to tourism’?

Tourism context can be seen as a cultural environment

As in CHC 1’s dissertation about Nhã nhạc, the term ‘cultural environment’ is mentioned when referring to two environments – royal and folk; according to her, tourism context can be seen as a cultural environment because it is when a ‘cultural phenomenon’ taking place. In the case of Nhã nhạc, tourism creates a chance to perform, be enjoyed, therefore ‘being maintained and lived’. Thus, cultural environment in this sense is understood as the environment for ‘nourishing’ Nhã nhạc.

The concern about the ‘cultural context’ also pointed out by other interviewees [CHC 3, 5, 6]. According to them, it is difficult to require a cultural product maintain as it used to be in the tourism context. Cultural heritage was ‘born’ from the context of its livelihood; therefore, in the context of tourism, it is impossible to conduct a performance to the fullest since it already lost the initial environment. Thus, in CHC 5’s opinion, we should accept the fact that it is impossible to provide it as it is in the community, and the change of heritage in the tourism context is acceptable and unavoidable. According to him, the performance is still authentic, just an incomplete version.

Furthermore, interviewees [CHC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] claimed that there are no spirituality and holiness in the context of tourism. Thus, it is difficult and complex to conduct a performance with ritual and religious elements in the tourism context.

Interaction between practitioner and audience

In terms of supply and demand of heritage in the tourism context, there were some issues raised in the interviews.

According to CHC 1, to some extents, tourists’ performance affects practitioners. Since Nhã nhạc takes place not only in historical sites, Duyet Thi Duong theatre, but also in public place, thus with noisy, chaotic surroundings, it is challenging for practitioners to stay focused and present at

101 their best. This interaction between tourists and practitioners during the performance also pointed out by other interviewees [CHC 6, 7]. CHC 7 further explained that tourist lack of interest and show ignorance affect practitioners; they lost enthusiasm, even only aim at the payment to ‘finish the performance’. According to him, the setting and organising of the tour also contribute to this issue, since if tourist have other activities to do when the performance taking place, they apparently could not fully pay attention to the performance.

Interdependent relationship of cultural heritage and economic factor

The economic element was mentioned by all interviewees during the interviews.

In general, interviewees [CHC 2, 4, 6] claim that the vision should be a clear distinction between conservation and economics. It absolutely should not let the economy become a driven force in the conservation work. In CHC 4’s opinion, it is not about the immediate profit; the most important thing is how to show the true, authentic life in that destination.

The role of economic factor in implementing cultural heritage in the tourism context was exhibited in the case of Nhã nhạc. According to CHC 1, the concerns over tourists’ expectation affect the performance is not in the least, since to date, Nhã nhạc has full financial support from authorised government. At Duyet Thi Duong theatre, all practitioners have tenure. Therefore, they do not need to practice it for living, as well as change to meet tourists’ expectations.

CHC 6 claimed that requiring practitioners solely maintain cultural heritage because they have the skills is very unrealistic; they need to deal with their real lives first. She gave an example, in My Duc village, practitioners decide conservation by transmitting skill in planting mulberry tree and raising silkworm to young generation. Economic profit brought from that work has changed villagers’ attitude toward their tradition. It is no longer an old abandoned thing, but it has become a part of their life. Especially, in a developing country likes Vietnam, economic factor cannot be separatable, she added.

Besides, from a different viewpoint, CHC 2 argued it should be very careful and thoughtful since the economic force in the tourism context could lead to implementing cultural heritage to a different path.

102

Job creation

In terms of transmitting over generations, CHC 1 claims that there will be supply if there is demand. If people could find a job as practising the music, they will be willing to stay in carrying. To date, according to her, the issue is that the employee number in Duyet Thi Duong theatre is reached, thus even graduated students (from Hue Academy of Music) face challenges in finding jobs. It results in the number of students applying for Nhã nhạc course very small because of the uncertainty after graduation. They need to find employment in private company or participant in tour conducting Nhã nhạc. However, there is already a stable number of young people who are carrying the music.

In the same line, job creation was brought up in the interviews as one of positive impacts of tourism [CHC 1, 3, 4, 6, 7]. Economic benefit not merely exhibited in gained profit; moreover, tourism could enhance the local community's livelihood. CHC 4 further claimed that if local people can make a living in their village, they do not need to move away to work; thereby, social interactions within community could be maintained. This activity, in fact, is the most efficient way to preserve and enhance culture, in his opinion.

Therefore, it can be seen that not only in the tourism context, in general, culture and economy associate and interact with one another. In fact, according to Jokilehto (2010), economy can be seen as a cultural process which “involving the inculcation of what is practised and learnt in the minds of the members of the community”. In other words, the economy reflects a community's culture through their skill gained after a process of selecting and innovating; and how they make a living based on it. Therefore, “economy refers to a system within which a community arranges its resource management over time” (ibid., p61). Resource, in this sense, can be understood as natural, cultural and intellectual resource. In the tourism context, this interaction is more evident.

However, despite positive impacts, as concerns from interviewees, mainly depending on economic profit from tourism activities or set gaining financial as the goal in developing tourism could cause negative impact to the destination in general and the local culture particularly. As Caust & Vecco (2017, p2) claims, relying on economic benefit from tourism activities could lead to the community “cannot survive” without tourists’ presence.

103

Returning to the question ‘who decides’, the answer is still the same - local community. The independence here, not only comes from setting limit to change or the extent of culture provided to tourism, more importantly, although cultural heritage is benefited from tourism’s positive impact, it should not solely rely on tourism. It should be explicitly determined that tourism and culture are interdependent, however, only to some extent.

Firstly, because it is very difficult (even impossible) to bring entirely cultural heritage to tourism. As mentioned previously by some interviewees, when cultural heritage is used in the tourism context, it is instantly not in its original environment anymore; thereby, what appears in that context is basically only part (even a large part) of material culture. Since culture is not a separate thing, it has its environment, namely surrounding, community’s needs, and people; thereby, without its base, cultural heritage in the tourism context, in some way, is incomplete.

Secondly, it needs to avoid solely relying on tourism, particularly, economic brought from tourism activities since if so, the destination would tend to change to meet the needs of tourists (Caust & Vecco, 2017, p2). It can be argued that there are two ‘phases’ of change caused by this effect. At first, the change may be needed to conduct suitably with the context of tourism; later, if the destination depending too much on the economic bring from tourism activities (economic profit entirely come from tourism), at this phase, change is no longer ‘optional’ for the destination, instead, more or less, it becomes a ‘must’ since they would not survive without tourism activities. Eventually, the destination may lose its significance, as well as identity. In this respect, Higgins- Desbiolles et al. (2019, p15) state that re-localize the economy towards degrowing tourism and sustainability should prevent tourism-dependent economies.

6.3. Sustainability & Resilience In this sub-section, firstly, regarding sustainability, related issues are cultural sustainability, sustainable tourism, and sustainable development, in general, will be investigated.

Secondly, regarding resilience, the role of young generation is highlighted in transmitting and continuity of cultural heritage, especially in the context of tourism where young generation confront not only modernisation and globalisation; but also, with economic force from tourism industry. Therefore, to understand the opportunities and challenges, both senior and junior generations were taken into consideration.

104

It should be pointed out that, in terms of change and sustainability, people appeared as the centre of the discussion. However, there are some different opinions towards those notions. On the one hand, some interviewees [CHC 4, 6] stated that determining change should be responsible for the local community who generates heritage. On the other hand, CHC 2 claims that technically, it depends on local community; however, there is much more complex than that, since within that community, its members sometimes tend to attach their personal purpose to heritage. With other concerns, CHC 7 emphasised the role of authorised government in this case, since ‘how much change is acceptable’ is unclear, thus as people who working in heritage management, they should know how to keep things in line and prevent distortion of cultural heritage.

6.3.1. In culture There is a difference in interviewees’ viewpoints.

CHC 5 stated that in order to define ‘cultural sustainability, we first need to determine what is culture. If culture is considered what is made along with the development history of human beings, it is related mainly to everything. Therefore, this term needs to be discussed concerning other things, for instance, ICH and sustainable development or sustainable tourism.

From another point of view, CHC 9 argued that there is ‘no such cultural sustainability.’ She previously stated that even the term ‘sustainable development’ is vague and contrary to her since development means moving forward, but sustainable is understood as stable. Thus, when it comes to cultural sustainability, it is “difficult to comprehend” and “do not know what they mean by that.” Her opinion is that culture is not something that appeared; it is a process; therefore, aiming at sustainability is nonsense. Furthermore, according to her, due to it is a process, old things that are not suitable for the present will be dropped or removed, replaced by new things, and so forth. Likewise, CHC 1 also claimed that there are always conflicts between preservation and development since preserving is maintaining it while developing it to become a new, different thing. The issue here is that we need to determine clearly.

From her viewpoint, CHC 6 claimed that since heritage is a selective thing, therefore, preserve or not is also a matter of individual opinion. In fact, it does not depend on the practitioners themselves, but rather whether it is ‘suitable for contemporary life or not.’ Interviewees [CHC 6, 7] also stated that there is a need to find a way to bring lives to the heritage, not only existing but truly living; that is, cultural sustainability.

105

In terms of sustainability in culture in relation to tourism, CHC 5 pointed out that there are some viewpoints that culture is developed for tourism purpose, and tourism is the solution to preserve cultural heritage from abandonment and such. In his opinion, that is a ‘short-termed mindset; it should not be perceived that way, cultural heritage no way is used to “serve” tourism activities, instead, cultural heritage contributes to developing tourism and vice versa, positive impact from tourism contributes back to cultural heritage. This is in the same line with CHC 4’s perspective toward sustainable tourism that setting vision and mission are crucial in using cultural heritage as a resource in the tourism context.

6.3.2. In tourism Planning

As putting people at the centre of planning, CHC 4 claimed that people should not be changed because of tourism; instead, they need to keep the way of living and ‘staying true to themselves’, which could lead to the market's interest. Since in the first place, tourists visit a new destination because of curiousness, they will not come back if it is not about the very core [cái cốt bên trong] of the destination.

CHC 6 pointed out a misunderstanding between ‘well-organized tourism’ and ‘industrialised tourism’. Some people hesitate to conduct tourism since they worry that their ‘essence, sincere, authentic’ will be lost, but ‘well-organized tourism’ does not imply a fixed model that they have to fit in; instead, tourism activity needs to plan and conduct professionally.

Benefit

Besides preserving culture, how local community is benefited from tourism activities need to take into consideration [CHC 4, 7].

Moreover, CHC 2 raised the question that who is the centre of cultural heritage is used as a resource in the context of tourism; for attracting more tourist to meet some sort of quota, or for local community who generates heritage.

CHC 5 stated that if maintain continuity is sustainable, then ICH needs to change. As the flow of history, the cultural environment of heritage may no longer exist in the present; cultural heritage, therefore, needs to find a way to adapt to life. He further claimed that adaptiveness is a crucially

106 important characteristic in sustainability. Change is sustainability and being sustainable requires change. He also answered regarding the concerns over losing the self, which in his opinion is “depending on the degree of adaptiveness, and it still is your own choice.”

Regarding the notion of change, interestingly, most junior interviewees argued maintaining cultural heritage without changing to adapt to the current situation as, in fact, going backwards. They also shared opinion about culture as a process, and not just appear from thin air but in the process of ‘let go’ and create new things.

In relation to sustainability and resilience, as mentioned above, CHC 9 found the confusing in comprehending the combination of ‘development’ and ‘sustainability’, since ‘being sustainable’ referring solid, stable and steady. Likewise, CHC 5 mentioned that, in some cases, develop with being ‘stable and solid’ as in ‘sustainable’ [sustainability] is not ideal at all.

An example was given by him related to agriculture; in terms of flood control, there is a difference in approach between people in North and Central of Vietnam. While in the North, people need to build dams to control the river's flow, in contrast, people who live in the Mekong Delta need to live with floods [sống chung với lũ] because water irrigates fields and rice paddies and enriches them with precious silt. Thus, the question is that building dams is sustainability or livings with floods? Sustainable or flexible?

The sub-sections cultural heritage in the tourism context, sustainability and resilience can be concluded with the examination of these notions on two examples – Nhã nhạc and áo dài.

Firstly, in the case of Nhã nhạc, on the first transformation, being brought from royal environment to folk environment, Nhã nhạc needed to actively learn to adapt in the new circumstance. The disturbance was absorbed into the music when it confronted with the new environment. Typical royal-oriented in music instruments and ritual music characteristic was replaced and integrated with the folk music. It can be seen that, to some extent, this change to adapt and then adopt new characteristics helped the music ‘survive’ in a new environment. By identify the vulnerable aspects (highly ritual characteristic) and resilient aspect (music instrument), a ‘strategy’ was formulated to strengthen the vulnerable and promote the resilient ones.

Later, when brought back to its original environment, Nhã nhạc both passively learned from the last transformation and actively emphasised the royal characteristic to maintain its music nature.

107

Thus, it can be argued that although on the second transformation, Nhã nhạc was brought back to its initial environment (not the new one), the core characteristics of the music was revealed, might even clearer than transforming on the first time. In fact, the music’s value was enhanced due to the influence of folk music integrated into the royal music; it created the significance of Nhã nhạc, which became its identity compares to the court music from neighbouring countries with the same origin. Therefore, the disturbance in this case, was utilized to enhance the music's value. The disturbance, thereby, can be seen as an opportunity to re-examine the value and strengthen the endurance.

Additionally, at present, in the tourism context, based on a complete understanding of its music nature, Nhã nhạc is conducted effectively in the new ‘environment’. In this sense, it is not changing per se but rather thoughtful in selecting specific parts suitable in the new context while maintaining the music’s significant characteristic. Consequently, Nhã nhạc is used flexibly as a resource in the tourism context without being distorted.

Secondly, in the case of áo dài, change is the reflection of people who generate it. Being authentic is ‘being one’s true self’ – the wearer. The emerging of modernity which can be seen as the disturbance, was absorbed into the design of áo dài. Adaptive learning, in this sense, is actively selecting aspects which suitable for the circumstance in Vietnam. Moreover, the essential function (the underlying value) of áo dài was maintained, that is, the desire to express themselves of Vietnamese women, which go beyond all the social conception on traditional image or beauty standard. However, it can be argued that in this case, Lemur fully understood the historical context as well as Vietnamese characteristic; therefore, it resulted in the merit side of resilience thinking.

It can be shown in both examples that the merit side in resilience thinking was exhibited. When confronting disturbance, being put in a new environment in the case of Nhã nhạc, and the incursion of modernity in the case of áo dài, practitioners, thoughtfully and effectively identified the essential elements (the core function, meaning) to maintain and change the other elements to enhance the endurance of those cultural materials. The critical point here is that it was made based on a comprehensive understanding of the cultural object/performance; otherwise, it would lead to the demerit side.

108

6.4. Recommendations 6.4.1. Opportunities Attitude towards tourism

Most of the interviewees expressed positive attitude towards tourism. As mentioned above, according to CHC 1, tourism can be seen as an opportunity for Nhã nhạc to be performed and be lived again. Likewise, other interviewees [CHC 3, 4, 6, 7] claim that tourism could be utilised to preserve cultural heritage.

Creativity and Innovation

Senior interviewees [CHC 1, 2, 4, 5] stated that creativity and innovation should be encouraged to find new ways to conserve heritage. However, it is essential to divide the old and new things clearly. Also, old things need to be preserved to serve as a reference point [CHC 1].

CHC 2 pointed out that there are some examples of successful using melody in traditional or folk music in contemporary music. However, the point is that how to do it without diminishing the performance’s value. He further claimed that it needs to be determined that creativity and innovation should aim at fostering community’s cultural heritage. As a result, tourism will be benefited from it, not the other way around.

CHC 1 put that “we [‘mình’ in Vietnamese which can be inferred as I, we (as herself and fellow seniors, or herself including colleague in Nhã nhạc studies, or herself including the interviewer)] should not be too nostalgic or conservative. Do not lock yourself in the past. We [in this sense, she might address herself and senior generation] need to open up, open your head to give young generation space to develop.” She also noted that there are positive changes, as well as negative; eventually, if it is correct, it must be kept; otherwise, it will be rejected. That is natural law.

Policy

As pointed out by CHC 5, compare to other science fields where the framework is built by scholars, experts and policymakers, in the case of ICH in Vietnam, it is quite the opposite since policymakers, not scholars, firstly approach ICH. Thereby, to date, there has not had a community and group do scientific research concerning ICH, mainly from authority.

109

It can be seen that it could be challenging in the first place, however at the same time, with support guidelines and framework proved by UNESCO, according to CHC 5, at this phase, it has facilitated heritage management.

6.4.2. Challenges According to CHC 4, as of the date (April 2021), his village is laying the ground foundation of tourism; in the interview, he expressed both excitement and concern toward tourism activity. Likewise, CHC 2 showed a more careful approach towards tourism could be a good thing, but we need to have ‘careful thought’ about it.

Culture lost

As being considered ‘manner’ and ‘lifestyle’, interviewees [CHC 6, 7, 9] expressed concerns over culture losing without noticing. CHC 6 stated that Vietnamese people tend to aware of protecting something they can see it; thus, it creates a gap in terms of culture. In her opinion, language is also culture. In terms of language usage, CHC 4 mentioned the ‘existing language’ among the young people in his community; even though it is still Vietnamese language, the expression is very unfamiliar to him, which he has no idea what they are saying, he concerned.

Blind belief

As religious element was repeatedly mentioned in interviews, some interviewees [CHC 2, 4] expressed the concern regarding the blind belief, which directly affect people’s mind.

In an example brought up by CHC 2, with economic driven, at some places, false information was spread out to utilise people’s blind belief, attempting to attract more visitors. The immediate visible result is mass tourism, but there are invisible effects that might take us a long time to realise – the loss of belief. People believe that success does not come from hard work but their devotion. In the long-term, it affects people much more than what we can imagine.

This explains why an object or performance consisting of religious element could be very complex in implementing in practice. According to the interviewees [CHC 2, 3, 4, 6], it is difficult to conduct such type of performance since it evolves various factors, ranging from setting, place, audience, to assure the intangible aspect.

110

Information

Interviewees [CHC 4, 6, 7, 9] pointed out that there is a lack of reliable source and much information inaccessible. For the work purpose, they mostly have to look up the public source. CHC 4 stated that he needed to contact scholars by email when unsure about something.

Also, to conduct and operate tour effectively, there is still lack of understanding tourists’ need, therefore when changing to meet, is just further wrong and lose its significance [CHC 4, 6].

In addition, is a lack of full understanding of recognising by UNESCO among Vietnamese people [CHC 3, 4, 7]. For instance, in the case of Chầu văn, CHC 4 stated that only part of that ritual (cultural element) in it is inscribed, not entire the performance. Likewise, CHC 2 claims that some spiritual performance is partly inscribed by UNESCO, for example, đạo Mẫu - lên đồng since there are some parts of it used to be a source of controversy, however, after being listed, it became entirely official and be practised widely, which is wrong and problematic.

In terms of providing information, CHC 9 argued that how media and press present also affect people’s perception of áo dài, women, and culture. Furthermore, since the costume has been discussing to designate as the national costume, CHC 9 expressed the concern that it could be problematic in the future as it may be added political element.

Policy

There are some issues towards to policy, and heritage management pointed out by interviewees concerning lack in people or knowledge, for instance, appropriate holistic, comprehensive policy [CHC 2, 6]; essential knowledge about cultural heritage field among some officials, working people who understand the community [CHC 6]; participating of community members in tourism business [CHC 2]; more supportive policy [CHC 4, 7].

In terms of information and policy, CHC 5 pointed out that due to the hierarchical model of governance, as well as lack of awareness of their heritage, there is still passiveness. At some points, it “has not yet synchronised” between practitioners and authority.

CHC 4 expressed concern over the news that his village has been received ‘A destination of tourism’ [Công nhận điểm đến du lịch] as a certification from authorised agency; since it could be a great opportunity, as well as contain threats of fading away from his culture. According to him,

111 the target market should be determined since it may affect the development vision. For instance, there is a difference between Vietnamese tourists and international tourists in their interest and purpose of visiting. Based on spiritualist conception, Vietnamese tourists tend to spend more to show their devotion at spiritual places, which is different from international counterparts. Thus, receiving the certification implies that there is monthly/annual quota in economic; if “chase to that, we will put culture at risk.” He further claims that there are always two sides to a coin; the matter is identifying and orienting which path of development is appropriate. That is very complex and difficult [CHC 2, 4, 6].

Cooperation

CHC 1 pointed out that there is still a lack of cooperation between Duyet Thi Duong theatre and tour operators. For instance, some tourist happened to learn about Nhã nhạc, but their tours schedule is already fixed and tight; thus, even the show only takes approximately 30 minutes, they could not attend. CHC 7 also suggested that there should be work in collaboration between tour operator and local authorised governance in order to engage tourists at the destination effectively.

6.4.3. Suggestions Experiential profit

As mentioned previously, to engage with audiences, emotional attachment is vital. Thus, in [CHC 4, 6]’s opinions, it could be utilised to fulfil the economic target and foster understanding cross-culture. For instance, by learning how to do handcraft, tourists can experience the process of making it, listen to the story behind the product, thereby have a sense of engagement with the place through its culture.

Moreover, by appropriately combining needs, on the one hand, tourists have chance to play a role in the making product to have a better understanding of local life. On the other hand, practitioners have opportunity to perform their cultural heritage more frequently and enhance a sense of pride by showing tourists how to make a product or tell tourist about the meaning behind a performance from a personal viewpoint; thereby, they both benefit from experience in the tourism context in terms of cultural tolerance.

112

Preservation

Since the conflict between preservation and development always exists, the solution is to simultaneously do both works with a clear divide – old thing and being constructed thing [CHC 1]. It is vital to explain to audience in detail; then, they can distinguish between those things and how and why combining new elements in it.

The shared thoughts between two generations are that there is a need to have a reference point, and it is crucially required separation between the original and creative ones. In addition, if it is possible, the process or history development of a cultural product or event should be listed according to its timeline and be explained why and how it has such change over time. Because, as seen as a process, changing has its reason at a specific time point. By doing that, cultural heritage still maintained its underlying value/meaning while enhancing creative work. Therefore, it no longer a thing from the past, has no connection with the present but is engaged from generations to generations. Moreover, change is not seen as ‘losing touch with the roots’ but continue it.

Education

There should be an effective way to enhance a sense of belonging among young generation without ‘spouting’ [CHC 6, 7] or solely relying on textbook [CHC 6]. It should get their attention by attaching some cultural element in what they are interested in, which could naturally connect with them, then raise the sense of curiosity. Later, they would actively desire to discover more.

It is important to identify the focus group as young generation in terms of transmitting and enhancing heritage [CHC 6]; therefore, it is critically required to have an appropriate approach [CHC 4, 6].

In the same line, CHC 1 argued that without changing and adapting, it could be challenging for Nhã nhạc to be introduced to audience, especially first-time listeners, since they might find it difficult, get bored, refuse to absorb due to its heavily ritual characteristic. However, it is essential to note that in the case of Nhã nhạc, it is not merely changed; instead, selectively choose among Nhã nhạc songs to fit with the context of tourism. It can be seen that with specific performance requiring essential knowledge, tour operator should find the way to provide information and engage tourist to transfer the significance of this type of culture.

113

From a different perspective, CHC 5 claimed that, in the end, it is all about the community. Although authority can provide legal framework, policy management but as the one who decides their heritage, if people within the community ‘understand’ their heritage, conservation work can be genuinely effective. Thereby, with supportive policy, there is no need to force/lead them in conserving their heritage.

According to CHC 2, to be sustainable, people need to be the centre in training, especially in terms of cultural heritage; the most important thing is people within the community.

114

7. Conclusion

7.1. Intangibility According to the study’s result, there is a confusion in understanding UNESCO’s definition of cultural heritage. Categorising cultural heritage into tangible heritage and ICH is not entirely accurate, especially in the case of ICH; intangibility as the dynamic element is not emphasised enough in the use of current concept. One of the main reasons that create the confusion is the intertwisted relationship of tangible and intangible aspects. It can be seen that by definition, the concept of cultural heritage is comprehended incompletely, by people who have not expert knowledge in this field.

Intangibility is intangible elements that constitute cultural heritage, namely, its meaning/value, representativeness, function/purpose, custom and habit, dynamic constructing, ritual and spiritual practice, perception, and belief.

Additionally, cultural heritage is not only created by intangibility but also influenced by intangibility. For instance, in the case of áo dài, the intangibility (social perception on women, beauty standard) forms the tangibility (áo dài), then that tangibility impacts the intangibility (women’s perception about themselves).

It should be pointed out that although the intangibility is crucial, however, the tangibility as its appearance plays an essential role in manifesting the intangible aspect. Therefore, tangibility and intangibility are inseparable.

7.2. Authenticity In relation to intangibility, which in my opinion, is the core element and determinator of authenticity, the notion of authenticity needs to be investigated in the face of change.

The matter of change does not only begin to emerge in the tourism context. In fact, the notion of continuity manifested itself as change. As in the two case study examples and in their development history, they both experience change to some degree to adapt to the current circumstances. However, in the context of tourism, with the interaction between tourists and the host community, change is more evident. It can be seen in the authentication process, their expectation and perception affect one another, even before the trip, and continually constructed at

115 the destination. Thus, this interaction indeed affects how cultural heritage is interpreted in the context of tourism.

The question of how much change that is ‘acceptable’ becomes very complex. This is when the notion of authenticity needs to be taken into consideration. However, this concept should not be dismissed, also much less be focused on. By being aware of factors that influence and determine which elements need to be preserved, and which ones could be changed or adapted, 'being authentic' would not be something that holds cultural heritage back; but rather, practitioners would be able to convey freely and manage to maintain the core value.

Moreover, the matter of ‘manage’ change is not only regarding tourism's impact but also within the community, which is between generations in terms of transmitting and inheriting.

7.3. Sustainability It can be seen that the notions of change and sustainability seems contradictory in terms. However, to identify the conflict in understanding, it would be necessary to take the question back to the beginning, to what sustainability is, specifically in relation to cultural heritage. If the answer is viability and continuity, then cultural heritage needs to change. Change to adapt to the new environment, to meet contemporary needs, and most importantly, to reflect people who generate it. Sustainability may be in contrast with change, but ‘development’ connotes ‘change’. The key in this may be the word ‘balance’. To maintain continuity, a thing needs to change as the way to develop; and developing towards sustainability requires balancing factors involved.

To answer the last research question, ‘how to use cultural heritage as a resource in the tourism context toward sustainable destination development’, there are some related issues that need to be considered.

Firstly, in relation to sustainability in general and the tourism context in particular, economic factors should be taken into account. It is not only because tourism is an economic driven sector but also because it maintains local wellbeing. Cultural heritage needs to reflect contemporary life with the desire and needs of people who generate it. Doing so would truly become a part of their lives, contribute to a sustainable future, and keep continuing the role of reflecting people and their lives. Nevertheless, although economics is a required factor, setting a vision for only gaining financially would destroy the cultural heritage. Therefore, it is necessary to have a careful,

116 appropriate approach in setting limit concerning the relationship between economic factors and cultural heritage.

Secondly, the notion of sustainability is not only about setting limits to growth but also a matter of responsibility, especially in the case of cultural heritage. The role of local community indeed needs to be placed in the centre of development. However, different conditions require different responses. For instance, according to the findings from the case study, in Vietnam, top-down governance in heritage management with support from experts and a framework from UNESCO has been perceived as an appropriate act. To date, in some local communities, they are not fully aware of their cultural heritage; thereby, with the force of economy, consequently, the community themselves distort their cultural heritage. In this case, experts and policymakers’ role is crucial in providing essential knowledge to the community. It is still the local communities who decide what their cultural heritage is; however, it needs to be based on a complete understanding of their own cultural heritage. In addition, being inscribed by UNESCO raise awareness about their heritage and sense of responsibility; otherwise, it could face dismission or abandonment. In this case, close ties between policymakers, experts, and practitioners are crucial.

Thirdly, it is not always that “you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone” (Joni Mitchell cited in Cause & Vecco, 2017), but rather, how do you know that something has just gone if you do not even know about its existence?

Education is also an important factor.

Local communities need to have an awareness of their cultural heritage. Without knowledge, it will lead to a lack of self-determination. Besides, the notion of change is not only in the tourism context but also in the face of transmitting over generations. Thus, local youth also need to be taken into consideration, already in the planning phase.

Furthermore, in terms of education, it should be understood as continuous and mutual learning. Not only from local communities but also people in authorised agency. Since cultural heritage is created constantly, people who are working with it also need to keep themselves updated. As long as we have comprehensive knowledge about cultural heritage and have a growth mindset in terms of knowledge exchange between involved actors in the cultural heritage community, it would not be too difficult to tackle how cultural heritage is used sustainably in the tourism context.

117

7.4. Limitation and further research Firstly, due to the scope of the paper, development history of áo dài was not provided in detail in this study. However, missing information is not essential and has no significant causation for the study results. Given the circumstance that to date, áo dài is on the plan to be designate as the ‘national costume’, which may represent the whole nation in the future (Le, 2020). Thus, in the tourist context, this issue relates to destination image need further in-depth research.

Secondly, as mentioned above, the original intention of the study is to investigate from practitioners’ perspectives; however, due to Covid-19 travelling restriction, their opinions in this study is secondary data from those working directly with them, such as researchers, scholars, and cultural project assistant. Thus, the focus group - ‘cultural heritage community’ regarding transmission and using heritage as a resource in the tourism context was lack practitioners’ viewpoint.

Thirdly, although attempts to have a broad picture of cultural heritage in the tourism context by ranging participants in interviews from authorised officials, experts, and scholars to tourism stakeholders, the number of interviewees was not sufficient to reveal certain groups' viewpoints.

Fourthly, due to the study’s scope and intended objective of the study, the authentication process was not examined, even though findings could prove some of those arguments; however, further investigation into the process with strong evidence indeed need to be done.

And fifthly, although the intangible aspect in tangible heritage and intangible cultural heritage was brought up in the discussion on UNESCO’s existing definition, however, a solution was not made.

118

8. References

8.1. Bibliography  Ahmad, Y. (2006). The Scope and Definitions of Heritage: From Tangible to Intangible. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12:3, 292-300.  Akagawa, N. (2015). Vietnam case study: Vietnam’s nationalist history and Japan’s Official Development Assistance to Vietnam & Vietnam case study: Can Chan Palace and Nha Nhac Court Music in Hue. In Heritage conservation and Japan’s cultural diplomacy: heritage, national identity and national interest. New York: Routledge, 138-149, 150-181.  Akagawa, N. & Smith, L. (2018). The practice and politics of safeguarding. In N. Akagawa & L. Smith (Eds.), Safeguarding Intangible Heritage – Practice and Politics. Routledge, 4-25.  Bak, S., Min, C-K. & Roh, T-S. (2019). Impacts of UNESCO-listed tangible and intangible heritage on tourism. Journal of travel & tourism marketing, 36:8, 917-927.  Barthel-Bouchier, D. (2012). Culture: Our Second Nature. Cultural Heritage and the Challenge of Sustainability. Taylor & Francis Group, 7-26.  Belhassen, Y. & Caton, K. (2006). Authenticity Matters. Annals of Tourism Research, 33:3, 853-856.  Belhassen, Y., Caton, K. & Stewart, W. P. (2008). The search for authenticity in the pilgrim experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 35:3, 668-689.  Bessière, J. (2013). ‘Heritagisation’, a challenge for tourism promotion and regional development: an example of food heritage. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 8:4, 275-291.  Brâncoveanu, R. (2018). When Does “Tangible” Meet “Intangible”? Some Reflections about the Relation between the Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage. Hermeneia, 21, 7-18.  Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods. Oxford University Press  Budeanu, A., Miller, G., Moscardo, G. & Ooi, C. (2016). Sustainable tourism, progress, challenges and opportunities: an introduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11, 285-294.  Butler, R. (2009). Tourism in the future: Cycles, waves or wheels? Futures, 41, 346-352.  Caust, J. & Vecco, M. (2017). Is UNESCO World Heritage recognition a blessing or burden? Evidence from developing Asian countries. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 27, 1-9.

119

 Cohen, E. & Cohen, S. A. (2012). Authentication: Hot and cool. Annals of Tourism Research, 39:3, 1295-1314.  Daly, H.E. (1993). Sustainable Growth: An Impossibility Theorem. In Valuing the Earth, edited by H.E. Daly and K.N. Townsend, 267-274.  Dangi, T.B. & Jamal, T. (2016). An Integrated Approach to “Sustainable Community- Based Tourism”. Sustainability, 8:475, 1-32.  Espiner, S., Orchiston, C., & Higham, J. (2017). Resilience and sustainability: A complementary relationship? Towards a practical conceptual model for the sustainability – resilience nexus in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 25:10, 1385-1400.  Foley, K. (2014). No More Masterpieces: Tangible Impacts and Intangible Cultural Heritage in Bordered Worlds. Asian Theatre Journal, 31:2. University of Hawai’i Press, 369-398.  Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological system analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253-267.  García-Almeida, D. J. (2019). Knowledge transfer processes in the authenticity of the intangible cultural heritage in tourism destination competitiveness. Journal of heritage tourism, 14:5-6, 409-421.  Gunnestad, A. (2006). Resilience in a Cross-Cultural Perspective: How resilience is generated in different cultures. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 11, 1-22.  Hall, C. M., Gössling, S. & Scott, D. (2015). The evolution of sustainable development and sustainable tourism. In C. M. Hall, D. Scott & S. Gössling (Eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Sustainability. London: Routledge, 15-35.  Harrison, R. (2010). What is Heritage? In R. Harrison (Eds.), Understanding the Politics of Heritage. Manchester/Milton Keynes: Manchester University Press/Open University, 5- 42.  Harrison, R. (2012). Heritage Critical Approaches. Taylor & Francis Group, 13-41, 114- 139.  Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2018). Sustainable tourism: Sustaining tourism or something more? Tourism Management Perspectives 25, 157-160.

120

 Higgins-Desbiolles, F., Carnicelli, S., Krolikowski, C., Wijesinghe, G. & Boluk, K. (2019). Degrowing tourism: rethinking tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-19. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2019.1601732.  Havinga, L., Colenbrander, B. & Schellen, H. (2020). Heritage significance and the identification of attributes to preserve in a sustainable refurbishment. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 43, 282-293.  Jokilehto, J. (2006a). Considerations on authenticity and integrity in world heritage context. City & Time 2 (1): 1. Retrieved April 1, 2021, from http:/www.ce.ceci-br.org  Jokilehto, J. (2006b). World Heritage: Defining the outstanding universal value. City & Time 2 (2): 1. Retrieved April 2, 2021, from http://www.ct.ceci-br.org  Jokilehto, J. (2010). Culture as a factor of development. Centro Universitario Europeo per i Beni Culturali, Territori della Cultura è una testata iscritta al Tribunale della Sampa di Roma, 58-67.  Karakul, Ö. (2016). Authenticity as a Sustainable Value of Holistic Conservation: The Case of Turkey’s World Heritage Sites. Megaron, 11:4, 483-490.  Karlström, A. (2015). Authenticity: Rhetorics of Preservation and the Experience of the Original. In K. L. Samuels & T. Rico (Eds.), Heritage Keywords: Rhetoric and Redescription in Cultural Heritage. University Press of Colorado, 29-46. DOI: 10.5876/9781607323846.c002  Kim, S., Whitford, M. & Arcodia, C. (2019). Development of intangible cultural heritage as a sustainable tourism resource: the intangible cultural heritage practitioners’ perspective. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 14:5-6, 422-435.  Kurin, R. (2007). Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage: Key Factors in Implementing the 2003 Convention. Implementing the 2003 Convention, 9-20.  Lane, P. J. (2016). Ethnoarchaeology: A conceptual and Practical Bridging of the Intangible and Tangible Cultural Heritage Divide. The Intangible Elements of Culture in Ethnoarchaeological Research, 77-92.  Lawless, J. W. & Silva, K. D. (2017). Towards an Integrative Understanding of ‘Authenticity’ of Cultural Heritage: An Analysis of World Heritage Site Designations in the Asian Context. Journal of Heritage Management 1(2), 148-159.

121

 Le, A. & Tran, T. (2020). Góc nhìn Đại biểu: Cần một cơ sở pháp lý cho áo dài Việt Nam. Cổng thông tin điện tử của Quốc hội. Retrieved March 31, 2021, from http://quochoi.vn/hoatdongdbqh/Pages/home.aspx?ItemID=48428  Le, C (2019). Chuyện người chấp bút đưa Nhã nhạc Cung đình Huế đi ra thế giới. Tổ quốc: báo điện tử của Bộ văn hóa, Thể thao và Du lịch. Retrieved May 20, 2021, from https://toquoc.vn/chuyen-nguoi-chap-but-dua-nha-nhac-cung-dinh-hue-di-ra-the-gioi- 20190124173714072.htm  Marie-Theres, A. & Ringbeck, B. (2015). Prospects for the Future (chapter 7). 40 Years World Heritage Convention: Popularizing the Protection of Cultural and Heritage. De Gruyter Inc., 153-182.  Nguyen, M. T. (2016). Wearing Modernity: Lemur Nguyễn Cát Tường, Fashion, and the “Origin” of the Vietnamese National Costume. Journal of Vietnamese Studies, 11:1, 76- 128.  Park, E., Choi, B-K. & Lee, T.J. (2019). The role and dimensions of authenticity in heritage tourism. Tourism management, 74, 99-109.  Phan, T. T. (2016). Nhã nhạc Huế: Môi trường, đặc điểm và giá trị văn hóa. PhD thesis. Graduate Academy of Social Sciences, Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences.  Reisinger, Y. & Steiner, C.J. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 33:1, 65-86.  Ruggles, D. F. & Silverman, H. (2009). From Tangible to Intangible Heritage, Intangible Heritage Embodied. Springer-Verlag New York, 1-14.  Rutty, M., Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C. M. (2015). The global effects and impacts of tourism: an overview. In C. M. Hall, D. Scott & S. Gössling (Eds.), Handbook of Tourism and Sustainability. London: Routledge, 36-63.  Saarinen, J. (2006). Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 33:4, 1121-1140.  Saarinen, J. (2014). Critical Sustainability: Setting the Limits to Growth and Responsibility in Tourism. Sustainability, 6, 1-17.  Saarinen, J. & Gill, A.M. (2019). Tourism, resilience, and governance strategies in the transition towards sustainability. In J. Saarinen and A. M. Gill (Eds.), Resilient

122

Destinations and Tourism: Governance Strategies in the Transition towards Sustainability in Tourism. UK & New York: Routledge, 15-33.  Santa, E.D. & Tiatco, S.A. (2019). Tourism, heritage and cultural performance: Developing a modality of heritage tourism. Tourism Management Perspective, 31, 301-309.  Şerban, O. (2018). The Primitive Intangible Heritage behind Brâncuşi’s Modernist Tangible Forms of Culture. Hermeneia – Nr.21/2018, 115-131.  Sharpley, R. (2013). Responsible Tourism: Whose Responsibility? In A. Holden & D. Fennell (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and Environment. London: Routledge, 382-391.  Smith, L. (2006). The use of heritage. London: Routledge.  Smith, L. (2012). Editorial. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 18:6, 533-540.  Smith, L. & Akagawa (2009). Introduction. In L. Smith & A. Akagawa (Eds.), Intangible Heritage. London: Routledge, 1-9.  Smith, L & Waterson, E. (2009). ‘The envy of the world?’ Intangible heritage in England. In L. Smith & A. Akagawa (Eds.), Intangible Heritage. London: Routledge, 289-302.  Smith, L. & Campbell, G. (2017).fo The Tautology of “Intangible Values” and the Misrecognition of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Heritage & Society, 10:1, 26-44.  Steiner, C. J. & Reisinger, Y. (2006). Understanding existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 33:2, 299-318.  Stovel, H. (2007). Effective use of authenticity and integrity as world heritage qualiifying conditions. City & Time 2 (3):3, 21-36.  Su, D.N., Nguyen, N.A.N., Nguyen, Q.N.T. & Tran, T.P. (2020). The link between travel motivation and satisfaction towards a heritage destination: The role of visitor engagement, visitor experience and heritage destination image. Tourism Management Perspective, 34, 1-11.  Su, J. (2017). Intangible Cultural Heritage Safeguarding in the Context of Tourism: A Case Study of Lijiang, China. PhD thesis. Deakin University.  Su, J. (2018). Conceptualising the subjective authenticity of intangible cultural heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 24:9, 919-937.  Su, J. (2020). Managing intangible cultural heritage in the context of tourism: Chinese officials’ perspective. Journal of tourism and cultural change, 18:2, 164-186.

123

 Su, X., Li, X., Wu, Y., Yao, L. (2020). How is intangible cultural heritage valued in the eyes of inheritors? Scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 44:5, 806-834.  Suntikul, W. (2018). Cultural sustainability and fluidity in Bhutan’s traditional festivals. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26:12, 2102-2116.  Thimm, T. (2019). Cultural sustainability – a framework for Aboriginal tourism in British Columbia. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 14:3, 205-218.  Timothy, D. J. (2001). Cultural heritage and tourism: An introduction. Bristol: Channel View Publications.  Titon, J.T. (2016a). Sustainability, Resilience, and Adaptive Management for Applied Ethnomusicology. The Oxford Handbook of Applied Ethnomusicology, 1-40. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199351701.013.8  Titon, J.T. (2016b). Orality, Commonality, Commons, Sustainability, and Resilience. Journal of American Folklore 129: 514, 486-497.  Tran, Q. Đ. (2013). Ngàn năm áo mũ: Lịch sử trang phục Việt Nam giai đoạn 1009-1945 [A Thousand Years of Clothing and Hats: Vietnamese Clothing History from 1009-1945]. Công ty Văn hóa và Truyền thông Nhã Nam.  Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and Authenticity. London: Oxford University Press.  UNESCO. (2021). The State Parties to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003). Retrieved April 4, from https://ich.unesco.org/en/states-parties-00024  UNESCO. (2021). Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Register of good safeguarding practices. Retrieved February 17, 2021, from https://ich.unesco.org/en/lists?multinational=3&display1=inscriptionID&display=stats#ta bs  Vasavada, F. & Kour, G. (2016). Heritage Tourism: How Advertising is Branding the Intangibles? Journal of Heritage Management 1(1), 22-34.  Vecco, M. (2010). A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11, 321-324.  Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26:2, 349-370.

124

 Wells, J. C. (2020). Is there such a thing as tangible heritage? Forum Journal. 32:4, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 15-24.  Zhu, Y. (2012). Performing heritage: Rethinking authenticity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 39:3, 1495-1513.

8.2. Documents and texts of law  Agency for Cultural Affairs in cooperation with UNESCO, ICCROM and ICOMOS. (1994). The Nara Document on Authenticity, Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention. November 1-6. Nara, Japan. (Retrieved April 1, 2021, from http://icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf)  Asia/Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO. (2006). Expert meeting on community involvement in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage: Towards the implementation of the 2003 Convention. March 13-15. Tokyo, Japan. Retrieved April 23, 2021, from https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/00034-EN.pdf  Council of Europe. (2005). Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. Council of Europe Treaty Series, 199. Faro. (Retrieved April 11, 2021, from https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?docume ntId=0900001680083746)  ICOMOS. (1964). The Venice Charter: International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites. May 25 – May 31. Venice, Italy. (Retrieved May 18, 2021, from https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf)  UNESCO. (1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. 17th Session of the General Conference. November 16. Paris, France. (Retrieved April 3, 2021 from https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/)  UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. 32nd Session of General Conference. September 29 – October 17. Paris, France. (Retrieved February 10, 2021 from https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/15164-EN.pdf)  UNESCO. (2015). Ethical Principles for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage.10th Session of Intergovernmental Committee. November 30 – December 4. Windhoek, Namibia. (Retrieved April 1, 2021, from http://ich.unesco.org/en/ethics-and-ich-00866)

125

 United Nations Environment Programme. (2005). Making Tourism More Sustainable: A Guide for Policy Makers; UNEP: Paris, France.  World Bank. (2012). Transformation through Tourism: Development Dynamics Past, Present and Future (Draft); World Bank: Washington, DC, USA.  World Tourism Organization. (1993). Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide for Local Planners; WTO: Madrid, Spain.

126

9. Appendix

9.1. Interview guideline (Vietnamese version) I. Mở đầu Giới thiệu bản thân và chủ đề của luận văn. Xác nhận sự tham gia của người được phỏng vấn và xin phép được ghi âm. Nêu rõ rằng danh tính người được phỏng vấn có thể ẩn hoặc dùng trong tài liệu phụ thuộc vào mong muốn của người được phỏng vấn. Người được phỏng vấn giới thiệu bản thân họ.

II. Di sản văn hóa 1. Khi nghe nhắc đến ‘văn hóa’, ‘di sản’ anh/chị nghĩ đến điều gì? 2. Anh/chị hiểu thế nào về khái niệm ‘di sản văn hóa phi vật thể’? Trong trường hợp này, từ ‘phi vật thể’ được hiểu như thế nào? 3. Liệu có ‘khoảng trống’ trong việc hiểu ‘di sản văn hóa’ trong tiếng Việt hay không, vì ‘sản’ ở đây có thể được hiểu như trong cụm từ ‘sản vật’, nghĩa là mang tính vật chất? Liệu cách dùng như vậy có làm giảm đi tính phi vật thể của di sản? 4. Theo anh/chị yếu tố nào của di sản tạo nên giá trị cho nó? 5. Anh/chị có cho rằng cả di sản vật thể và phi vật thể đều có tính phi vật thể trong nó? Anh/chị có thể giải thích thêm về quan điểm của mình không?

III. Di sản văn hóa trong bối cảnh du lịch 1. Theo anh chị, một thứ như thế nào thì có thể được coi hoặc không được coi là ‘thật, nguyên bản’? Tính chất nào tạo nên ‘cái thật, cái chất’ của nó’? 2. Quan điểm của anh/chị là gì về việc Nhã nhạc/ Áo dài được dùng trong bối cảnh du lich? Điểm nào là lợi thế, bất lợi? 3. Yếu tố nào của Nhã nhạc/ Áo dài thay đổi đi (nếu có), khi nó được đưa vào một ‘môi trường văn hóa’ khác? 4. Liệu bối cảnh du lịch có thể được coi là một ‘môi trường văn hóa’ không? Tại sao? 5. Với hoàn cảnh hiện nay khi Nhã nhạc được đưa vào tour ở Huế, không những phục vụ khác du lịch quốc tế mà còn khách du lịch trong nước, theo anh chị những thay đổi trong việc trình diễn có ảnh hưởng đến việc nó được nhận thức bởi người xem?

127

(Bởi vì, cho đến thời điểm này, đó có thể coi là kênh phổ biến nhất dùng để giới thiệu Nhã nhạc)

IV. Sự bền vững và sự đàn hồi 1. Theo anh/chị bền vững về mặt văn hóa là gì? 2. Về việc truyền lại cho các thế hệ đi sau, yếu tố nào anh/chị nghĩ là quan trọng nhất cần gìn giữ? 3. Anh/chị có cho rằng việc tìm người để gìn giữ kế thừa truyền thống là khó hay không? Nếu có, vậy lý do là gì? 4. Anh/chị nghĩ sao về việc thế hệ trẻ (trong bối cảnh hiện đại hóa và du lịch) có cách riêng của họ để gìn giữ truyền thống? Liệu nó có tác động gì đến ‘cái thật, cái chất’ của Nhã nhạc hay không? Và nếu đó là tác động tiêu cực, vậy làm thế nào để tránh khỏi việc đó? 5. Vì sự biến đổi của lịch sử và xã hội, Nhã nhạc đã từng biến đổi (ảnh hưởng tác động qua lại giữa môi trường cung đình và dân gian); vậy theo anh/chị liệu có hay không, Nhã nhạc sẽ lại biến đổi trong một ‘môi trường văn hóa’ mới (nếu, bối cảnh du lịch được coi là một môi trường văn hóa)?

V. Đề xuất 1. Để việc thực hiện có hiệu quả hơn, theo anh/chị yếu tố nào là vẫn còn thiếu? 2. Việc gì đã có thể làm khác đi? 3. Theo quan điểm của anh/chị, khó khăn trong việc sử dụng di sản như một nguồn tài nguyên là gì? Liệu những khó khăn đó có thể được khắc phục không? Nếu có, bằng cách nào?

9.2. Interview guideline (English version) I. Opening Introduction of myself and the thesis topic. Confirming participation of interviewees, and their names will be coded or published as they preference; asking permission to do sound recording. The interviewees introduce themselves.

128

II. Cultural heritage 1. What thoughts occur in your mind when you hear the word ‘culture’ and ‘heritage’? 2. How do you understand the term ‘intangible cultural heritage’? In this case, how the word ‘intangible’ is perceived? 3. Is there a ‘gap’ in understanding the word ‘di sản’ (heritage in Vietnamese) and ‘văn hóa’ (culture in Vietnamese), since the word ‘sản’ here is often understood/used as in ‘vật chất’ (materiality)? Do you think that this usage lessens the intangibility in it? 4. Which elements of heritage create value to it? 5. Do you think that both material and immaterial heritage have intangibility in them? Could you explain your thoughts?

III. Cultural heritage in tourism context 1. In your opinion, how something can be considered authentic or not? What characteristics create its authenticity? 2. How do you see Nhã nhạc/ Áo dài implementing in the tourism context? Advantages and Disadvantages? 3. Which elements in Nhã nhạc/ Áo dài is changed, if any, when it is put into a different ‘cultural environment’? 4. Can tourism context be seen as a ‘cultural environment’? Why? (What constitutes a cultural environment?) 5. Given the circumstance that, now Nhã nhạc is performed on tour in Huế, not only for international but also domestic tourists, do you think that changes in performing affect how it is perceived among audiences? (Since so far it can be seen as the most common channel to introduce Nhã nhạc)

IV. Sustainability & Resilience 1. What is cultural sustainability for you? 2. In terms of transmitting over generations, which elements do you think is the most critical need to be maintained?

129

3. Do you think that it is difficult to find people to inherit the tradition? If yes, what are the possible grounds for refusal? 4. What do you think about the young generation (in the face of modernisation and tourism context) have their own way to carry the tradition? Would it have any effects on the authenticity of Nhã nhạc? (If it is adverse impacts, then how to prevent it?) 5. Due to historical reason and changes in society, Nhã nhạc has been transformed (by getting influenced and knowledge exchange back and forth from court to folklore environment); what do you think that in the new ‘cultural environment’ (which is tourism context, if it could be perceived that way), Nhã nhạc will be (again) transformed?

V. Suggestions & Recommendations 1. Which were the missing factors in order of implementation more efficient? 2. What could have done differently? 3. What are the challenges in using cultural heritage as a resource? Could these challenges be solved? If yes, how to do it?

130