Shift between Spiritual Value and Material Value

Heritage destruction and reconstruction are common in many countries to varying degrees. In China, when old regimes are overthrown, historical buildings and imperial palaces, considered to be outdated and the historic draff of these regimes, often encounter the same fate. However, this does not mean that conservation efforts have not been made. A substantial iconoclasm goes hand in hand with a historiographical tradition in conservation. The earliest recorded collection is the royal collection of books and paintings from the Western Han Dynasty (202bc-8ad). ^{Footnote 20} Since the Northern Song Dynasty, with the development of epigraphy, such collections have included bronze castings and other pieces. With epigraphy, which is the study of bronze castings and sculptures, the substantial history of Chinese archaeology commenced and now provides valuable historical records. However, what is particularly valuable about Chinese epigraphy are the written records that are found on the items, which have a historical function. As a matter of fact, the value of the bronze as an item is directly linked with whether it has an epigraph. ^{Footnote 21}

This historiographical tradition is influenced to a great degree by the historical awareness that was encouraged with the ideology of “respect for heaven and ancestors” introduced by the ancient Chinese thinkers such as Confucius. Confucius promoted a respect for spirits and remembering one’s ancestors through spiritual worship. Therefore, spiritual worship enjoyed a greater significance than the material heritage itself in the Chinese tradition. Ancient thinking in China “separated heritage into the tangible Ware (Qi) and the intangible Tao,” and what Confucius is seeking to transmit is the intangible Tao—the way or the spirit. ^{Footnote 22}

As illustrated above, the past is valued for its historicity and spirituality, which is different from the aesthetic value introduced in early Western conservation. ^{Footnote 23} Books, paintings, calligraphy, and historical records have always been the first items for conservation, which is “a different attitude toward the way of making the monumental achievement” in the West. ^{Footnote 24} This partially explains why China has distinguished itself with a large collection of historical documents, in contrast with only a moderate number of tangible historical remains. What sustains the Chinese culture is not the material object but, rather, the immaterial symbol that is exemplified. ^{Footnote 25} Thus, the constant destruction and reconstruction of historical buildings throughout history does not cause tremendous concern or weaken the significance of these buildings.

Two points deserve special attention in this spiritual/material discussion. For one thing, traditional practice and contemporary economic-driven reconstruction have to be distinguished, although it is undeniable that traditional thinking and practice render the latter less of a challenge. Second, the value of heritage indicates both material as well as spiritual concerns but in varied degrees and importance across time and space. Just as the acknowledgement of the intangible aspect or spiritual value of cultural heritage in the West is growing, concern for the significance of architecture has been rising in China over recent years, especially in the face of mass destruction in the process of urban development.

Shift between Past and Present and between Old and New

The historical thinking embedded in the traditional Chinese culture shapes the Chinese perception of the past and the present. The past can be looked at from the present, and the present uses the past as a reference. ^{Footnote 26} Under this historical development outlook, the same logic applies to the relation between the old and the new, leading to a natural embrace of the new without turning one’s back on the old. This old/new harmony was first challenged in the mid-nineteenth century when Western thoughts and weapons were first directed towards China. ^{Footnote 27} The New Culture Movement of the 1910s and 1920s campaigned against the old feudalist culture and tradition, and the harmonious unity of these two ideologies were brought into severe confrontation, whereby China and its traditional culture became symbolic of the old and thus backward ways of thinking, and Western culture, together with its modern technology, was labeled as the new and thus advanced mode of thought. The ancient concern for, and appreciation of, the old had given way to modernity and everything that was new. This changing perception had a strong influence even in the early years of communist China and still lingers on today, though much more subtly and vaguely.

The founding of communist China in 1949 triggered debates over conservation in the 1950s around “what to conserve and how to conserve” in the struggle between the old and the new, which was highly driven by political ideology. ^{Footnote 28} Mingda Chen, as an exponent of this line of thinking, argued that historical building conservation would demand financial, human, and technical resources that were badly needed in developing a “new” China. ^{Footnote 29} Therefore, he insisted on prioritizing those conservation efforts that were necessary and that could still play a role in reality. Apart from this, Chen advised the government to preserve maps, photographs, and written records. Although there were many different opinions at this time, Chen’s arguments represented the basic tone of the period in dealing with the old and the new.

The Cultural Revolution (1966–76) posed an unprecedented challenge to the old tradition and culture that was drastic and detrimental. The study of the past was considered to be reactionary. Archaeological research came to a halt, and certain archaeological and heritage sites were destroyed. ^{Footnote 30} In eradicating four old evils (old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits) and persecuting intellectuals, culture and cultural heritage became taboo, and the cultural spirit was greatly lost in the public.

Despite these unfavorable circumstances, much of the twentieth century saw the formation of a heritage conservation system in contemporary China, in close association with the West. The earliest heritage conservation regulation—Measures for the Protection of Ancient Sites (Baocun Guji Tuiguang Banfa Zhangcheng)—was issued in 1909, possibly triggered by the cultural exploitations along the old Silk Road by Westerners such as Aurel Stein (1862–1943). ^{Footnote 31} Following the 1930s, non-governmental conservation organizations started to emerge, led by a group of mostly Western-trained professionals and historians. Among them were the Construction Research Association (Zhongguo Yingzao Xueshe) and its representative, Sicheng Liang, a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania. As the pioneer of China’s heritage conservation, Liang’s conservation philosophy “to repair the old as it is” still has a strong influence in China today, although it was mostly overlooked in the conservation debates of the 1950s. ^{Footnote 32} In 1949, the State Administration of Cultural Heritage (SACH) was set up, followed by the first nation-wide survey of cultural relics in 1956 and the promulgation of the Provisional Regulations for the Conservation and Management of Cultural Relics in 1961. Although a law had not yet been formulated, the conservation regulations and measures taken had, to some extent, ensured a general protection of heritage in this early period. ^{Footnote 33}

Setting Foot on the Modernization Journey

As Roderick MacFarquhar and Michael Schoenhals explain, “[t]he Cultural Revolution was so great a disaster that it provoked an even more profound cultural revolution, precisely the one that Mao intended to forestall.” ^{Footnote 34} However, this time, the political culture had been shifted to an economic one. As advocated by Xiaoping Deng in his southern tour in 1992, economic development was considered the only hard truth. Undeniably, the market-oriented economic reform that has occurred since 1978 has introduced rapid socio-economic development in China in the country’s pursuit of socialist modernization (in the fields of industry, agriculture, national defense, and science and technology). However, along with this rapid economic development, many socio-cultural problems also became more acute.

In the culture and heritage field, two nation-wide surveys of cultural relics were conducted, first, in 1981–85 and, second, in 2007–11, to update inventories and improve the management qualities of the already existing sites. Financial and administrative support from the state was continuously growing at this time. In the wider context, China was moving increasingly towards an international mindset, as exemplified in the two major acts of legislation for heritage conservation. The first piece of legislation was the Cultural Relics Conservation Law, which was promulgated in 1982, with reference to the Venice Charter, the recognized model in international heritage practice. ^{Footnote 35} The Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites were promulgated in 2000 as a result of the international collaboration between China’s ICOMOS, the Getty Conservation Institute, and the Australian Heritage Commission. However, a closer examination of the Principles convey their “Chineseness” in terms of both their background and contents. Throughout the collaboration process, China’s ICOMOS had been taking the lead, consciously aware of the mixture of Western conservation philosophy and traditional cultural values that was necessary in creating “a modern methodology that acknowledges international best practice but remains true to the Chinese sense of place and history.” ^{Footnote 36} Nevertheless, it is interesting to point out that the Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites, which were promulgated by China’s ICOMOS and recommended by SACH, enjoys no legal status and exerts little influence in the field of heritage conservation in China. The formation of these Principles and their reluctant acceptance in China implies China’s negotiation and struggle between external and internal forces, indicating the political economy of the current heritage regime in China.

However, every coin has two sides. As a result of China’s economic development and modernization, the country has witnessed an enormous amount of destruction to its cultural heritage, especially of its historic buildings, in the name of urbanization and urban renewal. According to Chensheng Xie, a distinguished heritage specialist, if one looks back through its entire history, China’s heritage has been the most seriously damaged since the 1990s. ^{Footnote 37} In addition, it is not only the physical structures that have been lost but also peoples’ memory of them. Spurred by the market economy, the public’s already faint and insignificant awareness of cultural heritage is decreasing. Furthermore, people’s pursuit of a modern life in the market economy also adds to their neglect for tradition, culture, and heritage.

Undoubtedly, China’s reform and opening up since 1978 has brought rapid socio-economic development, but such forward movement has also led increasingly to visible social, economic, and cultural problems, such as the widening gap between rich and poor, environmental deterioration, and key resource depletion. In response, the concept of a “scientific outlook on development” was proposed by the state in 2003, and it advocates a “people-centered” approach to comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable development. The shift in thinking from economic to social development, at least theoretically, comes from the country’s self-reflection on the path of development in a changing national and global context. ^{Footnote 38} However, it is still subject to both the current national socio-economic contexts and the determination of the state to translate words into action.

In the field of cultural heritage, the idea of integrating heritage conservation into social development is being practiced through the development of heritage theme parks, which aim not only at conservation but also at neighborhood regeneration and the improvement of the living environment. Daming Palace National Heritage Park in Xi’an was an example of such development. Daming Palace was once the imperial palace of the Tang Dynasty, but it was later damaged and burned down during various wars. It has been protected by the state since 1961 and was turned into a heritage park in 2010. It is a benefit to society, providing public space and improving the environment of the neighborhood. However, there are many opinions on its development, such as the gentrification of the area or the threat of such heritage being over-commercialized. Although still being heatedly debated, this project symbolizes China’s new perception of heritage in relation to society and its effort to balance heritage conservation with other considerations: economic, social, cultural, and political.

Current Leading Vision: Cultural Development and the Value of Heritage

With China’s increased economic development and exchange with the world, the question of how to carry on its culture and promote its cultural identity has become more and more urgent in the new century. The rapid economic development in the context of globalization has brought culture and heritage new roles to play in the twenty-first century. First, cultural soft power has become a national strategy for China to position itself in the world arena. ^{Footnote 39} Second, culture and heritage are being harnessed to strengthen national identity and serve as a bond for national unity against the current complications of socio-economic development. Third, the promotion of culture and heritage has contributed to local, regional, and national economic development, especially in connection with tourism.

In 2009, the National Tourism Administration and the Ministry of Culture jointly issued a Guide for the Integrated Development of Culture and Tourism, outlining 10 initiatives, such as the Year of Cultural Tourism and China’s International Cultural Tourism Festival. In line with this policy document on cultural tourism, heritage consumption and heritage tourism development have been greatly promoted. ^{Footnote 40} The recognition of heritage’s economic value has strengthened awareness and conservation efforts, but, at the same time, it has pushed heritage into the economic sphere, which is reflected in the massive number of heritage-style buildings being constructed. They are seen especially in historic areas in many Chinese cities, mostly for tourism purposes. Although criticized by experts, the practice continues. ^{Footnote 41} In the historic city of Xi’an, for instance, heritage-style buildings have been built in many parts of the historic center in the name of urban regeneration. One example is the reconstruction of a historic building in the area between two famous heritage sites, the Ming City Wall and the Museum of Forest of Stone Steles. It aims to transform this area into a cultural and touristic area, but obviously with insufficient attention given to the conservation of this historic neighborhood. The fact that the economic motive in heritage tourism development prioritizes heritage appreciation and conservation further intensifies the friction between conservation and use of cultural heritage. ^{Footnote 42}

The 2005 Notice officially promotes the concept of wenhua yichan. By emphasizing the public character of cultural heritage, it is hoped that a sense of ownership, in terms of both right and responsibility, will be raised in the public’s mind. The setting up of the Cultural Heritage Day in 2006 is a follow-up initiative to publicize cultural identity in heritage and enhance public awareness and involvement. These efforts are believed to promote direct public protection, on the one hand, and indirect public supervision in the long run, on the other hand. Public involvement in heritage conservation as a bottom-up initiative has the potential to counter-balance the side effects of the top-down state or municipal initiatives that often tend to put economic interests above cultural concerns. And such involvement has started to take form in China. ^{Footnote 43}

Cultural development has become an important theme in China in the new century, as illustrated from the above-mentioned state initiatives. The recent development of cultural industries since 2002 has also contributed to this cultural renaissance, but it is a double-edged sword for heritage conservation at the same time. It promotes cultural appreciation and conservation awareness, while, at the same time, prioritizing the economic value of buildings and objects over the conservation of heritage. ^{Footnote 44} In these waves of thought and practice, the question about how heritage and culture can find their own way in China has to be addressed in this new century.