The current research has identified the identity formation by interviewing holders of the important intangible cultural properties and has classified into three categorizations : field, generation, and gender. Through the process, the study observed t... The current research has identified the identity formation by interviewing holders of the important intangible cultural properties and has classified into three categorizations : field, generation, and gender. Through the process, the study observed that the holders had actively taken in the institution and had given and formed the identity on their own terms. In addition, skills and artistic talents of the holders of the important intangible cultural properties were maintained and transmitted in diverse and dynamic ways. While the previous studies had been interested in skills and artistic talents of individual or had dealt with intangible cultural property policies and commodity cultures, the current study emphasizes on the formation process of the holders in terms of field, generation, and gender. In the identity formation, the main factors are the marketability and the patriarchal and feudal values. As Korea, the late-developing country in the process of modernization, needed legitimacy, the country created ‘substantive tradition’ as Edward Shils argues. Many cultural assets had been recreated in the name of nation. Especially as the intangible cultural properties were amid people’s lives in the latter era of the Choson Dynasty, the nation might as well awaken a sense of national identity not in an unfamiliar way and link national consciousness to people, and further the government of the nation even secured legitimacy and justification. Like this, by the national needs, an intangible cultural property system has emerged. In that, the important intangible cultural properties have an enormous symbolic significance since the nation has jurisdiction over them. To investigate the identity of the holders appointed through the important intangible cultural property system, the research administered an oral interview. An oral interview is assumed to be an effective method for analyzing the complicated and intricate identity of the holders in depth. A qualitative methodology is fundamentally to study the subjective experience of an individual and the meaning gained by the experience. In-depth interview enables interviewees to talk freely about incidents, provides their interpretation of the incidents, and helps to recreate their thought process and the story of the incidents. The participants, selected on the basis of willingness to respond to the interview, were the holders of the important intangible cultural properties in 14 skill and 14 artistic talent types who were registered in Seoul Important Intangible Cultural Property Training Center. They were separated into three different age groups of 50s, 60s, and 70-80s; to know the regional characteristics, one or two people were selected to have the interviews in each province of residence. In addition, the research tried to even out the gender and age ratio among the different fields. The interviews were conducted from August 2009 to January 2010 in a relaxed environment such as the workshops of the participants, their house, or coffee shops. Also the research consulted books, magazines, or articles written about the participants. Additionally, the current study examines the difference of the holders’ identities between popular and unpopular fields and among the same field, generation, gender through family, social and economic background and through the power of the nation affecting the identity formation of the important intangible cultural properties. The result of analysis of the research shows that the important intangible cultural properties were stratified in terms of whether influenced by the rapid flow of Korea to capitalism: they were divided into popular and nonpopular fields in accordance with marketability. In the case of popular ones, the properties empowered culture by gaining social recognition and popularity and they were succeeded with the full support especially under the father’s plan of a holder as if inherited as a family business. By comparison, most of the holders of unpopular important intangible cultural properties chose to join in the field to earn a living or to receive academic support. In the aspect of preserving and succeeding tradition, the holder’s family played a significant role irrespective of the skill inheritance from family. In terms of the generational characteristics of identity, there are various differences between young holders of 50s-60s and holders of 70s-80s. The ones over 70 years old felt strongly that they accommodate and pass on skills and artistic talents within the methods specified by the nation and the national subsidy. Especially, the generation of over 70s were passive in respect to unpopular fields and they tended to be satisfied with preserving their prototypical skills. However, the young holders of 50s-60s showed strong resistance towards sympathy and protection by the nation and the media but they felt strongly over the fact that they created the history of skills and artistic talents. As for the gender difference in identity formation, feudality and patriarchy were the most influential factors. Male holders had an excessive sense of responsibility in the context of earning their living and passing down skills or artistic talents; female holders, however, recognized income from their skills or talents as a sideline even they were breadwinners of their family. Feudalist and patriarchical value and culture became the significant framework in the holders of skills and artistic talents. Regarding the transmission of cultural prototype, the nation and most holders relate to practical challenges in preserving prototype; considering the relevance of USCO’s listing the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, the ‘Act on Preservation and Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage’(Cultural Property Protection Act) was executed in 2016. The Act declares that the basic principle for the preservation is to ‘maintain archetype’ rather than ‘preserve prototype.’ The meaning of the term ‘archetype’ is comprehensive and ambiguous, and considering the nation designating the listing, the nation is bound to interpret and exclusively possess cultural heritage. In addition, the act encourages USCO, which had emphasized tangible culture, to recognize the importance of the intangible cultural properties as a valuable asset to humankind. Therefore, it leads to many non-western societies’ interests and values over the intangible cultural properties, and thus non-western societies including South Korea actively participate in registering cultural properties in the USCO Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Control of human behavior is one of the social activities; the human behavior is influenced by institutionalized forms. Given that a sociological task is to investigate how these forms establish, develop, interact, and disappear and how they act on each individual, it is meaningful to examine the holders of the important intangible cultural properties in the sociological perspective as follows: what kind of effects the power of the nation, the society and family have on the holders’ personal lives, and how the holders take in these effects and form their identity. The result reveals that the individual holders showed their duties diversely and dynamically granted by the nation according to their social and economic circumstances such as family, education, and personal success. The diverse and the dynamic come from the aspect of human being influenced by social circumstance. The current research acknowledges that there might be misinterpretation from the selection of the data due to dependency on the holders’ opinions and thoughts and due to research design. However, I aspire that not only the holders’ skills and artistic talents but also their lives themselves become historical references. Furthermore, with the linkage and the arrangement between the important intangible cultural properties and the cultural properties of nation, cities and provinces, the process of the identity formation of the intangible cultural properties will be fully explained.
|
