Mainland China (PRC) and Taiwan provide important case studies for exploring the intersections of cultural politics, state sovereignty, and global heritage frameworks. Although they share linguistic roots and many cultural traditions, their distinct relationships with UNESCO shape how cultural heritage is defined, interpreted, managed, and politicized. This distinction is particularly evident in the translation and conceptualization of “intangible cultural heritage”, a term often understood as an externally introduced concept within Asian cultural contexts. Differences in how the PRC and Taiwan translate, interpret, and legally codify the term reveal how each adapts international heritage standards to reflect its own political priorities, institutional frameworks, and cultural objectives.
In mainland China, which is an exceptionally active and influential member state of the 2003 Convention, the state has tightly integrated the UNESCO framework into its official governance. The PRC effectively leverages the global apparatus for aggressive national branding, utilizing its top-down state structures to institutionalize traditions, claim ownership over cultural expressions, and project global prestige. Conversely, Taiwan’s position highlights the rigid, exclusionary nature of the UNESCO apparatus. Because Taiwan is excluded from UNESCO membership due to geopolitical realities, it is essentially locked out of the official global listing process. To adapt, Taiwan has mirrored the UNESCO framework domestically, using heritage preservation as an internal policy tool to foster and articulate a distinct national identity.
Furthermore, UNESCO’s institutional expectations favor a curated notion of cultural purity and clear-cut consensus to satisfy its diplomatic requirements. Taiwan’s domestic heritage landscape, however, is characterized by a syncretic mixture of artistic forms that reflect the multicultural interactions among its diverse ethnic groups, often complicating and confounding the static definitions demanded by international bodies. Despite this political fracture, actual cultural practices–including some transnational worship and customs–persist through interactions driven by grassroots civil groups, academics, and local practitioners. These community-level networks frequently bypass or operate independently of state policies, ultimately foregrounding the tension between the cultures of lived communities and the state-controlled global apparatus.
This according to “Inside the UNESCO apparatus: From intangible representations to tangible effects” by Kristin Kuutma, Safeguarding intangible heritage: Practices and politics, ed. by Natsuko Akagawa and Laurajane Smith (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018, 68–83; RILM Abstracts of Music Literature, 2018-100476).
