IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i2p411-d197737.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Uses of Reconstructing Heritage in China: Tourism, Heritage Authorization, and Spatial Transformation of the Shaolin Temple

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoyan Su

    (State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, No. 19, XinJieKouWai St., HaiDian District, Beijing 100875, China
    Central Plains Economic Zone Smart Tourism Cooperative Innovation Center in Henan Province, School of Land and Tourism, Luoyang Normal University, 6#Jiqing RD, Yibin District, Luoyang 471934, China)

  • Changqing Song

    (State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, No. 19, XinJieKouWai St., HaiDian District, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Gary Sigley

    (Central Plains Economic Zone Smart Tourism Cooperative Innovation Center in Henan Province, School of Land and Tourism, Luoyang Normal University, 6#Jiqing RD, Yibin District, Luoyang 471934, China)

Abstract

Recently, debates on authenticity in the West and China have attracted attention of critical heritage studies. This paper aims to better understand how Western Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD) influences local heritage practice in China. This paper employs observation, semi-structured interviews and textual analysis to examine how authenticity criteria in Western AHD has shaped perceptions on the spatial consequences of what is “authentic” by different agents in regards to the cultural heritage of the Shaolin Temple. It is argued that the implementation of authenticity criteria found in Western AHD influences Shaolin heritage practice both in hegemonic and negotiated ways, in which a Chinese AHD is formed through the creation of a Western AHD with Chinese characteristics. The understandings on authenticity criteria derived from Western AHD by Chinese heritage experts dominates Shaolin heritage practice, whilst the perceptions on “authentic” Shaolin Temple cultural heritage attached closely to their emotions and experiences by local residents are neglected and excluded. The religiously based authenticity claims of the Shaolin monks which competes with those of the heritage experts and local residents are also considered. Furthermore, the managerial structure was changed in 2010 from a government-directed institution to a joint-venture partnership. The impacts of these managerial changes are also considered. The final outcome of these competing heritage claims was that local residents were relocated far from their original community. Without the residential community in situ, and in conjunction with the further commercialization of local culture, the Shaolin Temple heritage site takes on the features of a pseudo-classic theme park.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaoyan Su & Changqing Song & Gary Sigley, 2019. "The Uses of Reconstructing Heritage in China: Tourism, Heritage Authorization, and Spatial Transformation of the Shaolin Temple," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:2:p:411-:d:197737
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/411/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/411/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xiaoyan Su, 2018. "Reconstructing Tradition: Heritage Authentication and Tourism-Related Commodification of the Ancient City of Pingyao," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-18, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stefania Skowron-Markowska & Marta Nowakowska, 2021. "Chinese Destinations Related to Martial Arts Tourism from the UNESCO Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Xiaoyan Su & Gary Gordon Sigley & Changqing Song, 2020. "Relational Authenticity and Reconstructed Heritage Space: A Balance of Heritage Preservation, Tourism, and Urban Renewal in Luoyang Silk Road Dingding Gate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Tonghao Zhang & Ping Yin & Yuanxiang Peng, 2021. "Effect of Commercialization on Tourists’ Perceived Authenticity and Satisfaction in the Cultural Heritage Tourism Context: Case Study of Langzhong Ancient City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, June.
    4. Emanuele Giorgi & Tiziano Cattaneo & Minqing Ni & Renata Enríquez Alatriste, 2020. "Sustainability and Effectiveness of Chinese Outline for National Tourism and Leisure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-30, February.
    5. Urmi Sengupta, 2023. "Geopolitical priorities, governance gaps, and heritage subjectivities: The perils of heritage-making in the post-disaster reconstruction in Nepal," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 41(3), pages 523-547, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhenzhen Qin & Yao Song & Yao Tian, 2019. "The Impact of Product Design with Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) on Consumer Behavior Through Cultural Perceptions: Evidence from the Young Chinese Generation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Yongjun Su & Junjie Xu & Marios Sotiriadis & Shiwei Shen, 2021. "Authenticity, Perceived Value and Loyalty in Marine Tourism Destinations: The Case of Zhoushan, Zhejiang Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-14, March.
    3. Xiaoyan Su & Gary Gordon Sigley & Changqing Song, 2020. "Relational Authenticity and Reconstructed Heritage Space: A Balance of Heritage Preservation, Tourism, and Urban Renewal in Luoyang Silk Road Dingding Gate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-21, July.
    4. Shuyi Xie, 2019. "Learning from Italian Typology- and Morphology-Led Planning Techniques: A Planning Framework for Yingping, Xiamen," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-29, March.
    5. Tianchen Dai & Taozhi Zhuang & Juan Yan & Tong Zhang, 2018. "From Landscape to Mindscape: Spatial Narration of Touristic Amsterdam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, July.
    6. Jonathan Liljeblad & Khin Thinn Thinn Oo, 2020. "World heritage sustainable development policy & local implementation: Site management issues using a case study of Sri Ksetra at Pyu ancient cities in Myanmar," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(3), pages 468-477, May.
    7. Xinpeng Li & Wei Hou & Meng Liu & Zhenlin Yu, 2022. "Traditional Thoughts and Modern Development of the Historical Urban Landscape in China: Lessons Learned from the Example of Pingyao Historical City," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:2:p:411-:d:197737. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.