Cultural heritage, ethnic tourism, and minority-state relations amongst the Orochen in north-east China

ABSTRACT

In this paper, I describe the impact of cultural heritage classifications amongst the Orochen ethnic minority in north-east China. Building upon the expanding literature on critical heritage studies, I argue that while heritage is often used as a top-down strategy by the Chinese state for rural and economic development, particularly in minority areas, it is important to consider the bottom-up experiences of heritage-making and the use of heritage by minority actors to facilitate development and generate improvements in their own minority communities. Presenting an ethnographic case-study from the Orochen township of Tuohe, I show how heritage does not operate through the prism of a static and hierarchical relationship between a ‘Han-Chinese’ state, on the one hand, and a small-numbered ‘ethnic minority’, on the other. Instead, it is driven largely by Orochen themselves and, in particular, ethnic minority cadres and intellectuals who use heritage and the corollary allocation of funding to channel development projects and fulfil the needs and expectations of local communities. In the process, I argue that heritage-making must be seen as a dual process in China, increasing governmentality and interpellation of minority actors while simultaneously creating spaces for cultural autonomy, innovation, and alternate expressions of modernity and tradition.

KEYWORDS:

• Cultural heritage
• ethnic tourism
• minority-state relations
• Orochen
• China

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. (Oakes 1997, 2012, 2013, 2016; An and Gjestrum 1999; Sofield and Li 1998; Shepherd 2016; Henderson et al. 2009; Blumenfield and Silverman 2013; Blumenfield 2018; Blumenfield and Silverman 2013; Denton 2014; Taylor 2015; Abrahams 2015; Li, Turner and Cui, 2016; Henderson; Zhang and Wu 2016; Su 2018; Ashton 2013).

2. Between 1953–1954, the CCP sent teams of researchers to assess the ‘nationality’ status of groups seeking to apply for recognition. Initially, over 400 groups applied, however, in the 1964 census only 54 were recognised, later increased to the current 55 (McCarthy 2011; Harwood 2013). In north-east China, classification was made difficult by the multiple auto and exo-ethnonyms used by and for ethnic groups (Dumont 2017), and was complicated in the Orochen case by the wide distribution of clans and lack of a unified community. Their official classification was formalised in 1957 at a meeting between government officials, intellectuals, and select local leaders. Significantly, this did not include representatives from all Orochen clans and the more northeastern sub-groups were not represented at all, and today remain under the jurisdiction of the Heilongjiang government.

3. The Orochen Autonomous Banner was initially demarcated for use by Orochen only under the Regional Autonomy Law. At the time, 97% of the Banner was covered by forest an area larger than Switzerland (Lundberg and Zhou 2009). Speaking with Orochen elders today, they emphasise wide support for the Autonomous Banner, encompassing such a vast area and given the ability to hunt (Feng and Whaley 2004).

4. (Oakes 1997, 2012, 2013, 2016; Sofield and Li 1998; Li and Sofield 2009; An and Gjestrum 1999; Shepherd 2016; Henderson et al. 2009; Sofield and Li 2011; Svensson 2012; Blumenfield and Silverman 2013; Denton 2014; Taylor 2015; Abrahams 2015; Li, Turner and Cui, 2016; Zhang and Wu 2016; Maags and Svensson 2018; Blumenfield 2018; Su 2018; Nyíri 2006).

5. I have carried out fieldwork amongst Orochen communities in China since 2009. The fieldwork upon which this paper is based was carried out in the winter and summer of 2016–17. I spent 4 months in total in Tuohe Orochen township, engaging in participant-observation and carrying structured and unstructured interviews. I also followed members of a craft producers collective manufacturing and marketing their handicrafts, with Orochen youth engaging in traditional music performances, and with illegal hunters in the forest.

6. Arguably the best example of this is the ‘China Folk Culture Village’ in Shenzhen. It is a cultural theme park which features displays of the daily life and architecture of China’s 56 ethnic groups while employing minority people as performers and guides (Stanley and Chung 1995).

7. In China, the State Administration of Cultural Heritage (SACH) classifies and administers nationally significant cultural relics and tangible cultural heritage, while the Ministry of Culture manages intangible cultural heritage.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

Notes on contributors

Richard Fraser

Richard Fraser is an anthropologist and Associate Professor at the Collaborative Innovation Centre for Security and Development of Western Frontier at Sichuan University, China. He completed his PhD in anthropology at the University of Leiden and was recently a postdoctoral researcher at the Mongolia and Inner Asia Studies Unit at the University of Cambridge. Richard has carried out fieldwork with Evenki, Orochen, and Mongol communities in China’s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and Heilongjiang province since 2007, and with Darhad and Tsaatan communities in Mongolia since 2010. His regional specialisation is Northern and Inner Asia, specifically China and China’s minorities, Mongolia, and Siberia. His research interests span human-environment relationships; phenomenological-existential anthropology; pastoralism, hunting and land-use; cultural heritage and ethnic tourism; ethnic minorities and the state; skill and learning; displacement and resettlement; mining and resources; renewable and non-renewable energy; climate change; human-animal relations; shamanism and animism; and socialism and postsocialism.