Why categories are not enough
The five UNESCO domains are helpful for organizing intangible cultural heritage, but many researchers and communities point out their limits. Heritage is not static – it is dynamic, hybrid, and deeply contextual. When we try to “box” traditions into a neat list, we sometimes lose what makes them unique.
Think of a wedding ceremony. Is it a ritual? Yes. But it also involves oral traditions (songs, blessings), performing arts(dance, music), craftsmanship (costumes, decorations), and even knowledge of nature (choosing the right season). A single event can cut across multiple domains.
This overlap reveals the first problem: categories simplify a reality that is much more complex.
Critiques from research
Scholars such as Gireesh & Anand (2022) argue that UNESCO’s framework is too broad to reflect cultural diversity. In India, for instance, oral traditions include proverbs, riddles, myths, epics, folk songs, and chants. Putting all of these under “oral traditions” hides their variety and meaning.
Similar problems appear in other domains:
- Rituals range from small family traditions to nationwide celebrations.
- Crafts include everything from pottery to digital embroidery.
The risk is that heritage becomes standardized for international recognition but loses its depth and specificity.
Who decides the categories?
Another challenge is about power. Classification is not neutral.
- Governments may prefer categories that fit policies or tourism promotion.
- International organizations may emphasize “universal” categories.
- But communities may understand their traditions differently – not as “performing arts” or “oral traditions,” but as ways of life or sacred practices.
When classification is imposed from outside, it may clash with how communities themselves value their heritage.
Alternative approaches
To address these limits, some scholars propose new models. Fredheim & Khalaf (2016) suggest looking at heritage not only as categories, but as:
- Forms – the visible expressions (a costume, a dance, a song).
- Practices – the actions and performances (singing, weaving, celebrating).
- Relationships – the meanings and connections created (identity, memory, solidarity).
They also emphasize different values of heritage:
- Associative (links to identity or history).
- Sensational (emotions and embodied experience).
- Evidential (proof of continuity).
- Functional (practical use in daily life).
This perspective shifts the focus from what heritage is to what heritage does for people.
Example
Take the Junii Brașovului spring feast.
- As a form, it is a parade with costumes and rituals.
- As a practice, it is the collective act of riding, dancing, and celebrating.
- As a relationship, it creates bonds between generations and strengthens community identity.
- In terms of values, it is associative (identity with Brașov), sensational (joy, pride), evidential (continuity from medieval times), and functional (community cohesion).
Clearly, no single UNESCO category can capture all this richness.
Exercises and applications
Exercise 1 – Multiple fits
Choose one tradition from your region. Place it into one UNESCO category. Now think again: in which other categories does it also belong? Write down all possible fits.
Exercise 2 – Alternative model
Describe the same tradition using Fredheim & Khalaf’s three layers (forms, practices, relationships). Which description feels closer to the community’s reality?
Exercise 3 – Debate
Divide into two groups:
- One defends UNESCO’s categories as necessary for global recognition.
- The other argues for more flexible, values-based models.
Which side gives a more convincing case?
Reflection questions
- Can classification ever capture the full “living” dimension of traditions?
- Who should have the final say in categorization – institutions or communities?
- What do we lose when we describe a ritual only as “a social practice,” and not as a relationship full of meaning?
- Should safeguarding focus on categories, or on the values and relationships heritage creates?