Preserving cultural heritage amidst urbanization: A tale of two communities

Vietnam’s rapid urbanization is bringing both opportunities and challenges. Among the most significant challenges is the preservation of cultural heritage in the face of modernization. This opinion piece explores the transformation of cultural identity in two ancient villages, Lu Cam and Phu Vinh, in Nha Trang city, in the central coastal province of Khanh Hoa, as they navigate the tides of urbanization.

Divergent paths

Lu Cam and Phu Vinh, both more than 200 years old, offer contrasting narratives of cultural preservation. Lu Cam, once renowned for its traditional pottery, has seen its cultural identity erode rapidly. In contrast, Phu Vinh has managed to sustain its more multi-faceted cultural heritage, maintaining a vibrant community life centred around its ancient traditions.

Lu Cam: A story of decline

Lu Cam’s decline is a poignant reminder of the fragility of cultural heritage in the face of economic and technological changes. The village’s once-thriving pottery industry has all but disappeared. Several factors have contributed to this decline:

Economic pressures: The market for traditional pottery has dwindled as modern, mass-produced alternatives have become more popular. The relatively high cost of traditional production led to low profitability, making pottery an unsustainable livelihood for many villagers.

Technological stagnation: The lack of innovation in pottery techniques and the failure to adapt to new technologies left Lu Cam’s products unable to compete with more durable and precise industrial ceramics.

Environmental challenges: The village’s location along the Cai River subjected it to seasonal flooding, disrupting production cycles and further discouraging pottery making.

Community disinterest: Perhaps most critically, there was a noticeable lack of community interest in preserving the pottery tradition. Many younger villagers sought employment opportunities elsewhere, leading to a loss of skilled artisans and a weakening of community bonds.

Efforts by local authorities to integrate pottery with tourism and provide economic support were insufficient to revive the craft. The communal centre, once a hub of cultural activity, now stands as a symbol of a lost heritage, with its traditional festivals and rituals struggling to attract participation.

Phu Vinh: A model of resilience

In stark contrast, Phu Vinh has managed to preserve its cultural identity through a combination of community cohesion, economic diversification, and a strong sense of heritage. The village’s success can be attributed to several key factors:

Economic diversification: Unlike Lu Cam’s, Phu Vinh’s economy is not solely reliant on a single craft. The village has embraced a variety of businesses, from agriculture to tourism. This has provided a stable economic base and reduced the pressure on any one industry.

Community engagement: Phu Vinh’s residents have a deep sense of pride in their heritage. Festivals and rituals are well attended, and there is a strong tradition of community involvement in maintaining cultural sites and organizing events.

Government support: While not perfect, the local government’s efforts to promote tourism and preserve cultural sites have had a positive impact. The village’s ancient houses and communal spaces are well maintained, attracting both domestic and international tourists.

Intergenerational transmission: The elders in Phu Vinh play a crucial role in passing down traditions and cultural knowledge to younger generations. This has helped maintain a continuity of cultural practices and a sense of identity among the villagers.

Lessons for heritage preservation

The contrasting experiences of Lu Cam and Phu Vinh offer valuable lessons for heritage preservation in the context of urbanization. Firstly, economic viability is crucial. Heritage crafts and traditions must find a place in the modern economy, whether through tourism, innovation, or diversification. Secondly, community engagement and pride in cultural heritage are essential. Without a committed community, preservation efforts are unlikely to succeed.

Moreover, government policies must be tailored to the specific needs and contexts of different heritage sites. A one-size-fits-all approach is ineffective. Policies should support both the economic and cultural aspects of heritage preservation, providing resources for innovation and adaptation while also fostering community involvement.

Finally, the role of education and intergenerational transmission cannot be overstated. Ensuring that younger generations understand and value their cultural heritage is key to its survival. This requires not only formal education but also community-based initiatives that engage young people in cultural practices.

Conclusion

The stories of Lu Cam and Phu Vinh highlight the complex interplay between urbanization and cultural heritage. While urbanization brings challenges, it also offers opportunities for renewal and innovation. By learning from these two villages, we can develop more effective strategies for preserving cultural identity in the face of modernization. Ultimately, the preservation of cultural heritage is not just about protecting the past; it is about enriching the present and ensuring a vibrant, diverse future for all communities.