We Got the Heritage Title — Now Whose Story Does the Axis Tell?
On July 27, 2024, the Central Axis of Beijing was officially inscribed on the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage List. This marks a milestone of national cultural policy and reflects the complex cultural power game between the state, the platform, and the public in the digital era.
This may seem like a beautiful cultural victory, but have you ever wondered who decides which cultures deserve to be remembered and which are quietly erased?
National production: The behind-the-scenes operator of “historical and cultural blockbusters.”
Applying the Beijing Axis as a world heritage site was a national project. Running 7.8 kilometres from north to south, the Palace Museum, Tian ‘anmen, Temple of Heaven and other core symbols of royal culture are connected in series, which is not only a puzzle of ancient architecture but also a space exhibition of the national narrative. In 2022 alone, the Beijing Municipal government invested 630 million yuan in protecting, repairing and optimising the landscape environment of the central axis and striving to make no mistakes. From the allocation of funds to the inclination of policies, all reflect the state’s selective “reshaping” and high-priority visibility to a specific cultural form, represented by imperial etiquette.
But pause for a moment. What was chosen behind this big project?
Yes, it is royal culture and court etiquette, but it is also the daily life of those who live in the streets, the memories of ordinary residents, but not among them.
This approach to cultural governance is not neutral but a “reprogramming” of cultural memory through the state’s power. As Lewis and Marwick (2017) pointed out, modern countries use information-led strategies to shape people’s historical cognitive structure, thereby maintaining ideological stability and redefining our memory of culture and history.
Social platforms are not communicators but part of “participatory design.
Get YI YI’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Douyin, Red Note, “# axis successful application” has become explosive, and official media accounts have quickly pushed the heat through the algorithm mechanism. However, those voices about relocation and the loss of community culture are harder to find.
Are social platforms really that neutral?
Communication scholar Tarleton Gillespie (2018) has long told us that platforms are not simply “neutral tools” but select and recommend content with values and interests. When the algorithm favours only positive energy, we see only one sound while the other is quietly hidden.
Digital protection or digital surveillance?
You may have been to the Temple of Heaven, Jingshan. Still, you may not know that when you use electronic tickets or a face recognition system to enter, your data and behaviour trajectory have long been “quietly” recorded by the system. The “Digital axis · Small universe” project led by Tencent uses Virtual reality (VR) technology and cloud computing to digitise the entire axis space accurately.
However, scholar Andrejevic (2007) also reminds us that the public “voluntarily” provides data in the immersive experience. However, the control behind the data is not in the public’s hands, and the data becomes the controlled object in the “digital enclosure.”
Legal protection or one-way governance under the rule of law?
Of course, we should not neglect the construction of legal systems. In 2022, the Regulations on the Protection of Cultural Heritage of the Central Axis of Beijing officially emerged. It is also the first time that the legal basis for heritage protection has been established in the form of local legislation, clarifying the responsibilities of government departments, the division of space, and the daily management mechanism.
According to the People’s Daily Online Theory Channel, scholar Chai Rong has proposed that the protection of digital cultural heritage needs a systematic legal framework. This framework not only clarifies copyright ownership but also defines what constitutes “fair use.” At the same time, clear liability boundaries must be set for violations. The final analysis is to prevent the excessive monopoly of cultural achievements by power or capital.
This year, the implementation of the newly revised Law on the Protection of Cultural Relics in March, as well as the National Cultural Digital Strategy opinions, have provided a legal basis for the “digital axis”, but more detailed judicial practice and social consultation still need to be further carried out.
Who disappeared? Cultural governance in public absence
Unfortunately, preserving cultural heritage often only protects buildings and Spaces, not those living there. During the review process, many old Beijing residents along the central axis were displaced, their voices were often ignored, their memories were removed, and the ecology of the community was reshaped — all of which were not fully discussed.
Gillespie (2018) pointed out that cultural governance in the platformization era has reduced the public’s “sense of participation” to a simple “sense of viewing”. We are tourists and likers, but we are no longer participants in the cultural community.
After the Beijing Axis: What Cultural Protection Is Needed?
The application of the Beijing Axis as a world heritage site is undoubtedly a cultural achievement. Still, we should take this opportunity to reflect on whether the “core” of cultural protection is architecture or people. Is it a narrative of power or a shared memory? Suppose future cultural policies want to “bring cultural relics to life”. In that case, they should not stop at landscape aesthetics and scientific and technological packaging but should return to the starting point of legal disputes and public participation.
