02074nas a2200217   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002653002400043653003700067653002400104653001700128653001100145653001200156100001400168245013900182856015600321300001200477490000600489520134100495022002001836                                       d10aintangible heritage10aParticipatory heritage discourse10aRepresentative List10aSafeguarding10aUNESCO10aVietnam1 aM. Jacobs00aThe ví of visibility, visitability, and viability in vietnam: PHD and the safeguarding paradigm of the 2003 convention after a decade  uhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85073073482&doi=10.4467%2f2450050XSNR.17.017.8429&partnerID=40&md5=7e6ffec7b8a085ce1ae2fb6c7c151ac1  a183-2140 v33 aIn this contribution, first the importance of a Vietnamese episode in the genealogy of the paradigm of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage is highlighted. Second the evolution and bandwidth of this heritage paradigm are explored using a sensitizing distinction between AHD (Authorized Heritage Discourse) and pHD (participatory or popular Heritage Dis-course) and via a discussion of the importance of appropriate vocabulary, focussing on interactions between Vietnamese policy makers and other actors on the one hand and UNESCO on the other hand. Third is a critical discussion of recent case studies of inscribed ele-ments on the UNESCO lists (Articles 16 and 17) by Oskar Salemink, Barley Norton, and Lauren Meeker, next to a close reading of recent nomination files and films submitted by Vietnam for the Representative List of the 2003 Convention. The notions of visibility, viability, and visitability are used to discuss the criteria of the nomination procedure and how Vietnam deals with this as a Member State. The more general conclusion is that working together and other participatory methods are the way to go in the safeguarding intangible cultural heritage paradigm, not only to manage the effects of visibility and visitability, but above all in trying to “ensure” viability.  a23917997 (ISSN)