01537nas a2200241   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002653002300043653002200066653001800088653002000106653002100126653003300147653002100180100001500201700002300216245006500239856014600304300001200450490000700462520080600469022002001275                                       d10aBinary oppositions10aBio-morphic terms10aDance studies10aEthnochoreology10aHeritage studies10aIntangible cultural heritage10aPost-colonialism1 aEgil Bakka1 aGediminas Karoblis00aDecolonising or Recolonising: Struggles on Cultural Heritage  uhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85119291686&doi=10.3366%2fdrs.2021.0345&partnerID=40&md5=463131e0cf653330efc1234e4f3780f2  a247-2630 v393 aThis article directly responds to an article authored by Iacono and Brown published in Dance Research (2016), and considers issues emerging since its publication. The core topic is the UNESCO Convention from 2003, and in our view, criticism in the 2016 article is based on misinterpretation. We address the claims that the Convention is marked by binarism and provide in-depth background for the concept of intangible cultural heritage. We also caution against using the biomorphic term  living cultural heritage  as its application stands in an ambiguous relation toward essentialist, organicist and totalitarian ideologies. We end with a discussion on attitudes toward globalisation and the concept of innovation. These, we argue, have profound implications for recent discussions on decolonisation.  a02642875 (ISSN)