Authorized heritage discourse and community agency: the uneven dynamics of heritagization in Vietnam

Heritage is not only about safeguarding cultural sites, practices and memories, but is also a field of negotiation over authority, legitimacy, representation and community agency. In contemporary Vietnam, the growth in the number of national and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) heritage inscriptions has generated new visibility, resources and symbolic value to cultural practices and historical sites. Simultaneously, the heritagization process has created tensions between state-led management, expert-based evaluation, development agendas and the lived realities of local communities and practitioners. These tensions are especially visible where heritage is not a static object of preservation, but rather a living space, ritual practice or sacred tradition embedded in everyday social and religious life.

Vietnam provides valuable context for examining the gap between participation as a policy principle and agency as lived practice. Since the promulgation of the Law on Cultural Heritage in 2001, its amendment in 2009 and the new 2024 Law on Cultural Heritage, Vietnam has developed an extensive heritage management system, which includes national inventories, cultural heritage lists, cultural heritage councils, provincial departments, local authorities and Site Management Boards (National Assembly of Viet Nam, 2001, 2009, 2024). This system has positively contributed to the identification and promotion of cultural heritages, but also intensified the institutionalization of heritage and created new forms of state intervention in local cultural life. Previous studies by Salemink (2012, 2013) and Oizumi (2019) have argued that while heritagization may bring recognition and resources, it may also appropriate local practices, formalize community participation and shift decision-making power toward state agencies, experts and management bodies. Recent work on contested heritage further asserts that conflicts over inscription, management, ownership, legitimacy and livelihood are increasingly central to understanding heritage governance in Vietnam (Nguyễn, Nguyễn, & Larsen, 2025).

Despite this growing body of literature, greater attention is required on the discrepancies in which heritage regimes reshape community agency across different heritage domains and local contexts. Much of the discussion tends to emphasize either state control or community marginalization. These perspectives remain valid; however, they do not always fully capture the complex dynamics through which communities may be displaced, symbolically included or tactically empowered by heritage recognition. This study was guided by three questions: How do heritage regimes in Vietnam reconfigure the agency of local communities and practitioners? Why do different heritage sites and practices produce different forms of participation and exclusion? Under what conditions can heritage recognition become not only a tool of regulation from above, but also a resource that practitioners mobilize from below?

To answer these questions, this study compared two heritage domains and three local configurations, namely: Đường Lâm Ancient Village, Bắc Lệ Temple and Dầy Palace (Phủ Dầy). As an ancient village whose houses, communal buildings, temples, wells, family lineages, rituals and everyday practices constitute tangible and intangible heritage, Đường Lâm represents living built heritage. However, following its inscription as a national historical and cultural site in 2005, Đường Lâm became subject to preservation regulations that limit residents' ability to repair, expand or rebuild their homes. Bắc Lệ Temple and Phủ Dầy are Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) spaces associated with practices related to the Việt Beliefs in the Mother Goddesses of Three Realms, inscribed on UNESCO's List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2016. At Bắc Lệ, it is the ritual practitioners and worshippers who maintain Mother Goddess worship; however, the temple's formal management is largely organized through a Site Management Board and local administrative structures. By contrast, at Phủ Dầy, spirit mediums and adherents are active in defending ritual authority, negotiating with state institutions and using its recognition by UNESCO as a symbolic resource to strengthen the legitimacy of Mother Goddess worship.

This article compares these three configurations because they reveal different ways in which heritage regimes reshape community agency. Đường Lâm shows how preservation regulations may displace residents' everyday needs. Bắc Lệ demonstrates how community participation can become nominal when ritual practitioners are excluded from formal management practices. While Phủ Dầy illustrates how practitioners can tactically mobilize UNESCO recognition to negotiate religious legitimacy and ritual authority. Indeed, heritagization in Vietnam has produced three interrelated configurations of community agency: regulatory displacement, nominal participation and tactical empowerment. By foregrounding these uneven dynamics, this article contributes to critical heritage and Vietnam studies by extending the critique of AHD beyond a simple conflict between state authority and community marginalization.

The conceptual framework of this study brings together four interrelated concepts, namely AHD, heritagization, heritage regime and community agency. These concepts are not considered separate theoretical references, but rather as a connected framework for analyzing how cultural sites and practices are transformed into heritage, how authority is reorganized during this process and how communities are displaced, included or empowered in uneven ways.

According to Smith, there is, really, no such thing as heritage if heritage is understood as an inherently given object, monument or tradition. Rather, he argued, heritage is constituted through discourse and practice; it is a way of constructing and regulating values, meanings, identities and claims about the past (Smith, 2006, pp. 11–12). AHD refers to a dominant discourse that relies on the power and knowledge claims of technical, aesthetic and professional experts, and is institutionalized through state cultural agencies and heritage management bodies. It privileges monumentality, materiality, time-depth, expert judgment, social consensus and nation-building, while narrowing the space for alternative, local or community-based interpretations of heritage (Smith, 2006, pp. 11–12). Smith also stressed that AHD regulates the legitimacy given to non-authorized expressions of heritage and tends to privilege material and “world” heritage over intangible and sub-national expressions (Smith, 2015, p. 141).

Heritagization refers to the process through which a living practice, ritual space, residential village, historical site or cultural expression is transformed into an officially recognized heritage. This transformation involves naming, documenting, inventorying, evaluating, inscribing, zoning, regulating, managing, promoting and sometimes commodifying cultural forms. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett's formulation of intangible heritage as “metacultural production” is profound because it highlights that heritage is not simply preserved; it is produced through interpretive and institutional operations that frame culture as heritage (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 2004). A ritual becomes an ICH element, a village becomes a protected heritage site, a sacred space becomes subject to administrative management, and residents and practitioners become “bearers”, “custodians,” “stakeholders” or “beneficiaries” within heritage policy.

The concept of a heritage regime explains how heritagization becomes institutionalized. Bendix, Eggert and Peselmann examined what happens when UNESCO heritage conventions are ratified by states, how global heritage norms interact with local, regional and national efforts to promote culture, and what new institutions emerge in the process (Bendix, Eggert, & Peselmann, 2012, p. 11). They argue that the implementation of heritage conventions involves translation and interpretation, generating different regimes depending on state histories and political organizations (Bendix et al., 2012, pp. 11-13). Once global frameworks enter national systems, they are mediated through laws, bureaucratic procedures, expert committees, management boards and local political arrangements. Heritage regimes, therefore, do not merely safeguard heritage; they reorganize authority and redistribute power among states, experts, communities and practitioners.

The language of participation, however, does not automatically produce genuine agency. Blake notes that ICH should be recognized by cultural communities and groups themselves; outside actors cannot simply identify an element as belonging to a community unless the community recognizes it as such (Blake, 2017, p. 56). Smith similarly observes that, although the 2003 Convention raised international recognition of intangible heritage, its implementation remains constrained by the requirement to operate through State Parties rather than directly with communities and subnational groups (Smith, 2015, pp. 133–134). Sousa argues that participation is central to the “spirit” of the Convention, but additional institutions and procedures are needed to operationalize adequate participation (Sousa, 2018, pp. 11–13). In contrast, Jacobs stresses that Article 15 refers to “communities, groups and individuals,” rather than a singular and simplified “community” (Jacobs, 2020).

This study, thus, shifts the analytical focus from participation to agency. Participation may mean being consulted, represented, named or included in safeguarding activities. However, agency refers to the capacity of communities, residents, and practitioners to act, decide, negotiate, contest, interpret, manage and benefit from heritage. To analyze the uneven forms of agency, this article adopts three working concepts: (1) Regulatory displacement, which refers to situations in which preservation rules, authenticity claims, zoning systems and restoration procedures subordinate the everyday needs and decision-making capacities of local residents; (2) Nominal participation referring to situations in which communities or practitioners are recognized discursively, but have limited institutional power and (3) Tactical empowerment, or situations in which communities or practitioners mobilize heritage recognition as a resource to negotiate legitimacy and authority. These concepts allow for a comparative analysis of Đường Lâm, Bắc Lệ and Phủ Dầy as three different configurations of community agency under Vietnam's heritage regimes.

Rather than quantitatively measuring participation, this study adopts a qualitative comparative case study approach, examining how heritage regimes are experienced, negotiated and contested in specific local settings. It draws on knowledge solicited through long-term field engagement with two heritage domains in northern Vietnam: (1) Đường Lâm Ancient Village in Hà Nội and (2) Practices related to the Việt Beliefs in the Mother Goddesses of Three Realms, specifically those conducted at Bắc Lệ Temple in Lạng Sơn Province and the Phủ Dầy complex in Nam Định Province.

The empirical materials of this study include field observations, informal conversations, in-depth interviews, policy and legal documents, heritage management regulations, published research, media reports and ethnographic field notes. The field research commenced in 2015, with sustained attention given to heritage management, ritual practice and community-state relations between 2015 and 2020, and developments in heritage governance and community responses through to 2024. The interlocutors included local residents, house owners, cultural managers, members or former members of Site Management Boards, spirit mediums, temple guardians, ritual practitioners, worshippers and researchers familiar with the sites and practices.

The cases were selected because they allow for a comparative analysis of the uneven forms of community agency under Vietnam's heritage regimes. Đường Lâm represents living built heritage, which presents issues extending beyond the conservation of old houses to include the tensions arising between safeguarding material heritage and the everyday rights and needs of people who continue to inhabit the heritage space. Bắc Lệ Temple is examined as a case where community participation has become largely nominal: ritual practitioners and worshippers are central to the vitality of Mother Goddess worship, yet formal management has been placed under a Site Management Board and local administrative structures. While Phủ Dầy was selected as a contrasting case within the same Mother Goddess heritage domain, where practitioners have used heritage recognition as a symbolic and political resource to defend ritual authority and religious legitimacy.

This study combined thematic and discourse-oriented approaches to analyzing the data. Thematic analysis identified recurring issues across the cases, including management authority, community voice, ritual control, rights over space, livelihood, legitimacy and conflict. Discourse analysis examined how state agencies, heritage managers, experts, residents and practitioners define heritage, community, safeguarding, authenticity, legitimacy and participation. This dual approach allows the analysis to address both the empirical developments in each case and the discursive processes through which heritage is authorized, narrated, regulated and contested. This article does not claim to represent all community perspectives at the three sites. Instead, these cases help identify broader dynamics in Vietnam's heritagization process and clarify how authorized heritage regimes produce uneven forms of community agency.

Đường Lâm Ancient Village provides a clear example of regulatory displacement, a form of community agency shaped by restriction rather than removal. In 2005, Đường Lâm became the first ancient village in Vietnam to be listed as a national historical and cultural relic. This recognition created a legal basis for safeguarding its architectural, historical and cultural values, including traditional houses, village gates, communal houses, temples, wells, family shrines, festivals and social practices associated with a northern Vietnamese rural settlement (Nhung, 2020, pp. 47–48). Research on early conservation measures also shows that the designation of Đường Lâm generated both preservation initiatives and tensions over construction and everyday use (Ando, Fukukawa, & Tomoda, 2015). The heritage value of Đường Lâm lies not only in its material structures, but also in the continuity of everyday life.

Once Đường Lâm was inscribed, the village became subject to a regulatory regime that privileged preservation, authenticity and spatial control. Activities related to repair, remodeling and new construction had to comply with the Cultural Heritage Law and related regulations (Nhung, 2020, p. 47). In principle, these regulations are designed to protect the village's architectural integrity. In practice, their application to residential houses has created tensions in the local community, who wish to alter their family homes in response to population growth and deterioration, and to improve, sanitation, privacy and the needs of younger generations. When preservation rules are rigidly applied to living homes, heritage protection can become intrusive on local residents.

The consequences of this regulatory logic have been widely documented in the literature. Nguyễn Thị Hồng Nhung notes that Đường Lâm attracted state support, nongovernmental assistance, Japanese government-sponsored restoration projects, tourism training and opportunities for local households to participate in tourism initiatives. At the same time, many residents found their lives “turned upside down” because home repairs and new constructions became subject to strict regulations, some restored houses did not meet owners' expectations and tourism benefits were unevenly distributed (Nhung, 2020, pp. 48–49). Tensions peaked in 2013, when residents petitioned to return the national relic title because they felt the designation had restricted their rights to their homes (Nhung, 2020, p. 47; Nguyễn et al., 2025, pp. 18–19). According to press reports, 78 residents from around 60 households signed the petition asking the Vietnamese government to withdraw the title because it intruded too deeply into their lives (Tuoi Tre News, 2013).

Regulatory displacement in Đường Lâm should not be considered a physical eviction. Most residents remain in the village. The displacement occurs at the level of rights, priorities and decision-making. The authority to decide what can be repaired, expanded, rebuilt or restored is transferred from households to state agencies, heritage experts and management structures. Residents continue to live in heritage spaces, but their capacity to shape those spaces according to family needs and desires is reduced. Đường Lâm, therefore, demonstrates that while heritagization may protect material heritage, it can weaken community agency. It turns residents into heritage bearers without giving them sufficient authority over the conditions under which the heritage can be maintained.

While Đường Lâm Ancient Village provides a clear example of regulatory displacement, Bắc Lệ Temple reveals a second configuration – that of nominal participation in the listed rituals. Bắc Lệ is an important sacred site associated with the worship of the Mother Goddesses within the broader practices related to the Việt Beliefs in the Mother Goddesses of Three Realms. These practices include Lên đồng spirit possession rituals, Chầu văn music, offerings, festivals, ritual costumes, dance and devotional participation. UNESCO describes the practices as involving the worship of the Mother Goddesses of heaven, water, mountains and forests, and emphasizes rituals, ceremonies, festivals, costumes, music and dance as part of the living heritage (UNESCO, 2016).

The vitality of Mother Goddess worship at Bắc Lệ is dependent on the practitioners, worshippers, spirit mediums, musicians, ritual assistants and devotees of the Mother Goddess religion. They perform, sustain, finance, transmit and interpret ritual practices. Nevertheless, formal management at the temple is now under the organization of a Site Management Board and local administrative structures. Earlier research on Bắc Lệ argued that the establishment of Site Management Boards strengthens state management over ICH practices (Nguyễn, 2021, p. 3). In many temples and sacred spaces, dedicated to the Mother Goddesses, ritual activities were traditionally organized by temple guardians, ritual groups, devotees and practitioners. However, under the Site Management Boards, it is the responsibility of the head of the board, who is often a local state leader, such as the commune chairperson or a deputy chairperson responsible for culture and social affairs, while other organizing members are commonly drawn from local administrative and mass organizations.

Analytically, Bắc Lệ demonstrates the difference between participation and agency. Practitioners and worshippers intensely participate in the temple's religious life. They attend rituals, make offerings, perform Lên đồng spirit possession rituals, sponsor ceremonies and maintain devotional networks. However, they do not necessarily participate in decision-making regarding management, regulation, spatial organization or heritage interpretation. They are visible in practice, but weak in terms of governance. This is nominal participation: the community is present and acknowledged as the bearer of heritage, but the power to regulate and manage the heritage space remains concentrated in the administrative structures.

This configuration reflects the tension between the ICH discourse and the AHD. ICH discourse emphasizes living practice and community participation, but at Bắc Lệ the implementation of safeguarding is filtered through the Vietnamese heritage regime, where local state structures and Site Management Boards are positioned as legitimate managers. In Smith's terms, the authority to define and regulate heritage is authorized through institutions, rather than through practitioner's lived knowledge (Smith, 2006, pp. 11–12). The global language of safeguarding is translated into state-based procedures and institutions that may have different local effects (Bendix et al., 2012, pp. 11–13).

Oizumi's analysis of Vietnam's policy toward Mother Goddess worship helps explain this dynamic. They argues that the state's protection policy is also a form of control, involving naming, protecting and preventing what it defines as undesirable transformation. Oizumi further argues that heritagization has shifted from a framework of theaterization to one of purification as belief, allowing state actors to criticize stage adaptation or “distorted” rituals as inappropriate transformations of heritage (Oizumi, 2019, p. 148). Therefore, Bắc Lệ complicates any simple celebration of UNESCO recognition. The inscription gave new cultural legitimacy to a religious tradition previously vulnerable to accusations of superstition, but it also brought the practice into a regime of monitoring, standardization and moral regulation.

Phủ Dầy presents a different configuration of community agency. Like Bắc Lệ, it belongs to the domain of Mother Goddess worship in Vietnam; however, the impacts of heritagization differ. Rather than illustrating only exclusion or nominal participation, Phủ Dầy demonstrates how practitioners and spirit mediums can tactically mobilize heritage recognition to negotiate ritual authority and religious legitimacy.

Phủ Dầy is one of the most important ritual centers of Mother Goddess worship in Vietnam. The United Nations in Vietnam describes Mother Goddess practices as including daily worship, ceremonies, Lên đồng mediumship or spirit possession rituals and festivals, such as the Phủ Dầy Festival, through which community history and cultural identity are maintained by music, costumes, dance and ritual participation. The importance of Phủ Dầy lies, not only in its sacred status, but also in the historical role of temple guardians, spirit mediums and practitioner networks.

Nguyễn Thị Hiền, Nguyễn Thị Thu Trang and Larsen noted that Phủ Dầy, with its more than 20 temples and shrines, had long been cared for by local guardian individuals. In 2015, the Vụ Bản District People's Committee issued Decision No. 06/2015/QD-UBND, which established new management regulations for the complex. This Decision placed activities at the site under the supervision of state agencies and triggered controversy among temple guardians and adherents of the Mother Goddess religion. Article 12 was especially contentious because it set standards and procedures for selecting and appointing temple guardians, effectively transforming them into contract-based actors under the authority of the state management structure (Nguyễn et al., 2025, p. 17).

The implementation of Decision No. 06/2015/QD-UBND could be categorized as simply another example of top-down governance. However, Phủ Dầy is analytically important because the practitioners of the Mother Goddess religion at the palace did not passively abide. Spirit mediums and adherents mobilized to oppose the regulations and demand recognition of their rights to participate in managing Phủ Dầy and associated practices (Nguyễn et al., 2025, p. 17). Their response demonstrated that heritagization may generate conflict, but it can also create opportunities for local actors to articulate claims in the language of heritage, religion, community rights, and cultural legitimacy.

An example of this occurred in 2017, when Ms. Trần Thị Hương led a group of adherents from Phủ Dầy in responding to inappropriate statements made by some prominent Buddhists about the history and status of the Supreme Mother Goddess Liễu Hạnh. In that dispute, UNESCO's inscription of the Mother Goddess religion provided spirit mediums with symbolic “ammunition” to oppose disparaging statements and insist on the legitimacy of Mother Goddess worship (Nguyễn and Nguyễn, 2020). This example shows that AHD can theoretically be appropriated from the bottom. The same authorized regime that introduces regulation and administrative control can also provide practitioners with a legitimate vocabulary. A practice once vulnerable to being declared a superstition can be defended as a UNESCO-recognized ICH.

Salemink's analysis of heritagization in Vietnam emphasizes that the heritage label changes relations among communities, the state, the market, and experts. It objectifies and appropriates living cultural practices, but also creates new forms of visibility, publicness, and competition for recognition (Salemink, 2013, pp. 86–87). This contradiction is clear in relation to Phủ Dầy. UNESCO recognition did not simply empower the practitioners of the Mother Goddess religion; it also brought greater attention on its practice and placed it under more intense state and public scrutiny. Practitioners can use this recognition tactically, however, to strengthen their position. Bắc Lệ and Phủ Dầy demonstrate that the same UNESCO-recognized practice, Mother Goddess religion, can produce different local effects depending on practitioner networks, ritual authority, and the capacity to convert heritage recognition into political and religious claims.

The comparative analysis of Đường Lâm, Bắc Lệ, and Phủ Dầy elevates this article beyond merely a descriptive account of heritage management to demonstrate that heritagization in Vietnam produces uneven configurations of community agency. These differences cannot be explained simply by stating that the state controls heritage and that communities are marginalized. While state authority is central in all three cases, the outcomes differ because different heritage regimes interact with varying types of heritage, local governance structures, and community capacities.

First, the type of heritage matters: Đường Lâm is a living built heritage. Its central tension concerns the relationship between the preservation of materials and everyday life. Heritage regulations operate through space: protected zones, construction restrictions, restoration standards, and the regulation of houses. By contrast, Bắc Lệ and Phủ Dầy belong to religious ICH. Their central tension concerns ritual authority, sacred space, and legitimacy: who has the right to manage temples, organize rituals, interpret proper practice, and speak for the Mother Goddess tradition. Therefore, the same national heritage regime takes different forms depending on whether it is applied to a residential village or a sacred ritual complex.

Second, local governance structures matter: Đường Lâm and Bắc Lệ both experienced strong administrative intervention but in different ways. In relation to Đường Lâm, the regulatory regime is organized around cultural heritage law, protected areas, restoration rules, and the Site Management Board. At Bắc Lệ, management is organized around a temple Site Management Board headed by local administrative actors. In both cases, community agency has been weakened because residents or practitioners have more limited influence over the rules governing them. Phủ Dầy differs because the practitioners and guardians have historically maintained stronger ritual authority and networks. When state regulation was introduced, practitioners responded collectively, demonstrating the limits of imposing heritage governance without community consent.

Third, the meaning of “community” differs across the three cases: In Đường Lâm, the relevant community consists primarily of residents and homeowners whose claims are grounded in residence, kinship, livelihood, and rights over houses. At Bắc Lệ Temple, the community includes villagers, temple visitors, worshippers, ritual practitioners, spirit mediums, and administrative representatives, but formal management tends to privilege a territorially defined administrative community over a ritual community. While at Phủ Dầy, the practitioner community has a stronger basis for collective action because its authority is rooted in ritual practice, sacred lineage, devotional networks, and the site's symbolic centrality.

Fourth, inscription produces different political effects: In Đường Lâm Ancient Village, national inscription increased regulation and produced a sense among many residents that heritage status had become a burden. At Bắc Lệ Temple, UNESCO's inscription of Mother Goddess worship gave cultural legitimacy to the practice, however, local management still placed practitioners in a weak position. On the other hand, at Phủ Dầy, UNESCO's inscription became a resource that practitioners could draw upon during disputes over religious legitimacy and management authority. Therefore, inscription is neither inherently disempowering nor inherently empowering. It operates as part of a wider heritage regime, and its effects depend on the positioning of local actors within that regime.

Theoretically, this study's comparison of the three cases extends the critique of AHD. AHD is not only a discourse that privileges experts, monuments, and state institutions. It is also a practical regime that works through laws, boards, nomination files, restoration standards, safeguarding plans, and classifications of legitimate practice. At the same time, it is not totalizing. Communities may resist, negotiate, reinterpret, or appropriate it. Heritagization in Vietnam simultaneously constrains, formalizes, and enables community agency: it constrains agency when preservation regulations displace everyday needs, formalizes agency when communities are acknowledged but excluded from heritage management, and enables agency when practitioners mobilize official recognition to negotiate legitimacy from below.

The first implication of this study for heritage governance is the need to move from formal participation to substantive agency. The language of community participation has become increasingly visible in heritage policy, especially the 2003 UNESCO Convention and the Ethical Principles. However, the three Vietnamese cases analyzed in this paper show that participation may remain symbolic if it is not translated into decision-making power. In Đường Lâm, residents are recognized as members of a heritage community, yet their rights to repair or adapt their homes are constrained. Similarly, at Bắc Lệ, ritual practitioners sustain Mother Goddess worship, but they are largely excluded from formal management structures. Heritage governance should recognize communities and practitioners as decision-making actors whose knowledge, practices, needs, and rights are integral to heritage safeguarding.

A second implication for heritage governance is the need to distinguish different kinds of “community.” A community is not a singular or homogeneous entity. In Đường Lâm, it includes residents, house owners, family lineages, and households differently affected by tourism and regulation. At Bắc Lệ, the community includes local villagers, worshippers, spirit mediums, ritual practitioners, temple visitors, and administrative representatives, but these groups do not hold equal authority. Whereas at Phủ Dầy, ritual practitioners and temple guardians possess forms of religious and cultural authority that cannot be reduced to territorial residence alone. Heritage governance should identify which groups create, maintain, transmit, use, and are affected by heritage and clarify their rights and responsibilities in each context.

These implications for heritage governance point to several directions for future research to explore. More comparative research is needed on how the same UNESCO-recognized ICH element produces different local outcomes than prior to inscription. The comparison between Bắc Lệ and Phủ Dầy shows that inscription may strengthen administrative control over a heritage element in one locality, while providing practitioners with symbolic resources in another. Future studies should also examine additional sites of Mother Goddess worship to understand how local histories, temple ownership, practitioner networks, tourism, and state regulation shape different forms of agency.

This article examined the uneven dynamics of heritagization in Vietnam through the lens of the AHD and community agency. By comparing two heritage domains and three local configurations, the study demonstrated that heritage regimes may constrain agency through regulatory displacement, formalize it through nominal participation or, under certain conditions, enable practitioners to mobilize recognition as a resource for tactical empowerment.

The theoretical contribution lies in extending the critique of AHD beyond a simple conflict between state authority and community marginalization. AHD does not only operate as a discourse of exclusion. It also produces institutional languages, legal categories, and symbolic resources that local actors may negotiate and appropriate. Communities are not merely passive heritage governance objects. They may be regulated, symbolically included, or strategically empowered, depending on the heritage type, local governance arrangements, ritual authority, and the capacity of practitioners and residents to mobilize heritage discourse.

The analysis also contributes to debates on ICH by distinguishing community participation from that of community agency. Participation is widely invoked in UNESCO and national heritage policy, but it does not necessarily guarantee substantive decision-making. Community agency refers to the capacity of residents and practitioners to act, negotiate, contest, manage, and benefit from heritage. This distinction helps explain why the same heritage regime, and even the same UNESCO-recognized religious practice, may produce different outcomes in different localities.

For Vietnam, this study provides a comparative perspective on how national heritage governance operates across living built heritage and religious ICH. Vietnam's heritage regime is neither top-down nor community-based. Rather, it is a field of negotiation in which state institutions, experts, local authorities, Site Management Boards, residents, ritual practitioners, and religious actors continuously redefine the meanings, values, and uses of heritage. More sustainable heritage governance requires moving beyond symbolic community participation toward institutionalized mechanisms for shared decision-making, especially in the post-inscription phase, when tensions between recognition, regulation, and agency become most visible.