Worldviews
and Sustainability:
last revision -
Jun 11, 2007
click here
to return
to earthmodal
home
Source
United Nations Environment Programme
Biodiversity (new
window, website)
"The importance of biological diversity to human society is hard to
overstate. An estimated 40 per cent of the global economy is based on
biological products and processes. Poor people, especially those living
in areas of low agricultural productivity, depend especially heavily on
the genetic diversity of the environment. The effective use of
biodiversity at all levels - genes, species and ecosystems - is
therefore a precondition for sustainable development. However, human
activities the world over are causing the progressive loss of species
of plants and animals at a rate far higher than the natural background
rate of extinction."
operations
note: This complementary text was first hosted at the UNEP/biodiversity
site. Since the change to themes/biodiversity the text has been
lost in the changes. Therefore it is downloaded from this site instead.
Cultural
and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity:
A Complementary
Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment; Compiled and
Edited by Darrell Addison Posey, and Oxford Cenre for the Environment,
Ethics
and Society, Intermediate Technology Publications, UNEP 1999 (pdf, New window
25 MB)
Quick glance at Table of Contents (new
window, html, this site)
A complementary contribution to the global biodiversity
assessment, Edited
by Darrell Addison Posey
"The International Labour Organization (ILO)
Convention 169 'Concerning Indigenous Peoples in Independent Countries'
(1989), identifies Indigenous Peoples as:
(a) tribal peoples in countries whose social, cultural and economic
conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national
community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their
own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations, and
(b) peoples in countries who are regarded by themselves or others as
indigenous on account of their descent from the populations that
inhabit the country, or a geographical region to which the country
belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment
of present state boundries and who, irrespective of their legal status,
retain, or wish to retain, some or all of their own social, economic,
spiritual, cultural and political characteristics and insitutions.
"A fundamental principle established by ILO 169 is that: Self-identification
as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion
for determining the groups to which the provisions of this conventions
apply.
This principle is upheld by all indigenous groups,
who, as the
Final Statement of the Consultation on Indegenous Poeples' Knowledge
and Intellecutal Property Rights, Suva, April 1995, says: We assert our inherent right to define who
we are. We do not approve of any other definition."
. . . . .
"It is estimated (Gray, Chapter 3)
that there are currently at least 300
million people world-wide who are indigenous. There are no reliable
figures for how many are "traditional" societies, but excluding urban
populations it could be as high as 85 percent of the world's overall
population. These diverse groups occupy a wide geographical range from
the
polar regions to the deserts, savannahs and forests of tropical zones
(IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991)."
. . . . .
"The volume highlights the central importance of cultural and
spiritual values in the appreciation and preservation of all life and
argues that these values give us a true reflection of worth. It
demonstrates how many cultures see Nature as an extension of society,
and how sensitive stewardship is an integral part of the exercise.
"This publication will convince readers that we must preserve the
life-sustaining customs of humanity's diverse societies and weave them
into a resilient fabric that will protect the sanctity of all life."
Klaus Toepfer, UNEP Executive Director
There is strong evidence that the life support systems on which our
economies depend are being overloaded, and unless a shift is made
towards sustainable development we might face severe or irreversible
damage to our environment. Besides the profound ethical and aesthetic
implications, it is clear that the loss of biodiversity has serious
economic and social costs. The genes, species,
ecosystems and human knowledge that are being lost represent a living
library of options available for preventing and/ or adapting to local
and global change.
Biodiversity is a part of our daily lives and livelihoods, and
constitutes the resources on which families, communities, nations and
future generations depend.
Placing a monetary value on species and ecosystems may be a useful
exercise by which to integrate the cost of using and conserving
biodiversity into the current global economic system, but it will never
be possible to comprehend the true value of life in such a system.
Respect for biological diversity implies respect for human diversity.
Indeed, both elements are fundamental to stability and durable peace on
earth. The key to creating forms of development that are sustainable
and in harmony with the needs and aspirations of each culture implies
breaking out of patterns that render invisible the lives and
perspectives of those cultures. It is the concern of many people that
biodiversity must be appreciated in terms of human diversity, because
different cultures and people from different walks of life perceive and
apprehend biodiversity in different ways as a consequence of their
distinct heritages and experiences.
The separation of spirit from matter seems to be the prevailing
philosophical approach in recent times. A re-evaluation of this precept
is being shaped by the major religions of the world, in response to the
global environmental crisis. This may have a profound repercussion on
the way individuals and their societies perceive the environment,
leading to more responsible actions.
Most indigenous and/or traditional populations inhabit areas of mega
biodiversity This illustrates the inextricable link between cultural
and biological diversity. The very origins of environmental
conservation lie buried in ancient cultures found throughout the world.
Modem environmental movements express various ideologies of these
original belief systems, yet do not always realize their debt to their
forebears, nor towards those who still embody these ideals. Learning
and respecting the ways of today's indigenous and traditional peoples,
and integrating them into environmental and developmental
considerations, will prove indispensable for the survival of diversity.
As reported in Chapter I of this volume, 2,500 languages are in
immediate danger of extinction and ,an even higher number are losing
the "ecological contexts" that keep them as vibrant languages'.
Cultural diversity is more than appearance, more than folklore, song
and dance. It is the embodiment of values, institutions and patterns of
behaviour. It is a composite whole representing a people's
historical experience, aspirations and world view. Deprive a people of
their language, culture and spiritual values and they lose all sense of
direction and purpose.
The contributions of traditional and indigenous peoples should be made
visible. Those who are privileged cannot assume that there is only one
worldview. This volume represents UNEPs contribution towards broadening
the debate on biodiversity. It is also a call by the United Nations to
transform the slogan 'we the peoples' from words into action. This is
the only way in which we can become more receptive to the needs of the
citizens of the world. This is the only way we can become more flexible
in seeking innovative solutions. This is the only way we can capitalize
on the abundant human resources and capabilities available within the
global society."
. . . . .
It is important not to allow 'traditional' to be used to restrict local
innovation and cultural change. In this volume, the term is used as
defined by the Four Directions Council (1996) of Canada:
'What is 'traditional' about knowledge is not its antiquity, but the
way it is acquired and used. In other words, the social process of
learning and sharing knowledge, which is unique to each indigenous
culture, lies at the very heart of its 'traditionality'. Much of this
knowledge is actually quite new, but it has a social meaning, and legal
character, entirely unlike other knowledge'.
Traditional livelihood systems, therefore, are constantly adapting to
changing social, economic and environmental conditions. These are
dynamics, but - no matter the changes - embrace principles of
sustainablility (Alcorn, Chapter 5; Kothari and Das, Chapter 5; Pimber
and Pretty, chpater 5; bierhorst 1994; Callicot 1989; Johannes and
Ruddle 1993; Clarkson et al. 1992; Posey and Dutfield 1997). These
principles cannot be regarded as universal, but generally emphasize the
following values:
- co-operation;
- family bonding and cross-generational communication, including
links with ancestors;
- concern for the well-being of future generations;
- local-scale self-sufficiency, and reliance on locally available
natural resources;
- rights to lands, territories and resources which tend to be
collective and inalienable rather than individual and alienable;
- restraint in resource expoitation and respect for nature,
especially sacred sites.
The Sacred Balance
Although conservation and management practices are highly pragmatic,
indigenous and traditional peoples generally view this knowledge as
emanating from a spiritual
base. All creation is sacred, and the sacred and secular are
inseparable. Spirituality is the highest form of consciousness, and
spiritual consciousness is the highest form of awareness. In this
sense, a dimension of traditional knowledge is not local knowledge, but knowledge of
the universal as expressed in
the local. In indigenous and local cultures, experts exist who are
peculiarly aware of nature's organizing principles, sometimes described
as entities, spirits or natural law. Thus, knowledge of the environment
depends not only on the relationship between humans and nature, but
also the visible world and the invisible spirit world."
Linguistic Diversity
Luisa Maffi
Introduction (Luisa Maffi)
Along with the loss of biodiversity and the erosion of traditional
cultures, the world is currently undergoing a third extinction crisis:
that of the diversity of human languages. Causes and consequences of
all these phenomena reside in the ever more unsustainable exploitation
of the earth’s natural resources, as well as in the growing
marginalization and dispossession of indigenous and minority groups who
struggle for survival and self-determination as distinct peoples, with
their own land bases and means of subsistence. Increasingly, these
peoples see their languages and cultural traditions — and the fight to
protect or restore their linguistic rights — as essential elements in
this struggle. Language and land are considered by most of them as
equally constitutive of their identity as sovereign peoples, and of
their right to live as such.
This should come as no surprise. Language plays a
key role in all aspects of human life everywhere. It is central to our
conceptualization of the world, and for interpreting, understanding and
changing it. Initially the language(s) we learn give us the categories
to conceive our natural and social world. If an object, process or
relationship has been important in the life of our people, it gets
named, and by learning that word we also learn what is vital for us to
know in our natural and social environment. If we needed to discern
every single detail of what we see, our world would be chaotic and our
mental energy overtaxed. Language helps us in organizing our world and
frees our energy for other tasks. Words for concepts are like pegs on
which we hang the meanings that we store in the storehouse of our mind.
They are the framework that binds together the details into a totality,
a meaningful whole. Verbalizing helps us remember and reproduce meaning
and thus make sense of reality. Through the verbalization process we
also learn much of our own culture’s ethics. Together with the words
for objects and phenomena, we learn our culture’s connotations,
associations, emotions and value judgements. The definition of our
ecosocial world, including group identity, status and world view, is
again realized through language.
But language plays all these roles in different ways
for different language communities. The distinct ecosocial adaptations
that each group has elaborate and continues to elaborate in response to
changing circumstances are both largely realized by means of language
and reflected in it. The particular social and ecological circumstances
in which different human groups develop over time — the specific
relationships each group establishes among its members and with other
people around, as well as with the place in which they live — lead to
different and historically changing ways of defining, understanding and
interpreting the world via language. The diversity of languages (and
cultures) around the world has arisen through these complex and dynamic
processes.
Yet this intrinsic and defining role of language in human biocultural
diversity is still not well understood in academic, policy-making and
advocacy circles alike — while it is salient in the cosmologies,
philosophies and traditional narratives of scores of indigenous and
minority peoples world-wide. In international debates on biodiversity
conservation, it is becoming clear that the link between biological and
cultural diversity is an inextricable one, and that it is necessary to
think of preserving the world’s biocultural diversity as an integrated
goal. What has so far largely remained outside the scope of such
debates is the role of language, and of the continued presence of a
variety of languages on earth, in the maintenance of biocultural
diversity (as well as in ensuring equitable and peaceful existence for
hundreds of millions of people on earth).
Recently, however, scholars, practitioners and
indigenous and minority advocates have begun to address this issue
(Nabhan 1996; Maffi 1996, 1997), revealing an emerging convergence of
opinion and action concerning the diversity extinction crisis that is
affecting the world’s languages, cultures and environments. These
experts point to the close interdependence of linguistic, cultural and
biological diversity, suggesting that the diversity of languages and
cultures may share much of the same nature, and serve much of the same
functions, as the diversity of natural kinds in ensuring the
perpetuation of life on earth. On these bases, they argue that the
preservation of the world’s linguistic diversity, and of the distinct
forms of local knowledge that indigenous and minority languages encode,
must be incorporated as an essential goal in bioculturally-oriented
diversity conservation programmes.
earthmodal
note: should the reader need more education about peoples there is an
award winning tutorial at:
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY TUTORIALS (new
window, website)
operations
note: see Development (this site) for access to document
Source
United Nations Development Programme
Human Development Report 2004: Cultural
liberty in today’s diverse world
Overview
"Five myths debunked. Policies recognizing cultural identities and
encouraging diversity to flourish do not result in fragmentation,
conflict, weak development or authoritarian rule. Such policies are
both viable, and necessary, for it is often the suppression of
culturally identified groups that leads to tensions.
- Myth 1. People’s ethnic identities compete with their attachment
to the
state, so there is a trade-off between recognizing diversity and
unifying the state.
- Myth 2. Ethnic groups are prone to violent conflict with each
other in
clashes of values, so there is a trade-off between respecting diversity
and sustaining peace.
- Myth 3. Cultural liberty requires defending traditional
practices, so
there could be a trade-off between recognizing cultural diversity and
other human development priorities such as progress in development,
democracy and human rights.
- Myth 4. Ethnically diverse countries are less able to develop, so
there
is a trade-off between respecting diversity and promoting development.
- Myth 5. Some cultures are more likely to make developmental
progress than others, and some cultures have inherent democratic values
while others do not, so there is a trade-off between
accommodating certain cultures and promoting development and democracy.
Human development requires more than health, education, a decent
standard of living and political freedom. People’s cultural identities
must be recognized and accommodated by the state, and people must be
free to express these identities without being discriminated against in
other aspects of their lives. In short: cultural liberty is a human
right and an important aspect of human development—and thus worthy of
state action and attention."
operations note: for download of this
document go to Assessment (this site)
Ecosystems & Human
Well-being: Synthesis
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Box 6.1 Local Adaptations of MA Conceptual Framework (SG.SDM)
The MA framework was applied in a wide range of assessments at multiple
scales. Particularly for the more local assessments, the framework
needed to be adapted to better reflect the needs and concerns of local
communities. In the case of an assessment conducted by and for
indigenous communities in the Vilcanota region of Peru, the framework
had to be recreated from a base with the Quechua understanding of
ecological and social relationships. (See Figure.) Within the Quechua
vision of the cosmos, concepts such as reciprocity (Ayni), the
inseparability of space and time, and the cyclical nature of all
processes (Pachakuti) are important components of the Inca definition
of ecosystems. Love (Munay) and working (Llankay) bring humans to a
higher state of knowledge (Yachay) about their surroundings and are
therefore key concepts linking Quechua communities to the natural
world. Ayllu represents the governing institutions that regulate
interactions between all living beings.
The resulting framework has similarities with the MA
Conceptual
Framework, but the divergent features are considered to be important to
the Quechua people conducting the assessment. The Vilcanota conceptual
framework also includes multiple scales (Kaypacha, Hananpacha,
Ukupacha); however, these represent both spatial scales and the
cyclical relationship between the past, present, and future. Inherent
in this concept of space and time is the adaptive capacity of the
Quechua people, who welcome change and have become resilient to it
through an adaptive learning process. (It is recognized that current
rates of change may prove challenging to the adaptive capacities of the
communities.) The cross shape of the Vilcanota framework diagram
represents the “Chakana,” the most recognized and sacred shape to
Quechua people, and orders the world through deliberative and
collective decision-making that emphasizes reciprocity (Ayni).
Pachamama is similar to a combination of the “ecosystem goods and
services” and “human well-being” components of the MA framework.
Pachakuti is similar to the MA “drivers” (both direct and indirect).
Ayllu (and Munay, Yachay, and Llankay) may be seen as responses and are
more organically integrated into the cyclic process of change
and adaptation.
In the Vilcanota assessment, the Quechua communities
directed their
work process to assess the conditions and trends of certain aspects of
the Pachamama (focusing on water, soil, and agrobiodiversity), how
these goods and services are changing, the reasons behind the changes,
the effects on the other elements of the Pachamama, how the communities
have adapted and are adapting to the changes, and the state of
resilience of the Quechua principles and institutions for dealing with
these changes in the future.
Developing the local conceptual framework from a
base of local
concepts and principles, as opposed to simply translating the MA
framework into local terms, has allowed local communities to take
ownership of their assessment process and given them the power both to
assess the local environment and human populations using their own
knowledge and principles of well-being and to seek responses to
problems within their own cultural and spiritual institutions.
See further:
The MA sub-global assessments were designed to meet needs of
decision-makers at the scale at which they are undertaken, strengthen
the global findings with on-the-ground reality, and strengthen the
local findings with global perspectives, data, and models. There are 18
MA-approved sub-global assessments, and an additional fifteen with an
associated status. Assessments at sub-global scales are needed because
ecosystems are highly differentiated in space and time, and because
sound management requires careful local planning and action. Local
assessments alone are insufficient, however, because some processes are
global, and because local goods, services, matter, and energy are often
transferred across regions. The sub-global assessments will directly
meet the needs of decision-makers at the scale at which they are
undertaken, strengthen the global findings with on-the-ground reality,
and strengthen the local findings with global perspectives, data, and
models.
Video:
Vilcanota
Sub-Global Assessment, Peruvian Andes (new
window, webpage)
Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem
Assessment
Bridging
Scales and Knowledge Systems
(new
window, website)
Edited by Walter V. Reid, Fikret Berkes, Thomas
Wilbanks, Doris Capistrano
The very first meeting of the MA Exploratory Committee introduced
three novel dimensions to the assessment process. First, the group
concluded that the assessment could not be done at a single global
scale and would need to examine processes of ecosystem change and human
impacts at other scales, including in particular the scale of
individual communities. Second, it was evident that the audience for
the findings of an assessment of these issues was much broader than the
traditional audience of global assessments (national governments) and
must include other stakeholders from business, nongovernmental
organizations, indigenous people, and other civil society groups.
Finally, it was clear that the knowledge base for an assessment of this
nature could not be limited to the scientific literature but must draw
on other “informal” sources of knowledge, including local, traditional,
and practitioner’s knowledge.
Chapter 11: Cosmovisions and Environmental
Governance:The Case of In Situ Conservation of Native Cultivated Plants
and Their Wild Relatives in Peru (Jorge
Ishizawa) (new
window, 416 KB, pdf)
Source
United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(new window, website)
Dialogue
among Civilizations
(new window, website)
The quest for a dialogue among civilizations and peoples is deeply
entrenched in and associated with interaction among countries, cultures
and civilizations, especially in a multilateral context. In regard to
UNESCO’s Constitution and the various programmes and resolutions
adopted by the Executive Board and General Conference since the
establishment of the Organization, the promotion of dialogue in the
service of peace – in order to build “peace in the minds of men” – is
clearly one of the main themes of UNESCO’s mission. Globalization and
the emergence of new contemporary challenges and threats to humankind
make the need for dialogue among peoples ever more topical. A principal
objective of a dialogue is to bridge the gap in knowledge about other
civilizations, cultures and societies, to lay the foundations for
dialogue based on universally shared values and to undertake concrete
activities, inspired and driven by dialogue, especially in the areas of
education, cultural diversity and heritage, the sciences and
communication and media.
Dialogue among Civilizations (new
window, 675 KB, pdf)
The International Conference in Vilnius, Lithuania. 23-26 April 2001
Vilnius Declaration
1. Civilizations are entities of faith, historical memory, moral
imagination and human connection. They contain historically unique and
self-asserting cultures, irreplaceable forms of human creativity, and
also the intellectual and moral sensibilities of large groups of
people. Biodiversity and cultural diversity are closely linked and are
instrumental for the ability of humankind to adapt, create and invent.
No civilization can solely assume the responsibility for all humanity;
neither can a single civilization claim exclusive rights to provide an
ultimate and universally valid vision of how to be a human being in the
complex and multifaceted world of today and tomorrow. Like human
beings, the historically formed and living civilizations can never be
interchangeable since they are all equally unique and valuable. The
loss of any single trait of one civilization is a loss for all humanity.
2. The ideas of tolerance and of the dialogue among civilizations rest
on a clear awareness of human incompleteness. This is particularly true
of the concept of ‘the polylogue of civilizations’ elaborated by
Vytautas Kavolis, a great Lithuanian scholar.
3. Up to now the political exploitation of the concept of civilizations
has been among the most problematic traits of modern social sciences
and humanities. Regrettably, the theoretically exhausted and morally
dubious inclination to employ or even exceedingly exploit the concept
of civilization for sheer political and ideological purposes is still
the case.
4. Simplistic, monologue-based or otherwise politically convenient
notions of civilization should not be applied. Contrary to a firm
conviction that Western civilization was the only civilization nurtured
by dialogue-based individualism, liberty and toleration, scholars have
stressed the importance of each civilization and the dialogue among
them as an inescapable part of the concept of civilization itself.
5. Civilizations are symbolic designs within which people raise core
questions concerning their being in the world, and also search for key
concepts and frames of meaning to interpret themselves and the world
around them. No civilization can be regarded as a theory emanating
entity solely capable of interpreting the world and therefore framing
the rest of the world as its empirical evidence.
Genuine dialogue allows no room for absolute otherness, for it occurs
among morally committed human individuals.
6. No civilization can assume or represent complete humanity. The
comparative approach therefore brings us to a proper understanding of
the complementarity of civilizations. It powerfully stands against
bias, clichés, demonization of the other and the sense of
superiority over other societies and cultures. The complementarity of
civilizations would be unthinkable without the constant interplay and
exchange of such faculties of human thought and creativity as science,
art and philosophy; nor would it be possible without the ethical and
spiritual dimension. Women and young people can play a crucial part in
the process of bridging and uniting the world.
7. As a crucial attempt to uphold mutual respect, sympathetic
understanding and tolerance, the dialogue among civilizations is the
only means to build a world of human dignity, solidarity and hope. Such
a dialogue of multiple, pluralistic and communicating identities would
result in a multi-civilizational universe of discourse. No civilization
could be demonized, and references to all of them, their intellectual
traditions and masterpieces of art would come to the contemporary
individual as easily and naturally as references to his or her own
civilization. A particular civilization can experience itself or
critically examine its core values only through a dialogue with other
civilizations.
8. All Governments and civil societies are enjoined, as an integrated
part of their cultural policies, to take the initiative to further a
dialogue among civilizations in such a way that it can become an
instrument of transformation, a yardstick for peace and tolerance and a
vehicle for diversity and pluralism, especially in culture, with the
ultimate aim of furthering the common good.
operations
note: this document is downloaded above
Cultural
and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity:
A Complementary
Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment; Compiled and
Edited by Darrell Addison Posey, and Oxford Cenre for the Environment,
Ethics
and Society, Intermediate Technology Publications, UNEP 1999
CHAPTER 3
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, THEIR ENVIRONMENTS AND
TERRITORIES 59
ANDREW GRAY
A major
feature of indigenous knowledge, as mentioned in Agenda 21(26.1), is
its
holistic character. This concept is used in environmental circles to
refer to a
tendency of nature to form a ‘whole’ which is larger than the sum of
its parts.
When holism appears in a socio-cultural context, it refers to those
interconnections between different aspects of life where a ‘whole’
consists of
clusters of features (social, cultural, economic, political, spiritual
or
environmental) which cross-cut non-indigenous defined boundaries.
Indigenous
peoples, with their distinct cultural principles, will almost
invariably
provide some ‘holistic’ insight into their relationship with the
environment
that is markedly different from that of national society. Particularly
important holistic aspects of indigenous knowledge are how the
invisible spirit
world reflects the environment and connects with production methods.
This
invisible spirit dimension is too often overlooked by ecologists,
although it
has a fundamental influence on how indigenous peoples conceptualize and
utilize
their resources. McGregor’s Hawaiian article and Bennett’s description
of
Aboriginal Dreamtime underline the importance of spirituality in
looking at
indigenous peoples’ relations with their environments.
Of particular significance are the ‘Voices of the
Earth’ (Chapter 4)
which
provide examples, from all over the globe, of traditional and
indigenous
people’s relationships with the earth. Indigenous peoples communicate
with the
non-human world through invisible spirits. This is particularly
apparent in
shamanic activities, such as those of the Arakmbut. In these cases,
spirituality enters the material world permanently and constitutes the
very
force of life. For the Desana (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1971), this can
operate as a
form of ‘spiritual conservation’. However, for most peoples, management
or use
of resources is a combination of several different principles, such as
practical knowledge, experience, and taking advantage of specific
conditions.
Thus, although the spiritual world is ever-present in the environment
and
largely influences production and curing methods, it would be as
misleading to
make it a determining factor in biodiversity conservation as it would
be to say
that cultural diversity is determined by biological diversity.
The form of holism discussed by indigenous peoples
is full of
connections and
links but is not determined by any one factor. Socio-cultural life,
spirituality and biological diversity combine to provide the context
for
indigenous knowledge and sustainable production methods, and the way in
which
they combine will differ between peoples. Myth and ritual are
particularly
important ways whereby the forces of the invisible world are drawn into
the
world in order to ensure growth and fertility. Examples range from the
Andean
peoples whose rituals draw the power of fertility from the mountains
and the
rivers to fertilize the earth (Gose 1994); another widespread
phenomenon comes
from Indonesia
where the unidirectional ‘flow of life’ links together the cosmic,
social and
material worlds in dynamic movement (Fox 1980).
Holistic clusters of connections link aspects of
life in indigenous
cosmologies
which Western thought separates: this is why indigenous peoples have
distinct
value systems conceptualizing and acting on the world. Values are given
to
phenomena according to their perceived context within a system: thus
for
Western economies value is given to a commodity on the basis of its
exchange
potential in a system (Appadurai 1988: 3), while moral values are
distinct
because they are ideas of activities placed within the context of an
ethical or
religious system. When one talks of spiritual and cultural values in
Western
contexts these are contrasted with economic values. In addition, social
acceptance of these values has a political consequence in that power is
embedded in their enforcement over indigenous peoples.
However, whereas one can see a marked variety of the
socio-political
and
cultural aspects of value in all peoples, it is impossible to presume
that
values will be systematized in the same way. Indeed, indigenous peoples
frequently
find themselves clashing with this artificial distinction between
economic
value and moral value. Several contributors have brought this together
by
referring to the notion of the ‘gift’. Gift-giving and reciprocity have
long
been recognized as fundamental to indigenous economic systems (Mauss
1970;
Sahlins 1972). The form of the exchange, the necessity to reciprocate,
these
are all aspects of the social and personal interactions of daily life
in
indigenous communities. They take different forms in different places,
but they
firmly place social, economic and political values within a framework
of
reciprocity.
Source
Worldwatch
Institute
(new window, website)
" The Worldwatch Institute offers a unique blend of interdisciplinary
research, global focus, and accessible writing that has made it a
leading source of information on the interactions among key
environmental, social, and economic trends. Our work revolves around
the transition to an environmentally sustainable and socially just
society—and how to achieve it."
operations
note: the user has to sign on for this book (its free) and having done
so can store this in the earthmodal bookshelf. It is named EWS300.pdf
and it is 2.5 MB.
STATE
OF THE WORLD 2003: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress
Toward a Sustainable Society; Gary Gardner, Project Director, Chris
Bright, Christopher Flavin, Mia MacDonald, Anne Platt McGinn, Danielle
Nierenberg, Payal Sampat, Janet Sawin, Molly O’Meara Sheehan, Howard
Youth, Linda Starke, Editor; W .W . Norton & Company;
New York, London, 2003
ch 8, Engaging Religion in the Quest for a Sustainable World; Gary
Gardner;
The Potential Power of Engaged Religion
"Religious institutions and leaders can bring at least five strong
assets to the effort to build a sustainable world: the capacity to
shape cosmologies (worldviews), moral authority, a large base of
adherents, significant material resources, and community-building
capacity. Religions are experienced at informing our perspectives on
issues of ultimate concern.
They know how to inspire people and how to wield moral authority. Many
have the political clout associated with a huge base of adherents. Some
have considerable real estate holdings, buildings, and financial
resources. And most produce strong community ties by generating social
resources such as trust and cooperation, which can be a powerful
boost to community development. Many political movements would welcome
any of these five assets. To be endowed with most or all of them, as
many religions are, is to hold considerable political power."
Source
Environmental
Law Programme
operations note: the download for this document is in Economics section
- this site.
International Environmental Law, third
Edition; Alexandre Kiss and Dinah Shelton; Transnational Publishers,
Ardsley, NY; 2004
Table of Cases
Introduction
A. Concept and Scope of the “Environment” and “Environmental Law”
B. The Necessity of International Law
PART I: STRUCTURE AND BASIC CONCEPTS
Chapter 1: Foundations of International Environmental Law
A. Religion and Philosophy (extracts in this
section - below)
1. Religious Sources
2. Utilitarianism
3. Equity
a. Intra-Generational Equity
b. Inter-Generational Equity: Rights of Future Generations
c. Inter-Species Equity
C. Economics (in Economics at left)
D. International Law (in Governance at
left)
1. Sovereignty
2. Cooperation
3. Common Concern of Humanity
4. Common Heritage of Mankind
E. Conclusions
1 FOUNDATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
International environmental law aims to protect the biosphere from
major deterioration that could endanger its present or future
functioning. This objective provokes the fundamental questions: why
protect the biosphere and for whose benefit? Who has legal obligations
in this field and on what bases do such obligations exist? The present
chapter addresses these questions, as well as the characteristics of
international environmental law deriving from scientific, economic,
political and legal realities. It begins with an overview of the
ethical, religious and philosophical foundations of environmental
protection.
A. Religion and Philosophy
Religious and philosophical concepts are crucial to understanding the
views of nature and humankind’s relationship to it that form the bases
of environmental law. These views have ranged from exploitive and
dominating to holistic and cognizant of the intrinsic value of nature;
they are relevant to understanding current law and to creating new
approaches to environmental protection.
1. Religious Sources
Religious texts provide some conceptual foundations of environmental
protection. In
Judeo-Christian religious traditions, two contrasting approaches can be
found. A view prevalent in the past claimed human supremacy and
ownership over all creation based on the “dominion” given humans in the
first of the Creation stories in Genesis. More recent interpretations
argue that the relevant passage does not grant ownership to humans, Certain passages clearly
indicate that humans do not own the earth and its resources. The Psalms
proclaim, for example, that “the earth is the Lord's and the fullness
thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For He hath founded it
upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.” but rather establishes human
power over other creatures and the right to beneficial use of them,
imposing a type of guardianship or a trust. It does not include the
right to waste or destroy that which belongs to the Creator. The Biblical story of the
flood includes a command to Noah to save all creatures, "to keep seed
alive upon the face of the earth"
and ends with a Covenant between God and man "and every living creature
. . . for perpetual generations."
Jewish law provided for conservation of birds, protection of trees during
wartime, and regulated
the disposal of human waste.
In the Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas argues that man's dominion over
nature includes a competence to use and manage the world's resources,
not selfishly, but in the interests of all, being ready to help others
in case of necessity.
Individual title is seen as imposing a responsibility and a trust. In
an address on 1 January 1990, the World Day of Peace, Pope John Paul II
stated: "In our day, there is a growing awareness that world peace is
threatened not only by the arms race, regional conflicts and continued
injustices among people and nations, but also by a lack of due respect
for nature, by the plundering of natural resources and by a progressive
decline in the quality of life."
In 1983, Muslim experts undertook a study of the relationship between
Islam and environmental protection. The results underscored that
Islam presents a way of life that
encompasses an overall view of the universe, life, man and the
interrelationships existing between them and also combines conviction,
belief, legislation and enforcement of this legislation.
Humans are seen as forming part of the universe, whose elements are
complementary to one another in an integrated whole, but humankind has
a special relationship to the other parts of nature, a relationship of
utilization and development. The basic principle of the biosphere is
that:
God's wisdom has ordained to grant
man inheritance on earth. Therefore,
in addition to being part of the earth and part of the universe, man is
also the executor of God's injunctions and commands. And as such he is
a mere manager of the earth and not a proprietor; a beneficiary and not
a disposer or ordainer. Man has been granted inheritance to manage and
utilize the earth for his benefit, and for the fulfillment of his
interests. He therefore has to keep, maintain and preserve it honestly,
and has to act within the limits dictated by honesty.
In this perspective, each generation is entitled to use nature to the
extent that it does not disrupt or upset the interests of future
generations. Islamic principles thus envisage the protection and the
conservation of basic natural elements, making protection, conservation
and development of the environment and natural resources a mandatory
religious duty of every Muslim.
Any deliberate or intentional damage to the natural environment and
resources is forbidden. In conclusion the study proposes Islamic
legislative rules to serve as the foundation of procedures and measures
necessary for the protection and conservation of the environment.
Ancient Buddhist chronicles, dating to the third century B.C. record a
sermon on Buddhism in which the son of the Emperor Asoka of India
stated that “the birds of the air and the beasts have as equal a right
to live and move about in any part of the land as thou. The land
belongs to the people and all living beings; thou art only the guardian
of it.” Subsequently,
the King initiated a legal system which continued to exist into the
eighteenth century providing sanctuaries for wild animals.
The religious beliefs of indigenous peoples also contain precepts on
respect for all life and impose duties on individuals and the community
to avoid waste or harm. According to one commentator, “indigenous
peoples unanimously emphasize the spiritual nature of their
relationship with the land or earth, which is basic to their existence
and to their beliefs, customs, traditions, and culture.”
World Map
of Religions - View Large
earthmodal
note: should the reader need more education about religions there is a
good tutorial at:
BBC: Religion
and Ethics
(new
window, website)
Source
Environmental
Law Programme
operations note: the download for this document is in Economics section
- this site.
International Environmental Law, third
Edition; Alexandre Kiss and Dinah Shelton; Transnational Publishers,
Ardsley, NY; 2004
2. Utilitarianism
Many early treaties had a utilitarian or anthropocentric orientation
based on the centrality of human dominance and humankind’s unlimited
right to exploit nature, found in some religious doctrines and
philosophy. Utilitarianism grounds environmental protection on the
well-being of humans, seeing nature primarily or only as a means to
enhance the quality of human life and the satisfaction of human needs.
Some environmental agreements thus stressed the protection of resources
“useful” to man and the destruction of nonuseful living creatures.
Early environmental laws also tended to focus on
pollution, because of its impact on human health, and only later
addressed issues of endangered species and protection of biological
diversity.
One of the central texts of international environmental law, the 1992
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, reflects a utilitarian
approach, attempting to merge the goal of economic development with
environmental protection. Its first principle proclaims that “[h]uman
beings are at the center of concerns for
sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive
life in harmony with nature.” This approach was further reinforced by
the Political Declaration of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD) which emphasizes the importance of economic and
social development, especially combating poverty.
The healthy life mentioned in the Rio Declaration has long been
recognized in international and domestic legal texts and has served as
a basis for environmental protection. It has taken on renewed force
with the focus, inter alia by the WSSD and the World Health
Organization, on providing every individual with sufficient water of
adequate quality by 2012.
3. Equity
Environmental ethicists construct environmental protection around
concepts of equity and justice, as seen in three sets of relationships:
among existing persons, between present and future generations, and
between humans and other species.19
a. Intra-generational equity
The first ethical requirement is to assure justice among existing
humans beings. Beyond the fundamental protections of human rights,
discussed in Chapter 15, states and the international community must
fairly allocate and regulate scarce resources to ensure that the
benefits of environmental resources, the costs associated with
protecting them, and any degradation that occurs (i.e. all the benefits
and burdens) are equitably shared by all members of society. In this
regard, environmental justice is an application of the principles of
distributive justice as it seeks to reconcile competing social and
economic policies in order to obtain equitable sharing of resources.20
b. Inter-generational equity: rights of future generations
Humanity’s concern with long-term human survival underlies legal and
social norms and may be grounded in a genetic or biological imperative.21 Interest in survival of the
human species requires that "humanity" be seen to include not only
present but also future generations.22 Concern
for future generations can thus be seen as implicit in all that touches
environmental protection and the preservation of natural resources,
reflected in the requirement that development be sustainable. One of
the first expressions of intergenerational equity is found in Jomo
Kenyatta's book Facing Mount Kenya:
A man is the owner of his land...But
insofar as there are other people of his own flesh and blood who depend
on that land for their daily bread, he is not the owner, but the
partner, or at the most a trustee for the others. Since the land is
held in trust for the unborn as well as for the living, and since it represents
his partnership in the common life of generations, he will not lightly
take it upon himself to dispose of it.
International environmental texts have referred to the need to conserve
the natural heritage of humankind for the benefit of present and future
generations, at least since the International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling ( Dec. 2, 1946). Principle 2 of the 1972
Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment endorsed a concern with
future generations, stating:
The natural resources of the earth,
including the air, water, and flora and fauna and especially
representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for
the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning
or management, as appropriate.23
The same year, the UNESCO World Heritage Convention included a
reference to future generations.24
Particularly significant is Article 3 (1) of the Framework Convention
on Climate Change which declares that “[t]he parties should protect the
climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of
humankind.”25 At the same
time, Principle
3 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development links concern
for future generations with the right to development, declaring: “The
right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet
developmental and
environmental needs of present and future generations.”
On the basis of these treaty provisions, declarations, and resolutions,
it is possible to conclude that each generation may benefit from and
develop the natural and cultural patrimony inherited from previous
generations, but then must pass it on to future generations in no worse
condition than it was received. This is not a completely satisfactory
approach, however, over the long term. It is not clear how the same
amount of space, wilderness, clean water, and biological diversity
can be guaranteed to endless generations of increasingly larger numbers
of individuals. It is also impossible to anticipate the preferences of
future generations.
Concretely, the rights of future humanity may be encompassed in the
concept of sustainable development, deemed to include the attainment of
economic, social and cultural rights. The realization of such rights
requires the availability of natural resources over an indefinite
period of time and includes not only material
resources that are essential to the survival of humankind and those
that serve to enrich it, but also ecosystems, life-support processes,
and biological diversity. The enjoyment of cultural rights necessarily
includes the conservation of basic elements of civilization, including
wild flora and fauna, landscapes and natural sites. This broad
interpretation of economic, social and cultural rights reflects the
interests of present and future humanity.
A recognition of the rights of future generations also raises the
problems of defining a generation and means of implementing such
rights. The concept of a generation is not clear. Based on average life
expectancy and reproductive patterns, the time-span of a human
generation has been taken to be thirty years, but there are significant
differences in both of these elements between individuals and between
industrialized and developing countries. In fact, there are no distinct
generations, because at each moment hundreds of human beings are born
and die, with the result that some six billion people of all ages
co-exist. In law, therefore, it is perhaps more logical to speak of
future humanity, rather than future generations, as the holder of
rights, and to recognize humanity, including its present and future
members, as a collective legal person. National and international law
already recognize various entities as legal persons, from the state and
other levels of government to corporations. The same capacity
could be afforded humanity as a whole, although this does raises the
problem of who might represent it.
International instruments provide little guidance on representation and
implementation of the rights of future humanity, but domestic legal
systems offer some guidance, notably in the Philippine Supreme Court
decision Minors Oposa v. Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources.26 Thirty-five minors, represented
by their parents and an association, sought an order requiring the
government to discontinue existing timber licenses and restraining it
from issuing new licenses. Their petition was based on the allegation
that deforestation was causing environmental damage. The
Court ruled that the plaintiffs had standing to represent their as yet
unborn progeny and that they had adequately asserted a right to a
balanced and healthy ecology. It also declared that “the minors’
assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the
same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection
of that right for the generations to come.” The decision provides an
example of how rights of future generations might be enforced in
practice. Internationally, the task of ensuring the rights of future
humanity could be conferred upon an independent international
authority, such as an international environmental agency or ombudsman.
c. Inter-species equity
Inter-species equity emerges from and enhances respect for the
intrinsic value of nature independently of its utility to humans. It
posits a non-hierarchical view of human relations with other species.
Precursors of this concept can be seen in those constitutions, laws,
and international instruments that require the humane treatment of
living
creatures. At the
beginning of the 1970s, some theorists suggested that the legal
personality of certain components of the environment, such as trees or
animals, could be recognized. However,
legal systems have difficulty integrating such solutions because the
systems are created by humans to serve human interests. Movements for
recognition of “animal or biotic rights” are increasingly evident,
however, motivated by ethical considerations and concern about the
continued decline of biological diversity at an alarming rate. The comprehensive
philosophical world views encompassed by the “deep ecology” and the
animal rights movements could imply profound changes
in law and policy.
The preamble of the 1979 Bern Convention on the Conservation of
European Wildlife and Natural Habitats was one of the first to express
a basis of environmental protection in the intrinsic value of nature:
Recognizing that wild flora and fauna
constitute a natural heritage of
aesthetic, scientific, cultural, recreational, economic, and intrinsic
value that needs to be preserved and handed on to future generations.
The text demonstrates an integrated approach: the natural heritage
presents a certain number of qualities important for humanity, but
these do not diminish nature’s inherent value. The contracting parties
to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity similarly profess that
they are “[c]onscious of the intrinsic value of biological
diversity and of the ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific,
educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological
diversity and its components. ”
Given the lack of legal status for components of the environment
despite recognition of their
intrinsic and independent value, an integrated approach best creates a
foundation for environmental protection. The first phrases of the
preamble of the World Charter for Nature set out such an approach:
Mankind is a part of nature and life
depends on the uninterrupted functioning of natural systems which
ensure the supply of energy and nutrients.
The intrinsic value of the biosphere is not rejected but is integrated
with an understanding that humans make up part of the universe and
cannot exist without conservation of the biosphere and the ecosystems
comprising it. In this perspective all components of the environment
have a value not only in their short-term utility to
humans, as the earlier exclusively utilitarian approach would have it,
but also as indispensable elements of an interrelated system which must
be protected. While the
aim of human survival remains anthropocentric, humans are not viewed as
apart from or above the
natural universe, but as a linked and interdependent part of it. It
follows that because all parts of the natural web are linked, they must
all be protected and conserved. It is in this sense that "intrinsic
value" may be understood.
In conclusion, it may be noted that the religious and philosophical
conceptions upon which environmental protection may be based imply
individual responsibility, whether for the benefit of other persons, of
future generations, of other species, or of the processes and
life-support systems of the biosphere. Principle 1 of the Stockholm
Declaration expresses this duty, proclaiming that “man bears a solemn
responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and
future generations.”
Source
United Nations
Development Programme (new
window, website)
operations note: place this document in subdirectory ../HDR
2004 Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world
4.
Confronting
movements for cultural domination (new
window, 205 KB, pdf)
This Report argues that people should be free to be who they are, to
choose their identities and to live accordingly. It further argues that
the recognition of multiple and complementary identities—with
individuals identifying themselves as citizens of a state as well as
members of ethnic, religious and other cultural groups—is the
cornerstone of cultural liberty. But movements hostile to these
principles seek to eliminate diversity in the name of cultural
superiority. Such movements, and their underlying sources of support,
must be confronted. The question is: How?
This chapter is about coercive movements for
cultural
domination—those that are motivated by an ideology of cultural
supremacy and domination and that use coercion to suppress the cultural
identities of others. These movements are a familiar part of the
political landscape in many countries and may even be growing in
strength. It is important to clarify what is distinctive about this
sort of movement. Many types of movements use coercive strategies of
violence or intimidation, but not all such movements are movements for
cultural domination. Many historically disadvantaged or subordinated
groups feel compelled to use coercive strategies, particularly if they
are excluded from or marginalized within the normal political process.
Their tactics may involve coercion, but their goal is the pursuit of
equal rights, power sharing, autonomy and a more inclusive society (for
example, the Zapatistas in Mexico). Insofar as the recommendations
discussed in chapters 3 and 5 are adopted, the use of coercive
strategies by such groups would no longer be necessary or justified.
This chapter, by contrast, focuses on movements that
typically seek to
create ethnically or religiously “pure” states by expelling, coercively
assimilating or even killing anyone viewed as “other”. For such
movements the sorts of multiculturalist policies defended in this
Report are anathema. It is the intolerance or hatred of other ways—and
organizing to spread that intolerance while denying people choice over
their identities—that makes a movement coercive (figure 4.1). The
target: freedom and diversity.
Such movements are often misleadingly described as
religious
“fundamentalist” movements. But it is important to emphasize that the
focus in this chapter is both broader and narrower than the phenomenon
of religious fundamentalism. On the one hand, many forms of religious
fundamentalism do not believe in the use of violence to achieve their
aims. Nor do they necessarily seek to coercively impose their ideology
on others. They may work solely within the democratic system. Tibetan
or Trappist monks have strong religious beliefs but do not impinge on
the religious freedom of others. On the other hand, there are cases of
coercive movements for cultural domination that are not based primarily
on religion, but rather on appeals to racial or ethnic purity. Thus,
religious fundamentalism is neither a necessary nor a sufficient
condition to qualify as a coercive movement
for cultural domination.
Source
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO)
(new window, website)
Social Science and Social Policy: From National
Dilemmas to Global Opportunities (new
window, 386 KB, pdf)
Richard E. Lee, William J. Martin, Heinz R. Sonntag, Peter J. Taylor,
Immanuel Wallerstein, Michel Wieviorka, Reference Paper for the
International Forum on the Social Science – Policy Nexus, 5-9 September
2005, Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Montevideo, Uruguay
2. Four Essentials of Social Science
in the 21st Century
2.1 The unit of analysis: large space
and “longue durée”
One of the ideological assumptions of the modern world has been the
phenomenon of constant change, long assumed to be something positive.
We have called it progress. That the modern world has been constantly
changing, or evolving, is undoubtedly true. But we cannot appreciate
what is really “new” without a firm understanding of structural
continuities, what is not “new” but merely appearing under a different
guise. This is why it is so dubious to analyse current social realities
without an analysis of the longue
durée.
Only then are we able to distinguish the constant from the changing,
and only then will we be able to appreciate the important moment when
what has been constant (structural) is itself undergoing a
transformation.
. . . . .
2.2 Hype versus reality in social science: theoretically-sound concepts
and conceptually-sound measurements
The hyping of globalization arose from a specific historical
contingency that created a political opportunity to restructure the
world economy. The three-worlds model that structured Cold War thinking
disintegrated at the beginning of the 1990s with the demise of the
“second world” leaving the erstwhile “third world” without an “ally” to
face a now seemingly all-powerful “first world”. This was the political
opportunity for a global neo-liberalism that combined the “rolling back
the State” rhetoric of the 1980s (Reaganomics, Thatcherism) with the
thesis of the “global reach” of the multinational corporation of the
1970s to create the ideal of globalization as a borderless world in
which States were adjured to stay out of economic affairs. The practice
of this new politics has taken two main forms: in countries where
political resources for resistance were weak there have been forced
“structural” adjustment programmes; and where political resources for
resistance were stronger there has been a transformation of
social-democratic parties into somewhat lighter neo liberals when in
government. The political rhetoric of globalization has made it
possible to put forward an economic threat as though it were a given of
social science: “There is no alternative” – if a country wishes to
avoid (still further) economic decline.
. . . . .
The conundrum for any study of social change is therefore, how to
distinguish ordinary change within the system wherein institutions
adapt to ever-changing circumstances from extraordinary/structural
change which is undermining the system to such a degree as to change
its very nature. Does contemporary globalization mark a period of
extraordinary/structural change? And, if so, what are the crucial
characteristics that make it so world-shattering? To answer such
critical questions requires cutting through the hype by using
theoretically-sound concepts for which empirically-sound measurements
can be constructed.
. . . . .
2.3 Fact and value: an imbricated pair
One of the fundamental features of the modern world has been the
progressive separation of the domain of facts from the arena of values:
what is “true” is deemed independent of what is “good”. This primary
assumption of the structures of knowledge of the modern world found
expression in the separation of the sciences from the humanities both
as intellectual disciplines and as university faculties. In
articulation with economic and political processes, this split became
the dominant arrangement “disciplining”, that is, limiting and
authorizing, human cognition, and thus the cultural parameters of
action over the past five centuries or more. Furthermore, the pursuit
of “objectivity” has been a direct product of this divorce of facts
from values and arose parallel to the process of rationalization, or
the progressive privileging of formal over substantive rationality.
. . . . .
Today, the central, overriding concern in social and policy analysis
must be the realization that not only are the structures of knowledge
in crisis, but that the totality of the long-term structures of the
modern world are going through a transition. The questions that arise
then are, on the one hand, what kind of world, within the range of
possibility, we might want to create for the future and, on the other
hand, what can we do to best bring it about. From this perspective, the
fact/values divide hinders rather than helps our understanding. Instead
of construing human values simply as a matter of individual ethics or
morality in the creation of authoritative knowledge of the social
world, it is more useful to conceive them as integral to a historical
social science whose primary mission in our time, a period of systemic
transformation, should be to imagine and evaluate possible futures and
modes for their attainment. Such a historical social science would be
historical in the sense that it takes into consideration the
differences that past reality has created as well as the fact that
change is socially produced. And it would be scientific in that it
maintains a commitment to the production of authoritative knowledge of
long-term regularities.
2.4 Actors in social change: the
constraints of structures and the possibilities of agency
While this mode of analysis commits us to understanding the long-term
structures as well as trends of the historical system in which we are
living, it also permits us to appreciate the uniqueness of the present
and the necessity of acting “in” the moment and “for” the future. We do
not yet know the form that change may take. A substantively more
rational world is only one possible outcome. However, since this is a
structural crisis, change does not depend on our normatively-motivated
action for its initiation. By the same token, however, the direction of
change will, as complexity studies show, be completely dependent on
small fl uctuations resulting from all of our multiple value-laden
decisions and actions. Systemic transformation is not immediate and
abrupt but, in the language of the sciences of complexity, takes the
form of a bifurcation occurring in a period of transition characterized
by chaotic fluctuations. By definition, such a period is one of great
disorder. But as a consequence, that medium-term future also presents
great possibilities, since unstable systems pose fewer constraints –
they are less able to dampen fluctuations, the definition of stability
– and very small fluctuations or discrete human actions, now capable of
massive amplification, can and will determine the direction any
transformation might take. Thus, the creative practices involved in
making a new world can be expected to find greater latitude and the
potential effects of even seemingly isolated acts will multiply.
Source
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) (new
window, website)
Cultural Diversity and Transversal Values: East–West
Dialogue on Spiritual and Secular Dynamics (new
window, 1,018 KB, pdf)
Acknowledgements: Japan Foundation, International Research Center for
Japanese Studies, Research Center for Moral Science, Institute of
Moralogy, Japan, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (EPHE), International
Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies (ICPHS), Institut
National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales (INALCO),
International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations
(ISCSC), French National Commission for UNESCO, Japanese National
Commission for UNESCO, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Permanent
Delegation of Japan to UNESCO, English editor Samantha Wauchope
Quick glance at Table of Contents
(new
window, html, this site)
FINAL COMMUNIQUE
In conjunction with UNESCO’s sixtieth anniversary, an international
symposium entitled Cultural Diversity and Transversal Values: East–West
Dialogue on Spiritual–Secular Dynamics took place at UNESCO
Headquarters in Paris from 7 to 9 November 2005.
. . . . .
Almost fifty years after the launching of the major
project, the
Mutual Appreciation of East–West Cultural Values (1957–1966), and
twenty years after the Silk Road project, this symposium aimed at
highlighting the richness and fragility of cultural diversity in its
various expressions, particularly in Europe andAsia, while also
recalling the common values capable of bringing together these two
distinct geocultural areas. Researchers from various fields and
cultures were able to share their experiences and viewpoints in
relation to five themes: (1) The East–West Encounter in History; (2)
Mediators and Means of Dialogue; (3) Cultural Diversity and Plurality
of Values; (4) The Impact of Modernity on the Transfer of Cultures; and
(5) Transversal Values in a DiverseWorld. From the outset, this
undertaking ran the obvious risk of being unable to explore each of
these themes in depth, given the limitations inherent in such
interdisciplinary exercises and the usual time constraints.
Nevertheless, this meeting proved to be very productive: indeed, the
participants were able to distinguish new lines of investigation and
develop a blend of fundamental debates, either recurrent or new, which
more than ever before concern UNESCO as the sole agency in the UN
system responsible for culture.
The participants suggested new avenues of dialogue
allowing for a
renewal of the flow of ideas and cultures that influence ways of being
and thinking in contemporary societies. Special emphasis was placed on
the notions of temporality and spirituality underlying this age-old
dialogue forged from ruptures and continuations. Indeed, considering
the spiritual–secular tensions at the heart of many global conflicts,
we are compelled to question how transversal, rather than universal,
values can lead to mutual learning. These transversal values thus serve
to bridge distant cultural horizons in addition to providing a possible
basis for dialogue and understanding between societies with diverse
cultural heritages. Transversal values are those that are shared by two
or several cultures as, for example, universal education and the
aspiration towards the primordial ‘sacred’, which extends well beyond
specific religious expressions. Other values were examined from the
perspective of Japanese philosophical language.Among them, the concept
of wa, which can be translated as ‘harmony among differences’ but also
‘peace based on reconciliation’, and Wa shite Do zezu, a term referring
to the state of being in harmony without assimilation. All of these
values belong to the common heritage of humanity. By addressing this
question in such terms and at the present time, we are contributing
towards creating a global environment of mutual respect among peoples
of different cultures and civilizations.
The following ideas, leading to concrete action,
emerged in a particularly striking manner:
— Cultural diversity
constitutes the raw material necessary for genuine dialogue. Without
this fundamental prerequisite, so crucial to any exchange between
peoples, cultures and civilizations, no attempt at international
cooperation and mutual understanding is possible. In this context,
encounters between civilizations occur through time and particularly
over long periods. Civilizations do not clash; instead it is the
ignorance of civilizations that can lead to conflict. For instance, an
examination of founding myths, often considered to be graved in stone,
demonstrates that they owe much to the exchanges and common aspirations
of humanity. Similarly, science, which was long considered incompatible
with religion and spirituality, proved, on the basis of theories put
forward in the twentieth century, the existence of an unknown
omnipresent zone or factors that influence the concepts of nature,
human beings, and their role in nature. This notion of an unknown zone
or factors constitutes a common foundation for two manifestations of
the thought process, namely science and the intangible spiritual
dimension: at this point a dialogue between the two can begin.
—Dialogue, a means of
verifying the validity of an idea shared by two or more people willing
to confront their logical systems, is a difficult undertaking because
the speaker runs the risk of witnessing his or her ideas transformed.
Dialogue becomes an ever-evolving means of reviving the thought
process, calling into question convictions and progressing from
discovery to discovery. Therefore we should reaffirm the merits of
dialogue as an exercise in displacement, confrontation, testing and
transformation. The emphasis should be placed on dialogue’s remedial
powers as a means of decentring and stepping outside of one’s cultural
origins so as to plunge into a transversal dimension. In this way, we
may go from a ‘dialogue of civilizations’ to a ‘civilization of
dialogue’.
—Cultural transfers most often
take place in a given context according to real or created needs.
Modernity, understood as the critical integration of outside cultures,
has been associated very often with the notion of these transfers. In
this way, a ‘cultural synthesis’ between cultures and civilizations
develop. In this regard, the role of languages and translation has been
strongly reaffirmed. It is therefore necessary to define the conditions
and means of dialogue so that encounters and exchanges may be
productive. In this context, the importance of mediators in cultural
transfers becomes evident: the mediator transports and transforms
components that evolve as they are borrowed.
— The concept of ‘Roads’
as
the ideal platforms for dialogue – enriched by UNESCO’s long experience
– offers not only a history and roadmap of intercultural dialogue over
the centuries; it also contributes to our thinking about the future:
the somewhat forgotten encounters and interactions serve to illustrate
that the intercultural processes in question existed long before the
current debate.
— Nomadism, taken literally
and metaphorically, offers a new line of thinking, owing to its
similarities with the complex and scattered nature of cultural
exchanges resulting from globalization: nomadism is characterized not
so much by the need to perpetually move but rather by a predominant
dispersion as opposed to agricultural exploitation and accumulation.
This dispersion forces nomadic peoples to create a network of
solidarity and constant exchange, which, rather than uprooting and
isolating them from their homelands, enables them to continuously
re-appropriate their lands. It is all the more crucial to consider the
uniqueness of places and environments at the present time when
globalization increases the risks of cultural standardization as well
as the risks of an overall uprooting of civilization from its natural
foundation: Earth. Similarly, the attachment to one’s original culture
is enriched from contacts with other cultures, which ensure culture’s
lasting vitality and prevent it from attaining a state of disastrous
sclerosis.
— Civilization based on beauty and
the aesthetic field were regarded as a promising direction through
which it could be possible to break the deadlock on certain issues or
to further the discourse on ‘goodness’ and ‘truth’ upheld by
ideological presuppositions. In the context of the current crisis of
doctrines founded on the concepts of goodness and truth, beauty appears
to offer a means of going beyond axiological views. Owing to their
sensitive and transferable nature, beauty and the aesthetic sphere seem
to offer the most fertile domain for cultural exchanges, which have
been intensified by the accelerated pace of globalization. This has
been demonstrated by the recent adoption of the Convention for the
Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.
Human existence must be reconsidered beyond the
limitations of the
modern individual: according to the paradigm of ‘Being towards life’,
existence is directed towards the future by virtue of its transversal
and social dialogic dimension, which also obliges it to sustain life
cycles within the biosphere
See also
United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (new
window, website)
UNESCO - the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) was founded on 16 November 1945. For this
specialized United Nations agency, it is not enough to build classrooms
in devastated countries or to publish scientific breakthroughs.
Education, Social and Natural Science, Culture and Communication are
the means to a far more ambitious goal : to build peace in the minds of
men.
Culture
Cultural Diversity
Cultural diversity: a new universal
ethic
Cultural Diversity has been at the core of UNESCO’s concerns since the
Organization came into being 60 years ago. The adoption of the UNESCO
Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2 November 2001) confirmed
yet again the Organization's commitment to the "fruitful diversity of…
cultures" in a spirit of dialogue and openness, taking into account the
risks of identity-based isolationism and standardization associated
with globalization.
Mission of the Culture Sector
2006-2007
Extracts from UNESCO's Draft Programme 2006-2007
Scenario MAJOR PROGRAMME IV
General Conference, Thirty-third Session - PARIS 2005
04004 - Major Programme IV builds on advances made in the recognition
of cultural diversity for the sustainable development of peoples and
societies, placing emphasis on a holistic approach to the protection
and safeguarding of cultural heritage in all its forms, tangible and
intangible. The principal priority for the biennium – promoting
cultural diversity, with special emphasis on the tangible and
intangible heritage to which it is proposed to continue to assign 62%
of the overall amount of resources devoted to programme activities
excluding cross-cutting theme projects – highlights the domain in which
UNESCO’s cultural action demonstrates pertinence, recognized expertise,
comparative advantage and visibility. Overall, this concentration of MP
IV is expressed through a more coherent, focused and limited number of
priorities. In the process of prioritizing and focusing the programme
on UNESCO’s comparative advantage, certain activities have been reduced
or discontinued under the "other priorities", such as for example the
support to festivals and the arts.