Transition Framingham: The Cultural Commons in Action

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (153) ◽  
pp. 91-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Kearns Burke
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
Aftab Omer ◽  
Melissa Schwartz

Culture is the medium through which human capabilities are transmitted. In this respect, culture may be understood as a commons that is consequential to the future of other forms of commons. Regenerating the commons is inherently and intrinsically associated with democratizing and partnering. The commons of shared meanings that enable truth telling are exploitable by the market when education is dominated by the market. If educational institutions are at the behest of the market and the state, education can neither be a commons nor be in the service of the commons. We can frame this circumstance as an enclosure of learning. Transformative learning facilitates a shifting from the mindset of exploiting the commons to a mindset of regenerating the commons. In fact, the core transformation that occurs in transformative learning is the liberation of awareness from identity enclosure. Such a liberation prepares the ground for growing partnership capabilities from the intimate to the global, essential for preserving and regenerating the commons. An education that transforms seeks to re-sacralize and regenerate culture as a commons, which can then enable partnership-based care towards all other forms of commons.


2017 ◽  
pp. 106-126
Author(s):  
Erika Balsom

This chapter interrogates how artists’ moving image has grappled with the increased ridigification of copyright that has occurred over the last two decades. Many artists champion the freedom to reuse copyrighted materials, but fail to interrogate the particular circumstances that it make possible for them to do so without retribution, while simultaneously avoiding an engagement with the significant encroachments on fair use and the public domain that have been implemented as part of new copyright legislation that seeks to control the unruliness of digital reproduction. As a counterpoint to such positions, this chapter examines Ben White and Eileen Simpson’s Struggle in Jerash (2009), a work made by repurposing a public domain film of the same title made in 1957 in Jordan. Simpson and White contest the increasing privatization of visual culture, insisting on the wealth of the cultural commons precisely as it is under threat.


Author(s):  
Rosemary J. Coombe ◽  
Susannah Chapman

Ethnographic research into intellectual property (IP) gained traction in the mid-1990s. During this period international trade agreements mandated that all states introduce minimum IP protections, property rights in intangible goods were expanded to encompass new subject areas, international Indigenous Peoples’ human rights were being negotiated, and protecting biodiversity became a global policy concern. Anthropologists considered IP extension in terms of the processes of commodification the law enabled, the cultural incommensurability of the law’s presuppositions in various societies, the implications of these rights for disciplinary research and publication ethics, and the modes of subjectification and territorialization that the enforcement of such laws engendered. Recognizing that IP clearly constrains and shapes the circulation of goods through the privatization of significant resources, critical anthropological examinations of Western liberal legal binary distinctions between public and private goods also revealed the forms of dispossession enabled by presuming a singular cultural commons. Anthropologists showed the diversity of publics constituted through authorized and unauthorized reproduction and circulation of cultural goods, exploring the management of intangible cultural goods in a variety of moral economies as well as the construction and translation of tradition in new policy arenas. The intersection of IP and human rights also prompted greater disciplinary reflexivity with respect to research ethics and publication practices. Analyzing how IP protections are legitimated and the activities that their enforcement delegitimizes, ethnography illustrated how the law creates privileged and abject subjectivities, reconfigures affective relationships between people and places, and produces zones of policing and discipline in processes of territorialization.


Author(s):  
Christian Barrère

This article criticizes the reduction of Cultural Heritages to Cultural Capital or Cultural Commons. Whereas economists usually reduce heritages to their capital aspects (standard capital for equipment, human and social capital, natural capital, and cultural capital) or to their commons aspects (stock of resources managed by a community), we consider the components of Cultural Heritages (CH) to carry different (and generally intertwined) dimensions that prevent abstraction of the non-economic dimensions of heritages when analyzing their economic dimension. Rather than dodging the question of their multi-dimensionality, we use it as our starting point in explaining the debates about how these heritages should be defined and managed, and the necessity of considering the differing points of view and interests (both material and symbolic) of the various stakeholders.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document