| [30|08|04]
The future of culture in a non-hegemonic world
*Read the full lecture of the Secretary for Culture of the City of São Paulo Celso Frateschi.
“The theme today is thought-provoking. It is interesting because if we analise our current economic and political situation and even the structure through which things move in the contemporary world, we will notice that such structure moves and is particularly defined by a relationship where hegemony has a leading role.
We live in a world where rules are set up in a vertical way, where things move based on rules, standards and paradigms established by certain groups, certain nations, which indeed exercise absolute hegemony over the contemporary world.
To think about the future of culture in a non- hegemonic world ,therefore, requires imagination. The fact that we can imagine a non-hegemonic world somehow creates it, even if not concretly. We all know that established relationships create a conflict, a dialogue in the contemporary world where cultural dynamics which do not have space to express themselves struggle and challenge this hegemony.
Such concern, which moves the World Cultural Forum in São Paulo is the same which moves the Local Authorities Forum responsible for Agenda 21. I will spend some of my time reading, at least, the principles. It´s evident that this motivates a reaction from groups which live in the outskirts of the world and in the outskirts of the outskirts of the world. Such dominant hegemony in today´s world prevent very interesting dynamics from disappearing. They exist and are re-affirmed each day. Actions coming from the outskirts of big cities, not only cultural and traditional which start to lose their charachteristics, their singularities but also contemporary culture which stop moving due to this hegemonic pressure. We know that such pressure is market-motivated and imposes products both cultural and non-cultural and rules whcih affect the way we live and coexist , the way we eat, from the most general to the most specific habit. In other words, this imposition exists.
We cannot defeat such hegemony just by destroying its concept. Actually, especially in Brazil, there is a pendulum-like movement where this hegemony swings forward and backward, without significant changes at the basis of the problem. If we analise the cultural sector in the second half of the last century, we will notice that this pendulum used to swing from an authoritarian state to a radical neoliberalism, where the hegemony of cultural actions is transfered from the hands of the state to the hands of private companies and the so called third sector.
We realise that nothing can be radically changed at the botton of the pyramid, at the basis of the problem. Similarly to the discussion we have here in our country and in São Paulo, this pendulum moving from the state to the private sector, from the state to liberalism models. In other words, it is something we were able to overcome but its unlikely that such advances will create another paradigm. Maybe in order to defeat such hegemony or create a non-hegemonic world we will have to create new paradigm, or even face other hegemonies, until we can reach a non-hegemonic world. Another solution is the creation of public spaces for dialogue, as done by this Forum. Here, civil society and public entities sat down together and created another dimension of organization which made such event possilbe. There is also a more radical experience, suggested by Ranner Muller, which is to simply create islands of chaos in the sea of this predictable capitalism.Maybe the answer is to use both options. A great number of people have been thinking about such cultural issue about the issue of hegemony.
Different Forums are being held all over the world; we are experiencing a moment of accumulation of knowledge, of discussions about the cultural sector. This Forum is another step taken in this process of accumulation, but we have already had other significant ones: the World Social Forum, the Forum of Local Authorities , the Forum of Barcelona.
It is prime that we have more and more opportunites to discuss so that we can accumulate enough to take a huge step with regards to such discussions. As part of such process, we had the Forum of Local Authorites, which was well organised and brought together a significant number of mayors and local governments and proposed a document to be used as an agenda of discussions for humanity. The goal of those authorites is to move culture onto a stage for discussion just as done previously in the last century as regards to ecology.
I´m going to take some of my time to read at least the principles of Agenda 21 for Culture: A Commitment of the Cities and local Governments for local Cultural development. The principles are the following:
• Cultural diversity is the main heritage of humanity. It is the product of thousands of years of history, the fruit of the collective contribution of all peoples through their different languages, imaginations, technologies, practises and creations. Culture takes on different forms, responding to dynamic models of relationship between societies and territories. Cultural diversity is “a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence” (UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, article 3) and is one of the essential elements in the transformation of urban and social reality.
• Clear political analogies exist between cultural and ecological questions, as both culture and the environment are common assets of humanity. The current economic development models , which prey excessively on natural resources and common goods of humanity, are the cause of increasing concern for the environment. Rio de Janeiro 1992, Aalborg 1994 and Johannesburg 2002, have been the milestones in a process of answering one of the most important challenges facing humanity;environmental sustainability. The current situation actually provides sufficient evidences that cultural diversity in the world is in danger due to a globalisation that standardises and excludes, UNESCO says “A source of exchange , innovation and creativity, cultural diversity is a necessity for humankind as biodiversity is for nature” (UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, article 1).
• Local governments recognise that cultural rights are an integral part of human rights, taking as their reference the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the international Coverant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), and the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001).They recognise that the the cultural freedom of individuals and communities is an essential condition for democracy. No one may invoke cultural diversity to infringe upon the human rights, guaranteed by international law, nor to limit their scope.
• Local government are worldwide agents of prime inportance as defenders and promoters of the advance of human rights . They also represent the citizens of the world and speak up in favour of international democratic systems and institutions. Local governments work together in networks, exchanging practises and experiences and coordinating thier actions.
• Cultural development relies on a host of social agents . The main principles of good governance include transparency of information and public participation in the conception of cultural policies, decision-making processes and the assessment of programmes and projects.
• The indispensable need to create the conditions for peace must go hand in hand with cultural development strategies . War, terrorism, oppression and discrimination are expressions of intolerance which must be condenned and eradicated.
• Cities and local spaces are a privileged setting for cultural invention which is in constant evolution and provide the environment for creative diversity, where encounters amongst everything that is different and distinct (origins, visions, ages, genders, ethnic groups and social classes) are what makes full human development possible. Dialogue between identity diversity, individual and group, is a vital tool for guaranteeing both a planetary cultural citizenship as well as the survival of linguistic diversity and the development of cultures.
• Coexistence in cities is a joint responsibility of citizens, civil society and local governments. Laws are fundamental , but cannot be the only way of regulating coexistence in cities. As the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights (article 29) states “Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his ... (her)... personalitiy is posible”.
• Cultural heritage, tangible and intangible, testifies to human creativity and forms the bedrock underlying the identity of peoples. Cultural life contains both the wealth of being able to appreciate and treasure traditions of all peoples and an opportunity to enable the creation and innovation of endogenous cultural forms. These qualities preclude any imposition of rigid cultural models.
• The affirmation of cultures, and the policies which support their recognition and viability , are an essential factor in the sustainable development of cities and territories and its human, economic, political and social dimension. The central nature of public cultural policies is a demand in societies in the contemporary world. The quality of local development depends on the interweaving of cultural and other public policies – social, economic, educational, environmental and urban planning.
• Cultural policies must strike a balance between public and private interest, public functions and the institutionalisation of culture. Excessive institutionalisation or the prevalence of the market as the sole distributor of cultural resources involves risks and hampers the dynamic development of cultural systems . The autonomous initiative of the citizens , individually or in social entities and movements, is the basis of cultural freedom.
• Proper economic assessment of the creation and distribution of cultural goods - amateur or professional, craft or industrial, individual or collective- becomes, in the contemporary world a decisive factor in emancipation, a guarantee of diversity and, therefore, an attainment of the democratic right of peoples to affirm their identities in the relations between cultures. Cultural goods and services, as stated in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (chapter 8), “as vectors of identity, values and meaning, must not be treated as mere commodities or consumer goods”. It is necessary to enphasise the importance of culture as a factor in the creation of wealth and economic development.
• Access to the cultural and symbolic universe at all stages of life, from childhood to old age , is a fundamental element in the shaping of sensitivity, expressiveness and coexistence and the construction of citizenship. The cultural identity of each individual is dynamic.
• The appropiration of information and its transformation into knowledge by the citizens is a cultural act. Therefore, access without discrimination to expressive, technological and communication resources and the constitution of horizontal networks strengthens and nourishes the collective heritage of a knowledge-based society.
• Work is one of the principal spheres of human creativity. Its cultural dimension must be recognised and developed. The organisation of work and the involvement of business in the city or territory must respect this dimensions as one of the basic elements in human dignity and sustainable development.
• Public places are collective goods that belong to all citizens .No individual or group can be deprived of free use of them, providing they respect the rules adopted by each city.
By reading those principles of Agenda 21, my goal is to make sure that they continue to be diffused, this is based on a poem from a Jewish poet, Yehuda Amishai, which I´m going to read. The poem is called : The diameter of the bomb ....
The diameter of the bomb was thirty centimeters and the diameter of its effective range about seven meters,with four dead and eleven wounded. And around these, in a larger circle of pain and time, two hospitals are scattered and one graveyard. But the young woman who was buried in the city she came from, at a distance of more than a hundred kilometers, enlarges the circle considerably, and the solitary man mourning her death at the distant shores of a country far across the sea includes the entire world in the circle. And I won't even mention the crying of orphans that reaches up to the throne of God and beyond, making a circle with no end and no God.
I read this poem and I believe that just like the diameter of the bomb, also the diameter of the ideas the diameter of the struggle, the debate, shall be enlarged...”
|
