File Name: culture language and society creator.zip
The purpose of this chapter is to define media, society and culture broadly.
Sociolinguistics is the descriptive study of the effect of any and all aspects of society , including cultural norms , expectations, and context, on the way language is used, and society's effect on language. It differs from sociology of language , which focuses on the effect of language on society. Sociolinguistics overlaps considerably with pragmatics and is closely related to linguistic anthropology.
Intangible cultural heritage ICH , made up of all immaterial manifestations of culture, represents the variety of living heritage of humanity as well as the most important vehicle of cultural diversity. The international community has recently become conscious that ICH needs and deserves international safeguarding, triggering a legal process which culminated with the adoption in of the UNESCO Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.
This Convention correctly highlights the main elements of ICH and is based on the right philosophical rationale, but its operational part — structured on the model provided by the World Heritage Convention — appears to be inadequate to ensure appropriate safeguarding of the specificities of intangible heritage.
This article argues that to correct such inadequacy, international safeguarding of ICH must rely on the concomitant application, even though in an indirect manner, of international human rights law, for the reason that ICH represents a component of cultural human rights and an essential prerequisite to ensure the actual realization and enjoyment of individual and collective rights of its creators and bearers.
In , an influential thinker of the 20th century wrote that culture cannot be abridged to its tangible products, because it is continuously living and evolving. Therefore, it includes all immaterial elements that are considered by a given community as essential components of its intrinsic identity as well as of its uniqueness and distinctiveness in comparison with all other human groups.
In other terms, the culture of a people is composed by the totality of elements representing the very heart of its distinctive idiosyncrasy. Until the very last decades of the 20th century this holistic perception of culture had not been adequately perceived by the international community.
The main legal instruments adopted with the purpose of protecting cultural heritage, either applicable exclusively in the event of armed conflict 2 or also in time of peace, 3 were solely devoted to tangible cultural expressions, the significance of which was to be evaluated on the basis of an objective and standardized perception of their artistic, aesthetic, architectural, visual, scientific, and economic value. Thanks to these instruments, this perspective, developed in the Western world, became the globalized evaluation method used by the international community as a whole in order to establish the value of cultural heritage.
In meta-juridical terms, this lack of perception of the need to provide adequate safeguarding for immaterial cultural heritage was presumably the result — consciously or not — of the confidence that this heritage, being an essential part of the cultural and social identity of human communities, was automatically and appropriately preserved and developed at the local level, in the context of the social evolution of the communities concerned.
In other words, the depositaries of intangible cultural heritage IHC were considered to accomplish spontaneously and appropriately the mission of transmitting to future generations the necessary knowledge to preserve and perpetuate their own immaterial heritage, with no need of any international action in that respect. Although this spontaneous process could be considered as having worked out fine for many centuries, its dynamics were abruptly broken by the advancement of the process of globalization which has marked the most recent decades.
In fact, intensification of intercultural contacts, which in many cases has translated into cultural prevarication and the imposition of certain cultural models over others, has quickly put under threat the capacity of the oldest generations to transmit their knowledge and knowhow to the youngest.
At present, we are aware on a daily basis of the definitive loss — throughout the world — of languages, knowledge, knowhow, customs, and ideas, leading to the progressive impoverishment of human society. Such a process will eventually lead to the crystallization of uniform and stereotyped cultural models and to the contextual mortification of the value of cultural diversity.
In synthesis, the rich cultural variety of humanity is progressively and dangerously tending towards uniformity. Diversity of cultures reflects diversity of peoples; this is particularly linked to ICH, because such a heritage represents the living expression of the idiosyncratic traits of the different communities.
Mutual recognition and respect for cultural diversity — and, a fortiori , appropriate safeguarding of the ICH of the diverse peoples making up the world — is essential for promoting harmony in intercultural relations, through fostering better appreciation and understanding of the differences between human communities.
As previously noted, at first the affirmation of the Western-rooted idea of cultural heritage — conceived as embodied in the material products of arts and architecture — prevented the immaterial portion of culture from emerging as an interest belonging to international law.
This notwithstanding, since the early s part of the international community has been aware that the scope and meaning of culture go beyond its mere tangible products, and that appropriate safeguarding is to be devoted to its spiritual side.
As early as in , during the negotiations leading to the adoption of the World Heritage Convention, a number of state representatives shared the idea that the scope of that Convention was too narrow, and that the action of the international community in the field of cultural heritage should extend to its immaterial manifestations.
It includes not only the arts and letters, but also modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being, value systems, traditions and beliefs. Its forms are, among others, language, literature, music, dance, games, mythology, rituals, customs, handicrafts, architecture and other arts [emphasis added]. The RSTCF then establishes a set of principles providing guidelines for the identification, conservation, preservation, dissemination, and legal protection of folklore, as well as for promoting international cooperation.
In , the Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development emphasized that [d]evelopment presents new challenges for heritage conservation. Not only is there a huge gap between means and ends but our definitions are still too narrow.
They are biased towards the elite, the monumental, the literate and the ceremonial. There is a need to reassess such conceptions as well as to develop better methods of identifying and interpreting our heritage. It is essential to understand the values and aspirations that drove its makers, without which an object is torn from its context and cannot be given its proper meaning.
The tangible can only be interpreted through the intangible. It plays an essential role in national and international development, tolerance and harmonious interaction between cultures. In an era of globalization, many forms of this cultural heritage are in danger of disappearing, threatened by cultural standardization, armed conflict, the harmful consequences of mass tourism, industrialization, rural exodus, migration and environmental deterioration. Three proclamations of the Programme were made, respectively in , , and , ascribing the qualification of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity to 90 expressions of ICH in total.
These expressions were automatically incorporated in the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity set up by the CSICH at the moment of its entry into force, pursuant to the provision of its Article The Convention entered into force on 20 April , and — at the moment of writing — has been ratified by countries.
This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.
There are some main factors, which emerge implicitly or explicitly from the definition just reproduced, which are of special significance in fully understanding the inherent meaning and worth of ICH for the international community.
As will clearly emerge below, the factors in point are deeply interrelated to each other. In fact, while according to the approach of the World Heritage Convention tangible heritage deserves international protection in light of its outstanding universal value, 30 i.
In other words, categorization of material cultural heritage is carried out through an objective evaluation of its outstanding worth from the standpoint of a presumed universally valid appreciation of value. On the contrary, the presence of self-identification among its constitutive elements makes ICH valuable in light of the subjective perspective of its creators and bearers, who recognize the heritage concerned as an essential part of their idiosyncratic cultural inheritance, even though it may appear absolutely worthless to external observers.
In fact, one self-identifies something as representing one's own cultural heritage only whether and to the extent that the thing concerned appropriately reflects the characteristics and features of such a heritage. In this respect, in consideration of the fact that culture is a living and changeable entity, one given cultural manifestation can represent a culture through the passing of time only if such a manifestation is capable of continuously modifying itself in parallel to the transformations characterizing the cultural whole of which it is part.
ICH is by definition a living entity, and its capacity constantly to adapt itself in response to the historical and social evolution of its creators and bearers represents one of its main distinguishing features. Therefore, ICH is not to be considered as something to be preserved under a glass case, as happens in metaphorical terms for monumental heritage, but rather as a cultural space which must be the object of a twofold safeguarding strategy, aiming at simultaneously fostering its preservation and its constant adaptation to the cultural evolution of its creators and bearers.
This dynamic characterization of intangible cultural heritage may apparently raise a problem in terms of legal theory. In fact, in order to work properly, law needs a precise definition of the entity to which it applies, and such a definition must be characterized by constitutive elements allowing one precisely to identify the object of a legal rule at any time.
With respect to ICH, one could wonder how it is possible constantly to ensure its safeguarding if it is continuously recreating itself, and therefore changing its constitutive elements on a permanent basis. In other words, if safeguarding is structured — in its elements and strategies — according to the specific physical and cultural elements shaping ICH at any given moment, how can this safeguarding continue to be effective once such elements have changed especially if they change incessantly?
In reality, this characterization of ICH would not represent an obstacle to its proper safeguarding. In other words, what law should do properly to safeguard ICH is to create the conditions for its creators and bearers unaffectedly to develop their intangible heritage, through avoiding the possibility that external interferences brought about by the dominant sectors of society may corrupt this spontaneous evolutionary process. By following such an approach, law could adequately provide proper and lasting safeguarding for ICH despite its constantly changeable nature.
Unfortunately, as we will see below, the CSICH does not entirely meet the necessary conditions to make this possible. Closely related and in a sense consequential to the elements of self-identification and constant recreation is another inherent characteristic of ICH, i.
This is probably the main value of ICH. Therefore, the element in point confirms that the safeguarding of ICH is particularly important under a subjective perspective, on account of its special significance for its creators and bearers. The reality of ICH mirroring the cultural identity of its creators and bearers together with the element of self-identification makes it clear that the approach adopted by CSICH — through reproducing the idea underlying the World Heritage Convention and organizing the safeguarding of ICH by means of a system of lists — cannot be considered appropriate in light of the inherent nature of the heritage concerned.
In other words, establishment of a hierarchy among the different examples of cultural heritage as noted by the Norwegian delegation during the negotiations of the CSICH 32 ultimately leads to an understanding — especially among the general public — that certain examples of ICH are better than others. While this approach can be appropriate — at least partially — for monumental heritage, it is totally improper for intangible heritage, exactly for the reason that its main significance rests not on its exterior qualities, but rather on the degree of significance it has for its creators and bearers.
Therefore, the listing of ICH implicitly amounts to classification of the different communities which create such a heritage, implying that the communities whose ICH is listed are more valuable than others.
It is like a contest in which there is a challenge among different artists: in deciding which work of art is to be awarded a prize, the jury tries to establish what is the best work in the contest, and, therefore although implicitly , who is the best artist participating in the competition. However, even though this can be true in theory, in practice it is unlikely that the existence of a list will not be perceived by the public as creating a value-based classification among the existing examples of ICH, especially between those which are of similar kind e.
This is ultimately demonstrated by the experience of the World Heritage Convention used, as previously noted, as the model for the CSICH , in the context of which, despite the fact that a provision exists affirming that the protection accorded by the Convention must not be limited to listed properties, 34 in practice such a provision has remained virtually unapplied and attention has been devoted only to properties inscribed on the World Heritage List.
Furthermore, it can hardly be asserted that the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, round which the safeguarding of the ICH at the international level is centred, may represent a legal guarantee for the heritage concerned; it rather appears as a tool for states to obtain visibility for the ICH located in their own territory.
This approach is confirmed by the provisions of the CSICH concerning the involvement of the communities and groups as well as individuals concerned in the identification and management of ICH. In light of the connotation of ICH as strictly interrelated with the cultural identity of its creators and bearers as well as in consideration of the related elements of self-identification and constant recreation , it is self-evident that proper safeguarding of the heritage in point can be achieved only through ensuring the deepest possible involvement of such communities, groups, and individuals.
Unfortunately, the state-oriented approach which prevailed during the negotiations of the CSICH relegated the element of community participation to a very minor role. In fact, although — thanks to the strenuous resistance of a few delegations of Italy and Hungary in particular — it was eventually possible to retain in the final text of the Convention a very few provisions relating to the aspect in point, these provisions do not express real obligations capable of forcing states parties actually to ensure the participation of the communities concerned.
It is crystal clear that — for the reasons previously explained — identifying and managing ICH without properly involving the groups and communities and individuals concerned represents a manifest contradiction in terms. A state-oriented approach in the management of ICH may not be effective in achieving its proper safeguarding, the heritage concerned being a product and an element of the identity of groups and communities the interests of which may not coincide with those of state governments.
States can probably develop a general strategy for the safeguarding of the ICH located in their territory that does not adequately address the diversity existing between the different manifestations of such heritage.
In the long run the development of a generally applicable approach may lead to standardizing the heritage to which it applies or, at least, to adapting certain aspects of its different examples to the requirements of the national model generally used, with the consequence of impairing the authenticity of ICH to the detriment of the value of cultural diversity and, therefore, of the very rationale of ICH safeguarding.
An encouraging symptom is offered in this regard by the Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Operational Directives , adopted by the General Assembly of the states parties to the Convention in June and amended in June The condition of authenticity — referred to at the end of the previous section — is not explicitly mentioned in the definition in Article 2 CSICH.
This notwithstanding, it appears to be an implicit requirement for ICH to be considered as a value worth safeguarding from a legal perspective. In fact, it is essential that ICH retain its authenticity in light of its strong connection with the cultural identity of its creators and bearers.
Loss of authenticity is particularly likely to occur when ICH is managed by state authorities through according priority to interests which are external to its creators and bearers. For example, states may tend to accommodate the characteristics of ICH to the expectations of the dominant sectors of the society, which can be different from the interests of the specific communities especially concerned by the heritage in point.
Or it is possible that the driving force of ICH management is economic interests, for example when the competent authorities try to make the heritage concerned a tourist attraction, which makes it necessary for such heritage to be adapted to the needs and expectations of tourists. These and other approaches irremediably corrupt the authenticity and, a fortiori , the cultural and legal value of ICH.
This equation works for tangible cultural heritage, the level of authenticity of which is usually measured according to the extent to which such heritage retains its original characterization. ICH, on the contrary, is a dynamic heritage which — as previously emphasized — constantly recreates itself as a response to the historical and social evolution of its creators and bearers.
The existence of the relationship between ICH and human rights is crystal clear from various perspectives. First, it is precisely the peculiarity of ICH as a fundamental element of the identity of its creators and bearers that presupposes relevant implications in terms of human rights i.
In particular, it is a fact that a huge part of ICH is interconnected with religious beliefs. Consequently, where this heritage is not adequately safeguarded, the in action of a state may result in a breach of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion — expressed, inter alia , by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 40 and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICCPR. The concept of worship extends to ritual and ceremonial acts giving direct expression to belief, as well as various practices integral to such acts , including the building of places of worship, the use of ritual formulae and objects, the display of symbols, and the observance of holidays and days of rest.
The observance and practice of religion or belief may include not only ceremonial acts but also such customs as the observance of dietary regulations, the wearing of distinctive clothing or headcoverings, participation in rituals associated with certain stages of life, and the use of a particular language customarily spoken by a group.
As can easily be observed, most of the examples included in this passage represent manifestations of ICH that are linked to the identity of the community to which the persons concerned belong. The provisions just described evidently show that ICH safeguarding constitutes an essential prerequisite to ensuring the effectiveness of certain human rights in favour of the individuals and communities concerned.
In practical terms, this translates into a requirement for states to ensure for such individuals and communities appropriate access to, and participation in the management of, their ICH. This aspect calls for specific activities by the States … to enable individuals to enjoy their rights.
The leading case in this respect relates to an event which occurred in Suriname, where an indigenous community was denied the opportunity to honour its dead according to its own traditions which is an intangible element of its culture.
In its judgment, released in , the IACHR affirmed that this conduct had resulted in a violation by the government of Suriname of Article 5 1 of the American Convention of Human Rights 49 — providing for the right to physical, mental, and moral integrity — to the prejudice of the members of the community concerned. The other side of the coin concerning the relationship between ICH and human rights is represented by the condition that the former must be consistent with the latter, as emphasized by the final sentence of the definition included in Article 2 CSICH.
In fact, if the value of diversity is based on differences, the very fact of limiting these differences within certain borders — which must be acceptable according to generally acknowledged conditions — is tantamount to including an element of uniformity in the appreciation of diversity. This operation, therefore, inevitably leads to a degree although quite limited of homogeny and standardization of diversity. On the other hand, however, the international community cannot tolerate cultural expressions translating into effects which are absolutely unacceptable in light of the paramount value of human dignity.
Language is a vital part of human connection. Although all species have their ways of communicating, humans are the only ones that have mastered cognitive language communication. Language allows us to share our ideas, thoughts, and feelings with others. It has the power to build societies, but also tear them down. Language is what makes us human. It is how people communicate.
Intangible cultural heritage ICH , made up of all immaterial manifestations of culture, represents the variety of living heritage of humanity as well as the most important vehicle of cultural diversity. The international community has recently become conscious that ICH needs and deserves international safeguarding, triggering a legal process which culminated with the adoption in of the UNESCO Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. This Convention correctly highlights the main elements of ICH and is based on the right philosophical rationale, but its operational part — structured on the model provided by the World Heritage Convention — appears to be inadequate to ensure appropriate safeguarding of the specificities of intangible heritage. This article argues that to correct such inadequacy, international safeguarding of ICH must rely on the concomitant application, even though in an indirect manner, of international human rights law, for the reason that ICH represents a component of cultural human rights and an essential prerequisite to ensure the actual realization and enjoyment of individual and collective rights of its creators and bearers. In , an influential thinker of the 20th century wrote that culture cannot be abridged to its tangible products, because it is continuously living and evolving. Therefore, it includes all immaterial elements that are considered by a given community as essential components of its intrinsic identity as well as of its uniqueness and distinctiveness in comparison with all other human groups. In other terms, the culture of a people is composed by the totality of elements representing the very heart of its distinctive idiosyncrasy.
For details on it including licensing , click here. This book is licensed under a Creative Commons by-nc-sa 3. See the license for more details, but that basically means you can share this book as long as you credit the author but see below , don't make money from it, and do make it available to everyone else under the same terms. This content was accessible as of December 29, , and it was downloaded then by Andy Schmitz in an effort to preserve the availability of this book. Normally, the author and publisher would be credited here. However, the publisher has asked for the customary Creative Commons attribution to the original publisher, authors, title, and book URI to be removed. Additionally, per the publisher's request, their name has been removed in some passages.
This is practically the same as 'Sanskriti' of the Sanskrit language. Culture that we have inherited as members of society. All the achievements of human beings are creators of culture and, at the same time, culture is what makes us human.
Cultural Heritage in a Changing World pp Cite as. The analysis presents some reflections on the changes produced by the use of digital technologies in contemporary Western societies. The scope is to understand the occurrences of the recent past, from the second half of the s, and what is happening in social and individual experiences today.
Download this document as a pdf. At its most literal level, Ebonics simply means 'black speech' a blend of the words ebony 'black' and phonics 'sounds'. The term was created in by a group of black scholars who disliked the negative connotations of terms like 'Nonstandard Negro English' that had been coined in the s when the first modern large-scale linguistic studies of African American speech-communities began. However, the term Ebonics never caught on among linguists, much less among the general public.
The idea of multiculturalism in contemporary political discourse and in political philosophy reflects a debate about how to understand and respond to the challenges associated with cultural diversity based on ethnic, national, and religious differences. Instead, proponents of multiculturalism endorse an ideal in which members of minority groups can maintain their distinctive collective identities and practices. In the case of immigrants, proponents emphasize that multiculturalism is compatible with, not opposed to, the integration of immigrants into society; multiculturalism policies provide fairer terms of integration for immigrants. Modern states are organized around the language and culture of the dominant groups that have historically constituted them.
Как мило, - вздохнула. - Итак, твой диагноз? - потребовал. Сьюзан на минуту задумалась.
- Это прозвучало как сигнал к окончанию разговора. Он отпил глоток кофе. - А теперь прошу меня извинить. Мне нужно поработать. У Мидж отвисла челюсть. - Извините, сэр… Бринкерхофф уже шел к двери, но Мидж точно прилипла к месту. - Я с вами попрощался, мисс Милкен, - холодно сказал Фонтейн.
What sign language, verbal communication and written communication have in common is the use of abstract Mass communication influences both society and culture. Different and advertisers (with the help of platform creators), accessible in a range of formats including web, ebook, PDF, and editable formats.
Почему бы нам не пройти сюда? - Он подвел Беккера к конторке. - А теперь, - продолжал он, перейдя на шепот, - чем я могу вам помочь. Беккер тоже понизил голос: - Мне нужно поговорить с одной из сопровождающих, которая, по-видимому, приглашена сегодня к вам на обед. Ее зовут Росио. Консьерж шумно выдохнул, словно сбросив с плеч тяжесть. - А-а, Росио - прелестное создание.
Он слышал приятный голос сеньора Ролдана из агентства сопровождения Белена. У нас только две рыжеволосые… Две рыжеволосые, Иммакулада и Росио… Росио… Росио… Беккер остановился как вкопанный. А еще считаюсь лингвистом. Он не мог понять, как до него не дошло. Росио - одно из самых популярных женских имен в Испании.
Никому не показалось удивительным, что два дня спустя АНБ приняло Грега Хейла на работу. Стратмор решил, что лучше взять его к себе и заставить трудиться на благо АНБ, чем позволить противодействовать агентству извне. Стратмор мужественно перенес разразившийся скандал, горячо защищая свои действия перед конгрессом. Он утверждал, что стремление граждан к неприкосновенности частной переписки обернется для Америки большими неприятностями. Он доказывал, что кто-то должен присматривать за обществом, что взлом шифров агентством - вынужденная необходимость, залог мира.
Мы столкнулись с врагами, которые, как мне казалось, никогда не посмеют бросить нам вызов. Я говорю о наших собственных гражданах. О юристах, фанатичных борцах за гражданские права, о Фонде электронных границ - они все приняли в этом участие, но дело в другом. Дело в людях.
Так вы обратили внимание. - Конечно. Он работает уже шестнадцать часов, если не ошибаюсь.
beliefs, values, rules or laws, language, customs, symbols, and material Chapter 3. Society and Culture: Hardware and Software of Our Social World them live, but some hold onto the old teachings of the founder. Joseph Smith and.Falerina C. 24.03.2021 at 08:55
Identify some of the ways in which language varies based on cultural context. Explain the role that accommodation and code-switching play in communication.Abelard B. 29.03.2021 at 18:43
Metrics details.Mervolisfunc1975 31.03.2021 at 09:52
A list of 10 historical artifacts that helped shape America, drawn from the collection of the Smithsonian Institution and it's museums.Adulfo B. 01.04.2021 at 14:24
The course will stay open from February 22, until December 31st, , as a self-paced course: this means that you can cover the material at your own speed within the time the course is open.