Whose Autopoiesis?

Book reviewed in this article:
Die Lineatur Der Geschichte , by Kurt Röttgers     

Whose Burden?

Book reviewed in this article:
Allan Megill, Karl Marx: The Burden of Reason (Why Marx Rejected Politics and The Market)     

Ancient Tibetan Culture

Ａｎｃｉｅｎｔ　Ｔｉｂｅｔａｎ　ＣｕｌｔｕｒｅＡｎｃｉｅｎｔＴｉｂｅｔａｎＣｕｌｔｕｒｅ￥ｂｙＬｏｂｓａｎｇＤａｉｎｚｉｎＴｉｂｅｔｈａｓａｗｒｉｔｔｅｎｈｉｓｔｏｒｙｏｆｓｏｍｅ１，３００ｙｅａｒｓ，ａｎｄｉｔｓｎｕｍｅｒｏｕｓＢｕｄｄｈｉｓｔｓｃ...     

Thriving Family Economy In Amdo

ＴｈｒｉｖｉｎｇＦａｍｉｌｙＥｃｏｎｏｍｙＩｎＡｍｄｏ￥ＺｈａｇａｒＦｏｌｌｏｗｉｎｇｔｈｅｓｉｇｎｉｎｇｏｆｔｈｅＡｒｔｉｃｌｅＡｇｒｅｅｍｅｎｔｆｏｒｔｈｅＰｅａｃｅｆｕｌＬｉｂｅｒａｔｉｏｎｏｆＴｉｂｅｔｉｎ１９５１，ｅｓｐｅｃｉａｌ１９５９，...     

Does Culture Evolve?

The drive to describe cultural history as an evolutionary process has two sources. One from within social theory is part of the impetus to convert social studies into "social sciences" providing them with the status accorded to the natural sciences. The other comes from within biology and biological anthropology in the belief that the theory of evolution must be universal in its application to all functions of all living organisms. The social--scientific theory of cultura evolution is pre-Darwinian, employing a developmental model of unfolding characterized by intrinsic directionality, by definable stages that succeed each other, and by some criterion of progress. It is arbitrary in its definitions of progress, and has had the political problem that a diachronic claim of cultural progress implies a synchronic differential valuation of present-day cultures. The biological scheme creates an isomorphism between the Darwinian mechanism of evolution and cultural history, postulating rules of cultural "mutation," cultural inheritance and some mechanism of natural selection among cultural alternatives. It uses simplistic ad hoc notions of individual acculturation and of the differential survival and reproduction of cultural elements. It is unclear what useful work is done by substituting the metaphor of evolution for history.     

Whose Theology? Which Theology?

Abstract

This is a response to Gareth Jones's critique of Changing Worlds, arguing that while this critique largely misunderstands the approach taken in the book, it does raise important questions about the prospect of war in the modern world. Crucial differences are identified in the use of theological rhetoric as a means of resolving differences about the legitimacy of war in the modern world.     

Who's indigenous? Whose archaeology?

Abstract

The International Labour Organisation, the United Nations and various indigenous Organisations have raised and/or objected to diverse criteria through which indigenous groups have been defined and the rights that should be accorded to them. This paper discusses the implications of these issues in relation to archaeological research and heritage management and uses this to position the other papers in this volume. Specific themes that are addressed include: the impact of colonialism and nation-forming on indigenous groups; the continuing influence of 19th and early 20th century social evolutionary concepts on the representation of indigenous groups and the role of archival material from this period today; the contrasting processes of cultural continuity and assimilation within ‘dominant’ societies in which indigenous communities have participated, and the effects that this has had on more recent claims over land rights; the cultural differences that surround the concepts of individual and community ownership, particularly in relation to copyright; the role of academia, museums and the media in the representation of indigenous people in the past and the present.     

Whose Minerals,Whose Development? Rhetoric and Reality in Post‐Conflict Sierra Leone

Despite boosts in mineral exports, popular post‐conflict minerals‐for‐development reforms in Sierra Leone have failed to significantly reduce poverty. This article uses power as an analytical lens to explore the reasons for this failure, with empirical material from the diamond sector's mining cooperatives scheme (2005), the Diamond Areas Community Development Fund (DACDF), and Kono District. The study shows that there was no significant improvement along four dimensions: material deprivation, education and health, vulnerability, and powerlessness. The authors argue that understanding the impact of these reforms requires a nuanced multi‐scalar examination of power relations, actors, and the social, political, economic and historical context within which mining is embedded. Their findings point to: 1) limits to mineral‐led poverty reduction and the need for realistic expectations and diversification of livelihood opportunities; and 2) the need for interventions that balance power asymmetries and the way that power is exercised among diverse actors, wherein decentralization offers early hope.     

A Window on Tibetan Culture

ＡＷｉｎｄｏｗｏｎＴｉｂｅｔａｎＣｕｌｔｕｒｅＧＥＬＥＧＴｈｅｌａｓｔｆｅｗｃｅｎｔｕｒｉｅｓｓａｗｎｕｍｅｒｏｕｓｐｅｏｐｌｅｖｅｎｔＵｒｅｉｎｔｏＴｉｂｅｔ，ａｈｏｌｙｌａｎｄｔｕｃｋｅｄａｗａｙｏｎｔｈｅＲｏｏｆｏｆｔｈｅＷｏｒｌｄ．Ｈｏｗｅｖ...     

Hada Culture Prevails in Tibet

ＨａｄａＣｕｌｔｕｒｅＰｒｅｖａｉｌｓｉｎＴｉｂｅｔ￥ｂｙＢａｌｓａｎｇＮｏｒｂｕＰａｇｂａｉｓｗｅｌｌ－ｋｎｏｗｎｉｎｔｈｅａｎｎａｌｓｏｆＴｉｂｅｔａｎｈｉｓｔｏｒｙｆｏｒｔｈｅｒｏｌｅｈｅｐｌａｙｅｄｉｎｈａｒｍｏｎｉｚｉｎｇｒｅｌａｔｉｏｎｓ...     

Yarlung Culture Featuring National Unity

Ｙａｒｌｕｎｇ　Ｃｕｌｔｕｒｅ　Ｆｅａｔｕｒｉｎｇ　Ｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ　ＵｎｉｔｙＹａｒｌｕｎｇＣｕｌｔｕｒｅＦｅａｔｕｒｉｎｇＮａｔｉｏｎａｌＵｎｉｔｙ￥ＤＵＡＮＲＡＯＬＩＮＮｏｐｌａｃｅｏｎｅａｒｔｈｅｘｉｓｔｅｄｂｅｆｏｒｅＹａｒｌｕｎｇ．Ｎｏｆ...     

A Professor in Moinba Culture

ＡＰｒｏｆｅｓｓｏｒｉｎＭｏｉｎｂａＣｕｌｔｕｒｅ￥ＧＵＯＨＯＮＧＺＨＩ＆ＬＩＧＵＯＱＩＮＧＤｕｒｉｎｇａｒｅｃｅｎｔｖｉｓｉｔｔｏａｓｔｕｄｙｆｉｌｌｅｄｗｉｔｈｂｏｏｋｓａｎｄｒｅｌａｔｅｄｉｔｅｍｓ，ｗｅｗｅｒｅｅｓｐｅＣｉａｌｌｙｉｍｐｒｅｓ...     

Zhongdian Culture Rich and Colorful

ＺＨＡＯＳＯＮＧＦＡｈｏｎｇｄｉａｎｉｓｈｏｍｅｔｏｎｉｎｅｅｔｈｎｉｃｇｒｏｕｐｓｓｐｅａｋｉｎｇｓｅｖｅｎｌａｎｇｕａｇｅｓａｎｄｕｓｉｎｇｆｉｖｅｄｉｆｅｒｅｎｔｆｏｒｍｓｏｆｗｒｉｔｉｎｇ．Ｍｏｒｅｏｖｅｒ，ｔｈｅｙｈｏｌｄｄｉｆｆｅｒｅｎ...     

The Development of Tibetan Culture

ＴｈｅＤｅｖｅｌｏｐｍｅｎｔｏｆＴｉｂｅｔａｎＣｕｌｔｕｒｅ￥／／ＺＨＡＮＧＺＨＩＷＥＩＨｉｓｔｏｒｙｐｒｏｖｅｓｔｈａｔａｄｅｖｅｌｏｐｅｄｃｕｌｔｕｒｅｉｓａｐｒｅｒｅｑｕｉｓｉｔｅｆｏｒｓｏｃｉｏｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃｄｅｖｅｌｏｐｍｅｎｔ．Ｃｕｌｔ...     

Whose World Is It, Anyway?

Book reviewed in this article:
Jessica C. E. Gienow–Hecht, Transmission Impossible: American Journalism as Cultural Diplomacy inPostwar Germany, 1945–1955     

Whose aid? Whose influence? China,emerging donors and the silent revolution in development assistance

Rising economies including China, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, Korea, India, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are subtly changing the rules of foreign aid with profound consequences for the role of multilateral institutions and conditionality. Fears abound that this new aid is bolstering rogue states, fuelling corruption, and increasing the debt burdens of poor countries. This article critically assesses these arguments before dissecting the attractions of emerging donors' aid against a background of established donors' failure to deliver on promises to increase aid, reduce conditionality, better coordinate and align aid efforts, and reform the aid architecture. It argues that a silent revolution is taking place whereby the emerging donors are not overtly attempting to overturn the rules of multilateral development assistance, nor to replace them. Rather, by quietly offering alternatives to aid‐receiving countries, they are weakening the bargaining position of western donors. The resulting tensions underscore the urgency of reforming the multilateral aid system.     

Whose Heritage? The Problem of Shobdon Arches

Abstract

The parish church of St John the Evangelist at Shobdon (Herefordshire) was built by Oliver de Merlimond around 1130, and represents the earliest appearance of the Herefordshire School of sculpture; one of the most important and dramatic schools of sculpture in 12th-century England. In 1752 the Romanesque building was pulled down and replaced with a new church in the fashionable Gothick style associated with Horace Walpole's Strawberry Hill, and the richly carved doorways and chancel arch of the old church were salvaged and incorporated into a striking folly on a nearby hill. Over the last 250 years the actions of weather and vandals have taken their toll on the folly, so that some sculpture is lost and much of it is practically unreadable. As a romantic ruin, however, it grows ever more attractive. In this paper I will introduce some of the issues involved in conserving this conflicted structure.