外文翻譯--遺產(chǎn)的困境非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)工作的現(xiàn)狀探討（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　中文5000字，2600英文單詞，14500英文字符</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處：Brown M F. Heritage Trouble: Recent Work on the Protection of Intangible, Cultural Property[J]. International Journal of Cultural Property, 2005, 12(12):40

2、-61.</p><p>　　Heritage Trouble: Recent Work on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Property</p><p>　　Michael F. Brown</p><p>　　Abstract: A major factor driving contemporary concer

3、ns about the fate of intangible cultural property is the rise of the Information Society, which has proven adept at stripping information from the cultural contexts that give it meaning. Efforts to preserve intangible he

4、ritage have tended to follow Information Society models by proposing that heritage be inventoried, then removed from the public domain and returned to the exclusive control of its putative creators. This essay reviews re

5、cent sch</p><p>　　When comparing today s discussions of cultural property with those taking place only two decades ago, one is immediately struck by the radical broadening of the field’s scope. Prior to the

6、early 1980s，“cultural property” was invoked largely to denote portable works of art and architectural monuments that embodied the history and identity of particular peoples or nation-states. Today the expression is appli

7、ed to things as disparate in their scale and characteristics as human remains, art genres, </p><p>　　The force that John Henry Merryman refers to as “cultural internationalism” emerged in the late nineteenth

8、 and early twentieth centuries in response to concerns about the destruction of cultural treasures in wartime. What drove efforts to protect cultural property was an emerging conviction that, as the Hague Convention of 1

9、954 put it, “damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to </p><p>　　BACKGROUND： THE RISE OF

10、 THE INFORMATION SOCIETY</p><p>　　Public discussions of intangible cultural heritage that began in the 1990s were shaped by a cluster of interrelated social forces. Arguably the most important was the rise o

11、f what has been variously labeled the “Information Society，” the “Information Age，” the “Knowledge Economy，” or，most recently, the “Network Society” The latter appellation is associated with the work of Manuel Castells,

12、who in a series of influential books and articles has argued that new information technologies have transfo</p><p>　　CULTURAL APPROPRIATION IN THE CONTEXT OF INFORMATION SOCIETIES</p><p>　　An un

13、settling characteristic of the Information Society is its power to strip the smallest bits of performative content (i,e.，information, in the Batesonian sense of “a difference that makes a difference”) from their value-co

14、ntext and then use technology to put these bits to work, typically with the goal of realizing a profit. This ability to pluck images, sounds, and practices from their original setting and relocate them elsewhere has rece

15、ived various labels, the broadest being “cultural appro</p><p>　　Cultural appropriation is held to be wrong for two main reasons. First, it is disrespectful of the cultural values of the source community, wh

16、ich rarely has sanctioned the imitation of its creations by outsiders. Second, it subjects that community to material harm, either by denying it legitimate economic benefits or by undermining shared understandings essent

17、ial to its social health.</p><p>　　Respect is notoriously difficult to guarantee by legislative means, even if minority communities can be afforded legal safeguards to protect them from overt discrimination.

18、 For this reason, critiques of cultural appropriation gravitate to the question of material damages, with an eye toward the promotion of legal reforms that would compensate communities for such harms and, better still, p

19、revent them from happening in the first place. The goal of rectifying civil wrongs thrusts heritage protecti</p><p>　　INFORMATION SOCIETY SOLUTIONS TO INFORMATION SOCIETY PROBLEMS?</p><p>　　A si

20、gnificant landmark in global efforts to protect traditional knowledge and cultural productions is UNESCO's adoption of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (CSICH) at the organizati

21、ons 32nd General Conference in 2003. The convention calls for a range of measures "aimed at ensuring the viability of the intangible cultural heritage, including the identification, documentation, research, preserva

22、tion, protection, promotion, enhancement, transmission, particula</p><p>　　The CSICH should be seen in the context of UNESCO's broader efforts to promote global information democracy while at the same ti

23、me validating the right of nations to defend their cultures against unwanted external influence. The most controversial measure under consideration is a draft treaty, usually referred to as the Convention on Cultural Div

24、ersity, that proposes to defend local cultures by validating the right of member states to control the importation of alien cultural products, including</p><p>　　One of the ironies of the CSICH is that its l

25、anguage and administrative strategies are patterned on the very Information Society practices they are ostensibly trying to counter. The convention portrays intangible heritage as an objectified resource amenable to mode

26、rn management techniques. In such a legalistic vision, heritage cannot be protected until it is thoroughly documented. Hence the CSICH’s call for preparation of “one or more inventories of the intangible cultural heritag

27、e present in [e</p><p>　　LESSONS, QUESTIONS, PROSPECTS</p><p>　　Weighty questions remain unresolved in global discussions about intangible cultural heritage. One concerns the balance between her

28、itage as a resource for all of humanity and as something that properly belongs to, and remains controlled by, its communities of origin. Most major policy documents on this subject begin by declaring that folklore and tr

29、aditional knowledge are the common heritage of all humankind. They then outline schemes that would effectively remove much of this knowledge from the </p><p>　　The contradiction between rhetorical appeals to

30、 notions of common human heritage and policies designed to slow the movement of traditional knowledge into the public domain is addressed in a recent essay by the legal scholar and anthropologist Rosemary Coombe, long an

31、 incisive commentator on issues of intellectual property and the global ecology of information. Coombe observes that the lively public domain sought by cultural internationalists can only prosper if minority cultures sur

32、vive the curr</p><p>　　INFORMATION ECOLOGY REVISITED</p><p>　　If we look at the information ecosystem in its totality, it is obvious that heritage-protection efforts have largely been focused on

33、 the IP Domain—specifically, the possible extension of the rights of the IP Domain to traditional communities, which ideally would be complemented by more restricted access for private industry. This is justified but by

34、no means unproblematic. It is easy to declare that intangible cultural property now enjoys protections analogous to copyright or patent. It is anoth</p><p>　　Efforts to regulate “traditional” expressive cult

35、ure are bound to have a chilling effect on fair use and artistic expression, especially given the constantly changing, entirely negotiable content of heritage. Free expression is not a social good that trumps every other

36、, of course. Neither is it a right that we should jettison casually. An ecological approach to the IP Domain requires that we maintain a legal high-wire act: balancing the sometimes opposed goals of heritage preservation

37、 and the va</p><p>　　An alternative to formal recognition of customary law is the development of hybrid approaches that interweave elements of western law and local traditional rules for the circulation of k

38、nowledge. Drawing on ideas originating in Papua New Guinea, Marilyn Strathern provides examples of what such hybrid approaches might look like^ and we have reason to hope that similarly imaginative thinking will arise el

39、sewhere. The much-cited Bulun Bulun decision in Australia (Bulun Bulun and Milpurrurru v. R &T</p><p>　　In keeping with a holistic perspective, I close with a final question that expands the analytical f

40、rame beyond the information ecosystem. My query is inspired by a provocative essay on human rights by the political philosopher Wendy Brown. Human rights are important. Brown says, but are they “the most that can be hope

41、d for at this point in history?'' Might not an unrelenting focus on human rights stand in the way of more far-reaching possibilities for making the world a better place? Human right</p><p>　　Similarl

42、y unsparing questions must be asked about our current enthusiasm for the management of intangible cultural property. Heritage preservation is, or should be, a means to the end of fostering societies in which minority com

43、munities have a voice in decisions about their future and where they can attain the same prosperity available to everyone else> should they choose to do so. Cultural heritage is important to their well-being, but it i

44、s not the only issue that merits attention. What about </p><p>　　When confronted by the ambitious schemes now emerging on the heritage-protection front——proposals that illuminate with remarkable fidelity Max

45、 Weber's vision of a world driven by bureaucratic logic and a compulsion to rationalize——one sometimes wonders whether all the legal creativity risks missing the point. For if global cultural diversity is preserved o

46、n digital recording devices while the people who gave rise to this artistry and knowledge have disappeared, then efforts to preserve intangibl</p><p>　　遺產(chǎn)的困境：非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)工作的現(xiàn)狀探討</p><p>　　Michael F.

47、 Brown</p><p>　　摘要：如今隨著信息社會(huì)的發(fā)展，非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)的命運(yùn)成為人們關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn)。信息社會(huì)早己證明了它嫻熟的能力，將信息從賦予其意義的文化背景中剝離出來的能力。非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)的保護(hù)工作早己變?yōu)樾畔⑸鐣?huì)的工作模式。這種工作模式建議先將文化遺產(chǎn)列入清單，而后將它從公共領(lǐng)域轉(zhuǎn)移，再交給它的創(chuàng)造者單獨(dú)保管。本文從它們的優(yōu)點(diǎn)和缺點(diǎn)出發(fā)，回顧了近年來與非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)相關(guān)的學(xué)術(shù)著作和政策措施。本文從生態(tài)學(xué)

48、角度更加深入地探討了信息流的特點(diǎn)以及處理信息流需要花費(fèi)的時(shí)間精力。此外，本文不僅探討了非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)過程中會(huì)遇到的困難，同時(shí)也探討了一個(gè)尚待解決的問題：是否所有的非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)都值得保護(hù)？</p><p>　　現(xiàn)今人們對(duì)文化遺產(chǎn)的討論與過去二十年相比，所涉及的領(lǐng)域范圍增大了很多，令人吃驚。在20世紀(jì)80年代早期，“文化遺產(chǎn)”大部分指的是易攜帶的藝術(shù)作品和建筑遺跡，這些作品和遺跡象征著某個(gè)特定人物或國(guó)家的歷史和

49、身份。如今，文化遺產(chǎn)一詞所指的事物規(guī)模有大有小，包括人類殘骸、各種藝術(shù)形式以及地域景觀。原住民族權(quán)利的倡導(dǎo)者甚至將生物物種的鑒別工作劃入文化遺產(chǎn)和知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的范疇。盡管文化遺產(chǎn)的保護(hù)工作缺少?zèng)Q策者和廣大群眾的支持，但事實(shí)上，他們正在滔滔不絕地談?wù)撝嘘P(guān)時(shí)代精神的話題。</p><p>　　John Henry Merryman提到的“文化國(guó)際主義”于19世紀(jì)后期和二十世紀(jì)早期 涌現(xiàn)，它的出現(xiàn)是為了應(yīng)對(duì)處理戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)時(shí)期文

50、化遺產(chǎn)受到的破壞。是什么在推動(dòng)文 化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)工作的前進(jìn)呢？正如1954年的《海牙公約》所說，“破壞文化遺產(chǎn)意味著破壞全人類的文化遺產(chǎn)，因?yàn)槊總€(gè)人都為世界文化做出了自己的貢獻(xiàn)?！?到了 20世紀(jì)70年代，隨著對(duì)民俗傳統(tǒng)，尤其是對(duì)世界土著人民民俗傳統(tǒng)的興趣 越來越濃厚，人們開始討論只把注意力放在建筑遺跡和易攜帶藝術(shù)作品上是否過 于狹隘，這意味著要把整個(gè)土著民族完整保留下來。許多土著民族和鄉(xiāng)民社會(huì)的 文化遺產(chǎn)的傳承多為口頭傳承或公共活動(dòng)傳承，

51、因此，這些非物質(zhì)的、描述他們 行為活動(dòng)的資源往往比物質(zhì)文化更重要。當(dāng)然，人們也開始討論是否要將教堂和 考古遺跡考慮在內(nèi)。</p><p>　　時(shí)代背景：信息社會(huì)的發(fā)展</p><p>　　從20世紀(jì)90年代起，人們對(duì)非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)的討論受到了相關(guān)社會(huì)力量的影響。 可以說，其中有股力量發(fā)揮了最大的作用，它有各種名稱：“信息社會(huì)”，“信息 吋代”，“知識(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì)”，現(xiàn)在又多了一個(gè)名稱——“網(wǎng)絡(luò)社會(huì)

52、”?！熬W(wǎng)絡(luò)社會(huì)”這一 稱呼的發(fā)源與Manuel Castells的作品有關(guān)。Manuel Castells在他的一系列影響頗大的著作中談到，新的信息技術(shù)讓世界發(fā)生了翻天覆地的變化。正如當(dāng)初工業(yè)革命對(duì)19世紀(jì)的世界做出的改變那樣，這種變化也十分徹底。Castells在總結(jié)有關(guān)網(wǎng)絡(luò)社會(huì)的理論時(shí)，提出了三大影響：（1)以信息而不是物質(zhì)生產(chǎn)為基礎(chǔ) 發(fā)展起來的新經(jīng)濟(jì)；（2)企業(yè)和公共機(jī)構(gòu)的全球化，它們的力量從傳統(tǒng)民族/國(guó)家 轉(zhuǎn)移到別處；（3)新網(wǎng)

53、絡(luò)的發(fā)展改變了政治和經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)以及勞動(dòng)關(guān)系的分配。 </p><p>　　信息社會(huì)背景下的文化挪用</p><p>　　信息社會(huì)的一個(gè)特征讓人感到不安，它能夠?qū)⒈硎鲂袨榈膬?nèi)容從它們的價(jià)值背景 中一點(diǎn)一點(diǎn)地剝離出來（也就是，在Batesonian看來，信息“是有影響的差異”)，然后以謀取利益為目的，利用技術(shù)將剝離出的內(nèi)容應(yīng)用到工作中。先提取圖片、聲音和實(shí)踐，再將它們用在別處，這種方法有個(gè)最廣為

54、人知的名稱，叫做“文化挪用”。人們對(duì)文化挪用的疑問帶來了一股浪潮。在這股浪潮的帶領(lǐng)下，文化要素從政治弱國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)移至政治強(qiáng)國(guó)。在與之相反的過程中，文化產(chǎn)品從強(qiáng)國(guó)挪用到弱國(guó)（如流行音樂和電影的版權(quán)侵犯現(xiàn)象在發(fā)展中國(guó)家隨處可見）。這種挪用現(xiàn)象或被人們忽視，或?qū)е挛幕种菩袨榈陌l(fā)生。</p><p>　　文化挪用之所以是錯(cuò)的，有兩大原因。首先，它不尊重原社會(huì)群體的文化價(jià)值。原社會(huì)群體很少懲罰那些仿造他們創(chuàng)作作品的外人。再次，

55、它否認(rèn)了原社會(huì)群體的合法經(jīng)濟(jì)權(quán)益，破壞了他們的共識(shí)，這種共識(shí)對(duì)社會(huì)健康發(fā)展來說至關(guān)重要。</p><p>　　通過這些手段，原社會(huì)群體遭到了實(shí)質(zhì)性的損害。即便少數(shù)民族群體能夠利用法律保護(hù)自己不受歧視，但立法手段仍然無法保證他們可以得到尊重。正因?yàn)檫@個(gè)原因，人們對(duì)文化挪用的批判慢慢地將話題引向物質(zhì)損失方面的問題。通過推動(dòng)法律改革，不僅能夠利用法律手段為這些群體索求針對(duì)這些損害的賠償，更加有利的是，這樣還能預(yù)防此類損

56、害的發(fā)生。致力于改正公民錯(cuò)誤的這一目標(biāo)正推動(dòng)著文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)工作向著知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)和侵權(quán)法的方向前進(jìn)。對(duì)于法律學(xué)者為文化所有權(quán)的維護(hù)做出的舉足輕重的貢獻(xiàn)，我們也因此不會(huì)感到吃驚。</p><p>　　信息社會(huì)應(yīng)該如何處理自己的社會(huì)問題？</p><p>　　2003年，在第32屆大會(huì)上，聯(lián)合國(guó)教科文組織頒布了《非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)公約》（CSICH)，成為傳統(tǒng)知識(shí)和文化產(chǎn)品保護(hù)工作的重要里程碑。此公

57、約需要一系列措施的配合，這些措施“致力于維護(hù)非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)的發(fā)展，包括對(duì)文化遺產(chǎn)的鑒定、存檔、研宄、保存、保護(hù)、發(fā)揚(yáng)、優(yōu)化、運(yùn)送和復(fù)原，特別是通過正式和非正式教育的手段進(jìn)行”。</p><p>　　《非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)公約》應(yīng)以聯(lián)合國(guó)教科文組織的工作為基礎(chǔ)，促進(jìn)全球信息民主的發(fā)展。同時(shí)，也應(yīng)賦予各國(guó)合法權(quán)益以保護(hù)他們的文化不受外界的不利影響。被這些措施中，有一個(gè)草案最飽受爭(zhēng)議。這個(gè)草案為《文化多樣性公約》，它致力

58、于通過賦予成員國(guó)管理外來文化產(chǎn)品（包括書籍、電影和錄制唱片）運(yùn)輸?shù)臋?quán)利來保護(hù)當(dāng)?shù)匚幕?。此政策遭到包括美?guó)企業(yè)在內(nèi)的世界各大傳媒企業(yè)的強(qiáng)烈反對(duì)。他們聲稱，它威脅到自由表達(dá)的同時(shí)也限制了貿(mào)易。該政策一旦實(shí)施，對(duì)國(guó)家傳媒業(yè)最快產(chǎn)生影響的便是文化多樣性公約。相反地，《非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)公約》則會(huì)直接影響工業(yè)化之前已經(jīng)存在的民俗傳統(tǒng)。</p><p>　　諷刺的是，《非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)公約》的語言和管理策略遵從的正是科教文

59、組織所反對(duì)的信息社會(huì)模式?！斗俏镔|(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)公約》認(rèn)為非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)是客觀資源，應(yīng)使用現(xiàn)代管理技術(shù)進(jìn)行保護(hù)。在這種法律下，文化遺產(chǎn)只有經(jīng)過完整存檔記錄才能得到保護(hù)。因此，《非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)公約》要求“列出一份或多份清單，記錄出現(xiàn)在各個(gè)國(guó)家領(lǐng)土上的非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)”。排列清單需要很強(qiáng)的想象力，因?yàn)榍鍐紊婕暗姆秶軓V，囊括了許多地區(qū)，尤其是地域廣闊的國(guó)家和多民族國(guó)家，如俄羅斯、中國(guó)、印度和加拿大，更不用說巴布亞新幾內(nèi)亞和秘魯這樣的國(guó)家了。

60、奇怪的是，這個(gè)政策讓人聯(lián)想起早期的人類學(xué)研究。早期的人類學(xué)研究認(rèn)為應(yīng)該將原始文化全部存檔，無論是編筐技術(shù)、醫(yī)術(shù)還是家族體系、宗教信仰都應(yīng)歸檔，因?yàn)樗鼈兘K有一天會(huì)消失殆盡。過去的經(jīng)驗(yàn)表明，歸檔工作在文化保護(hù)方面發(fā)揮的作用微乎其微。從別的角度想，將一份地圖與它代表的板塊搞混是一個(gè)典型的錯(cuò)誤。即便少數(shù)民族群體能夠利用法律保護(hù)自己不受歧視，但立法手段仍然無法保證他們可以得到尊重。因此，沒有什么會(huì)對(duì)《非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)公約》的文化歸檔項(xiàng)目造成不利

61、影響。我們可以拭目以待，看看歸檔工作是如何保護(hù)文化這</p><p><b>　　課題、問題和前景</b></p><p>　　世界人民針對(duì)非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)提出的重大問題仍未得到解決。文化遺產(chǎn)作為全人類共有資源的同時(shí)，也依然為其原群體所有、所控制。我們需要找出這兩點(diǎn)之間的平衡點(diǎn)。多數(shù)重大政策的頒發(fā)，都是以宣告“民俗傳統(tǒng)知識(shí)為全人類共有的文化遺產(chǎn)”為開端。之后決策者會(huì)列出

62、大綱，將一部分文化遺產(chǎn)移出人類共有的遺產(chǎn)名單，讓它成為其原群體的私有遺產(chǎn)。在討論世界物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)的類似的緊張局勢(shì)時(shí)，John Merrymari對(duì)文化國(guó)際主義者和文化民族主義者作了區(qū)分。文化民族主義者認(rèn)為，文化遺產(chǎn)是屬于其起源地群體或民族的。文化國(guó)際主義者最近在 備受爭(zhēng)議的《關(guān)于建設(shè)環(huán)球博物館的重要性和價(jià)值的宣言》中也發(fā)表了他們得觀 點(diǎn)。該宣言由幾個(gè)世界最為重要的藝術(shù)博物館發(fā)表。然而，毫無疑問，民族主義者占了上風(fēng)。</p>

63、<p>　　著名的法律學(xué)者和人類學(xué)家Rosemary Coombe近期發(fā)表了一篇文章，探索了“文 化遺產(chǎn)為人類共有”的觀點(diǎn)和某些政策之間存在的矛盾，這些政策致力于放慢將 傳統(tǒng)知識(shí)歸入公共領(lǐng)域的進(jìn)程。Rosemary Coombe對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)和信息社會(huì)生態(tài)學(xué)的評(píng)論十分犀利。Coombe認(rèn)為，只有在全球化浪潮中存活下來的少數(shù)民族文化才能被文化國(guó)際主義者選擇并歸入公共領(lǐng)域之內(nèi)。她認(rèn)為，文化公共領(lǐng)域的構(gòu)建 不僅需要責(zé)任也需要權(quán)利的配合

64、。它的責(zé)任包括“拒絕回收文化產(chǎn)品。文化產(chǎn)品 的回收會(huì)在文化、社會(huì)和政治方面對(duì)人類造成損害。對(duì)人類來說，各個(gè)地方當(dāng)?shù)匚幕奶囟ㄐ问交ハ嘟豢椥纬闪宋幕恼w形式?！比绻荒苷业轿幕差I(lǐng)域 開放和保守之間更好的平衡點(diǎn)，文化公共領(lǐng)域會(huì)缺乏實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)容，變得十分空洞。 在此舉個(gè)例子，Tyler Cowen稱這個(gè)例子為“多樣性的矛盾”。他寫道，“如果一 些社會(huì)群體否認(rèn)多樣性的價(jià)值，拒絕接受多樣性，那么作為一個(gè)整體的世界會(huì)變 得更加多樣。他們也將繼續(xù)創(chuàng)

65、造許多獨(dú)一無二的作品，最后讓自己成為文化群體 中的離群之鳥。相反地，廣義的多樣性造成的文化融合現(xiàn)象會(huì)使各個(gè)文化變得越來越相似。</p><p><b>　　信息生態(tài)學(xué)回顧</b></p><p>　　如果我們?nèi)娴赜^察信息生態(tài)系統(tǒng)可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，現(xiàn)今文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)工作的重點(diǎn)是地址域，它已經(jīng)擴(kuò)展到傳統(tǒng)群體的地址域權(quán)利的范圍內(nèi)。私人企業(yè)的訪問會(huì)受到更多的限制。這既合情合理也不會(huì)帶

66、來負(fù)面問題。可以說，非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)和版權(quán)以及專利一樣，正在受到嚴(yán)格的保護(hù)。首先，我們要?jiǎng)澐帜男儆诜俏镔|(zhì)文化，再通過制定省錢高效的機(jī)制對(duì)其進(jìn)行保護(hù)。文化所有權(quán)的基礎(chǔ)十分薄弱?，F(xiàn)今，文化遺產(chǎn)危機(jī)給人們帶來許多有關(guān)文化所有權(quán)的索賠問題。在一項(xiàng)有關(guān)美國(guó)新異教民族志的研究中，Sabina Magliocco提到，1993年，拉科他印第安長(zhǎng)者向新異教徒群體發(fā)出強(qiáng)烈譴責(zé)，“拉科他代表參加了宗教領(lǐng)導(dǎo)大會(huì)。他們?cè)诖髸?huì)上發(fā)表意見，認(rèn)為異教徒的一些宗教儀式

67、，如圍成一個(gè)圈進(jìn)行禮拜，朝著四個(gè)方向跪拜，以及用燃燒的藥草凈化身體，是對(duì)印第安人宗教儀式的模仿。然而，事實(shí)上這些儀式起源于歐洲，并沒有模仿任何宗教的儀式。這是“獨(dú)創(chuàng)”多元發(fā)生說的一個(gè)例子?！?lt;/p><p>　　“傳統(tǒng)的”表達(dá)性文化的管理工作在合理運(yùn)用和藝術(shù)表現(xiàn)方面發(fā)揮的作用很大，尤其促進(jìn)了文化遺產(chǎn)的不斷變化和其內(nèi)容的發(fā)展。自由表達(dá)不是非凡的社會(huì)產(chǎn)品。它也不是我們可以隨意忽視的權(quán)利。有關(guān)地址域的生態(tài)學(xué)要求我們做出

68、髙風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的法律行為：找出遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)的目標(biāo)和開放社會(huì)的價(jià)值之間的平衡點(diǎn)。</p><p>　　對(duì)習(xí)俗法的廣泛認(rèn)同標(biāo)志著混合方式的發(fā)展。這種方式能夠?qū)⑽鞣椒?、?dāng)?shù)貍鹘y(tǒng)法規(guī)結(jié)合起來，促進(jìn)知識(shí)的流傳。引用源自巴布亞新幾內(nèi)亞的理念時(shí)，Marilyn Stratherri提供了一個(gè)例子讓我知道混合方式是怎么一回事。我們有理由相信， 在世界的其他地方也會(huì)出現(xiàn)這樣的聯(lián)想思維。澳大利亞Bulim Bulun的決定 (Bulun Bu

69、lun and Milpurrurru v. R&TTextiles, 1998)被廣泛弓|用。該文章是改變?nèi)藗兿敕ǖ南闰?qū)。它承認(rèn)土著部落群體對(duì)宗教藝術(shù)方面具有信托權(quán)。盡管這些藝術(shù)作品需要同其他部落的人一同完成，但根據(jù)法律，這些作品不屬于合作作品。雖然有些在當(dāng)?shù)剡m用的方案最后可能通過各種渠道流傳至其他地方，并經(jīng)過別人的修改成為適用于解決著作權(quán)和所有權(quán)問題的方案。但大量證據(jù)表明，對(duì)于合法的文化混雜來說，當(dāng)?shù)匚幕祀s是它的最好前景，

70、而非全球文化混雜。同時(shí)，文化資源的流通會(huì)為更多的大眾所熟知。</p><p>　　從整體的視角出發(fā)，我提出了最后一個(gè)問題，將分析框架的范圍延伸至信息生態(tài)系統(tǒng)之外。政治哲學(xué)家Wendy Brown發(fā)表的一篇有關(guān)人利的文章啟發(fā)了我。人權(quán)很重要，Brown說，但是“在現(xiàn)在的歷史階段，人權(quán)是大部分人都可以追求到的嗎？”對(duì)人權(quán)的不懈追求不能讓這個(gè)世界變得更加美好嗎？ Brown說，“人權(quán)擁護(hù)屬于政治事務(wù)，它構(gòu)成了政治空間的

71、結(jié)構(gòu)，是人們謀求行政壟斷的手段。”</p><p>　　如今，人們對(duì)非物質(zhì)文化的管理工作十分熱情，而我們要針對(duì)這種熱情提出嚴(yán)厲的質(zhì)疑。文化遺產(chǎn)的保護(hù)是或應(yīng)該是一種促進(jìn)社會(huì)發(fā)展的手段。社會(huì)中的少數(shù)民族群體為自己的未來做決定，同其他民族共同繁榮，這是他們應(yīng)該做的事。雖然文化遺產(chǎn)與他們的幸福息息相關(guān)，但它卻不是唯一值得關(guān)注的地方。公共衛(wèi)生、教育和自治對(duì)他們來說不也十分重要嗎？法律學(xué)者M(jìn)ichaeH. Davis提問道，

72、能否讓土著人民自己治理土著民族非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)的大量挪用？他們是否會(huì)或多或少地根據(jù)自己群落與世界工業(yè)巨頭之間的力量差距來治理文化挪用現(xiàn)象？有關(guān)民俗傳統(tǒng)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的新法能否發(fā)揮巨大的作用？</p><p>　　碰到有關(guān)文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)的宏大計(jì)劃時(shí)，人們有時(shí)會(huì)提出質(zhì)疑——是否所有的法律都沒有抓住要領(lǐng)？這些計(jì)劃利用了 Max Weber理論的觀點(diǎn)，認(rèn)為一個(gè)合理世界要靠官僚主義和強(qiáng)制手段來驅(qū)動(dòng)。盡管依靠電子錄音設(shè)備保護(hù)了全球文化