Due diligence in cultural appropriation
>> Friday, November 19, 2021
BEHIND THE SCENES
Alfred
P. Dizon
(Nemia Ngalob writes this week’s piece. Ngalob is an IP belonging to the Kankan-ey IP group of Besao. She is likewise an educator based in Mountain Province).
Advent
today’s advancement, culture appropriation has been the shadow of the elephant
that dims the light in every room. It is the topic that most scholars, if
possible, try to elude in every fora. Reason being, appropriation of culture is
most evident in Cordillera. It is present in every corner -- from simple using
of barong tagalog and facemask with the Cordilleran motif, to songs being
played on your bus rides going home to your provinces.
Culture appropriation is the taking of culture or elements of culture from an “inferior culture” by a dominant culture, to be utilized by the latter beyond its intended cultural propose, without the due consent of the former.
Cultural appropriation may either be a creative form of education or a dangerous tool of bastardization and oppression. There is a very thin fine line that separates the two. The problem however is on how to determine that line.
So far, there is a pending bill currently being deliberated in Congress to set limitations in appropriation of culture particularly on the utilization of Indigenous Peoples’ woven fabrics. Said bill was Congress’ response to the letter-complaint lodged by one Cordilleran weaver against the mass-produced machine printed imitations being sold in the market.
Much to the delight of the Cordilleran weavers, to once and for all, limit the utilization of the traditional weaving designs, the proposed bill has opened a can worms, and until now, is presently being tediously deliberated.
In a broad sense, Filipinos possess distinct cultures. But the one in question is the culture that makes the identity of the indigenous cultural communities / indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs). A culture relished and protected by them which survived during the dark pre-conquest times being enjoyed today.
Those that survived are now what we call IP indigenous knowledge systems and practices or IKSPs. For this reason, prevailing laws have accorded IKSPs, as it should, the distinction as sui generis (class of its own). Laws have defined IKSPs as privately owned not by a single individual but a collective property of the entire IP community as a whole. This is why free and prior informed consent (FPIC) is still required -- even the ones that opt to appropriate IKSP is an IP himself.
If these IKSPs entail documentation and/or utilization of the same other than what it is intended purpose, may it be, for public consumption and for commerce, it requires “free prior and informed consent (FPIC). The requirement of FPIC is anchored on the basis of social justice wherein IPs, as the owners of IKSP, are entitled to be first informed of the documentation and utilization of their property (IKSP), and to give consent on whether to agree and/or reject the intended purpose of the IKSP.
The wisdom of our prevailing laws like the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) on IKSPs is very clear. It is well settled that before any appropriations of IKSPs will be made, due conduct of FPIC must first be conducted to secure an intelligent consent from the rightful owners – the IP community.
But the more contentious concern lies when non-IPs, mostly artist, are the ones who will appropriate IKSPs, as their form of freedom of artistic expression. In this scenario, it is futile to cite the IPRA because the right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by the highest law of the land – the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Cardinal is the rule that the Constitution cannot be restricted by a statute like IPRA.
However, this can be addressed. If only artists will submit themselves to their unwritten rules and values and just cite the IPs, the owners of culture or elements of culture, as their sources of their works. A simple introduction or narration before and after dancers do their interpretative cultural dances, or a two-liner caveat or explanation to every painting can go a long way. This extra effort won’t hurt our artists and their works. Asking these extra efforts from them can distinguish a certain act of cultural appropriation as means of education and promotion from mere amusement and commerce.
There is beauty and joy witnessing artists, explaining or citing sources of their work before their viewers, readers and listeners. Through this simple gesture, an intangible connection would be created between the artist and its viewers, readers and listeners. The of the owners of the IKSPs on the other hand, will be much be delighted if they will be cited as the source inspiration from the certain artist, and as the source of new-found knowledge from the viewers.
So while we wait for the fruition of the pending bill on cultural appropriation, we take it upon ourselves to remind and re-echo to the world the due diligence of seeking first intelligent consent from the owners of the IKSPs before any appropriation can be made.
Culture appropriation is the taking of culture or elements of culture from an “inferior culture” by a dominant culture, to be utilized by the latter beyond its intended cultural propose, without the due consent of the former.
Cultural appropriation may either be a creative form of education or a dangerous tool of bastardization and oppression. There is a very thin fine line that separates the two. The problem however is on how to determine that line.
So far, there is a pending bill currently being deliberated in Congress to set limitations in appropriation of culture particularly on the utilization of Indigenous Peoples’ woven fabrics. Said bill was Congress’ response to the letter-complaint lodged by one Cordilleran weaver against the mass-produced machine printed imitations being sold in the market.
Much to the delight of the Cordilleran weavers, to once and for all, limit the utilization of the traditional weaving designs, the proposed bill has opened a can worms, and until now, is presently being tediously deliberated.
In a broad sense, Filipinos possess distinct cultures. But the one in question is the culture that makes the identity of the indigenous cultural communities / indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs). A culture relished and protected by them which survived during the dark pre-conquest times being enjoyed today.
Those that survived are now what we call IP indigenous knowledge systems and practices or IKSPs. For this reason, prevailing laws have accorded IKSPs, as it should, the distinction as sui generis (class of its own). Laws have defined IKSPs as privately owned not by a single individual but a collective property of the entire IP community as a whole. This is why free and prior informed consent (FPIC) is still required -- even the ones that opt to appropriate IKSP is an IP himself.
If these IKSPs entail documentation and/or utilization of the same other than what it is intended purpose, may it be, for public consumption and for commerce, it requires “free prior and informed consent (FPIC). The requirement of FPIC is anchored on the basis of social justice wherein IPs, as the owners of IKSP, are entitled to be first informed of the documentation and utilization of their property (IKSP), and to give consent on whether to agree and/or reject the intended purpose of the IKSP.
The wisdom of our prevailing laws like the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) on IKSPs is very clear. It is well settled that before any appropriations of IKSPs will be made, due conduct of FPIC must first be conducted to secure an intelligent consent from the rightful owners – the IP community.
But the more contentious concern lies when non-IPs, mostly artist, are the ones who will appropriate IKSPs, as their form of freedom of artistic expression. In this scenario, it is futile to cite the IPRA because the right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by the highest law of the land – the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Cardinal is the rule that the Constitution cannot be restricted by a statute like IPRA.
However, this can be addressed. If only artists will submit themselves to their unwritten rules and values and just cite the IPs, the owners of culture or elements of culture, as their sources of their works. A simple introduction or narration before and after dancers do their interpretative cultural dances, or a two-liner caveat or explanation to every painting can go a long way. This extra effort won’t hurt our artists and their works. Asking these extra efforts from them can distinguish a certain act of cultural appropriation as means of education and promotion from mere amusement and commerce.
There is beauty and joy witnessing artists, explaining or citing sources of their work before their viewers, readers and listeners. Through this simple gesture, an intangible connection would be created between the artist and its viewers, readers and listeners. The of the owners of the IKSPs on the other hand, will be much be delighted if they will be cited as the source inspiration from the certain artist, and as the source of new-found knowledge from the viewers.
So while we wait for the fruition of the pending bill on cultural appropriation, we take it upon ourselves to remind and re-echo to the world the due diligence of seeking first intelligent consent from the owners of the IKSPs before any appropriation can be made.
0 comments:
Post a Comment