Transcript
ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 25 NO 3, JUNE 2009 7 The United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO) was created in 1945, in the after- math of the Second World War. One of its principal mis-sions, as initially defined, was to establish the conditionsfor peaceful coexistence between nations. The Preamble toUNESCO’s Constitution declared that ‘since wars begin inthe minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defencesof peace must be constructed’ (UNESCO 1945: 2). On the basis of this axiom, UNESCO was mandated to engagein an ambitious worldwide educational campaign aimedat preventing new destructive conflicts like those endured by humanity in the first half of the 20th century. This mis-sion was effectively equivalent to an experiment in socialengineering on a global scale, consisting in working outand disseminating a new world view based on a revisedconception of humankind. In this world view an important place was granted to a particular vision of human diver-sity, both cultural and genetic. The founders of UNESCOclaimed that prejudice relating to human diversity is themain cause of war, as the following phrase drawn fromthe same Preamble indicates: ‘Ignorance of each other’sways and lives has been a common cause, throughout thehistory of mankind, of that suspicion and mistrust betweenthe peoples of the world through which their differenceshave all too often broken into war’ (UNESCO 1945: 2).It was hoped that a radical modification of the existingconception of human diversity would abolish the primarycause of war.Thus from the outset the issue of human diversity was placed at the core of UNESCO’s doctrine. However,UNESCO’s ideology has been subject to numerous modi-fications in the subsequent decades, most of them relatingto the Organization’s conception of human diversity. Here,I intend to sketch briefly some of these transformations,from the creation of UNESCO up to the present day. For the sake of concise analysis, I will refer only to publishedstatements and conventions, though I have also workedon archival materials. Such official documents are oftenneglected by scholars, who consider them somehow inci-dental products of an obscure web of interactions betweenstates, diplomatic networks, lobbying groups, academicexperts and – above all – international officials strivingto justify their lucrative sinecures by a grandiloquent andcliché-ridden rhetorical activity. However, the very domi-nance of stereotypes in these documents makes them a pre-cious source of ethnographic information which enables usnot only to grasp UNESCO’s ideology, but also to outlinesome basic tenets of a much more widespread conceptionof human diversity. This conception is part of our Westernfolk anthropology, co-produced through a constant dia-logue between high culture and low culture, betweenscholarly representations and ordinary knowledge. 1. The Club of Rome is aglobal think tank founded inRome in April 1968, at ameeting of international expertsfrom the fields of academia, civilsociety, diplomacy and industry.They first came together to discuss concerns aroundunlimited resource consumptionin an increasingly interdependentworld.2. See also introduction byKoïchiro Matsuura, Director-General of UNESCO, inUNESCO 2001.3. ‘Main lines of an action plan for the implementation of the UNESCO Declaration onCultural Diversity’, paragraph14, in UNESCO 2001.4. ‘Cultural diversity isa defining characteristic of humanity…’, in UNESCO,2005: 1: Preamble.5. Some archival evidencesuggests that debate on thenegative consequences of UNESCO’s policy of promotingliteracy began as early as 1952.Lévi-Strauss, as Secretary-General of the InternationalSocial Science Council, createdand sponsored by UNESCO,was one of the first critics of UNESCO’s championing of the benefits of literacy (Lévi-Strauss,1953; see my analysis of thisstance in Stoczkowski 2008). Wiktor Stoczkowski Wiktor Stoczkowski is Lecturer in Anthropology at the École des Hautes Étudesen Sciences Sociales, in Paris, and a researcher at the Laboratoire d’AnthropologieSociale (Collège de France). His research focuses on theanthropology of knowledge inWestern societies, especially oninteraction between scholarlyand lay knowledge. His email is:
[email protected]. W I K T O R S T O C Z K O W S K I UNESCO’s doctrine of human diversity A secular soteriology? Fig. 1 .‘Since wars beginin the minds of men, it is inthe minds of men that thedefences of peace must beconstructed’. The first sentenceof the Preamble to UNESCO’sConstitution is translated intonine languages and carved in stone on a monument erected at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris. UNESCO’s doctrine wasbuilt on the basis of this axiom,which presupposes that wars arecaused by ideas; it was thereforebelieved that educational campaigns would be enoughto establish the conditions for lasting peace. 8 ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 25 NO 3, JUNE 2009 6. The term soteriology refersto the doctrines of salvation(as defined in the OED and the Grand Robert dictionary of theFrench language). Nowadays,the notion of salvation isreduced to the theologicalsense of the soul’s salvation.Here, I give it an extendedmeaning, in conformity withits pre-Christian usage, stilleasily understood in the 18thcentury: ‘deliverance fromsome evil’, evil being definednot only as spiritual but alsoas material, social, economic, psychological, demographic,intellectual, etc. (Ernout andMeillet 1967, Chantraine 1999,Chevalier de Jaucourt 1765).It is thus possible to speak of secular soteriologies, whichhave accompanied or supplantedreligious soteriologies sincethe 18th century (see further discussion on this topic inStoczkowski, 2008).Barker, Martin 1981. The newracism, conservatives and theideology of the tribe . London:Junction Books.Balibar, Etienne 1997 [1989].Y a t-il un ‘néo-racisme’?In Balibar, Etienne andWallerstein, Immanuel (eds) Race, nation, classe. Lesidentités ambiguës , pp. 27-41.Paris: La Découverte.Bunzl, Matti 2007. Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: Hatreds old and new in Europe . Chicago: PricklyParadigm Press.Buruma, Ian and Margalit,Avishai 2004. Occidentalism: A short history of anti-Westernism . London: AtlanticBooks.Chantraine, Pierre 1999. Dictionnaire étymologique dela langue grecque . Paris: C.Klincksieck.Connelly, Matthew 2008. Fatal misconception: The struggleto control world population .Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.Ehrlich, Paul R. 1968. The population bomb . New York:Ballantine Books.Ernout, Alfred and Meillet,Antoine 1967. Dictionnaireétymologique de la languelatine . Paris: C. Klincksieck.Erwin, Douglas H. 1994. ThePermo-Triassic extinction. Nature 367: 231-236.Fog Olwig, Karen 2003.Comment on ‘Masterpieces of oral and intangible culture’, by P.J.M. Nas. Current Anthropology 43(1): 144-145. When presenting UNESCO as an agency with the power to ‘claim’, ‘consider’, ‘endeavour’ or ‘answer’, I amcareful not to succumb naively to the error of essentialism:it is obvious that behind any institution there are but indi-viduals who act in its name and who are brought together in a complex configuration of conflicts, negotiations andco-operation. However, for the sake of my argument, Ichoose to cut a long story short and to focus my analysisexclusively on the conceptual and declarative outcomeof UNESCO’s activities. I am therefore obliged to leaveaside the rich and fascinating ways whereby individualsengaged in UNESCO’s endeavours produce ideas, some of which later become incorporated into its official doctrine.From the epistemological point of view, I am in sympathywith nominalism; for rhetorical reasons, I have opted herefor the ‘UNESCO as agency’ essentialist stance. I hopethat readers will accept this heuristic shortcut.* * *The transformations in UNESCO’s doctrine can bedivided into three periods: the first extends from the endof the Second World War up to about 1965; the second runsfrom 1965 to 1985, and the third from 1985 until today.During the initial period, UNESCO aimed to tackle themain causes of international tensions. On the one hand,there was the dark heritage of the doctrine of inequalityof men and races, considered responsible for the atrocitiesof the Second World War. On the other hand, there werethe challenges of the future. Among these, internationalorganizations were particularly worried about economicunder-development in Third World countries, where tradi-tional agriculture combined with rapid population growthappeared to herald a dreadful dearth to come. Harrowingmemories of the Bengal famine of 1943, when more thanone million people died from starvation and malnutrition,were still fresh (Greenough 1982).UNESCO’s answer to racism was its first ‘Statement by experts on race problems’ , issued in 1950 (UNESCO1950). This document, drafted by an international panel of scholars, mostly sociologists and social anthropologists,lent the support of science to the theses countering thetenets of Nazi racial doctrine (Pogliano 2005, Stoczkowski2007). It strongly emphasized the unity of the human spe-cies, arguing that biological differences between humanswere secondary. The ‘Statement’ declared that the dif-ferences between human groups are – for the most part – cultural, not natural, and proposed that the term ‘race’,used abusively in popular parlance for designating culturaldiversity, should be replaced by the term ‘ethnic groups’(UNESCO 1950).UNESCO proposed a threefold solution to the under-development of the Third World. Firstly, it recommendeda policy of promoting literacy, in order to give everybodyaccess to modern scientific knowledge and help break U N E S C O Fig. 2 .Long before it wascarved in stone, the basicaxiom of UNESCO’s ideologytook form in a draft submitted by American poet Archibald MacLeish (1892-1982) tothe Conference of the United Nations for the Establishment of an International Organization for Educationand Culture, held in London in November 1945. ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 25 NO 3, JUNE 2009 9 Greenough, Paul R., 1982. Prosperity and misery inmodern Bengal: The famineof 1943-1944 . Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Good, Anthony 2008. Culturalevidence in courts of law. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (n.s.): S47-S60.Gottschalk, Peter 2008. Islamophobia: Making Muslims the enemy . Lanham,MD: Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers.Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles 1977. Punctuatedequilibria: The tempoand mode of evolutionreconsidered. Paleobiology 3:115-151.Hallam, Anthony andWignall Paul B. 1997. Mass extinctions and their aftermath . Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Huntington, Samuel 1992. The clash of civilizations .Washington, DC: AmericanEnterprise Institute.Jaucourt, Chevalier de 1765.‘Salut’. In L’Encyclopédie: Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et desmétiers, vol. 14, pp. 586-589. Neuchâtel: Samuel Faulche.Lévi-Strauss, Claude 1952. Raceand history . Paris: UNESCO. — 1953. ‘Note du Secrétairegénéral sur le programmedu Conseil’. Unpublisheddocument, 27 February 1953.ISSC Archives, Paris, box‘Administration General.Documents on the creation of ICSS’, pp. 1-10. with local indigenous traditions regarded as retrograde.Secondly, it advocated the adoption of Western agricul-tural methods, based on high-yield cereals, fertilizers andinsecticides. Thirdly, it insisted on a radical programme of birth control, the implementation of which was presentedas imperative and salutary. These three measures weredesigned to eliminate the spectre of famines and wars over food. In reality, they were to result in the spread of a singleeconomic and demographic model, leading to a consider-able reduction in cultural diversity across the world. At thattime almost nobody seemed to worry about this possibleoutcome of UNESCO policy which, on the contrary, wasseen as synonymous with progress and welcomed as her-alding the advent of the ‘new human unity’ that UNESCOwas aspiring to build (UNESCO 1947).During this first period, UNESCO regarded humandiversity mainly as an obstacle to be overcome: geneticdiversity – supposedly a necessary condition of racism –– had to be understated, whereas cultural diversity, fre-quently envisaged in terms of inferiority, had to be reduced.Unity was the byword of that period. Moreover, unity wasa solution to almost every problem, capable of making theworld a better place.By the second period, much of the unequivocal optimismaround the notions of progress and development had dis-sipated. In his hugely successful demographic pamphlet,Paul E. Ehrlich put the ‘P’ (as in population) bomb along-side the A-bomb and H-bomb among the potential instru-ments of a global apocalypse to come (Ehrlich 1968). ThirdWorld overpopulation, made possible by the medical andagricultural advances which had been so ardently soughtduring the previous period, was henceforth seen as a greatthreat to the whole of humanity, leading to economicchaos, ecological disaster and famine wars (Connelly2008). This was also the period of alarmist predictions.The most influential publication among this scaremon-gering literature was the Meadows report, also knownunder the title Limits to growth , commissioned by the Clubof Rome from a group of scientists at the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology: it sold 30 million copies in morethan 30 translations (Meadows et al. 1972). 1 The Meadowsreport warned that economic growth could not continueindefinitely because of the limited availability of naturalresources, particularly oil; the 1973 oil crisis that followedsoon after seemed to confirm these gloomy predictions.And it was a period of emerging ecological preoccupa-tions and growing concern about industrial pollution andthe extinction of animal species. Having been consideredas a solution to all human problems, economic develop-ment became a threat – one that menaced not only thewell-being of humans, but also the masterpieces of culture.The Egyptian temples at Abu Simbel became a symbol:threatened with submersion in Lake Nasser when the HighDam was built, they were dismantled and raised over 60metres up the sandstone cliff; this important internationalsalvage operation was financed by UNESCO.It was during this period that UNESCO adopted theConvention Concerning the Protection of the World Culturaland Natural Heritage (UNESCO 1972). Considering thatcultural and natural sites of ‘outstanding interest’ wereincreasingly endangered by changing social and economicconditions, UNESCO proposed that such sites should bedesignated as ‘the world’s heritage’ and safeguarded bythe common efforts of all states. The sites inscribed on the‘World Heritage List’ had already been recognized as pre-cious and deserving of protection by the states on whoseterritories they were situated: UNESCO’s innovation wasto characterize them as world heritage , making them thecommon heritage of all humans. In the traditional sense of the word, heritage refers to any property that has been or may be inherited, usually through kinship or alliance ties(this is quite obvious in French: the French word patri-moine derives from the Latin patrimonium, which means‘the father’s heritage’). With the establishment of themodern nation-states, this basic meaning was extended to property belonging to the nation ( national heritage ), sug-gesting a national unity symbolically analogous to kinshipties. The 1972 Convention proposed to enlarge further the notion of heritage, broadening it to all humankind.The creation of such a global heritage, combined with amoral obligation to safeguard and transmit it, was seen asa means to building a new human unity, conceived of interms of universal brotherhood, in full conformity withUNESCO’s founding ideology. In this respect there was astrong continuity between the first and the second phasesof the evolution of Organization’s doctrine.The official story of the third period, which started in themid-eighties, is that the 1972 Convention found its logicaloutcome in three new documents adopted at the beginningof the 21st century: the UNESCO Universal Declarationon Cultural Diversity (UNESCO 2001), the Conventionfor the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage(UNESCO 2003), and the Convention on the Protectionand Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions(UNESCO 2005).The first of these documents extended the notion of common heritage of humanity to the whole diversity of human cultures, the protection of which was defined asan ‘ethical imperative, inseparable from respect for humandignity […], human rights, and fundamental freedoms, in particular the rights of persons belonging to minoritiesand those of indigenous peoples’ (UNESCO 2001: Article4). The second document took a further step in the samedirection by enlarging the notion of heritage to all kindsof cultural phenomena, ‘the practices, representations,expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instru-ments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces’ (UNESCO2003: Article 2), whereas previous conventions had tendedto restrict it to natural and cultural ‘sites’ deemed to be of outstanding universal value from an aesthetic or scientific point of view. Because this value had been conferred inconformity with Western aesthetic and scientific norms,the previous UNESCO list of the world’s heritage wasdeemed to show unacceptable Eurocentric bias. Indeed,the majority of ‘cultural sites’, mostly monumental archi-tecture, were situated in the West, particularly in Europe.Finally, the third Convention proclaimed that ‘culturaldiversity forms a common heritage of humanity’, which U N E S C O Fig. 3 .Basic adult educationwas initially one of the mainmissions of UNESCO. By promoting literacy, UNESCOexpected to give everybodyaccess to modern scientificknowledge and help break withlocal indigenous traditionsregarded as retrograde. 10 ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 25 NO 3, JUNE 2009 should not only be protected from the nefarious effects of globalization but also cherished and celebrated, because it‘nurtures human capacities and values’ (UNESCO 2005:1: Preamble).The context of the third period was – and remains – remarkably different from previous ones, and this has hada huge impact on the evolution of UNESCO’s doctrine.Economic development is now frequently seen through the prism of the negative aspects of globalization, which nolonger conveys the promise of a better future but rather a threat to precious cultural diversity. Instead of humanunity in the making, many people feel they are witnessinga return to local identities, be they national, ethnic or reli-gious. The Other inspires a new general mistrust, if nothatred, and those emotions are now much more often jus-tified by a reference to cultural differences than to bio-logical ones. This constitutes a phenomenon that has beentermed ‘cultural racism’ or ‘new racism’ (Barker 1981,Balibar 1997 [1989], Taguieff 1985). The first UNESCO‘Statement by experts on race problems’, conceived prin-cipally as a reaction against the anti-Semitism the Nazishad derived from 19th-century physical anthropology,does not provides us with arguments adapted for thefight against the new cultural racism spreading acrossthe multicultural world. What is more, ‘racial’ designa-tions, long considered a stigma, are presently becoming afashionable principle of individual and collective identity,mostly among groups categorized as ‘ethnic minorities’(Stoczkowski 2006). On an international level, differentsocieties put into contact via the global system of informa-tion and goods exchange are falling prey to new tensionsthat lead some bestselling authors to prophesy an inevi-table clash of civilizations (Huntington 1992). 2 The fear of radical Islam, and even Islamophobia, are on the rise in theWest, mirrored by a hostility towards Western culture inmany Islam-dominated regions of the world (Bunzl 2007,Gottschalk 2008, Buruma and Margalit 2004). The eco-nomic development so ardently promoted by internationalorganizations seems to produce – rather than the moralunity of humankind – conflicts, anxiety about the future,hatred of the Other, and the temptation to retreat into localidentities. In this context, UNESCO has chosen to put itssupport behind local identities and the right of the minori-ties to conserve their traditional differences, lending weightto the idea that an unconditional respect for local identities – supposedly a corollary of diversity – is the panacea thatwill resolve all the problems of humankind. UNESCO sup- poses diversity to be capable of nurturing ‘human capaci-ties and values’ (UNESCO 2005: 1: Preamble), favouringeconomic and personal development (UNESCO 2001:Article 3), contributing positively to sustainable develop-ment (UNESCO 2005: 1: Preamble), strengthening socialcohesion (UNESCO 2005: 1: Preamble), enhancing thestatus of women (UNESCO 2005: 1; Preamble), guaran-teeing the full realization of human rights (UNESCO 2005:1: Preamble), reinforcing democracy (UNESCO 2005: 1:Preamble), humanizing globalization (introduction by theDirector General, in UNESCO 2001), and creating a cli-mate of mutual trust and understanding which are among‘the best guarantees of international peace and security’(UNESCO 2001: Preamble).UNESCO’S main goal has not changed: the Organizationstill hopes to establish the conditions necessary for lasting peace, but the means it now urges for accomplishing this principal mission seem to be the opposite of those initially proposed. Basic adult education, which was aimed atspreading modern, rational knowledge and thus inducingglobal progress, is now perceived as an imperialist projectresulting in the universal imposition of the Western cul-tural model which would imperil the right of dominatedsocieties and minorities to remain what they are imaginedto have always been. It is no longer expected that scientificknowledge, elaborated mainly in the West, will supplantthe ‘prejudices’ of ordinary thinking; on the contrary, the2001 Declaration on Cultural Diversity recommends thatscience draw its inspiration from ‘traditional knowledge’,so as to foster ‘synergies between modern science andlocal knowledge’. 3 Meadows, Donella H. et al.1972. The limits to growth: Areport for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind . New York:Universe Books. Nas, Peter J.M. 2003.Masterpieces of oraland intangible culture:Reflections on theUNESCO World HeritageList. Current Anthropology 43(1): 139-148.Philips, Anne 2003a. ‘Sexualand cultural equality:Conflicts and tensions’. Nuffield Foundation:Project Grant Report, http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/genderInstitute/pdf/finalnuffield.pdf — 2003b. When culture meansgender: Issues of culturaldefence in the Englishcourts. Modern Law Review 66: 510-531.Pogliano, Claudio 2005. L’Ossessione della razza: Antropologia e genetica nel XX secolo . Pisa: Edizionidella Normale.Renteln, Alison Dundes 2004. The cultural defence . NewYork: Oxford UniversityPress.Stoczkowski, Wiktor 2006.L’antiracisme doit-ilrompre avec la science? La Recherche 401: 45-48. — 2007. Racisme, antiracismeet cosmologie lévi-straussienne: Un essaid’anthropologie réflexive. L’Homme , Revue Françaised’Anthropologie 182: 7-52. — 2008. Anthropologiesrédemptrices: Le monde selon Lévi-Strauss . Paris:Hermann.Taguieff, Pierre-André 1985. Lenéoracisme différentialiste. Langage et Société 34:69-98. U N E S C O Fig. 4. A Korean masterpieceof the ‘oral and intangibleheritage: the Pansori epicchant. The notion of ‘intangibleheritage’ was invented in order to remedy the Eurocentric biasof the first UNESCO definitionof ‘world’s heritage’, whichhad been limited mostly tomonumental architecture. A N T H O N Y L A C O U D R E , / U N E S C O Fig. 5. The ‘tombs of thekings’, near Paphos, Cyprus.The tombs of the ruling éliteof the Hellenistic and early Roman periods are inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List. This status promotesarchaeological sites ascommercial products suitable for tourist consumption. ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 25 NO 3, JUNE 2009 11 UNESCO 1945. Constitutionof the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization .Original document, London,16 November 1945; Paris,UNESCO Archives, General279B (published in 1945 byThe Frederic Printing Co.,London). — 1947. L’Éducation de base, fonds commun de l’humanité .Paris: UNESCO. — 1950. A statement by expertson race problems. UNESCO International Social Science Bulletin 2(3): 391-394. — 1972. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage . Paris: UNESCO. — 2001. UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity . Paris: UNESCO. — 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage .Paris: UNESCO. — 2005. Convention on the Protection and Promotionof the Diversity of Cultural Expressions . Paris: UNESCO. During this third period, UNESCO’s emphasis on thegenetic unity of humankind, and its initial project of constructing cultural unity on a global level, have beenreplaced by a celebration of the virtues of cultural diver-sity, which is presented as an ontological attribute of our species. 4 Cultural diversity is replacing human unity asthe universal solution to all problems. Together with the principle of the equality of individuals, UNESCO advo-cates the equality of cultures: a charter of cultural rightshas been added to the charter of human rights (UNESCO2005: Article 5). The shift in position is tangible.This gradual transformation of UNESCO’s ideologyclosely follows the evolution of the Western outlook onhuman diversity in the second half of the 20th century.However, one cannot but be struck by the numerous contra-dictions in the outcome of this historical process (see Nas2003). Let us take some examples. First, UNESCO aimsto support ‘the free flow of ideas’ and ‘constant exchanges between cultures’ (UNESCO 2005: 1: Preamble), confi-dent that these exchanges will reinforce cultural diversity;at the same time, one can hardly ignore that such exchangescontribute inescapably to the homogenization of culturesthroughout the world, as predicted by Lévi-Strauss in hisfamous pamphlet Race and history, published by UNESCOin 1952 (Lévi-Strauss 1952). 5 Secondly, by attributingspecial rights to minorities (ethnic, religious, subcultural,etc.), UNESCO hopes to bolster democracy (UNESCO2005: Preamble), forgetting that democracy is based on thedifficult art of arbitration, in which – as a rule – the major-ity’s decisions must prevail. Finally, the Organizationexpects to find ‘synergies’ between science and ‘tradi-tional’ or ‘local’ knowledge. I doubt that it would be prac-ticable, for instance, to reconcile all ‘traditional’ medicineswith Western scientific medicine, even if the New-Agerswould like to think so. I also doubt that one could recon-cile Darwinism with Biblical creationism, the latter beingdefended by some very active ‘cultural minorities’ whocould claim their right to safeguard their own secular tra-dition, by referring to the 2005 UNESCO Convention onthe Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of CulturalExpressions, insofar as this document recommends thatheritage should no longer be defined exclusively by statesor experts, but also by the ‘communities’ concerned.The most controversial of all these contradictions mani-fests itself in the hope of reconciling human rights andcultural rights. This hope seems to overlook the fact thatunconditional respect for all traditional knowledge and all cultural representations can lead, for example, to theencouragement of the oppression of women – forced mar-riages, genital mutilation, schoolgirls compelled to wear hijab – in ways which are often considered contrary to thehuman rights defended by UNESCO. In the British and UScourts, religion and culture have been invoked in mitigationfor acts of violence against women, with defence lawyersin murder trials referring to a defendant’s religious or cul-tural beliefs to explain why he was provoked by the actualor presumed sexual behaviour of a young woman in hisfamily (Good 2008, Philips 2003a, 2003b, Renteln 2004).At the very moment when UNESCO was celebratingthe diversity of cultural traditions, Austria was launchinga Network against Harmful Traditions (NAHT): those‘harmful traditions’ include honour crimes, forced mar-riage and female genital mutilation. UNESCO finallyacknowledged this problem, with the 2003 Conventionfor the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritagespecifying that ‘consideration will be given solely to suchintangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existinginternational human rights instruments, as well as withthe requirements of mutual respect among communities,groups and individuals’ (UNESCO 2003: Article 2). Thissuggests an opposition between ‘good heritage’ on the onehand and ‘bad heritage’ on the other, ‘good diversity’ and‘bad diversity’. But how can we distinguish between them?The sole yardstick envisaged by UNESCO is that of humanrights, which involves a Western axiological system. Thisyardstick had been put aside in the throes of post-colonialguilt; now it has been reintroduced in view of the problemsgenerated by multicultural axiology, conceived in order toexpiate the old sins of colonialism, imperialism, Westernethnocentrism and so forth. UNESCO has not yet foundany other means of solving the antinomies of its own ide-ology, which mirror those of the contemporary Western doxa concerning cultural diversity.Regardless of these contradictions, what strikes me inthe current UNESCO doctrine is its singular vision of human diversity, both biological and cultural. UNESCOclaims that the myths, beliefs, institutions, rituals, arte-facts and skills studied by anthropologists are analogousto living species (see Fog Olwig 2003). All existing forms – natural and cultural – should be permanent, preservedfor ever. To a prehistorian or a palaeontologist this stancemust seem perplexing. Almost nothing remains today of tens of thousands of Palaeolithic and Neolithic cultures, but the profusion of modern cultural diversity is still con-siderable. A palaeontologist can enumerate the massiveextinctions that have continuously punctuated the historyof life on Earth, periodically obliterating the majority of living forms, for example during the Permian-Triassictransition 252 million years ago, when 96 percent of allanimal species vanished definitively (Erwin 1994, Hallamand Wignall 1997, Gould and Eldredge 1977). Is naturenow less diverse because of this?Observed over the long term, the destruction of diversityappears to be a constant feature of the historical process.The same is true of the creation of new diversities, whichflourish in the place of the extinct ones. When observedover a short time-span, on the narrow scale of a human life,each extinction – natural or cultural – appears an unaccept-able loss, and it is easy to find support for our nostalgicdesire of preservation in an almost infinite number of rationales – aesthetic, scientific, moral, even expiatory. Nevertheless, we should not forget that the hope of stop- ping the flow of time, of resisting decay and extinction, of living in a world from which all conflicts will be bannedand in which all genuine human values will be combinedin a harmonious whole, is a yearning for the utopia of a perfect Entity – whether it be called earthly paradise, civi-lization, perpetual peace, universal brotherhood or sustain-able development. In the second half of the 20th centuryand at the beginning of the 21st century, UNESCO becameone of the main guardians of those soteriological expecta-tions. 6 Representations of human diversity continue to playa primary role in the doctrine created by the Organizationwhich endeavours to fulfil this soteriological mission. H A R U N Y A H Y A Fig. 6 .An illustration from thewebsite of Turkish creationist author Adnan Oktar: his books, published under the pen name Harun Yahya and financed bySaudi Arabia, can be found in Muslim bookshops throughout Europe. The 2005 UNESCOConvention on the Protectionand Promotion of the Diversityof Cultural Expressionsrecommends that heritage should no longer be defined exclusively by states or experts,but also by the ‘communities’ concerned. Should we then beconcerned to safeguard thecreationism defended by somevocal minorities which insist ontheir right to preserve their own secular tradition?
