One view in archaeology today is that private citizens of any given country have an ethical responsibility to preserve the cultural heritage of all countries. The foundation for this view seems to be that cultural property protection requires a global effort. In 1970, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) codified this view through a resolution designed to control the transfer of cultural property between nations through the application of implementing legislation in member states. Indeed, the adherents of UNESCO 1970 would like to see a more global approach to this legislation. It is hard to deny that in the modern age we do see a dramatic increase in economic, political and social interaction between people of diverse national and social backgrounds which often is referred to as "globalization". The internet is a prime example of how globalization actually transcends nationalism. One would think that this might, by default, lead to the evolution of global ethics, but that seems not to be the case.
Oddly, those dealing directly with objects classified by UNESCO as "cultural property" often reject a global view of culture. Instead, they advocate retentionist laws and policies that promote nationalism rather than globalism. The fervor with which these cultural property nationalists press their agenda seems directly proportional to the rise of globalism in all other aspects of life. It seems incongruous that a nation like China, for example, should press for free trade of their export products and at the same time seek over-reaching restrictions on trade in former export products now deemed cultural property. It seems equally incongruous that a country like Cyprus can lay claim to everything ever made in the country's classical past, no matter where it is today or when it left Cyprus. Is it unethical for someone outside of Cyprus to possess such an object without the explicit written permission of the modern government of Cyprus?
Fortunately, ethics (being purely subjective) have nothing to do with the situation. Law and international agreements guide the actions of states and individuals. While some might wish for uniformity of law among nations, the inescapable fact is that one size does not fit all. Since the prospect of reaching any global consensus on cultural property law is remote, we all are bound by the jurisdictional codes of the place that we happen to be. Trying to shift the debate over cultural property control from a legal to an ethical framework is pointless. Instead, we ought to be looking for justice and ethics at the source of law. When cultural property nationalists eventually see that cultural isolation is neither possible nor advantageous, we will hopefully be able to get back to cooperative ventures that serve the global interests of cultural preservation.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I agree that greater distinction is needed between ethical and legal arguments. Regarding your question on Cyprus, I would say it is not by default unethical to have an item outside Cyprus in violation of that law. Anyone who would answer that question so easily in the other way has not thought much about ethics.
I disagree, however, that it is "pointless" to shift the debate from a legal to an ethical one. Only through meaningful discussion on what ethics are can we better understand the objective nature of them, and thus apply them to the formulation of laws. (That is to say, ethics develop subjectively, but then become something objectively measurable.)
I would also make a fine point that the Convention did not necessarily codify the view that "private citizens" should preserve global heritage, but instead that nations must (and the individual nations can, of course, make laws affecting the private citizen). This was one of the early shifts towards the nationalist framework in cultural property law that you and others decry.
Final note, I will mention that my article on ethics in the auction industry actually finds that they might follow less unenforceable foreign patrimony laws, so an ethical discussion does not necessarily work to a pro-trade disadvantage. Ethics in cultural property is my favored area, so I will look to see more from you on the subject.
Thank you Kimberly;
Your point that ethics develop subjectively, but then become objectively measurable, is well taken. I would agree that this is, in a free society, the normal flow. My consternation arises from the fact that subjective ethical considerations have become the basis for a view that some archaeologists would have collectors espouse as doctrine. These ethical points have not, in the United States, been raised to the level of objective measurements through codification. It is not that archaeologists have failed to try, in fact they have tried with great fervor. The reason that it took 13 years to pass the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act is that the ethics of those who created or endorsed UNESCO 1970 were not universally accepted. CPIA is, like many good laws, a balance of societal interests. Since then, the failure in committee of several legislative proposals inspired by the archaeological community illustrates that their views remain outside the mainstream. The point of irritation for collectors today is that CPIA has been subverted by bureaucratic activism and no longer is enforced fairly under the letter and intent of those who wisely crafted it.
The cultural property debate could very well be carried on in an "ethical" mode, that would, as you say, provide the resource for good legislation if such became necessary. That is not the point of concern for collectors. Our dilemma is that while we discuss ethics, our adversaries in this debate press for changes of substance, i.e. law or its application, based not on the debate, but on their ideology. This places us immediately in a defensive posture. The more successful they become, the more polarized the issue becomes and the more aggressive we become in our defense, until it becomes a case where offense is the best defense.
I think we should not lose sight of the fact that in 1970 the world was not embracing globalization. The mindset of those who designed UNESCO 1970 could never have found equivalent widespread support for nationalism today. I was in my late 20s when the UNESCO resolution was passed, and old enough by then to understand a bit about the nature of world politics. I could never have foreseen then the changes that we accept naturally today. In the case of cultural property control, the nationalists are really out of step with the rest of the world. How these nationalists captured the minds and hearts of archaeologists is a mystery to me. Archaeologists, it seems, have one overriding problem—-site looting and see every other issue or interest in the world as incidental.
In the final analysis, law is what matters. We must all live under the law as it applies to us. The law in the United States concerning cultural property protection is fair and I support it as written, the ACCG supports it. The bureaucratic interpretation and application of that law is a horse of another color that will ultimately be decided by a court of proper jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the opportunity for ethical debate is clouded by the realities of perception. As long as collectors, as a group, feel threatened there will be adversarial reaction. If it were not me, rest assured that it would be someone else.
My personal view on ethics is that each of us has an ethical responsibility to preserve knowledge and search for truth. I have known a good many collectors in my 40+ years in the ancient coin field and I am proud to say that, by my definition, their ethical standards are extremely high. Though often belittled for a lack of suitable "credentials", many of these collectors are world leaders in fields of great respect and achievement. To marginalize their avocational contributions because they are not academically affiliated is not only unjust, it is ignorant. The whole concept of "stewardship" is flawed. We all own the past and we all have equal right to it both philosophically and materially. Society may mandate that certain objects belong to the "People", but mandating that the people cannot freely access the past in all but these truly special situations is totalitarian. I see no ethical dilemma in private citizens searching for, finding and owning objects of historical interest. Any law that preempts that freedom is in my view unethical and draconian. Indeed, we tend to find such draconian laws in countries where civil liberties are are widely ignored. So what is ethical? It really doesn't matter, because an ethical debate rarely becomes the basis for law under repressive governments anyway.
Regards,
Wayne
Very interesting!!!
I am fascinated about coin collecting and love to watch shows about new discoveries...Thanks!
fascinating!
I especially appreciate the debate within this comments section.
Post a Comment