SÃO PAULO - WORLD CULTURAL FORUM
2nd JULY, 2004
LECTURE 5 – LARGE AUDITORIUM
REJANE XAVIER
The first question that we face when considering the title of this lecture is really to define what values we are talking about. Economic value and cultural value are frequently placed in opposition to each other and the ‘mercantilization’ of culture has been seen as a threat in these times of accelerated globalization, when cultural production is increasingly thought of as merchandise that has to fit the same rules that apply to the international trade in goods and services.
(Representing the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP))
According to the old rule (‘the cultural good is that in which meaning is more important than usefulness’) today nearly all goods are ‘cultural goods’: the brand is worth more than the training shoe or the pair of jeans, the label is worth more than the spectacles, the design is worth more than the chair.
Prada shoes, with Burberry pattern
The first question that we face when considering the title of this lecture is really to define what values we are talking about. Economic value and cultural value are frequently placed in opposition to each other and the ‘mercantilization’ of culture has been seen as a threat in these times of accelerated globalization, when cultural production is increasingly thought of as merchandise that has to fit the same rules that apply to the international trade in goods and services.
The growing importance of cultural industries in an increasingly globalized marketplace is an unquestionable fact although it still creates doubts and conflicts of interest. On the one hand the ability of these industries to generate value, work and income is celebrated; on the other, fears are generated concerning their effects on traditional cultures and the pressures they exert on the creativity and freedom of artists.
Writers, musicians, cinematographers and painters justifiably aspire to seeing their work exhibited, recognized and well paid, and see in the cultural industry a chance of achieving these aspirations. However, they either refuse or are reluctant to make their art conform to the ‘rules of the marketplace’: producing a new record album every year, even when they have no new work ready; making films that the follow the dazzling action sequences of American cinema (we may consider here those wonderful Iranian films that the public often feels are ‘slow’ and ‘tedious’ because their ways of seeing and appreciating films have been moulded by Hollywood productions); producing paintings and sculptures adapted to western decorative taste, and writing novels following publishers’ models of best sellers.
Writers, musicians, cinematographers and painters justifiably aspire to seeing their work exhibited, recognized and well paid, and see in the cultural industry a chance of achieving these aspirations. However, they either refuse or are reluctant to make their art conform to the ‘rules of the marketplace’: producing a new record album every year, even when they have no new work ready; making films that the follow the dazzling action sequences of American cinema (we may consider here those wonderful Iranian films that the public often feels are ‘slow’ and ‘tedious’ because their ways of seeing and appreciating films have been moulded by Hollywood productions); producing paintings and sculptures adapted to western decorative taste, and writing novels following publishers’ models of best sellers.
It is about this tension between market value and cultural value that I would like to reflect, if possible broadening the scope of the analysis in order to bridge the contradiction between them without ignoring the differences and even the points at which occasionally their differences cannot be avoided.
Cultural Industry: The ‘Mercantilization’ of Culture
The concept of a ‘cultural industry’ was created by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, philosophers of the Frankfurt School in the 1940s within the framework of their critical theory of society, with its strongly anti-capitalist basis.
For these thinkers about culture and society, the production, circulation and consumption of cultural goods (in short, those in which meaning is more important than utility) were being inexorably submitted to the process of massification inherent in the logic of the capitalist economy. The technical capacity for reproduction has deprived the work of art of its ‘aura’, its unique character and its concrete presence in a specific time and place. Reproductions, records and prints are created, sold and consumed as merchandise and for this purpose need to become easily recognized and accepted by a wide spectrum of consumers. They no longer have the critical function of the work of art to provoke reflection, disquiet, a slight unease and the emergence of new forms of sensibility. They served only to entertain and to lull the senses of the masses, occupying their spare time with forms and contents that are analogous to those emerging from the time spent in the production process. Forcing workers to fit into the processes of massification to which they are being submitted becomes thus ‘natural’ and even agreeable.
Walter Benjamin, who was also connected to the Frankfurt school, introduced a rather less pessimistic view in relation to the concept of the cultural industry in that he also saw in this massification of cultural production and consumption, a chance for the masses to carry out a critical appropriation of this new cultural dynamic. The people would not be just defenceless objects to be manipulated, but rather the potential subjects of a critical process of liberation.
Today the concept of ‘cultural industry’ seems to have lost much of its critical impact, although intellectuals such as Hannah Arendt, Jürgen Habermas and Richard Sennet have taken up the idea again in the area of research centred around the concept of public space (or public sphere) in the construction of which the cultural dimension has a relevant role [1].
In its common usage, the term ‘cultural industry’ came to be used to refer to the field of cultural production, diffusion and fruition as economic processes without any greater concern for what differentiates and characterizes them as cultural processes. The creation of jobs and income, participation in the GDP, manpower training, finance, author’s rights and access to markets are the central and exclusive themes of a certain ‘economics of culture’ which is increasingly fashionable. If this gives some people the comfort of believing that at last the cultural area and they themselves are being allowed to enter into the category of things and people that must be taken seriously, it also ignores the specific nature of the cultural area which provides its social, political and also economic relevance. In this context, the balance between the value of use and the value of exchange of the cultural product swings decisively to the side of utility and the market, and away from meaning.
… and the Culturalization of the Market
When mentioning the theme of ‘cultural industries’, I wished at least to reaffirm the importance of some of the concerns central to the thought of the Frankfurt School, while disassociating them from the radical pessimism of Adorno and Horkheimer and from the somewhat Romantic optimism of Benjamin in terms of the redemptive power of the masses.
Today we are no longer living in the period in which this dilemma - culture or merchandise - carried such weight. Overcoming the contradiction was not achieved however - or was not exclusively achieved - by means of a critical appropriation on the part of the masses of the content and processes of the culture industry. Indeed it was capitalism itself that underwent a great change from the time of the Frankfurt School to ours. We no longer live in the industrial paradigm of mechanized large-scale production of mass consumer goods with low added value. From a time when mass production aimed to create, for good or ill, a mass market for its supply of unified products, we have arrived at a period of seeking niche markets, of market segmentation and of specific needs.
At the same time as there is a ‘mercantilization’ of culture, there is also a culturalization of the market. The trend of the world economy today is that manufactured goods rapidly become commodities whose material nature is not very important[2] : this material nature can be bought or it can be ordered from others who can produce it on a larger, more economic scale. Today we sell, rather than material things (a cup of coffee, a glass of champagne, a swimming costume or an item of sports equipment), the experiences symbolically associated with these things: the sophistication of French culture, the sensuality and relaxation of the people of Rio de Janeiro, the courage and endurance of an adventure in the jungle or the desert, etc.
According to the old rule (‘the cultural good is that in which meaning is more important than usefulness’) today nearly all goods are ‘cultural goods’: the brand is worth more than the training shoe or the pair of jeans, the label is worth more than the spectacles, the design is worth more than the chair. The association between value and use is often remote, arbitrary or even contradictory: advertising associates health and seduction with the cigarette that kills and prematurely ages, or competence and honesty with corrupt and incompetent political candidates….
In this new context, what new roles do cultural production and reception adopt? What new characteristics does capitalism try to create in the worker and the consumer? How is the relationship between culture and way of life reconstituted, how is the dialectic between diversity and universality articulated in the globalized world? How are meanings constructed and transmitted in modern society?
The Threatening Nature of Globalization
Our age is defined by the acceleration of processes of urbanization and globalization under the aegis of financial capital, on the crest of a technological and managerial revolution that is making production ever more inclusive of ‘intelligence’ and less of raw materials or unqualified human effort.
This change in the pattern of technology marginalizes those great numbers of people who, in the previous model of industry, constituted the unqualified reserves of manpower that are today dispensable and unwanted. The state is losing its economic function as a great accumulator of capital; its national character has become an obstacle to the unrestricted circulation of money; its role as a compensator of social inequality a hindrance to getting rid of antiquated industrial manpower, a process considered to be inevitable.
The globalised market, with its means of production and cultural distribution dominated by a small group of powerful actors, contains undeniable threats to the survival of traditional cultures. Many of these cultures, which nourish lifestyles alien to capitalist competition and its aggressive marketing mechanisms, run the risk of gradually being relegated to minority groups that are marginalized within the larger flow of ‘modernizing’ urbanization.
The appeal of progress, modernity and consumption seduce the young, and breaking cultural ties often seems to them the only way of gaining access to better paid work and chances for social advancement, individual recognition and political participation.
But the rate of growth of new knowledge and of the transmission of information, specialization in almost all areas, and movement of populations - from the country to the towns, from poorer to developed countries - create cultural, ethnic and linguistic ghettos at the heart of big cities while the economic and cultural gap between classes and nations increases.
The immense potential of this situation for frustration and uprooting can lead, as it has led, to an increase in poverty and exclusion, to loss of identity and to condemning large numbers of young people to crime, drugs and violence.
A personal experience of my own, during a visit to the Xingu national park in 1995, gives some idea of how the inevitable process of inclusion in the irreversible movement of economic and cultural globalization can upset traditional societies.
The indigenous groups in the Xingu have the best possible conditions in the modern world to preserve their traditional way of life. They have a large amount of territory and are protected from the more extreme predatory contact with surrounding society (for example: special permission from FUNAI - the federal body responsible for their protection - is required to visit the reservation). On the other hand, they want, and they know that they need, to become familiar with the culture of ‘the white man’: the reservation has medical aid posts, bilingual schools and access to radio and television.
Among the objects that are most valued for barter on the reservation (visitors may not use money but can exchange objects with the indians), were batteries - for torches but most of all for radios. The young people listen to the Brazilian Rádio Nacional and I heard them asking the radio commentator in our group to put announcements for them on the station’s lonely hearts programme: they wanted white girlfriends and gave Brazilian or even American pseudonyms (Jôni, Maiquel) to be used in the announcements.
The indigenous groups in the Xingu have the best possible conditions in the modern world to preserve their traditional way of life. They have a large amount of territory and are protected from the more extreme predatory contact with surrounding society (for example: special permission from FUNAI - the federal body responsible for their protection - is required to visit the reservation). On the other hand, they want, and they know that they need, to become familiar with the culture of ‘the white man’: the reservation has medical aid posts, bilingual schools and access to radio and television.
Among the objects that are most valued for barter on the reservation (visitors may not use money but can exchange objects with the indians), were batteries - for torches but most of all for radios. The young people listen to the Brazilian Rádio Nacional and I heard them asking the radio commentator in our group to put announcements for them on the station’s lonely hearts programme: they wanted white girlfriends and gave Brazilian or even American pseudonyms (Jôni, Maiquel) to be used in the announcements.
 |
| Takuman Photo: Carlos Caju da Silva/ Jeanette Johansen da Silva |
In the middle of the night, chief Takuman, the leader of the Kamaiurá people, came of his own accord to talk to me, worried about the education of the younger generation of his people. He recognized the importance of the schools; however he was fully aware of the impact of this ‘outside’ education on ancestral values and cultural practices. He told me how the boys today want to wear shoes and no longer had the same interest in the learning and practising the huka-huka, the traditional ritual fighting.
He said also that today the girls were ashamed of going naked ‘not only in front of white people but also in front of the men of the tribe’.
At that moment I felt all the perplexity of this visionary - a great statesman - concerning the future of his people. And he was talking from the cultural standpoint while the younger leaders were discussing with the authorities who were also present, material questions such as the demarcation of land and the invasions of gold prospectors.
 |
| Photo Sandra Zarur © |
Mudatis mutandis, are not all of us to a certain extent in the same situation, caught up in a global tidal wave which carries us all with it, destroying subtly or abruptly the cultural values of our own societies?
Another Story
But globalization does not only present threats to cultural diversity: it also offers new opportunities. A new horizon of possibilities is opening up with the affirmation of what is local and regional, along with the growing search for what is different and individual, for products, goods and services that embody concepts and values.
Technological progress has provided increased access to equipment in various areas of cultural production and has made channels of communication and divulgation quicker and more efficient. Knowledge and information are circulating with greater speed and freedom and, thanks to the networks of communication, go from local to global levels at a rate which until now was inconceivable.
In the political areas we can also see positive cultural changes[4]. We have undoubtedly seen an advance in democracy: the state is losing its monopoly of public affairs and the participation of society in managing public affairs has been increased. Private companies have taken on new social responsibilities and local communities and the Third Sector have become more significant at all levels, including control of the performance of public affairs.
A new consciousness of solidarity counterpoints the increase of individualism. Questions of the environment, mobilization in favour of the most varied questions of collective life - for example the activities of NGOs - active solidarity in relation to groups suffering from deprivation or discrimination, demonstrate the existence of forces capable of implanting a new type of inter-group cohesion that does not reduce everyone to the same pattern. Racism, sex discrimination, disrespect for the environment, inhuman working conditions, hunger and extreme poverty, even if they persist on a large scale, are becoming not only objects of moral and political condemnation, but also of increasingly wide-scale actions to combat and overcome them.
From this point of view, the culture industry should no longer be seen exclusively as a threat and should become a possible ally in the search for a new kind of globalization that does not exclude plurality. A sustainable globalization based not on hegemony and exclusion, but on a network of symbolic exchanges capable of generating economic value without destroying cultural values.
Globalization, Hegemony and Culture
The process of globalization has been intimately associated with the affirmation of the hegemony of a country or of a small group of countries over the rest of humanity. Felt by some to be a mere euphemism for ‘imperialism’, this concept of hegemony means however ‘more than mere leadership although less than just an empire’. ‘A hegemonic power is a state that manages to impose its set of rules on an international system and thus temporarily create a new political order… ensuring at the same time that it or its allies should benefit from certain economic advantages that do not derive from the market, but are obtained through political pressure’[5].
John Samuel Nye, an American authority on international affairs[6], points out three types of national power within the international context, or three dimensions of hegemony: military, economic and political-cultural.
The first type, military hegemony, is nowadays clearly one-sided, with the undeniable dominance of the United States over any other country or group of countries. The middle stage, that of economic hegemony, is many-sided, although extremely concentrated: the United States, Europe and Japan are responsible for two thirds of global production.
The third stage, the most basic, is the stage of so-called ‘soft power’[7], which deals above all with ‘winning hearts and minds’, that is, attracting people to the ideas, values, political behaviour and lifestyles which we practice and profess[8].
Although there are strong links between the three dimensions of power and although there always exists the possibility that this ‘soft power’ is being sought and exercised with the aim of strengthening and legitimizing the other two[9], it has certain characteristics that make it more open to a non-hegemonic appropriation.
Countries which are outside the centres of military or economic decision-making have difficulty in overcoming the distance that separates them from those at the centre. Nevertheless, cultural capital is still widely dispersed and involves a great variety of non-government actors. Exchanges depend on mechanisms of communication and interaction that operate to a great extent outside the sphere of the state, and involve non-government actors (NGOs, etc.); formal or informal, real or virtual networks of individual artists, thinkers, writers and individual producers; traditional or electronic means of communication.
Economic or military hegemony is essentially unstable. As Napoleon Bonaparte picturesquely liked to say: ‘it is possible to do anything with bayonets except sit on them’. In the field of economics, hegemonic globalization has produced such a degree of environmental destruction, concentration of wealth and knowledge and social exclusion that it obviously cannot continue at the current pace. In the area of culture and values it is possible on the other hand to create alliance and networks that will form a ‘sustainable globalization’ which will also be an inclusive one.
In this area we can imagine in some cases that have still to be identified the idea of a non-hegemonic globalization process which is able to operate according to its own logic. We are talking of a social movement with very strong roots whose increased integration does not threaten, but values and defends cultural plurality and variation. As a social movement, its strength comes from the recognition on the part of civil societies, of the legitimacy of its participants as representatives of national values and cultures, and of their capacity as cultural innovators to create new norms and new institutions that will allow resources to be channelled in a different way[10].
It is necessary to conquer and defend this area of symbolic exchanges, of the socialization of the multiple legacy of humanity’s cultural diversity, against its use in the service of the military and economic hegemonies.
The need to protect the world’s cultural diversity, supported by the UNDP, means that cultural goods should receive special treatment in commercial relationships and that national cultures should be encouraged, as a form of protection in the face of international competition. The Brazilian Minister of Culture, Gilberto Gil, has defended this position in various international meetings; the Deputy Minister, Juca Ferreira, defends the legitimacy of this protectionist policy and the favouring of cultural diversity, saying that it is “good for humanity as a whole. It would be terrible if, after so much human experience, almost all of this were thrown out as a result of the circumstances of economic monopoly”[11].
As we go beyond a purely defensive position, we have to actively promote and participate in the construction of meeting places and networks for cultural exchange in a pluralistic way that is not hegemonic and does not reduce everything to the same pattern, as is happening in this World Cultural Forum.
Aspects of the Cultural/Economic Relationship that are not Strongly Emphasized
Before finishing, I would like to mention certain aspects of the relationship between culture and economics that seldom appear in the statistics or in national figures but which are very important and have significant economic impacts.
Culture is the area where individual and social values have a special place in which to interact; it is where the individual meets the repertoire of symbols that allows him to express himself and be understood by others and where this common heritage of signs values, feelings and experiences is enriched and transformed through the contributions of individuals.
In a culturally vibrant society that encourages this critical link between the individual and the collective, people are happier. And happiness has a high economic value: it is reflected in better health, more education and security, a better preserved environment and greater productivity in the workplace. To give a small example: one of the conclusions of the PNAD[12] - 2001 in the area of education, was that children who live with their mother (even if she goes out to work or has a lower level of education) are on average a half year less disavantaged in terms of the age/grade relationship in school than other children[13]. In a country that has 36 million pupils in primary education, it is easy to calculate the savings that the happiness of these children represents!
From the opposite point of view, we might consider the situation of some groups of Guarani indians whose culture has been de-structured by predatory ‘integration’ with white society: the suicide rate, especially among the young, is it extremely high[14], which represents a complete loss of human and social potential[15].
From the opposite point of view, we might consider the situation of some groups of Guarani indians whose culture has been de-structured by predatory ‘integration’ with white society: the suicide rate, especially among the young, is it extremely high[14], which represents a complete loss of human and social potential[15].
In the case of the campaigns against AIDS in Brazil, the fact of avoiding the idea of blame and directing different messages to various cultural groups has been identified as one of the major factors in its success. And the country has thus saved billions of dollars in relation to pessimistic forecasts that claimed the disease would spread rapidly.
Culture is increasingly being recognized in the private sector also as a factor in the success of companies and of individuals. Entrepreneurialism, the willingness to accept risks, the social ability to associate competition with co-operation and sociability, are cultural characteristics that favour certain groups and regions and are greatly reinforced by other cultural factors such as belonging to clubs, music and dance groups, religious activities, etc. In addition to this, as we have already seen, a strong cultural identity is reflected in differentiated services and products which add economic value in a context of searching for what is authentic and unique.
More Visibility for the Importance of Culture in the Economy
An important task for managers in the area of culture throughout the world is to seek greater visibility for the presence of cultural activities in the economy as generators of jobs and income.
In large numbers of countries, cultural industries and other activities with a strong cultural frame of reference (such as handicrafts, cultural tourism and design) are not clearly identified in national financial statements. In Brazil for example, the publishing industry appears as a sub-sector within the graphical industry (which includes paper and cardboard packaging). The audio-visual and recording industries and radio and TV are not explicitly mentioned; the craft sector contains a mixture of popular art and mechanical workshops, sawmills and small dressmakers, etc. This means that neither those who are responsible for public accounts nor even the cultural managers themselves have a clear idea of the economic importance of culture. The institution of a ‘satellite cultural account’ within the national accounts is one hope for the sector and in Brazil this is beginning to take shape thanks to agreements between the Ministry of Culture and the government’s economic authorities.
On the other hand the international connections which are being sought in the area of culture cannot do without the creation of comparable data, statistics and historical records among the various countries and regional blocs. For this reason the collection and organization of these data should reflect a conceptual consensus – and base itself on common definitions and methodologies – a situation which is far from being achieved[16].
Once again, handicrafts can serve as an example: even within the European Union there has been a failure to agree on the scope of the term. There is no single concept, nor are there homogeneous criteria[17]. ‘Handicraft’ is confused with, or is often included in, wider concepts such as the craft industry/service, domestic industry and even small firms and individual and family firms. In some countries, such as France or Italy, the term ‘hand-made’ is associated with exclusivity, high-quality finishing or advanced design: a shoe, a piece of jewellery, an item of clothing or furniture, or a hand-made musical instrument is a luxury, something far superior to what can be produced industrially. In other places, perhaps the majority, ‘hand-made’ refers to that which is pre-industrial, which is produced by primitive methods in poor or rural communities, or by ethnic groups which are not well integrated into the predominant national culture. This means that when speaking of ‘handicraft’, each country is talking about different things: their data are not comparable and their policies do not have the same aims.
Conclusion
In the list of challenges faced by cultural agents and managers in this age of converging international relations, some of the items we have discussed here today definitely appear:
1. taking advantage of the opportunities that are opening up in the global economy for local and national cultural production;
2. giving more visibility to the presence of cultural activities in the economy (creating national satellite accounts for culture based on an agreed international basis, which would allow comparisons and the exchange of commensurable experiences;
3. demonstrating the centrality of culture in development policies and its ability to improve education, health, security and the preservation of the environment – as well as providing employment and income and adding value to countless other areas such as tourism and exports;
4. directing cultural policies towards social and political inclusion as well as race and gender equality;
5. encouraging world-wide cultural links seeking to affirm different cultural identities and to achieve exchanges between them;
6. defending, in international economic meetings, the idea of special treatment for cultural production with the aim of preserving its diversity.
In this meeting it was not my aim to present anything new, nor to suggest solutions for these or the other questions with which we who work in the area of culture, live from day to day. In this necessarily brief overview of some of the topics that interest us, I have merely wished, while keeping alive the flame of restlessness, to remind us all that by means of culture we still have the power to change the world for the better.
Rejane Xavier[18]
July, 2004
[1] N.G. Canclini, in Culturas Híbridas, São Paulo, EDUSP, 1997, emphasises the role of cultural industries in transforming the public space.
[2] Cf. Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access: The New Culture of Hypercapitalism, Where All of Life Is a Paid-For Experience, Putnam Publishing Group (April 1, 2000). The author emphasises the decline in the material nature of economic production in favour of the growth in the importance of the role of services and knowledge, where intangible ideas and expertise are the chief generators of wealth.
[3] Photo: Carlos Caju da Silva/Jeanette Johansen da Silva, at www.ngo.grida.no/.../ projects/caju/bilde2.htm
[4] See the interview “Novas formas de cidadania”, com Jean-Louis Laville and Roger Sue, at http://www.ambafrance.org.br/abr/label/Label39/dossier/10acteur.html
[5] Cf Niall Ferguson, “Hegemony or Empire?” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2003
[6] Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Director of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, was President of the National Intelligence Council and Assistance Secretary of Defence of the Clinton administration. He is the author of several books, among them, The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone and Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. Public Affairs will publish his next book, The Power Game, at the end of 2004. http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.jnye.dean.ksg/fullbio.html
[7] A concept developed by Nye at the end of the 80s, and the theme of his latest book, Soft Power: the Means to Success in World Politics, PublicAffairs, 2004.
[8] Pierre Bourdieu, with a different political vision and motivation, developed an analogous idea of ‘symbolic power’ (“Symbolic power : ... an almost magical kind of power which enables one to obtain the equivalent of what is obtained through force (whether physical or economic), by virtue of the specific effect of mobilization ....”.(see Pierre Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power, Harvard University Press, 1991, p. 170)
[9] Those of the stick (military) and of the carrot (economic). This is the use that interests Nye, who sees it as the most intelligent way to consolidate America’s hegemony (“smart power”).
[10] Cf. ALEXANDER, Jeffrey C. Ação Coletiva, Cultura e Sociedade Civil: “Secularização, atualização, inversão, revisão e deslocamento do modelo clássico dos movimentos sociais”. Rev. bras. Ci. Soc., June, 1998, vol.13, no.37, p.5-31. ISSN 0102-6909.
[11] Cf. Merval Pereira “O vasto mundo de Gil”, in O Globo newspaper – Rio de Janeiro, 16/07/2004 http://clipmail.interjornal.com.br/clipmail.kmf?clip=gl3y4ojz2f&palavra=PNUD#topo#topo
[12] Annual Sample Study of Households, a kind of sampling ‘mini-census’ carried out by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE)
[13] See Sérgio Guimarães Ferreira and Ricardo Montes de Moraes, Desempenho Educacional no Brasil: o que nos diz a PNAD-2001, at http://www.bndes.gov.br/conhecimento/informesf/inf_48.pdf
[14] This phenomenon also affects other indigenous groups: see Erthal, R., 2001. “O suicídio Tikúna no Alto Solimões: Uma expressão de conflitos”. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 17:299-311.
[15] See for example, Pimentel, Spensy O mistério dos suicídios, at
Also Rossato, Veronice Lovato Os resultados da escolarização entre os Kaiowá e Guarani no Mato Grosso do Sul, at http://www.imaginario.com.br/artigo/a0091_a0120/a0102-01.shtml
[16] See for example the work of Asta Manninen, Statistics in the Wake of Challenges Posed by Cultural Diversity in a Globalization Context, at http://www.colloque2002symposium.gouv.qc.ca/PDF/Manninen_paper_Symposium.pdf
[17] See the result of the European Community’s efforts to obtain basic statistical criteria in the study Methodology for the collection and grouping of statistical data on small craft businesses at http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/craft/craft-studies/documents/study-methodology-en.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment