:

DE sign:
(Deconstructing in-order to find new meanings)

A blogging space about my personal interests; was made during training in Stockholm #Young Leaders Visitors Program #Ylvp08 it developed into a social bookmarking blog.

I studied #Architecture; interested in #Design #Art #Education #Urban Design #Digital-media #social-media #Inhabited-Environments #Contemporary-Cultures #experimentation #networking #sustainability & more =)


Please Enjoy, feedback recommended.

p.s. sharing is usually out of interest not Blind praise.
This is neither sacred nor political.

Showing posts with label #Cultures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #Cultures. Show all posts

Friday, May 21

UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity

UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity

The General Conference,

Committed to the full implementation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other universally recognized legal instruments, such as the two International Covenants of 1966 relating respectively to civil and political rights and to economic, social and cultural rights,

Recalling that the Preamble to the Constitution of UNESCO affirms “that the wide diffusion of culture, and the education of humanity for justice and liberty and peace are indispensable to the dignity of man
and constitute a sacred duty which all the nations must fulfil in a spirit of mutual assistance and concern”,

Further recalling Article I of the Constitution, which assigns to UNESCO among other purposes that of recommending “such international agreements as may be necessary to promote the free flow of ideas by word and image”,

Referring to the provisions relating to cultural diversity and the exercise of cultural rights in the international instruments enacted by UNESCO,(1)

Reaffirming that culture should be regarded as the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs, (2)

Noting that culture is at the heart of contemporary debates about identity, social cohesion, and the development of a knowledge-based economy,

Affirming that respect for the diversity of cultures, tolerance, dialogue and cooperation, in a climate of mutual trust and understanding are among the best guarantees of international peace and security,

Aspiring to greater solidarity on the basis of recognition of cultural diversity, of awareness of the unity of humankind, and of the development of intercultural exchanges,

Considering that the process of globalization, facilitated by the rapid development of new information and communication technologies, though representing a challenge for cultural diversity, creates the conditions for renewed dialogue among cultures and civilizations,

Aware of the specific mandate which has been entrusted to UNESCO, within the United Nations system, to ensure the preservation and promotion of the fruitful diversity of cultures,

Proclaims the following principles and adopts the present Declaration:



IDENTITY, DIVERSITY AND PLURALISM

Article 1 – Cultural diversity: the common heritage of humanity


Culture takes diverse forms across time and space. This diversity is embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up humankind. As a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature. In this sense, it is the common heritage of humanity and should be recognized and affirmed for the benefit of present and future generations.

Article 2 – From cultural diversity to cultural pluralism

In our increasingly diverse societies, it is essential to ensure harmonious interaction among people and groups with plural, varied and dynamic cultural identities as well as their willingness to live together. Policies for the inclusion and participation of all citizens are guarantees of social cohesion, the vitality of civil society and peace. Thus defined, cultural pluralism gives policy expression to the reality of cultural diversity. Indissociable from a democratic framework, cultural pluralism is conducive to cultural exchange and to the flourishing of creative capacities that sustain public life.

Article 3 – Cultural diversity as a factor in development

Cultural diversity widens the range of options open to everyone; it is one of the roots of development, understood not simply in terms of economic growth, but also as a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence.

CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 4 – Human rights as guarantees of cultural diversity


The defence of cultural diversity is an ethical imperative, inseparable from respect for human dignity. It implies a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular the rights of persons belonging to minorities and those of indigenous peoples. No one may invoke cultural diversity to infringe upon human rights guaranteed by international law, nor to limit their scope.

Article 5 – Cultural rights as an enabling environment for cultural diversity

Cultural rights are an integral part of human rights, which are universal, indivisible and interdependent. The flourishing of creative diversity requires the full implementation of cultural rights as defined in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Articles 13 and 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. All persons have therefore the right to express themselves and to create and disseminate their work in the language of their choice, and particularly in their mother tongue; all persons are entitled to quality education and training that fully respect their cultural identity; and all persons have the right to participate in the cultural life of their choice and conduct their own cultural practices, subject to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Article 6 – Towards access for all to cultural diversity

While ensuring the free flow of ideas by word and image care should be exercised so that all cultures can express themselves and make themselves known. Freedom of expression, media pluralism, multilingualism, equal access to art and to scientific and technological knowledge, including in digital form, and the possibility for all cultures to have access to the means of expression and dissemination are the guarantees of cultural
diversity.


CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND CREATIVITY

Article 7 – Cultural heritage as the wellspring of creativity


Creation draws on the roots of cultural tradition, but flourishes in contact with other cultures. For this reason, heritage in all its forms must be preserved, enhanced and handed on to future generations as a record of human experience and aspirations, so as to foster creativity in all its diversity and to inspire genuine dialogue among cultures.

Article 8 – Cultural goods and services: commodities of a unique kind

In the face of present-day economic and technological change, opening up vast prospects for creation and innovation, particular attention must be paid to the diversity of the supply of creative work, to due recognition of the rights of authors and artists and to the specificity of cultural goods and services which, as vectors of identity, values and meaning, must not be treated as mere commodities or consumer goods.

Article 9 – Cultural policies as catalysts of creativity

While ensuring the free circulation of ideas and works, cultural policies must create conditions conducive to the production and dissemination of diversified cultural goods and services through cultural industries that have the means to assert themselves at the local and global level. It is for each State, with due regard to its international obligations, to define its cultural policy and to implement it through the means it considers fit, whether by operational support or appropriate regulations.

CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY


Article 10 – Strengthening capacities for creation and dissemination worldwide


In the face of current imbalances in flows and exchanges of cultural goods at the global level, it is necessary to reinforce international cooperation and solidarity aimed at enabling all countries, especially developing countries and countries in transition, to establish cultural industries that are viable and competitive at national and international level.

Article 11 – Building partnerships between the public sector, the private sector and civil society

Market forces alone cannot guarantee the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity, which is the key to sustainable human development. From this perspective, the pre-eminence of public policy, in partnership with the private sector and civil society, must be reaffirmed.

Article 12 – The role of UNESCO

UNESCO, by virtue of its mandate and functions, has the responsibility to:

(a) promote the incorporation of the principles set out in the present Declaration into the development strategies drawn up within the various intergovernmental bodies;

(b) serve as a reference point and a forum where States, international governmental and nongovernmental organizations, civil society and the private sector may join together in elaborating concepts, objectives and policies in favour of cultural diversity;

(c) pursue its activities in standard-setting, awareness raising and capacity-building in the areas related to the present Declaration within its fields of competence;

(d) facilitate the implementation of the Action Plan, the main lines of which are appended to the present Declaration.


(1) Including, in particular, the Florence Agreement of 1950 and its Nairobi Protocol of 1976, the Universal Copyright Convention of 1952, the Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Cooperation of 1966, the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property of 1970, the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972, the Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice of 1978, the Recommendation concerning the Status of the Artist of 1980, and the Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore of 1989.

(2) This definition is in line with the conclusions of the World Conference on Cultural Policies (MONDIACULT, Mexico City, 1982), of the World Commission on Culture and Development Our Creative Diversity, 1995), and of the Intergovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies for Development (Stockholm, 1998)



Annex II Main lines of an action plan for the implementation of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity


The Member States commit themselves to taking appropriate steps to disseminate widely the “UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity” and to encourage its effective application, in particular by cooperating with a view to achieving the following objectives:

1. Deepening the international debate on questions relating to cultural diversity, particularly in respect of its links with development and its impact on policy-making, at both national and international level; taking forward notably consideration of the advisability of an international legal instrument on cultural diversity.

2. Advancing in the definition of principles, standards and practices, on both the national and the international levels, as well as of awareness-raising modalities and patterns of cooperation, that are most conducive to the safeguarding and promotion of cultural diversity.

3. Fostering the exchange of knowledge and best practices in regard to cultural pluralism with a view to facilitating, in diversified societies, the inclusion and participation of persons and groups from varied cultural backgrounds.

4. Making further headway in understanding and clarifying the content of cultural rights as an integral part of human rights.

5. Safeguarding the linguistic heritage of humanity and giving support to expression, creation and dissemination in the greatest possible number of languages.

6. Encouraging linguistic diversity – while respecting the mother tongue – at all levels of education, wherever possible, and fostering the learning of several languages from the earliest age.

7. Promoting through education an awareness of the positive value of cultural diversity and improving to this end both curriculum design and teacher education.

8. Incorporating, where appropriate, traditional pedagogies into the education process with a view to preserving and making full use of culturally appropriate methods of communication and transmission of knowledge.

9. Encouraging “digital literacy” and ensuring greater mastery of the new information and communication technologies, which should be seen both as educational disciplines and as pedagogical tools capable of enhancing the effectiveness of educational services.

10. Promoting linguistic diversity in cyberspace and encouraging universal access through the global network to all information in the public domain.

11. Countering the digital divide, in close cooperation in relevant United Nations system organizations, by fostering access by the developing countries to the new technologies, by helping them to master information technologies and by facilitating the digital dissemination of endogenous cultural products and access by those
countries to the educational, cultural and scientific digital resources available worldwide.

12. Encouraging the production, safeguarding and dissemination of diversified contents in the media and global information networks and, to that end, promoting the role of public radio and television services in the development of audiovisual productions of good quality, in particular by fostering the establishment of cooperative mechanisms to facilitate their distribution.

13. Formulating policies and strategies for the preservation and enhancement of the cultural and natural heritage, notably the oral and intangible cultural heritage, and combating illicit traffic in cultural goods and services.

14. Respecting and protecting traditional knowledge, in particular that of indigenous peoples; recognizing the contribution of traditional knowledge, particularly with regard to environmental protection and the management
of natural resources, and fostering synergies between modern science and local knowledge.

15. Fostering the mobility of creators, artists, researchers, scientists and intellectuals and the development of international research programmes and partnerships, while striving to preserve and enhance the creative capacity of developing countries and countries in transition.

16. Ensuring protection of copyright and related rights in the interest of the development of contemporary creativity and fair remuneration for creative work, whileat the same time upholding a public right of access to culture, in accordance with Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

17. Assisting in the emergence or consolidation of cultural industries in the developing countries and countries in transition and, to this end, cooperating in the development of the necessary infrastructures and skills, fostering the emergence of viable local markets, and facilitating access for the cultural products of those countries to the global market and international distribution networks.

18. Developing cultural policies, including operational support arrangements and/or appropriate regulatory frameworks, designed to promote the principles enshrined in this Declaration, in accordance with the international obligations incumbent upon each State.

19. Involving the various sections of civil society closely in the framing of public policies aimed at safeguarding and promoting cultural diversity.

20. Recognizing and encouraging the contribution that the private sector can make to enhancing cultural diversity and facilitating, to that end, the establishment of forums for dialogue between the public sector and the private sector.

The Member States recommend that the Director- General take the objectives set forth in this Action Plan into account in the implementation of UNESCO’s programmes and communicate it to institutions of the United Nations system and to other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations concerned with a view to enhancing the synergy of actions in favour of cultural diversity.




Saturday, February 4

Circular Economy Congress Sessions ::: EU ::: Dec 2016 #SCEWC2016

City Debates at #SCEWC2016

Designing a Circular City


Inspirational Talk - Kent Larson. Towards Entrepreneurial, High-performance, Livable Cities



Published on Dec 14, 2016

Kent Larson will discuss the work of his research group to develop urban interventions that address the challenges of extreme urbanization and a rapidly changing global economy. His talk will focus on three current projects: CityScope, Persuasive Electric Vehicle (PEV) and CityHome project. He will also discuss Urban Living Lab collaborative projects in Hamburg, Andorra, and Cambridge.

INTRODUCE BY:
Christopher Swope
Managing Editor
Citiscope
Washington DC, United States of America


SPEAKER:
Kent Larson
Director, City Science Initiative and Changing Places Research Group MIT Media Lab
Cambridge, United States of America


New Plastics Economy in Cities


The Inclusive Economy



Dialogue Session - Cities Leading the World of Tomorrow



From Ownership to Service



Workshop - Circulab. Circular Economy Workshop




Wednesday, January 27

150 of AUB


"This College is for all conditions and classes of men, without regard to color, nationality, race or religion. A man, white, black, or yellow; Christian, Jew, Muhammedan or heathen, may enter and enjoy all the advantages of this institution... and go out believing in one God, in many Gods, or in no God. But it will be impossible for any one to continue with us long without knowing what we believe to be the truth and our reasons for that belief".
(at the laying of the cornerstone of the central building in 1871)

Dr. Daniel Bliss, Founding Father


"Founded in 1866, the American University of Beirut bases its educational philosophy, standards, and practices on the American liberal arts model of higher education. A teaching-centered research university, AUB has around 800 instructional faculty and a student body of around 8,000 students. The University encourages freedom of thought and expression and seeks to graduate men and women committed to creative and critical thinking, life-long learning, personal integrity, civic responsibility, and leadership."









The American University of Beirut launches its 150th anniversary celebrations and inaugurates its 16th President, Dr. Fadlo Khuri


"Inspirational addresses were given by distinguished speakers from the United States: Dr. Hussein Ibish of the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, DC; Dr. Elias R. Melhem, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine; Dr. Waun Ki Hong, former Head of the Division of Cancer Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas; and Dr. Ruth O’Regan, Division Head of Hematology/Oncology and Associate Director of Faculty  Development and Education at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center in Madison, Wisconsin.

Keynote speaker Bermans J. Iskandar, MD, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics and Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, Wisconsin spoke of education as the key, not just to individual success, but to the very survival of nations and civil society. “Today’s events are deep affirmations of faith, symbolizing a renewed commitment to Lebanon’s greatest resource--its people.” He advised the audience to  “…keep your focus on the goal of education as the equalizer and harmonizer…” The keynote speech was followed by a musical interlude and the official induction of President Fadlo R. Khuri by Chairman Philip S. Khoury.
With a nod to AUB’s milestone 150th anniversary, President Khuri’s inaugural address began with a description of his first 150 days in College Hall, during which he focused on “formulating an organic and inclusive vision of excellence and shared governance.”
Khuri asked the question “How will AUB continue to inspire current and future generations of smart and ambitious students?”  and committed to leading through example for the promotion of “a real and durable renaissance in the humanities in the Arab world”.

more (at) http://aub.edu.lb/news/2016/Pages/150-inauguration.aspx



"...it has brought students of all nationalities, religions, and backgrounds together in an atmosphere that fosters intellectual inquiry, mutual tolerance, and respect. A crossroads between East and West, AUB is a place where cultures meet and learn from each other.""
The Honorable George J. MitchellFormer Majority Leader, U.S. Senate

Sunday, October 4

Athens Democracy Forum 2015

Athens Democracy Forum 2015 http://athensdemocracyforum.com/ ENHANCING SOCIETY THROUGH BETTER GOVERNANCE

As the world lurches from crisis to crisis, democracy is under extreme pressure. From the rise of Islamist extremism and regimes in states that reject liberal democracy, to growing inequality and the rapid expansion of new technologies, democratic foundations are being threatened in a world where profound changes happen almost overnight. In this era of global uncertainty, these issues and more will frame the debate at the third, expanded Athens Democracy Forum (September 13-15). The event, hosted by the International New York Times and the United Nations Democracy Fund, takes place in Athens, Greece - a living showcase of democracy under extreme challenge as the nation once again goes to the polls on September 20.
Greece may be the birthplace of democracy but, in recent years, the nation has had its foundations shaken by a political, economic and social crisis that has threatened, at times, to tear Europe apart. And in other parts of the world, the Arab Spring, the Maidan protests in Ukraine, the political paralysis in the U.S. Congress, are testament to democracy under threat. 
Held to coincide with the UN International Day of Democracy, our annual forum brings together diplomats, scholars, corporate executives, politicians, thought-leaders, and journalists from around the world to discuss at the foot of the Acropolis the state of liberal democracies and the major challenges they face in the world today. 
In addition to the main conference on September 15, a rich program of affiliated events - including an international student debate at the Old Parliament; a Google Hangout featuring political activists under house arrest; and a symphonic visual concert by Rufus Wainwright at the awe-inspiring Odeon of Herodes Atticus - will also take place throughout the city.






Democracy Under Pressure

"Signs of democratic dysfunction are everywhere, from Athens to Ankara, Brussels to Brasília. In the United States, the federal government has shut down 12 times in the last 35 years. According to the political scientists Christopher Hare and Keith T. Poole, the two main American political parties are more polarized now than they have been at any time since the Civil War. Meanwhile, a Gallup tracking poll shows that trust in the presidency and in the Supreme Court stands at historic lows — while faith in Congress has plummeted so far that it is now in the single digits.
Some citizens of democracies have become so unhappy with their institutions that — according to disturbing new studies of public opinion around the world — they may be tempted to dispense with partisan politics altogether. Would it not be better to let the president make decisions without having to worry about Congress — or to entrust key decisions to unelected experts like the Federal Reserve and the Pentagon?

According to a growing share of Americans, the answer is yes. Back in 1995, the well-respected World Values Survey, which studies representative samples of citizens in almost 100 countries, asked Americans for the first time whether they approved of the idea of “having the army rule.” One in 15 agreed. Since then, that number has steadily grown, to one in six.
To be sure, that still leaves five out of six Americans who would rather not have a military coup. And of course, not every American who tells a pollster that he would rather have the army in charge would actually support a coup. But the willingness to countenance alternative forms of government, if only by a small minority, reveals a deep disillusionment with democracy, one that should concern everyone living in an advanced democracy, including those in Europe and Asia.
The generational differences are striking. When the World Values Survey asked Americans how important it was for them to live in a democracy, citizens born before World War II were the most adamant. On a scale of one to ten, 72 percent assigned living in a democracy a ten, the highest possible value. Among many of their children and grandchildren, however, democracy no longer commands the same devotion. A little over half of Americans born in the postwar boom gave maximum importance to living in a democracy. Among those born since the 1980s, less than 30 percent did.
Political scientists are well aware that poll after poll shows citizens to be more dissatisfied than in the past. Yet they resist the most straightforward conclusion: that people may be less supportive of democracy than they once were.
Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, for example, argue that expectations of citizens have grown rapidly in recent decades, leading to disappointment with the performance of individual politicians and particular governments. But while government legitimacy may have taken a hit, regime legitimacy — that is to say, faith in democracy as such — is as strong as ever, they say.
Worryingly, though, questions in the World Values Survey that directly speak to regime legitimacy no longer support that optimistic interpretation. In countries from the United States to Sweden, and from the Netherlands to Japan, citizens over the last three decades have become less likely to endorse the importance of democracy; less likely to express trust in democratic institutions; and less likely to reject nondemocratic alternatives.
This raises a question that would have seemed strange, even preposterous, to us until we started to embark on our current research: Could the political system in seemingly stable democracies like the United States be less imperturbable than meets the eye?
Scholars have long believed that democracies are stable once they have, in the words of Juan J. Linz and Alfred C. Stepan, become “the only game in town.” In such “consolidated” democracies, where an alternative system of government no longer seems like a possibility, an overwhelming majority of the citizens believes that the only legitimate form of government is democratic. Mainstream political actors refrain from subverting the rules of the democratic game for partisan advantage. And political forces that seek to dismantle the main aspects of the democratic system, like an independent judiciary, are weak or nonexistent.
Until recently, all of these statements described countries like the United States. Today, it is far from obvious that they still do.
It is not just that citizens like democracy less than they once did: Respect for the rules of the democratic game is also eroding. While most Americans still have a deep emotional attachment to the Constitution, the informal norms that have kept the system stable in the past are increasingly disregarded in political practice. Parliamentary procedures long reserved for extraordinary circumstances, for example, are used with stunning regularity. It is not uncommon to threaten impeachment, or to use the filibuster to block legislation — not because the bill is especially transformative, but simply because a legislative minority disagrees with it.
The rise of parties that are critical of key aspects of liberal democracy, like freedom of the press or minority rights, is even more disconcerting. Since the early 1990s, votes for populists have soared in most major Western democracies, whether the National Front in France or the People’s Party in Denmark.
It is no foregone conclusion that such parties will one day take over the government, nor that they would dismantle liberal democracy if they did. And most citizens say they still want to live in a democracy. But the democratic consensus is more brittle than it was. Scholars who long ago concluded that postwar Western democracies have “consolidated” must reckon with the possibility that a process of what we call “democratic deconsolidation” may be underway.
In our view, there are three main explanations for this development."
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/opinion/across-the-globe-a-growing-disillusionment-with-democracy.html

http://athensdemocracyforum.com/gallery/athens-democracy-forum-0/2014-videos/1006



















https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi-CMaS2NmYsEgpnfKNETb0DeJtXYx564




Published on Jul 20, 2015
(ITA subtitles.) After months of negotiations Greece reaches a bad agreement with Eurozone partners. What will happen now? Can Greece be a catalyst for a wider European mobilisation? With Costas Douzinas, Margarita Tsomou, Srecko Horvat, Jerome Roos. Hosts Lorenzo Marsili, artistic direction Berardo Carboni.




Uploaded on Nov 20, 2008
Introduction to Ancient Greek History (CLCV 205)

In this lecture, Professor Kagan describes the mechanics of the Delian League and its transformation into the Athenian empire. This transformation caused Athens to rival Sparta as an equal in power and prestige. He also argues that this process took place rather smoothly due to the good relations between Sparta and Athens. Professor Kagan argues that Cimon the Athenian generally played an important part in this development. Finally, Professor Kagan begins to describe the workings of Athenian democracy by comparing it with modern American democracy.

00:00 - Chapter 1. The Rise of the Athenian Empire (Cont.)
10:25 - Chapter 2. Competition for Power between Sparta and Athens
15:51 - Chapter 3. Cimon, His Popularity and Rise to Power
30:29 - Chapter 4. The Thasian Rebellion and the Eventual Removal of Cimon
42:59 - Chapter 5. A Fuller Athenian Democracy
55:12 - Chapter 6. Organization of Athenian Democracy: The Legislative
01:04:42 - Chapter 7. Organization of Athenian Democracy: The Executive

Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses

This course was recorded in Fall 2007.



Published on Nov 28, 2014
The government of the United States borrowed ideals from democratic rule in ancient Athens, Greece.



Published on Oct 3, 2014
Athenian democracy developed around the fifth century BC in the Greek city-state (known as a polis) of Athens, comprising the city of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica. Athens is one of the first known democracies. Other Greek cities set up democracies, most following the Athenian model, but none are as well-documented as Athens.
It was a system of direct democracy, in which participating citizens voted directly on legislation and executive bills. Participation was not open to all residents: to vote one had to be an adult, male citizen, and the number of these "varied between 30,000 and 50,000 out of a total population of around 250,000 to 300,000." At times, the opinion of voters could be strongly influenced by the political satire of the comic poets at the theatres.


This video is targeted to blind users.

Attribution:
Article text available under CC-BY-SA
Creative Commons image source in video