Can Culture Be Copyrighted?

Cu r r en t An t h r o po l o g y Vol ume 39, Number 2, Apri l 1998
1998 by The Wenner-Gren Foundati on for Anthropol ogi cal Research. Al l ri ghts reserved 0011-3204/ 98/ 3902-0002$2.50
Someti mes profound changes i n the Zei tgei st reveal
themsel ves i n smal l ways, l i ke the rst ti mi d shoots of
an oak seedl i ng before i t haul s i tsel f skyward. For me,
Can Cul ture Be
an arti cl e i n the monthl y New England Archivists
Newsletter, a publ i cati on presumabl y unfami l i ar to
Copyri ghted?
1
most anthropol ogi sts, si gnal ed a potenti al l y momen-
tous change i n the future of our di sci pl i ne. The arti cl e,
wri tten by El i zabeth Sandager of Harvards Peabody
Museum, descri bes a si tuati on common to museums
Mi chael F. Brown
and archi ves i n the Uni ted States: the museums staff
di scovered i n i ts col l ecti on several drawi ngs of Navajo
dry pai nti ngs (referred to i n the arti cl e as earth i m-
ages) made by the anthropol ogi st A. M. Tozzer earl y i n
The di gi tal revol uti on has dramati cal l y i ncreased the abi l i ty of i n- thi s century. Aware that the ori gi nal i mages on whi ch
di vi dual s and corporati ons to appropri ate and prot from the cul -
Tozzer based hi s sketches are tradi ti onal l y destroyed at
tural knowl edge of i ndi genous peopl es, whi ch i s l argel y unpro-
the end of Navajo heal i ng ri tual s, the Peabody staff wor-
tected by exi sti ng i ntel l ectual property l aw. In response, l egal
ri es that the drawi ngs conti nued presence i n the col l ec-
schol ars, anthropol ogi sts, and nati ve acti vi sts now propose new
l egal regi mes desi gned to defend i ndi genous cul tures by radi cal l y ti on consti tutes a form of di srespect. Worse sti l l , the
expandi ng the noti on of copyri ght. Unfortunatel y, these propos-
drawi ngs coul d have come as the resul t of a vi ol ati on of
al s are often i nformed by romanti c assumpti ons that i gnore the
contemporary pri vacy norms (Sandager 1994:5):
broader cri si s of i ntel l ectual property and the al ready i mperi l ed
status of the publ i c domai n. Thi s essay offers a skepti cal assess-
Everythi ng that happens i n ceremony i s pri vy onl y ment of l egal schemes to control cul tural appropri ati on i n par-
ti cul ar, proposal s that i ndi genous peopl es shoul d be permi tted to to those who are parti ci pants i n the ceremony: the
copyri ght i deas rather than thei r tangi bl e expressi on and that
si nger, the assi stants, the sponsor, the fami l y, and
such protecti ons shoul d exi st i n perpetui ty. Al so exami ned i s the
the pati ent. . . . We are attempti ng to determi ne the
pronounced tendency of i ntel l ectual property debate to preempt
ci rcumstances under whi ch these earth i mage recon-
urgentl y needed reecti on on the pol i ti cal vi abi l i ty of speci al -
ri ghts regi mes i n pl ural i st democraci es and on the appropri ate- structi ons were created, and whether pri vacy was
ness of usi ng copyri ght l aw to enforce respect for other cul tures.
breached. . . . Even though Tozzer di d not descri be
the ci rcumstances under whi ch the reconstructi ons
mi c h a el f . br o wn i s the James N. Lambert Professor of An-
were created, i t shoul d not be assumed that they
thropol ogy and Lati n Ameri can Studi es at Wi l l i ams Col l ege. Edu-
were created surrepti ti ousl y. On the other hand, i f
cated at Pri nceton Uni versi ty (A.B., 1972) and the Uni versi ty of
they were, there remai ns the possi bi l i ty of a seri ous
Mi chi gan (Ph.D., 1981), Brown has taught at Wi l l i ams si nce
breach of pri vacy. 1980. Hi s research i nterests i ncl ude ri tual and rel i gi on, human
ecol ogy, economi c devel opment, and emergi ng forms of i ndi ge-
nous i denti ty. He i s the author of three books about Amazoni an
Because the Tozzer materi al i s i n a poor state of conser-
Indi ans, most recentl y War of Shadows: The Struggle for Utopia
vati on, Sandager expl ai ns, the museum i s seeki ng the
in the Peruvian Amazon (Berkel ey: Uni versi ty of Cal i forni a
advi ce of Navajo consul tants before deci di ng whether
Press, 1991), coauthored wi th Eduardo Fernandez. Browns ethno-
graphi c research among Ameri can spi ri t-medi ums, descri bed i n the drawi ngs shoul d be restored or, she i mpl i es, qui etl y
The Channeling Zone: American Spirituality in an Anxious Age
al l owed to decompose. Sandager presents thi s case as an
(Cambri dge: Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1997), l ed to hi s current
exampl e of the responsi bi l i ty of professi onal archi vi sts
i nterest i n cul tural appropri ati on and proposed schemes to con-
to consi der whether we are vi ol ati ng the pri vacy of the
trol i t. The present paper was submi tted 14 iv 97 and accepted
affected tri be(s) by provi di ng unrestri cted access to doc- 7 vii 97; the nal versi on reached the Edi tors ofce 12 ix 97.
uments descri bi ng tradi ti onal bel i efs and ceremoni es
(p. 5).
Sandagers thoughtful reecti ons rai se a host of com-
pl ex i ssues: research ethi cs and the nature of i nformed
consent, respect for rel i gi ous bel i efs, and concepts of
ownershi p at a ti me when i ndi genous i ntel l ectual prop-
erty ri ghts are the focus of l i vel y i nternati onal debate.
Al though her arti cl e asks vi tal questi ons, i t conspi cu-
ousl y evades others. If the Tozzer papers are found to be
1. My research on copyri ght and cul tural appropri ati on was made
objecti onabl e, for i nstance, shoul d they not be sum-
possi bl e by the nanci al support of Harry C. Payne, presi dent of
mari l y destroyed rather than si mpl y al l owed to bi ode-
Wi l l i ams Col l ege, and by the Franci s C. Oakl ey Center for the Hu-
grade? She menti ons that the drawi ngs have l ong si nce
mani ti es and Soci al Sci ences. Col l eagues ki nd enough to comment
been publ i shed i n a book. If a l ogi c of ethi cal quaranti ne
upon an earl i er draft i ncl ude Syl vi a Kenni ck Brown, Davi d B. Ed-
wards, Eduardo Fernandez, Jonathan Haas, John P. Homi ak, Gary
appl i es to the drawi ngs, then why not to al l known cop-
J. Jacobsohn, Wi l l i am L. Merri l l , Mol l y H. Mul l i n, Sydel Si l verman,
i es of the book, whi ch i s, after al l , more readi l y avai l -
Mark C. Tayl or, and Al an Wol fe. Two anonymous revi ewers al so
abl e to the general publ i c?
provi ded many hel pful suggesti ons. Because some of these readers
Then there i s the questi on of pri vacy. In Angl o-Amer-
vi gorousl y di spute the anal ysi s offered here, my thanks for thei r
hel p i n no way i mpl i es thei r endorsement of my opi ni ons. i can l aw, pri vacy ri ghts cease or become si gni cantl y
193
194 c u r r e n t a n t h r o po l o g y Volume 39, Number 2, April 1998
attenuated when i ndi vi dual s di e. Because Tozzer con- deal i ng wi th rel i gi ous matters. Chai rman Masayesva
addi ti onal l y requests the i mmedi ate cl osi ng of these ducted hi s el d research at the turn of the century, i t i s
unl i kel y that any of the pri nci pal s are al i ve today. In records to anyone who has not recei ved wri tten authori -
zati on from the Hopi Tri be. Thi s request, he adds, i s what sense, then, does the presence of Tozzers notes
and drawi ngs i n the Peabody col l ecti on vi ol ate i ndi vi d- meant to address the l ast mi nute rush by researchers
to access Hopi i nformati on and col l ecti ons before they ual pri vacy? Or do nati ve soci eti es enjoy an i mpl i ci t
ri ght of collectivepri vacy to whi ch the museum shoul d are decl ared off l i mi ts or are actual l y repatri ated back
to the tri be. (For a l onger excerpt from the l etter, see be attenti ve, a si tuati on i mpl i ed by Sandagers stated
concern for the pri vacy of the affected tri be(s)? Haas 1996:S4.) The Hopi i ni ti ati ve was soon fol l owed
by a decl arati on i ssued by a consorti um of Apache tri bes Fi nal l y, what of the ri ghts of A. M. Tozzer, who pre-
sumabl y bequeathed hi s el dnotes to the Peabody on demandi ng excl usi ve deci si on-maki ng power and con-
trol over Apache cul tural property, here dened as the assumpti on that i t woul d curate them and make
them avai l abl e to researchers? Woul dnt the Peabodys al l i mages, text, ceremoni es, musi c, songs, stori es,
symbol s, bel i efs, customs, i deas and other physi cal and deci si on to l i mi t access to these materi al s or knowi ngl y
permi t thei r deteri orati on vi ol ate the museums du- spi ri tual objects and concepts rel ati ng to the Apache,
i ncl udi ng any representati ons of Apache cul ture offered ci ary responsi bi l i ty to Tozzer and to hi s descendants?
After al l , had Tozzer known that such a fate coul d befal l by Apache or non-Apache peopl e (Inter-Apache Summi t
on Repatri ati on 1995:3). Thi s broad deni ti on of cul - the record of hi s l i fes work, he mi ght wel l have taken
hi s col l ecti on el sewhere. Coul d thi s act of passi ve cura- tural property presumabl y encompasses ethnographi c
el dnotes, feature l ms (e.g., John Fords Fort Apache), tori al destructi on l ead future donors to bypass publ i c re-
posi tori es i n favor of pri vate col l ectors, thereby contri b- hi stori cal works, and any other medi um i n whi ch
Apache cul tural practi ces appear, whether presented l i t- uti ng to the pri vati zati on of the human cul tural record?
As Sandagers arti cl e makes cl ear, archi vi sts and cura- eral l y or as i magi nati ve, expressi oni sti c, or parodi c em-
bel l i shments of concepts wi th whi ch Apache i denti fy. tors routi nel y confront an ever-wi deni ng seri es of di -
l emmas i n the wake of the Nati ve Ameri can Graves The recent hi story of rel ati ons between Indi an tri bes
and major Angl o-Ameri can i nsti tuti ons, i ncl udi ng the Protecti on and Repatri ati on Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, ar-
guabl y the most i mportant pi ece of museum-rel ated federal government, suggests that these encycl opedi c
demands represent an openi ng gambi t i n what are l i kel y l egi sl ati on i n Ameri can hi story. NAGPRA establ i shes a
l egal framework for repatri ati ng human remai ns and ri t- to be protracted di scussi ons. The Hopi and Apache dec-
l arati ons echo si mi l ar mani festos from other parts of ual objects to Indi an tri bes that request them, provi ded
that cl ai mants can substanti ate di rect descent or, i n the the worl d, i ncl udi ng South Ameri ca, Austral i a, and the
Paci c.
3
Cl earl y, a profound shi ft i n the way we concep- case of objects, pri or ownershi p. The i mpl ementati on of
thi s l egi sl ati on, whi ch i mposed substanti al admi ni stra- tual i ze and contest cul tural i nformati on i s under way.
The assumpti ons that i nform thi s emergi ng perspecti ve ti ve burdens and was i n some quarters regarded as di sas-
trous for the future of Ameri can museums, has now be- can be summari zed as fol l ows:
1. An ethni c nati on a peopl e, i n other words can come a routi ne part of museum practi ce. In fact, many
curators hai l i t as the rst step i n a hi stori c reconci l i a- be sai d to have enduri ng, comprehensi ve ri ghts i n i ts
own cul tural producti ons and i deas. These i ncl ude the ti on between nati ve peopl es and museums, a process
that may l ead to new and rewardi ng partnershi ps.
2
ri ght to exerci se total control over the representati on of
such producti ons and i deas by outsi ders, even i n the l at- Few anthropol ogi sts woul d today questi on the l egi ti -
macy of the nati ve cl ai ms that l i e at the heart of NAG- ters personal memoi rs, drawi ngs, and cti onal cre-
ati ons. PRA. The outer boundari es of the l aw, however, remai n
vague. Al though for the purposes of NAGPRA cul tural 2. A groups rel ati onshi p to i ts cul tural producti ons
consti tutes a form of ownershi p. Thi s ownershi p may patri mony refers sol el y to objects, the l aw sets the
stage for comprehensi ve asserti ons of control over cul - be l i teral that i s, based on some comprehensi ve de-
ni ti on of cul tural or i ntel l ectual property or meta- tural records currentl y excl uded from consi derati on. In
a l etter sent to a number of museums i n 1994, Vernon phori cal , reecti ng uni versal recogni ti on that i n moral
terms a group owns the i deas and practi ces that i t Masayesva, chai rman and CEO of the Hopi Tri be, for-
mal l y states the tri bes i nterest i n al l publ i shed or un- hol ds dear.
3. Cul tural i nformati on pertai ni ng to ethni c mi nori - publ i shed el d data rel ati ng to the Hopi , i ncl udi ng
notes, drawi ngs, and photographs, parti cul arl y those ti es that was gathered i n the past by anthropol ogi sts,
mi ssi onari es, government admi ni strators, l mmakers,
and novel i sts i s by deni ti on so contami nated by the
2. The l i terature on NAGPRA i s too vast to i nventory i n thi s essay.
real i ti es of col oni al power that i t cannot meet (todays)
Parti cul arl y i nstructi ve, however, i s the ri chl y detai l ed study of
a si ngl e hi gh-prol e repatri ati on case offered by Merri l l , Ladd,
and Ferguson (1993). Other useful essays on the appl i cati on of 3. Promi nent exampl es i ncl ude the Mataatua Decl arati on (1993),
the Jul ayi nbul Statement on Indi genous Intel l ectual Property NAGPRA can be found i n Zi ff and Rao (1997); i ts l egal ambi gui ti es
are expl ored i n DuBoff (1992). For an el egant study of the di fcul ty Ri ghts (1993), and the Suva Decl arati on (1995). Copi es of these
documents can be found at http://www.i ci p.l awnet.com.au/ of reconci l i ng Angl o-Ameri can noti ons of i ntel l ectual property
wi th those of a Nati ve Ameri can peopl e, see Greene and Drescher i nfo6.htm as wel l as other on-l i ne si tes devoted to i ndi genous and
human-ri ghts i ssues. (1994).
b r o w n Can Culture Be Copyrighted? 195
standards of i nformed consent. Thi s i nformati on may the practi cal real i ti es of cul tural creati vi ty, i nformati on
storage and transfer, the ui di ty of ethni c boundari es, therefore be quaranti ned or subjected to severe access
restri cti ons when and i f i ts subjects deem i ts presence and the l i mi tati ons of judi ci al process i n devel oped and
devel opi ng nati ons al i ke. i n the publ i c domai n offensi ve.
In thi s essay, I undertake a cri ti cal exami nati on of
these assumpti ons wi th the goal of broadeni ng the
scope of debate about the status of i ndi genous cul tural Cul tural and Intel l ectual Property:
and i ntel l ectual property ri ghts. My skepti cal i nterven-
Basi c Concepts
ti on i s moti vated by a bel i ef that current thi nki ng on
these i ssues has been dangerousl y narrow, marked more
The majori ty of anthropol ogi cal research on i ssues of
by passi onate advocacy than by sustai ned reecti on on
i ntel l ectual property confronts the appropri ati on of i n-
the broader i ssues at stake i n devel opi ng ethi cal stan-
di genous knowl edge for commerci al purposes, usual l y
dards and l egi sl ati ve mechani sms that i mpose new l i m-
by transnati onal corporati ons. Case studi es have docu-
i ts on the free exchange of i nformati on i n the name of
mented the acqui si ti on of nati ve crop vari eti es for the
protecti ng ethni c mi nori ti es.
geneti c i mprovement of seeds, the transformati on of
In frami ng my anal ysi s, I use the recent work of the
tradi ti onal herbal medi ci nes i nto marketabl e drugs by
soci ol ogi st Al an Wol fe (1996) as a touchstone. Wol fe ar-
pharmaceuti cal rms, the i ncorporati on of i ndi genous
gues that the Ameri can tradi ti on of soci al cri ti ci sm has
graphi c desi gns i nto consumer goods wi thout the per-
decl i ned i n the past three decades because of the ascent
mi ssi on of nati ve arti sts, the expl oi tati on of i ndi genous
of a brand of romanti ci sm based on a dream of utopi an
musi c by record compani es, and the col l ecti on of DNA
authenti ci ty. The goal s of todays romanti c soci al cri t-
from i sol ated human popul ati ons for medi cal uses yet
i cs, among whom cul tural anthropol ogi sts stand out i n
to be determi ned.
5
Al though these cases rai se compl ex
di sproporti onate numbers, are mani festl y therapeuti c:
di l emmas at the margi ns, most are fai rl y cut-and-dri ed.
they want thei r subjects to be empowered or even
Commerci al i nterests from the devel oped worl d pros-
heal ed. They cel ebrate resi stance, rebel l i on, and devi -
pect for i nformati on avai l abl e i n the unprotected publ i c
ance among soci al others even when, i n thei r own
domai n of i ndi genous soci eti es. Then, by i nvoki ng pre-
mi ddl e-cl ass nei ghborhoods and pl aces of empl oyment,
vai l i ng l aw, they sequester the i nformati on i n the pro-
they are l i kel y to advocate ever stri cter forms of proce-
tected, pri vate real m of copyri ghts and patents, where
dural i sm. The troubl e wi th romanti c cri ti ci sm, Wol fe
i t becomes a monopol y from whi ch they al one prot.
argues, i s that i t si mpl y fai l s to persuade a l arge publ i c
The probl em i s easy to i denti fy, but, gi ven the compl ex-
audi ence. Romanti c cri ti ci sm grati es the wri ters
i ti es of i nternati onal l aw and the pol i ti cal l y margi nal
sense of moral worth but can offer onl y utopi an l ong-
status of many of the i ndi genous peopl es di rectl y af-
i ngs that ul ti matel y have no cri ti cal edge (Wol fe 1996:
fected, effecti ve sol uti ons are another matter. Never-
39). The al ternati ve i s a return to a real i st perspecti ve
thel ess, there are encouragi ng si gns that major i nsti tu-
that approaches soci al probl ems i n al l thei r ambi gui ty
ti ons i n the Uni ted States and el sewhere are prepari ng
and nuance, confronti ng squarel y the tragi c contradi c-
to consi der appropri ate remedi es.
6
ti ons that i nevi tabl y ari se i n the everyday l i fe of pl ural -
These cases are made reasonabl y strai ghtforward by
i st soci eti es.
the si mpl e fact that the pri mary i ssues are mercanti l e:
As I wi l l argue, the debate over i ntangi bl e cul tural
the nati ve peopl es whose i ntel l ectual property i s bei ng
property as i t has been conducted by anthropol ogi sts, l e-
rai ded seek thei r fai r share of any prots. Here the econ-
gal schol ars, and i ndi genous acti vi sts has tended toward
omy of i nformati on can be regarded not as a zero-sum
a pol emi cal romanti ci sm that produces memorabl e
game, i n whi ch one persons l oss i s anothers gai n, but
bumper-sti cker sl ogans (Gi ve the nati ves thei r cul ture
as a process by whi ch resources can be propagated to
back!) but l i ttl e i n the way of sober reecti on on the
everyones benet.
di fcul t bal anci ng act requi red to formul ate pol i ci es
Before pursui ng the broader i mpl i cati ons of thi s qual -
that provi de reasonabl e protecti on for mi nori ty popul a-
i ty of i nformati on, l et me revi ew the basi c rati onal e for
ti ons whi l e mai ntai ni ng the ow of i nformati on essen-
i ntel l ectual property l aw. Lawmakers have l ong recog-
ti al to l i beral democracy.
4
In parti cul ar, a narrow focus
ni zed an i mpl i ci t tensi on between the need to protect
on i ndi genous ri ghts bl i nds soci al cri ti cs to the broader
a broad and l i vel y domai n of publ i c di scussi on and the
i mpl i cati ons of the novel forms of cul tural protecti on
that some are enthusi asti cal l y endorsi ng. For thi nki ng
5. Key sources on the expl oi tati on of i ndi genous bi ol ogi cal knowl -
on i ndi genous cul tural and i ntel l ectual property to be
edge and resources i ncl ude Brush (1993), Cl evel and and Murray
effecti ve for pol i cy-maki ng purposes, i t must be not
(1997), Cultural Survival (1996), Greaves (1994), and Posey and
onl y ethi cal l y sound but al so thoroughl y grounded i n
Dutel d (1996). Works that address the appropri ati on of i ndi genous
art and musi c i ncl ude Fel d (1994, 1996), Gol van (1992), Pask (1993),
Seeger (1996), and Zemp (1996). 4. Al though I di sti ngui sh between anthropol ogi sts and i ndi genous
acti vi sts here and el sewhere, I recogni ze that nati ve peopl es are a 6. See Gri fo (1994) for a bri ef overvi ew of a bi oprospecti ng program,
parti al l y funded by the Nati onal Insti tutes of Heal th, that has i m- growi ng and wel come presence i n anthropol ogy. Some coni ct be-
tween these two rol es seems i nevi tabl e, however, because the di s- pl emented pl ans to guarantee compensati on for nati ve communi -
ti es whose ethnobotani cal knowl edge l eads to the di scovery of ci pl i ne of anthropol ogy i s predi cated on a global, comparativeper-
specti ve rather than on a parti cul ar one. marketabl e drugs.
creati on of i nsti tuti ons that woul d foster creati vi ty by the scope of the publ i c domai n. Rosemary Coombe, a
shrewd cri ti c of prevai l i ng i ntel l ectual property l aw, obal l owi ng wri ters, musi ci ans, and i nventors to prot
from thei r works. The author, wri tes James Boyl e, a serves that a key characteri sti c of postmodern cul ture
i s the growi ng i nuence of commodi ed symbol s i n ev- l aw professor and an expert on i ntel l ectual property,
stands between the publ i c and pri vate real ms, gi vi ng eryday thought and pol i ti cal speech. Chi l dren use trade-
marked acti on gures and cartoon characters i n pl ay; new i deas to the soci ety at l arge and bei ng granted i n
return a l i mi ted ri ght of pri vate property i n the arti fact pol i ti ci ans encode thei r messages wi th references to ad-
verti si ng and popul ar tel evi si on dramas (e.g., Wheres he or she has created or at l east assembl ed from the
parts provi ded by our common store of i deas, l anguage, the beef?). Copyri ght l aws, Coombe asserts, re-
stri ct the soci al ow of texts, photographs, musi c, and and genre (Boyl e 1996:xi i ). Davi d Lange (1993:126), an-
other l egal schol ar, descri bes copyri ght as an i mpl i ci t most other symbol i c works, a form of control that
may depri ve us of the opti mal cultural condi ti ons for contract that gi ves an author the l i mi ted monopol y of
copyri ght for a l i mi ted ti me, but onl y i n exchange for di al ogi c practi ce (Coombe 1991:1866). Accordi ng to
Coombe and others, then, aggressi ve expansi on of copy- an eventual dedi cati on of the work to the publ i c do-
mai n. The common theme i s that the ri ghts conferred ri ght and trademark i s a si gni cant threat to free speech
and pol i ti cal di al ogue. Concern over growi ng corporate by i ntel l ectual property l aws are limited. Patents and
copyri ghts, for exampl e, have a ni te term. (In the control of the symbol s that consti tute everyday soci al
l i fe, as wel l as the emergence of new technol ogi es that Uni ted States, a copyri ght endures for the authors l i fe
pl us 50 years; for patents the term i s general l y 17 years.) make possi bl e cheap repl i cati on and i nstantaneous di s-
semi nati on of musi c, graphi c art, and text, have l ed to Upon expi rati on, the work reverts deni ti vel y to the
publ i c domai n, where i t can be used however peopl e cl ai ms that copyri ght i s, or soon wi l l be, dead. Infor-
mati on wants to be free i s the sl ogan of Internet proph- wi sh. The range of these ri ghts i s si mi l arl y ni te. I am
free to quote l i mi ted secti ons of copyri ghted works be- ets such as John Perry Barl ow and Esther Dyson. Barl ow
and Dyson are at the cutti ng edge of spi ri ted grassroots cause of the fai r-use doctri ne, whi ch hol ds that copy-
ri ght i s not absol ute nor can i t be i n a soci ety that val - resi stance to the i ntel l ectual property asserti ons of cor-
porati ons, especi al l y i n the worl ds of graphi c desi gn, ues creati vi ty. Important l egal deci si ons have al so
establ i shed the ri ght to borrow extensi vel y from copy- avant-garde musi c, and networked communi cati on.
8
A cri ti que of i ntel l ectual property l aw based on the ri ghted works for purposes of pol i ti cal parody. In other
words, when i ntel l ectual property ri ghts col l i de wi th ui d and i nni tel y repl i cabl e qual i ty of i nformati on
harmoni zes wel l wi th theoreti cal devel opments i n an- reasonabl e asserti ons of free speech, free speech shoul d
prevai l even i f the resul ts are offensi ve to the creator thropol ogy, whi ch have i ncreasi ngl y emphasi zed such
postmodern real i ti es as gl obal i zati on, transnati onal and i ntrude upon hi s or her copyri ght.
The pri nci pal goal of i ntel l ectual property l aws, then, ows, and the creati ve mi xi ng (creol i zati on)or i nven-
ti on of tradi ti ons. From thi s perspecti ve, cul ture i s not i s to see that i nformati on enters the publ i c domai n i n
a ti mel y fashi on whi l e al l owi ng creators, be they i ndi - a bounded, stati c enti ty but a dynami c, constantl y rene-
goti ated process. So thoroughl y has the processual na- vi dual s or corporate groups, to deri ve reasonabl e nan-
ci al and soci al benets from thei r work. Once a work ture of cul ture come to domi nate contemporary thi nk-
i ng that anthropol ogi sts appear to be backi ng away from enters the publ i c domai n, i t l oses most protecti ons. I
am free to publ i sh Uncle Toms Cabin or to manufac- the cul ture concept i tsel f (see, e.g., Gupta and Ferguson
1992). ture steel paper cl i ps wi thout payi ng royal ti es to thei r
creators, whose l i mi ted monopol y has expi red. The From thi s theoreti cal mi l i eu have emerged trenchant
cri ti ques of the presupposi ti ons that underl i e the devel - same pri nci pl e appl i es to prehi stori c petrogl yphs or to
the Mona Li sa, both of whi ch have become part of our oped worl ds i ntel l ectual property l aws (see, e.g., Aoki
1996), whi ch were shaped by the demands of 19th-cen- common human heri tage, whatever thei r ori gi ns.
7
Intel l ectual property has become the focus of consi d- tury i ndustri al capi tal i sm. Copyri ght, cri ti cs have
noted, i s predi cated on romanti c noti ons of an i sol ated erabl e theori zi ng and l egal maneuveri ng i n recent years
because of general al arm over the i ncreasi ngl y expan- creati ve geni us who pl ucks beauty out of thi n ai r by an
i nspi red act of the i magi nati on. Copyri ght l aw was desi ve cl ai ms of ownershi p made by corporate i nterests
cl ai ms that threaten the doctri ne of fai r use and l i mi t si gned to ensure that the author and hi s or her i mmedi -
ate descendants wi l l benet from thi s mi racl e of cre-
ati on. The i denti cati on of i nventi veness wi th a
7. One coul d, of course, seek a patent for a new form of paper cl i p
sol i tary human l i fe, however, cannot be easi l y recon-
or a new transl ati on of a work al ready i n the publ i c domai n. And
ci l ed wi th the pol i ti cal economy of modern i ndustri al
a new drawi ng or photograph of an anci ent petrogl yph woul d be
creati vi ty or, for that matter, wi th the col l ecti ve pro-
copyri ghtabl e, al though the desi gn i tsel f woul d not. It shoul d be
ducti ons of i ndi genous peopl es. Because nei ther corpo-
noted that trademarks represent an excepti on to the ti me-l i mi ted
qual i ty of most i ntel l ectual property protecti on. General l y, trade-
marks are el i gi bl e for protecti on as l ong as the hol ders can prove
that they have an enduri ng economi c val ue i n i denti fyi ng a com- 8. Important statements of the l i bertari an posi ti on wi th regard to
i nformati on i ncl ude Barl ow (1993) and Dyson (1995). Mani festos modi ty or product l i ne and di sti ngui shi ng i t from others. If a com-
pany fai l s to use i ts trademark for an extended peri od, however, demandi ng an expansi on of fai r-use standards for musi ci ans and
graphi c desi gners i ncl ude Negati vl and (1995) and Samudral a (1995). trademark protecti on may l apse.
rati ons nor cul tures have a predetermi ned l i fe span no trates the probl em of l i teral i st noti ons of cul tural prop-
erty wi th a memorabl e exampl e. We commonl y regard three-score-and-ten that can be used as a yardsti ck for
protecti on the temporal l i mi ts of current copyri ght Greek ci vi l i zati on as the source of a mode of formal rea-
soni ng known as the syl l ogi sm. Does that mean that l aw appear exceedi ngl y arbi trary. Fi nal l y, the spread of
di gi tal technol ogi es and systems of di stri buted i ntel l i - the Greek peopl e therefore own syl l ogi sti c l ogi c?
Shoul d they be compensated by Ameri can or Bri ti sh or gence makes i t i ncreasi ngl y di fcul t for the state to po-
l i ce i nformati on and thereby to enforce extant copy- Israel i software compani es for thei r col l ecti ve cul tural
contri buti on to modern programmi ng? ri ght l aws. The i mage that I post on my Web page today
can be reproduced and di stri buted around the worl d i n Di sjuncti ons between i ndi genous and cosmopol i tan
vi ews of cul tural i nformati on are parti cul arl y acute i n seconds, then stored on personal storage devi ces rel a-
ti vel y i mpervi ous to l egal scruti ny. Di gi tal l y sampl ed matters of the sacred. Al though i t i s i mpossi bl e to offer
a normati ve statement about how nati ve peopl es con- porti ons of my musi c can be modi ed by other arti sts
and then spl i ced i nto thei r work wi thout my knowl edge cei ve of sacred knowl edge, i t i s fai r to say that many see
i t as a l i mi ted good that cannot properl y exi st i n several or consent. The chance that I wi l l di scover thei r pi racy
i s vani shi ngl y smal l . pl aces at once. Rel i gi ous knowl edge that resi des i n i n-
appropri ate pl aces may nd i ts power di mi ni shed or Everyone, then, agrees that prevai l i ng concepts of i n-
tel l ectual property are i n cri si s. But what i s to be done? dangerousl y di storted, hence the common practi ce of
compartmental i zi ng i nformati on i n order to l i mi t ac- Before revi ewi ng proposed sol uti ons, we must consi der
i ndi genous vi ews of i nformati on that di ffer substan- cess to the i nner meani ng of rel i gi ous symbol s.
The l atter i mpul se may have been a factor behi nd Zi a ti al l y from those I have just descri bed.
Puebl os recent request that the state of New Mexi co
pay damages for the unauthori zed reproducti on of the
Cul ture Rei ed: Informati on as a
Zi a sun symbol on New Mexi cos ags, l i cense pl ates,
and ofci al stati onery si nce 1925. The states use of thi s Li mi ted Good
graphi c el ement i n no way l i mi ts the abi l i ty of Zi a resi -
dents to conti nue empl oyi ng the symbol i n thei r own As a number of commentators have observed (e.g.,
Coombe 1993; Jackson 1989, 1995), the ongoi ng strug- arti sti c or rel i gi ous acti vi ti es. Yet i f one bel i eves, as
peopl e at Zi a evi dentl y do, that thi s i s a desi gn i mbued gl e for pol i ti cal and cul tural soverei gnty often l eads i n-
di genous acti vi sts to tal k about cul ture as i f i t were a wi th i nherent power, i ts use for everyday ci vi c and com-
merci al purposes i s at l east an affront to thei r di gni ty, xed and corporeal thi ng. Cal l s for the return of l and
and resources have a way of i ntertwi ni ng themsel ves at worst a dangerous form of bl asphemy capabl e of un-
l eashi ng genui ne mi sfortune. One may reasonabl y i nfer wi th demands for rel i gi ous freedom and other basi c
ri ghts to such an extent that i t i s someti mes di fcul t that the peti ti on was moti vated at l east i n part by a de-
si re to assert control over somethi ng that was once to di sti ngui sh cul ture from i ts materi al expressi on. A
Uni ted Nati ons report on the protecti on of cul tural and sol el y the communi tys. Ownershi p, Strathern (1996:
30) observes, gathers thi ngs momentari l y to a poi nt by i ntel l ectual property reects thi s mode of thought
when i t asserts that each i ndi genous communi ty must l ocati ng them i n the owner, hal ti ng endl ess di ssemi na-
ti on, effecti ng an i denti ty.
9
retai n permanent control over al l el ements of i ts own
heri tage, heri tage bei ng dened as al l of those thi ngs Indi genous resi stance to the promi scuous di ssemi na-
ti on of knowl edge, sacred and otherwi se, l i es behi nd whi ch i nternati onal l aw regards as the creati ve produc-
ti on of human thought and craftsmanshi p, such as emergi ng coni cts over secrecy. The vast majori ty of
nati ve peopl es face so many chal l enges to thei r eco- songs, stori es, sci enti c knowl edge and artworks
(Daes 1993:1113). The heri tage i n whi ch nati ve peo- nomi c and pol i ti cal soverei gnty that they have l i ttl e
ti me to fret about the i nformati on-management pol i - pl es have deni ti ve ri ghts, i n other words, i ncl udes con-
cepts and thoughts as wel l as thei r concrete enactment. ci es of publ i c archi ves or museums. A smal l but grow-
i ng number of nati ve communi ti es i n North Ameri ca Thi s makes perfect sense, the report concl udes, because
for i ndi genous peopl es the ul ti mate source of knowl - and Austral i a, however, devote consi derabl e energy to
the protecti on of cul tural acti vi ti es from the scruti ny of edge and creati vi ty i s the l and i tsel f (p. 10).
Wi th few excepti ons, cosmopol i tan schol ars nd i nqui si ti ve outsi ders, whether they be schol ars or tour-
i sts. Anyone who has vi si ted the Hopi or Taos Puebl o such rei ed vi ews of cul ture probl emati c. In an i nci si ve
anal ysi s of the expansi on of property concepts i nto new reservati ons i n the Ameri can Southwest, for exampl e,
knows that tri bal authori ti es acti vel y di scourage non- conceptual domai ns, Mari l yn Strathern (1996:22) notes
that basi c cul tural understandi ngs si t uneasi l y wi thi n a Puebl o peopl e from observi ng, recordi ng, or even i nqui r-
i ng about a wi de spectrum of cul tural practi ces. Each framework of i ntel l ectual property. Cul tures l ack cl ear
spati al and temporal boundari es; human bei ngs are
9. My request to the governors ofce of Zi a Puebl o for i nformati on
members of a soci ety but not members of a cul ture,
on thi s case went unanswered. I regret that I must therefore make
whi ch i s a exi bl e set of understandi ngs, di sposi ti ons,
i nferences about moti ve wi thout benet of Zi a Puebl os own per-
and behavi oral scri pts that change through ti me and
specti ve. Al though the New Mexi co l egi sl ature refused to award
freel y i nuence and are i nuenced by soci al i nterac-
the puebl o cash damages, i t di d authori ze a formal statement of
apol ogy. ti ons wi th other groups. Phi l i ppe Descol a (n.d.) i l l us-
communi ty has a di fferent pol i cy regardi ng admi ssi on publ i c good except i n a sharpl y ci rcumscri bed range of
si tuati ons.
12
We demand that our educati onal , rel i gi ous, to communi ty acti vi ti es, i ncl udi ng rel i gi ous ri tual s, but
overal l i t i s accurate to say that the Puebl o pl ace stri ct and pol i ti cal i nsti tuti ons practi ce openness whenever
possi bl e. Al though archi ves routi nel y i mpose restri c- l i mi ts on the ci rcul ati on of knowl edge about thei r cul -
tures. Al though i t i s commonl y bel i eved that Puebl o se- ti ons on access when, for i nstance, they abi de by a do-
nors request that documents be cl osed to researchers crecy i s a defensi ve tacti c reecti ng centuri es of exter-
nal i nterference i n the free exerci se of rel i gi on, i t al so for a stated peri od, usual l y to protect the pri vacy of l i v-
i ng i ndi vi dual s I know of no cases i n whi ch U.S. pub- pl ays a key rol e i n mai ntai ni ng the Puebl os own pol i ti -
cal system. In an essay on the soci al functi ons of se- l i c reposi tori es deny access to archi ved materi al s on the
basi s of a potenti al users ethni ci ty, gender, age, or rel i - crecy i n Taos Puebl o, El i zabeth Brandt (1980) argues
that the pri mary moti vati on for cl osi ng rel i gi ous gi ous afl i ati on. Such sel ecti ve restri cti ons woul d
surel y qual i fy as a form of i l l egal di scri mi nati on.
13
knowl edge to outsi ders and for objecti ng to the col l ec-
ti on and permanent storage of thi s i nformati on by non- Nati ve val ues and the Ameri can l egal system are es-
peci al l y prone to col l i si on over the questi on of retroac- Puebl os i s to prevent i t from cycl i ng back to Pueblo i n-
di vi dual s who are not authori zed to possess i t.
10
Stri ct tivesecrecy, the di sposi ti on of i nformati on that was ob-
tai ned i n the past and has l ong resi ded i n the publ i c compartmental i zati on of knowl edge i s necessary to
mai ntai n the communi tys rel i gi ous hi erarchy and ul ti - domai n. There are few precedents for the removal of i n-
formati on from the publ i c domai n i n response to the de- matel y the i ntegri ty of tradi ti onal i nsti tuti ons, whi ch
are based on theocrati c pri nci pl es. Of equal i mportance mands of thi rd parti es asserti ng a ri ght to determi ne
when, where, and by whom thi s i nformati on i s ac- i s the convi cti on that i n the wrong hands rel i gi ous
knowl edge l oses i ts power or assumes destructi ve cessed.
14
Yet thi s i s exactl y what some Indi an tri bes are
aski ng Ameri can museums and archi ves to do. There i s forms.
Few readers wi l l di spute the general ri ght of the no getti ng around i t: i n thi s case, i ndi genous bel i efs
about knowl edge of the sacred coni ct di rectl y wi th the Puebl o or of any other nati ve groups to restri ct the gath-
eri ng of i nformati on about thei r soci eti es as they see t. majori tys commi tment to the sacredness of publ i c
knowl edge. Thi s i s a cl assi c col l i si on of i rreconci l abl e But we must al so acknowl edge that pri nci pl es of se-
crecy and stri ct control of knowl edge contradi ct the po- val ues. To resol ve i t, both si des wi l l have to reect care-
ful l y on the gl obal i mpl i cati ons of thei r respecti ve posi - l i ti cal i deal s of l i beral democracy.
11
In the Uni ted
States, secrecy has l ong been regarded as i nherentl y i n- ti ons i n order to achi eve a sui tabl e compromi se.
In thi s context, one can easi l y see the attracti on of i mi cal to democrati c process and to personal freedom.
There are, of course, ci rcumstances i n whi ch secrecy i s frami ng i ndi genous demands i n terms of copyri ght and
warranted: i n matters of nati onal securi ty, i n del i bera-
ti ons on sensi ti ve admi ni strati ve or l egi sl ati ve matters, 12. The phi l osopher Si ssel a Bok (1983) offers a thoughtful di scus-
si on of the moral and phi l osophi cal questi ons rai sed by secrecy.
i n certai n ki nds of l aw-enforcement acti vi ti es, and so
Amanda Pask (1993:8485), a l egal schol ar, i ndi rectl y chal l enges
forth. We al so recogni ze that i nsti tuti onal i zed secrecy
Boks uni versal i st assessment by argui ng that secrecy i s i ni mi cal
nearl y al ways l eads to abuses of power. For thi s reason,
to the Western democraci es for speci c cul tural reasons: A com-
we have i mpl emented a wi de range of sunshi ne l aws muni ty whi ch concei ves of i tsel f sol el y as the admi ni strati ve ex-
pressi on of the rati onal sel f-i nterest of i ndi vi dual s depends for i ts that requi re government ofci al s to conduct del i bera-
l egi ti macy on not bei ng seen to l i mi t i nformati on. . . . In Pasks
ti ons i n publ i c and to make admi ni strati ve documents
opi ni on, however, thi s atti tude toward i nformati on i s a cul tural ar-
avai l abl e to ci ti zens on demand. There i s al so a strong
ti fact that may not be found among i ndi genous popul ati ons orga-
presumpti on that once i nformati on enters the publ i c
ni zed al ong communi tari an l i nes.
13. Apparentl y, some publ i c reposi tori es i n Austral i a cl ose speci c domai n, i t shoul d stay there. Secrecy, i n other words, i s
Abori gi nal col l ecti ons to women and uni ni ti ated men. For a com-
i nherentl y threateni ng to democrati c process and to the
prehensi ve anal ysi s of the Austral i an case, i ncl udi ng di scussi on of
several precedent-setti ng l egal deci si ons rel ated to ethnographi c se-
crecy, see the essays i n Anderson (1995). 10. Chri stopher Anderson (1995:12) reports si mi l ar concerns about
unauthori zed access to sacred i nformati on among Abori gi nal Aus- 14. Jonathan Haas (1996:S56) proposes that such a precedent ex-
i sts i n the vol untary de-accessi oni ng and destructi on of a contro- tral i ans. Hi s own i nsti tuti on, the South Austral i an Museum, had
numerous requests from remote communi ti es i n Central Austral i a versi al col l ecti on of photographs of naked col l ege freshman, mostl y
from Ivy League i nsti tuti ons, taken for sci enti c purposes that are that the Museum never al l ow the Secret/Sacred Room and i ts col -
l ecti on to be l ooked after by an Abori gi nal person, because these now thoroughl y di scredi ted. The anal ogy has meri t, but Haas over-
l ooks at l east two i mportant facts: (1) the photographs vi ol ate the communi ti es di d not want men from other groups to see thei r rel i -
gi ous objects. personal pri vacy of l i vi ng i ndi vi dual s, and (2) the sci enti c uti l i ty
of the photographs i s and was mi nuscul e, i f i t ever exi sted at al l . 11. The Hopi Cul tural Preservati on Ofce (HCPO) recogni zes thi s
fundamental di fference i n cul tural perspecti ves i n a judi ci ousl y Thei r val ue as hi stori cal and sci enti c documents i s thus far out-
wei ghed by thei r ethi cal deci enci es. As I wi l l argue, si mi l ar objec- worded statement found on i ts homepage on the Worl d Wi de Web.
Most European or Western soci eti es are based i n a tradi ti on of sci - ti ons can doubtl ess be l odged agai nst some ethnographi c records
(i n whi ch case de-accessi oni ng may be warranted), but to appl y enti c i nqui ry, the ri ght to ask questi ons and i nvesti gate the un-
known, the document states. In contrast, the HCPO document them to al l such records woul d be i rresponsi bl e unl ess Haas can
establ i sh that museum col l ecti ons have somehow l ost thei r i nher- conti nues, Hopi tradi ti on di scourages open-ended curi osi ty be-
cause many cul tural acti vi ti es are regarded as bel ongi ng sol el y to ent val ue. To do so, he woul d have to contradi ct the opi ni on of
those i ndi genous spokespersons who argue that the col l ecti ons are speci c cl ans or rel i gi ous soci eti es. See Respect for Hopi Knowl -
edge, http://www.nau.edu/hcpo-p/current/hopi ni s.htm, ac- so val uabl e that they shoul d be returned to thei r source communi -
ti es for safekeepi ng. cessed 8 September 1997, unpagi nated.
broadened deni ti ons of cul tural property. After al l , i f mon appeal to pri nci pl es of i ntel l ectual property has
the i nsi di ous effect of making them moral equal s. In nati ve groups own thei r knowl edge, i f i t was stol en
from them by government ofci al s, mi ssi onari es, and both cases, broad questi ons of fai r use and the free
expressi on of i deas are magi cal l y transformed i nto a anthropol ogi sts, then they are si mpl y seeki ng the re-
turn of pi l fered goods rather than aski ng reposi tori es to narrow di spute over commodi ti es. Thi s troubl i ng moral
al chemy underscores the observati on of Wi l l i am Gass vi ol ate pri nci pl es of free access. Thi s approach may be
appeal i ng to al l parti es i nvol ved i n the di spute. The pe- (1997:62) that the chi ef mode of censorshi p i n a com-
merci al soci ety i s, natural l y enough, the marketpl ace. ti ti oners regai n excl usi ve control over thei r sacred
knowl edge. Chroni cal l y underfunded reposi tori es, Here Gass refers to the power of publ i shers and book-
sel l ers, who l argel y determi ne what gets publ i shed and whi ch may be worn down by expensi ve l i ti gati on, make
a persi stent probl em go away wi thout an apparent vi ol a- sol d i n capi tal i st markets, but he coul d just as wel l be
speaki ng about the mani fol d ways i n whi ch i ntel l ectual ti on of thei r responsi bi l i ty to the publ i c. Pol i ti ci ans,
who as a group are not known for thei r commi tment to property ri ghts strategi es can be, and are, used to deny
access to i nformati on and to i nhi bi t open communi ca- soci al research or thei r support of publ i c access to i nfor-
mati on, l eap at the chance to propose l aws that sum- ti on.
15
Advocates of the dramati c expansi on of the i ntel l ec- mari l y convert i nformati on i nto property. In thi s case,
property di scourse repl aces what shoul d be extensi ve tual property of nati ve peopl es seem oddl y bl i nd to the
free-speech i mpl i cati ons of thei r proposal s. Kamal Puri di scussi on on the moral i mpl i cati ons of exposi ng nati ve
peopl e to unwanted scruti ny, on the one hand, and se- (1995:33839), for i nstance, supports the i mposi ti on of
l aws prohi bi ti ng the use of Abori gi nal art and symbol s questeri ng publ i c-domai n i nformati on, on the other.
For those who object that I attri bute too much i mpor- by outsi ders. The commodi cati on of Abori gi nal art, he
argues, depri ves Abori gi nal peopl e of an i mportant tance to cl ai ms that are sol el y rel evant to the uni que
si tuati on of nati ve mi nori ti es, l et me menti on another economi c base; and secondl y, i f tri vi al i zed, i t can under-
mi ne the autonomy of uni que Abori gi nal tradi ti ons. case that has stri ki ng paral l el s to contemporary i ndi ge-
nous demands. For several years, the Church of Sci - Al though thi s rati onal e for cul tural protecti on seems
reasonabl e at rst gl ance, upon reecti on one begi ns to entol ogy has waged a rel entl ess campai gn agai nst own-
ers of Internet si tes that store and transfer texts wonder where the l egal prohi bi ti on of rel i gi ous tri vi al -
i zati on or sacri l ege mi ght l ead. Woul d ci ti zens there- regarded by Sci entol ogi sts as secret, copyri ghted mate-
ri al . At the i nsi stence of church attorneys, computers fore be subject to ci vi l and cri mi nal penal ty i f they tri vi -
al i zed any rel i gi ous symbol s? Woul d i ndi genous have been conscated i n the Uni ted States and Fi nl and
by l aw-enforcement ofci al s searchi ng for such docu- peopl es themsel ves be subject to reci procal ne or ar-
rest i f they mani pul ated Chri sti an i magery for thei r ments. The Church of Sci entol ogy has al so l ed com-
pl ai nts that l ed to the sei zure of publ i c-domai n court own purposes? One can easi l y i magi ne conservati ve
evangel i cal groups taki ng offense at the use of Chri sti an transcri pts posted on the server of an Internet servi ce
provi der i n Vi rgi ni a, and i t i s seeki ng ci vi l damages symbol s by members of the Nati ve Ameri can Church
duri ng peyote meeti ngs. In the Ameri can context, cer- from the Washington Post for publ i cati on of what i t
consi ders to be propri etary i nformati on (Grossman tai nl y, l egal efforts to prevent parodi c or creati ve appro-
pri ati ons of rel i gi ous symbol s woul d present a seri ous 1995:174, 252). Sci entol ogi sts offer nearl y the same ra-
ti onal e for these search-and-sei zure acts as Ameri can chal l enge to the Fi rst Amendment.
Indi ans do for thei r opposi ti on to the presence of rel i -
gi ous i nformati on i n archi ves (p. 174): Sci entol ogi sts
genui nel y bel i eve thei r secrets can save the worl d, but Informati on Ethi cs
that they must be dol ed out onl y to whose who have
proven ready to recei ve them. Fol l owers hol d ercel y to Another el ement of contemporary debate over cul tural
and i ntel l ectual property i s the cl ai m that i ndi genous the noti on that thei r revered, secret texts must never be
di ssemi nated, save to the ri gorousl y i ni ti ated. In other knowl edge currentl y avai l abl e i n the publ i c domai n was
obtai ned under ci rcumstances so i nherentl y coerci ve words, the formi dabl e l egal arm of the Church of Sci -
entol ogy has i nvoked pri nci pl es of i ntel l ectual property that i t shoul d be ei ther sequestered or returned to i ts
source communi ty. The most extreme versi on of thi s si mi l ar to those ci ted by i ndi genous groups demandi ng
that ethnographi c materi al be removed from publ i c ac- posi ti on the asserti on that ethnographi c el d data
have the same moral standi ng as the now-quaranti ned cess. Ci vi l l i bertari ans have denounced the Sci entol ogy
campai gn as a seri ous threat to free speech, i n part be- records of medi cal experi ments conducted i n Nazi con-
centrati on camps sti l l has few advocates, but i t i s onl y cause i t uses copyri ght l aw to si l ence the churchs
cri ti cs. a step or two removed from todays orthodoxy, whi ch
Thi s i s not to i mpl y that the cl ai ms of the Church of
15. Some experts i n i ntel l ectual property l aw express concern that
Sci entol ogy are moral l y equi val ent to, say, those of the
copyri ght i s i ncreasi ngl y used to restri ct access to i nformati on i n-
Apache l eaders who demand control over Apache con-
stead of encouragi ng i ts di ssemi nati on (see, for exampl e, Brans-
cepts and i mages. The Church of Sci entol ogy, i t must
comb [1994] on struggl es over access to the Dead Sea Scrol l s and
be noted, col l ects l arge fees from i ni ti ates before i t
Conl ey [1990] regardi ng the schol arl y use of unpubl i shed bi ographi -
cal i nformati on, especi al l y l etters and di ari es). al l ows them access to i ts secret texts. But thei r com-
sees ethnography as an i mportant i nstrument i n the he- norms? Di d the researcher keep hi s or her promi ses
about how the i nformati on woul d be used? gemoni c project of cl assi fyi ng, representi ng, and rul i ng
subject popul ati ons (see, e.g., Pel s and Sal emi nk 1994). Perhaps the hardest condi ti on to establ i sh retrospec-
ti vel y i s i nformed consent. To what degree, for exam- Once we accept the total i zi ng l ogi c of thi s formul a, the
concl usi on that al l records from formerl y col oni zed pl e, di d research subjects real i sti cal l y comprehend how
thei r l i ves mi ght be affected by thei r rol e i n an ethnog- pl aces are ethi cal l y tai nted fol l ows natural l y.
Yet anyone wi l l i ng to l ook careful l y at the hi stori cal raphy, a documentary l m, or an audi o recordi ng, espe-
ci al l y i f they were rel ati vel y unfami l i ar wi th these me- evi dence wi l l be di ssati sed wi th bl anket condemna-
ti ons of ethnographi c records. At the very l east, we di a? Even consci enti ous and wel l -meani ng researchers
fai l to anti ci pate al l the possi bl e effects of thei r work, must acknowl edge the agency of i ndi genous peopl es
thei r strategi c deci si ons to share i deas and stori es and and they are someti mes as di sturbed as thei r subjects
by the unexpected i mpact of thei r publ i cati ons, record- songs wi th i nqui si ti ve outsi ders when, i n thei r judg-
ment, ci rcumstances warranted. In an i nformati ve anal - i ngs, or i mages. In thi s area, the Law of Uni ntended
Consequences rei gns supreme; there wi l l al ways be un- ysi s of a major Zuni repatri ati on case, for exampl e, Mer-
ri l l , Ladd, and Ferguson (1993:541) menti on that several foreseen effects, both good and bad, when i nformati on
enters the publ i c domai n.
16
cul tural i tems acqui red by the Smi thsoni an Insti tuti on
i n the l ate 19th century may have been made expressl y Ethi cal real i sm hol ds that each case i s uni que and
therefore subject to careful retrospecti ve revi ew. If si g- for the museum because Zuni l eaders bel i eved that
greater publ i c awareness of the beauty of Zuni rel i gi on ni cant vi ol ati ons of the norms of the ti me took pl ace,
wi th l asti ng, negati ve i mpacts on a parti cul ar peopl e or woul d i mprove rel ati ons between thei r tri be and the
federal government. Zuni authori ti es may al so have re- communi ty, then i t may be appropri ate to quaranti ne
the offendi ng research i n some way, perhaps by maki ng veal ed certai n ri tual secrets to the Smi thsoni an anthro-
pol ogi sts Frank Hami l ton Cushi ng, James Stevenson, i t avai l abl e onl y to members of the affected group or to
others authori zed by them. In keepi ng wi th the empha- and Mati l da Coxe Stevenson i n the hope that thei r con-
ti nued professi onal i nvol vement wi th Zuni cul ture si s that reposi tori es pl ace on freedom of access, one
woul d expect that cl osure of a col l ecti on woul d take woul d l ead them to defend Zuni i nterests i n Washi ng-
ton (Merri l l and Ahl born 1997:195). Both strategi es pl ace rarel y, and onl y i n the face of compel l i ng evi dence
that conti nued use woul d damage the affected commu- seem to have worked. Thi s i s hardl y a hi story free of
coerci on, but i t i ncl udes powerful el ements of vol i ti on ni ty. Such cauti on i s warranted because deci si ons to
quaranti ne i nformati on never take pl ace i n a pol i ti cal and of cul tural resi stance through strategi c shari ng that
meri t acknowl edgment and respect. vacuum. Ci ti zens of al l ethni c ori gi ns have an i nterest
i n conti nued access to i nformati on al ready resi di ng i n Interpretati ons that reduce ethnography to an en-
counter between oppressor and oppressed, i nteracti ng the publ i c domai n. Moreover, vol untary removal of ma-
teri al from publ i c access establ i shes precedents l i kel y l i ke automatons i n a gri m game of power, overl ook the
compl ex human moti ves that ani mate ethnographi c en- to be expl oi ted by other rel i gi ousl y and pol i ti cal l y moti -
vated i nterest groups some of whi ch, i t bears poi nti ng counters: curi osi ty, aestheti c del i ght, mutual sel f-i nter-
est, genui ne respect or affecti on, eroti c attracti on (rec- out, woul d advocate posi ti ons strongl y antagoni sti c to
i ndi genous pol i ti cal ri ghts and cul tural sel f-expressi on. ogni zed or deni ed), the vi sceral pl easures of storytel l i ng,
and a desi re to understand other soci al worl ds. They Publ i shed accounts and my own queri es to museums
and archi ves suggest that at the l evel of day-to-day oper- al so summari l y repudi ate the work of countl ess observ-
ers who have dedi cated thei r l i ves to the documentati on ati ons thi s commonsense approach to ethi cs i s cur-
rentl y the norm i n the Uni ted States.
17
These reasonabl e of i ndi genous l i feways, someti mes at great personal
cost. Thi s enterpri se may have been faci l i tated by col o- procedures stand to be usurped, however, by compre-
hensi ve cl ai ms of ownershi p. If i t can be establ i shed ni al i sm, but more often than not i ts effect was to chal -
l enge assumpti ons of col oni al superi ori ty. Today ethno- that i n some meani ngful sense ethnographi c and hi stor-
i cal records are owned by the peopl es who are thei r graphi c records provi de cri ti cal i nformati on that
i ndi genous peopl es use to revi tal i ze thei r cul tures and subject, then compl ex questi ons about the ethi cal sta-
to substanti ate l and and resource cl ai ms i n courts of
l aw. The speci es of nai ve presenti sm that judges hi stori -
16. Issues of i nformed consent i n the l mi ng of the controversi al
cal actors by todays ethi cal standards woul d, i f gi ven
documentary Titicut Follies are expl ored i n consi derabl e detai l by
Anderson and Benson (1988). Zemp (1996:4963) descri bes ethi cal free rei n, mandate the pi ous quaranti ne or even destruc-
struggl es over the commerci al l i censi ng of Rajasthani musi c re-
ti on of most of these i mportant resources.
corded by a fel l ow ethnomusi col ogi st many years earl i er, at a ti me
The al ternati ve to ethi cal absol uti sm i s ethi cal real -
when nei ther had anti ci pated the musi cs potenti al commerci al
i sm, wi th al l i ts exacti ng ambi gui ti es and di l emmas.
val ue. For reecti ons on the rol e of ethi cs i n the preservati on of
Real i sts judge work by the extent to whi ch i t vi ol ates or
anthropol ogi cal materi al s, see Fowl er (1995) and Greaves (1995).
17. Letters to 16 Ameri can museums and archi ves to i nqui re about
conforms to the ethi cal standards that prevai l ed when i t
thei r response to the Hopi request for a moratori um on access to
was col l ected. Was i nformati on gathered under ci rcum-
ethnographi c materi al s produced 8 repl i es. Of these, none reported
stances that woul d have been consi dered di shonest or
that i t had actual l y cl osed col l ecti ons, al though several now mark
undul y coerci ve then? Was decepti on i nvol ved, and, i f
col l ecti ons rel ati ng to the Hopi and other tri bes as sensi ti ve and
encourage schol ars to contact tri bal authori ti es before usi ng them. so, how egregi ous was i t i n terms of prevai l i ng ethi cal
tus of the cul tural property become i rrel evant. And here pl e, depi cts the New Age as a parti cul arl y offensi ve ex-
ampl e of the commodi fyi ng l ogi c of l ate capi tal i sm. we face one of the hi dden i roni es of contemporary de-
bate: al though advocates of expanded i ntel l ectual prop- Because so many peopl e have been taught that the
worl d i s a gi ant warehouse i n whi ch everythi ng i s or erty l aws typi cal l y denounce capi tal i st commodi ca-
ti on, they i mpl i ci tl y encourage the transl ati on of ought to be avai l abl e, she wri tes, they too easi l y be-
l i eve they can achi eve enl i ghtenment by payi ng ethi cal and pol i ti cal di scourse i nto the l anguage of com-
modi ti es. money (p. 97).
18
However much we may depl ore the cul tural i nsensi -
ti vi ty that underl i es these mi ddl e-cl ass expl orati ons of
Ethnographi c Fi cti ons i n the
i ndi genous spi ri tual i ty, Roots argument i l l ustrates the
stri ki ngl y cramped and i n some cases mi sdi rected de- Age of the Si mul acrum
bate that thi s si tuati on has i nspi red. For exampl e, when
cri ti cs decl are that i ndi genous spi ri tual i ty l acks a com- Contemporary asserti ons of i ntel l ectual property offer
other and perhaps more pl angent i roni es rarel y noted by merci al aspect, i n sharp contrast to the al l eged commer-
ci al vul gari ty of the New Age, they wi l l ful l y i gnore a commentators. At a moment when many anthropol o-
gi sts have come to regard ethnographi c and hi stori cal vast l i terature that establ i shes the economi c nexus of
ri tual al most everywhere i n the worl d, a pattern that of- texts as i nterested cti ons, i ndi genous peopl es i nsi st
that these documents contai n sacred knowl edge so au- ten i ncl udes substanti al payments, i n cash or goods, to
ri tual speci al i sts. Nor has the controversy seen contri - thenti c and powerful that access to i t shoul d be care-
ful l y control l ed. Even as ethnography moves i n a con- buti ons by anthropol ogi sts who i n other contexts cel e-
brate cul tural ows and creati ve creol i zati on, of whi ch fessi onal di recti on, offeri ng ever more i nformati on
about the ethnographers personal hi story, feel i ngs, and New Age practi ces are surel y an outstandi ng exampl e.
One mi ght al so reasonabl y cal l for ri gorous anal ysi s of moti ves (to the extent, some woul d say, that i t becomes
di fcul t to nd the Other i n the text), the Other i s how thi s i nstance of rel i gi ous borrowi ng di ffers from
other ki nds of i ntercul tural shari ng that underwri te recl ai mi ng ownershi p of the textual si mul acrum. No-
where have these contradi ctory currents proved more l i gi ous i nnovati on throughout the worl d. By poi nti ng to
these deci enci es, my purpose i s not to defend the i mi - acri moni ous than i n publ i c debate over the New Age
appropri ati on of Nati ve Ameri can rel i gi on. tati on of nati ve ri tual s by non-nati ves. (I dont know
how one coul d possi bl y endorse a practi ce as appal l i ng Across the Uni ted States and, i ncreasi ngl y, i n Eu-
rope and other parts of the devel oped worl d mi ddl e- as the Smoki Snake Dance, a parody of Hopi ri tual
conducted annual l y by weal thy Angl os i n Prescott, Ari - cl ass spi ri tual seekers are enrol l i ng i n workshops and
therapy sessi ons that i ntroduce them to ri tual s i denti - zona, vi vi dl y descri bed by Peter Whi tel ey [1997:177
79].) My personal vi ew i s that mi ddl e-cl ass baby boom- ed wi th i ndi genous spi ri tual i ty: ersatz Medi ci ne
Wheel ceremoni es, sweat l odges, vi si on quests, and ers l ooki ng for spi ri tual authenti ci ty shoul d expl ore the
ri ch rel i gi ous tradi ti ons of Europe and al l ow nati ve peo- even heal i ng sessi ons i nvol vi ng consumpti on of the
Amazoni an hal l uci nogen ayahuasca. Someti mes those pl es to worshi p i n peace. Neverthel ess, the phenome-
non meri ts a broader and more di spassi onate anal ysi s who ofci ate are of nati ve extracti on, al though few are
recogni zed as rel i gi ous l eaders i n thei r own communi - than we have seen thus far.
Perhaps the most i nteresti ng feature of the contro- ti es. More commonl y, they are non-nati ves cl ai mi ng
knowl edge of i ndi genous l ore. versy i s the extent to whi ch nati ve rel i gi ous l eaders ob-
ject to i t not on the ground that New Age ri tual s are To say that the practi ces of these Indi an wannabes
have evoked i ntense cri ti ci sm woul d be an understate- bogus but preci sel y because they are, i n some sense,
real (see, e.g., Whi tel ey 1997:188; Jocks 1996:418). A ment of the rst order. In a decl arati on of war, Lakota
l eaders have denounced the absurd publ i c posturi ng of statement i ssued by Indi an l eaders meeti ng i n Wi ndow
Rock, Ari zona, i n 1984 notes that New Age ceremoni al s thi s scandal ous assortment of pseudo-Indi an charl a-
tans (Stampede Mesteth, Standi ng El k, and Swi ft are exposi ng i gnorant non-Indi ans to potenti al harm
and even death (AIM Leadershi p Conference 1984) be- Hawk n.d.). Another Indi an acti vi st deems such faux-
nati ve ceremoni al s to be another exampl e of a very ol d cause of the ri tual s i nherent power. Much as the gen-
eral publ i c i s repel l ed by the prospect of cl oned human story of whi te raci sm and genoci de agai nst the Indi an
peopl e (Smi th 1994:70). Si mi l ar denunci ati ons fol - bei ngs, nati ve rel i gi ous l eaders express horror at the
monstrous cl oni ng of thei r vi si ons of the sacred. For l owed the publ i cati on of Marl o Morgans best-sel l i ng
Mutant Message Down Under (1994), a book that de- them, the New Age i s a ki nd of doppel ganger, an evi l
i mi tati on cl ose enough to the real thi ng to upset the scri bes the authors rel i gi ous experi ences l ater re-
veal ed to be enti rel y cti onal among a group of Ab- del i cate bal ance of spi ri tual power mai ntai ned by In-
di an ri tual speci al i sts. ori gi nal Austral i ans. Robert Eggi ngton, a spokesman for
Austral i as Nyoongah peopl e, has been quoted as sayi ng
that Morgans book amounts to nothi ng l ess than cul -
18. The restorm of cri ti ci sm di rected to New Age practi ces has
tural genoci de of the spi ri t (Mutant message downed!!!
produced a l i terature too vast to document ful l y here. Useful
1996). Academi c observers are onl y sl i ghtl y more mea-
sources i ncl ude Al banese (1990), Brown (1997), Jocks (1996), John-
son (1995), Kehoe (1990), and Rose (1992). sured i n thei r cri ti ci sm. Deborah Root (1996), for exam-
The cul ture of the copy muddi es the waters of au- unl eashi ng i t i n an unregul ated market, where consum-
ers can pay for what they want and i gnore what they thenti ci ty, Hi l l el Schwartz (1996:377) has observed. As
the technol ogi es of the si mul acrum prol i ferate around dont. The i l l i ci t repl i cati on of i nformati on cannot be
stopped; onl y performances can be control l ed, so cre- us, produci ng what Mark Tayl or and Esa Saari nen
(1994) cal l the si mcul t, soul s l ost i n the forest of cop- ati ve i ndi vi dual s and groups wi l l have to nd ways to
benet materi al l y from performance-l i ke encounters i es take up a desperate search for the ori gi nal that l eads
them al most i nevi tabl y to i ndi genous peopl es, who i n wi th a payi ng audi ence. Because thi s posi ti on has few
fol l owers among anthropol ogi sts and i ndi genous acti v- our ti me have become i cons of pri mordi al i ntegri ty, of
meani ng uni nected by i mi tati on. In seeki ng the au- i sts, I bracket i t from seri ous consi derati on here. But
whatever i ts aws and bl i ndnesses, the radi cal l i bertar- thenti ci ty of nati ve rel i gi ons, however, they succeed
onl y i n fashi oni ng another awed si mul acrum.
19
Under i an proposal i njects a note of real i sm i nto current debate
by remi ndi ng us that control of i nformati on and the the ci rcumstances, i t i s hardl y surpri si ng that i ndi ge-
nous l eaders want to ti ghten thei r gri p on the ori gi nal s. prol i ferati on of si mul acra i s or soon wi l l be i mpossi bl e.
The pri nci pal al ternati ve to i nformati onal l i bertari an- But thi s parti cul ar geni e has al ready escaped from the
bottl e. Those who dream that knowl edge can be repa- i sm i s the creati on of new i nsti tuti ons and l egal mecha-
ni sms desi gned to protect cul tural heri tage, fol kl ori c tri ated through copyri ght l aws vai n attempts to sl ow
the metastati c sel f-repl i cati on of i nformati on i n the Age producti ons, and bi ol ogi cal know-how, to quote the
l anguage of the Bel l agi o Decl arati on, a document pre- of the Si mul acrum are desti ned to be di sappoi nted.
Despi te the Church of Sci entol ogys si ngl e-mi nded pared by a di verse group of experts i n i ntel l ectual prop-
erty (reproduced i n Boyl e 1996:192200). Wi th admi ra- pursui t of cri mi nal prosecuti on and ci vi l acti on to pre-
vent the reproducti on of i ts secret texts, for exampl e, bl e cl ari ty and conci seness, the Bel l agi o Decl arati on
advocates a two-pronged revi si on of i ntel l ectual prop- there i s l i ttl e evi dence that i t has succeeded i n recaptur-
i ng al l or even a si gni cant fracti on of the copi es hel d erty practi ce: on the one hand, i t cal l s for a si gni cant
expansi on of the publ i c domai n by di mi ni shi ng i ntel l ec- by i ts opponents, doubtl ess buri ed on the hard dri ves of
thei r computers or squi rrel ed away on di skettes. The re- tual property ri ghts say, by shorteni ng the term of
copyri ghts or by l i mi ti ng the ci rcumstances under cent hi story of the Internet demonstrates that draco-
ni an attempts to pol i ce i nformati on are l i kel y to fai l , whi ch they may be awarded; on the other, i t cal l s for
the creati on of rel ated ri ghts regi mes to protect i ndi g- al though governments and powerful i nterest groups
may succeed i n temporari l y sti i ng open di ssent. The enous i ntel l ectual property. As experts on i ntel l ectual
property l aw, the authors of the Bel l agi o Decl arati on are same fate awai ts i ndi genous groups seeki ng total con-
trol over i nformati on about thei r soci eti es. Its use by aware of coni cts between these two agendas, and
wi thi n the l i mi ts of a bri ef document they try to recon- l aw-abi di ng hi stori ans and soci al sci enti sts wi l l surel y
decl i ne, but there wi l l soon ari se an underground l i tera- ci l e them wi thout speci fyi ng i n detai l how thi s harmo-
ni zati on mi ght be accompl i shed. ture a nati ve-knowl edge samizdat or, more l i kel y,
somethi ng resembl i ng the X-Files, the Ameri can tel evi - The measured l anguage of the Bel l agi o Decl arati on
contrasts wi th the sweepi ng demands of those who see si on seri es that expl oi ts popul ar bel i ef i n the govern-
ments secret contacts wi th extraterrestri al s that i s i ntel l ectual property l aw as a mechani sm for protecti ng
i ndi genous phi l osophi es. Recal l , for exampl e, the mani - l i kel y to gi ve ri se to di storti ons of fact far worse than
the mi srepresentati ons that today i nfuri ate i ndi genous festo of the Inter-Apache Summi t on Repatri ati on
(1995:4), whi ch asserts ti tl e to symbol s, bel i efs, cus- l eaders. As i s true i n the case of rel i gi ous secrets, the
conversi on of debate about New Age ri tual s i nto a toms, i deas and other physi cal and spi ri tual objects and
concepts, or the UN document stati ng that nati ve peo- struggl e over i ntel l ectual property undermi nes pros-
pects for urgentl y needed publ i c di scussi on about mu- pl e have an i nherent ri ght of control over everythi ng en-
compassed by the term cul tural heri tage (Daes 1993). tual respect and the fragi l i ty of nati ve cul tures i n mass
soci eti es.
20
These documents l ay cl ai m to thought as wel l as i ts ac-
tual i zati on i n concrete acts of creati on. Those fami l i ar
wi th copyri ght know that the di sti ncti on between i deas
and thei r expressi on that i s, xi ng i n tangi bl e form Toward Genre Pol i ce and Certi ed
(see Li tman 1991:239)i s foundati onal to noti ons of i n-
Indi genous Persons?
tel l ectual property. The reason for thi s i s obvi ous: be-
cause we cannot ascertai n the ori gi n of i deas unl ess
As I noted earl i er, one proposed sol uti on to the cri si s of
they are expressed i n some stabl e, materi al form, i t
i ntel l ectual property i s the l i bertari an opti on arti cu-
woul d be i mpossi bl e to enforce cl ai ms on them. Yet
l ated by Barl ow and Dyson: l et i nformati on be free by
some experts i n i ntel l ectual property now urge that the
i dea/expressi on di sti ncti on be abandoned because of i ts
19. Accordi ng to Davi d Sanjek (1992:609), the avai l abi l i ty of af-
fordabl e di gi tal sampl i ng equi pment has had a si mi l ar effect on
al l eged ethnocentri sm, i ts i nabi l i ty to protect creati ve
contemporary musi c: The el evati on of al l consumers to potenti al
l i ngui sti c, arti sti c, or musi cal producti ons expressed
creators . . . deni es the composer or musi ci an an aura of autonomy
through performance rather than preserved i n a perma-
and authenti ci ty.
nent medi um such as wri ti ng. Proposal s for the ex-
20. For further di scussi on of the contradi cti ons and di l emmas of
new medi a, see Schwartz (1996) and Baudri l l ard (1988). panded protecti on of i ndi genous i ntel l ectual property
ri ghts al so typi cal l y object to the ti me-l i mi ted qual i ty Among other thi ngs, fol kl ore-protecti on boards mi ght
be authori zed to i ntervene i f nonfol kl ori c peopl e pro- of current copyri ght and patent l aws. If nati ve knowl -
edge i s hel d to be col l ecti ve and eternal rather than the duced desi gns that i mi tated authori zed fol kl ori c styl es
or i f nati ve art were used i n cul tural l y i nappropri ate i nventi on of a sol i tary author, then i t fol l ows that ti me
l i mi tati ons keyed to the human l i fe span, whi ch cl earl y contexts.
22
Perhaps I am al one i n wonderi ng how a UNESCO- reect the possessi ve i ndi vi dual i sm of Western capi tal -
i st thought, shoul d be repl aced by some form of perpet- styl e bureaucracy woul d further the i nterests of i ndi ge-
nous peopl es by codi fyi ng thei r knowl edge i n what ual copyri ght.
21
These proposal s cal l to mi nd Appl e Computers woul d have to be a byzanti ne seri es of regul ati ons. One
can onl y i magi ne the endl ess l egal acti ons and l egi sl a- hi ghl y publ i ci zed i nfri ngement l awsui t agai nst Mi cro-
soft, whi ch cl ai med that Mi crosofts Wi ndows program ti ve i ni ti ati ves that woul d be requi red to protect agai nst
i nfri ngement of the l ook and feel of Tl i ngi t art or the i l l egal l y appropri ated the l ook and feel of Appl es pro-
pri etary software (Mota 1995). Al though Appl e ul ti - styl i sti c parti cul ari ti es of Shuar oratory. And when con-
si deri ng parts of the worl d where the rul e of l aw i s so matel y l ost the sui t, noti ons si mi l ar to i ts l ook-and-feel
cl ai m have been pi cked up by parti ci pants i n the ex- tenuous that even basi c trafc regul ati ons are the object
of col l ecti ve scorn, we mi ght wel l questi on how i ndi ge- pandi ng schol arl y debate about cul tural appropri ati on.
In a recent essay on the ethi cs and pragmati cs of the nous popul ati ons woul d benet from the i mpl ementa-
ti on of far l ess enforceabl e l aws rel ati ng to i ntangi bl e musi c i ndustry, for i nstance, Steven Fel d (1996) bri l -
l i antl y tracks the processes by whi ch recordi ngs of the cul tural property.
It i s al so prudent to consi der what the broader soci al musi cs of Mbuti and other Pygmy peopl es nd thei r
way i nto contemporary jazz and Worl d Beat, usual l y i mpact of l ook-and-feel protecti on mi ght be. Coul d i t i n
fact be conned to desi gnated fol kl ori c popul ati ons wi thout attri buti on or compensati on. My readi ng of
Fel ds anal ysi s i s that he vi ews those arti sts whose work or certi ed i ndi genous peopl es wi thout seepi ng i nto
the broader worl d of commerce, where corporati ons are repl i cates even the sounds and textures of Mbuti musi c
as performi ng an act of cul tural appropri ati on. In other al ready stormi ng the borderl and between i dea and ex-
pressi on? Who i s more l i kel y to be si l enced by the en- words, i mi tati ng the l ook and feel of a peopl es musi c
i s a form of cul tural theft, even i f i t occurs wi thi n a forcement of l ook-and-feel copyri ght: the Sony Corpora-
ti on, for i ts i nfri ngement of Mbuti ute pl ayi ng, or the genre such as jazz, whi ch i s l argel y predi cated on i mpro-
vi sati onal transformati ons of the arti stry of musi ci ans emergi ng Afri can recordi ng arti st whose rst commer-
ci al CD i nfri nges the styl e of Mi chael Jackson? And from every corner of the gl obe.
Al though Fel d wi sel y steers cl ear of proposi ng that what of schol arshi p? Anthony Seeger (1996:87) notes
that i t i s al ready di fcul t for ethnomusi col ogi sts to pub- we create a new speci es of genre pol i ce to protect i ndi g-
enous musi ci ans from expl oi tati on, other schol ars l i sh arti cl es on popul ar musi c because of copyri ght con-
strai nts that prevent the quotati on of l yri cs and musi cal prove l ess cauti ous. Indeed, journal s devoted to the sub-
ject of i ntel l ectual and cul tural property cheerful l y offer scores, an exampl e of the corporate worl ds concerted
efforts to downsi ze the scope of fai r use. Consi der, then, any number of schemes to codi fy cul ture and thereby
protect i t from mi suse. Most of these proposal s cal l for what hi story or anthropol ogy wi l l become when schol -
ars are prevented by l aw from wri ti ng accounts speci c the redeni ti on of fol kl ore as part of a nati onal or even
a gl obal patri mony. They al so encourage the i mposi ti on enough to evoke the rel i gi ous or pol i ti cal practi ces of
protected nati ve popul ati ons. Perhaps we can l ook for- of a regi me of moral ri ghts for cul tural property that
woul d exi st i n perpetui ty. (The moral -ri ghts concept, ward to the day when the Freud estate i s sued on the
grounds that Totem and Taboo vi ol ates the fol kl ori c whi ch i s al i en to U.S. copyri ght l aw but commonl y ap-
pl i ed i n European countri es, asserts that the state has copyri ght of i ndi genous peopl es from two worl d re-
gi ons, no l ess. Less fanci ful i s the prospect of court or- an enduri ng i nterest i n the i ntegri ty of works of cul tural
patri mony. Any attempt to modi fy a protected work ders that remove works of ethnomusi col ogy, hi story,
and ethnography from l i brary shel ves because they pur- say, by al teri ng a cl assi c l m or i mages of a famous
pai nti ng woul d vi ol ate i ts moral i ntegri ty even i f i ts
formal copyri ght had l ong si nce expi red.) UNESCO,
22. In Austral i a, where the protecti on of Abori gi nal art and cul ture
whi ch has drafted schemes for the appl i cati on of thi s
i s strongl y supported by anthropol ogi sts, l awyers, and nati ve acti v-
ki nd of protecti on to i ndi genous cul tural producti ons,
i sts, Col i n Gol van reports that successful attempts to enforce Ab-
ori gi nal copyri ght to tradi ti onal desi gns l ed wi l y tee-shi rt manufac- envi si ons the establ i shment of state fol kl ore protecti on
turers to produce knockoffs that merel y i mi tated the style of
boards that woul d regi ster [fol kl ori c] works and autho-
Abori gi nal art. Gol van (1992:229) comments: One i ssue whi ch
ri ze thei r use, al l owi ng excepti ons for educati onal
justi abl y ari ses for attenti on i s whether there ought to be protec-
and i nspi rati onal purposes (Berryman 1994:327).
ti on to prohi bi t thi s bastardi zati on of Abori gi nal art, and i f so, how
thi s protecti on woul d work. (See al so Bl akeney 1995 for addi ti onal
di scussi on of Austral i an l egal i ni ti ati ves.) In the domai n of musi c,
Mi l l s (1996:74) provi des a detai l ed descri pti on of recent Brazi l i an 21. See, for i nstance, Berryman (1994) and Mi l l s (1996). The Mataa-
tua Decl arati on, whi ch was i ssued after a 1993 conference i n New l egi sl ati on desi gned to protect the i ntel l ectual property of i ndi ge-
nous communi ti es by el i mi nati ng burdensome, ethnocentri c Zeal and, cal l s for a mul ti -generati onal coverage span for i ndi ge-
nous i ntel l ectual property, l eavi ng unanswered the questi on of copyri ght requi rements of l i vi ng authors, ori gi nal i ty and tangi -
bi l i ty. whether such protecti ons woul d be permanent.
vey stol en property. If ti me l i mi tati ons on i ndi genous domesti cated by i ndi genous popul ati ons and used by
them for centuri es. copyri ght were wai ved, as has been proposed by some
schol ars, then thi s i ntel l ectual stal emate coul d exi st i n It i s the broader debate about cul tural appropri ati on
that I nd di sturbi ng speci cal l y, the rel uctance of perpetui ty.
For the most radi cal of i ndi genous acti vi sts and, i n- otherwi se thoughtful schol ars to di ssect the ethno-
nati onal i st cl ai m that there exi sts an i nherent, perma- ci dental l y, for the gi ant corporati ons that oversee the
worl ds news and entertai nment medi a such i mpedi - nent ri ght of cul tural ownershi p and that thi s ri ght
shoul d be guaranteed by new l aws that, among other ments to schol arshi p and the exchange of i deas woul d
be wel come. The Hawai i an nati onal i st Haunani -Kay thi ngs, dene i deas as property. Di scussi ons about
strategi es for preventi ng cul tural appropri ati on seem to Trask (1991:162), for exampl e, characteri zes anthropol -
ogi sts and hi stori ans as part of a col oni zi ng horde be- take pl ace i n a paral l el uni verse unaffected by the erce
struggl e of creati ve arti sts and the general publ i c for free cause they seek to take away from us the power to de-
ne who and what we are, and how we shoul d behave access to i nformati on i n the face of growi ng corporate
domi nati on of knowl edge, now commodi ed as con- pol i ti cal l y and cul tural l y. Trask evi dentl y hopes that
i ndi genous peopl es wi l l eventual l y achi eve excl usi ve tent.
24
To some extent, of course, ethno-nati onal i sts
are reacti ng to thi s mad scrambl e for control by pro- power to represent themsel ves to the worl d at l arge. If
real i zed, thi s vi si on woul d i mpound knowl edge i n a tecti ng what they can. But nothi ng woul d serve corpo-
rate i nterests more perfectl y than the col l apse of the new reservati on system: reservati ons of the wri tten
word, an aparthei d of the mi nd.
23
i dea/expressi on di sti ncti on or the abandonment of ti me
hori zons on copyri ghted materi al . Expectati ons that In hi s reecti ons on the separati st movement i n Que-
bec, Ri chard Handl er (1988:194) observes that nati onal - such radi cal extensi ons of i ntel l ectual property l aws
coul d be restri cted to i ndi genous popul ati ons through i sts make preempti ve cl ai ms to knowl edge because
they are haunted by a vi si on of total i ty that can be the establ i shment of regi mes of speci al ri ghts are ex-
tremel y nai ve. The l egal frameworks necessary to sus- achi eved onl y when a peopl e becomes an i rreduci bl e,
homogeneous uni t, securel y i n control of i ts borders, tai n the permanent protecti on of enti re cul tures wi l l i n-
evi tabl y requi re greater i nvol vement of governmental sel f-contai ned, autonomous, and compl ete. The ethni c
nati on, i n other words, seeks to recover and then to con- or quasi -governmental agenci es i n the busi ness of de-
termi ni ng who i s a nati ve person and exactl y what qual - trol i ts hi story and i ts fol kl ore, shari ng i t wi th outsi ders
onl y i n forms that i t deems appropri ate. A consi derati on i es as i ndi genous knowl edge, a si tuati on that one
woul d be hard-pressed to see as beneci al for ethni c mi - of the moral standi ng of thi s dream of cul tural puri ty i s
beyond the scope of thi s essay. But there can be l i ttl e nori ti es. One wonders, too, about the fate of those art-
i sts Loui se Erdri ch, Al l an Houser, and Baba Ol atunji doubt that attempts to i mpose new border control s on
the ow of knowl edge rai se troubl i ng questi ons that come i mmedi atel y to mi nd who have drawn on nati ve
i denti ti es to fashi on art that transcends ethni c bound- shoul d be resol ved, or at l east thoroughl y di scussed, be-
fore supporti ng new l egal regi mes that codi fy cul tural ari es. Woul d they, too, have to repatri ate themsel ves
to sati sfy the demands of a system that denes owner- property and potenti al l y even cri mi nal i ze i ts unautho-
ri zed possessi on. shi p pri mari l y by ethni ci ty?
A real i st perspecti ve acknowl edges the uneven hol d
that i ntel l ectual property l aws have on the ow of
knowl edge i nto and through the new di gi tal technol o- Cl osi ng Thoughts
gi es. Even the supposedl y pri vi l eged arti sts and wri ters
of the majori ty cul ture routi nel y nd thei r copyri ghts Al though there are compel l i ng reasons to be skepti cal
of some i ndi genous i ntel l ectual property ri ghts propos- vi ol ated by i nformati on-di stri buti on servi ces that pro-
vi de copi es of works to cl i ents on demand (Ti sdal e al s currentl y under di scussi on, I strongl y support efforts
to create basi c mechani sms for the compensati on of na- 1997:70). One can i magi ne how much more di fcul t i t
wi l l be to pol i ce the comprehensi ve copyri ght protecti ve peopl es for commerci al use of thei r sci enti c
knowl edge, musi cal performances, and arti sti c cre- ti ons now bei ng consi dered for i ndi genous cul tures. As
the l egal schol ar Jessi ca Li tman (1991:248) has poi nted ati ons. Equal l y necessary are cl ear gui del i nes for the
col l ecti on of cul tural l y sensi ti ve ethnographi c data and out, when copyri ght regul ati ons di verge too dramati -
cal l y from the practi cal understandi ngs of authors and potenti al l y marketabl e human bi ol ogi cal materi al s, i n-
cl udi ng cel l l i nes. I woul d hope, too, that anthropol o- the general publ i c, these l aws l ose l egi ti macy. Thi s
probl em woul d surel y i ntensi fy were governments to gi sts wi l l conti nue to regi ster objecti ons to the patent-
i ng of medi ci nal and agri cul tural pl ants di scovered or i mpl ement radi cal l y expanded copyri ght l aws desi gned
to protect al l forms of i ntangi bl e cul tural property. The
ensui ng urry of l i ti gati on woul d favor onl y the l argest
23. In such ci rcumstances, a parti cul ar versi on of the past be-
comes a commodi ty that can be mobi l i sed for pol i ti cal power and
economi c gai n, where a soverei gn terri tory of knowl edge i s asser- 24. See, for i nstance, Betti g (1996), Browni ng (1997), Samuel son
(1997), and Schi l l er (1989) for di scussi on of attempts by North ti vel y appropri ated as ones own, i n the i nterests of creati ng a use-
abl e hi story that wi l l serve as a vehi cl e for correcti ng past wrongs Ameri can medi a i nterests to i mpose ever more restri cti ve copy-
ri ght l aws on the rest of the worl d. (Munro 1994:233).
corporate i nterests, for whom l egal fees are si mpl y a more one of respect, but of taki ng si des, of sol i -
dari ty. routi ne cost of doi ng busi ness.
Conspi cuous by i ts absence i s a vi gorous defense of
the concept of a publ i c domai n.
25
Thi s i s doubtl ess be- Fortunatel y, somethi ng cl ose to Tayl ors vi si on of au-
thenti c i ntercul tural respect appears to be taki ng hol d cause postcol oni al schol ars regard appeal s to noti ons of
the ci vi c whol e as thi nl y vei l ed advocacy for (whi te) i n archi ves and museums. Aware of thei r responsi bi l i ty
to protect publ i c records whi l e remai ni ng responsi ve to el i tes. Whose publ i c are we tal ki ng about? they ask.
The questi on admi ts of no easy answer. The real i ti es of the concerns of groups who cl ai m an i nterest i n them,
reposi tori es are wi l l i ng to ask tough questi ons of those money, power, and soci al capi tal make the publ i c do-
mai n more accessi bl e and expl oi tabl e for some ci ti - who demand that i rrepl aceabl e cul tural i nformati on be
destroyed or cl osed to the mul ti pl e publ i cs whom they zens than for others. Yet the publ i c domai n that permi ts
the i ntel l ectual col oni zati on of nati ve peopl es al so of- serve. New worki ng rel ati onshi ps between reposi tori es
and i ndi genous communi ti es, many set i n moti on by fers resources that they regul arl y appropri ate for thei r
own cul tural redeni ti on and pol i ti cal advancement NAGPRA, are hel pi ng to foster rel ati onshi ps of mutual
trust that produce real i sti c compromi ses appropri ate to (Coombe 1997:7475). The same cannot be sai d for sys-
tems that di spense i nformati on on a stri ct need-to- i ndi vi dual cases (Nason 1997). Si mi l arl y pragmati c ethi -
cal protocol s are bei ng formul ated by anthropol ogi sts know basi s.
Lurki ng i n the background i s a curi ous rel uctance to and ethnomusi col ogi sts (see, e.g., Seeger 1996). If
cl earl y communi cated and enforced by professi onal so- come to gri ps wi th the pragmati cs of mul ti cul tural de-
mocracy. It i s one thi ng to i nsi st that the deepl y fel t ci eti es, these codes are l i kel y to prove more effecti ve
than radi cal l y expanded l egal regi mes for the protecti on vi ews of a parti cul ar mi nori ty be taken seri ousl y, qui te
another to propose workabl e procedures by whi ch these of i ntangi bl e cul tural property, whi ch wi l l provi de guar-
anteed empl oyment for bureaucrats whi l e doi ng l i ttl e to cul tural di fferences (whi ch of course must be mul ti -
pl i ed by the number of ethni c groups and subcul tures shi el d nati ve peopl es from the depredati ons of mass so-
ci ety. that a gi ven nati on encompasses)can be reconci l ed wi th
majori tari an government and a commi tment to equal Perhaps the most promi si ng approach i s advanced by
schol ars such as Karen J. Warren (1989) and Donal d treatment before the l aw. Every l egi ti mate demand for
speci al consi derati on, i ncl udi ng the cl ai m that nati ve Tuzi n (1995), who argue that frameworks based on joi nt
stewardshi p are preferabl e to model s based on ri ghts peopl es deserve regi mes of i ntel l ectual property uni que
to them, must be wei ghed agai nst the i njuri ous effect and rul es. Joi nt stewardshi p i mpl i es a wi l l i ngness to
compromi se, whi ch i s essenti al for hammeri ng out that speci al ri ghts have on prevai l i ng noti ons of fai r-
ness. The phi l osopher Charl es Tayl or, who al ong wi th workabl e agreements between parti es who may hol d i n-
compati bl e atti tudes toward the proper use of i nforma- such l egal thi nkers as Ronal d Dworki n (1986) and Wi l l
Kyml i cka (1989) has done some of the heavy l i fti ng ti on. The hi stori an Doug Munro (1994:236) notes that
the i ntercul tural encounter i s a shared experi ence that shi rked by anthropol ogi sts, asserts that i f one genuinely
takes the cl ai ms of mi nori ti es seri ousl y, they must be bel ongs sol el y to nei ther party. In short, he adds, the
terms i nsi der and outsi der, far from representi ng di s- assessed wi th the same thoughtful del i berati on that we
i nsi st upon i n l egal proposal s comi ng from the cul tural crete categori es, are convol uted and often permeabl e.
A basi s for joi nt stewardshi p i s admi ttedl y harder to mai nstream. Tayl or rejects the si mpl e-mi nded rel ati v-
i sm that says, i n effect, If the So-and-So demand i t, we nd i n the predatory acti vi ti es of corporati ons that seek
to appropri ate i ndi genous knowl edge for commerci al must gi ve i t to them because thei r cul tural val ues are
as val i d as our own. For Tayl or (1994:70), thi s demon- purposes. Even here, however, si tuati onal pragmati sm
may prove more effecti ve than a radi cal expansi on of i n- strates breathtaki ng condescensi on. He conti nues:
tel l ectual property l aws to encompass every aspect of
No one can real l y mean i t as a genui ne act of re-
nati ve cul tures. Wi despread publ i c sympathy gi ves na-
spect. It i s more i n the nature of a pretend act of re-
ti ve peopl es consi derabl e i nuence i n the court of worl d
spect gi ven on the i nsi stence of i ts supposed bene-
opi ni on, and thi s can be used to pressure corporati ons
ci ary. Objecti vel y, such an act i nvol ves contempt
i nto compl yi ng wi th basi c ethi cal standards. Creati ve
for the l atters i ntel l i gence. To be an object of such
l i censi ng partnershi ps between nati ve communi ti es
an act of respect demeans. The proponents of neo-
and corporate i nterests offer another path to fai r com-
Ni etzschean theori es [expressed i n the work of Fou-
pensati on and a modi cum of i ndi genous control (see
caul t and Derri da] hope to escape thi s whol e nexus
Cl evel and and Murray 1997:488). Li ke most real i st
of hypocri sy by turni ng the enti re i ssue i nto one of
strategi es, these opti ons l ack the rhetori cal appeal of
power and counterpower. Then the questi on i s no
ethno-nati onal i st denunci ati on or the hyperrati onal i st
al l ure of novel l egal schemes, but they are far more
25. A notabl e excepti on i s the Bel l agi o Decl arati on (Boyl e 1996:
l i kel y to produce the desi red resul ts.
195), whi ch advocates an i ncreased recogni ti on and protecti on of
In the nal pages of The Protestant Ethic and the
the publ i c domai n i n tandem wi th the creati on of regi mes of spe-
Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber (1930:181) speaks
ci al ri ghts for i ndi genous peopl es. For cri ti ques of the concept of
movi ngl y of moderni tys i ron cage, an asceti c rati o-
the publ i c domai n and the noti on of common human heri tage, see
Pask (1993) and Coombe (1996). nal i sm dri ven by the overwhel mi ng power of materi al
goods. Webers i ron cage has steadi l y expanded to i n- thei r knowl edge as pri vate property, and i t i s under-
standabl e that thei r ethnographers shoul d be sympa- cl ude i deas and i mages, whi ch have become tokens i n
economi c exchanges faci l i tated by the new i nformati on theti c to thei r attempts to empower themsel ves. Thi s
process i s rei nforced when i ndi genous peopl e see thei r technol ogi es. To resi st the expansi on of these processes
i nto i ndi genous cul tures, l egal experts and i ndi genous knowl edge of pl ants and medi ci nes converted i nto pri -
vate property by outsi ders and corporati ons through advocates have come forward wi th proposal s to seques-
ter some forms of knowl edge and to protect everythi ng patenti ng.
Pri vacy l aws i n Western democraci es establ i sh a di s- el se wi th dramati cal l y expanded i ntel l ectual property
l aws. Unfortunatel y, the advent of the Age of the Si mu- ti ncti on, vari ousl y drawn, between publ i c and pri vate
spheres of acti vi ty, and patents and copyri ght provi de l acrum has rendered the rst strategy futi l e, al though i t
may provi de a fal se and temporary sense of securi ty. anal ogous protecti on for pri vate i deas. When we are
deal i ng wi th artefacts and the hi dden meani ngs of The second represents a total surrender to the commod-
i fyi ng l ogi c of advanced capi tal i sm. Now i t may be ti me pai nti ngs and ri tual s i t may be feasi bl e to work out a
compromi se between those seeki ng enl i ghtenment and to temper demands for comprehensi ve copyri ghti ng of
nati ve cul tures wi th earnest reecti on on the future of those who wi sh to protect the pri vacy of thei r knowl -
edge. Compromi ses are harder to reach wi th reference the i mperi l ed i ntel l ectual and arti sti c commons cal l ed
the publ i c domai n, whose survi val i s of vi tal si gni - to soci al acti vi ti es that tradi ti onal l y have been per-
cei ved as part of cul ture. Cross-cousi n marri age can no cance to us al l .
more be effecti vel y patented than syl l ogi sti c l ogi c. A
real coni ct ari ses when a materi al object has di fferent
meani ngs for di fferent actors. One exampl e i s recentl y
unearthed bones of i ndi vi dual s who l i ved l ong ago. Ar- Comments
chaeol ogi sts i n Austral i a see these as provi di ng i nfor-
mati on about the type of DNA preval ent duri ng past
mi l l enni a, whereas Abori gi nes tend to see them as the j . a . b a r n e s
Sociology Program, Research School of Social bones of ancestors whi ch shoul d be reburi ed.
The di fcul ti es currentl y faced by soci al sci enti sts of Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra,
A.C.T. 0200, Australia. 7 x 97 al l ki nds i n our quest for enl i ghtenment ari se from the
shi ft i n the bal ance of power that has occurred duri ng
the past hundred years or so. Not onl y so-cal l ed i ndi ge- Wi th l i mi ted space I can comment on onl y a few of the
many poi nts menti oned by Brown i n hi s wi de-rangi ng nous peopl e but al l segments of soci ety (wi th the possi -
bl e excepti on of chi l dren) are nowadays i n much and very percepti ve paper. He rai ses i ssues l i kel y to be-
come i ncreasi ngl y cri ti cal for anyone seeki ng greater stronger posi ti ons to obstruct or i nuence the gatheri ng
of i nformati on about them and i ts subsequent di ssemi - knowl edge and/or wi der justi ce. Both goal s are esti ma-
bl e, but unfortunatel y the paths l eadi ng to them often nati on. Though thi s makes the task of soci al i nqui ry
more di fcul t, we shoul d not regret i t; reducti on of i ne- di verge. Roughl y speaki ng, there are three overl appi ng
ways of percei vi ng knowl edge: as a source of enl i ghten- qual i ti es i n the di stri buti on of power i s just as essenti al
for mai ntai ni ng l i beral democracy as i s a free ow of i n- ment, as a source of power, and as a ki nd of pri vate prop-
erty (Barnes 1980:6466; 1990:20911). Knowl edge as formati on. Browns paper remi nds us that i n our postco-
l oni al worl d the i nequal i ti es we shoul d target are no enl i ghtenment enhances our understandi ng of the
worl d; the more peopl e possess i t the better, and there l onger those between i ndi genous peopl es and col oni al -
i st ethnographers but those between pri vate ci ti zens i s no zero-sum game. Brown stresses that a ow of i n-
formati on i s essenti al to a l i beral democracy, a type and powerful corporati ons, whether secul ar or rel i gi ous.
We can put our ethi cal house i n order for the present of pol i ty he i mpl i ci tl y endorses. As power, knowl edge
hel ps us to al ter the worl d; actors compete rather than and future, but what shoul d we do wi th knowl edge
gai ned i n the past under condi ti ons we now reject? share, and the game approxi mates to zero-sum. Posses-
si on of knowl edge as pri vate property may be a val ue i n Brown menti ons the quaranti ni ng of the records of Nazi
medi cal experi ments. Perhaps i n the short term thi s i tsel f; secrets can be hoarded unused but enjoyed and
shared onl y very sel ecti vel y. Anthropol ogy, l i ke other may be the ri ght way to handl e these records; neverthe-
l ess, we dont feel that we shoul d, for i nstance, stop vac- soci al sci ences, i s premi sed on knowl edge as enl i ghten-
ment, al though admi ni strati ons have i ntermi ttentl y ci nati ng chi l dren agai nst smal l pox because Jenner di dnt
get cl earance from an ethi cs commi ttee before doi ng hi s tri ed to use ethnographi c knowl edge as a source of
power. Some soci eti es, notabl y those of Austral i an Abo- experi ment. There seems no reason for adopti ng an os-
tri ch-l i ke stance of refusi ng to see and use i nformati on ri gi nes, el aborate the noti on of knowl edge as pri vate
property; i t i s l ocal Abori gi nes who have organi zed seg- that i s al ready i n the publ i c domai n. In any case, as
Brown poi nts out, for every overconsci enti ous ostri ch regated museums at Yuendumu i n Central Austral i a,
one for men and one for women. But i rrespecti ve of cul - there are many more actors who have no i ntenti on of
buryi ng thei r heads i n the sands of pseudo-i gnorance. tural emphases i ndi genous peopl es everywhere are typi -
cal l y materi al l y poor and pol i ti cal l y powerl ess. Possess- Materi al objects col l ected i n the past cal l for di fferent
treatment. Much that i s now stored i n museums woul d i ng meagre resources, they tend not surpri si ngl y to vi ew
have peri shed l ong ago i f i t had not been taken i nto et al . 1994). The Zuni al so offer evi dence that not onl y
museum curators but i ndi genous peopl es can be very al i en custody. Many i ndi genous communi ti es are, how-
ever, now wel l abl e to preserve thei r own heri tage and practi cal i n thei r approach to i ntel l ectual property i n a
gl obal i zi ng worl d. thus have good grounds for recl ai mi ng thei r former pos-
sessi ons. I agree emphati cal l y wi th Browns statement that res-
ol uti on wi l l requi re reecti on on the part of those hol d-
i ng di fferent posi ti ons on thei r gl obal i mpl i cati ons i n
order to achi eve sui tabl e compromi ses. Rather than fo- d a v i d a . c l e v e l a n d
Department of Anthropology, University of cusi ng on methods, we mi ght better rst try reachi ng a
consensus on goal s. To the extent that conservati on of California, Santa Barbara, Calif. 93106-3210, U.S.A.
(clevelan@alishaw.ucsb.edu). 12 xi 97 cul tural di versi ty i s an agreed-upon soci al goal , we need
to expl ore how exi sti ng and new ways of managi ng i n-
tel l ectual property can best serve thi s goal . Browns revi ew of current approaches to ri ghts i n
cul ture i s an i nsi ghtful and sti mul ati ng cri ti que. He
ski l l ful l y poi nts out the confusi on of val ues and facts
that characteri zes so much of the debate over ri ghts to r o s e ma r y j . c o o mb e
Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., i ntel l ectual property, especi al l y among advocates of i n-
di genous ri ghts. A narrow struggl e over i ntel l ectual Canada M5S 2C5. 27 x 97
property di verts publ i c di scussi on about mutual respect
and the fragi l i ty of i ndi genous cul tures i n a gl obal soci - Can Cul ture Be Copyri ghted? addresses several i ssues
of contemporary pol i ti cal si gni cance to cul tural an- ety, and anthropol ogi sts shoul d face up to the probabl e
effects on the publ i c domai n of greatl y expanded i ntel - thropol ogi sts and poi nts to many of the ethi cal di l em-
mas that attend the movement towards an i ntel l ectual l ectual property protecti on of cul tures. I di ffer wi th
hi m, however, on several poi nts. property paradi gm for promoti ng cul tural sel f-determi -
nati on through control over cul tural patri mony and the He accepts the pol i ti cal i deal s of l i beral democracy
as a standard for deal i ng wi th secrecy. Yet many i ndi ge- protecti on of l ocal knowl edges. The authors case, how-
ever, may be as overstated as the rhetori cal strategi es to nous groups, such as the Hopi he ci tes, have a wi de
range of vi ews on the recogni ti on and treatment of whi ch he i s respondi ng. As a l awyer and an anthropol o-
gi st I thi nk that the debates around i ntel l ectual propri ghts i n i ntel l ectual property (Cl evel and and Murray
1997). Ethi cal real i sm i s advocated as a common- erty are nei ther sufci entl y careful i n thei r arti cul ati on
of the l aw nor ethnographi cal l y sensi ti ve to the con- sense approach to the ethi cs of i ntel l ectual property,
but i t i s onl y real i sti c and commonsense i f one texts i n whi ch i ntel l ectual property asserti ons ari se as
rhetori cal cl ai ms. agrees wi th the l i beral democrati c val ues on whi ch i t i s
based. My poi nt i s that there i s a real i sti c or com- Let me begi n wi th the l aw. In hi s ti tl e and i ntroduc-
tory paragraph, Brown conates i ntel l ectual property monsense approach only from wi thi n parti cul ar
worl dvi ews. What, for exampl e, i s the basi s for Browns wi th copyri ght, when i n fact many of the asserti ons
made by i ndi genous peopl es have been made as i nter- statement that he doesnt know how one coul d possi bl y
endorse a practi ce as appal l i ng as the Smoki Snake venti ons i n the el ds of patents and trademarks. None
of these domai ns of i ntel l ectual property provi des abso- Dance yet al so condemn those who seek to l i mi t al l
outsi der use of i nsi der rel i gi ous knowl edge? Where one l ute ri ghts of excl usi on; al l are premi sed on a soci al bar-
gai n that grants speci c ri ghts and i mposes speci c re- draws the l i ne i s a matter of val ues, not of di scoveri ng
some absol ute standard. Any agreement must therefore sponsi bi l i ti es on hol ders who exerci se these ri ghts i n
the publ i c sphere. It i s true, as Brown recogni zes, that be based on open-mi nded negoti ati on.
Brown suggests that i t i s i roni c that those who seek ri ghts of propri etary excl usi vi ty have been expanded
over the course of thi s century at the expense of broader to protect l ocal cul tures wi th expanded i ntel l ectual
property ri ghts l aws typi cal l y denounce capi tal i sm pri nci pl es of publ i c pol i cy and that the publ i c domai n i s
i ncreasi ngl y endangered by the overreachi ng of i ndustry whi l e encouragi ng the commodi ti zati on of ethi cal and
pol i ti cal di scourse. However, the moti ves and methods i nterests. Ironi cal l y, as ri ghts to real property have be-
come more and more attenuated to accommodate soci al of l ocal groups and thei r advocates are not homoge-
neous. Some groups are usi ng i ndustri al -worl d i ntel l ec- needs, ri ghts to i ntel l ectual properti es have become
more absol ute. It i s preci sel y i n such contexts that prop- tual property ri ghts l aws and aski ng for thei r expansi on
because thi s seems the best way to protect thei r cul ture erty cl ai ms become compel l i ng as i deol ogi cal vehi cl es
wi th whi ch to assert other i nterests and voi ce other from outsi ders usi ng these same l aws. In the case of
crop geneti c resources, advocates of l ocal farmers ri ghts concerns. We shoul d, however, bear i n mi nd the pol i ti -
cal posi ti oni ngs of those who arti cul ate soci al needs i n i ni ti al l y pushed for free access to al l resources, but
strong opposi ti on by i ndustri al nati ons l ed to a swi tch the i di om of ri ghts and the i mperati ve of maki ng con-
cerns known i n authori tati ve di scursi ve forms. Prop- to advocati ng i ntel l ectual property protecti on for farm-
ers crop geneti c resources (Fowl er 1994). Other groups erty, though, i s more dynami c than i ts i deol ogi cal de-
pl oyment mi ght suggest; i t i s consti tuted of exi bl e demand that thei r own i ntel l ectual property ri ghts re-
gi mes be respected by outsi ders, as do the Zuni (Sol eri nexi of mul ti pl e and negoti abl e rel ati onshi ps between
persons and thi ngs that conti nual l y shi ft to accommo- wi th sel f-devel opment, sel f-determi nati on, and the pro-
moti on of di al ogue and di al ogi c condi ti ons must be cen- date hi stori cal recogni ti ons of pri or i nequi ti es and cur-
rent soci al needs. tral to i ssues of cul tural representati on. To the extent
that anthropol ogi cal records have been i nuenti al i n I am uncomfortabl e, al so, wi th any vi si on of democ-
racy whi ch poses compl ete freedom of speech and ful l characteri zi ng and authori tati vel y representi ng the cul -
tures of others i n some juri sdi cti ons, questi ons about access to al l cul tural forms as the onl y response to cor-
porate possessi on of cul ture, broadl y dened. Absol ute the condi ti ons under whi ch such records were compi l ed
and authored seem enti rel y apposi te. To the extent that ri ghts of pri vate property and absol ute ri ghts of access
to the publ i c domai n entertai n onl y extreme poi nts of anthropol ogi sts were compl i ci t i n gi vi ng cul tural i den-
ti ty i ts contemporary juri di cal force and provi di ng the a Eurocentri c spectrum of possi bi l i ty that needs to be
chal l enged by the cul tural mores of others. Peopl es have means by whi ch authori ti es xed and dened such
i denti ti es, i t i s unfortunate but not surpri si ng that de- other rel ati onshi ps to cul tural forms trust, secrecy,
guardi anshi p, stewardshi p, i ni ti ati on, sacral i zati on scendents of these anthropol ogi cal i nformants have to
cl ai m these records as thei r property i n order to prevent and obl i gati ons to rel ati ves, ancestors, spi ri ts, and fu-
ture generati ons whi ch make model s of access and own- thei r conti nui ng use to dene thei r cul tures. In thi s
context, i t i s somewhat di si ngenuous to cl ai m that, as ershi p appear extremel y i mpoveri shed. Such knowl edge
i s not adequatel y understood as i nformati on, nor may ethnography moves i n a confessi onal di recti on that si t-
uates the author more squarel y i n the text, the Other i ts ci rcul ati on be properl y understood as speech.
Indeed, Western noti ons of property are themsel ves i s cl ai mi ng ownershi p of the textual si mul acrum. Thi s
i s to conate two di sti nct hi stori cal peri ods and atti - not nearl y as narrow as thi s di chotomy between excl u-
si vi ty of possessi on and an unrestri cted publ i c com- tudes towards ethnographi c authori ty and to di scount
the ways i n whi ch ethnographi c cti ons have hi stori - mons woul d suggest. Western juri di cal tradi ti ons recog-
ni ze rel ati ons of trust (express and constructi ve), cal l y gured as truths i n regi mes of power and knowl -
edge. Who determi nes where cti on resi des and i n what duci ary obl i gati on, i mpl i ci t l i cense, breach of con-
dence, stewardshi p, and l ocal observances of negoti ated ci rcumstances? Cl earl y, i f we are to encourage demo-
crati c di al ogue, we must open these questi ons up to an customs and ethi cs. Brown asserts that secrecy and
stri ct control of knowl edge contradi ct the pol i ti cal i de- urgentl y needed publ i c di scussi on about mutual re-
spect and the fragi l i ty of nati ve cul tures i n mass soci et- al s of l i beral democracy, but trade secrets, corporate
condenti al i ty arrangements, and the duci ary obl i ga- i es. To grant nati ve peopl es ful l voi ce i n these di scus-
si ons, however, may wel l i nvol ve a prel i mi nary ti ons of empl oyees (not to menti on ti es of ki nshi p obl i -
gati on) have l ong been i mportant means of mai ntai ni ng recogni ti on of propri etary cl ai ms not as excl usi vi ty of
possessi on but as bundl es of mul ti pl e ri ghts and rel a- the val ue of i ntangi bl es i n i ndustri es and fami l y rms
i n capi tal i st democraci es. Certai nl y some hol ders of ti onshi ps sti l l to be del i neated i n contested and conti n-
gent di al ogues that may wel l reshape the concept of val uabl e knowl edge and cul tural forms have had greater
resources at thei r di sposal than others to precl ude the property as we thi nk we know i t.
di l uti ons and deval uati ons occasi oned when these val u-
abl es are transformed i nto mere i nformati on freel y
avai l abl e i n the publ i c domai n. By usi ng the i di om of ph i l i ppe d e s c o l a
Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, property, then, many i ndi genous peopl es may si mpl y be
taki ng the i ni ti al and necessary step of i nsi sti ng upon a France. 23 x 97
l evel i ng of the pl ayi ng el d before worki ng out the de-
tai l s of parti cul ar contractual arrangements. Contracts Brown must be commended for hi s fai r and subtl e treat-
ment of a di fcul t topi c usual l y fraught wi th controver- based upon duress, unconsci onabi l i ty, coerci on, and
grossl y unequal bargai ni ng power are not enforced i n si al or shortsi ghted statements. I share most of hi s
vi ews, especi al l y hi s strong commi tment to the concept most democraci es, and our l egal regi mes are constantl y
forced to deal wi th demands for resti tuti on and com- of the publ i c domai n, and woul d not have thought i t
necessary to add a comment had he not treated too pensati on i n such i nstances. The tri vi al i zati on of sym-
bol s, the di sparagement of peopl es, and mi srepresenta- l i ghtl y perhaps what I percei ve to be one of the most
seri ous consequences of what he cal l s ethi cal absol ut- ti ons i n the publ i c sphere are al so i njuri es that l egal
systems both recogni ze and redress i n el ds as di verse i sm, namel y, the covert i nsti tuti onal i zati on of cul -
tural aparthei d as the postmodern form of raci al apart- as tort, unfai r competi ti on, and trademark; Fi rst
Amendment concerns are i ndeed rai sed and i nterests i n hei d. Most cl ai ms advocati ng i ndi genous i ntel l ectual
property ri ghts studi ousl y avoi d formal l y deni ng the freedom of expressi on bal anced, but speech ri ghts have
never been recogni zed as absol utel y trumpi ng cl ai ms status of the popul ati ons to whi ch speci al -ri ght regi mes
shoul d be granted. Thi s i s perhaps because the debate based upon i njuri es effected by expressi ve acti vi ti es.
The emphasi s upon freedom of expressi on and i ts rol e has been mai nl y restri cted up to now to nati ve peopl es
of the Ameri cas and Austral i a, that i s, to cul tural and wi thi n a democracy i n thi s cri ti que must begi n wi th
some assumpti ons about why we val ue thi s freedom l i ngui sti c autochthonous mi nori ti es that are cl earl y
i denti abl e wi thi n nati ons settl ed by Europeans. In the and to what ends. Al though there i s a ri ch vei n of phi -
l osophy and juri sprudence to be mi ned here, concerns course of thei r struggl es for l and, di gni ty, and the recog-
ni ti on of thei r cul tural uni queness, these mi nori ti es popul ati ons through the i mpl ementati on of speci c l e-
gal frameworks but by a vi gorous defense of what have often obtai ned speci al or derogatory l egal statutes
(concerni ng l and tenure, ci vi c duti es, or personal ri ghts) Brown cal l s ethi cal real i sm.
whi ch contri bute to setti ng them apart, soci al l y and
spati al l y, from ordi nary ci ti zens and render them more
conspi cuous as di sti nct subsets of the nati onal commu- l . r . h i a t t
79 Addison Way, London NW11 6AR, U.K. 6 x 97 ni ti es. But such vi si bi l i ty i s not the norm everywhere
i n the worl d, and advocates of di fferenti al i sm shoul d
perhaps pay more attenti on to the fact that cul tural di - Suppose an ethni c nati on wi shes to prevent outsi ders
from (a) maki ng money from i ts cul ture that coul d be versi ty i s not onl y an i nternal phenomenon typi cal of
great mel ti ng-pot nati ons but al so a feature of the whol e made i nstead by i ts own members and (b) maki ng any
statement about the cul ture that the ethni c nati on nds wi de worl d. Now, i f there i s a l esson that we have
l earned from anthropol ogy, i t i s the i mpossi bi l i ty of offensi ve. Anthropol ogi cal associ ati ons mi ght at a cer-
tai n poi nt be expected to l obby agai nst such protecti on- concei vi ng cul tures as bounded terri tori al whol es de-
ned by sets of substanti ve attri butes. Who wi l l deci de, i sm, si nce (a) thei r members jobs are threatened and (b)
they cheri sh cri ti cal i nqui ry and free speech. The i ndi - then, and how, that a speci c soci al groupi ng does or
does not qual i fy as a genui ne nati ve mi nori ty, ethni c cati ons at the moment, judgi ng from Browns exem-
pl ary essay, are that anthropol ogi sts are ready to aban- nati on, fol kl ori c communi ty, or whatever you choose to
name the cul tural l y uni que potenti al beneci ari es of a don both professi on and l i bertari an pri nci pl e i n the
percei ved i nterests of those whose cul tures form thei r speci al regi me of col l ecti ve i ntel l ectual property ri ghts?
Are we to consi der the Basques (who are among the eth- subject matter.
Support of the weak agai nst the strong i s a nobl e tra- ni c sampl es of the Human Rel ati ons Area Fi l es) as
l i kel y candi dates? Or the Wel sh, or the Osseti ans, or the di ti on, l ong entrenched i n the ethos of anthropol ogy,
and al trui sm i s a vi rtue not to be mocked. Brown, as I Kabyl es? And i f not, for what reasons? Are they not mi -
nori ti es wi thi n nati ons, wi th thei r own di sti ncti ve cul - read hi m, has no quarrel wi th ei ther. Hi s argument,
rather, i s that l egal and bureaucrati c control of cul tural tures and l anguages and a l ong hi story of di fcul t rel a-
ti ons wi th hegemoni c states? Are they not as much property i s l i kel y to benet the strong more than the
weak, for exampl e, entertai nment corporati ons more enti tl ed as the Apache tri bes to demand control over al l
i mages, texts, ceremoni es, musi c, songs, stori es, sym- than fol k musi ci ans. It woul d certai nl y benet l awyers,
bureaucrats, and pol i ti cal el i tes more than rank-and-l e bol s, customs, and i deas rel ati ng to them? And i f the
possi bi l i ty for these types of cul tural mi nori ti es to gai n cul ture-bearers i n nati ons and ethni c nati ons al i ke.
Speci al pl eadi ng has an i nherent tendency to backre. excl usi ve control over thei r cul tural property i s
brushed asi de as fanci ful or l udi crous, i s i t not because The very val ues of the open soci ety that have faci l i tated
the exposure of i ni qui ti es perpetrated agai nst i ndi ge- an i mpl i ci t di sti ncti on i s made between, say, the
Basques and the Kabyl es, on the one hand, and the nous mi nori ti es must surel y be compromi sed i f the l at-
ter are now encouraged to reconsti tute themsel ves as Apache and the Pi ntupi , on the other, regardi ng thei r
very essence and cl ai ms to authenti ci ty? If thi s i s the cl osed soci eti es. How can we avoi d a charge of cyni ci sm
i f we i nsi st on freedom of i nformati on i n the i nterests case, i t i s qui te worryi ng. Europeans have very pai nful
memori es (and ni ghtmari sh contemporary exampl es) of of an ethni c nati on whose own bureaucrats practi ce
censorshi p? How can we i n good consci ence acqui esce i deol ogi es that cl ai m ethni c puri ty as the basi s for sel f-
cl osure and sel f-ful l l ment. Al though the cti on of pu- i n a demand that nothi ng offensi ve be sai d about the
cul tural bel i efs and practi ces of an i ndi genous mi nori ty ri ty was establ i shed mai nl y accordi ng to supposedl y ra-
ci al cri teri a, cul tural di mensi ons were al so taken i nto whi l e resi sti ng si mi l ar demands from chauvi ni st and re-
l i gi ous i nterests among the settl er majori ty? account, especi al l y i n the German volkisch tradi ti on, to
underscore the uni queness of communi ti es and the ne- Sooner or l ater the ri ght to censor statements about
ethni c nati ons made by outsi ders woul d be asserted cessi ty of thei r segregati on (Conte and Essner 1995).
Even now, far-ri ght movements such as the Front Na- agai nst i nsi ders as wel l . Whatever sol i dari st i l l usi ons
may be cul ti vated for i deol ogi cal purposes, nati ons enti onal i n France di sgui se thei r acute xenophobi a under
cl ai ms that cul tures shoul d not be mi xed for fear of l os- compass competi ng soci al forces. Ethni c nati ons are no
excepti on. And were a metropol i tan government to au- i ng the speci c i denti ti es that they convey. To be per-
fectl y cl ear, I do not mean that advocati ng col l ecti ve i n- thori se an agency wi thi n an ethni c nati on to dene i ts
cul ture and deci de what mi ght and mi ght not be sai d tel l ectual property ri ghts over cul tural patri mony for
ethni c mi nori ti es i s aki n to raci al segregati on; rather, about i t, i n practi ce the external power woul d be favour-
i ng certai n i nternal secti onal i nterests and tendenci es hi story has taught us that gi vi ng speci al status to spe-
ci c peopl es i s fraught wi th dangers, as i t tends to per- at the expense of others. By conferri ng upon an ethni c
nati on the ri ght to suppress i deas and producti ons petuate the i dea of i rreconci l abl e substanti ve di ffer-
ences between fel l ow-humans. The col l ecti ve debt that deemed to be offensi ve to i ts subjects, i t woul d i n fact
be equi ppi ng domi nant facti ons wi th a l egal mechani sm Euro-Ameri cans have i ncurred whi l e submi tti ng nati ve
popul ati ons to di fferent forms of genoci de and ethno- for di scouragi ng di ssi dence and si l enci ng ri val s.
Wi th Brown, I strongl y support measures desi gned to ci de wi l l onl y be di spel l ed not by setti ng apart these
protect creati vi ty i n i ndi genous communi ti es agai nst ti ons di fcul t to handl e for any anthropol ogi st engaged
i n research on i ndi genous peopl e. Even so, he seems to commerci al expl oi tati on and to ensure a fai r return to
nati ve arti sts whose producti ons enter the marketpl ace. enter the di scussi on wi th the pri me ai m of provoki ng
advocates of i ndi genous peopl es ri ghts, whom he de- Such objecti ves can be achi eved wi thout a total i sti c
copyri ghti ng of cul ture. Anthropol ogi sts who al l ow scri bes as romanti c soci al cri ti cs. Instead of sl ogans
and pol emi cal romanti ci sm he cal l s for a return to a thei r compassi on for the underpri vi l eged to take them
down that path are hel pi ng to l ay the foundati ons of to- real i st perspecti ve consi deri ng these questi ons i n al l
thei r ambi gui ty and nuance. But by departi ng from a tal i tari an mi ni states.
si mpl i sti c pol ari sati on of posi ti ons (real i sm vs. roman-
ti ci sm, anal ysi s vs. sl ogans) he does not take us far i n
that di recti on. j e a n j a c k s o n
Anthropology Program, MI T, Cambridge, Mass. Readi ng Browns arti cl e, I cannot hel p wonderi ng
why a person cal l ed upon to defend the sacred pri nci pl es 02139, U.S.A. 27 x 97
of l i beral democracy chooses to make Nati ve Ameri -
cans hi s target. Brown has no probl em wi th the states Brown has wri tten a thoughtful , wel l -researched essay
on a very controversi al topi c. The basi c i ssue he ex- ri ght to wi thhol d sensi ti ve i nformati on on matters
of nati onal securi ty whi l e getti ng terri bl y worri ed over pl ores i s how best to protect i ndi genous peopl es and
cul ture i n a worl d i ncreasi ngl y characteri zed by di gi tal the Hopi and Apache peopl es resentment about shari ng
i nformati on rel ati ng thei r rel i gi on. One woul d assume reproducti on, commerci al i nterests devel opi ng ever-
new forms of prospecti ng, and ever-i ncreasi ng appropri - that a ci vi l ri ghts acti vi st woul d have i t the other way
around. I al so nd i t stri ki ng that whi l e Brown hol ds ati on of the exoti c because i t i s authenti c, curati ve, nat-
ural , etc. The probl em i s a very real one (see, e.g., the democracy sacred, he fai l s to extend si mi l ar pri nci pl es
of respect and tol erance to others. When Nati ve Ameri - contri butors to Greaves 1994). We are ri ght to be con-
cerned about i ncreasi ng corporate domi nati on of cans oppose New Age groups mi suse of thei r sacred ri t-
ual s, Brown remai ns si l ent and wi thout compassi on. He knowl edge one of several i roni es poi nted out by
Brown, gi ven that some of the push for commodi ca- argues i nstead that the most i nteresti ng thi ng about
thi s i s that the nati ve rel i gi ous l eaders oppose such ap- ti on and copyri ght comes from corporati ons seeki ng i n-
creased prots by havi ng excl usi ve ri ghts to produce propri ati on on the ground of the i nherent power of these
ri tual s and not because the New Age ri tual s are bo- medi ci nes, cel l l i nes, and the l i ke obtai ned from i ndi ge-
nous peopl es. However, commodi fyi ng and copyri ght- gus. Another probl em wi th Browns approach rel ates
to hi s asserti on that i ndi genous peopl es cl ai m for cul - i ng cul ture as opposed to the products of a cul ture (such
as vari eti es of corn) i s ful l of hazards, regardl ess of how tural property ri ghts i s an openi ng bi d i n pol i ti cal horse-
tradi ng. Thi s agai n i s an oversi mpl i cati on, l eavi ng out appeal i ng the restri cti on of access to i t may appear i n
the face of egregi ous cases of di srespect and expl oi ta- exi stenti al di mensi ons havi ng to do wi th respect, recog-
ni ti on, and i denti ty. Thi s al so reects Browns argu- ti on.
After readi ng thi s arti cl e we have a far better under- ment that as most nati ve peopl es face threats to thei r
economi c and pol i ti cal soverei gnty, they have l i ttl e standi ng of the many di l emmas i nvol ved that have
hel ped turn thi s i ssue i nto a l i ghtni ng rod. Browns di s- ti me to fret over i ssues of cul tural properti es (sug-
gesti ng that such concerns are a l uxury that onl y better- cussi on deftl y reveal s why we whatever our posi -
ti on nd thi s i ssue so threateni ng. Cl earl y, many off i ndi genous peopl e i n the West can afford). That
i ndi genous nati ons even face genoci de does not make schol ars and acti vi sts wi l l di sagree wi th Browns posi -
ti on, and thi s i s as i t shoul d be, for several deepl y hel d them l ess concerned wi th cul tural matters. In fact, be-
cause havi ng a cul ture of ones own i s cruci al to con- val ues are i n coni ct. Knowi ng why and how seri ousl y
i rreconci l abl e some of these val ues are hel ps to keep temporary cl ai ms of sel f-determi nati on, tremendous
energi es and emoti ons are i nvested i n thi ngs l i ke pro- knee-jerk responses to a mi ni mum and to faci l i tate the
search for more workabl e sol uti ons. tecti on of l anguage or preservati on of tradi ti onal rel i -
gi ous practi ces and symbol s. A qui bbl e: I nd Al an Wol fes cri ti que, ci ted by
Brown, seri ousl y awed and thi nk that he coul d have When most anthropol ogi sts, mysel f i ncl uded, argue
agai nst or probl emati ze earl i er noti ons of cul ture as a made hi s argument wi thout ci ti ng thi s parti cul ar exam-
pl e of neol i beral i st thought. coherent, bounded, and di sti nct property of a peopl e
and i nstead tal k about cul ture i n terms of constructi on
and process (as cul ture-i n-the-maki ng), does thi s make
us enemi es of those unenl i ghtened nati ves who con- b. g . k a r l s s o n
Seminar for Development Studies, Uppsala ti nue to rei fy cul ture and cl ai m a cul ture of thei r own?
Brown thi nks so, and casts the cosmopol i tan schol ar University, P.O. Box 514, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden.
20 x 97 agai nst the i ndi genous acti vi st. Yes, there are prob-
l ems i n keepi ng cul ture an anal yti c concept when cul -
ture has turned i nto a major si te of coni ct and popul ar Bri ngi ng cul ture i nto the domai n of ri ghts, ownershi p,
and l egi sl ati on i s i ndeed, as Brown suggests, deepl y mobi l i sati on. Rosemary Coombe, whose work Brown
makes use of, argues that such anti essenti al i st cl ai ms probl emati c. Brown al so rai ses several i mportant ques-
that cul ture i s constructed and mobi l e al ways beg ques- teur) and the protracted di scussi ons associ ated wi th Ar-
ti cl e 8.j of the Conventi on on Bi ol ogi cal Di versi ty. He ti ons of perspecti ve for whom and i n what ci rcum-
stances i s i t so? And she asks, How does thi s cl ai m al so fai l s to consi der the compl ex cri ti ques put forth i n
numerous i ndi genous documents and summari zed i n sound i n the struggl es of those for whom cul ture may
be the l ast l egi ti mate ground for pol i ti cal autonomy and reports of the Coordi nador de Organi zaci ones de l os
Puebl os Indgenas de l a Cuenca Amazona Regi onal sel f-determi nati on? (Coombe 1997:93). Brown avoi ds
these cri ti cal matters. He further too easi l y reduces the Meeti ng on Intel l ectual Property Ri ghts and Bi odi ver-
si ty, the UNEP Consul tati ons on Protecti on and Con- i ndi genous stance to one of cul tural essenti al i sm. I
thi nk that Ari f Di rl i k i s ri ght i n argui ng that the i ndi ge- servati on of Indi genous Knowl edge, the Suva Decl ara-
ti on, the Mataatua Decl arati on on Cul tural and nous voi ces i n fact are qui te open to change, and what
they i nsi st on i s not cul tural puri ty as such but the Intel l ectual Property Ri ghts of Indi genous Peopl es
(menti oned bri ey i n a footnote), the Indi genous Peo- preservati on of a parti cul ar hi stori cal trajectory of thei r
own (1996:18). It then becomes cruci al to ask why i n- pl es Bi odi versi ty Network, and the Charter of the In-
di genous-Tri bal Peopl es of Tropi cal Forests to name a di genous peopl es i ncreasi ngl y feel obl i ged to cl ai m con-
trol over what they see as thei r cul ture. What i s the so- few. These documents show that i ndi genous acti vi sts
are wel l aware of the dangers of i ntel l ectual property ci al and hi stori cal context for such asserti ons?
In Indi a the debate over i ndi genous cul tural property ri ghts. Indi genous groups have made i t qui te cl ear that
the concept of property, and especi al l y i ndi vi dual ri ghts i s l argel y absent. Duri ng my work among the
Rabhas or Kochas, an i ndi genous peopl e i n Indi a, I have property, i s al i en and anti theti cal to thei r col l ecti ve val -
ues. They have repeatedl y expl ai ned how many (but not never been questi oned over ri ghts to my el d notes,
photographs, publ i cati ons, etc. And I do not know how al l ) songs, drawi ngs, ceremoni es, pl ants, ani mal s, and
desi gns are i nal i enabl e and, therefore, can never be I woul d respond to possi bl e l ater requests perhaps based
on the argument that the materi al was obtai ned under property. And they poi nt out that i ndi vi dual s who use
or di spl ay them are the hol ders, trustees, or stew- coerci ve ci rcumstances. As a sahib I have i ndeed been
on top of thi ngs, and i f a person had nothi ng el se at hand ards for communi ti es, l i neages, ancestors, gender
groups, future generati ons, or even spi ri ts. Furthermore, he or she woul d certai nl y spare ti me to try to respond
to my questi ons. Power i s an i ssue here, but to descri be i ndi genous peopl es have been expl i ci t i n showi ng that
i ntel l ectual aspects of cul ture cannot be separated el dwork as an expl oi tati ve encounter between oppres-
sor and oppressed i s i ndeed, as Brown suggests, to take from physi cal , natural , or spi ri tual el ements be-
cause cul ture i s an extensi on of nature (and vi ce versa). thi ngs too far. Brown i s al so ri ght i n acknowl edgi ng the
agency and strategi es of the objects of anthropol ogi - Thus i ntel l ectual property i s doubl y i nappropri ate i n
that i t excl udes pl ants, ani mal s, and knowl edge about cal i nqui ry, somethi ng whi ch Roger Keesi ng has
brought attenti on to i n hi s work on the Kwai o peopl e. I them (seeds, soi l s, mi neral s, and management practi ces,
etc.) al l of whi ch are i nextri cabl e el ements of a soci - am l ooki ng forward to the day when Rabhas themsel ves
rather than any government department or forest au- etys i ntel l ect.
Brown, i n contrast, reduces i ntel l ectual property thori ty are enti tl ed to i ssue research permi ts and con-
trol access to thei r forest vi l l ages. ri ghts to a questi on of copyri ght protecti on over mate-
ri al expressi ons of cul ture. Most i ndi genous groups are
more worri ed about patents than copyri ghts. Thi s i s be-
cause patents are much more powerful tool s of monop- d a r r e l l a d d i s o n po s e y
Centre for the Environment, Ethics, and Society, ol y and gl obal i zati on. Even so, some very i nnovati ve
proposal s have been put forth for the devel opment of Manseld College, University of Oxford, Oxford,
U.K. 12 xi 97 communi ty i ntel l ectual property ri ghts, appl yi ng
know-how and trade secrecy for the protecti on of tradi -
ti onal knowl edge and geneti c resources, and adapti ng Brown argues that the debate over i ntangi bl e cul tural
property as i t has been conducted by i ndi genous acti v- copyri ght concepts to communi ty-control l ed data.
These are recogni zed by i ndi genous groups themsel ves i sts has tended toward a pol emi cal romanti ci sm that
produces memorabl e bumper-sti cker sl ogans but l i ttl e as dangerous experi ments but are anythi ng but ex-
tremel y nave proposal s as Brown cl ai ms. i n the way of sober reecti on on the di fcul t bal anci ng
act requi red to formul ate pol i ci es that provi de reason- Brown al so states that al though advocates of ex-
panded i ntel l ectual property l aws typi cal l y denounce abl e protecti on for mi nori ty popul ati ons whi l e mai n-
tai ni ng the ow of i nformati on essenti al to l i beral de- capi tal i st commmodi cati on, they i mpl i ci tl y encour-
age the transl ati on of ethi cal and pol i ti cal di scourse mocracy. Thi s i s not qui te the case.
Unfortunatel y, Brown has chosen exampl es to gi ve i nto the l anguage of commodi ti es. Thi s may be true i n
some cases, but the majori ty of those who di scuss i ntel - the i mpressi on that i ndi genous groups are maki ng de-
mands that wi l l ul ti matel y restri ct the l i berti es and l ectual property ri ghts tend to empl oy the pol i ti cal di s-
course of human ri ghts: ri ghts to l and, terri tory, and re- freedom of others. He i gnores the sophi sti cated debates
on i ntel l ectual , cul tural , and sci enti c property i n the sources, ri ghts to ful l di scl osure and pri or i nformed
consent, ri ghts to cul tural i ntegri ty and customary prac- Uni ted Nati ons Worki ng Group on Indi genous Popul a-
ti ons (al though he ci tes a study by the Speci al Rappor- ti ces, and ri ghts to equi tabl e benet-shari ng and control
over access to tradi ti onal resources. It may be true erty ri ghts. The debate i s, I feel , somewhat more posi -
ti ve than Brown has portrayed i t. Copyri ght wi l l not that i n the rareed di scourse of cosmopol i tan schol -
ars (Browns term, not mi ne) i ntel l ectual property gai n addi ti onal respect for i ndi genous peopl e, but i ts
di scussi on has al ready brought seri ous attenti on to ri ghts have been i nadequatel y anal yzed, but that i s i n
part because anthropol ogy has not kept up wi th the rap- thei r cl ai ms. It i s, however, useful to take up the di ffer-
ent forms of cul tural i nformati on separatel y; the fol l ow- i dl y advanci ng i nternati onal debates of i ndi genous peo-
pl es themsel ves. And, furthermore, anthropol ogi sts i ng comments rel ate speci cal l y to wri tten materi al .
Access to i nformati on i s a core i ssue i n most soci e- have restri cted themsel ves to the theoreti cal di scourses
i n thei r favori te academi c journal s. The i ntel l ectual acti es, however di fferentl y phrased and di fferentl y con-
structed. Intel l ectual property ri ghts (such as copyri ght, ti on i s i n fact i n pl aces l i ke the Worl d Trade Organi za-
ti on (di scussi ons on sui generi s systems of i ntel l ectual patent, trademark l aw) are, as Brown notes, economi c
i n scope. Copyri ght ensures that i ndi vi dual creators property ri ghts protecti on), the FAO (expansi on or re-
conceptual i zati on of farmers ri ghts), the CBD (i nterses- have the i ncenti ve to al l ow copi es to be made avai l abl e
to the publ i c. Access to i nformati on i s thus never presi onal process to i mpl ement Arti cl e 8.j), and ECOSOC
(debates on the Draft Decl arati on of Ri ghts of Indi ge- ci sel y free. Costs are i nvol ved i n l ocati ng materi al and
seei ng i t. Such costs are a control factor, though l i brar- nous Peopl es) not to menti on the myri ad conferences
and workshops that i ndi genous peopl es themsel ves or- i es and archi ves pai d for by taxes, organi zati ons, and
phi l anthropy are sources avai l abl e for readi ng freel y. gani ze to di scuss copyri ghts, patents, communi ty
ri ghts, geneti cal l y modi ed organi sms, bi osafety, par- Market or pol i ti cal forces constrai n the free ow of i n-
formati on. ti ci patory democracy, etc.
Brown asks: What [wi l l ] hi story or anthropol ogy be- New technol ogi es pri nti ng presses, cameras, photo-
copyi ng machi nes, computers, etc. conti nue to ex- come when schol ars are prevented by l aw from wri ti ng
accounts speci c enough to evoke the rel i gi ous or pol i t- pand the avai l abi l i ty of materi al s. These are not free ei -
ther, but they make access easi er and bri ng i t cl oser to i cal practi ces of protected nati ve popul ati ons? One an-
swer coul d be: di sci pl i nes that nal l y have to negoti ate home. They al so rai se new i ssues for copyri ght, control ,
and economi c benet, and these i ssues are argued and the terms of thei r i ntel l ectual pursui ts wi th those who
are affected by the resul ts of thei r studi es and, as a resettl ed, usual l y i n the courts and most often by corpo-
rate gi ants. Protecti on of i ndi vi dual (or corporate)ri ghts sul t, begi n to devel op questi ons and methodol ogi es that
address the pol i ti cal probl ems that i ndi genous peopl es i n creati on has been under di scussi on si nce the 15th
century (currentl y, creati ons such as databases are be- sti l l face. It woul d then be i mpossi bl e for anthropol ogy
to i gnore the i ntel l ectual contri buti ons of i ndi genous i ng exami ned); i t i s a uctuati ng, ongoi ng di al ogue,
changi ng as soci ety and technol ogy change. schol ars, fai th-keepers, and pol i ti cal l eaders that may be
wel l ahead of the debates academi cs thi nk they are pi o- Copyri ght and the use of materi al s through l i brari es
and archi ves exi st i n a soci oeconomi c context. An ex- neeri ng.
Despi te what may seem harsh comments, I am basi - ami nati on of these same i ssues i n, say, France or Egypt
woul d show di fferences i n such concepts as authors cal l y i n sympathy wi th Brown. He i s ri ght to warn us
of the seri ous threats from i ntel l ectual property ri ghts. creati ve ri ghts and publ i c domai n. The burgeoni ng el d
of el ectroni c communi cati on (l eavi ng asi de any ques- He i s al so justi ed i n poi nti ng out the urgent need for
sophi sti cated anal ysi s of common property concepts ti ons about the content or context of that i nformati on)
i l l ustrates the competi ng forces of corporate i nterests, i n gl obal i zati on debates. I al so hearti l y endorse one of
hi s pri nci pal concl usi ons: that pragmati c ethi cal pro- ri ghts to pri vacy and to i nformati on, i ndi vi dual eco-
nomi c cl ai ms, concerns of communi ty or rel i gi ous tocol s (codes of ethi cs and standards of practi ce) for
sci ence and i ndustry are far more desi rabl e than radi - groups, and questi ons about preservati on of i nformati on
for the l ong term. Di scussi ons are ongoi ng over the cal l y expanded i ntel l ectual property ri ghts. The Interna-
ti onal Soci ety for Ethnobi ol ogy has taken nearl y a de- boundary between what i s publ i c and what pri vate i n-
formati on, between free and costl y access, between cade to devel op a draft Code of Conduct that wi l l be
debated duri ng i ts next worl d congress, to be hosted by secrecy and openness, between what may i nform and
what may harm. the Maori Congress of Aotearoa/New Zeal and. A Maori
l awyer co-chai rs the Ethi cs Commi ttee, and the ethno- There i s no reason that nati ve groups shoul d not ar-
gue these i ssues i n the same courts and i n the same bi ol ogi sts wi l l be i n the mi nori ty at the Congress for the
di scussi on. That gures to advance understandi ng, re- manner as al l the other parti es to thi s di al ogue. If, as
Brown notes, secrecy i s of course warranted for na- search, and respect for ri ghts i n ways that l aws never wi l l .
ti onal securi ty, there seems no underl yi ng reason i t
shoul d not al so be warranted for any other cul tural l y de-
termi ned i ssues of sensi ti vi ty, as i t i s for pri vacy. By the w i l l o w r o b e r t s po w e r s
Department of Anthropology, University of New same token, there i s no reason that the l egal sol uti ons
wi l l be any more sati sfyi ng, any l ess ambi guous. The Mexico, Albuquerque, N.M. 87131, U.S.A.
(wrpowers@trail.com). 21 x 97 l aw i s a bl unt, two-edged, and expensi ve tool for deci d-
i ng the i ssues.
Brown, noti ng the control that copyri ght exerts over Browns essay i s a cool -headed di scussi on of the broad
array of i ssues i n the debate regardi ng i ntel l ectual prop- access and hopi ng that i t i s not expanded by new i ntel -
l ectual property ri ghts l aws, suggests a joi nt steward- tance i n any di scussi on of property parti cul arl y as i t
rel ates to i ndi genous peopl es how one constructs a set shi p of cul tural i nformati on. Hi s poi nt i s that i nforma-
ti on shoul d be free. Thi s i s a cul tural i deal shared by the of appropri ate anal ogi es. In addi ti on to casti ng i ssues of
property i n terms of rel ati onshi ps rather than control nati ons archi vi sts and l i brari ans. It i s a cruci al l y i mpor-
tant i deal whi ch, l i ke communi ty harmony, i s much over objects i t makes a great di fference whether the ob-
jects currentl y i n di spute are l i kened to forms of prop- honored i n the breach.
Wi th regard to archi val materi al s, there are the begi n- erty recogni zed i n an exi sti ng l egal regi me or symbol i c
of a deeper pol i ti cal hi story. If, for exampl e, i n any such ni ngs of new approaches. Archi vi sts have started di a-
l ogues on the i ssues of access wi th nei ghbori ng, and di scussi on one repl aces indigenous i ntel l ectual prop-
erty wi th a form common i n the West musi c, l i tera- someti mes di stant, Ameri can Indi an communi ti es. The
Speci al Col l ecti ons di rector at the Cl i ne Li brary, North- ture, desi gn i t mi ght seem, gi ven Browns cri teri a,
that no system of l egal protecti on coul d ever succeed: ern Ari zona Uni versi ty, has opened di scussi ons wi th
the Hopi Tri be, seeki ng i nformati on and joi nt sol uti ons. the same cri ti ci sms he rai ses for i ndi genous property
that someone wi l l al ways modi fy the ori gi nal or hi de John Adai rs papers have been acqui red by the Wheel -
wri ght Museum i n Santa Fe wi th an agreement to work i t (di gi tal l y or otherwi se) or that borders are i nvari abl y
porous woul d appl y equal l y to si mi l ar Western prop- out an access and use pol i cy wi th one of the communi -
ti es i n whi ch Adai r worked for materi al s rel ati ng to that erty forms. But hi s arti cl e (and my comment) are copy-
ri ghted by the Wenner-Gren Foundati on, and we both communi ty. Tri bal archi ves across the Uni ted States
are grappl i ng wi th i ncorporati ng preservati on of wri tten presumabl y have some condence i n these l aws or we
woul d not have si gned over the ri ghts. Thus from the records i nto tri bal budgets and i n addi ti on to an oral hi s-
tory background. Nati ve archi vi sts are at work i n an- outset i t may be wel l to pl ace a si mi l ar degree of con-
dence i n the concept of protecti on and then sort out i ts thropol ogi cal and other archi ves. These are model s to
l ook at i n thi s di al ogue. appropri ate forms i n each ci rcumstance or forth-
ri ghtl y cri ti ci ze the very concept of protecti bl e property The i ssues rel ati ng to wri tten materi al s as I hear
them are speci c to each tri be or puebl o, tend to be di f- on deeper phi l osophi cal and pol i ti cal grounds.
Here the i ssues affecti ng i ndi genous i ntel l ectual prop- ferentl y percei ved by nati ve communi ti es than by orga-
ni zati ons or i ndi vi dual s, rel ate often not to cl osed but erty begi n to resol ve themsel ves i nto two rel ated con-
si derati ons. The rst has to do wi th soverei gnty. Brown to appropri ate access, are often concerned more wi th
cul tural than wi th economi c poi nts, are broadl y con- does not menti on thi s i ssue, but surel y the questi on of
whose l aws wi l l appl y suffuses the enti re topi c. If i ndi g- strued to i ncl ude al l others i ncl udi ng other tri bes,
and do not i mpl y total cl osure of al l i nformati on for al l enous property ri ghts are seen as a subject matter over
whi ch some pol i ty wi l l exerci se juri sdi cti on, then i t ti me. Non-nati ve parti ci pants i n thi s di al ogue are
equal l y responsi bl e for rai si ng i ssues and questi ons, as may be necessary at the outset to come to gri ps wi th
the appropri ate di stri buti on of powers as between i ndi g- Brown has done, that are of concern for l ong-term sol u-
ti ons. There are many opi ni ons and many stakehol ders. enous and superordi nate pol i ti es. The i ssue of i ntel l ec-
tual property may, of course, serve as a vehi cl e through The quest i s for bal ance. Appropri ate access to and use
of i nformati on i s part of thi s quest, for whi ch the l aw whi ch such power to control ones own affai rs i s i tsel f
devel oped. But before one can get to questi ons such as i s not an appropri ate means.
the use of common accords or the di stri buti on of pow-
ers through appl i cabl e l aws, greater recogni ti on and reg-
ul ari zati on of the powers of i ndi genous peopl es need to l a w r e n c e r o s e n
Department of Anthropology, Princeton University, be addressed (see Rosen 1997).
Thi s, i n turn, rai ses the second questi on: Is i t i n- Princeton, N.J. 08544-1011, U.S.A. 10 x 97
tergroup rel ati onshi ps that are at i ssue here or onl y the
control over property-l i ke objects? If i t i s the former, Not for the rst ti me i n hi story, the fundamental i ssues
that surround the concept of property who may exer- then, as Brown hi msel f suggests, we are not bound to
al l -i ncl usi ve deference or hegemoni c control as our onl y ci se power over what, for what purpose, and by what
ri ght coi nci de wi th technol ogi cal devel opment, com- opti ons: It i s possi bl e to take i ssues one at a ti me havi ng
l ai d the groundwork for negoti ated accords such as merci al expansi on, and cross-cul tural contact. It mat-
ters, however, whi ch of several basi c concepts of prop- those that i nform a number of transnati onal agree-
ments. Di fferences of power wi l l not predetermi ne out- erty we empl oy. If ownershi p i s concei ved not sol el y as
control over an object but as the rel ati onshi ps among comes as l ong as devel opi ng i nternati onal custom sup-
ports an array of accords from whi ch parti es may peopl e as they concern that object, the forms of propri e-
torshi p can be seen as i nextri cabl y bound to the pol i ti - choose. And speci c i ssues wi l l benet from the spe-
ci c attenti on they requi re as wel l as from the general cal , the moral , and the emoti onal . To begi n an under-
standi ng of changi ng concepts of property wi th thi s context of i nternati onal l y recogni zed i ntergovernmen-
tal agreements. rel ati onal aspect i n vi ew may, of course, have a dra-
mati c effect on the very shape of ones anal ysi s. Indi genous i ntel l ectual property thus confronts us
wi th a new form of an ol d puzzl e: To what extent shal l Browns spl endi dl y sensi bl e anal ysi s avoi ds the un-
ambi guous resul ts that si ngl e-mi nded i deol ogi es so of- the i nternal rul es of another group be accorded defer-
ence or consti tute the subject of good-fai th bargai ni ng ten demand. At the same ti me, i t i s of cruci al i mpor-
among soverei gn enti ti es? If the model of negoti ati on knowl edge, or materi al cul ture. If we were i ndeed to
copyri ght i ndi genous cul tures, to whi ch Amazoni an prevai l s, each troubl esome i ssue may begi n to be seen
i n terms of di fferenti ated pol i ti cal powers and the scope peopl e shoul d we grant ri ghts to, l et us say, the hal l uci -
nogeni c ayahuasca vi ne? To whi ch Northwest Coast of government-to-government negoti ati on. The resul -
tant process may then partake of greater schol arl y and peopl e shoul d we grant ri ghts to potl atch ri tual s? Or, for
that matter, to whi ch Andean peopl e shoul d we grant pol i ti cal real i sm than the extreme posi ti ons that Brown
so ri ghtl y chal l enges. ri ghts to chi cha or mai ze beer?
A cul ture i s a exi bl e set of understandi ngs, di sposi -
ti ons, and behavi oral scri pts shared by a gi ven peopl e.
However, cul tures are not external enti ti es di sti nct f e r n a n d o s a n t o s g r a n e r o
Smithsonian Tropical Research I nstitute, P.O. Box from thei r bearers. Al though cul tural forms may be col -
l ecti vel y constructed, cul tural products are al ways the 2072, Balboa, Panama (santosf@tivoli.si.edu). 14 x 97
output of parti cul ar i ndi vi dual s. In fact, among Ameri n-
di an peopl es an i ndi vi dual s hi gh presti ge i s very much Browns thorough anal ysi s of current attempts to ex-
pand the noti on of copyri ght i ntroduces much-needed dependent upon masterful producti on, whether of a bas-
ket, a dugout, a garden, a song, or a mythi cal narrati on. sense and sensi bi l i ty i nto a debate that frequentl y
seems to be di sconnected from the harsh real i ti es of an Cul tures are not merel y repl i cated ad i nni tum by thei r
bearers but constantl y enri ched by the l atters creati ve i ncreasi ngl y gl obal worl d. Approachi ng the subject from
di fferent angl es, Brown adds l ayer after l ayer of sol i d ar- acts. Thus, i f i t were possi bl e to copyri ght cul tures, who
woul d reap the prot from the marketi ng of speci c gument to demonstrate the negati ve consequences that
attempti ng to copyri ght the cul tural heri tage of mi nor- products, the col l ecti vi ty or the i ndi vi dual ?
Al though cul tures have been (and unfortunatel y con- i ty groups coul d have for free speech, the exchange of
i nformati on, and, more general l y, the status of the ti nue to be) treated as xed, bounded real i ti es, recent
studi es have recurrentl y demonstrated that cul tures publ i c domai n. What i s especi al l y commendabl e i s
that he opposes thi s copyri ghti ng whi l e l eavi ng no change through ti me and are al ways i n the maki ng.
If copyri ghti ng the cul ture of an i ndi genous peopl e were doubt that he rml y condemns the appropri ati on by
l arge corporati ons of i ndi genous cul tural products for at al l possi bl e, whi ch cul ture shoul d be copyri ghted
the one at the ti me of European i nvasi on, the one that commerci al use. More l audabl e sti l l , he avoi ds offeri ng
ready-made sol uti ons for a probl em that, as he con- emerged after subjugati on, deci mati on, mi ssi oni zati on,
and resettl ement, or the one exi sti ng at the ti me the stantl y remi nds us, i s extremel y compl ex.
Here I woul d l i ke to el aborate upon ve very practi cal copyri ght i s granted? Shoul d abandoned tradi ti onal
practi ces, some of whi ch are now regarded wi th embar- i ssues that deri ve from the ui d character of cul tures. I
consi der these to be central to the probl em bei ng di s- rassment by contemporary Ameri ndi ans, be i ncl uded,
or shoul d onl y sani ti zed versi ons of cul ture be copy- cussed, yet they have onl y been tangenti al l y touched
upon, or i mpl i ed i n passi ng, by the author. ri ghted?
Moreover, al though the rel ati onshi p between i ndi ge- As Brown states, cul tures l ack cl ear spati al and tem-
poral boundari es. Even the soci al groups that embody nous peopl es and nati onal soci eti es i s asymmetri c, cul -
tural ows have not been uni di recti onal , beneti ng them rarel y have cl ear-cut boundari es. More com-
monl y, there i s a gradi ent of more or l ess i ncl usi ve onl y the l atter. There are numerous Western cul tural
trai ts that have been adopted by i ndi genous peopl es not groups that l i ve i n a certai n regi on, have si mi l ar hi sto-
ri es, and share many cul tural trai ts. For i nstance, the as a resul t of external pressures but for thei r beauty,
thei r useful ness, or thei r symbol i c power. Beads, horses, Aguaruna peopl e of the Upper Mayo Ri ver studi ed by
Brown are a somewhat di sti nct offshoot of the Aguar- and wri ti ng are good exampl es. Are these trai ts goi ng to
be abandoned for the sake of puri ty, or are they goi ng una of the Maranon Ri ver, who i n turn have rel ati on-
shi ps of al l i ance and hosti l i ty wi th a number of other to be i ncl uded i n the i ndi genous copyri ghts?
Whatever may be the answers to the above i ssues, Ji baro-speaki ng peopl es on both si des of the Peruvi an-
Ecuadori an fronti er. Whose cul ture shoul d we copy- they bri ng to mi nd one l ast questi on: Are not those at-
tempti ng to copyri ght cul ture runni ng the ri sk of trans- ri ght? That of the Upper Mayo Aguaruna, that of the
Aguaruna as a whol e, that of the Aguaruna and the formi ng what are sti l l vi gorous cul tures i nto fossi l i zed
rel i cs? Huambi sa, who are now organi zed i n a common ethni c
federati on, or that of the Ji baro as a whol e?
Not onl y do cul tures l ack cl ear boundari es but, as
Brown stresses, they freel y i nuence, and are i nu- c a r l o s e v e r i
Laboratoire dAnthropologie Sociale, 52, rue de enced by, soci al i nteracti ons wi th other groups. Cul -
tures do not exi st i n a vacuum; they are constantl y nur- Cardinal-Lemoine, F-75005 Paris, France. 3 xi 97
tured by contact wi th other cul tures. No peopl e exi sts
that can cl ai m that i ts cul ture i s a pri sti ne product, un- Browns paper rai ses i mportant questi ons, pol i ti cal as
wel l as ethi cal , and does so wi th honesty and cl ari ty. It contami nated by forei gn el ements l east of al l Ameri n-
di an peopl es, who share a hi gh proporti on of trai ts, i s evi dent that the confrontati on of the Western and the
Ameri can Indi an poi nts of vi ew i n thi s context gener- whether myths, ri tual s, ki nshi p systems, sci enti c
ates two paradoxes. One ori gi nates from the attempt to democrati c and l i beral Western concepti ons woul d be
unfai r for at l east two reasons. Fi rst, nonrel i gi ous per- consi der a cul ture as a col l ecti ve author i n order to pro-
tect i t. From thi s perspecti ve, the more one tri es to pro- sons exi st i n Ameri ndi an soci eti es, too, and they shoul d
obvi ousl y have a ri ght to express thei r vi ews just l i ke tect cul ture whi ch shoul d mean to preserve i t as i t
i s the more one transforms i t i nto a cti ve construc- the others. Secondl y, Ameri ndi an rel i gi ous customs
shoul d be compared wi th Western rel i gi ous tradi ti ons; ti on very di fferent from real i ty. The second paradox
ori gi nates from the attempt to appl y cri teri a of l egi ti - the compari son between the i ntenti on to put some In-
di an i deas under the control of an i ntel l ectual copy- mate property (and l egal condi ti ons of trade) typi cal l y
appl i ed to merchandi se made to be exchanged i n a marri ght and the free use of syl l ogi sm i nvented by the
Greeks i s not enti rel y correct. Whi l e a Western schol ar ket to rel i gi ous arti facts, whi ch, by deni ti on, are
made for ri tual performances and do not bel ong i n the woul d certai nl y agree that anyone i s free to use a syl l o-
gi sm, I wonder whether any use of Western rel i gi ous no- market.
An i l l ustrati on of thi s si tuati on i s the noti on of cul - ti ons woul d be consi dered acceptabl e by Western rel i -
gi ous authori ti es. tural heri tage as appl i ed to Ameri can Indi an soci eti es.
At rst si ght, thi s noti on seems obvi ous. Everybody i s Indeed, i t woul d be hard to deny that we seem to ac-
cept syncreti sm onl y when the contact of di fferent commi tted, at l east i n Europe, to the preservati on of the
cul tural heri tage of a nati on. If the Ital i an or French gov- cul tures i s real i zed under the domi nati on of a Western
framework. When the Indi ans of Mexi co worshi p a Vi r- ernments have the ri ght to prevent, for i nstance, a Mi -
chel angel o or a Chardi n from bei ng commerci al i zed on gi n Mary unconventi onal l y there i s no questi on but
that thi s resul ts i n a l ocal vari ety of Chri sti ani ty, not a the i nternati onal market, one does not see why the
Ameri can Indi ans shoul d not be keen to protect thei r conti nuati on of Nahuatl cul ts margi nal l y i ncl udi ng cer-
tai n Chri sti an el ements. When thi s i s not the case as own techni ques, rel i gi ous bel i efs, tradi ti onal narrati ves,
and works of art. The assi mi l ati on of a nati ve cul ture to i n Hai ti , where Chri sti ani ty was real l y subverted by Af-
ri can tradi ti ons rel i gi ous authori ti es do not hesi tate a col l ecti ve author, however, can al so have near-absurd
consequences. The i dea of havi ng not onl y documents, to respond vi ol entl y. In order to repress too free a use of
Chri sti an i mages, arti facts, and such Chri sti an rel i gi ous drawi ngs, and arti facts but al so tradi ti onal i deas pro-
tected by i ntel l ectual copyri ght seems a sel f-defeati ng concepts as communi on and repentance of si n, the
Cathol i c bi shop of Port au Pri nce organi zed an i mmense strategy. How i s l anguage or thought i tsel f to be pre-
served from the ri sks i mpl i ed by communi cati on? Si nce autoda fe a spectacul ar burni ng of contami nated i m-
ages of sai nts i n the publ i c square as recentl y as i n i mages are made to be seen and words are made to be
exchanged, i t i s di fcul t to deci de what i mages or what the earl y forti es (Metraux 1958). In short, when the cul -
tural contact happens under the control of Western rel i - words must become someones excl usi ve property.
However, i t i s one of the meri ts of Browns arti cl e to gi ons, we cal l i t syncreti sm; when i t escapes i t, we
cal l i t bl asphemy. Rel i gi ous i ntol erance, i n our tradi - make i t cl ear that there i s more to thi s questi on than
mere propaganda or pol i ti cal nai vete. Few anthropol o- ti on as el sewhere, has l i ttl e use for l egal ri ghts.
gi sts woul d deny that compl ete freedom i n the el d
of i nformati on and marketi ng woul d expose Ameri can
Indi an soci eti es, as i n the past, to al l ki nds of i njuri es d a v i d j . s t e ph e n s o n j r .
3888 W. Grambling Dr., Denver, Colo. 80236-2444, and theft.
Di sti ncti ons and cl ear thought are everywhere di f- U.S.A. 11 xi 97
cul t to achi eve i n pol i ti cal debate. In thi s respect
Browns paper i s useful i n that i t cl earl y establ i shes the Thi s thoughtful , provocati ve arti cl e i s a val uabl e contri -
buti on to the ever-wi deni ng conversati on about the i n- premi ses for a cruci al debate. Pursui ng thi s debate, I
woul d l i ke to add two remarks: tel l ectual property ri ghts of i ndi genous peopl es. Brown
graphi cal l y supports hi s heal thy skepti ci sm of l egal 1. The i mpl i ci t assumpti ons emergi ng from the di s-
cussi on of the protecti on of ethni c mi nori ti es (at l east schemes to control cul tural appropri ati on, or mi sappro-
pri ati on, wi th a wi de spectrum of poi gnant, ti mel y con- i n Browns account) seem rel uctant to make any di s-
ti ncti on between schol arl y exami nati on and anal ysi s of crete exampl es. The thrust of hi s arti cl e i s to force cri ti -
cal reecti on i n an arena where i t i s much needed, cul tural facts, i mi tati on or theft of cul tural i tems for
commerci al use, bl asphemy, and even sacri l egi ous cari - because wi thout such cri ti cal reecti on the noti on of
i ntel l ectual property ri ghts for i ndi genous peopl es wi l l cature of ri tual s. However, i t i s one thi ng to study, wi th
the permi ssi on of the l ocal authori ti es, the meani ng of a be abused to the poi nt that i t eventual l y i s evi scerated.
Browns cl ari on cal l i s remi ni scent of the arguments of rel i gi ous object and qui te another to cari cature a ri tual .
Schol arshi p and bl asphemy are not the same, and thi s the more moderate and di spassi onate commentators
duri ng the tumul tuous si xti es i n the Uni ted States hol ds true, i n my experi ence of el dwork wi th the
Kuna, for some Indi ans as wel l as for some anthropol o- that the country needed fewer uncri ti cal l overs and
unl ovi ng cri ti cs and more cri ti cal l overs. Brown i s a gi sts. In thi s respect, Browns account seems to me too
pessi mi sti c. cri ti cal l over. He offers posi ti ve i nsi ghts and construc-
ti ve suggesti ons (e.g., ethi cal real i sm and frameworks 2. On the anthropol ogi sts si de, I see another ri sk. Op-
posi ng rel i gi ous Ameri ndi an tradi ti ons to sci enti c- based on joi nt stewardshi p) al ongsi de hi s thorough cri -
ti que of overzeal ous advocacy for nati ve i ntel l ectual strument for the recogni ti on of ri ghts of a cul tural na-
ture i s merged wi th the anthropol ogi sts perpetual fash- property ri ghts.
Hi s concerns about how to reconci l e Western noti ons i oni ng of thei r rel ati ons wi th those whose cul tures they
study. The curators response was not to destroy the pa- of i ntel l ectual property wi th nati ve cl ai ms to the ri ght
to protect vi rtual l y everythi ng that may be deemed part pers or pri ori ti se the ri ghts of the donor but to pose
questi ons about the conduct of rel ati onshi ps. Thi s i s a of the broad fabri c of cul ture, i ncl udi ng thoughts, i s
consi stent wi th my own cauti ons about the dangers sensi bi l i ty wi th (so to speak) a l i fe of i ts own, a tri umph
of anthropol ogi cal theori es of cul ture and of two de- posed by the i nherent vagueness and overbreadth of the
term cul tural patri mony i n the Nati ve Ameri can cades of enhanced sensi ti vi ty to professi onal practi ce. It
i s i nteresti ng that i t shoul d be a museum exampl e, for Graves Protecti on and Repatri ati on Act (Stephenson
1996) and the arbi trari ness and overbreadth of the In- here cul tural property (i n tangi bl e i tems) ouri shed
as an i ssue l ong before i t became bl own up i nto a ubi q- di an Arts and Crafts Act recentl y detai l ed by Gai l Shef-
el d (1997). Browns cal l for ethi cal real i sm i s echoed ui tous i ndex of ethi cal awareness (apropos tangi bl e and
i ntangi bl e i tems al i ke). (Busse [1997] notes that i n Pa- i n my predi cti on that the most successful strategi es for
protecti ng, conservi ng, and compensati ng cul tural prop- pua New Gui nea the change from the l anguage of anti q-
ui ti es to the l anguage of nati onal cul tural property, and erty are more l i kel y to be those that transl ate broad,
l ofty pri nci pl es i nto l ocal sui generis i ni ti ati ves (1996: thus cul tural heri tage, dates from 1965.)
1
The i ntel l ectual property ri ghts probl emati c has i n ef- 118). Browns observati on that zeal ous protecti on of i n-
tel l ectual property ri ghts i s i nconsi stent wi th other fect taken over others, and Brown apprai ses the conse-
quences of thi s. It i s an i mportant task. Thus property hi ghl y val ued pri nci pl es, such as freedom of expressi on,
as reected i n the Fi rst Amendment, i s encapsul ated i n di scourse repl aces, he argues, what shoul d be di scussi on
on the moral i mpl i cati ons of subjecti ng peopl e to un- Shefel ds comment that the ri ght to forecl ose anoth-
ers use of Indi an i denti ty wi l l coni ct wi th that i ndi - wanted scruti ny or sequesteri ng publ i c-domai n i nfor-
mati on. It runs the danger of what he wonderful l y cal l s vi dual s ri ght to freedom of expressi on and her reec-
ti on on Davi d Langes (1981:147) comment that the the moral al chemy of converti ng mul ti pl e i nterests and
questi ons about fai r use and fai r expressi on i nto narrow growth of i ntel l ectual property i n recent years has been
uncontrol l ed to the poi nt of reckl essness (1997:141). di sputes over commodi ti es or of overl ooki ng the com-
pl ex human moti ves that coal esced at the ti me when At the same ti me, i t i s i roni cal l y preci sel y the broad-
eni ng of tradi ti onal i ntel l ectual property concepts i n re- ethnographi c i tems were obtai ned or of abandoni ng the
conventi ons of reasonabl e procedure or a common- cent years, brought on by such technol ogi cal revol u-
ti ons as the Internet and computer software, that offers sense approach to compl ex ethi cal i ssues i n favour of
comprehensi ve cl ai ms to ownershi p. I mi ght add to promi se for ndi ng a proper t between tradi ti onal l egal
rul es for protecti ng i ntel l ectual property i n the Western these the l ate-20th-century money effect; bodi es such
as the Bri ti sh Economi c and Soci al Research Counci l , tradi ti on and the i ntegri ty of the attri butes of tradi -
ti onal cul tures, however i ntangi bl e those attri butes by anal ogy wi th commerci al compani es, may use the
rubri c of i ntel l ectual property to rei fy nati onal i nterests may be (Stephenson 1994). Because the concept of i ntel -
l ectual property i n Western l aw i s i tsel f undergoi ng i n the nati onal l y funded. Whi l e thi s propri etorshi p re-
fers i n the rst pl ace to research wi th a nanci al poten- such rapi d transformati on, i t woul d be premature to di s-
mi ss i ts potenti al uti l i ty for protecti ng at l east the more ti al , i n the ESRC case i t si ts si de by si de wi th requi re-
ments that research-generated i nformati on (i ncl udi ng measured attri butes of nati ve cul tures i denti ed i n the
Bel l agi o Decl arati on about whi ch Brown comments fa- pri mary data from i ntervi ews or di ari es) be datasetted
and thus archi ved for use by thi rd parti es. No menti on vorabl y.
By the same token, Browns anal ysi s mi ght have ben- i s made of i ntel l ectual property ri ghts here except as a
probl em whi ch may affect the deposi ti on of data. The eted by a consi derati on of efforts to devel op al terna-
ti ves to tradi ti onal i ntel l ectual property, such as Darrel l i ssue i s not cl ai ms to ori gi nal ownershi p but the asser-
ti on of nati onal i nterests agai nst other cl ai ms to the Poseys concept of tradi ti onal resource ri ghts, as
more appropri ate for non-Western tradi ti ons (Posey and countrys store of i nformati on.
Brown dryl y observes that i n the mad scrambl e for Dutel d 1996).
On the whol e, however, I appl aud Brown for thor- control , ethno-nati onal i sts are si mi l arl y promoti ng
i deas about cul tural protecti on the col l apse of the oughl y exposi ng i mportant i ssues that desperatel y need
more cri ti cal reecti on.
1. And enshri ned i n the 1970 UNESCO conventi on on the i l l i ci t
transfer of ownershi p of cul tural property, part of the postwar an-
ma r i l y n s t r a t h e r n
thropol ogi cal effort to put cul ture i nto the i nternati onal vocabu-
Department of Anthropology, University of
l ary. But i f the formul a (cul tural property)was rel ati vel y new, some
of the senti ments concerni ng the appropri ati on of peopl es heri tage
Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3FR, U.K. 26 x 97
had been l ong i n pl ace: see Wi nter (1993) on Greenel ds (1989) The
Return of Cultural Treasures. Busse notes that the Ordi nance re-
Browns openi ng remarks pi npoi nt an i nati onary di -
l ati ng to Papuan Anti qui ti es dates from 1913; the i ssue then was
mensi on to recent di scussi ons of i ntel l ectual property.
not cl ai ms to ori gi nal ownershi p but the asserti on of nati onal i nter-
ests agai nst other cl ai ms to the countrys anti qui ti es. The i dea of i ntel l ectual property ri ghts as a potenti al i n-
i dea/expressi on di sti ncti on or the abandonment of ti me the practi cal , senti mental , and phi l osophi cal ti es that
bi nd them to the peopl es they study, but, as Browns hori zons whi ch, converted i nto i ntel l ectual property
ri ghts regul ati ons, woul d certai nl y serve the i nterests of masterful anal ysi s shows, i n the case of the more draco-
ni an versi ons of cul tural copyri ght such parti sanshi p corporati ons.
Thi s i s a judi ci ous and cool account. If i t l eans to- can run afoul of pri nci pl es of equal or more compel l i ng
val ue, such as publ i c domai n, fai r usage, and, perhaps wards parti cul arl y Ameri can cul tural pragmati cs i n i ts
concerns for nati ve peopl es, Browns careful wei ghi ng i s above al l , the preservati on of cul tural knowl edge i n al l
i ts vari ati on. al so more general l y useful . On the one hand, he advo-
cates compensati on mechani sms for the commerci al Furthermore, even i f one were to accept the val i di ty
of radi cal cl ai ms, such as that of the Apache tri bal con- use of knowl edge/artefacts and cl ear gui del i nes for col -
l ecti ng cul tural l y sensi ti ve ethnographi c data. On the sorti um, who gets to speak for the tri be? Regardl ess
of whether such spokespersons are desi gnated by demo- other hand, he i s i n despai r over some of the broader
debate about cul tural appropri ati on, the very ki nd of crati c el ecti ons or by nondemocrati c customary proce-
dures, as soci al actors they are subject to si tuati onal wi der contextual i sati on that anthropol ogi sts normal l y
favour. He sees anthropol ogi sts abandoni ng soci al cri - constrai nts and temptati ons that coul d resul t i n faul ty
deci si ons; onl y a nai ve observer a fortiori a poor eth- ti que when i t comes to ethno-nati onal i st cl ai ms to en-
duri ng ri ghts. Yet thi s pol i ti cs has i ts own soci al real i ty: nographer woul d mi stake rhetori c for the compl ex
moti ves that dri ve hi gh-stakes cul ture pol i ti cs i n mat- peopl e who feel that thei r ancestors were duped do not
want thei r descendants to have been. Brown does appeal ters of copyri ght and other new arenas. And yet, thi s
sai d, who should determi ne whether and to what extent to si tuati onal pragmati sm; a mul ti cul tural democ-
racy i mpl i es wei ghi ng the benets of speci al ri ghts cul ture shoul d be copyri ghted? What sol omoni c process
wi l l sort out and create enl i ghtened, sustai nabl e pol i cy agai nst the i njury done to noti ons of equi ty and fai rness.
Thi s of course i s an ol d pol i ti cal -economi c i ssue that upon the bal ance of ri ghts among i ndi vi dual s, cul tural l y
i denti abl e col l ecti vi ti es, commerci al i nterests, and recurs at every angl e or joi nt i n the soci al body.
I have a si ngl e comment: one needs to pi ck ones so- the l ong-term publ i c good? For the present, at l east,
these i ssues are bei ng deci ded i n the courts, but i n the ci al domai n. In terms of the many deci si on-maki ng con-
texts Brown summons (e.g., the ethi cs of Nati ve Ameri - end i t i s posteri ty the descendants of oursel ves, as an-
thropol ogi sts, and those of the peopl es we study who can churches usi ng Chri sti an symbol s), he i s absol utel y
ri ght to poi nt to the excesses and absurdi ti es of the wi l l judge whether, i n retrospect, cul tural pri vacy was
worth the pri ce of cul tural obl i vi on. dramati c expansi on of the i ntel l ectual property of na-
ti ve peopl e. But i f we shi ft i nto the worl d of al ready Browns sane and judi ci ous study i s not onl y a ti mel y
wakeup cal l for anthropol ogi sts to ponder the poten- exi sti ng i nequi ti es, where to use a romanti ci st meta-
phor i t i s hard to make ones voi ce heard, then i ntel - ti al l y grave i mpl i cati ons of cul tural copyri ght l egal i ti es
for the future of the di sci pl i ne; more posi ti vel y, through l ectual property ri ghts i s a forceful sound bi te. Preci sel y
because i t rol l s so much up i nto a bundl e, preci sel y be- detached, cl earsi ghted renderi ngs i t di scl oses the very
anthropol ogi cal sal i ency of the val ue contests sur- cause i t has rhetori cal l y i nati onary potenti al , and pre-
ci sel y because i t i nvokes property, i t i s a pol i ti cal sl ogan roundi ng cul tural copyri ght. Do we gl i mpse, here, a re-
search ori entati on constructi ve for anthropol ogy i n an of power. Power i s not al ways so easy to come by. The
anthropol ogi st just needs to be careful not to mi stake era when so many ol d di sci pl i nary veri ti es no l onger
appl y? If so, thi s woul d be good news, i ndeed, for cul - sl ogan for soci al anal yti c.
tural copyri ght i s onl y one i n an emergent fami l y of
i ssues that pose i mportant chal l enges and opportuni ti es
for future anthropol ogy. For i nstance, how far does cul - d o n a l d t u z i n
Department of Anthropology, University of tural rel ati vi sm go i n defendi ng practi ces, such as i n-
bul ati on and cl i tori dectomy performed on l i ttl e gi rl s, California, San Diego, La Jolla, Calif. 92093-0532,
U.S.A. (dtuzin@ucsd.edu). 19 x 97 that seem to offend more uni versal i sti c val ues? Si mi -
l arl y, what shoul d be anthropol ogys stance on the
knotty i ssue of cultural asyl um as, for exampl e, i n the In these postmodern ti mes, anthropol ogy, to quote the
Lord Ko-Ko and fri ends, nds i tsel f i n a pretty how-de- case of the Saudi Arabi an woman who sought Canadi an
asyl um on the grounds that Saudi cul ture depri ved her do. The debates over cul tural copyri ght are l l ed wi th
strange bedfel l ows and moral di l emmas. Havi ng barel y (as a woman) of her basi c human ri ghts? On a much
l arger scal e, the combi ned effects of runaway popul a- compl eted the task of derei fyi ng cul ture and di scredi t-
i ng the concept of the tri be as an i nstrument of 19th- ti on growth and prospecti ve gl obal warmi ng i mpl y that
the not-too-di stant future wi l l wi tness popul ati on di sl o- century i mperi al i sm, anthropol ogy, at ti mes, seems
ready to wel come back such noti ons i n order to defend cati ons of monumental proporti ons. Never mi nd i ndi g-
enous intellectual property ri ghts; how defensi bl e wi l l i ntel l ectual property ri ghts on the part of i ndi genous
col l ecti vi ti es and the correspondi ng ri ght to prevent excl usi onary real property ri ghts and soverei gnty be, for
the autochthone, when a growi ng proporti on of the hu- outsi ders from emul ati ng or commerci al l y expl oi ti ng
thei r cul tural patri mony. The rol e of i ndi genous advo- man race, wi th ri ghts of i ts own, i s beati ng on the door?
And agai n, as the l oss of bi odi versi ty on the pl anet even- cate may come easi l y to anthropol ogi sts, consi deri ng
tual l y approaches cri si s l evel s, how far wi l l anthropol - hopeful because i t si gnal s the arri val of nati ve peopl es
as si gni cant pl ayers i n gl obal debates about soci al and ogy go i n defendi ng the ri ghts of i ndi genous groups to
di spose of thei r resources enti rel y as they see t? economi c justi ce. Here, however, I part ways wi th some
commentators. Coombe, for exampl e, seems unabl e to These are the sorts of chal l enges that anthropol ogy
wi l l face i n the comi ng century. If anthropol ogys ari d di sti ngui sh between comprehension of nati ve cl ai ms
and unthi nki ng support for them. I have no troubl e un- response i s to i nvoke what DAndrade (1995) has cal l ed
moral model s and joi n the babbl e of competi ng advo- derstandi ng the hi stori cal ci rcumstances that l ead i n-
di genous groups to assert control over cul tural records, caci es rei fyi ng and senti mental i zi ng cul ture al l over
agai n i t wi l l fai l i n i ts purposes; i t wi l l fai l to devel op nor do I contest demands that they shoul d have a voi ce
i n determi ni ng how such records are used. Neverthe- new purposes appropri ate to the new soci ocul tural real -
i ti es of the 21st century; and i t wi l l become part of the l ess, those who val ue anthropol ogy and other forms of
soci al i nqui ry al so have a responsi bi l i ty to ask whether probl em, not part of the sol uti on.
the whol esal e repatri ati on of i nformati on i s ei ther
feasi bl e or moral l y defensi bl e and, i f we destroy cul tural
records or sequester them through novel forms of i ndi g-
enous copyri ght as some woul d i nsi st, what l egal pri nci - Repl y
pl es wi l l prevent other soci al groups dened by eth-
ni ci ty, rel i gi ous afl i ati on, or pol i ti cal agenda from
advanci ng si mi l ar cl ai ms. In an age of i denti ty pol i ti cs, mi c h a e l f . b r o w n
Williamstown, Mass., U.S.A. 10 xii 97 i t seems onl y prudent to ponder the broad i mpl i cati ons
of such pol i ci es before embraci ng them.
Coombe i s mi staken when she i mpl i es that I advance These 15 reasoned responses i l l ustrate the wi de-rangi ng
thought needed to gai n anal yti cal purchase on i ssues of absol uti st vi si ons of free speech and freedom of access
to i nformati on. Al though I argue that standards of free i nformati on pol i cy and cul tural ownershi p. Some com-
mentators (e.g., Santos Granero, Powers, Posey) woul d speech and freedom of access shoul d be consi dered i n
cul tural -property debates, nowhere do I contend that move the anal ysi s farther i n the di recti on of concrete
pol i ci es, whereas others (Barnes, Coombe, Descol a, Hi - these goal s al ways and everywhere trump other consi d-
erati ons. I have no more sympathy for unqual i ed appl i - att, Strathern, Rosen, Tuzi n) argue for si tuati ng the i s-
sues wi thi n l arger debates about property concepts and cati on of the pri nci pl e of free speech than I do for
preempti ve cl ai ms of cul tural ownershi p or for the thei r l i mi tati ons, the pol i ti cs of knowl edge and repre-
sentati on, and di l emmas of ethni c soverei gnty wi thi n si mpl e-mi nded noti on that a peopl e has an i nherent
ri ght to control how i t i s represented to the worl d at mul ti cul tural states. The subject cl earl y demands both
approaches, and I am grateful for the i mpressi ve erudi - l arge. Onl y by cl eari ng away such total i zi ng posi ti ons
can we begi n the di fcul t busi ness of ndi ng a mi ddl e ti on that the commentators have brought to bear on i ts
many facets. ground that bal ances the genui ne concerns and gri ev-
ances of nati ve groups wi th the democrati c val ues (how- Let me begi n by underl i ni ng areas of general agree-
ment. The commentators acknowl edge that the l an- ever i mperfectl y appl i ed) of the l i beral state. In thi s
sense I nd mysel f drawn to the pragmati sm of Powers, guage of cul tural property i s a probl emati c and i n many
ways i mpoveri shed way of tal ki ng about soci al prob- Cl evel and, and Stephenson. It may be ti me, as Cl eve-
l and says, to focus on goal s rather than on methods. l ems that real l y turn on questi ons of soverei gnty, mu-
tual respect, and the precari ous status of nati ve cul tures Karl sson mi sconstrues my references to Ameri can In-
di ans. I menti on Hopi and Apache asserti ons of control wi thi n mass soci ety. As Strathern notes, however, i n-
tel l ectual property di scourse i s a forceful sound bi te over cul tural i nformati on because on thi s i ssue, as on
many others, these tri bes are l eadi ng the way for other because i t condenses many i ssues i nto a compact no-
ti on that feeds upon publ i c uneasi ness about the future i ndi genous groups i n North Ameri ca and el sewhere.
The tri bal documents i n questi on offer unusual l y cl ear of authenti ci ty i n a worl d i ncreasi ngl y dened by si mu-
l ati on. and strai ghtforward expressi ons of the authors posi -
ti ons. My respect for thei r vi ews does not, however, Most of the commentators al so recogni ze that com-
prehensi ve cl ai ms of cul tural ownershi p can, i f taken to obl i ge me to agree wi th al l of thei r asserti ons. I do not
di spute the soverei gn ri ght of nati ve peopl es to restri ct extremes, pl ay i nto the hands of demagogues. European
observers i n parti cul ar, Descol a and Hi att are more the acti vi ti es of outsi de researchers as they see t. The
pri nci pal poi nt at i ssue i s the cl ai m that i ndi genous sensi ti ve to thi s i ssue than thei r col l eagues from North
Ameri ca, South Ameri ca, and Austral i a, doubtl ess be- groups own that i s, possess i nal i enabl e and excl u-
si ve ri ghts i n cul tural i nformati on that they have cause of thei r proxi mi ty to recent cases of genoci dal vi o-
l ence rooted i n i deol ogi es of ethni c nati onal i sm. Even shared over the years wi th outsi ders and that has l ong
resi ded i n the publ i c domai n. those who do not share thei r dark vi ew of the trajectory
of i ndi genous pol i ti cal asserti on must acknowl edge the Ameri can Indi an spokespersons have every ri ght to
cri ti ci ze New Agers who i mi tate Indi an ri tual s or en- power of thei r cauti onary tal e.
We al so agree that the current struggl e over i ntangi - gage i n other offensi ve behavi or. In fact, vi gorous con-
demnati on of New Age practi ces by Indi ans i s far more bl e cul tural property can be seen as a hopeful si gn
l i kel y to promote greater cul tural sensi ti vi ty than are a free of an i nsi di ous natural i sm. Gi ven anthropol ogys
l ong struggl e agai nst essenti al i st approaches to cul ture, score of schol arl y treati ses on the probl em of cul tural
appropri ati on. Neverthel ess, there i s l i ttl e evi dence that I woul d expect Posey to be more cauti ous about jump-
i ng onto thi s parti cul ar bandwagon. greater nati ve control over materi al i n l i brari es, muse-
ums, and archi ves wi l l di scourage the acti vi ti es of those Wi th the excepti on of Jackson, Rosen, and Stephen-
son, the commentators express l i ttl e concern about the determi ned to emul ate Nati ve Ameri can rel i gi ous ri tu-
al s, who are far more l i kel y to tal k thi ngs over wi th i mpact of di gi tal technol ogi es on proposed schemes to
protect i ndi genous heri tage. Rosen uses the copyri ghted thei r channel ed spi ri t gui des than to consul t works of
anthropol ogy. status of thi s c u r r en t a n t h r o po l o g y arti cl e as evi -
dence that i ntel l ectual property l aws sti l l work, yet the Karl sson i ncorrectl y concl udes that I questi on the
si nceri ty of Ameri can Indi an acti vi sts si mpl y because exampl e i l l ustrates perfectl y why copyri ghts and pat-
ents cannot protect i ndi genous knowl edge that was some happen to be ski l l ful negoti ators. Indi ans have
been forced to hone thei r negoti ati ng tal ents through never i ntended for uncontrol l ed ci rcul ati on. Rosen and
I wri te to di ssemi nate our thoughts, not to shi el d them decades of i nvol vement wi th state and federal govern-
ments, the news medi a, nongovernmental organi za- from scruti ny. A century ago we woul d have been rea-
sonabl y assured that our exchange woul d be read onl y ti ons, and researchers of vari ous descri pti ons. I see no
necessary contradi cti on between a si ncere commi tment by those possessi ng a copy of the journal . Now that we
have i nexpensi ve photocopyi ng, however, thi s arti cl e i s to ones cul tural val ues and mastery of the ski l l s of
cross-cul tural communi cati on. It bears noti ng, how- far more l i kel y to be seen i n facsi mi l e than i n i ts ori gi -
nal form. Thi s may be di sturbi ng to the Wenner-Gren ever, that burgeoni ng revenues from tri bal gami ng en-
terpri ses now permi t Ameri can Indi ans to hi re some of Foundati on, whi ch bears the journal s producti on costs,
but for academi c authors i t i s cause for qui et cel ebra- the nati ons most i nuenti al l obbyi sts and l awyers to
advance thei r i nterests i n the publ i c arena. El sewhere, ti on, si nce our ambi ti on i s to be read and ci ted. If our
goal were to restrict access to our words, i n contrast, for i nstance, i n Austral i a, the state routi nel y nances
l i ti gati on and other l egal acti vi ti es that contest the the journal s copyri ght woul d afford us no protecti on
whatsoever. Compared wi th the di gi tal technol ogy now states own power. These devel opments beg for di spas-
si onate anal ysi s by schol ars wi l l i ng to jetti son habi tual on the hori zon, the photocopy machi ne i s as crude as an
Ol dowan hand-axe, and we are sure to wi tness profound assumpti ons about the rel ati ve powerl essness of nati ve
peopl es, especi al l y i n the devel oped worl d. Despi te an- changes i n the ways i n whi ch i nformati on i s created,
ci rcul ated, transformed, and used changes that wi l l thropol ogys cl ai m to be attenti ve to human agency, we
prove hi ghl y sel ecti ve i n our wi l l i ngness to acknowl - undermi ne cul tural -protecti on schemes based on the
l ogi c of patents and copyri ghts. edge i t, especi al l y when the fate of recei ved wi sdom
hangs i n the bal ance. It woul d seem that we need vi c- Cl evel and rai ses the i mportant questi on of cul tural
val ues, a theme al so devel oped to a greater or l esser ex- ti ms far more than they need us.
Posey i s ri ght to emphasi ze the many efforts bei ng tent i n the comments of Rosen, Severi , and Tuzi n. An-
thropol ogy has found i ts pl ace i n Western thought by made to devel op workabl e strategi es for the protecti on
of i ndi genous know-how from corporate efforts to al i en- showi ng how practi ces that seem i l l ogi cal or i mmoral
i n one cul ture appear perfectl y normal from the per- ate i t through the prevai l i ng system of copyri ghts and
patents. But the devi l , as they say, i s i n the detai l s. I specti ve of another. Yet, as Tuzi n poi nts out, i n a gl ob-
al i zi ng worl d our anal ysi s cannot stop there. We must have read most of the documents to whi ch he refers,
and I do not share hi s convi cti on that they offer a cl ear now come to gri ps wi th the chal l enges of reconci l i ng
wi del y di vergent cul tural val ues i n our nei ghborhoods, vi si on of how the desi res of i ndi genous peopl es to con-
trol thei r heri tage (to frame the i ssue i n an i di om fa- school s, and workpl aces. The turn toward i ndi genous
soverei gnty sol ves some probl ems but i n turn creates vored by the Uni ted Nati ons) can be bal anced agai nst
the l egi ti mate cl ai ms of other soci al actors.
1
The si tua- others, especi al l y as soci al boundari es become more
permeabl e. It i s cruci al l y i mportant to move the cul - ti on i s hardl y hel ped by the recent reemergence i n i nter-
nati onal forums of what Descol a i denti es as volkisch tural -property debate beyond reexi ve expressi ons of
sol i dari ty to a more nuanced consi derati on of the con- phi l osophy, that i s, bel i ef i n a transcendent, mysti cal
l i nk between a peopl e and i ts terri tory. Thi s i s not to i cti ng ri ghts and responsi bi l i ti es at stake i n the formu-
l ati on of publ i c pol i ci es rel ati ng to i nformati on. deny that many nati ve peopl es i denti fy cl osel y wi th
thei r l and, i nvesti ng i t wi th sacred qual i ti es and seei ng I was remi nded of the human di mensi on of thi s strug-
gl e several months ago whi l e observi ng an i ntel l ectual i t as a source of knowl edge. But as a general i zati on
about i ndi genous cul tures i t seems nei ther accurate nor property tri al i n the ci ty of Darwi n, the capi tal of
Austral i as Northern Terri tory. The pl ai nti ffs, a wel l -
known Abori gi nal arti st from Arnhem Land and hi s se-
1. An i mportant excepti on i s Janke (1997), an Austral i an document
that came i nto my possessi on whi l e thi s repl y was bei ng drafted.
ni or cl an rel ati ve, were aski ng the federal court to rec-
Consi sti ng of a general overvi ew of Abori gi nal i ntel l ectual property
ogni ze the cl ans economi c and moral ri ghts i n the
and l egal frameworks that affect i ts di sposi ti on and use, the docu-
arti sts graphi c desi gns, ri ghts ti ed to the cl ans terri tory
ment proposes a range of speci c changes i n Austral i an l aws
and ri tual knowl edge. Representi ng them were a l ocal
rel ati ng to copyri ght, patents, trademarks, and archi ves manage-
ment. sol i ci tor and a geni al barri ster from Mel bourne named
a n d e r s o n , c h r i s t o ph e r . Edi tor. 1995. Politics of the se- Col i n Gol van, who brought to the case hi s consi derabl e
cret. Oceani a Monograph 45.
experti se i n i ntel l ectual property l i ti gati on. The respon-
a o k i , k e i t h . 1996. (Intel l ectual ) Property and soverei gnty:
dent, a company that had pi rated the arti sts work for
Notes toward a cul tural geography of authorshi p. Stanford Law
mass-produced tee-shi rts, was nowhere to be seen, ap-
Review 48: 12931355.
b a r l o w, j o h n pe r r y. 1993. Sel l i ng wi ne wi thout bottl es: parentl y because pri or l i ti gati on had forced i t i nto bank-
The economy of mi nd on the gl obal net. http://www.eff.org/
ruptcy. Instead, opposi ng counsel was provi ded by the
pub/Intel l ectual property, accessed 1 January 1996.
Mi ni stry for Abori gi nal and Torres Strai t Isl ander Af-
b a r n e s , j . a . 1980. Who should know what? Cambri dge: Cam-
fai rs, whi ch feared that the case, i f won by the pl ai nti ffs,
bri dge Uni versi ty Press. [ja b]
coul d destabi l i ze Austral i as system of nati ve l and ti - . 1990. Models and interpretations. Cambri dge: Cambri dge
Uni versi ty Press. [ja b] tl es. In gowns and wi gs, the l awyers from both si des pre-
b a u d r i l l a r d , j e a n . 1988. Si mul acra and si mul ati ons, i n
sented cogent arguments on behal f of thei r cl i ents.
Jean Baudrillard: Selected writings. Edi ted by Mark Poster,
Documentati on was brought forward i n i mpressi ve
pp. 16684. Stanford: Stanford Uni versi ty Press.
quanti ti es. A museum curator furni shed an exampl e of
b e r r y ma n , c a t h r y n a . 1994. Toward more uni versal protec-
ti on of i ntangi bl e cul tural property. Journal of I ntellectual the arti sts work for the i nspecti on of the court. The
Property Law 1:293333.
presi di ng judge, obvi ousl y engaged by the case, seemed
b e t t i g , r o n a l d v. 1996. Copyrighting culture: The political
wi l l i ng to do the ri ght thi ng i f onl y he coul d gure out
economy of intellectual property. Boul der: Westvi ew Press.
what i t was and then reconci l e i t wi th exi sti ng l aws and
b o k, s i s s e l a . 1983. Secrets: On the ethics of concealment and
commerci al practi ces. revelation. New York: Vi ntage.
b o y l e, j a me s . 1996. Shamans, software, and spleens: Law Al though i t was i mpossi bl e not to admi re the good-
and the construction of the information society. Cambri dge:
wi l l of the parti ci pants and, i ndeed, of a soci ety that
Harvard Uni versi ty Press.
woul d devote so much i nsti tuti onal energy to the reso-
b r a n d t , e l i z a b e t h a . 1980. On secrecy and the control of
l uti on of an i sol ated communi tys concerns, I found
knowl edge: Taos Puebl o, i n Secrecy: A cross-cultural perspec-
tive. Edi ted by Stanton K. Tefft, pp. 12346. New York: Hu- mysel f wonderi ng whether thi s was the most effecti ve
man Sci ences Press.
way to hel p Abori gi nal arti sts carry on the tradi ti ons of
b r a n s c o mb, a n n e w e l l s . 1994. Who owns information?:
thei r peopl e whi l e recei vi ng reasonabl e compensati on
From privacy to public access. New York: Basi c Books.
for thei r efforts. Max Webers anal ysi s of bureaucracy
b r o w n , mi c h a e l f . 1997. The channeling zone: American
demonstrated l ong ago that modern procedural rati onal - spirituality in an anxious age. Cambri dge: Harvard Uni versi ty
Press. i ty i nevi tabl y spawns i ts own forms of i rrati onal i ty. As
b r o w n i n g , j o h n . 1997. Afri ca 1, Hol l ywood 0. Wired,
heri tage-protecti on l aws come i nto effect and l egal prec-
March, pp. 6164, 18588.
edents accumul ate, l awyers wi l l appl y ever more i ntri -
b r u s h , s t e ph e n b. 1993. Indi genous knowl edge of bi ol ogi cal
cate casui stry to contests over cul tural ownershi p. Each
resources and i ntel l ectual property ri ghts: The rol e of anthro-
pol ogy. American Anthropologist 95:65386. i nnovati on i n l egal thi nki ng i nvi tes new cl ai ms i n a spi -
b u s s e , ma r k. 1997. The Nati onal Cul tural Property (Preserva-
ral of compl exi ty i ncreasi ngl y removed from the goal of
ti on) Act [Papua New Gui nea, 1965/ 1975]. Paper del i vered to
creati ng soci al spaces i n whi ch i ndi genous peopl es are
Intel l ectual , Bi ol ogi cal , and Cul tural Property Ri ghts Semi nar,
safe from predatory corporati ons and mass cul tures
Port Moresby, August. [ms]
hungry for gl i mpses of human understandi ng percei ved c l e v e l a n d , d a v i d a . , a n d s t e ph e n c . mu r r a y. 1997.
The worl ds crop geneti c resources and the ri ghts of i ndi genous as uni quel y authenti c, perhaps even as redempti ve.
farmers. c u r r en t a n t h r o po l o g y 38:477515.
Hence my contrari an arguments, offered as a profes-
c o n l e y, d i a n e . 1990. Author, user, schol ar, thi ef: Fai r use
si on of doubt. If they cause readers to pause for a mo-
and unpubl i shed works. Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law
ment of reecti on before bl i ndl y supporti ng pl ans to bu-
Journal 9:1560.
c o n t e, e. , a n d c . e s s n e r . 1995. La quete de la race: Une reaucrati ze and pol i ce the publ i c domai n i n the name
anthropologie du nazisme. Pari s: Hachette. [pd ]
of respect for other cul tures, then they wi l l have served
c o o mb e, r o s e ma r y j . 1991. Objects of property and subjects
a useful purpose.
of pol i ti cs: Intel l ectual property l aws and democrati c debate.
Texas Law Review 69:185380.
. 1993. Cul tural and i ntel l ectual properti es: Occupyi ng the
col oni al i magi nati on. Political and Legal Anthropology Review
16(1):815.
References Ci ted
. 1996. Marki ng di fference i n Ameri can commerce: Trade-
marks and al teri ty at centurys end. Political and Legal Anthro-
pology Review 19:10515. a i m l e a d e r s h i p c o n f e r e n c e. 1984. AIM Resol uti on on
sal e of sacred ceremoni es. Soverei gn Di ne Nati on, Wi ndow . 1997. The properti es of cul ture and the possessi on of
i denti ty: Postcol oni al struggl e and the l egal i magi nati on, i n Rock, Ari z.: Center for Worl d Indi genous Studi es/Fourth Worl d
Documentati on Project, http://www.hal cyon.com/pub/ Borrowed power: Essays on cultural appropriation. Edi ted by
Bruce Zi ff and Prati ma V. Rao, pp. 7496. New Brunswi ck: FWDP, accessed 9 Apri l 9 1996, unpagi nated.
a l b a n e s e, c a t h e r i n e l . 1990. Nature religion in America: Rutgers Uni versi ty Press.
Cultural Survival. 1996. Genes, peopl e, and property. 20 From the Algonkian I ndians to the New Age. Chi cago: Uni ver-
si ty of Chi cago Press. (2).
d a e s , e r i c a - i r e n e. 1993. Study on the protection of the cul- a n d e r s o n , c a r o l y n , a n d t h o ma s w. b e n s o n . 1988.
Di rect ci nema and the myth of i nformed consent: The case of tural and intellectual property of indigenous peoples. E/CN.4/
Sub.2/ 1993/ 28. New York: Uni ted Nati ons Economi c and So- Titicut Follies, i n I mage ethics: The moral rights of subjects
in photographs, lm, and television. Edi ted by Larry Gross, ci al Counci l , Commi ssi on on Human Ri ghts.
d a n d r a d e, r o y. 1995. Moral model s i n anthropol ogy. c u r - John Stuart Katz, and Jay Ruby, pp. 5890. New York: Oxford
Uni versi ty Press. r en t a n t h r o po l o g y 36:399408. [d t ]
d e s c o l a , ph i l i ppe. n.d. Expl oi tabl e knowl edge bel ongs to sal e: Sacred knowl edge i n the consumer age. American I ndian
Quarterly 20:41531. the creators of i t: A debate. Social Anthropology 6(1).
d i r l i k, a r i f . 1996. The past as l egacy and project: Postcol o- j o h n s o n , pa u l c . 1995. Shamani sm from Ecuador to Chi -
cago: A case study i n New Age ri tual appropri ati on. Religion ni al cri ti ci sm i n the perspecti ve of i ndi genous hi stori ci sm.
American I ndian Culture and Research Journal 20(2):131. 25:16378.
k e h o e, a l i c e b. 1990. Pri ma Gai a: Pri mi ti vi sts and pl asti c [bg k]
d u b o f f , l e o n a r d d . 1992. 500 years after Col umbus: Pro- medi ci ne men, i n The invented I ndian: Cultural ctions and
government policies. Edi ted by James M. Cl i fton, pp. 193209. tecti ng Nati ve Ameri can cul ture. Cardozo Arts and Entertain-
ment Law Journal 11:4358. New Brunswi ck: Transacti on Publ i shers.
k y ml i c k a , w i l l . 1989. Liberalism, community, and culture. d w o r k i n , r o n a l d . 1986. Laws empire. Cambri dge: Bel knap/
Harvard Uni versi ty Press. Oxford: Cl arendon Press.
l a n g e , d a v i d . 1981. Recogni zi ng the publ i c domai n. Law and d y s o n , e s t h e r . 1995. Intel l ectual val ue. Wired, Jul y, pp. 136
41, 18284. Contemporary Problems 44:14778. [d js]
. 1993. Copyri ght and the Consti tuti on i n the Age of Intel l ec- f e l d , s t e v e n . 1994. From schi zophoni a to schi smogenesi s:
On the di scourses and commodi cati on practi ces of Worl d tual Property. Journal of I ntellectual Property Law 1:11934.
l i t ma n , j e s s i c a . 1991. Copyri ght as myth. University of Musi c and Worl d Beat, i n Music grooves: Essays and dia-
logues, by Charl es Kei l and Steven Fel d, pp. 25789. Chi cago: Pittsburgh Law Review 53:23549.
me r r i l l , w i l l i a m l . , a n d r i c h a r d e . a h l b o r n . 1997. Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press.
. 1996. Pygmy POP: A geneal ogy of schi zophoni c mi me- Zuni archangel s and Ahayu:da: A scul pted chroni cl e of power
and i denti ty, i n Exhibiting dilemmas: I ssues of representation si s, i n Yearbook for traditional music 1996, pp. 135. New
York: Internati onal Counci l for Tradi ti onal Musi c. at the Smithsonian. Edi ted by Amy Henderson and Adri enne
L. Kaeppl er, pp. 176205. Washi ngton, D.C.: Smi thsoni an Insti - f o w l e r , c a r y. 1994. Unnatural selection: Technology. poli-
tics, and plant evolution. Yverdon: Gordon and Breach.[d a c ] tuti on Press.
me r r i l l , w i l l i a m l . , e d mu n d j . l a d d , a n d t . j . f e r - f o w l e r , c a t h e r i n e. 1995. Ethi cal consi derati ons, i n Pre-
serving the anthropological record, 2d edi ti on. Edi ted by Sydel g u s o n . 1993. The return of the Ahayu:da: Lessons for repatri -
ati on from Zuni Puebl o and the Smi thsoni an Insti tuti on. c u r - Si l verman and Nancy J. Parezo, pp. 6372. New York: Wenner-
Gren Foundati on for Anthropol ogi cal Research. r en t a n t h r o po l o g y 34:52367.
me t r a u x, a . 1958. Le vaudou haitien. Pari s: Gal l i mard. [c s] g a s s , w i l l i a m. 1997. Shears of the censor: Notes on exci si on,
i mpri sonment, and si l ence. Harpers Magazine, Apri l , pp. 59 mi l l s , s h e r y l l e. 1996. Indi genous musi c and the l aw: An
anal ysi s of nati onal and i nternati onal l egi sl ati on, i n Yearbook 65.
g o l v a n , c o l i n . 1992. Abori gi nal art and the protecti on of i n- for traditional music 1996, pp. 5786. New York: Internati onal
Counci l for Tradi ti onal Musi c. di genous cul tural ri ghts. European I ntellectual Property Re-
view 14:22732. mo r g a n , ma r l o . 1994. Mutant message down under. New
York: HarperCol l i ns. g r e a v e s , t o m. Edi tor 1994. I ntellectual property rights for in-
digenous peoples: A source book. Okl ahoma Ci ty: Soci ety for mo t a , s u e a n n . 1995. Apple Computer v. Microsoft: The
Ni nth Ci rcui t nds no copyri ght i nfri ngement of Appl es graph- Appl i ed Anthropol ogy.
. 1995. Cul tural ri ghts and ethnography. Bulletin of the i cal user i nterface. Western State University Law Review 23:
3951. General Anthropology Division, American Anthropological As-
sociation 1(2):16. mu n r o , d o u g . 1994. Who owns Paci c hi story? Journal of
Pacic History 29:23237. g r e e n e , c a n d a c e s . , a n d t h o ma s d . d r e s c h e r . 1994.
The Ti pi wi th battl e pi ctures: The Ki owa tradi ti on of i ntangi - Mutant message downed!!! 1996. http://
www.newage.com.au /panthol ogy /mutant.htm, accessed 4 Au- bl e property ri ghts. Trademark Reporter 84:41833.
g r e e n f i e l d , j e a n e t t e. 1989. The return of cultural trea- gust 1997.
n a s o n , j a me s d . 1997. Nati ve Ameri can i ntel l ectual prop- sures. Cambri dge: Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press. [ms]
g r i f o , f r a n c e s c a t . 1994. Chemi cal prospecti ng: An over- erty ri ghts: Issues i n the control of esoteri c knowl edge, i n Bor-
rowed power: Essays on cultural appropriation. Edi ted by vi ew of the Internati onal Cooperati ve Bi odi versi ty Groups Pro-
gram, i n Emerging connections: Biodiversity, biotechnology, Bruce Zi ff and Prati ma V. Rao, pp. 23754. New Brunswi ck:
Rutgers Uni versi ty Press. and sustainable development in health and agriculture. Edi ted
by Jul i e Fei nsi l ver. San Jose, Costa Ri ca: Proceedi ngs of Pan n e g a t i v l a n d . 1995. Fair use: The story of the letter U and
the numeral 2. Concord, Cal i f.: Seel and. Ameri can Heal th Organi zati on Conference.
g r o s s ma n , w e n d y m. 1995. Al t.Sci entol ogy.War. Wired, De- pa s k, a ma n d a . 1993. Cul tural appropri ati on and the l aw: An
anal ysi s of the l egal regi mes concerni ng cul ture. I ntellectual cember, pp. 17377, 24852.
g u pt a , a k h i l , a n d j a me s f e r g u s o n . 1992. Beyond cul - Property Journal 8:5786.
pe l s , pe t e r , a n d o s c a r s a l e mi n k. 1994. Introducti on: ture: Space, i denti ty, and the pol i ti cs of di fference. Cultural
Anthropology 7(1):623. Fi ve theses on ethnography as col oni al practi ce. History and
Anthropology 8:134. h a a s , j o n a t h a n . 1996. Power, objects, and a voi ce for anthro-
pol ogy. c u r r en t a n t h r o po l o g y 37:S1S22. po s e y, d a r r e l l a . , a n d g r a h a m d u t f i e l d . 1996. Be-
yond intellectual property: Toward traditional resource rights h a n d l e r , r i c h a r d . 1988. Nationalism and the politics of
culture in Quebec. Madi son: Uni versi ty of Wi sconsi n Press. for indigenous peoples and local communities. Ottawa: Interna-
ti onal Devel opment Research Centre. i n t e r - a pa c h e s u mmi t o n r e pa t r i a t i o n . 1995. Inter-
Apache pol i cy on repatri ati on and the protecti on of Apache cul - pu r i , k a ma l . 1995. Cul tural ownershi p and i ntel l ectual prop-
erty ri ghts post-Mabo: Putti ng i deas i nto acti on. I ntellectual tures. MS.
j a c k s o n , j e a n . 1989. Is there a way to tal k about maki ng cul - Property Journal 9:293347.
r o o t , d e b o r a h . 1995. Cannibal culture: Art, appropriation, ture wi thout maki ng enemi es? Dialectical Anthropology 14:
12743. and the commodication of difference. Boul der: Westvi ew
Press. . 1995. Cul ture, genui ne and spuri ous: The pol i ti cs of Indi -
anness i n the Vaupes, Col ombi a. American Ethnologist 22:3 r o s e, w e n d y. 1992. The great pretenders: Further reecti ons
on whi teshamani sm, i n The state of Native America: Geno- 27.
j a n k e, t e r r i . 1997. Our culture, our future: Proposals for the cide, colonization, and resistance. Edi ted by M. Annette
Jai mes, pp. 40321. Boston: South End Press. recognition and protection of indigenous cultural and intellec-
tual property. Canberra: Austral i an Insti tute of Abori gi nal and r o s e n , l a w r e n c e. 1997. The ri ght to be di fferent: Indi genous
peopl es and the quest for a uni ed theory. Yale Law Journal Torres Strai t Isl anders Studi es.
j o c k s , c h r i s t o ph e r r o n w a n i e` n : t e. 1996. Spi ri tual i ty for 107. [l r ]
s a mu e l s o n , pa u l a . 1997. Bi g medi a beaten back. Wired, . 1996. A comment on recent devel opments i n the l egal
protecti on of tradi ti onal resource ri ghts. High Plains Applied March, pp. 6164, 17884.
s a mu d r a l a , r a m. 1995. The free musi c phi l osophy. http:// Anthropologist 16:11421. [d js]
s t r a t h e r n , ma r i l y n . 1996. Potenti al property: Intel l ectual www.eff.org/pub/Intel l ectual property, accessed 2 January
1996. ri ghts and property i n persons. Social Anthropology 4(1):1732.
t a y l o r , c h a r l e s . 1994. The pol i ti cs of recogni ti on, i n s a n d a g e r , e l i z a b e t h . 1994. Ethi cal i mpl i cati ons of the doc-
umentary record. New England Archivists Newsletter 21 (2):4 Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition. Edi ted
by Amy Gutmann, pp. 2574. Pri nceton: Pri nceton Uni versi ty 6.
s a n j e k, d a v i d . 1992. Dont Have to DJ No More: Sampl i ng Press.
t a y l o r , ma r k c . , a n d e s a s a a r i n e n . 1994. I magologies: and the autonomous creator. Cardozo Arts and Entertain-
ment Law Journal 10:60724. Media philosophy. London: Routl edge.
t i s d a l e, s a l l i e. 1997. Si l ence pl ease: The publ i c l i brary as s c h i l l e r , h e r b e r t i . 1989. Culture, I nc.: The corporate take-
over of American expression. New York: Oxford Uni versi ty entertai nment center. Harpers Magazine, March, pp. 6574.
t r a s k, h a u n a n i - k a y. 1991. Nati ves and anthropol ogi sts: Press.
s c h w a r t z , h i l l e l . 1996. The culture of the copy: Striking The col oni al struggl e. The Contemporary Pacic 3:15977.
t u z i n , d o n a l d . 1995. The Mel anesi an Archi ve, i n Preserv- likenesses, unreasonable facsimiles. New York: Zone Books.
s e e g e r , a n t h o n y. 1996. Ethnomusi col ogi sts, archi ves, pro- ing the anthropological record, 2d edi ti on. Edi ted by Sydel Si l -
verman and Nancy J. Parezo, pp. 2334. New York: Wenner- fessi onal organi zati ons, and the shi fti ng ethi cs of i ntel l ectual
property, i n Yearbook for traditional music 1996, pp. 87105. Gren Foundati on for Anthropol ogi cal Research.
w a r r e n , k a r e n j . 1989. A phi l osophi cal perspecti ve on the New York: Internati onal Counci l for Tradi ti onal Musi c.
s h e f f i e l d , g a i l . 1997. The arbitrary I ndian: The I ndian ethi cs and resol uti on of cul tural property i ssues, i n The eth-
ics of collecting cultural property: Whose culture? Whose prop- Arts & Crafts Act of 1990. Norman: Okl ahoma Uni versi ty
Press. [d js] erty? Edi ted by Phyl l i s Mauch Messenger, pp. 126. Al buquer-
que: Uni versi ty of New Mexi co Press. s mi t h , a n d r e a . 1994. For al l those who were Indi an i n a for-
mer l i fe. Cultural Survival Quarterly 17(4):7071. w e b e r , ma x. 1930. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capi-
talism. Transl ated by Tal cott Parsons. London: Routl edge. s o l e r i , d a n i e l a , d a v i d a . c l e v e l a n d , d o n a l d e r i a -
c h o , f r e d b o w a n n i e j r . , a n d r e w l a a h t y, a n d w h i t e l e y, pe t e r . 1997. The end of anthropol ogy (at Hopi )?
i n I ndians and anthropologists: Vine Deloria, Jr., and the cri- z u n i c o mmu n i t y me mb e r s . 1994. Gi fts from the Crea-
tor: Intel l ectual property ri ghts and fol k crop vari eti es, i n I PR tique of anthropology. Edi ted by Thomas Bi ol si and Larry J.
Zi mmerman, pp. 177207. Tucson: Uni versi ty of Ari zona for indigenous peoples: A sourcebook. Edi ted by Tom Greaves,
pp. 2140. Okl ahoma Ci ty: Soci ety for Appl i ed Anthropol ogy. Press.
w i n t e r , i r e n e. 1993. Cul tural property. Art Journal 52:1037. s t a mpe d e me s t e t h , w i l me r , d a r r e l l s t a n d i n g e l k,
a n d ph y l l i s s w i f t h a w k . n.d. Decl arati on of war [ms]
w o l f e , a l a n . 1996. Marginalized in the middle. Chi cago: Uni - agai nst expl oi ters of Lakota spi ri tual i ty. http://
www.mapl e.l emoyne.edu/bucko/war.html , accessed 10 versi ty of Chi cago Press.
z e mp, h u g o . 1996. The/an ethnomusi col ogi st and the record Apri l 1996.
s t e ph e n s o n , d a v i d j . , j r . 1994. A l egal paradi gm for pro- busi ness, i n Yearbook for traditional music 1996, pp. 3656.
New York: Internati onal Counci l for Tradi ti onal Musi c. tecti ng tradi ti onal knowl edge, i n I ntellectual property rights
for indigenous peoples, A sourcebook. Edi ted by Tom Greaves, z i f f , b r u c e, a n d pr a t i ma v. r a o . Edi tors. 1997. Bor-
rowed power: Essays on cultural appropriation. New Bruns- pp. 17990. Okl ahoma Ci ty: Soci ety for Appl i ed Anthropol ogy.
[d js] wi ck: Rutgers Uni versi ty Press.

Can Culture Be Copyrighted?

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Can Culture Be Copyrighted?

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cu r r en t An t h r o po l o g y Vol ume 39, Number 2, Apri l 1998

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen