Our second document was the 1996 White Paper on South African Cultural Policy.
We supplemented this policy analysis by looking also at Arterial network's template for cultural policy in African nations.
Some comments from our group...
Corey comments:
The overall tone of the document falls within a number of the communication policy models we've discussed in class. There is a clear Development angle, as this document calls for the establishment of such cultural organizations such as the National Endowment for the Arts as well as a Ministry of Culture. There is also a Nationalist-Cultural model being implemented, as the government of South Africa makes it clear throughout the document that they are acting in the best interest for their various walks of people - setting standards for all to live by. Then again, it also beckons to the Liberal model as well in such sections as the push for a competitive and robust media market with local content being produced for every cultural denomination in the country.
Erica comments:
I've been reading the White Paper and I really like the language they use and their vision of culture! It's very encompassing, inclusive (our futures), and balanced. I would think it's been a good guideline for subsequent policies. Of course, I'd like to see how it's actually been implemented and whether there have been any controversies that I haven't grasped from just reading the document. That'll be my next step, and I'm guessing the progress report will shed some light on that.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Zimbabwe Cultural Policy
Our third cultural policy document looked at the Cultural Policy of Zimbabwe. The point of this analysis was to look at the properties of this current document (instated in 2007)and provide some comparison to our second document, the related cultural policy statement of South Africa. Below find our comments:
Corey comments
Foreword - Policy will give "direction to development efforts being undertaken by all stakeholders in the promotion of the arts and cultural sector". Important at the outset because they want "holistic development of communities" which sounds like a culturally diverse standpoint.
Objectives - These are on par with South Africa's White Paper as the main objectives are to provide culturally diverse protection - ethnic, linguistic and religious.
These may seem to fall into a liberal mindset as much of the language is to support all cultural variations, but there are inklings of a National model in the National Dress Design section (1.4), where the state takes express power in promotion:
The state, through this instrument, will promote the design and creation of a
national attire based on flora, fauna, monuments and other national features and
symbols. The attire should bring out truly Zimbabwean Culture and Identification.
The nation should be encouraged not only to dress in the national dress, but also
dress in a decent manner that is accepted by our value system.
This also rings true in Food and Settlement (1.6) where Zimbabweans are encouraged to make indigenous dishes as they are for "good health" as well as have these dishes promoted in restaurants.
In terms of governance, there is this in Section 6.0
"Government must direct, oversee and see to the implementation of the cultural policy through the responsible ministry. The Ministry responsible should promote bilateral protocols in culture. All the relevant stakeholders should seek the enactment of a legal framework for cultural promotion and development."
So, we've got two main models going on here? Liberal, National. However, do we think some of this bleeds over into Development too? I mean, it is for a developing country and although the government is trying to remain hands off there are ways in which it is regulating to drive cultural production in their favor. There is brief mention of globalization, but it seems to by shied away from in most of this, whereas the South Africa document went into great detail about the exchange of South African culture worldwide.
Erica comments
“We should use our culture to show all our strengths and project a positive personality on the international arena. In this instance, artists should be viewed as good ambassadors for the country and there is need to recognise their efforts.”
This is taking into account the globalized context (this is where we disagree haha) in which it was written, and seeks to take advantage of it. As Throsby points out the Chapter 9, “Culture in the International Economy”, culture may be used for diplomatic purposes. It can be tool to exercise “soft power”. The goal of projecting a “positive personality” is a diplomatic goal, which could be geared toward promoting good foreign relations, boosting tourism numbers, getting foreign investment in their economy, etc.
*I haven't read the entire document, so maybe they mention this in the foreword but forget about it through the rest of the document. If so, that could be considered as one of the flaws.
“Our culture, particularly religion, was one of the unifying factors during the second Chimurenga. The nee to revitalise it, both as a unifying factor and for nation building, both locally and abroad cannot be over emphasised.”
I think this has nationalist overtones, as it talks about “nation building” and “unification.” But it seems to be about unification through past traditions that are supposed to represent and maybe even define current populations.
“There is need to tap the potential of the creative and cultural industry both for employment creation and economic and social development of our country.”
There's the development element of it.
Culture is of crucial importance in the development of a nation, and its integration as it ensures that economic development is in line with philosophical values and social values
Culture as a way to guide development? But then the question is: which culture out of the different ethnic groups? Is there a way to incorporate all the value systems within this country in the development goals of the government? There are sure to be clashes; how would they resolve them?
*From what I've read so far, to me there are certain contradictions between promoting diversity and the whole "nation building" thing. Your highlights about the dress and food point to this. How would they decide what is "truly Zimbabwean Culture and Identification"?
I have another comment about the food section: It talks about being proud of their own food, and about using their own resources to make it. This could also be a development strategy, even though it's not explicitly noted. By promoting these practices, they would also be promoting local agriculture and industry.
Fatemeh comments:
Erica, I see your point about what it means to have true culture in Zimbabwe, but I think the people recognize that there are so many different "cultures" and practices in the country. And really, what they're trying to do is to unify people and to meet their needs. This following passage from the Policy doc cleared that up for me:
"Our culture, particularly religion, was one of the unifying factors during the second Chimurenga. The nee to revitalise it, both as a unifying factor and for nation building, both locally and abroad cannot be over emphasized... Culture must be seen as integral to development, and since development, and since development cannot take place without the full support and participation of the people, it is essential that all Zimbabweans participate actively in the creation and promotion of a culture that is responsive to their needs and aspirations."
Christina comments:
I think Zimbabwe's case is unique in that after Mugabe came to power there was a massive and violent push to return power to the black population. I would say Zimbabwe is definitely using the Nationalist model with an anthropological definition of culture to shape their policy.
They are trying to restore and preserve their culture that was threatened by colonialism. I think they would define Zimbabwean culture as non-white traditions. My friend's family were white farmers in Zimbabwe. White farmers dominated the industrial agriculture. After Mugabe, nearly the entire agriculture sector was violently taken over to return the production of food and wealth to the black community. This fits into to the Policy of returning to traditional technologies and practices. Mugabe wanted to push out the colonial influence, at the cost of loosing agricultural know-how.
Corey comments
Foreword - Policy will give "direction to development efforts being undertaken by all stakeholders in the promotion of the arts and cultural sector". Important at the outset because they want "holistic development of communities" which sounds like a culturally diverse standpoint.
Objectives - These are on par with South Africa's White Paper as the main objectives are to provide culturally diverse protection - ethnic, linguistic and religious.
These may seem to fall into a liberal mindset as much of the language is to support all cultural variations, but there are inklings of a National model in the National Dress Design section (1.4), where the state takes express power in promotion:
The state, through this instrument, will promote the design and creation of a
national attire based on flora, fauna, monuments and other national features and
symbols. The attire should bring out truly Zimbabwean Culture and Identification.
The nation should be encouraged not only to dress in the national dress, but also
dress in a decent manner that is accepted by our value system.
This also rings true in Food and Settlement (1.6) where Zimbabweans are encouraged to make indigenous dishes as they are for "good health" as well as have these dishes promoted in restaurants.
In terms of governance, there is this in Section 6.0
"Government must direct, oversee and see to the implementation of the cultural policy through the responsible ministry. The Ministry responsible should promote bilateral protocols in culture. All the relevant stakeholders should seek the enactment of a legal framework for cultural promotion and development."
So, we've got two main models going on here? Liberal, National. However, do we think some of this bleeds over into Development too? I mean, it is for a developing country and although the government is trying to remain hands off there are ways in which it is regulating to drive cultural production in their favor. There is brief mention of globalization, but it seems to by shied away from in most of this, whereas the South Africa document went into great detail about the exchange of South African culture worldwide.
Erica comments
“We should use our culture to show all our strengths and project a positive personality on the international arena. In this instance, artists should be viewed as good ambassadors for the country and there is need to recognise their efforts.”
This is taking into account the globalized context (this is where we disagree haha) in which it was written, and seeks to take advantage of it. As Throsby points out the Chapter 9, “Culture in the International Economy”, culture may be used for diplomatic purposes. It can be tool to exercise “soft power”. The goal of projecting a “positive personality” is a diplomatic goal, which could be geared toward promoting good foreign relations, boosting tourism numbers, getting foreign investment in their economy, etc.
*I haven't read the entire document, so maybe they mention this in the foreword but forget about it through the rest of the document. If so, that could be considered as one of the flaws.
“Our culture, particularly religion, was one of the unifying factors during the second Chimurenga. The nee to revitalise it, both as a unifying factor and for nation building, both locally and abroad cannot be over emphasised.”
I think this has nationalist overtones, as it talks about “nation building” and “unification.” But it seems to be about unification through past traditions that are supposed to represent and maybe even define current populations.
“There is need to tap the potential of the creative and cultural industry both for employment creation and economic and social development of our country.”
There's the development element of it.
Culture is of crucial importance in the development of a nation, and its integration as it ensures that economic development is in line with philosophical values and social values
Culture as a way to guide development? But then the question is: which culture out of the different ethnic groups? Is there a way to incorporate all the value systems within this country in the development goals of the government? There are sure to be clashes; how would they resolve them?
*From what I've read so far, to me there are certain contradictions between promoting diversity and the whole "nation building" thing. Your highlights about the dress and food point to this. How would they decide what is "truly Zimbabwean Culture and Identification"?
I have another comment about the food section: It talks about being proud of their own food, and about using their own resources to make it. This could also be a development strategy, even though it's not explicitly noted. By promoting these practices, they would also be promoting local agriculture and industry.
Fatemeh comments:
Erica, I see your point about what it means to have true culture in Zimbabwe, but I think the people recognize that there are so many different "cultures" and practices in the country. And really, what they're trying to do is to unify people and to meet their needs. This following passage from the Policy doc cleared that up for me:
"Our culture, particularly religion, was one of the unifying factors during the second Chimurenga. The nee to revitalise it, both as a unifying factor and for nation building, both locally and abroad cannot be over emphasized... Culture must be seen as integral to development, and since development, and since development cannot take place without the full support and participation of the people, it is essential that all Zimbabweans participate actively in the creation and promotion of a culture that is responsive to their needs and aspirations."
Christina comments:
I think Zimbabwe's case is unique in that after Mugabe came to power there was a massive and violent push to return power to the black population. I would say Zimbabwe is definitely using the Nationalist model with an anthropological definition of culture to shape their policy.
They are trying to restore and preserve their culture that was threatened by colonialism. I think they would define Zimbabwean culture as non-white traditions. My friend's family were white farmers in Zimbabwe. White farmers dominated the industrial agriculture. After Mugabe, nearly the entire agriculture sector was violently taken over to return the production of food and wealth to the black community. This fits into to the Policy of returning to traditional technologies and practices. Mugabe wanted to push out the colonial influence, at the cost of loosing agricultural know-how.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)