David Harris
Amstd475-01
Professor Plemons
2/26/15
Anita
Chan in her article “Network Peripheries: Technological Futures and the myth of
Digital Universalism” comments that since “2000 developing nations have begun
investing in their IP systems with new intensity, reworking them to not only
coordinate their regimes with those of Western nations but also pursue new titlings
on an expansive range of living and cultural forms” (26) The first example that
Chan gives is with the town of Chulucanas in Peru. An IP title is a denomination
of origin that is given to a product (23). Through using an IP title the people
of Chullucanas would be able to distinguish their ceramics from others from
surrounding areas. However, there is a counter effects: “disintegrating shared
public interest and dissolving spaces of collective identification”(25). It can
be seen that the competition in Chulucanas has increased and so has the
distrust in the community. However later on in the text Madeleine Burns (speaker
at the UN sponsored “Folk Art, Innovation, and Sustainable Development)
comments that IPs lead to the development of ceramists to improve themselves
(27). This statement by Burns stands in stark contrast than to what Chan has
shown in the beginning of her article. Instead
of improving of ceramics, it looks as if the artists are refusing to work with
each in fear that others will steal their product. Also from the article it
seems as if the Country of Peru is trying to capitalize on creativity and
skills of its people. Sharing your citizen’s ingenuity to the world is a noble
task for a nation; however, there can be negative effects that can be
attributed to this as well. It is
important to realize that the representation on the IP titles is not a complete
representation of the product. Also for a producer to try and stand out as new,
they would realistically have to stray from the ancestral representation of the
product. By appealing to an international market sweeping changes would need to
occur. This article did remind me of the
TED talk we watched in class. It is assumed in both pieces that globalization
is inherently good. The old ways of learning or manufacturing are outdated and
should be replaced by a complex new system. These new systems should not be met
with unquestioning support. Instead it has been seen that there will always be
consequences to every action (negative and positive).
I really liked your blog post and how it talked about both the negative and positive effects that the IP titles created. This is one of the techniques that is used in essay writing when talking about an argument because it gives you more credibility, showing that you know both sides of an argument or in this case, both sides of a conflict. I felt like this was lacking in this chapter because it seemed to me that she was putting down the IP system the entire time. The issue of competition that you addressed was the main problem that I had with this chapter. I do not think competition is a bad thing, in fact I think it is necessary for any economy. I don’t know if maybe I missed it while I was reading, but I don’t think she stated why competition was bad, other than the fact that it made people distrust each other. She didn’t elaborate on how she knew that they were related or how she could prove that competition is what started the distrust. To me it seemed like opinion rather than a factual report. Overall, I liked your post because it provided an open-mindedness that I think the actual chapter itself lacked and I also like how you explained IP system right off the bat.
ReplyDelete