NBICS, Cultural Identity and Diversity, and the CBD

The Choice is Yours biweekly column by Gregor Wolbring

July 30^th 2007

http://politicsofhealth.org/wol/2007-07-30.htm

Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity , recently gave a presentation with the title “Biological diversity and cultural diversity or the components of life on Earth” at the 2007 47th Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO.

I covered biological diversity in a recent column.  Here I deal with the cultural diversity part.

According to Ahmed Djoghlaf Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity there  “is an inherent link between linguistic and cultural diversity and biological diversity”.

He quotes Milan Kundera who said that “culture is the memory of the people, the collective consciousness of historic continuity, the way of thinking and living”.

He continues,

“For this reason, the Convention on Biological Diversity pays particular attention to the relation between biological diversity and cultural diversity, with special emphasis on indigenous and local communities. Biological diversity is also the result of millions of years of evolution of life on earth. It represents all forms of life on earth. Ecosystems provide the essential needs of life, protection from natural disasters and diseases and constitute the very foundation of human culture. Ecosystems and life on earth, including its cultural, spiritual and ethical dimension, are therefore co-substantial.”

He points out,

 “The link between biological and cultural diversity is also enshrined in many important texts adopted by UNESCO. In adopting the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity in 2001, member countries reaffirmed their conviction that cultural diversity is one of the roots of development and that it is “as necessary to the human species as biodiversity is to nature” and he highlights Article 10 and Article 8 (j) as trying to act on this importance.”

 Cultural diversity, the CBD and Disabled People:

Ahmed Djoghlaf highlights rightly the very unique relationship of indigenous people to the surrounding biological diversity.

However there is one group where cultural identity and biological diversity is even more directly linked, a group not present within the discourse around cultural identity and biological diversity.

The acceptance or rejection of the biological diversity of disabled people is directly linked to the acceptance or rejection of disabled people as a social group(s) with cultural identities.

To give one example:

If one talks about the possible birth of a child with Down Syndrome one mostly hears and reads the term “at risk of having a child with Down Syndrome”. The results of the table below reflect the results of some key word searches in Google. It shows that the term risk has an at least 10-1000 times higher association than the term probability. The same is true for other so called impairments. Within the discourse of Down Syndrome the term risk is used to justify the availability of prebirth tests which was first promoted for women over a certain age as they would have an ‘increased risk’ of a child with Down Syndrome. Of course, factual the term to use would be ‘probability’. Risk is a bias term with an attached negative judgement.

Neutral language, as illustrated in the definition below, is rejected by most.

Down Syndrome, redefined

Down syndrome is a naturally occurring chromosomal arrangement that has always been a part of the human condition. The occurrence of Down syndrome is universal across racial and gender lines, and it is present in approximately one in 800 births in Canada. Down syndrome is not a disease, disorder, defect or medical condition. It is inappropriate and offensive to refer to people with Down syndrome as "afflicted with" or "suffering from" it. Down syndrome itself does not require either treatment or prevention. (Position Statement on Redefining Down Syndrome Approved November 2003 Canadian Down Syndrome Society)

If one follows the discourse around the perception and identity of disabled people in general, and especially within the discourse of science and technology applications and governance, one can see clearly that a deficiency model understanding of disabled people is promoted and defended which does not see disabled people as a variation of being, as a biological diversity.

None of the above is surprising of course.

The very acceptance of disabled people as part of the concept of biological diversity is contrary to the widespread culture of ableism. Judgment based on abilities is so ingrained in every culture that its use for exclusionary or otherwise negative purposes is seldom questioned or even recognized. Increases in abilities are seen as essential in many ways.

Ableism is a set of beliefs, processes and practices that produce - based on abilities one exhibits or cherishes - a particular kind of understanding of oneself, one’s body and one’s relationship with others of one’s species, other species and one’s environment and includes one being judged by others. Ableism is an enabling umbrella ism for other ism’s. Ableism exhibits a  favouritism for certain abilities over others projected as essential while labeling real or perceived deviations from or lack of these ‘essential’ abilities as a diminished state of being, leading or contributing to justifying various other isms  (1-4).

So it is not surprising that the discourse around cultural identity and cultural expression more often than not ignores disabled people. That UNESCO did not involve disabled people in the deliberations for the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and its predecessor the UNESCO International Declaration on Cultural Diversity is just one example.

And it is not surprising that the parties involved in the CBD also ignore the linkage of disabled people to the terms cultural identity and biological diversity. Indeed as the parties involved in the CBD decided to exclude the human biological diversity angle from the scope of the CBD there would not be any reason to look at this issue.

Interestingly the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities  states the right to equal participation in cultural life (Article 30 (1)) cultural expression Article 30 (2) and support for their cultural identity (Article 30 (4)).  

Article 30
Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport

1. States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to take part on an equal basis with others in cultural life, and shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities:

   (a) Enjoy access to cultural materials in accessible formats;
   
   (b) Enjoy access to television programmes, films, theatre and other cultural activities, in accessible formats;
   
   (c) Enjoy access to places for cultural performances or services, such as theatres, museums, cinemas, libraries and tourism services, and, as far as possible, enjoy access to monuments and sites of national cultural importance.

2. States Parties shall take appropriate measures to enable persons with disabilities to have the opportunity to develop and utilize their creative, artistic and intellectual potential, not only for their own benefit, but also for the enrichment of society.

3. Persons with disabilities shall be entitled, on an equal basis with others, to recognition and support of their specific cultural and linguistic identity, including sign languages and deaf culture.

Creating an uneven playing field  with regard to public policy and the governance of new technologies in such a way that disabled people are forced to accept a certain identity and perception of self (mostly negative), and the lack of support for a positive self identity and a ‘disabled people culture,’  could be seen in as a  violation of Article 30(4) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities  and of language in the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and its predecessor the UNESCO International Declaration on Cultural Diversity.

It could be seen as discrimination against a cultural minority. These three legal instruments can be seen to support the right of disabled people to affirm cultural identities of their choice.

To deal with the culture of ableism, to support cultural identities of disabled people, and to deal with the link between cultural identity and biological diversity and the role science and technology in this discourse are important matters for everyone.

The increase in our ability to predict genetic and other characteristics and compositions of cells, biological parts, and organisms (which includes humans), to modify (with genetic and other means) cell structures, parts and organisms and to generate genomes and organisms from scratch  (see my Synthetic biology 3.0 column   ) will impact on the culture of ableism and vice versa.

 This increase in abilities and the acceptance of ableism  also allows for the growth of the transhumanization of ableism  and the commodification of the human body which gives support to an increase in the already existing commodification of non human biological entities.

Without dealing with the culture of ableism one can not deal with the transhumanized version of ableism.

How disabled people are treated in public policy discourse pertaining to science and technology  will have an impact on a group of people we can expect to grow -- the techno poor disabled people-- people who do not have, who can not afford, or who do not want certain cellular, genomic or bodily enhancements. This new ‘social group’ will be as badly treated and will be seen as deficient as the ‘traditional disabled people’ of today.

Taking the above into account, together with the fact that certain cultural identities are not permitted to exist, it appears that the way of indigenous people, and their manner of dealing with biological entities, could also be seen of little utility. Indeed many forms of ableism we encounter today go directly against the way of life of indigenous people.

Without dealing with the issues outlined in this column the CBD will fail to reach its objective.     

The Choice is Yours:

Its up to the reader to shape the cultural identity discourse  so that it ensures self identity security,  to influence the CBD, and to deal with the other issues outlined in this column. .

 Please contact the author for any information desired at gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca
© Gregor Wolbring, All Rights Reserved, 2007. Please contact the author for permission to reprint. More columns can be found at innovationwatch.

Gregor Wolbring is a biochemist, bioethicist, disability/vari-ability/ability studies scholar, and health policy and science and technology governance researcher at the University of Calgary. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Part Time Professor at Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the editorial team for the Nanotechnology for Development portal of the Development Gateway Foundation; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and former Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO (2003-2007 maximum terms served). He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website and authors a weblog on NBICS and its social implications.

 References

   1.   Wolbring, G, NBICS, other convergences, ableism and the culture of peace, http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours-2007-04-15.htm, 2007.,Innovationwatch.com webpage

   2.   Wolbring, G, Ableism and NBICS, http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours.2006.08.15.htm, 2006.,Innovationwatch.com webpage

   3.   Wolbring, G.Ability Studies: The politics of Ableism (2007) Development 50, 4

   4.   Wolbring, G.From NBICS to ABECS: From S&T-convergence to skill, issue and stakeholder convergence to Ism convergence (2007) Innovation; The European Journal of Social Science Research submitted,