Epistemic communities and the “people without history”: The contribution of intellectual property law to the “safeguarding” of intangible cultural heritage

The contributions in this book examine how the intellectual property framework can be adapted to protect and promote the many aspects and facets of diversity and whether new rules should be identified for this purpose within the intellectual property system. In this chapter, I will discuss the possibility of using intellectual property concepts at national and international levels to safeguard and protect intangible cultural heritage and the limitations thereof. This topic is a “classical topic” with a long history in any discussion about diversity and intellectual property rights, which touches on most, if not all, forms of diversity discussed in this book. Additionally, this topic not only touches on cultural and biodiversity, but also on the discourses concerning diversity within various “epistemic communities” – network[s] of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain – in different academic disciplines, national ministries, non-governmental organizations and international organizations. Discussions of the protection of intangible cultural heritage date back to the initiatives that began shortly after World War II under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and as part of the revision of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) at the Diplomatic Conference in Stockholm in 1967. These discussions took place also during the decolonization processes of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, when the people, whom Eric R. Wolf ironically referred to as the “people without history,” 3 came into view. Wolf s reference to “people without history” included not only tribal people as the classical object of ethnographic study, but also “peasantries, laborers, immigrants, and besieged minorities.” Meanwhile, a younger generation of anthropologists, historians, cultural geographers, and political scientists has followed the call to include a history “from below” – one that no longer exclusively focuses on dynastic lines and national elites and connects the global with the local.