Ecosocial indicators of peasant community

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Ecosocial indicators of peasant community

Vladimir Plavec

This paper present an short case study lead to initiative in European Research Area in jointly programming. Naturally sientific questions of author leading to old living peasant culture. Survey of Joint Prorgamming Initiative (JPI CH) define research priorities is actually one of unique findings about state of cultural heritage research, phenomenas, context and research needs. In text are shortly included methods of survey, two results to research community. There is played great point the tradition culture which be a representative for society, Field exploration of ethnographers lead to change of tradic culture, change of environment a changes of context. The historical memory in Europe is retain to numerous expressions but common is characteristic passing process.

Landscape, culture heritage, joint programming, survey Real-Time Delphi, context sudy, peasant localities

Generational transmission, globalisation, migrations, etc. of cultural and natural heritage forms is one of exceptional importance in contemporary world (Murin, 2004). However, this heritage is being challenged in all its forms and from every side. Customs and practices are being lost and new heritage that is being created every day is in danger of being overlooked or ignored. The European Union - Joint Programming Initiative, Cultural Heritage and Global Change1 is an innovative and collaborative research initiative that will streamline and coordinate national research programmes to enable more efficient and effective use of scarce financial resources, exploit synergies and avoid duplication. The Slovak research institutions cames to an agreement in 2010 with other European stakeholders and prepared two strategical research documents to cultural and natural heritage research - Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) and Action Plan (AP). The SRA has been developed purposely with the aim to present cultural heritage as a holistic, integrated research area (Rhisiart, 2012a). The SRA declares that different types of cultural heritage cannot be seen as separate entities.

From this indicators are to culture heritage significant 2 drivers - Global Migration and Ageing Populations. This phenomenon refered to finding of Slovak that generation change in living culture is actually periodicaly lost functions from utility to representative and grow the new functions, today with very dificult recognitions (Klobusicka, 2009). Tourism and contemporary forms ageging of peasant communities are in intimately dichotomy, risks from this connection are evident today generally in Europe.

Global migration could have a very significant impact in setting agendas for cultural heritage research (Bituslkova, Luther, 2010). More

© Vladimir Plavec 2014

international focus in cultural heritage research: respondents identified this as one of the key implications for the research agenda. Diversity and the interface between different cultures and peoples are likely to alter the meaning and practice of cultural heritage (Callegari, a inf, 2002). Migration and mobility will eventually change everything! The global becomes local and vice versa, so that dichotomy will need to be reviewed, and issues of 'ownership/belonging' and identity will need review: not only national but possibly sub-national claims of particular heritages will fade. Intangible cultural heritage has been discussed as a social integrator - functioning as a bridge between cultures and traditions (Feglova, 2008).

Fig.1 Average impact and expertise scores (Rhisiart, 2012b)

Some suggested avenues for research include:

New skills needed to understand the role CH could play in intercultural relationships and to understand how migration affects valuation of heritage

Need to become much more aware of the value and significance of cultural heritage for "new" citizens.

New research fields will open up looking at migration of culture across

Older population's interest in cultural heritage pointed to the tendency for older people to have greater interest in heritage and cultural heritage than younger people.

We already see a greater interest in the past on the part of the older elements of the population and the increase in older people will presumably serve to further emphasise this. Ageing populations therefore could mean more demand for cultural heritage (Murin, a inf, 2008). Several participants suggested that older people would still have more time (compared with younger people) to enjoy cultural heritage and cultural tourism - even if they have to work longer (Lenovsky, 2005). We can enclosed point of view from Slovak conditions where subjects fostered an interest for example to traditional culture are with growing age of members with evident phenomenon differentiation of generation groups. In economy in this activities is relevantly misgiving about financial sustainbility of activities. Would older people have the financial means to pursue interests in cultural heritage in future? Several responses pointed to the assumption that there would be sufficient disposable income available to older people - even if it there are pressures and uncertainties. In short, the common view was that a combination of these elements would generate interest in/demand for cultural heritage: interests + time + financial resources.

Many finding lead to values of culture heritage contents between older and younger populations. And this is our topic of research peasant community. The ageing of societies present some interesting questions regarding values and cultural heritage. Responses indicated some distance between the values of older and younger cohorts - in a more generic sense - which may be relevant for intangible cultural heritage.

The younger generations will have an important impact on cultural heritage.

They will redefine the definitions and enforce new practices

The younger generation will be the driving force and will have a more significant impact.

The impact is unpredictable, but will surely exist.

Cultural heritage is socially constructed therefore all types of demographic change will modify attitudes to culture heritage, on what is valued and why, on the balance between new and old.

Peasant community as explorative model for confirm idication drivers - Global Migration and Ageing Populations.

Peasant is behaving naturally; he doesn't imitate high society or city behaviors. Under the simply clothes is hiding good heart. Peasant is in contact with nature everyday. In harmony with it, he is taking care of his field, is creating beauty of nature and understands his animals (Bygott, 1988). He will not become confused by attractive live in the city. He is living on his estate self-confidently and he doesn't have necessity to leave it. He knows the value of his freedom. Our peasants and shepherd ancestors didn't need urban and academically studies. For their actions was characteristic harmony of logical standpoints, decisions and acting know as plain common sense (Murin, 2013).

traditional culture society

Fig.3 Habitat indicators of old generation peasant community respondents

So picture of old peasant like cultural stereotype is mostly pictured in literary stories. In next section we will compare this stereotype to his probably real life, even if the comparison will not be totally clean as cultural stereotype exist out of concrete time and space context. It is simply about peasant from past. To be objective, we have to appreciate him on the time platforms of reality presented by historical science.

Why we actually believe that old peasant was kind - hearted? Images are connecting simply life with poorness, which is central virtue. Goodness was in literary works adjudged to ordinary peasants. Works from so-called village realism led separating line between poor and rich. Jealousness, animosity, authoritativeness, non-love adjudged to rich. Mistake is in understanding that his poorness is taken as virtue. Unlike for example the monk, it wasn't voluntary, but hard constrained by outside factors. The same could be said about resignation old reeve and his power. He didn't give up voluntary, but he was forward excluded from the part of the power. As far as simplicity in folk aesthetics, it is true, that it was really simple. Simplicity of folk art however wasn't object, but outcome of shortage appliance. Adequate richness of villager was showed in rich ornaments and colourity his folk costume or house. Additional untrue understand of virtue is behaviors in social contact. Social rituals in the villages were simpler than courtly rituals. However ethnographical studies prove that although villagers let influence themselves by more complicated rituals.

Fig.4 Indicators of mobility research peasants Month consumption of meet

Our ancestors lived really naturally, in the sustainable contact and in the bundle with nature. It is hard to talk about, that their life was inspirited by simplicity and goodness. According to what we know about nature today, we could suppose that these characters are not self to nature. Natural law are hard and it is why was the old peasant a part of it. If the word love is understood as respect to other freedom and to be ready to act in his benefit, we could say that man didn't love the nature. Previously I will say that man fight with nature like anything. Some creations, like wolfs, bears, foxes, bats even hate from the heart. As far as love to the domesticated animals, man's relationship was rather utilitarian and sentiment appears just sometimes. Thanks to long-lasting attempts and mistakes during many generations could be said that man understands animals, but it was also care full of superstitions and false imagines about their needs.

Product and proof of peasant love to nature was beautiful and ecological value of country which also arose by forced cooperation. This ecological status is indicated as secondary homeostasis. It is different from the primary homeostasis, which indicates balance of natural ecosystems. Today's alternative farmers are creating so-called third homeostasis. It expects to leave perceptions of maximal prolific monoculture and to admit competitive plants and animals to plot and its environment .Monocultures and results of efforts of agricultural and forest management in 20th century. Peasant in the past didn't have enough power to push the game from his plots by succession and so create the monoculture of his crops. Man didn't have enough power to kill the game, which endangered his harvest. Beautiful and ecological worthy elements in cultural country,l ike bushes, flight pulp, small wetland ecosystems, patchworky meadows full of butterflies and birds were small successes of wild against which was human effort vain.

If we compare farmer work to the work of carpenter or mason it is extremely difficult on the basement. It consists of complicated cooperation with unstable and irregular natural conditions. To say it by special terms of today, he must be oriented in complex of pedagogic, meteorological, climatic factors, he must manage plant pathological, breeder, ecological, ethological and zootechnic barriers. From this tangle is man able to get just by ignorance and some trick. Special these complications forced peasant to not think about it analytically. He reacts simply on complicated situations and he learned how to shrink back. This could be a model for today's humans and their behaviors to the nature.

Peasant was also understood as free being, he is lord on his livestock and he also decides about its price. But self-subsistent farmer is simply independent until his existence depends on money. Besides this restriction there were also another, which made him unfree. Mostly he was subjected to pressure of nature and dependence on family and society links. Rustic links and duties were comprehensible, axiomatic and simple by it. Liberal-minded individual was getting into difficult situations. Man, who totally wanted to get rid of these relations mainly moved to the city. If the farmer wanted to alleviate risks of self mistakes, he must listen to old farmers. It was practically impossible to earn living and not to be alongside independent on other humans and participation.

The simplicity of peasant life was surely also determined by isolation of outer influences and even though it is amazing how was folk culture able to create amusement from own sources like local traditions, costumes or entertainments. Pilgrims and wandering craftsmen brought news from surrounding world just sometimes. Farmer remained on his on one place not just because of distance of his livestock, but also fundament of his work.

a see : Joint Programming Initiative, Cultural Heritage and Global Change. [online]. [s.a.]. [Cit. 2013-05-06]. Accessible: < http://www.jpi- culturalheritage.eu/>

Bibliography

1. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. Ecological Models of Human Development.

2. Bygott, David. 1988. Models of Human Behavior. [aut.] Harry Nelson a Robert Jurmain. Introduction to Physical Anthropology. New York : West Publishing Company, 1988, s. 301-349.

3. Callegari, Fabiana a Vallega, Adalberto. 2002. Journal of Cultural

4. Heritage. www.elsevier.com/locate/culher. [Online] 19. Februar 2002. [Datum: 12. May 2012.]

5. http://www.billcallegari.com/WAC%20resume%20website%2009.01.10.pdf. ISSN: 1296-2074.

6. Drdacky, Milos. 2006. European Research on Cultural Heritage. Praha : Advanced Research Centre for Cultural Heritage Interdisciplinary Projects-ITAM, 2006. ISBN 80-86246-21-3.

7. Feglova, Viera. 2008. Tradycyjne zwyczaje "chodzenia z/po..." w procesie transformacji spolecznej i obyczajowej na przelomie XX a XXI wieku. Opole, 2008, s. 145-151.

8. Halbwachs, Maurice. 1980. The collective memory. s.l. : Harper & Row, 1980. ISBN 9780060908003.

9. Christian, Patric James. 2012. Memory,Monuments and Conflict. [Online] 3. marec 2012. [Datum: 26. september 2013.]

10. http://www.academia.edu/1400651/Memory_Monuments_and_Conflict.

11. Klobusicka, Petra. 2009. Popularne myty o folklore a folklorizme. Banska Bystrica : Stredoslovenske mOzeum, 2009.

12. Lenovsky, Ladislav. 2005. Identity: (Today) a commodity among others (?). 2005, Zv. 60, s. 536-541.

13. Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society .From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. [ed.] Charles W. Morris. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1934. ISBN: 9780226516608.

14. Murin, Ivan a Andras, Peter. 2008. Teoreticke vychodiska k problematike kultOrneho a prirodneho dedicstva. Banska Bystrica : Fakulta prirodnych vied UMB, 2008. ISBN 978-80-8083-686-3.

15. Murin, Ivan. 2013. Intangible Cultural Heritage Embraces in Strategical Research Agenda. Slovensky narodopis/Slovak Ethnology. english version, 2013, Zv. 61, 6.

16. --. 2004. Kolektivna pamat' - antropologicky fenomen. Acta museologica. 2004, Zv. IV, s. 89-92. Author of headword - collective memory.

17. Rhisiart, Martin. 2012a. JPI Cultural Heritage and Global Change, Real-Time Delphi Study on the Future of Cultural Heritage Research. Paris : Centre for Research in Futures and Innovation, University of Glamorgan, UK with CM International University, 2012a. research report.

Размещено на Allbest.ru