Against the background of a world that is in the throes of dynamic socio-political change driven by the evolution of innovative technologies and the spectre of environmental degradation, an entity such as a Tamar Institute should focus upon and be mindful of:
1. A need to proactively embrace change while being engaged with researchers and cultural producers of all kinds, and the wider community, in a critical discourse that explores the possibilities and parameters of shifting sensitivities, sensibilities and belief systems in the context of new technologies and changing ecologies in a real world 21st C context.
2. Albeit that the ‘Tamar Region’ is not at a point that might be described as a post-consumerist paradigm, plausibly the region is on the cusp of it and thus there is a need to advocate for innovative and sustainable solutions that would fit such a circumstance.
3. Given the nature of, and the complexity of, the issues that are encompassed by the linked concepts of ‘sustainability’ and ‘cultural change’, the most likely path to relevant outcomes are collaborative. Furthermore, there are already enough organisations/institutions/networks in place that are able make a contribution to the ‘problem solving’ and with the capacity to engage with groups in the wider community. Given this, it is counterproductive to attempt to create yet another formal organisation. Rather, it may prove to be both more productive, and more likely that, like minded individuals, institutions and groups that have symbiotic sets of goals and objectives will be better placed to develop appropriate solutions – unlikely solutions even – than an individual or a special purpose group working in isolation and competitively or being insulated from others working toward similar goals.
4. Against a background where it is envisaged that there is unsustainable competition for resources, there is a need to investigate new and/or innovative ways in which service provision, production networks and social change – and indeed cultural production – can contribute to better (new?) understandings of what ‘sustainability’ and ‘ecological realities’ entails. Indeed, what is at risk, given the realisation that regional resources are finite, and the opportunities to adapt to change are diminishing exponentially, is the ability to maintain a community's social and cultural well being.
5. Many of our mainstream institutions/organisations have been established within a different paradigm to the one of dynamic change that that is currently unfolding. Consequently, these 'bodies' may well have a great deal more invested in holding their position – maintaining the status quo – than they may in adapting to change let alone not being predisposed to being ‘change agents’. Speculatively at least, and in a 21st C context, there is a need to be proactive and innovative in developing new understandings of the concepts of what a sustainable community might look like. What is understood to constitute relevant research, viable production networks and relevant cultural production in the context of current, and emerging, cultural and social realities is best determined locally rather than from elsewhere.
6. In the 21st Century it is clear that the status quo is no longer an ongoing and sustainable option. As was the case in the context of the Industrial Revolution where the concept of the ‘division of labour’ came to the fore and that later evolved into business concepts such as ‘vertical integration’ the facilitation of new interactive networks and technologies promise to deliver outcomes that may otherwise be unrealisable. Furthermore, as time passes new information technologies deliver new networking opportunities – social networks, cultural networking, financial networks etc. – towards realising sustainable outcomes within the diversity of research efforts, production supply chains and current cultural production in both a regional and ‘global’ context.
7. The key element in the effective dissemination of ideas is their publication. Until relatively recently ‘publishers’ were the gatekeepers that helped keep the control that was exercised over the flow of information and its distribution – and at times the propagation of ideas. The interfaces between the information economy and the digital economy allow individuals, groups and institutions to be autonomous and proactive in the publication of ideas – thus circumventing the gatekeepers. Importantly, publication can take a greater range of interfacing formats – print media, electronic media, digital media, exhibitions and dynamic interfaces between them – that can be initiated autonomously in ways that are not constrained by external gatekeepers. This is important in regard to generating critical discourses around contested and contentious ideas. In the 21st Century the saying ”publish or perish” has a new resonance albeit somewhat removed from exclusivity of academe’s cloisters.
8. Notwithstanding the notion that an institute of the kind speculated upon here seeks to collaborate with kindred established organisations and institutions, it needs to be acknowledged that it will be making demands, unplanned for demands, on their budgets, infrastructure and other resources. Consequently, there will be a need to seek funding and sponsorship support for the projects initiated as a part of these collaborations. Given that there are mutual benefits to the collaborators, and very often the sponsors as well, it can be assumed, and with some safety, that funding agencies and sponsors who see advantages in supporting one collaborator will also see enhanced opportunities in supporting collaborative projects.
No comments:
Post a Comment