Russell's paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the foundations of mathematics, Russell's paradox (also known as Russell's antinomy), discovered by Bertrand Russell in 1901, showed that some attempted formalizations of the naïve set theory created by Georg Cantor led to a contradiction. The same paradox had been discovered in 1899 by Ernst Zermelo but he did not publish the idea, which remained known only to David Hilbert, Edmund Husserl, and other members of the University of Göttingen. At the end of the 1890s Cantor himself had already realized that his definition would lead to a contradiction, which he told Hilbert and Richard Dedekind by letter.

According to naive set theory, any definable collection is a set. Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. If R is not a member of itself, then its definition dictates that it must contain itself, and if it contains itself, then it contradicts its own definition as the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. This contradiction is Russell's paradox. Symbolically:

${\displaystyle {\text{Let }}R=\{x\mid x\not \in x\}{\text{, then }}R\in R\iff R\not \in R}$

In 1908, two ways of avoiding the paradox were proposed, Russell's type theory and the Zermelo set theory. Zermelo's axioms went well beyond Gottlob Frege's axioms of extensionality and unlimited set abstraction; as the first constructed axiomatic set theory, it evolved into the now-standard Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZFC). The essential difference between Russell's and Zermelo's solution to the paradox is that Zermelo altered the axioms of set theory while preserving the logical language in which they are expressed, while Russell altered the logical language itself. The language of ZFC, with the help of Thoralf Skolem, turned out to be first-order logic.

Informal presentation

Most sets commonly encountered are not members of themselves. For example, the set of all squares in the plane. This set is not itself a square in the plane, thus it is not a member of itself (of its own definition). Let us call a set "normal" if it is not a member of itself, and "abnormal" if it is a member of itself. The set of squares in the plane is normal. In contrast, the complementary set that contains everything which is not a square in the plane is itself not a square in the plane, and so should be one of its own members and is therefore abnormal.

Now we consider the set of all normal sets, R, and try to determine whether R is normal or abnormal. If R were normal, it would be contained in the set of all normal sets (itself), and therefore be abnormal; on the other hand if R were abnormal, it would not be contained in the set of all normal sets (itself), and therefore be normal. This leads to the conclusion that R is neither normal nor abnormal: Russell's paradox.

Formal presentation

Define Naive Set Theory (NST) as the theory of predicate logic with a binary predicate ${\displaystyle \in }$ and the following axiom schema of unrestricted comprehension:

${\displaystyle \exists y\forall x(x\in y\iff \varphi (x))}$

for any formula ${\displaystyle \varphi }$ with only the variable x free. Substitute ${\displaystyle x\notin x}$ for ${\displaystyle \varphi (x)}$. Then by existential instantiation (reusing the symbol y) and universal instantiation we have

${\displaystyle y\in y\iff y\notin y}$

a contradiction. Therefore, NST is inconsistent.

Set-theoretic responses

From the principle of explosion in logic, any proposition can be proved from a contradiction. Therefore the presence of contradictions like Russell's paradox in an axiomatic set theory is disastrous; since if any theorem can be proven true it destroys the conventional meaning of truth and falsity. Further, since set theory was seen as the basis for an axiomatic development of all other branches of mathematics (as attempted by Russell and Whitehead in Principia Mathematica), Russell's paradox threatened the foundations of mathematics. This motivated a great deal of research around the turn of the 20th century to develop a consistent (contradiction free) set theory.

In 1908, Ernst Zermelo proposed an axiomatization of set theory that avoided the paradoxes of naive set theory by replacing arbitrary set comprehension with weaker existence axioms, such as his axiom of separation (Aussonderung). Modifications to this axiomatic theory proposed in the 1920s by Abraham Fraenkel, Thoralf Skolem, and by Zermelo himself resulted in the axiomatic set theory called ZFC. This theory became widely accepted once Zermelo's axiom of choice ceased to be controversial, and ZFC has remained the canonical axiomatic set theory down to the present day.

ZFC does not assume that, for every property, there is a set of all things satisfying that property. Rather, it asserts that given any set X, any subset of X definable using first-order logic exists. The object R discussed above cannot be constructed in this fashion, and is therefore not a ZFC set. In some extensions of ZFC, objects like R are called proper classes.

ZFC is silent about types, although the cumulative hierarchy has a notion of layers that resemble types. Zermelo himself never accepted Skolem's formulation of ZFC using the language of first-order logic. As José Ferreirós notes, Zermelo insisted instead that "propositional functions (conditions or predicates) used for separating off subsets, as well as the replacement functions, can be 'entirely arbitrary' [ganz beliebig];" the modern interpretation given to this statement is that Zermelo wanted to include higher-order quantification in order to avoid Skolem's paradox. Around 1930, Zermelo also introduced (apparently independently of von Neumann), the axiom of foundation, thus—as Ferreirós observes— "by forbidding 'circular' and 'ungrounded' sets, it [ZFC] incorporated one of the crucial motivations of TT [type theory]—the principle of the types of arguments". This 2nd order ZFC preferred by Zermelo, including axiom of foundation, allowed a rich cumulative hierarchy. Ferreirós writes that "Zermelo's 'layers' are essentially the same as the types in the contemporary versions of simple TT [type theory] offered by Gödel and Tarski. One can describe the cumulative hierarchy into which Zermelo developed his models as the universe of a cumulative TT in which transfinite types are allowed. (Once we have adopted an impredicative standpoint, abandoning the idea that classes are constructed, it is not unnatural to accept transfinite types.) Thus, simple TT and ZFC could now be regarded as systems that 'talk' essentially about the same intended objects. The main difference is that TT relies on a strong higher-order logic, while Zermelo employed second-order logic, and ZFC can also be given a first-order formulation. The first-order 'description' of the cumulative hierarchy is much weaker, as is shown by the existence of denumerable models (Skolem paradox), but it enjoys some important advantages."

In ZFC, given a set A, it is possible to define a set B that consists of exactly the sets in A that are not members of themselves. B cannot be in A by the same reasoning in Russell's Paradox. This variation of Russell's paradox shows that no set contains everything.

Through the work of Zermelo and others, especially John von Neumann, the structure of what some see as the "natural" objects described by ZFC eventually became clear; they are the elements of the von Neumann universe, V, built up from the empty set by transfinitely iterating the power set operation. It is thus now possible again to reason about sets in a non-axiomatic fashion without running afoul of Russell's paradox, namely by reasoning about the elements of V. Whether it is appropriate to think of sets in this way is a point of contention among the rival points of view on the philosophy of mathematics.

Other resolutions to Russell's paradox, more in the spirit of type theory, include the axiomatic set theories New Foundations and Scott-Potter set theory.

History

Russell discovered the paradox in May or June 1901. By his own account in his 1919 Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, he "attempted to discover some flaw in Cantor's proof that there is no greatest cardinal". In a 1902 letter, he announced the discovery to Gottlob Frege of the paradox in Frege's 1879 Begriffsschrift and framed the problem in terms of both logic and set theory, and in particular in terms of Frege's definition of function:

There is just one point where I have encountered a difficulty. You state (p. 17 [p. 23 above]) that a function too, can act as the indeterminate element. This I formerly believed, but now this view seems doubtful to me because of the following contradiction. Let w be the predicate: to be a predicate that cannot be predicated of itself. Can w be predicated of itself? From each answer its opposite follows. Therefore we must conclude that w is not a predicate. Likewise there is no class (as a totality) of those classes which, each taken as a totality, do not belong to themselves. From this I conclude that under certain circumstances a definable collection [Menge] does not form a totality.

Russell would go on to cover it at length in his 1903 The Principles of Mathematics, where he repeated his first encounter with the paradox:

Before taking leave of fundamental questions, it is necessary to examine more in detail the singular contradiction, already mentioned, with regard to predicates not predicable of themselves. ... I may mention that I was led to it in the endeavour to reconcile Cantor's proof...."

Russell wrote to Frege about the paradox just as Frege was preparing the second volume of his Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. Frege responded to Russell very quickly; his letter dated 22 June 1902 appeared, with van Heijenoort's commentary in Heijenoort 1967:126–127. Frege then wrote an appendix admitting to the paradox, and proposed a solution that Russell would endorse in his Principles of Mathematics, but was later considered by some to be unsatisfactory. For his part, Russell had his work at the printers and he added an appendix on the doctrine of types.

Ernst Zermelo in his (1908) A new proof of the possibility of a well-ordering (published at the same time he published "the first axiomatic set theory") laid claim to prior discovery of the antinomy in Cantor's naive set theory. He states: "And yet, even the elementary form that Russell⁹ gave to the set-theoretic antinomies could have persuaded them [J. König, Jourdain, F. Bernstein] that the solution of these difficulties is not to be sought in the surrender of well-ordering but only in a suitable restriction of the notion of set". Footnote 9 is where he stakes his claim:

⁹1903, pp. 366–368. I had, however, discovered this antinomy myself, independently of Russell, and had communicated it prior to 1903 to Professor Hilbert among others.

Frege sent a copy of his Grundgesetze der Arithmetik to Hilbert; as noted above, Frege's last volume mentioned the paradox that Russell had communicated to Frege. After receiving Frege's last volume, on 7 November 1903, Hilbert wrote a letter to Frege in which he said, referring to Russell's paradox, "I believe Dr. Zermelo discovered it three or four years ago". A written account of Zermelo's actual argument was discovered in the Nachlass of Edmund Husserl.

In 1923, Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed to "dispose" of Russell's paradox as follows:

The reason why a function cannot be its own argument is that the sign for a function already contains the prototype of its argument, and it cannot contain itself. For let us suppose that the function F(fx) could be its own argument: in that case there would be a proposition F(F(fx)), in which the outer function F and the inner function F must have different meanings, since the inner one has the form O(fx) and the outer one has the form Y(O(fx)). Only the letter 'F' is common to the two functions, but the letter by itself signifies nothing. This immediately becomes clear if instead of F(Fu) we write (do) : F(Ou) . Ou = Fu. That disposes of Russell's paradox. (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 3.333)

Russell and Alfred North Whitehead wrote their three-volume Principia Mathematica hoping to achieve what Frege had been unable to do. They sought to banish the paradoxes of naive set theory by employing a theory of types they devised for this purpose. While they succeeded in grounding arithmetic in a fashion, it is not at all evident that they did so by purely logical means. While Principia Mathematica avoided the known paradoxes and allows the derivation of a great deal of mathematics, its system gave rise to new problems.

In any event, Kurt Gödel in 1930–31 proved that while the logic of much of Principia Mathematica, now known as first-order logic, is complete, Peano arithmetic is necessarily incomplete if it is consistent. This is very widely—though not universally—regarded as having shown the logicist program of Frege to be impossible to complete.

In 2001 A Centenary International Conference celebrating the first hundred years of Russell's paradox was held in Munich and its proceedings have been published.

Applied versions

There are some versions of this paradox that are closer to real-life situations and may be easier to understand for non-logicians. For example, the barber paradox supposes a barber who shaves all men who do not shave themselves and only men who do not shave themselves. When one thinks about whether the barber should shave himself or not, the paradox begins to emerge.

As another example, consider five lists of encyclopedia entries within the same encyclopedia:

List of articles about people: Don Knotts Don Nix Emperor Kōnin Hermann Hesse Isaac Newton Nikola Tesla Ptolemy VII of Egypt Rainie Yang Sherlock Holmes Socrates

List of articles starting with the letter L: L L!VE TV L&H Leivonmäki London ... List of articles starting with the letter K List of articles starting with the letter L (itself; OK) List of articles starting with the letter M ...

List of articles about places: Asia Enoshima Germany Leivonmäki Katase River

List of articles about Japan: Emperor Showa Enoshima Katase River Mount Fuji Tokyo

List of all lists that do not contain themselves: List of articles about Japan List of articles about people List of articles about places ... List of articles starting with the letter K List of articles starting with the letter M ... List of all lists that do not contain themselves?

If the "List of all lists that do not contain themselves" contains itself, then it does not belong to itself and should be removed. However, if it does not list itself, then it should be added to itself. 

While appealing, these layman's versions of the paradox share a drawback: an easy refutation of the barber paradox seems to be that such a barber does not exist, or that the barber has alopecia and therefore doesn't shave. The whole point of Russell's paradox is that the answer "such a set does not exist" means the definition of the notion of set within a given theory is unsatisfactory. Note the difference between the statements "such a set does not exist" and "it is an empty set". It is like the difference between saying "There is no bucket" and saying "The bucket is empty".

A notable exception to the above may be the Grelling–Nelson paradox, in which words and meaning are the elements of the scenario rather than people and hair-cutting. Though it is easy to refute the barber's paradox by saying that such a barber does not (and cannot) exist, it is impossible to say something similar about a meaningfully defined word.

One way that the paradox has been dramatised is as follows:

Suppose that every public library has to compile a catalogue of all its books. Since the catalogue is itself one of the library's books, some librarians include it in the catalogue for completeness; while others leave it out as it being one of the library's books is self-evident.

Now imagine that all these catalogues are sent to the national library. Some of them include themselves in their listings, others do not. The national librarian compiles two master catalogues—one of all the catalogues that list themselves, and one of all those that don't.

The question is: should these master catalogues list themselves? The 'Catalogue of all catalogues that list themselves' is no problem. If the librarian doesn't include it in its own listing, it remains a true catalogue of those catalogues that do include themselves. If the librarian does include it, it remains a true catalogue of those that list themselves.

However, just as the librarian cannot go wrong with the first master catalogue, the librarian is doomed to fail with the second. When it comes to the 'Catalogue of all catalogues that don't list themselves', the librarian cannot include it in its own listing, because then it would include itself, and so belongs to the other catalogue, that of catalogues that do include themselves. However, if the librarian leaves it out, the catalogue is incomplete. Either way, it can never be a true master catalogue of catalogues that do not list themselves.

Applications and related topics

Russell-like paradoxes

As illustrated above for the barber paradox, Russell's paradox is not hard to extend. Take:

• A transitive verb , that can be applied to its substantive form.

Form the sentence:

The er that s all (and only those) who don't themselves,

Sometimes the "all" is replaced by "all ers".

An example would be "paint":

The painter that paints all (and only those) that don't paint themselves.

or "elect"

The elector (representative), that elects all that don't elect themselves.

Paradoxes that fall in this scheme include:

• The barber with "shave".
• The original Russell's paradox with "contain": The container (Set) that contains all (containers) that don't contain themselves.
• The Grelling–Nelson paradox with "describer": The describer (word) that describes all words, that don't describe themselves.
• Richard's paradox with "denote": The denoter (number) that denotes all denoters (numbers) that don't denote themselves. (In this paradox, all descriptions of numbers get an assigned number. The term "that denotes all denoters (numbers) that don't denote themselves" is here called Richardian.)
• "I am lying."

Related paradoxes

• The liar paradox and Epimenides paradox, whose origins are ancient
• The Kleene–Rosser paradox, showing that the original lambda calculus is inconsistent, by means of a self-negating statement
• Curry's paradox (named after Haskell Curry), which does not require negation
• The smallest uninteresting integer paradox
• Girard's paradox in type theory

Reshaping Cultural Policies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Reshaping Cultural Policies

Cover of the 2018 edition
Author	UNESCO
Language	English, French, Spanish, Russian, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Indonesian, Vietnamese and German

Reshaping Cultural Policies (styled as Re|Shaping Cultural Policies) is a report series published by UNESCO which monitors the implementation of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005). The 2005 UNESCO Convention encourages its 146 parties to introduce policies for culture within a global context and commitment to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions. The second and most recent report (2018) subtitled “Advancing Creativity for Development” follows the first report (2015) with the subtitle “A Decade Promoting the Diversity of Cultural Expressions for Development”.

Primarily, the report series draws on reports of all parties to the Convention submitted every four years in which they present and describe the actions they have taken in order to implement the Convention. These reports are called quadrennial periodic reports (QPRs). In addition, the report series includes the analysis of other both governmental and non-governmental sources. In general, the report investigates how implementing the convention reshapes cultural policies. Additionally, it provides evidence of how the implementation process contributes to attaining the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for every human being. The report series also analyses trends and issues concerning the creative economy, which currently is worth $2,250 billion and employs 30 million people worldwide.
The report puts forward a set of policy recommendations for the future, addressing the adaptation of cultural policies to rapid change in the digital environment, based on human rights and fundamental freedoms of expression.

“Each Report is not an end-result, but a tool to be used in a long-term process that includes the forging of spaces for policy dialogue, reinforcing stakeholders’ capacities to work together to generate data and information, and advocate for policy innovation both nationally and globally.”

The reports are published in English, French, Spanish, Russian, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Indonesian, Vietnamese and German. UNESCO is the lead institutional author of the Global Report series and coordinates a broader network of independent experts who author chapters.

In line with the Parties’ quadrennial periodic reporting, the series is produced every four years. The first cycle spanned the years 2012-2015 and the second runs from 2016 to 2019. Accordingly, the third publication will take place in December 2021.

Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005)

The 2005 Convention is an international standard setting instrument providing a framework for the governance of culture. In this context, governance of culture refers to policies and measures governments establish to regulate, to promote and to protect all forms of creativity and artistic expressions. The most recent UNESCO Convention in the field of culture and ratified by 146 parties, it is the first international legal tool to encourage governments to invest in creativity. It frames the formulation and implementation of different types of legislative, regulatory, institutional and financial interventions to promote the emergence of dynamic cultural and creative industry sectors around the world.

Within the context of the 2005 Convention, the diversity of cultural expressions ″refers to the manifold ways in which the cultures of groups and societies find expression. These expressions are passed on within and among groups and societies″. Specifically, the Convention understands cultural expressions as all forms of creativity and artistic expressions, such as in cinema/audiovisual arts, design, digital arts, music, performing arts, publishing and the visual arts. The 2005 Convention was "since its beginnings, permeated by a material and economic perspective of cultural expressions, focused on the production and consumption of cultural goods and services, with a view to promote more balanced exchanges and sustainable development that takes into account cultural diversity concerns." 

The implementation of the 2005 Convention aims to contribute to achieving several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), precisely SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The implementation process identifies investing in creativity as a priority for sustainable development. At the global level, the convention calls for countries to provide financial assistance for creativity through their Official Development Assistance (ODA) by investing in the Convention’s International Fund for Cultural Diversity. Additionally, UNESCO, through the 2005 Convention, offers technical assistance to strengthen human and institutional capacities in developing countries.

Content

The director general of UNESCO, Audrey Azoulay referring to the UNESCO General Conference's conviction that cultural activities, goods and services have both an economic and a cultural nature stated:

″[c]ulture is not a commodity: it carries values and identities, it gives markers to live together in a globalized world. Our role is to encourage, question, collect data, to understand and energize creative channels, to encourage the mobility of artists, to stimulate a rapidly changing sector in the new digital environment″. 

Annika Markovic, Ambassador and Permanent Delegate of Sweden to UNESCO, in 2018, claimed that the report is “the only global document that presents an overview of cultural development world-wide and monitors state action to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions at all levels.” 

The following aspects thematically summarize the core findings identified by the 2018 report with regard to the implementation of the 2005 UNESCO Convention.

Culture & sustainable development

For the first time, national development plans and strategies integrate culture, mainly of countries in the Global South. As a result, cities seem to invest more and more in cultural industries for development. The UN’s 2030 Agenda recognized the role of creativity in sustainable development in the implementation of the SDGs. However, the share of development aid spent on culture today is the lowest it has been in over 10 years. 

Cultural expressions in the digital age

According to the report, digital revenues make up 50% of the recorded music market, growing almost 18% over the past year due to a sharp increase in the share of streaming revenues. 

The report states that the internet transforms the cultural value chain into a network platform. E-commerce challenges both culture and trade policies that intend to promote the diversity of cultural expressions.  It articulates the urgency to improve data collection on revenues generated through digital channels in order to design better policies and negotiate fair trade agreements. The report claims that monitoring the relationship between large platforms, Big Data, artificial intelligence and the diversity of cultural expressions is crucial to ensure that a variety of distribution platforms and providers promote and protect future artistic creations. 

Artistic freedom

As informed by the report, attacks against artists have increased in the past years, including in the digital environment where surveillance and online trolling pose new threats to artistic freedom. In 2016, 430 cases were reported around the world (compared to 340 in 2015 and 90 in 2014). Musicians are the most threatened group, while authors also often become a target. In 2016, attacks against authors occurred most often in the Asia-Pacific Region (80 cases), the Middle East and North Africa (51 cases) and Europe (47 cases).  The report reveals that meanwhile, there exists an increased awareness with regard to such threats leading to a larger number of initiatives to support the social and economic rights of artists, particularly in African countries. While there exists legal action to affirm the freedom of expression for artists, other laws addressing terrorism and state security repress artistic expressions. 

Gender equality in cultural and creative industries

Proportion of female artists in ten recent global biennales, 2017

The report states that half of the persons working in the cultural and creative industries are female. However, a gender gap persists worldwide concerning equal pay, access to funding and prices charged for creative works. Consequently, women remain under-represented in key creative roles and are outnumbered in decision-making positions. Women make up only 34% of Ministers for Culture (compared to 24% in 2005) and only 31% of national arts program directors. Generally, women are represented in specific cultural fields such as arts education and training (60%), book publishing and press (54%), audiovisual and interactive media (26%), as well as design and creative services (33%).

Mobility of artists and cultural professionals

Average number of countries accessible without visas passport-holders Global North and Global South, 2017

The report demonstrates that predominantly restrictions in terms of mobility represent great challenges to persons pursuing careers in the cultural and creative industries, specifically to those from the Global South. It reveals that a holder of a German passport can travel to 176 countries without a visa while a holder of an Afghan passport can only travel to 24 countries without a visa. As a matter of fact, artists and cultural professionals need to travel to perform, to reach new audiences or to attend a residency or to engage in networking. The report exposes that travel restrictions, including difficulties in obtaining visas oftentimes impedes artists from the Global South to participate in art biennales or film festivals, even when invited to receive an award or to promote their works. 

Governance of culture

As stated in the report, the 2005 Convention provides legitimacy for the formulation of cultural policies and their adaptation to changing circumstances and needs. The report underscores that collaborative governance and multi-stakeholder policy making have progressed, notably in some developing countries particularly in the creative economy and cultural education. As a result, parties to the Convention have made considerable progress in fostering digital arts creation, supporting creative entrepreneurship, accelerating the modernization of cultural sectors, promoting distribution and updating copyright legislation. However, the report also reveals a lack in civil society participation in policy making. It underlines the urgency for more effort to ensure the creation of open, transparent and participatory policy processes in order to involve civil society participation in policy making. 

Trade and investment in cultural goods and services

In accordance with the report, the 2005 Convention formally recognizes that cultural goods and services not only have important economic value, but also convey identities, meanings and values. As a consequence, at least eight bilateral and regional free trade agreements concluded between 2015 and 2017 have introduced cultural clauses or list of commitments that promote the objectives and principles of the 2005 Convention. Despite the lack of the promotion of the objectives and principles of the 2005 Convention with regard to the negotiation of mega-regional partnership agreements, some Parties to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP) have succeeded in introducing important cultural reservations to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions. 

Next steps

The report’s primary objective is “to provide key actors with better knowledge on how to support evidence-based policy, and to strengthen informed, transparent and participatory systems of governance for culture.” It aims to motivate governments and civil society actors to integrate findings and recommendations into their national cultural policy and development strategies and frameworks.

Following the findings presented above, the implementation of the 2005 Convention "introduce[s] a range of different policy strategies for integrating culture into development processes"  and culture is increasingly regarded as "an economic asset in pursuing sustainable development". Based on its analysis and findings, the Global Report of 2018 suggests the following road map for the parties to the 2005 Convention. Accordingly, parties could tackle major challenges in the implementation of the 2005 Convention by:

1. Streamlining and harmonizing data and information required for national and global monitoring purposes;
2. Encouraging research networks and statistical offices around the world to use the Global Report monitoring framework, its core indicators and means of verification as a basis for their data collection and the establishing of statistical baselines;
3. Filling existing data gaps identified in the two Global reports referring to key cultural policy areas, such as trade in cultural services, mobility flows, culture in the digital environment, or gender-disaggregated data;
4. Raising awareness among policy decision makers for cultural policy reforms;
5. Building capacities on policy monitoring;
6. Sensitizing the development community with regard to the creative sector's potential not only contributes to the creation of jobs and income, but also catalyzes innovation, permeating traditional development areas such as education and gender equality, and brings about change.

Challenges

Speaking about the visibility of the progress in cultural policies shown by the report series, Bárbara Lovrinić stated that “[u]nfortunately, where UNESCO is concerned, there is a lack of promotion in the media in general. In the long term, the report could have a positive impact on these issues, which would be enhanced if the public were made more aware of such work.” She also points out that there is "a risk that many people will not dwell on the 2005 Convention and the Sustainable Development Goals unless they are already somewhat familiar with the topic.” With reference to the title of the report series, she concludes that "cultural policy-making is still far from being reshaped, for it takes a serious amount of time to yield valuable results.”

Artistic freedom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_freedom 

 

Artistic freedom (or freedom of artistic expression) can be defined as "the freedom to imagine, create and distribute diverse cultural expressions free of governmental censorship, political interference or the pressures of non-state actors." Generally, artistic freedom describes the extent of independence artists obtain to create art freely. Moreover, artistic freedom concerns "the rights of citizens to access artistic expressions and take part in cultural life - and thus [represents] one of the key issues for democracy." The extent of freedom indispensable to create art freely differs regarding the existence or nonexistence of national instruments established to protect, to promote, to control or to censor artists and their creative expressions. This is why universal, regional and national legal provisions have been installed to guarantee the right to freedom of expression in general and of artistic expression in particular. In 2013, Ms Farida Shaheed, United Nations Special Rapporteur to the Human Rights Council, presented her "Report in the field of cultural rights: The right to freedom of expression and creativity" providing a comprehensive study of the status quo of, and specifically the limitations and challenges to, artistic freedom worldwide. In this study, artistic freedom "was put forward as a basic human right that went beyond the 'right to create' or the 'right to participate in cultural life'." It stresses the range of fundamental freedoms indispensable for artistic expression and creativity, e.g. the freedoms of movement and association. "The State of Artistic Freedom" is an integral report published by arts censorship monitor Freemuse on an annual basis.

Definition of artistic freedom

Repeatedly, the terms artistic freedom and freedom of artistic expressions are used as synonyms. Their underlying concepts "art", "freedom" and "expression" comprise very vast fields of discussion: "Art is a very 'subtle' - sometimes also symbolic - form of expression, suffering from definition problems more than any other form." As a result, "[i]t is almost impossible to give a satisfying definition of the concept art. It is even more difficult to define the concepts artistic creativity and artistic expression." UNESCO's 2005 Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions defines cultural expressions as "those expressions that result from the creativity of individuals, groups and societies, and that have cultural content" while the latter "refers to the symbolic meaning, artistic dimension and cultural values that originate from or express cultural identities." In the context of the freedom of (artistic) expressions, "[t]he word expression in the first instance refers to verbalisation of thoughts." Freedom of artistic expression "may mean that we have to tolerate some art that is offensive, insulting, outrageous, or just plain bad. But it is a small price to pay for the liberty and diversity that form the foundation of a free society." Officially, UNESCO defines artistic freedom as "the freedom to imagine, create and distribute diverse cultural expressions free of governmental censorship, political interference or the pressures of non-state actors. It includes the right of all citizens to have access to these works and is essential for the wellbeing of societies." UNESCO puts forth that "artistic freedom embodies a bundle of rights protected under international law." These include:

• The right to create without censorship or intimidation;
• The right to have artistic work supported, distributed and remunerated;
• The right to freedom of movement;
• The right to freedom of association;
• The right to the protection of social and economic rights;
• The right to participate in cultural life.

Legal frameworks to protect and promote artistic freedom

Legal frameworks to protect and promote artistic freedom reflect the conviction that "[c]ulture constitutes one process of, and space for, democratic debate. The freedom of artistic expression forms its backbone. There is compelling evidence that participation in culture also promotes democratic participation as well as empowerment and well-being of our citizens." Farida Shaheed wrote: "Artists may entertain people, but they also contribute to social debates, sometimes bringing counter-discourses and potential counterweights to existing power centres." Moreover, she emphasized that "the vitality of artistic creativity is necessary for the development of vibrant cultures and the functioning of democratic societies. Artistic expressions and creations are an integral part of cultural life,which entails contesting meanings and revisiting culturally inherited ideas and concepts." According to Freemuse, "[p]opulists and nationalists, who often portray human rights as a limitation on what they claim is the will of the majority, are on the rise globally. As this phenomenon rises, artists continue to play an important role in expressing alternative visions for society." This is why "artists are sometimes responsible for radical criticism." As a result, artistic expressions and artists are suffering censorship and violations worldwide.

"Artists are among the first to be silenced by repressive regimes: the poets, playwrights and painters who challenge the status quo are often lone workers, and as such easy targets for an authoritarian state or violent oppressor. When their views fail to accord with the mainstream, the artist is also vulnerable to the censorship of the mob. That is why it is vital that artistic expression is protected."

Freemuse's 2016 report "Arts under threat" shows that "[i]t is not only governments violating the right to artistic freedom. 2016 saw a worrying amount of actions by non-state actors, ranging from militant extremists to peaceful community groups, against art and artists. In some incidences, authorities censored artists based on requests or the interference from civil society groups." Based on this development, "[m]ajor sources of international law across the board recognize freedom of artistic creativity explicitly, or implicitly, as an inherent element of the right to freedom of expression. In these instruments, the individual right to express ideas creatively is often irrevocably linked with the right to receive them." The growing importance of artistic freedom as a specific right is reflected by the introduction of the role of the UN Special Rapporteur in the field of culture in 2009, and other rapporteurs, notably the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression.

UN instruments

Artistic freedom as a specific right

According to Farida Shaheed, the most explicit legal provisions protecting the right to the freedom indispensable for artistic expression and creativity are the following:

• Article 15 (3) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR): States "undertake to respect the freedom indispensable for ... creative activity";
• Article 19 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information (...) in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."

• Article 13 and 31 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child;
• Article 13 (1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR);
• Article 14 of the ACHR Protocol in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Provisions;
• Article 42 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights;
• Article 27 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): the universal right "to enjoy the arts";
• Article 49 of the Case of Karataş v. Turkey by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) emphasizes that the "[freedom of artistic expression] (...) affords the opportunity to take part in the public exchange of cultural, political and social information and ideas of all kinds. (...) Those who create, perform, distribute or exhibit works of art contribute to the exchange of ideas and opinions which is essential for a democratic society. Hence there is an obligation on the State not to encroach unduly on the author's freedom of expression."

In September 2015, 57 UN Member States reaffirmed the right to freedom of expression including creative and artistic expression through a joint statement. Additionally, in 2015, the Carthage Declaration on the Protection of Artists in Vulnerable Situations was adopted in Tunis.

Artistic freedom as a pillar of the right to freedom of expression

The following legal instruments do not specifically mention artistic freedom but rather understand it as a pillar of freedom of expression in general related to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. They aim to guarantee the right to freedom of expression or the right to participate in cultural life without specific reference to the arts.

• Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR);
• Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
• Article 9 and 17 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights;
• Article 32 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights;
• The right "to seek and develop cultural knowledge and expressions and to share them with others, as well as to act creatively and take part in creative activity" formulated by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
• Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

UNESCO instruments

1980 UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Status of the Artist

Artistic freedom first appeared as a distinct right in UNESCO's 1980 Recommendation concerning the Status of the Artist underlining "the essential role of art in the life and development of the individual and of society' and the duty of States to protect and defend artistic freedom." Although not a binding instrument, the Recommendation is an important reference in defining artists' rights across the spectrum worldwide. The 1980 Recommendation serves as a reference for policy development and as a basis for new formulations of cultural policies.

"Member States, recognizing the essential role of art in the life and development of the individual and of society, accordingly have a duty to protect, defend and assist artists and their freedom of creation. For this purpose, they should take all necessary steps to stimulate artistic creativity and the flowering of talent, in particular by adopting measures to secure greater freedom for artists, without which they cannot fulfill their mission, and to improve their status by acknowledging their right to enjoy the fruits of their work."

2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions

The 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions acknowledges that "the diversity of cultural expressions can only be promoted if human rights and fundamental freedoms are guaranteed." A guiding principle of the 2005 Convention is that "cultural diversity can be protected and promoted only if human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression, information and communication, as well as the ability of individuals to choose cultural expressions, are guaranteed." In this context, governance of culture refers to policies and measures governments establish to promote and to protect all forms of creativity and artistic expressions. The most recent UNESCO Convention in the field of culture and ratified by 146 Parties, it frames the formulation and implementation of different types of legislative, regulatory, institutional and financial interventions to promote the emergence of diverse cultural and creative industry sectors around the world. As a result, it aims to ensure participation in cultural life and to support access to diverse cultural expressions (film, music, performing arts, etc.). The progress and challenges in implementing the Convention is monitored through its Global Report Series Re|Shaping Cultural Policies.

National legislative measures to promote artistic freedom

Similar to the aforementioned universal instruments to protect artists and artistic freedom, "[i]n national constitutions (...), freedom of artistic creativity is often located within the strongly-protected right to freedom of expression." Certain countries also "recognize the freedom of artistic expression within the ambit of the right to science and culture." The following national legislative measures are listed in alphabetical order. The list is to be completed.

Burkina Faso

Adopted on 23 May 2013 by "Direction générale des arts (DGA)", the decree "Décret portant statut de l'artiste au Burkina Faso" envisages improving the social protection and the living conditions of artists, particularly the social security of employed artists and freelancers, the return of social contributions of artists and the complement dispositive for mutual accountability.

Canada

In Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects artistic expression.

France

In July 2016, France amended its legislation in order to extend it with the legal protection of artistic freedom, architecture and heritage. For the first time in international law, artistic expressions are established as public goods and the "dissemination of artistic creation is free". This implies not only that artists are free to create but also that the wider public has access to it. As a result, art and artistic expressions cannot be censored or simply excluded from exhibits and other events.

Germany

Article 5 of the German Basic Law contains a special paragraph that connects the right to freedom of expression with the right to freely develop the arts and sciences."

Mexico

On 19 June 2017, Mexico published its "Ley General de Cultura y Derechos Culturales" promising strong protection for artistic freedom and artists and cultural professionals, a provision specifically needed given the alarming conditions under which Mexican artists, journalists and cultural professionals currently work.

Spain

On 6 September 2018, the Spanish Congress of Deputies unanimously ratified a proposal assigned to elaborate a "Estatuto del Artista y del Profesional de la Cultura". Broadly, the decree aims to protect and promote artists with regard to taxation, their work security and legal protection.

Sweden

Article 1 (2) of the Swedish Fundamental Law explicitly includes the freedom of artistic creation as part of the key purposes of freedom of expression: "The purpose of freedom of expression under this Fundamental Law is to secure the free exchange of opinion, free and comprehensive information, and freedom of artistic creation."

Togo

On 20 June 2016, Togo adopted its "Statut de l'artiste". Its major objective is to acknowledge artists as individuals and their moral role in society, their contributions towards the intellectual sphere protected by copyright. It defines the rights and duties linked to artistic professions and aims to promote creativity and to protect artists socially.

Tunisia

Adopted in 2014, article 42 of the Tunisian Constitution states: "The right to culture is guaranteed. The freedom of creative expression is guaranteed. The State encourages cultural creativity and supports the strengthening of national culture, its diversity and renewal, in promoting the values of tolerance, rejection of violence, openness to different cultures and dialogue between civilizations."

United States of America

In the U.S., the first amendment protects artistic expression. According to the Court, freedom of artistic creativity is an element of the respect for freedom of self-expression, one of the core values of the First Amendment. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has never considered artistic freedom as a distinct category akin to political or commercial speech: "it rather addresses the various forms of art in their relation to the First Amendment on a contextual basis."

Challenges to artistic freedom

The International Cities of Refuge Network (ICORN) explains the purpose of its existence with the following statement:

"Writers and artists are especially vulnerable to censorship, harassment, imprisonment and even death, because of what they do. They represent the liberating gift of the human imagination and give voice to thoughts, ideas, debate and critique, disseminated to a wide audience. They also tend to be the first to speak out and resist when free speech is threatened."

Freemuse's report (2018) demonstrates that artistic freedom "is being shut down in every corner of the globe, including in the traditionally democratic West. According to Freemuse's 2016 report, the music industry is the main target of serious violations, and second to film in overall violations, including non-violent censorship. The most serious violations included the murder of Pakistani Qawwali singer Amjad Sabri and the killing of Burundi musician Pascal Treasury Nshimirimana. In 2019, Karima Bennoune, UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, underlines that "the freedom of artistic expression and creativity of persons with disabilities, women or older persons" remains significantly restricted. She states that "many cultural rights actors have not incorporated a gender perspective into their work, while many women's rights advocates have not considered cultural rights issues." Referring to Freemuse's 2016 report, UNESCO stresses that "laws dealing with terrorism and state security, defamation, religion and 'traditional values' have been used to curb artistic and other forms of free expression."

Moreover, new digital technologies, including social media platforms, are challenging artistic freedom: "Art in the online and digital space continues to challenge authorities and corporations who are quick to react by closing down expression rather than using it as an opportunity to foster it." Social media and music streaming channels, like Instagram and SoundCloud are becoming the platforms on which artists publicly display and promote their work. However, they also bring with them threats to rights and freedoms. Online trolls often intimidate artists to withdraw their work. Additionally, growing digital surveillance has a corrosive effect on artistic freedom. Many platforms have established mechanisms, such as Instagram's guidelines on 'standards of behavior' whose formulations are very vague. This provides disproportionate power to individuals and organizations who use the platform's reporting processes to get individual artworks removed, and sometimes entire accounts blocked. In addition, the impact of algorithms on diversity of content is another area of concern: platforms display a plethora of cultural offerings, but also control not only sales but also communication and the recommendation algorithms (e.g. adapting offered content to the profile of each internet user). These algorithms finally serve to promote certain contents while oppressing others.

In conclusion, new digital technologies - while providing a platform for the distribution of artistic content - may interrupt the flow of ideas of artists and curtail their artistic freedom.

In the 10th Anniversary UN Report on Cultural Rights, Ole Reitov, former exectutive director of Freemuse, underscores the progressive fact that "artistic freedom is no longer a 'marginalized' issue in the 'world of freedom of expression'". Since Farida Shaheed's report and inspired by lobbying from arts and human rights NGOs, efforts to promote artistic freedom have multiplied across the entire United Nations system: "The UN Universal Periodic Review provides an opportunity for NGOs, among others, to make submissions on States' failures to meet human rights standards, including artistic freedom. New calls for a UN Action Plan on the Safety of Artists and Audiences (similar to the one for journalists) have been put forward." As UNESCO's Global Report "Re|shaping Cultural Policies" (2018) shows, the number and capacity of organizations monitoring artistic freedom is increasing. "In this domain as well, cities are taking valuable initiatives by providing safe havens for artists at risk." As the list above shows, "measures to support the economic and social rights of artists are appearing increasingly in national legislation, especially in Africa."

Monitoring artistic freedom

Despite the progress made and legal instruments established to promote and protect freedom of artistic expressions, "there is urgent need for monitoring and surveillance, essential if these freedoms are to become a permanent reality."

Karima Bennoune notes that the increasing number of reported attacks perpetrated by State and non-State actors against cultural professionals reflects the boosting capacity of monitoring artistic freedom. She states the UNESCO global reports monitoring the implementation of the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Cultural Expressions have been "[o]f particular relevance". The reports provide a monitoring framework comprising four overarching goals to enhance cultural policies worldwide. One of these goals aims to "Promote Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" and encompasses artistic freedom as an "area of monitoring" incorporating core indicators to measure achievements regarding the rights and protection of artists. Additionally, the framework relates artistic freedom to the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 of the UN 2030 Agenda, which aims to "'Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels". Specifically, the SDG's target 16.10 aims to "ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements".

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16

Additionally, there are many other initiatives advocating and monitoring artistic freedom. Alongside other organizations documenting violations against freedom of artistic expression (such as Arterial Network, Artists at Risk Connection, PEN International and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions), Freemuse is an independent international organization particularly monitoring the freedom of expression of musicians and composers worldwide. "Freemuse's reports collated from all over the world show that artists are increasingly facing censorship, persecution, incarceration or death, because of their work."

In order to monitor the actions taken to implement the 1980 Recommendation concerning the Status of the Artists, the Secretariat of the 2005 UNESCO Convention (see below) runs a global survey every four years gathering information from Members States, NGOs and INGOs and prepares a report, which is then submitted to the General Conference.