Rethinking Polycentric Structures in the Postcolonial Church: Dangers of “Drone Missiology” or Afghanization of Christianity

In this brief essay I shall obviously draw from my reflections which I shared over the past three decades and to which I have provided some bibliographical references. It is clear from them that I had several opportunities to share my views beyond the Anglo-Saxon world, and some of them in events organized by K. Koschorke himself in the German academic circles as Munich-Freising Conferences. It is important that we do not get misled by words. We also need clarity of the concepts involved. Koschorke’s emphasis on “ploycentric structures” requires to be discussed and analysed critically to sort out its geographic components and its political-cultural implications, in order to be clear where lie the priorities. Without such exercise we will run the risk of hiding behind the ambiguity of words and concepts. My gut feelings make me believe that “polycentric structures” is just what the West needs in the postcolonial era to replace the control it has lost with decolonization.

A construção da União Europeia : um olhar sobre a dimensão social do projeto

O Tratado de Roma de 1957 priorizou o setor económico em detrimento do social. Em consequência, cada Estado-membro manteve o seu modelo de assistência social e , deste modo, a diversidade de Estados-providência. Mais tarde, o princípio da subsidariedade legitimou-os no contexto do processo de construção da Comunidade Económica/União Europeia e, por consequinte, a coexistência dos mesmos, particularmente os submodelos de assistência social escandinavo, anglo-saxónico, continental e dos países da Europa do sul. Hoje, graças ao Ato Único Europeu e ao Tratado de Amesterdão de 1997, foi adotada por todos os Estados-membros a Carta dos Direitos Sociais Fundamentais no Conselho de Estrasburgo de 1989, assim como valorizada a dimensão social e o incentivo à negociação coletiva entre parceiros, respetivamente. Assim, sendo, e na sequência do exposto anteriormente, constata-se, nessa nova EUropa em transformação permanente, a emergência de um novo modelo de Estado-providência, centrado essencialmente na compilação, complementariedade e/ou «fusão» do que existe de melhor no conjunto dos quatro submodelos existentes, de acordo com o princípio da unidade a partir da diversidade.

Who am I? An identity crisis Identity in the new museologies and the role of the museum professional

Whilst the title of this essay suggests more than one “new museology”, it was rather a licence poétique to emphasize the two major theoretical movements that have evolved in the second half of the 20th Century[1]. As a result of the place(s)/contexts where they originated, and for clarity purposes, they have been labelled in this essay as the “Latin new museology” and the “Anglo-Saxon new museology”; however they both identify themselves by just the name of “New Museology”. Even though they both shared similar ideas on participation and inclusion, the language barriers were probably the cause for many ideas not to be fully shared by both groups. The “Latin New museology” was the outcome of a specific context that started in the 1960s (de Varine 1996); being a product of the “Second Museum Revolution”(1970s)[2], it provided new perceptions of heritage, such as “common heritage”. In 1972 ICOM organized the Santiago Round Table, which advocated for museums to engage with the communities they serve, assigning them a role of “problem solvers” within the community (Primo 1999:66). These ideas lead to the concept of the Integral Museum. The Quebec Declaration in 1984 declared that a museum’s aim should be community development and not only “the preservation of past civilisations’ material artefacts”, followed by the Oaxtepec Declaration that claimed for the relationship between territory-heritage-community to be indissoluble (Primo 1999: 69). Finally, in 1992, the Caracas Declaration argued for the museum to “take the responsibility as a social manager reflecting the community’s interests”(Primo 1999: 71). [1] There have been at least three different applications of the term ( Peter van Mensch cited in Mason: 23) [2] According to Santos Primo, this Second Museum Revolution was the result of the Santiago Round Table in Chile, 1972, and furthered by the 1st New Museology International Workshop (Quebec, 1984), Oaxtepec Meeting (Mexico, 1984) and the Caracas Meeting (Venezuela, 1992) (Santos Primo : 63-64)