The discussion in Chapter 5, ‘The Conservation of Intangible Knowledge for Social and Economic Solidarity’, is by far the most personal in the book. It concerns practical effort to secure the conservation of the intangible knowledge of pua kumbu via my own research interventions and engagement with the weavers from the establishment of a community enterprise in 2014, Emporoh LLP, onwards. The rationale for this work is, once again, to better understand the relationship between tacit knowledge, collective memory and the resilience of pua kumbu manufacture over recent decades. The analysis takes into account both how tacit knowledge is integral to local knowledge more widely understood, as how memories are sustained through an explicitly social framework of action. This helps explain how and why the weavers retain the means to share common knowledge and thus to create cloths that are endowed with the representational power of this knowledge. I consider the weavers who gathered together their individual and shared knowledge as ‘participating thinkers’ in the community project, who were able to enact cultural memory. The main conclusion here is that the weavers’ body of knowledge of pua kumbu generated through narratives of collective memory is not static and never has been, and this fact has delivered a sustainable community enterprise that foregrounds a weaving ecosystem, the use of natural resources and meeting the demand of new market platforms.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

The Conservation of Intangible Knowledge for Social and Economic Solidarity

  • Welyne Jeffrey Jehom

摘要

The discussion in Chapter 5, ‘The Conservation of Intangible Knowledge for Social and Economic Solidarity’, is by far the most personal in the book. It concerns practical effort to secure the conservation of the intangible knowledge of pua kumbu via my own research interventions and engagement with the weavers from the establishment of a community enterprise in 2014, Emporoh LLP, onwards. The rationale for this work is, once again, to better understand the relationship between tacit knowledge, collective memory and the resilience of pua kumbu manufacture over recent decades. The analysis takes into account both how tacit knowledge is integral to local knowledge more widely understood, as how memories are sustained through an explicitly social framework of action. This helps explain how and why the weavers retain the means to share common knowledge and thus to create cloths that are endowed with the representational power of this knowledge. I consider the weavers who gathered together their individual and shared knowledge as ‘participating thinkers’ in the community project, who were able to enact cultural memory. The main conclusion here is that the weavers’ body of knowledge of pua kumbu generated through narratives of collective memory is not static and never has been, and this fact has delivered a sustainable community enterprise that foregrounds a weaving ecosystem, the use of natural resources and meeting the demand of new market platforms.