"American
Intellectual Property and Global Yoga"
February
16, 2002
10:00
a.m.-12:00 p.m. Keene Faculty Center, Dauer Hall
Latest
book:
The
Suburb of Dissent: Cultural Politics in the United States and Canada during
the 1930s (Duke University Press, 1998)
Paper
Synopsis:
This paper
addresses (a) the general and tricky role of American law in shaping global
relations; (b) the blockading or "filtering" effect that American intellectual
property law in particular has within the US; (c) sub-legal cultural transformations
that have a transnational character and alter the landscape of property
relations in culture; (d) prospects for a global "common law," that is,
a global law based on scattered and often inconsistent practices and oriented
towards the commons--rather than, say, towards tradition. Case studies
include a famous case in American intellectual property law--Dallas Cowboys
Cheerleaders v. Pussycat Cinema--and the post-1960s surge of interest in
yoga in the US. Yoga provides a concrete example of the ways that American
proprietary practices filter and alter cultures of the body, while also
revealing resources people have invented to skirt the pronounced limits
of an owner-focused theory of law. Loosened from its recent cultural and
religious history in India, American yoga is an invented pseudo-tradition
that allows a critical anti-modern space to open up within American culture,
in large part because of its mobilization of indigenous reservoirs of communal
and anti-ownership practices of living labor, especially women's labor.
Even as it undergoes rapid commodification and transformation into protected
and individualized intellectual property, American yoga provides a strong
case study of the way that "resistance precedes power," as Hardt and Negri
remind us in Empire. The pathways of cultural transmission associated
with American yoga during the 1960s constituted a form of globalization
logically and historically prior to corporate globalization. It is from
this layer of humus just beneath the surface that one perhaps finds sources
for a global common law, one that does not routinely take individual and
monopolistic private property in culture for granted. |