PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to conduct a critical analysis to address cultural metaphors – a much overlooked aspect of cross-cultural studies. Mainstream cultural metaphors (e.g. the iceberg, the software of the mind, the onion, and the distance) are not only limited in number, but are also overwhelmingly based on the static paradigm – as opposed to the dynamic paradigm that is often sidelined in academic discourse.Design/methodology/approachThe paper introduces the Diagram of Diversity Pathways – an interdisciplinary framework that sheds some light on how the inherent meaning and heuristic orientation of static cultural metaphors may stand at odds with evidence from the newly emerged field of neurobiology.FindingsThe implications of these metaphors are called into question, namely, culture is all about differences; values are stable; values guide behaviors; and values are seen as binaries.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper suggests that theorists and practitioners should pay more attention to the contribution and scholarly work of the dynamic paradigm since there appears to be substantial compatibility between them.Originality/valueThe matching of neurobiology and dynamic paradigm brings into focus alternative metaphors which not only offer insightful perspectives but also may open doors to perceive culture in a new way. Furthermore, cultural metaphors deserve more academic scrutiny because metaphors and theory development can have a symbiotic existence.
DOCUMENT
This paper puts forward a conceptual framework to analyse emergence and the development of planned knowledge locations in cities (science and technology parks, creative factories, knowledge hubs, etc.). It argues that the study and the practice of developing these precincts can benefit from explicitly considering the broader territorial context, the time dynamics and the co-evolutionary processes through which they unfold. The advantages of such as framework are illustrated with the support of two European knowledge locations: Arabianranta (Helsinki, Finland) and Biocant (Cantanhede, Portugal).
DOCUMENT
Ecocentrism is the broadest term for worldviews that recognize intrinsic value in all lifeforms and ecosystems themselves, including their abiotic components. Anthropocentrism, in contrast, values other lifeforms and ecosystems insofar as they are valuable for human well-being, preferences and interests. Herein, the authors examine the roots of ecocentrism and discuss its mixed history of international recognition. They argue that non-human nature has intrinsic value irrespective of human preferences or valuation, and they refute the claim that ecocentrism is misanthropic. They then summarize four key examples from the academic literature in which anthropocentrism fails to provide an ethic adequate for respecting and protecting planet Earth and its inhabitants. The authors conclude that ecocentrism is essential for solving our unprecedented environmental crisis, arguing its importance from four perspectives: ethical, evolutionary, spiritual and ecological. They contend that a social transformation towards ecocentrism is not only an ethical but a practical imperative, and they urge support for ecocentric understanding and practices. https://www.ecologicalcitizen.net/article.php?t=why-ecocentrism-key-pathway-sustainability https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
