2.9.1 Globalisation and Intangible cultural heritage
Globalisation is not a new phenomenon and has existed for many centuries. Early forms of globalisation took place as e.g. military conquest, trade routes like Silk Road, colonisation, imperialism, and industrialisation (Labadi 2010). Contemporary globalisation, however, became omnipresent only in the 1990s due to industrial, financial and technological shifts (Sparke 2013). Also, the establishment of the supra national agencies like the United Nations and Bretton Woods institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank generated global political and economic policies across and between cultures and countries for integration. Instead of the economic impulsion that came into effect through free trade and liberal democracy, contemporary globalisation also includes culture as a key player influencing the consumption and appropriation of cultural heritage (Labadi 2010).
Although ‘Globalisation’ is a concept without consensus and remains ill-defined (Appadurai 1999), it resides in the transnational flow of goods and ideas (Appadurai 1996). This clearly influences the heritage discourse, because heritage is a discipline where global-local discourse strongly resides as part of globalisation (Bortolotto 2010). The influences and impact of globalisation on heritage are varied. On the one hand, it encourages appreciating the local and Eastern approaches to heritage within the global processes. One such example is the introduction of UNESCO’s 2003 convention on ICH as mentioned earlier. It was regarded as a way of counterbalancing the Eurocentric view on cultural heritage to appreciate the diversity in other cultural forms, particularly valuing non-Western expressions (Labadi 2010). On the other hand, globalisation is considered a threat to ICH. Being considered a ‘fragile heritage’ (UNESCO 2011), paves the way for safeguarding measures aimed at protecting intangible cultures, paradoxically freezing living practices (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2004). As Brumman and Cox (2009) describe, the idea of safeguarding and preservation emerged due to the effects of globalisation, in order to maintain cultural diversity in the hybridisation process, so that homogenisation could be avoided. However, within globalisation the multi associations of the transnational networks change the way locality is created, hence affecting local identity (Scounti 2009). Another criticism of globalisation is the irony played by hegemonic global organisations in shaping heritage. For example,
UNESCO is being criticised for promoting the idea of universal heritage in the light of it being a supra national agency (Bortolotto 2010, Bortolotto 2015), made worse by authorised heritage discourse (Smith 2006, Smith 2015). This remains a challenge for inclusion of grassroots levels in heritage and craft development as development agencies work towards the “technification of the culture” (Telleria 2015) that marginalises non-Western traditions through “cultural domination” (Escobar 2015). In summary, the effects of globalisation on heritage are manifold: it may be contributing to the formation of new legislation, renewed interest in heritage as well as progression of heritage by admiring and promoting cultural diversity. Whilst on the other hand it could also impose challenges on the local cultures contributing to diminish the diversity through homogenising effects as well as imposing dominant global expressions and asymmetries of power. It also exerts a substantial influence on preserving the living culture while hindering the dynamic nature of culture. In this context, the challenges Nic Craith (2008) identifies for ICH in the 21st century are critical in terms of acknowledging globalisation to enhance the local rather than rendering local identities obsolete. Nevertheless, finding the right balance between standardisation and differentiation in achieving glocalisation is complex and “two way traffic” requires negotiations and acknowledgement of “pluriversatility” (Salazar 2010, p133)3
. 2.9.2 Globalisation and Craftwork
A growing body of literature is available on the impact of globalisation on craft, particularly with regards to how global forces have extended the boundaries of local communities. This varies from integration of artisans into global markets as part of transnational commodity cultures (Jackson et al. 2007, Dwyer and Jackson 2003), to shifting tastes and global consumer demands (Nash 1993, Edwards 2005), touristic production and marketing of craft goods as ethnic–exotic indigenous crafts (Little 2004, Scrase 2005, Chibnik 2003), to concerns for educational programmes and design mediations for craft within the contemporary global structures (Kasturi 2005, DeNicola and DeNicola 2012). Other examples highlight concerns on legislative practices for safeguarding of traditional knowledge (Basole 2015, Fowler 2004). Similarly, intellectual property (IP) based methods (Chan 2011) are also used within global export
3 Salazar (2010, p143) points out that “instead of one universally accepted meaning, the significance of
heritage…is characterised by pluriversatility:…be it natural or cultural, tangible or intangible” where he encourages to acknowledge the needs of various parties and their interests in ‘glocalisation’ of heritage as part of sustainable heritage management.
32
markets to keep traditional products competitive. Apart from these works on contemporary craft economies, studies on early forms of globalisation such as colonisation also provide evidence of how cosmopolitan forces and British art officials exercised power when constituting traditional design (McGowan 2005).
In his review of precarious artisanal production in the third world with respect to globalisation, Timothy Scrase (2003, 2009) describes how conditions within the local- global divide vary. Examples of changes brought by global processes to the production and consumption patterns have clearly affected the divisions of artisanal work as First World and Third World, or developed and developing contexts. He posits that crafts produced in the Third World carry a sense of nostalgia, a romanticised production with variety, bringing a sense of exoticism for the West. For developing countries, on the other hand, Scrase (2003) highlights exploitation and poverty issues as a direct result of globalisation transforming artisan communities.
Various studies have described the implications created by mass produced or counterfeit goods, design copying (Scrase 2012), replacement of materials with cheap substitutes (Ganguly-Scrase 2001) as well as transformation of the social value systems of local artisanal communities through global capital (ibid). Research has hence gone on to portray the artisan as a vulnerable character needing development (Kumar Jena 2010). Other scholars have reported on de-skilling of artisans with implications on communal making contexts, e.g. fragmented labour processes (Wilkinson-Weber 2004), outsourcing labour (Esperanza 2008, Murray 2010a) and occupational displacement (Scrase 2012). The extent to which such global economic and cultural forms influence local productions is explicit in the examples of commodity chains and commodification of craft (Tiffany 2004, Bunn 2012), which at times can be driven by Western trade regimes (Kathuria 1988 cf Scrase 2009) and strict middle men involvement which has created a dichotomy in craft often describes as “tradition/modernity, local/global, handmade/industrial” (Esperanza 2008, p27).
Other studies present convincing evidence of globalisation resulting in artisan labour issues such as gender inequalities, exploitation and segregation (Wilkinson-Weber 1997), identity formation (DeNicola and Wilkinson-Weber 2016) and marginalisation through state initiatives and NGO involvement (Kasturi 2005, Mohsini 2011). Another well documented concern has been imposed skill developments through the introduction of globalised entrepreneurial business models (Kasturi 2005) where the rising
entrepreneurship changes the community kinship structures (Venkatesan 2006). This is reinforced by studies that demonstrate the insecurity brought by unreliable global market trends, and how changing global consumer demands such as fair trade and ethnic branding affect development outcomes, consumerism and social justice in the local contexts (Scrase 2009).
Many of these examples highlight the implications for non-Western craft making contexts. However the organisation of the craft sector in the West, such as the Scottish example that McAuley and Fillis (2005b) consider, shows how the idea of global is manifested in a remote island craft production scenario. It reflects how the production takes place within transnational cultural flows where craft is seen as a business with multiplier effects providing economic benefits, innovation capabilities, opportunities for tourist markets and opening up of entrepreneurial activities. In this process, tradition becomes an historical route for creativity and a mode of re-interpretation for contemporising the craft. Another longitudinal survey in England and Wales (McAuley and Fillis 2005a) further confirms the effects of globalisation on Western craft. However, globalisation is largely seen here as positive, enabling a change from the occupational practices of hobby crafts to micro enterprises with rapid internationalisation and technological developments.
While some scholars refer to globalisation with problematic encounters (Scrase 2009, Scrase 2003, Scrase 2012, Esperanza 2008, Murray 2010b), with concerns about authenticity and cultural appropriateness (Makovicky 2011), others view it as a positive response as a reflection on developing more interconnections between people, practices and territories (McAuley and Fillis 2005a, McAuley and Fillis 2005b, Curtis 2016). The latter cases can be identified as localisation generating a competitive advantage by producing for niche markets, strategising for diversification to cater to global markets (Berg 2013), a hybrid of practice producing both for local and international consumers (Hart 1995) or innovation through tradition which uses territorial knowledge and craftsmanship (De Massis et al. 2016). Therefore the incorporation of traditional knowledge and practices for contemporary uses in response to global market demands is encouraged (Liebl and Roy 2004). Further benefits of globalisation are seen in the linking of local and global where the transformation brings continuity and survival (Little 2004) rather than disappearance of the craft (Maldini 2014, Cohen 2007) offering a new or an extended life-cycle to the product.
34
In this context Köhler and Wissen (2003) argue that those same sources that empower globalisation could also hinder it, thus indicating a double edged nature to globalisation. This is explicit in fair-trade and ethical markets when Johnson (2002) argues about the inequalities of fair trade, while others (Curtis 2016, Littrell and Dickson 2010) support ethical and fair trade market practices as consequences of globalisation. Difference of opinion also exists on transnational and shifting markets; while some scholars debate sanctioning and coping with those transformation (Ganguly-Scrase 2001, Murray 2010a, Murray 2010b), Evans (2007) describes a situation on how transnational flows contributes to counteracting the effects of neoliberal globalisation. In addition, Winslow’s (2009) study shows that adjusting to changing socio, economic and technological differentiations builds resilience within community crafts. This is also the conclusion in Little’s (2004) Mayan identity creation example, where artisans use craft practices to maintain their identity while commodifying their culture for the touristic market demand.
Reviewing varied scholarly debates about globalisation and craftwork reveal that effects of globalisation may not necessarily be one way, from developing to the developed, or vice-versa, but are in fact multidirectional flows (Chibnik 2003). From this perspective, rather than treating the West as the centre and non-Western localities as the periphery, Kikuchi and Lee (2014) suggest a transnational cultural approach to design and craft within the idea of global. This study therefore moves between local and global reviewing community’s appropriation of globalisation and identifying how they construct everyday realities due to changing economic, cultural and social processes.