Decolonising Design and Heritage in Craft Development Discourses: Examples from Sri Lanka, India and Scotland Greruge Chamithri Buddhini Greru Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Heriot Watt University School of Textiles and Design June 2018 The copyright in this thesis is owned by the author. Any quotation from the thesis or use of any of the information contained in it must acknowledge this thesis as the source of the quotation or information. Abstract Craft tends to be recognised both as a material culture and as a practice which ranges from local production schemes to global design industries. As much as it is a cultural asset, craft is also valued highly as an economic asset that offers development opportunities to most parts of the world, where ‘Craft Development’ becomes a concern of national and international agencies which exercise a hegemonic view, and is often said to marginalise the local participation during that process. When development cascades to the more discreet levels of the grassroot communities, precarious conditions are created that affect the material culture of craft objects, ideas of creativity, labour practices, class structures, the identities of makers, production processes and markets. It is also the case that corporate and government regulations put in place to ameliorate such issues actually exacerbate them. However, little is known about how the ‘local people’ adapt to these changes alongside a hegemonic view and in return the way they construct their everyday realities. In this context, multiple actors are involved in shaping craft development discourse (e.g. international and national institutions, governments, NGOs, businesses, designers, design schools etc.) where they use ‘heritage’ and ‘design’ to create a particular view about craft development and to talk about it. By mapping how local heritage craft is understood in relation to the global design industry, who mediates and how they mediate in this local-global process, a multi-sited ethnographic research strategy is adopted by following people, metaphor, story and things in, Sri Lanka, India and Scotland—which also provides a comparative interface between East and West. The analysis of the case study and fieldwork data argues for a ‘decolonising’ situation being promoted for design and heritage, moving away from the established authorised notions to have more marginalised viewpoints included. Ways in which this might be achieved were tested as part of this study, through anthropological enquiry, and in the form of a ‘charrette’. In doing so the research attempts to fill one of the critical gaps in both heritage and design studies—that is to propose ‘approaches’ to increase community participation. This is also a major limitation of UNESCO’s 2003 convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), of which traditional craft is a part. The research concludes by offering insights into the formation of policy and practice through an interdisciplinary framework that combines heritage, craft, and design and anthropology. Dedication To Amma, Thaththa and Dinesh Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the generous support and kindness of many individuals, communities and organisations in Scotland, India and Sri Lanka. First, my thanks goes to Dr. Britta Kalkreuter, who is both my supervisor and mentor as well as being the person who directed me on this long journey from start to finish—it is thanks to Britta that I became interested in heritage studies. I am deeply grateful to everyone who contributed time and effort when I was conducting my fieldwork, others who invested their time during ad-hoc interviews, and those who helped me with translation. Whenever possible I have acknowledged them in my research, but due to confidentiality I may not have been able to mention all of their names, and I regret that I cannot thank them individually. Many thanks to those who welcomed me into their factories, work places and homes, and provided me with access to stay and observe them. Thank you for your friendship and insight! I am also grateful to many academic institutions: the Pearl Academy Jaipur, the Indian Institute of Craft and Design (IICD) and the National Institute of Design, India, with which I was affiliated during my fieldwork in India. I would also like to thank the Department of Integrated Design, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, for allowing me to work with their staff and students very closely. My deepest thanks are owed to all the staff and students at each of these institutions, and for the lifetime friendships that were forged during my visits. I would never have been able to embark on my PhD journey, had it not been for Heriot Watt University offering me a fully-funded PhD scholarship. I gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Fiona Watson Memorial Fund, the Principal’s Public Engagement Prize and the Santander Mobility Grant, which collectively enabled my research. In particular, I thank the library staff of the Scottish Borders Campus for going to such great lengths to ensure that I have always had the study materials and support that I needed to finish my work, and special thanks are due to Jamie McIntyre and Zoe Turner. I cannot forget my work buddies at the School of Textiles and Design. Other friends and colleagues, who read versions of my work, advised and provided other help will always be remembered. My parents, Jayantha and Manel, and husband Dinesh, who are the pillars of my life, have endured much due to my long absence and not having had enough time to pay attention to family life or talk to them as much as I would like. Dinesh especially allowed himself to be uprooted from Sri Lanka to stay with me in Scotland, and has had to sacrifice a lot just to be with me. When the entire PhD process became an emotional rollercoaster ride, he always remained supportive, encouraging and above all believing in me. I have benefited throughout from Dinesh’s moral support and thank you for being such a supportive husband. I hope my parents and Dinesh are now relieved and happy to see the end result, and know that this thesis would not exist without their love and support. I also dedicate this thesis to numerous artisans I met, as this is all about their struggles and victories to continue their craft. One Indian artisan told me, “Kala khabi khatam nahi hoti–Kalakar khatam hota hai” (The artisan may depart, but the art never dies). Respect to you! Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... 1 List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. 2 List of Images ............................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Charts ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Chapter 1 : Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 The Scope of the Research.......................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Research Aims and Objectives ................................................................................................. 10 1.3 Thesis Structure ........................................................................................................................ 11 Chapter 2 : Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 14 Section A) Craft and Design ................................................................................................................... 14 2.1 An overview of craft and design: seeking definitional clarity .................................................. 14 2.2 The historical development and the contemporary view of craft and design ............................ 17 2.3 Eastern and the Western/First world and third world approaches to craft and design .............. 19 2.4 Craft and Design Intervention ................................................................................................... 22 2.5 Conceptual framework for this study ........................................................................................ 23 2.6 Summary of section A .............................................................................................................. 24 Section B) Heritage and Craft ................................................................................................................ 25 2.7 The concept of Heritage and Tradition ..................................................................................... 25 2.8 Craft practices and Intangible cultural heritage ........................................................................ 27 2.9 Orientating the study within globalisation ................................................................................ 30 2.9.1 Globalisation and Intangible cultural heritage ...................................................................... 30 2.9.2 Globalisation and Craftwork ................................................................................................ 31 2.10 Considerations on