Globalization and Folk Craft Production:

The Complementarity of Interdisciplinary Teaching and Research

 

 

By Marysia Galbraith

New College

University of Alabama

Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487

 

 

The paper outlines a theme-based teaching paradigm that promotes learning for both teacher and students through hands-on experiences that explore the intersection of seemingly diverse topics. In Globalization and Folk Craft Production, a combination of directed readings, seminar discussions, visits to local artists and museums, and projects in the pottery studio help students gain a greater understanding of the processes of globalization and the significance of creativity in both industrialized and industrializing societies.  I also describe how interdisciplinary teaching provides instructors with an ideal context to explore subjects of significance for scholarly research. 

 

            In this paper I suggest that a theme-based teaching paradigm offers a way around the conflict that often exists between the teaching and research responsibilities of academics.  Specifically, I discuss a way I have combined my academic and creative interests to develop a course that has led to a whole new research program for me and an exciting learning experience for my students.  It suggests the advantages of teaching about things we feel passionate about.  Further, I show how crossing disciplinary boundaries provides a unique opportunity to explore the intersection of seemingly diverse subjects in ways that promote learning for both teacher and students.

 

Globalization and Folk Craft Production is an upper division social science seminar I offer at New College at The University of Alabama.[1]  The course views a key critical issue in the contemporary world—globalization—from the unique perspective of folk craft producers and consumers. An important goal of the course is to show that globalization is a two way process:  citizens of industrialized societies are the globalize as well as the globalizers.  On one hand, students learn about the influence of global markets and media on the lives and work of folk craft producers from remote corners of the world.  On the other hand, they explore the significance of handcrafted items, especially ones from far away, in industrialized societies.  An important component of their learning about the significance of the “handmade” comes through their own experiments with clay during studio labs.  Students’ experiences in the studio become the vehicle for appreciating the technology and skills of craftspeople they might otherwise consider “primitive,” and it also gives them the opportunity to explore the significance of creativity in their own lives.  A further benefit of this course, and interdisciplinary teaching in general, is that it has provided me with the opportunity to explore in greater detail an area that will become my next subject of scholarly research.

 

Teaching and scholarship at the intersection of disparate themes

 

            First, let me say a bit about myself and how the course developed.  I am both a potter and an anthropologist.  For many years, these two interests have run parallel in my life, but have had little to do with each other.  This is largely the result of the way in which academics tend to be structured.   Artists tend to be regarded quite differently from social scientists, and even among academically recognized artists, pottery tends to be marginalized as craft that has no place in the academy.  As a graduate student, my skill as a potter was viewed as a threat to my seriousness as a scholar.  In artistic circles, my academic pursuits were considered incidental to the work I produced.  This duality was (and is still) represented in my business cards—one says Marysia Galbraith, potter, and the other says Marysia Galbraith, anthropologist.

 

My own experience has shown me that the academic tendency to categorize and dichotomize can place into opposition real life activities that need not conflict.  Indeed, my varied interests open to me new and exciting areas of scholarship.  In particular, I have been drawing connections between art and anthropology for many years now.  As a potter, I have looked to the work of other times and places for inspiration.  As an anthropologist, I developed an interest in globalization, defined by Ulf Hannerz as “increasing long-distance interconnectedness, at least across national boundaries, preferably between continents as well” (Hannerz 1996:17).  The more I thought about my own experiences as an artist, and realized how I had been influenced by ideas derived from the Mingei (folk art) movement in Japan (see Yanagi 1989), the more intrigued I became about the influence of globalization on potters generally.  My own experiences also led me to conclude that globalization is not a one way process—not only are industrializing societies learning from industrialized ones, so too are members of industrialized contexts finding themselves influenced and inspired by the great diversity of societies around the world.  In recent years, this influence has been particularly profound in the arts—pop musicians such as Paul Simon and Peter Gabriel have collaborated with African and Brazilian artists; shops, catalogs and even Websites specialize in the direct marketing of world folk art (see Peruvian Connection catalog, Novica Website).  In ceramics, too, traditional potters of Asia, Latin America, and Africa have been featured in Ceramics Monthly, the premier American journal for ceramic artists.  Ceramics Monthly also carries advertisements for workshops with Native American potters and “craft and folk art tours” to South America, Central Asia, China, and India.

 

            Thinking about these various strands, the idea for a college course emerged in which folk art and artists would become the lens through which to examine the multidirectional impact of globalization.  Throughout the course, we seek to understand the impact of increasing interconnectedness on the producers as well as the consumers of folk art.  Below I outline the three key themes of the course: the impact of globalization on producers of folk art; the impact of global folk art on its consumers; and finally the symbolic and cognitive significance of the handmade for human beings generally.

 

Impact on producers

 

Typically, as potters produce more for the world market, they become more entrenched in a money economy.  Their greater affluence within their local community often leads to more personal autonomy and local political power (Anderson 1999, Babcock 1993, Lowell et al 1999, McKinnon 1996).  In societies such as the Maya of Mexico and the Pueblo Indians of the American Southwest, where potters tend to be women, this also leads to shifts in gender hierarchies (Babcock et al 1986, Babcock 1993, Duncan 2000, Nash 1992) or to men becoming practitioners of the profession (Anderson 1999, Duncan 2000, Lowell et al 1999, McKinnon 1996).  Studies have also noted the contradictory constraints on potters that may arise from globalization (Duncan 2000, Katsuhiko 1992, Moeran 1984, 1990).  Although the market provides a reason to preserve or revitalize folk craft production, it also tends to limit the kinds of work that are recognized as “native” and therefore “authentic.” Simultaneously, folk artists are encouraged to produce forms and designs that nonnative consumers find useful in an urban context, such as vases, rather than traditional forms such as storage jars.  While the global market provides some degree of economic security, folk potters, usually by definition, must stay in rural areas, and often remain marginalized in the wider (state or international-level) political realm.  Thus students confront the ambiguous position of the folk artist who is pressured to adjust to market demands while also remaining true to tradition.  In short, industrializing states market native arts and customs at the same time that the forces of globalization reconfigure and even destroy traditional social structures and lifestyles.

 

Impact on consumers

 

The seminar also asks why consumers in industrialized contexts have such a strong interest in objects made by hand in exotic places, even though manufactured goods are plentiful, cheaper, and serve the same functions.  We find one answer in the power of nostalgia for a simpler rural life that tends to emerge in populations that are removed from land and nature in their everyday lives.  This tendency is illustrated in historic folk art movements in the US, England, and Japan that followed industrialization, when the majority of the population started living in urban environments. What emerges, then, is what Hobsbawm and Ranger (1992) call “invented tradition.”  Brian Moeran explains, "the idea of "tradition" came into its own only when community solidarity began to break down, following contact with the outside world.  Tradition is called upon precisely because the community is no longer traditional" (1984:167).  In folk art movements, the “folk” is idealized to such a degree that it barely resembles historic populations and settings.  Rather, the folk and the past are conceptualized in contradistinction to the present.  Consumers do not necessarily want to go back in time, but rather long for certain ideas of the past that reflect areas of dissatisfaction with the present.

 

Invented tradition and ideas of the “folk” can also serve the needs of state systems of government. Namely, folk art becomes one of a number of features the state uses to make the idea of the people real.  By defining who constitutes the nation’s people, the state legitimates its rightful authority to represent those people.  Therefore, the state institutes programs designed to promote native craft production (see for example Errington 1998, Moeran 1984, Nash 1992).  As the value of folk art objects becomes established, the market further promotes these images.  Images of folk are marketed not only to members of the nation, but also to tourists and outsiders attracted by the exotic and the distinct (see Errington 1998, Price 1989). 

 

The symbolic and cognitive appeal of the handmade

 

Certainly, states and markets are instrumental in promoting and popularizing folk art, but it is also important to ask why people find these objects so appealing.  To answer this question, we delve into the significance of creative expression more generally.  One of the defining features of our species is our habit of ornamenting our world.  This has caused Ellen Dissanayake (1992) to call us “Homo aestheticus.”  During the seminar, we examine the varied layers of symbolism contained in folk art while also seeking to understand the cognitive processes through which objects come to contain meaning.  Symbols are important in identity formation because they define who we are and who we are not.  Thus, design motifs and forms often function as symbolic markers of group membership (Barley 1994).  We also learn about the symbolic status of potters within their society, and how this can change with globalization.  Finally, we consider ways in which ritual objects communicate history, myths, and beliefs (Barley 1994, Witherspoon 1977).

 

The cognitive basis for the appeal of the handmade may be found in what Nelson Goodman (1968) calls “repleteness.”  Specifically, certain objects cannot be generalized; rather, the particularity of their every detail matters.  Because of their repleteness, they retain our interest; each piece tells a story about its place of origin (through the materials used) and about the artist (from his/her very fingerprints).   Imperfections hold our attention for longer than symmetry because they are hard to fit into existing mental schemas.  Another way that this process has been talked about has been in terms of the aesthetic and the anesthetic.  Working with one of the earliest definitions of aesthetic as the perceptual (Diffey 1995), that which is anesthetic dulls our senses, whereas that which is aesthetic stimulates our senses (Miller 1997).  Thus, folk art tends to be appealing because it stimulates our senses, tells a story, and is not quite like anything else we know.  As such, these objects become a distinct element in identity formation.

 

Thus, the course identifies universals of being human at the same time that it analyzes critical contemporary processes of change.  Globalization is viewed not just as an economic phenomenon, but also as one that touches on all aspects of social and political life.  Further, we consider the impact of global forces on the local, as well as the continued importance of the local even within the realm of the global.  Our investigation of folk craft and its producers provides concrete evidence of the persistence of regional styles, even in the midst of rapid changes, and provides a glimpse of what is being lost as well as gained within this increasingly interconnected world.

 

Structure of the course

 

Globalization and Folk Craft Production is structured as a student-directed seminar with a ceramic studio lab.  Enrollment is limited to fifteen to insure active involvement of all participants and personalized attention during labs.  Two premises underlie the course:  the model of student expertise and learning through experience.  I assume that students are actively involved in their own learning, and that they already bring to the seminar a great deal of knowledge.  Throughout the semester, students show their expertise in a variety of ways.  They initiate class discussions and introduce course readings.  Most significantly though, over the course of the semester, each student becomes an expert about the influence of globalization on a particular society and their folk art.  During seminars, classmates ask them about the power dynamics that shape that society’s folk art, and during labs they explain their group’s forming, decorating, and firing techniques.  Toward the end of the term, students write a research paper that integrates all they have learned about the society, and present their results in a student symposium structured like an academic conference.

 

The second premise structuring the course is that people tend to remember and find more meaningful things that they learn through hands-on experience.  Therefore, students not only gain theoretical knowledge about creative expression, they also have a variety of opportunities to experience their own and others’ creativity.  We move beyond the classroom to visit a local folk potter, and to view the collection at the Birmingham Museum of Art.  Most importantly, the studio lab provides hands-on experience with clay.  Students pinch, coil, paddle, and sculpt forms, decorate with slips, stamps, and incising, and fire their work in a bonfire and in a kiln.  After students grow familiar with the materials, they use the work of the society they are researching as a point of departure for their own creative expression.  The lab serves a variety of functions.  It helps students appreciate the value of creativity in their own lives, and to recognize that they, too, can be creative.  In solving construction and finishing problems, they practice intelligences often neglected in the social science classroom (Gardner 1993).  The labs allow for the direct application of knowledge—students borrow techniques they learn about through their research and make them their own.  Finally, the labs give them an appreciation of the technological expertise of native artists, especially when their own pots blow up in the bonfire firing.  Students with a strong interest in the arts have the opportunity to expand their knowledge in a way that is not usually emphasized in their art classes, while students with very little artistic experience get to explore their own creativity in a non-threatening environment—they are not expected to be artists, just explorers in a new medium.

 

A class like Globalization is a work in progress—it changes each time I teach it.  Rather than viewing this as a hardship, I consider it an opportunity to keep course material fresh, to look for the links between course material and current events, and to let students steer the seminar in directions they find the most interesting.  This flexibility allows students to learn skills and ideas that help them better understand their world and that they can apply to future challenges.  For instance, discussions of the relative benefits and disadvantages of globalization have changed considerably since the .com bust, the debt crisis in countries such as Argentina, and especially since September 11.  Thomas Friedman’s (2000) optimism that world peace is bound to follow on the heels of the global market looks far less plausible than it did even a year ago, and we have to ask hard questions about the feasibility and fairness of global capitalism.

 

In sum, the expectation that students act as experts usually leads to a high degree of engagement in the process of learning, especially when students learn through their own hands-on experiences.

 

Teaching as an opportunity to develop an academic agenda

 

How has teaching the Globalization course helped me as a scholar?  Quite simply, the course has acted as an incubator for my next research project, an ethnographic study of traditional potters in Indonesia.  Although I did not begin teaching the course with this in mind, it is an obvious outcome of the endeavor. The course has allowed me to gain extensive knowledge about a subject at the intersection of my academic and creative skills.  The areas of significance, as well as the gaps in existing knowledge, grow clearer each time I teach.  Just as the data I collect become resources for students, the resources collected by students add to my body of knowledge.  Specifically, I have been compiling references in a database that I make available on the course Website.  Similarly, student research papers have provided me, and other students, with a wealth of knowledge about many different societies.  Last year, I adapted the theme of the course into a research proposal, and I begin collecting data this summer in Indonesia.  My research study will further enrich students’ understanding in the future as I share my experiences in the classroom.  The course has also expanded the scope of my creative work—I am developing a whole new body of coil built, bonfire fired forms that are loosely derived from Native American pottery.

 

Teaching often occurs from the comfortable place of knowledge.  At New College, I have been encouraged to stretch the boundaries of what I know and provided with the resources to make this innovative course possible.  Thus, my journey of discovery as a scholar is not unlike the one I encourage my students to take, as they become experts on globalization and folk craft production.  The teaching paradigm I have outlined above could be applied to any number of topics where the instructor integrates his or her particular skills.  Nor need the globalization course be linked to pottery.  A particularly exciting alternative creative focus would be world music.  Similarly, pottery would be valuable in the study of themes other than globalization, such as the development of complex societies.

 

Summary

 

            In sum, Globalization and Folk Craft Production provides a number of useful models.  First, the course shows that productive teaching and scholarship can emerge from theme-based teaching that explores the intersection of seemingly disparate subjects.  Indeed, it is here that the potential for new knowledge is greatest.  Second, it shows the importance of studying globalization as it affects localities.  This provides the extra advantage of showing students the ways in which their personal lives are influenced by wider global forces.  Third, the course illustrates the benefits of viewing students as experts and learning through experience.  In this way, students become personally engaged in their own learning process.  Fourth, it shows that the classroom can be a learning environment for teachers as well as students, and as such can provide an excellent lab for developing new research projects.  Thus, the tension between teaching and research responsibilities can be eased.
References

 

Anderson, Duane (1999).  All That Glitters: The Emergence of Native American Micaceous Art Pottery in Northern New Mexico. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press.

 

Babcock, Barbara A., Guy Monthan, and Doris Monthan (1986).  The Pueblo Storyteller. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.

 

Babcock, Barbara A. (1993).  At Home, No Womens Are Storytellers: Ceramic Creativity and the Politics of Discourse in Cochiti Pueblo. In Creativity/Anthropology. Smadar Lavie, Kirin Naroyan, and Renato Rosaldo, Eds. Pp. 70-99. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

 

Barley, Nigel            (1994)  Smashing Pots: Works of Clay from Africa.  Washington D.C.:  Smithsonian Institution Press.

 

Diffey, T. J. (1995).  A Note on Some Meanings of the Term ‘Aesthetic’.  British Journal of Aesthetics.  35(1):61-6.

 

Dissanayake, Ellen (1992).  Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes from and Why. New York: Free Press.

 

Duncan, Ronald J. (2000) Crafts, Capitalism, and Women: The Potters of La Chamba, Colombia.  Gainesville, Florida:  University of Florida Press.

 

Errington, Shelly (1998)  The Death of Authentic Primitive Art and Other Tales of Progress.  Berkeley: University of California Press.

 

Friedman, Thomas (1999)  The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Anchor Books.

 

Gardiner, Howard (1993)  Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Second edition. New York: Basic Books

 

Goodman, Nelson (1968).  Languages of Art. Indianapolis:  Bobbs-Merrill.

 

Hannerz, Ulf (1996)  Transnational Connections. New York: Routledge. 

 

Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terrence Ranger (1983)  The Invention of Tradition.  New York:  Cambridge University Press. 

 

Katsuhiko, Izumi (1989)  Whither the Traditions of Local Pottery? Japan Quarterly. 36(3)287-93.

 

Lowell, Susan, Jim Hills, Jorge Quintana Rodriguez, Walter Parks, and Michael Wisner (1999)  The Many Faces of Mata Ortiz. Tucson, Arizona: Treasure Chest Books.

 

McKinnon, Jean (1996)  Vessels of Life: Lombok Earthenware. Bali, Indonesia: Saritaksu Design Communication.

 

Miller, John (1997)  Egotopia. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press.

 

Moeran, Brian (1984)  Lost Innocence: Folk Craft Potters of Onta, Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press.

 

Eyal Ben-Ari, Brian Moeran, and James Valentine (1990)  Making an Exhibition of Oneself: The Anthropologist as Potter in Japan. In Unwrapping Japan: Society and Culture in Anthropological Perspective., eds. Pp. 117-139. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

 

Nash, June (1992)  Introduction: Traditional Arts and Changing Markets in Middle America. In Crafts in the World Market. June Nash, ed. Pp. 1-22. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.

 

Nash, June (1992)  Maya Household Production in the World Market: The Potters of Amatenango del Valle, Chiapas, Mexico. In Crafts in the World Market. ed.  Pp. 127-53. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.

 

Price, Sally (1989)  Primitive Art in Civilized Places. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

Reina, Ruben E. (1963)  The Potter and the Farmer: The Fate of Two Innovators in a Maya Village. Expedition. 5(4):18-31.

 

Witherspoon, Gary (1977)  Language and Art in the Navajo Universe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Pp. 151-78.

 

Yanagi, Soetsu (1972)  The Unknown Craftsman. New York: Kodansha International. Pp. 105-112.