Advertisement

Challenging Assumptions in Intercultural Collaborations: Perspectives from India and the UK

  • Ruhi Jhunjhunwala
  • Amy Walker
Chapter
Part of the Sociology of the Arts book series (SOA)

Abstract

This chapter questions whether many of the intercultural collaboration and exchange programmes that seek to enable dialogue and mutual understanding across cultures frequently perpetuate assumptions and maintain inequitable relationships between partners. Using examples from the personal experiences of their work on international collaborative arts programmes, the authors discuss how the ripple effects of cultural diplomacy and international development funding, while crucial to the sector, can reinforce dominant practices affecting both the structural elements of India-UK collaborative arts programming—allocation of resources, leadership and delivery—as well as the creative content. The chapter also considers whether cultural practitioners can work within, navigate and benefit from initiatives and opportunities in these fields whilst challenging international power dynamics and colonial hierarchies.

References

  1. Bogart, A. (2007). And then, you act: Making art in an unpredictable world. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cummings, M. C. (2003). Cultural diplomacy and the United States Government: A survey. Washington, DC: Center for Arts and Culture.Google Scholar
  3. Das, S. (2018). India should consider cultural exchanges much more diverse than British. The Wire, October 15. Retrieved February 7, 2019, from https://thewire.in/the-arts/catherine-david-interview-art
  4. DCMS. (2018). Annual report and accounts for the year ended 31 march 2018. London: DCMS.Google Scholar
  5. Doeser, J., & Nisbett, M. (2017). The art of soft power: A study of cultural diplomacy at the United Nations Office in Geneva. London: King’s College London.Google Scholar
  6. Ford Foundation. (2004). Annual report 2004. [Online]. New York: Ford Foundation. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from https://www.fordfound.org/media/1531/ar2004.pdf
  7. Hampel, A. (2017). Fair cooperation: A new paradigm for cultural diplomacy and arts management (ENCATC Book Series: Cultural Management and Cultural Policy Exchange, Vol. 3). Brussels, Berlin, Frankfurt, New York and Oxford: P.I.E. Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Henze, R. (2016). How globalization affects cultural management. Arts Management Quarterly: Quarterly Journal for the global Perspective in Arts and Business, 124, 19–24.Google Scholar
  9. India@UK. (2017). Retrieved January 7, 2019, from http://indiaatuk2017.com
  10. International Development. (2011). In T. Diez, I. Bode, & A. Fernandes (Eds.), SAGE key concepts series: Key concepts in international relations. [Online]. London: Sage. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from https://search-credoreference-com.gold.idm.oclc.org/content/entry/sageukkcinre/international_development/0?institutionId=1872
  11. Ipsos MORI. (2014). As others see us: Culture, attraction and soft power. London: British Council. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/as-others-see-us-report-v3.pdf
  12. Mandel, B. (2017). Arts/cultural management in international contexts. Hildesheim University/Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
  14. Mission Statement: Ministry of Culture India. (2018). Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://indiaculture.nic.in/
  15. Moll, M. (2012). The quintessence of intercultural business communication. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nye, J. S. (1990). Bound to lead: The changing nature of American power. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Reimagine India: Arts Council England. (2018). Retrieved September 21, 2018, from https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/reimagine-india
  18. Rousselin, M. (2017). Can asymmetrical cooperation be legitimised? Habermas, Foucault and Spivak on German-Tunisian Cooperation in higher education (ifa Edition Culture and Foreign Policy). Stuttgart: ifa.Google Scholar
  19. Stupples, P. (2015). Accounting for art in international development: Insights from artists’ initiatives in Central America. In L. MacDowall, M. Badham, E. Blomkamp, & K. Dunphy (Eds.), Making culture count. New directions in cultural policy research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Thews, A., & Herke, S. (2018). Paternalism in international collaboration: Food for thought for a code of ethics. Arts Management Quarterly, 129, 35–38.Google Scholar
  21. Thomas, M. (2018). British museums are full of Indian history. Now, they’re finally getting Indian-origin curators. Quartz, November 30. [Online]. Retrieved February 5, 2019, from https://qz.com/india/1477396/british-museums-sushma-jansari-on-indians-in-the-arts/
  22. Van Graan, M. (2018). Beyond curiosity and desire: Towards fairer international collaboration in the arts. Brussels: IETM, On the Move, DutchCulture.Google Scholar
  23. Vickery, J. (2017). Since internationalism: Diplomacy, ideology, and a political agency for culture. In M. Dragićević-Šešić, L. Rogač Mijatović, & N. Mihaljinac (Eds.), Cultural diplomacy: Arts, festivals and geopolitics. Creative Europe Desk Serbia.Google Scholar
  24. Zitzewitz, K. (2017). Infrastructure as form. Third Text, 31(2–3), 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruhi Jhunjhunwala
    • 1
    • 2
  • Amy Walker
    • 2
  1. 1.BangaloreIndia
  2. 2.LondonUK

Personalised recommendations