Making Media Commodities from Cultural Practices

Introduction

Contemporary international development encompasses several themes including environmentalism, sustainable livelihoods, food security, self-empowerment, and cultural expression. Media-related development discourses also engage in such plans and practices for social change. The position of the Global South in development discourses now are constantly reassessed, with claims to culture and identity favoring the South, even as their economic problems prolong their dependence on the North. The ferment apparent in these debates challenges us to question established concepts related to global capitalism, the economics of development, and related issues of power and empowerment. Some of the principal catalysts that prompt these reevaluations are the media, especially those that involve the processes of digitization and communication through the Internet. This article examines the changes online media have brought to development discourse and practices using a case study, and drawing out the double-edged implications of such changes for understanding related concepts such as development aid, capital, entrepreneurship, sustainability, and cultural preservation.

Critical perspectives on media and development emphasize the drawbacks of transforming individual (“native”) cultures into a homogenized modern – the classic cultural imperialism argument. Yet innovative approaches to harnessing global capitalism for local development pose some challenges to the cultural imperialism thesis. This study examines a development corporation’s innovative approach to social and economic change in the developing world by analyzing the organization’s discourses and activities that invoke two interpretations of their efforts – the positive side to taking ownership of developmental paths and the negative side to integrating native cultures into global capitalism. This case offers an empirical reference point for analyzing economic practices involving digitization of cultural practices and the integration of traditional culture into transactional economies for development and social change. The logic behind this operation and the process involved in integrating non-transactional practices into transactional domains raise issues about co-opting indigenous cultural practices in their social forms into an exchange economy, while at the same time opening the door for new definitions of some resources fundamental for social transformations, such as capital, aid, labor, or entrepreneurship. The purpose of this study is to examine such contrasting implications for developing regions, and to suggest an alternate way of seeing indigenous culture as dynamic, as a community resource re-cast into a contemporary framework, and as having the potential to challenge some of the concepts and ideas that constitute dominant understandings of global capitalism.

The case for analysis, a development corporation named Greenstar that maintained an active, copyrighted website as a virtual organization for 10 years (1998–2008) provides an opportunity to examine how new development activities are created by rendering nonmonetary social and cultural practices into commodities. Such cultural practices are often embedded in everyday life and represent a folk culture form, with roots in community traditions and religious practices that characterize community connections, which Appadurai has referred to as “sociality” (1990). The development corporation is a virtual organization that, among a variety of activities, encourages the digitization and sale of cultural practices such as traditional art and oral culture – primarily nonmonetary and noneconomic activities – created by communities in developing regions for a global market. The digitized products are available for sale on the Internet. For this corporation, digitization and the Internet have been instrumental in helping transform local social and cultural non-transactional activities into commodities for sale in the global market. These non-transactional activities are nonmonetary and, in their pre-commodity forms, are carried out in private social spheres. They are also noneconomic in that they are not involved in exchange or barter. This conceptualization of the non-transactional is different from the more mainstream discussions of non-transactional domains which include all “economic” activities not associated directly with some form of monetary exchange, transfer, credit activity, or brokering (a more detailed explanation of Stein’s (2002) distinctions follows). In one view, then, traditional culture becomes another good in the global market. This phenomenon of selling traditional culture as a commodity is not new. It has existed ever since the heritage industry gained prominence. Neither is this organization unique in its activities. Museums and other heritage industries have engaged in this business for decades, and several fair trade, world market shops and businesses now engage in business similar to Greenstar’s. But perhaps what sets organizations like Greenstar apart are their rhetoric as well as efforts to establish traditional culture as an environmentally sound and non-invasive resource for development.

The cultural imperialism argument could view this enterprise as yet another instance of cooptation of the traditional into the modern, and the local into the global. But alternate approaches to understanding the relationship between institutions wielding global power and corresponding local responses can help interpret specific instances that seem to be subverting this global–local hierarchy. Gibson–Graham (2002) point out that the global and the local are more static in this hierarchical conceptualization. They question: the value placed on the idea that the global is unchanging and the local is transforming in response to global forces, the association of the global with capital, and the local with labor; or the global with forward-thinking entrepreneurship and the local with stagnant tradition. The “local” in these dualities frequently refers to the developing world. Greenstar’s arguments problematize this duality and provide the “local” with the power to resist, even work on its own terms with global capital, as part of this study demonstrates. That traditional practices are transformed into media commodities in this case is not in question; rather, the reasons and arguments the development corporation offers suggest new ways of doing development that respond to problems of environmental and other kinds of sustainability.

Broadly, the study attempts to answer the following questions:

What are the processes involved in the transformation of a cultural practice into a cultural commodity in the context of new development activities, within an environment of global capitalism?

To answer these questions, the article is structured as follows: The next section provides a conceptual framework for the key concepts of the study – modernization, transactional, and non-transactional practices. Details on the specific case of Greenstar follow. I select a specific example of a cultural practice, sand paintings from India known as rangoli from the range of Greenstar’s activities, and drawing upon anthropological literature I establish the traditional role and non-transactional nature of this cultural practice. I then discuss the transformation of this practice into commodity forms, and conclude with suggestions for re-assessing development interventions in new forms.

Technology, Social Change, and the Modernization Ethos

Broadly speaking, modernization refers to the conscious effort to transform economically poor (“backward”) regions through various programs in the domains of agriculture, heavy industry, rail and road networks, and various forms of modern media industries, to name a few. The media, in this ethos, are both signifiers and engines of development. Their role was seen by “traditional” modernists as an instrument for dispelling ignorance associated with pre-modern tradition, fostering desires that would help people in the developing world to subscribe to a market economy, and aspire to capitalist democracy as a politically advanced form of governance. The transactional modes of capitalism were embedded in the modernization ethos, and an expectation of unlimited growth that began in the industrial era in Europe (Landes, 2003) was one of the early arguments provided for the development of former colonies. Much was invested in technology and its ability to change and re-shape societies. Equally, trade and exchange were important to this ethos, and nations were drawn into the international economic exchange system by various means. Countries were drawn into transactional relations in the international arena based on the concept of comparative advantage (see, for example, Staniland, 1985, for a comprehensive explanation) where each country would produce and sell to its strengths. Thus, agricultural and industrial products were considered to be comparable according to this concept, regardless of where economic advantage would accrue. The practice of comparative advantage in global trade has come under much criticism for ignoring the uneven relations in this form of transaction, but continues to be followed. ¹ In the modernization ethos, technology and economic exchange were fundamental for the survival of developing regions. This emphasis is now transferred to new media technologies, and its advocates (at the global level) have invested hopes in information communication technologies (ICTs) to move from the industrial economy to the knowledge economy. This combination of economy and technology and a third component—culture—has produced interesting new ways of integrating developing regions into the global market.

Transactional and Non-transactional Domains, and the Media

This section begins with a discussion of transactional and non-transactional domains. To help define these domains, I distinguish between economic non-transactional and non-economic non-transactional domains, to help understand the cultural practices examined in this study.

In a study on types of labor concentration in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, Stein (2002) has analyzed extensively the nature of economic activities. Broadly, transactional economic activities involve direct exchange, whereas activities that do not require engagement with exchange, though they can be considered economic, are not transactional. What Stein identifies as producer services are involved directly with transactional activities. Stein (2002, p. 723) defines services as follows:

“Services are…those activities that neither produce nor physically modify material goods, and the output of such activities cannot be stored, transformed, or owned.”

In this definition, transaction becomes a direct exchange of something for money. It is an activity that links together a discrete chain of steps from manufacture (or supply, in the case of services) to exchange. In Stein’s analysis, economic activities such as research and development or design, for example, are non-transactional because they do not involve the direct transfer of goods or services for money, credit, or other forms of monetary exchange. This is a specific definition of the transactional domain, hinging on the activity itself. Non-transactional domains in this definition are still considered as economic activities.

In this study, the non-transactional cultural practice is also noneconomic in nature. The cultural practice of drawing sand paintings, or rangoli, is primarily women’s work in the private sphere of the home. Activities in this sphere are not priced according to mainstream economic considerations, and feminist economists have pointed out that historically, this omission has contributed significantly to gendering wealth distribution (see, for example, Carr, Chen, & Tate, 2000; Meehan & Riordan, 2002). The distinction these authors make enables us to differentiate between the transactional–economic and the non-transactional, noneconomic. I have used the term “noneconomic” to indicate activities that do not entail formal, monetary transaction.

Carr et al. (2000) analyzed the effect of what they term the global value chain on informal workers (mostly women) and found an “uneven distribution of power and returns” (p. 123). Their analysis is based on the properties of global capitalism, like the greater mobility of capital than labor, the importance of larger firms than smaller firms, and re-shaping production process into a “global assembly line.” Cheap labor in this context is framed as an opportunity for increased income, poverty reduction, and chances for education and changed lifestyles.

This study analyzes a case where sites for development are not selected for cheap labor but for their remoteness, and their location “off-the-grid,” as identified by this corporation. Development aid facilitates the production of cultural goods in these communities. These goods range from digitized oral history and poetry readings on compact discs to using traditional motifs on products such as mugs, bags, and tee shirts. The company argues in its website that these goods will counter a homogenized global McCulture. Further, Greenstar points out that using and mining cultural instead of natural resources can lead to environmentally sustainable development. The company handles payment in exchange for the cultural product. Through digitization, art form transfer (such as patterns on tee shirts), capturing folk tales from oral cultures, poetry, and chants on CD, and with the use of the Internet as both an advertising medium and a distribution mechanism, the company is bringing non-transactional practices into the economic transactional domain.

These cultural practices tend to signify tradition, ritual, and culture-specific communication. I use the term practice to note that these non-transactional activities such as chanting ritual music or relating generational stories, or making sand paintings are constantly being re-defined, even if in minute ways at times. As practices, they are not static but denote dynamic aspects to the local cultures even in pre-modern or pre-contact form (contact with Western modernization). Examining a case will help trace this journey from a cultural practice to a cultural good drawn into the transactional domain.

Transforming the Non-transactional into the Transactional through the Media: Greenstar’s Use of Rangoli

Greenstar, Inc., is a corporation with private shareholders and is based in Massachusetts, USA. It is a virtual organization with a large and complex website in which the company explains the ethos, philosophy, e-commerce, and aid efforts to encourage sustainable development. The company’s Board of Directors is highly diverse, drawing members worldwide and from diverse professions such as law, social work, media, medicine, and engineering.

Greenstar provides funds (usually to the tune of USD25,000) to small communities in remote areas of the Global South, and helps them set up solar-sourced power for various community needs, from providing electricity for refrigerators to store vaccines to powering computers to help access health information and in general, serve as an important community information hub, or provide an energy source for the community’s water supply. In return, communities draw from the reservoir of their culture and tradition, make products out of their cultural practices and sell them on the Internet through Greenstar. For example, they may produce CDs out of folk songs or oral histories. They may provide traditional designs in various forms and from various sources for imprinting on modern products like tee shirts and caps. The products either have a digital component to them or are manufactured elsewhere, and catalogued and then sold on the Internet. In this way they make their culture available in digital form on the Internet, as products available to a global market.

The company does not expect repayment of the investment in the traditional lending sense. It manages the Web sales and charges a transaction fee on purchases. The communities receive a part of the profit, the corporation distributes a part of it to shareholders, and another part is used for re-investing in other such ventures. Over time, the plan is for the company to decrease its share of the profits accrued from product sales, thereby increasing the communities’ revenue.

On its website, Greenstar argues persuasively for its brand of sustainable development, about the sustainable nature of its way of “doing” development, and ethical nature of its approach. Communities off the grid are drawn into the grid on their terms, and become Greenstar’s “partners in change.”

I have looked specifically at one practice – sand paintings from India – that have served as design sources for other products sold by Greenstar on behalf of the communities. This sand painting form is common across India and is known as rangoli in Karnataka, kolam in Tamil Nadu and by other names in other parts of India. Drawing rangoli designs begins with cleaning the front yard of the house each morning at dawn, to prepare the ground for the design of the day. Apartment residents have adapted this culture to contemporary living in interesting ways. They have a tile or a part of the floor area by the front door permanently painted with a rangoli design and may enhance it with color powder or flower petals during festival days. The designs are drawn with rice powder, and colored powder or paste is used to fill the white outlines on festival days (see Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Source: Author.

The designs change, depending on the mood of the woman (usually the female head of household, or the daughter-in-law or daughter) of the house who makes the rangoli, a particular pattern learned from a friend or patterns specific to each festival. There are many different, formalized designs. Some involve a mathematically calculated set of dots and loops that talented and experienced rangoli artists draw with one stroke, meaning that no line is drawn over twice (see Figure 2 for an example of a geometric design).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Source: Author.

For the rangoli to fall into place, the design size has to be optimal, and the person drawing the design has to have control over the amount of flour she takes in a pinch between forefinger and thumb, and finally, the design depends on how artfully she releases the correct amount of flour to make a visible line. This is mainly a female domain with women drawing rangoli patterns in and out of the house (such patterns are also drawn at the altar in many Hindu households).

The rangoli has been described as “an interweaving of religion and private worship, public ritual, and ephemeral art.” ² Festival days are especially important in that the designs are drawn with care and pride, and become almost a competition to display the artistic abilities in each household. A negotiation between the personal and the public is also apparent in rangoli drawing – drawing popular festival patterns alternating with patterns relating to one’s choice of Hindu deity for personal worship. Drawn at the threshold of the home, this painting or drawing also symbolizes a sign of protection for the home and household. Milford-Lutzker (1999) observes that there are “aesthetic and iconographic canons” that are very much part of this practice, yet the dynamic aspect comes from personalization of this art in adapting old designs and creating new ones. Their purpose, however, remains the same. In spite of the strong social and cultural presence and role of the rangoli in contemporary South Indian culture, rangoli designs have not escaped commercialization in India. Booklets of rangoli designs are inserted in weekly or biweekly magazines targeted at homemakers, especially in special issues preceding festival days. If the magazine is purchased, the booklet is available free of cost.

Greenstar’s activities in India have enabled the company to use this aesthetic, specifically an interpretive design of the lotus flower in its products. The lotus imprint is a graphic, red in color (considered auspicious), and suggests a rangoli style. The products are advertised as being distinct because their original version appears in sand painting designs.

The distribution mechanism which partly defines its transactional and commodity status, is the Internet. The medium is also involved in this transformation of the cultural to the commercial, “where…its value [becomes] based on what the product can command in exchange” (Mosco, 2009). From a cultural symbol, this design has now acquired a transactional value.

Changing Definitions

Greenstar’s approach to development, as a for-profit corporation, is capitalistic. Its investment of capital in communities is done without expectation of return of the investment in full, although the website implies a hope that something will be recouped from sales for future investments. Because of this expectation, the capital investment cannot be deemed a gift or donation. Classifying this capital investment as development aid per se would be incorrect, since there is no interest rate charged, nor is the return of the full amount spelled out as such in the website. Such investments challenge current terminologies of capital and aid.

The case also suggests some interpretations of the concept of “labor.” Even in its varied applications, the term retains its meaning of human effort, both physical and/or mental, exchanged for wages in order to produce a range of things, from physical to semiotic goods. In Marx’s terms, labor is the value-creating substance in a commodity (Mosco, 2009). The labor involved in producing these cultural artifacts is presented more as voluntary and as under control of the communities—in terms of choice of product, as well as retention of copyright, in many cases. Persuading rural communities along these lines, Greenstar works to discourage people from off-the-grid rural communities from migrating to urban areas since in reality the prospects are bleak, living conditions are impossible, and they are driven to living on what Greenstar calls “sweatshop paychecks.” But flexible labor allows community members to work at their chosen pace (unlike the work cycle of the post-industrial pace), and eventually claim ownership of the enterprise. Greenstar argues on its website that this labor – because of the choice of products left to the communities – along with the capital Greenstar provides, turns community members into entrepreneurs who control the production.

The concept of use value, as defined by Mosco (2009) is the value derived from the satisfaction of a specific want or need. Arguably, the cultural purpose of the rangoli extends beyond this definition, in the sense that a complex of wants and needs is satisfied. It fulfills specific functions within the culture, and although some exchange may be involved (designs for designs, or designs for which homemakers thank with something else, in kind), it takes place as social reciprocity, is non-economic, and fosters social relationships between the two parties that extend beyond exchange. When transformed into a commodity, the practice acquires exchange value, and the design also acquires value based on what it can command in the market (Mosco, 2009). The moral questions this transformation raises have to do with losing culture to a global market, or looking at the market as an enabler, for giving remote communities the opportunity to enter the global market game. But this also raises a third question: might there be something in between, where multiple actors define markets (and not through competition)?

Surplus value, or profit, plays an interesting role in this case. Besides benefiting shareholders, it also benefits community members who do not represent “labor” in the traditional sense. Producers in the community are presented as an important constituent for sharing profits. Traditionally, surplus value has served as a marker for wealth, and certainly for development. Programs aimed at poverty reduction are concerned with going beyond alleviating poverty, and putting into place more wealth-generating mechanisms, such as investments in education that would eventually lead to the creation and maintenance of mature capitalist economies. This traditional definition of surplus value does not necessarily involve an equitable distribution of wealth. However, the Greenstar case seems to present a different proposition – wealth for all concerned through capitalist partnership, environmentally friendly projects, and a place for the culture of developing countries in the developed world.

Conclusion

This case study provides an idea of the questions raised by a new entity – the development corporation, and its novel development interventions based on the potential of the Internet. As Akindola (2009) points out, poverty is “multidimensional” and Greenstar argues for tackling several of these dimensions through their intervention projects. The company’s arguments in its website address a range of theoretical and practical issues, and emphasize the environment-friendly, debt-free way to development promoted by them. As Gibson–Graham (2002, p. 37) suggest, perhaps an adequate language with which to represent the variety of production relations, transactions, markets, property, and other relations that make up the contemporary global economic world is yet to emerge. In their view, global capitalism consists of increasingly constrained vocabulary and meanings. This case suggests a reassessment of ideas such as the following: the conversion of a cultural practice to exchange value through commodification; the convergence of the concepts of labor and entrepreneurship; arguments for culture as material capital, and in relation to it, of surplus value as an important marker of development. Development interventions operating with these definitions could potentially lead to new pathways for social change.