Chapter 6. Resilience Capacity of the Craft and Design Practice
6.1 Identifying Four Elements Behind the Resilience of the Design and Craft Practice
6.1.4 The roles of the enduring tradition
negotiation processes. In this element, I accentuate a shared understanding of the practice of craft and design that influences the decisions of all the actors. For instance, all the actors in this case study reflected their commitment to develop traditional craft products by employing the design methodology; however, the informal environment and the flexibility and fluidity during the production process are unavoidable. Moreover, various traditional elements of traditional craft products also remain in new designs of the craft products, such as the new lamp design from Amygdala, which still retains major elements and part of the form of the birdcage (see Figure 22).
Figure 22. The birdcage (left) and the new lamp design by Amgydala Studio (right) (source:
Author).
One of the strategies to overcome this obstacle is for designers and craftsmen frequently to incorporate the local craft tradition by shifting it as a resource to cultivate new designs. For instance, the Amygdala lamp design adopted various components of the birdcage; thus, a large number of craftsmen can make the lamp. Against this background, I could say, the enduring tradition has a dual role: on the one hand, it might hinder the radical innovation of design, but on the other, it facilitates designers and craftsmen to incorporate innovation into their designing process, and to turn it into a potential resource for their work. In other words, although the
traditions in craft villages might impede radical change in the redesigning process of traditional craft products, the designers and craftsmen adapted the traditional value and existing components of craft products to their new work to adapt to the market needs.
6.2 Four Elements Underpinning the resilience of the Craft and Design Practice
Through studying the resilience of the craft and design practice, we may find that it is possible to integrate the four elements, allowing us to consider holistically how wider contextual influences affect and inform the activities of design and practice, and how incremental change on the institutional level might be the result of active engagement of the designing practice at the micro level. This research sheds light on the rebounding process of the craft and design practice from austerity, which resulted from the dynamic interactivity between microscale craft and design activities and their engagement with macroscale activities at the institutional level.
Furthermore, this research highlights the strategies of the actors at the micro level to bring design innovation and to overcome the obstacles that might challenge and hamper the ability of craft and design to survive.
I have arranged the four elements that underpin the resilience capacity of the value of craft and design practice in Figure 23. Among the proponents of the participatory design in the design studies, there is a tendency to neglect political and institutional influence and to situate them as inert backdrops. The institutional factor is unavoidable, and we need to understand how it informs each actor who wants to cultivate and redevelop the craft and design practice.
Figure 23. The resilience of the value of the craft and design practice (source: Author).
As Figure 23 shows, the institutional background, its dynamic interactivity, and the enduring tradition are near the outer ring. They explain how the two elements provide a strong contextual influence on the actors who carry out the microscale activities located near the inner ring. The consequence of the participatory design approach in the social design projects varies, as many actors from diverse institutions bring their own cultural backgrounds, as well as their different expertise, and this might raise some obstacles to the success of the activities at the micro level of the design process. This systematic process from the macro level of institutions to the micro level of activities has strongly underpinned the craft and design practice as it has rebounded from an adverse situation.
The resilience capacity of craft and design practice is the result of the dynamic entanglement of all the actors from the various institutions in the practice. For instance, the presence and absence of the four institutions in the development of craft and design practice throughout the period in the historical trajectory helps us to identify how the wider political and historical circumstances surrounding at the meso- and macrolevel institutions strongly affect the perceptions and actions of each actor in various institutions, as well as its effect on the dynamic value of craft and design practice. Examples are the position of the design schools in ITB and the gradual transformation of the craft and design pedagogy in relation to the development of national policy in the Suharto period. Other examples are the emergence of the craft and design communities in opposition to industrial designers when the government was focusing on
developing the manufacturing industries, and the prevalence of manufacturing products in the 1990s, causing declining interest in craft and design practice. Identifying the presence or absence of each actor in the ups and downs of the of craft and design history helps us to identify how the value of craft and design has continuously transformed over time.
Meanwhile, the enduring tradition, consisting of the cultural, social, and economic context at the regional and local levels, has also influenced the practice of craft at the micro level. The activities of craft and design that largely occur in the regions compelled us to
acknowledge the enduring tradition behind the craft village. The sociocultural structure of each place in which the design and craft practice takes place supports the flexibility to produce a product, the trust among the craftsmen and designers, the informal communication, and other activities at the micro level of activities in the craft villages in Garut and Bali. The flexibility and informality that underpin the collaborative work of craftsmen and designers are in line with Turner’s (2013) identification of the character of small enterprise in Indonesia, which involves flexibility, trust, and collective value among the people in a particular place. The characteristic
of each village and its tradition might influence the micro scale of activities negatively or positively.
In general, the design process on the micropolitical scale needs to restore engagement with wider contextual influences as diverse actors from institutions have active involvement in the transformation process of the artefact. This is because the actions of each actor, such as the policy of the governments, the influence of the academic research outcome, the social and cultural context of the craft villages, and the movements of the design and craft activist, have a crucial impact on the daily activity of craft and design. The study of how the value of craft and design practice has redeveloped over time due to various different institutions helps us to understand the dynamic interaction of the micro- and macropolitical levels of design and craft practice, where designers and other actors play roles to create a new institution or to reconfigure the existing institution (Huybrechts et al., 2017). Therefore, it is necessary to explore the institutional and political environment surrounding the activities of craft and design thoroughly.
After identifying the political and institutional influence, we may thoroughly explore activities at the micro level, the ability of the actors from each institution to carry out resourceful strategies, and the reconciliation process of diverse frames due to of the entanglement of actors in the craft and design practice. Researchers have developed the process of bringing a
democratic way of design and avoiding the coercion of groups of people by the expertise of a single actor during the designing process and in the participatory design discourse (Melles, Vere,
& Misic, 2011; Thorpe & Gamman, 2011). This dissertation has identified the diverse frames and thoughts of the actors from each institution, which can sometimes lead to deadlock and hinder the designing process. This is due to their different educational, cultural, and social backgrounds, as well as their perceptions of traditional craft products. For instance, in Chapter 4, when designers, craftsmen, and the design center attempted to penetrate various markets, they
faced constraints from limited time, market demands, and more particularly, different ways of thinking when identifying a problem and formulating its solution.
I have highlighted the capability of the actors to identify their differences and to acknowledge their expertise, so that they can adjust and negotiate their differences using sociotechnical organizing tools (e.g., the design progress report or the regular meeting
evaluation). On the one hand, this limits the conflict between diverse frames of thinking, but on the other hand, it retains the flexibility for designers and craftsmen to work in an open-ended designing process and to acknowledge the serendipity. This sociotechnical organization also reduces the risk of downplaying the capacity of each actor by its ability to relinquish the
expertise of the designers to another actors. For instance, with the mood board in use during the initial stage of design in Cilacap (Chapter 4), both the designer and craftsmen could
collaboratively imagine future products, contribute their thought and skills to realize the products, and avoid an authoritative way of designing from a single lens of opinion. Another example is the designing progress report, which is also a platform for designers, craftsmen, and the design center to follow up their tasks without hesitation. In other words, the sociotechnical organization enables designers, craftsmen, and other participants to overcome hindering factors, such as different ways of thinking between the actors, as well as allowing them to cope with the constraining time.
The final important aspect at the micro level of activities is the resourceful strategies of the designers and craftsmen, which have two important aspects. First, the flexibility to produce a wide range of design outcomes. For instance, instead of overemphasizing the mass-production of a particular craft product, the designers and craftsmen in Garut and Bali avoid bulk demands, while serving customized demands. In fact, through producing a diverse range of outcomes, the designers and craftsmen are always conducting new experiments and creating new products, followed by never-ending trial and error attempts. Moreover, this also provides a learning
opportunity for both designers and craftsmen to understand ongoing trends, while at the same time keeping up with new materials and technological development. Second, the geographical distance between designers and craftsmen provides advantages for them to combine the
resources available where they live, such as the natural materials and skills in the village, and the available technology, such as the laser-cut machine or 3D printer, in the city. Both designers and craftsmen can optimize the available sociotechnical resources surrounding their location, and they can combine them during the design and production process.
In sum, discussions on the numbers of designers and craftsmen who work on a daily basis, the academics in the design schools who conduct research on the topic of craft and design, as well as varying governmental institutions illuminate the query on the resilience capacity of the core values of the craft and design practice resulting from the dynamic interactivity between the micro and macro levels of activities. The macrosociological influence might impinge on the transformation and innovation process in the craft and design practice; however, the participatory approach can overcome this factor and enable the involvement of various actors during the designing process. It is possible to carry out resourceful strategies and the reconciliation of the diverse thinking and needs that go into the daily work of the craft and design production under the strong influence of the tradition and the sociocultural circumstances in the craft villages, such as trust building, family, and friendship connections, which are imperative to sustain the craft and design practice at large. Meanwhile, activities at the micro level will strongly affect the gradual and incremental institutional transformation due to the active engagement of the actors to influence the outcome at the institutional level.
6.3 Conclusion
By exploring the resilience capacity of the craft and design practice in Indonesia, I have attempted to contribute to the ongoing discursive moment on design studies focusing on the
contribution of design to social innovation through the participatory design approach, by attending to the dynamic interaction between the micro scale of activity and its surrounding institutional complex. I have tried to delineate the historical trajectory of the craft and design practice in Indonesia to describe the dynamic construction of its value with four main institutions over time. I have also thoroughly explored the daily activities at the design studio and the craft workshop to illuminate the rebounding value of craft and design, which many once regarded as an obsolete practice. Others may extend this research by making a comparative study of similar cases not only in Indonesia, but also in other regions of the world.
The concept I have examined in this dissertation allows design practitioners or design researchers to explore complex interactions in detail, not only focusing on making a democratic design process, but also being cognizant of the strong institutional influence at the macropolitical level. For instance, the elements of institutional background and reconciliation of diverse frames have close relationships with each other, as design interventions often work across institutions in short-term or long-term projects. It is possible to explore the elements of the resourceful
strategies and the enduring tradition concomitantly to see how the actors can evaluate the adverse situation and iteratively formulate resourceful solutions by keeping the equilibrium between the rigorous needs of radical innovation and the enduring tradition that frequently impedes and hinders the transformation process.
I began this research by drawing on various theoretical frameworks, from the discourse of resilience on the sociotechnical system to the ongoing discursive moment of social design. As design interventions and design practice involving various people and institutions are increasing, exploring the resilience capacity of the design practice itself may foster fertile ground in the design discourse, especially in the context of addressing the social problem, as the designers will be entangled with varied ranges of people in the field. Further research will be necessary, especially to examine the everyday practice of craftsmen without the presence of designers,
which I wish to address in subsequent research, when they are independently capable of
connecting with various type of markets globally and locally, and how they deal with changing market needs.
In sum, this research has provided a means to understand the resilience capability of designers and craftsmen in the context of social design, which has the potential for continued investigation. The implications of the practice and research of social design are significant, as they can move interchangeably from the micro scale to the macro scale of institution.
References
Agid, S. (2018). ‘Dismantle, change, build’: Designing abolition at the intersections of local, large-scale, and imagined infrastructures. Design Studies, 59, 95-116.
doi:10.1016/j.destud.2018.05.006.
Akrich, M. (1997). The De-Scription of Technical Objects. In Bijker, W.E., Law, J. (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (pp. 205-224).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Amir, S. (2002). Industrial Design in Indonesia: Education, Industry, and Policy. Design Issues 18(1), 36-48.
Amir, S. (2004). Rethinking Design Policy in the Third World. Design Issues 20(4), 68-75.
Amir, S. (2013). The technological state in Indonesia: The co-constitution of high technology and authoritarian politics. Singapore: Routledge.
Amir, S. (2018) Introduction: Resilience as Sociotechnical Construct. In Sulfikar Amir (ed.), The Sociotechnical Constitution of Resilience: A New Perspective on Governing Risk and Disaster (pp. 1-16) Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Armstrong, L., Bailey, J., Julier, G., Kimbell, L. (2014) Social Design Futures: HEI Research and the AHRC. Brighton: University of Brighton.
Bayazit, N. (2004). Investigating Design: A Review of Forty Years of Design Research. Design Issues,20(1), 16-29. doi:10.1162/074793604772933739
Barker, J. (2005). Engineers and political dreams: Indonesia in the satellite age. Current Anthropology 46(5), 703-727.
Berry, A., Rodriguez, E., & Sandee, H. (2002). Firm and Group Dynamics in the Small and Medium Enterprise Sector in Indonesia. Small Firm Dynamism in East Asia,141-161.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-0963-9_8
Binder, T., Brandt, E., Ehn, P., & Halse, J. (2015). Democratic design experiments: between parliament and laboratory. CoDesign 11(3-4), 152-165.
Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P., & Pinch, T.J. (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Bijker, W.E. (1995). Of bicycles, Bakelites and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bjorgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.A. (2012) Agonistic participatory design: working with marginalised social movements. CoDesign 8(2-3), 127-144.
Bonsiepe, G. (1991) Developing Countries: Awareness of Design and the Peripheral Condition.
Borggreen, G. (2006). Ruins of the Future: Yanobe Kenji Revisits Expo ‘70. Performance Paradigm 2, 123-136.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. S.1.: HarperCollins Publishers.
Brown, T., Wyatt, J. (2010). Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review (winter), 31-35.
Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In Bijker, W.E., Huges T.J, Pinch, T.P (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 83-103). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chen, D.-S., Lu-Lin, C., Hummels, C., & Koskinen, I. (2016). Social Design: An Introduction.
International Journal of Design 10(1), 1–5.
Chudasri, D., Walker, S., & Evans, M. (2012). An Overview of the Issues facing the Craft Industry and the Potential for Design, with a Case Study in Upper Northern Thailand. Proceeding of DRS 2012 Bangkok, 1-13.
Clarke, A. J. (2018). Design Anthropology: Object Cultures in Transition. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 15(3), 371-386.
Cowley, R., Barnett, C., Katzschner, T., Tkacz, N., & De Boeck, F. (2018). Forum: Resilience and Design. Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses 6(1), 1-34.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.
Chutia, L.J., & Sarma, M.K. (2016). Commercialization of Traditional Crafts of South and South East Asia: A Conceptual Model based on Review of Literature. IIM Kozhikode Society &
Management Review 5(2), 107–119.
Disalvo, C., Lodato, T., Fries, L., Schechter, B., & Barnwell, T. (2011). The collective articulation of issues as design practice. CoDesign 7(3-4), 185-197.
Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design issues 22(3), 4-17.
Er, H.A. (1997). Development Patterns of Industrial Design in the Third World: A Conceptual Model for Newly Industrialized Countries. Journal of Design History 10(3): 293-307.
Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Durham: Duke University Press.
Farias, I., & Blok, A. (2017). STS in the City. In U. Felt, R. Fouche, C. A. Miller, & L. Smith-Doerr (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 555–581). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fukushima, M. (2016). Resilience in Scientific Research: Understanding How Natural Product Research Rebounded in an Adverse Situation. Science as Culture 25(2), 167-192.
Gallopin, G. C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change 16(3), 293–303.
Gardner, W. O. (2011). The 1970 Osaka Expo and/as Science Fiction. Review of Japanese Culture and Society, 26-43.
Geertz, C. (1963). Peddlers and princes: Social development and economic change in two Indonesian towns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Geertz, C. (1980). Negara: The theatre state in 19th century Bali. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gibson-Graham, J. K., Cameron, J., & Healy, S. (2013). Take back the economy: An ethical guide for transforming our communities. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Haldrup, S.V., & Rosen, F. (2013). Developing resilience: a retreat from grand planning.
Resilience 1(2), 130-145.
Healy, S. & Mesman, J. (2014). Resilience: Contingency, Complexity and Practice. In A.
Hommels, W. Bijker and J. Mesman (Eds.), Vulnerability in Technological Cultures: New Directions in Research and Governance (155–177). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hillgren, P. A., Seravalli, A., & Emilson, A. (2011). Prototyping and infrastructuring in design for social innovation. CoDesign 7(3-4), 169-183.
Hill, D. T., & Sen, K. (2005). The Internet in Indonesia's new democracy. London:
RoutledgeCurzon.
Huybrechts, L., Benesch, H., & Geib, J. (2017). Institutioning: Participatory Design, Co-Design and the public realm. CoDesign 13(3), 148-159.
Hommels, A. (2005). Studying Obduracy in the City: Toward a Productive Fusion between Technology Studies and Urban Studies. Science, Technology, & Human Values 30(3), 323-351.
Hommels, A. (2008). Unbuilding Cities: Obduracy in Urban Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hommels, A. (2018). How Resilience Discourses Shape Cities: The Case of Resilient Rotterdam.
In Sulfikar Amir (Ed.), The Sociotechnical Constitution of Resilience: A New Perspective on Governing Risk and Disaster (pp. 265-284). Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Huq, M., & Sultan, M. (1991). 'Informality' in Development: The Poor as Entrepreneurs in Bangladesh. In A. Chickering, & M. Salahdine (Eds.) The Silent Revolution. The Informal Sector in Five Asian and Near Eastern Countries (pp. 145-184). California: International Center for Economic Growth.
Holroyd, A.T., Cassidy, T., Evans, M., & Walker, S. (2017). Wrestling with Tradition:
Revitalizing the Orkney Chair and Other Culturally Significant Crafts. Design and Culture 9(3), 283-299.
Holling, C.S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4, 1-23.
Jagtap, S., & Larsson, A. (2014). How design process for the Base of the Pyramid differs from that for the Top of the Pyramid. Design Studies 35, 527-558.
Janzer, C. L., & Weinsten, L.S. (2014) Social Design and Neocolonialism. Design and Culture 6(3), 327-344.
Julier, G. (2013). From Design Culture to Design Activism. Design and Culture 5(2), 215-236 Kant, V., & Tasic., J. (2018). Mapping Sociotechnical Resilience. In Sulfikar Amir (Ed.), The
Sociotechnical Constitution of Resilience: A New Perspective on Governing Risk and Disaster (pp. 67-90). Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Junaidy, D. W., & Nagai, Y. (2013). The in-depth cognitive levels of imagination of artisans and designers. Journal of Design Research 11(4), 317-335.
Karasti, H., & Baker, K.S. (2004). Infrastructuring for the Long-Term: Ecological Information Management. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences – 2004, 1-10.
Kaya, C., & Yagiz, B. (2011). Design in Informal Economies: Craft Neighborhoods in Istanbul.
Design Issues 27(2), 59-71.
Kimbell, L. (2011). "Rethinking design thinking: Part I." Design and Culture 3(3), 285-306.
Koskinen, I. & Hush, G. (2016). Utopian, Molecular, and Sociological Social Design.
International Journal of Design 10(1), 65-71.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Le Dantec, C.A., & Disalvo, C. (2013). Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design. Social Studies of Science 43(2), 241-264.
Lenskjold, T.U., Olander, S., & Halse, J. (2015). Minor Design Activism: Prompting Change from Within. Design Issues 31(4), 67-78.
Lubell, H. (1991). The Informal sector in the 1980s and 1990s. Paris: Development Centre of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
McKnight, J., & Kretzmann, J. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research Neighbourhood Innovations Network.
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The social shaping of technology. Open University Press.
Malasan, P. L. (2017). Feeding a Crowd: Hybridity and the Social Infrastructure behind Street Food Creation in Bandung, Indonesia. Southeast Asian Studies 6(3), 505-529.
Manzini, E. (2014). Making things happen: Social innovation and design. Design Issues 30(1), 57-66.
Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Manzini, E., & Rizzo, F. (2011). Small projects/large changes: Participatory design as an open participated process. CoDesign 7(3-4), 199-215.