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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bogart, A. (2007). And then, you act: Making art in an unpredictable world. London: Routledge.
British Council. Retrieved on September 20 2018, from https://www.britishcouncil.org/organisation/press/british-council-announces-global-celebration-shakespeare
Cummings, M. C. (2003). Cultural diplomacy and the United States Government: A survey. Washington, DC: Center for Arts and Culture.
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
DCMS. (2018). Annual report and accounts for the year ended 31 march 2018. London: DCMS.
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.
Ford Foundation. (2004). Annual report 2004. [Online]. New York: Ford Foundation. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from https://www.fordfound.org/media/1531/ar2004.pdf
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.
Henze, R. (2016). How globalization affects cultural management. Arts Management Quarterly: Quarterly Journal for the global Perspective in Arts and Business, 124, 19–24.
India@UK. (2017). Retrieved January 7, 2019, from http://indiaatuk2017.com
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
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
Mandel, B. (2017). Arts/cultural management in international contexts. Hildesheim University/Georg Olms Verlag.
Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. PublicAffairs.
Mission Statement: Ministry of Culture India. (2018). Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://indiaculture.nic.in/
Moll, M. (2012). The quintessence of intercultural business communication. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Nye, J. S. (1990). Bound to lead: The changing nature of American power. New York: Basic Books.
Reimagine India: Arts Council England. (2018). Retrieved September 21, 2018, from https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/reimagine-india
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.
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.
Thews, A., & Herke, S. (2018). Paternalism in international collaboration: Food for thought for a code of ethics. Arts Management Quarterly, 129, 35–38.
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/
Van Graan, M. (2018). Beyond curiosity and desire: Towards fairer international collaboration in the arts. Brussels: IETM, On the Move, DutchCulture.
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.
Zitzewitz, K. (2017). Infrastructure as form. Third Text, 31(2–3), 341–358.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jhunjhunwala, R., Walker, A. (2020). Challenging Assumptions in Intercultural Collaborations: Perspectives from India and the UK. In: Durrer, V., Henze, R. (eds) Managing Culture. Sociology of the Arts. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24646-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24646-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24645-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24646-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)