This thought-provoking article points out the fact that how GI certification is not complete, neither it does justice to the realities of production. Kanchipuram Sarees is taken as an example. I could take away two points from the study.
Point 1: Rhetoric of Authenticity
The author talks about GI as a "rhetoric of authenticity influences how artisanal products are valued and marketed " as practiced in Europe.
Authenticity as a Value Proposition: In many markets, the perceived authenticity of a product can significantly enhance its value. Consumers often associate authenticity with quality, tradition, and the preservation of cultural heritage. This is particularly true for artisanal products, where the history, origin, and traditional methods of creation play a crucial role in defining the product's identity and appeal.
Marketing and Perception: Products marketed as "authentic" can attract a premium in the marketplace. This is because consumers are willing to pay more for items that are seen as genuine representations of a culture or tradition. The marketing of products often emphasizes their authenticity to tap into this consumer sentiment, highlighting traditional manufacturing processes, materials, and the cultural significance of the product.
Impact on Artisanal Products: For artisanal products like the Kanchipuram and Arani saris mentioned previously, authenticity becomes a key selling point. Kanchipuram saris, known for their quality and traditional designs, are seen as the gold standard. Saris that do not meet these traditional standards but are marketed under the same name occupy a different niche, appealing to consumers looking for something that appears traditional and authentic but is perhaps more affordable.
Challenges of Authenticity: The emphasis on authenticity also presents challenges. It can lead to strict categorizations of what is considered "authentic," potentially excluding products that innovate or diverge from traditional methods. Additionally, the demand for authentic products can lead to exploitation, where items are marketed as authentic without truly adhering to the traditional criteria, diluting the very concept of authenticity.
Cultural and Economic Implications: The rhetoric of authenticity affects not just the economic value of products but also cultural perceptions. It can elevate certain traditions and crafts to a status that commands respect and preservation, but it can also reinforce rigid definitions of culture that may exclude evolving practices.
Point 2: GI as a standard is destabilized in a production scenario
The Issue of Duplicates and Quality Variation: In the scenario you describe, the production of saris that are marketed under the umbrella of a GI-tagged product (like the Kanchipuram sari) includes versions that do not necessarily meet the high standards or specific criteria that the GI designation is supposed to guarantee. This situation arises when artisans produce variations of the sari that cater to different market segments, often altering the quality to meet different price points.
De-stabilization of the GI Standard: The introduction of such "duplicates" or varied quality versions of the GI-tagged product challenges the integrity of the GI standard. Since the GI tag is meant to assure consumers of a certain level of quality and authenticity tied to a geographical region, the presence of lower-quality versions under the same name can dilute the value of the GI tag and potentially mislead consumers.
Artisan Choice and Market Segmentation: Artisans face a choice between upholding the high standards associated with their GI-tagged products and adapting their practices to produce lower-cost versions for broader market segments. This choice reflects the economic realities and pressures of the market, where there is demand for products at various price points, not just the premium segment that seeks authentic, high-quality artisanal goods.
Implications for GI Policy and Enforcement: Your argument suggests a need for stricter enforcement of GI standards and possibly a reevaluation of how these standards accommodate or discourage variations in quality. It raises questions about the role of GI tags in protecting the reputation of traditional crafts and the livelihoods of artisans while also addressing consumer demand for affordable products.
Balancing Authenticity, Quality, and Accessibility: Ultimately, the challenge lies in balancing the preservation of traditional methods and quality associated with GIs with the need to make these products accessible to a wider audience. This balance requires careful policy considerations, education of consumers about what GI tags represent, and perhaps the introduction of tiered classifications within a GI to acknowledge different quality levels without compromising the integrity of the original GI product.
As quoted by Author:
A Case about Real Zari
A case about Korvai Technique
The injunction to employ the korvai or three-shuttle weave for solid borders in the GI has further exacerbated compliance. The korvai technique requires an apprentice weaver to assist in throwing the third shuttle. Often this apprentice is a younger member of the weaver’s own family contributing to the work in the process of acquiring the skill of silk weaving at an early age. The enforcement of the Child
Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act from the 2000s in Kanchipuram ensures that hiring young apprentices be forbidden by law. New entrants to silk weaving, usually those who have woven in cotton, are either not deft enough to assist in three-shuttle silk weaving or demand much higher wages (equivalent to those of a highly skilled weaver) for a supplementary task. Considered to be laborious, time consuming and not worth the effort, korvai weaving is therefore a difficult and costly proposition for many local producers in Kanchipuram. Many producers have made representations to the government to replace the korvai obligation in the GI with newer, more popular, weaving techniques like the jangla, or patterned weave.
