814.529 Analyzing Local Rural Systems SS 2013
Analyzing Local Rural Systems
Assignment
Astikainen Heidi Tiia Elina
Auer Oliver
Bröthaler Andrea
Chudíková Mária
Metzger Birgit
SS 2013
Alpen Adria Universität, AAU
Lecturers: Willi Haas, Simron Jit
814.529 Analyzing Local Rural Systems SS 2013
2
Contents:
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
2. Method..............................................................................................................................................3
3. The Informant...................................................................................................................................4
4. Findings............................................................................................................................................5
4.1. The Sustainability of an Alternative Pottery.....................................................................5
4.2. Boundaries of the Local System........................................................................................6
4.3. Ceramics Transitions.........................................................................................................6
4.4. Stocks and Flows of a Pottery...........................................................................................7
4.5. The Symbiosis of a Handcraft and a Biosphere Reserve..................................................8
5. Reflection.........................................................................................................................................8
6. Sources...........................................................................................................................................10
814.529 Analyzing Local Rural Systems SS 2013
3
1. Introduction:
We interviewed two potters of the village Klikov, Martin Hadrava and Martin Hanuš. Originally
they are both from Prag. They are doing workshops in Klikov and also producing ceramics which
they sell in the shop of Marta Pozníčková and on big ceramic markets outside of the village four
times a year.
Pottery is a very old tradition in Klikov. In former time lots of potters lived in Klikov and in the
area around the village. Until today Klikov is known of its potter traditions. But Marta Pozníčková,
Martin Hadrava and Martin Hanuš are the only potters left in the village. We wanted to know, how
the local structures are influenced by their actions. Through their workshops they attract tourists,
who will come to the region. We wanted to find out, what impact this tourism has on the village and
the surrounding region and how Martin Hadrava and Martin Hanuš perceive their actions in
association with the developing of the village.
Also we wanted to investigate in sustainability issues concerning the pottery and the potters’
sensibility for this topic. Therefore we asked them about the biosphere reserve of Třeboňsko and
their opinion living in a biosphere reserve. Also we investigated in their material flows concerning
recourses for production like clay or wood for firing the kiln. Also we were interested in money
flows. Do they take the money they earn in Klikov to Prag and spend it there? Or is the money kept
in the local system?
In our case sustainability aspects of the pottery in the context of the local level were the economic
and the cultural aspects. Through the pottery the village experiences some economic benefits due to
local money flows and tourists being attracted by the practice of old traditions. This aspect and the
circumstance of being in a biosphere reserve contribute to a softer and probably more sustainable
kind of tourism. And this in turn enables the village to keep up its local structure without being
endangered by rural depopulation.
2. Method:
Our team consists of five people. We have quite different backgrounds. Therefore we have also
diverse approaches and understanding the situation from different points of view. We look at the
case of our potters from various perspectives. Such as anthropological, economical, social and
ecological as well. Since we all had different experiences with doing interviews and researches we
all participated equally. All of us posed questions to Martin Hadrava and Martin Hanuš. We made a
814.529 Analyzing Local Rural Systems SS 2013
4
structure according to which we were trying to get as much information in a about two hours as
possible. One of us took notes so that it does not affect the flow of the overall interview. The
interview setting was very comfortable in the house of Martin, one of the potters. They were ready
to talk, ready for us and gave us some tea to drink which made the moment quite special. Since the
house is near a little lake and woods it was quite magical. Martin Hanuš is also of different
character wearing clothes and having dreadlocks made him look alternative. So were his opinions
and philosophy. So the atmosphere was very laid back. There were no big challenges since they
were opened and we were quite well prepared. The only thing that would be good is to talk to the
third potter Martha who could have different opinion about the functioning.
3. The Informants:
Martin Hadrava is a professional potter and went to ceramic school in Prag and took part in many
Workshops. He started with own workshops in Prague, where he had a small oven. But due to this
he could not produce much and also the oven could not be heated up really high. He often thought
about having a bigger oven that could stand high temperature because this would enable a greater
variety of pottery. The first time he came to Klikov to do a pottery workshop. There he met Marta
Pozníčková and became a friend of her. He also wanted to do workshops in the village so with the
help of his parents he bought a place on the outskirts of the village with a kiln and a small house in
2008. There he started to do workshops during the summer. In winter he did workshops in Prag
because it is too cold to stay at the place in Klikov due to the bad isolation of the house. Since a few
years he has a house in another village near Klikov, where he and his wife live. Yet he is in Klikov
most of the time.
Martin Hanuš got to know Martin Hadrava through his sister, who knew Martin Hadrava and Marta
Pozníčková. Martin Hanuš did not go to any ceramic school but he did some workshops where he
learned to potter. He also became a friend of Martin Hadrava and Marta Pozníčková and started
holding workshops together with Martin Hadrava. He also used to stay in Prag during the winter.
Since three years he organising a ceramics exhibition together with a Japanese guy and also staying
in Klikov during the winter.
Martin Hadrava, Martin Hanuš and Marta Pozníčková have a kind of cooperation. They are
producing flowerpots together and from the earnings of the selling of these flowerpots they finance
Marta’s shop in the centre of the village and Martin’s place on the outskirts of the village. Besides
this they all have their own business with production and workshops. They do not earn much, but
they don’t feel bad about that because they live a very simple Life.
814.529 Analyzing Local Rural Systems SS 2013
5
4. Findings:
4.1. The Sustainability of an Alternative Pottery:
We are structuring our findings along the most popular sustainablity model, the sustainabilty
triangle, with its three columns: economical, ecological and social issues. We are aware of the
highly critisized standing of this model in the sustainability studies, but since talkin about
participants of a local economic system, it is a suitable concept for us in analysing their role and
impact in and on Klikov. After defining the boundaries of the system (analytical and practical ones),
we try to give an idea of the stocks and flows in the local pottery network, regarding it as a system.
4.2. Boundaries of the Local System
Concerning the complex interrelations of a local rural system like the village Klikov, we assert that
system boundaries in an industrialized and globalized society are strongly blurred and not congruent
with the boundaries of the research territory. So the analytical demarcation has to follow
pragmatical considerations. First, we see that Martin Hadrava and Martin Hanuš are postionated in
the frontier area of the local system in Klikov. They are a part of the community of the village and
on the other hand they distance themselve from the local social life. They are in a special position in
the community. They are “people who came to stay”, following Georg Simmel’s “stranger”
concept (1950). However there are some links for flows into the local rual system of Kilkov,
running through the pottery business of Martin Hadrava and his friend. They sell their pottery in
Kilkov in Martas shop, she plays a linkrole for them in this system. She is a kind of key person to
the local community for the men from the capitol. Martin is also offering ceramics at pottery
markets in different citys of the Czech Republic. They are selling their products in Prague as well,
and giving classes in pottery production, that turn in interested parties who come to Klikov and
spend their time and money in workshops, which has also a touristic impact on the region. So there
is also a kind of personnel flow through the region, they account for. But in this case Hadrava and
Hanuš set their own bounderies. They say they want to have a special kind of tourists, who value
their efforts and no masstourism, which would bring more capital. So in our understanding there
could be more involvement of the local economic system in the globalized market, but the pottery
men are absolutly not focusing on that, altough they could. In our opinion they would have a
realistic chance toget some subsidies für keeping a cultural heritage alive or for building up a
special kind of soft tourism in the region, but after dealing with the adminsitrative barriers once,
814.529 Analyzing Local Rural Systems SS 2013
6
they don’t want to get subsidies from the government or from the Europe Union anymore. Even
though this money could support their financial situation to boost their income. There is also a flow
of information through the internet. Martin uses the internet for promoting his workshops and the
local pottery tradition (URL 1, URL 2) but not for selling his products. They could intense their
effort also in this case, but they are not really interested in doing so.
The potters get a lot of required ressources from within the local system (wood, water, a part of the
clay) but there are also material flows across the system borders. Beside the clay from their own
territory, they have to import about the half of the material from another village, so they have to
trade with the resources. On one hand the reason for that is the low quality of their own material
and on the other hand the biosphere reserve they are living in has some natural bounderies for them
as well. As a result, we see the practical system bounderies mostly not set from the outside but
constructed by the pottery men themselves. The system would offer so much more posibilities
which they just not use but repectivley set their own borders.
4.3. Ceramics Transitions:
Following the idea of sociometalbolic regimes (Sieferle 1997, Fischer-Kowalski 1997) and the need
for a transition from the actual fossil energy based industrial society into a solar based sustainable
society, one of the most important steps is to reduce the material and energy intensity of a modern
society’s economic activities (Haberl 2011). A shift of emphasis from production to services is
necessary to reduce the material and energy usage. The pottery business in Klilkov illustrates this
change in shifting from pottery production to workshops for pottery handcraft. In this kind they also
promote the often requested dematerialisation of economy and a value shift from a growth based
commodity fetishism to esteeming imaterial abstract values. The potters sell more a different
lifestyle and a philosophical way of thinking, than a service in the classical meaning. They sell the
idea of a happy and simple life and can be seen as the “cultural creatives” (Ray 2000) in Klikovs
local system. Even though they are not well integrated in the local community, they act as kinds of
role models for a different way of living and earning money in it. This lifestyle can be called
“sustainable” because of their low need of material and energy ressources, the idea of making
business in services by teaching a traditional handcraft as a cultural heritage of the village and by
transfairing money from richer urban areas to the marginal borderland of the Czech Republic
throught the workshop participants. Even though there are also money flows out of the local system
through them, especially to Prague, the winter residence of Martin. At least a part of the money
814.529 Analyzing Local Rural Systems SS 2013
7
brought into the village through these “workshop tourists”, remains in the local economy through
paying local taxes, buying food and visiting the local pubs and restaurants. As it is mentioned in the
last perceding passage Martins way of living is beyond the classical ecomonical growth paradigm.
They would be able to grow their business and sales, but they do not want to. They know, that there
is a need to earn money to survive, but in their philosophy there is no need to grow and to earn
more and more money. They are celebrating their simple way of life close to nature.
4.4. Stocks and Flows of a Pottery:
The physical stocks which influence the whole system are the land, the buildings of the pottery, the
tools and the people. Following Piere Bourdieu’s concept of the different “forms of capital” (2008)
the knowledge of the two men can be seen as their “cultural capital”. It plays a particular role in the
pottery system. It is the key stock in the transition from production to services. There are several
flows which come through Martin and Martin into the system, we called those varibles “cultural
flows” (knowledge), “economic flows” (money) and “physical flows” (material). The cultural flow,
our first variable, which has the most impact on this metabolic subsystem is so important because, it
gives Martin Hadrava and Maritn Hanuš the base for their work. As we know, there has always
been pottery in this place like centuries ago and Martin Hadrava also brought craft knowledge from
somewhere else to the village. So there is a cultural capital input from them and an output on the
other side which is, that the knowledge of the local pottery craft won’t get lost. So the tradition
helps them to surrvive and they help the tradition to stay alive. Another output would be the
reputation and the philosophy of Martin Hanuš which could be attractive for tourism. The visitors
which participate in the workshops could generate a feedback loop for the system, they are coming
back and bring other people with them or tell other people from experiences they made.
Concerning the economic flows Martin brought quite a lot of money to the village to buy the land
they are working on. The output of our second variables are the money they bring to other places
for buying stuff, the money they spend in Prague through the winter season, and remittances to the
Martins family in another village.
The third party we call physical flows, material (clay, wood, water) and energy, which result in the
ceramic products, but also in waste and emissions, are pretty low, because the potters are heating up
their ceramics oven only once a year.
814.529 Analyzing Local Rural Systems SS 2013
8
4.5. The Symbiosis of a Handcraft and a Biosphere Reserve
Hence Martin Hadrava and Martin Hanuš’ work has an important impact on the village Kilkov and
the surrounding region, even though the cultural immaterial flows are much more important than
than the physical and economical ones. There is potential for an emerging interdependency
between the people keeping the local pottery tradition alive and the local biosphere reserve. Both
attract well paid and well educated tourist from urban areas. Which means, that there is a chance for
the craftsmen to attrace people who are entering the region not only for bathing and cycling, but for
experiencing the beauty of nature an the fascinating culture and history of the area, and there is an
extra profit for the people coming to Klikov for participating in the pottery workshops in getting in
contact with nature in the reserve.
5. Reflection:
The interview with people living in the local rural area and being a part of the local rural system
was a relevant way to get an idea about sustainability of local rural systems, not only considering
the village Klikov but also with a wider respect of local rural systems all together.
An important point when thinking of sustainability of local rural system is to think about people
living and taking part to this system. People taking part to the local rural system system affect of all
the aspects of sustainability of the system, environmental, social and economical. New inhabitants
keep the system going not only by their own actions and efforts but also possibly attracting visitors
to the area, as in our case. These visitors, mostly tourists bring money to the area and so keep
supporting the economical sustainability of the local rural system.
An important point when considering sustainability of a local rural area is the sustainability of old
and long lived traditions, as in our case the pottery tradition. Keeping us these old traditions is
important both for the sustainability of cultural heritage of the rural area and for the economical
aspect of sustainability of the area. But as our case showed people living in the local rural areas tend
to forget the importance of these traditions. And the importance of these traditions is usually seen
only when the traditions has already been forgotten.
814.529 Analyzing Local Rural Systems SS 2013
9
The sustainability of local rural areas is not only important for the community living there, but also
for the people living in urban areas. As our case showed a lot of people living in urban areas visit
rural areas in their vacations. The visit to rural areas plays an important role as a place for relaxing
and taking brake from hectic city life. By visiting to the local rural area, tourist’s don´t just take
care of their own wellbeing but they also play an important role as supporters of the sustainability,
mostly economical, of the local rural system.
The last thing we learned from our case was the fact that surrounding areas also have an effect on
local rural systems, as in our case the biosphere reserve area. This area attracts visitors to the rural
area and these visitors bring money flows to the local rural system. As also in our case, usually
people living in the local rural area tends to underestimate the importance of biosphere reserve to
the local rural system.
All in all, our interview showed that the sustainability of a local rural area is a multi dimensional
case that should be analyzed by looking all the different aspects of sustainability. From our case we
learned the importance on economical aspects, old traditions and surrounding areas for the
sustainability of the local rural system. As our case showed the sustainability of the local depends
mostly on people both those living in the rural area and those visiting there.
6. Sources:
Bourdieu, P. (2008). The Forms of Capital. Readings in Economic Sociology, 4, 280.
Fischer-Kowalski M, Haberl H, Hüttler W, Payer H, Schandl H, Winiwarter V, Zangerl-Weisz H.
(1997). Gesellschaftlicher Stoffwechsel und Kolonisierung von Natur. Ein Versuch in Sozialer
Ökologie. Gordon & Breach Fakultas: Amsterdam.
Haberl H. et al. (2011) 2011. A Sociometabolic Transition towards Sustainability? Challenges for
another Great Transformation. Sustainable Development 19(1), 1-14.
Ray, P.H., & Anderson, S. R. (2000). The Cultural Creatives). New York: Three Rivers Press.
Sieferle R.P. (1997). Rückblick auf die Natur: Eine Geschichte des Menschen und seiner Umwelt.
München: Luchterhand.
814.529 Analyzing Local Rural Systems SS 2013
10
Simmel, G. (1950). The Stranger. The Sociology of Georg Simmel, 402-408.
URL 1: www.hadrava.net (19.07.2013)
URL 2: www.klikov.net (19.07.2013)