Traditional Arts Management as a Mechanism For Strengthening Cultural Capital and The Sustainability of Murut Tahol Handicrafts in Sabah, Malaysia

Traditional handicrafts of the Murut Tahol community in Sabah, Malaysia, represent a form of cultural capital that embodies ethnic identity, symbolic meanings, and indigenous knowledge preserved and transmitted across generations. In the context of globalization and the expanding creative economy, these traditional arts are increasingly exposed to commercialization, creating challenges in maintaining their cultural authenticity and sustainability over time. This study aims to examine the role of traditional arts management in strengthening cultural capital while supporting the sustainability of Murut Tahol handicrafts. A qualitative research approach was employed through field observations, semi structured interviews, and document analysis to explore the relationships between knowledge transmission, craft production processes, commercialization, and cultural sustainability. The findings reveal that the sustainability of Murut Tahol handicrafts is closely associated with intergenerational knowledge transmission, active community participation in customary practices, and community based commercialization strategies that preserve the symbolic meanings and cultural values embedded in traditional crafts. The study argues that traditional arts management serves as a strategic mechanism for transforming cultural capital into economic value without compromising indigenous identity and cultural integrity. These findings contribute to the growing discourse on indigenous arts management by proposing a sustainable framework that integrates cultural preservation with community based economic development.

Traditional arts management, Cultural capital, Murut Tahol handicrafts, Cultural sustainability, Indigenous cultural heritage.

1. Bennett, T., Savage, M., Silva, E. B., Warde, A., Gayo-Cal, M., & Wright, D. (2009). Culture, class, distinction. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Blake, J. (2008). UNESCO's 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage: The implications of community involvement in “safeguarding”. In L. Smith & N. Akagawa (Eds.), Intangible heritage (pp. 45–73). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cohen, E., & Cohen, S. A. (2012). Authentication: Hot and cool. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3), 1295–1314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.03.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Ibrahim, I. H., & Ling, J. W. K. (2005). Warisan seni etnik Sabah: Prosiding Seminar Warisan Seni Etnik Sabah 2002. Pusat Penataran Ilmu dan Bahasa, Universiti Malaysia Sabah. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Kindoyop, S., & Othman, N. A. (2023). Pengurusan kraf tangan tradisi etnik Dusun Tindal di Sabah. Jurnal Gendang Alam, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.51200/ga.v13i2.4734 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Kindoyop, S., Jusilin, H., & Tugang, N. (2019). Kearifan dan konsep rekaan kraf anyaman warisan Dusun Tindal di Sabah. Jurnal Gendang Alam, 9, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Richards, G. (2018). Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 36, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.03.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Roddin, R., Yusof, Y., Awang, H., & Warman, S. (2017). Nilai transformasi komuniti Mah Meri dalam pelancongan peribumi. Journal of Global Business and Social Entrepreneurship (GBSE), 3(6), 47–57. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Sait, E. K. L., Mersat, N. I., & Kiong, W. S. (2017). Traditional handicrafts and the use of natural resources among the Iban of Balai Ringin, Serian. Journal of Borneo-Kalimantan, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.33736/jbk.625.2017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Soini, K., & Birkeland, I. (2014). Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. Geoforum, 51, 213– 223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.12.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Suhaimi, S. M. S. S. M., Ariffin, W. N. J. W., Ahmad, M. F., Ibrahim, M. A., Pauzi, H. M., Ghazalli, F. S., & Yusof, N. M. (2023). Digitalization of handicraft entrepreneurship in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(5), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v13- i5/16997 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Throsby, D. (2010). The economics of cultural policy. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Influence of Korean Popular Culture on Filipino Millennials: An Assessment Across Food, Fashion, Entertainment, and Beauty Products
• Narrating the Self and Constructing History: A Biography Appreciation Theory Analysis of Gandhi, Chaplin, and Hitler
• Food and Culture in Kashmiri Writings
• When East Meets West: Cross-Cultural Challenges in a Tourist’s Guide to Love
• Cultural Mapping of Movable and Immovable Tangible Cultural Properties of Morong, Bataan: Basis for the Development of Information, Education, and Communication Materials