Platform for Intercultural Europe
Discussion Paper 3
Mark Terkessidis
“
Four Theses
for an
Audit of Culture
”
An input to the expert group on Cultural Diversity and
Intercultural Dialogue (2012-2013) under the Open Method
of Coordination
(Including reports on the meetings of this expert group)
Platform for Intercultural Europe
© Platform for Intercultural Europe (PIE)
For an equitable European community that
values its diverse people, seeks positive
dialogue with others and enables each person to make their distinctive contribution
to society.
Published 2013
Our mission is to be a legitimate and effective interlocutor between European institutions and civil society organisations
committed to the values of intercultural
dialogue.
This Discussion Paper was written by Mark Terkessidis
on behalf of the Platform for Intercultural Europe. PIE’s
Discussion Papers are available free of charge in electronic version on our website:
www.intercultural-europe.org
You are free to copy, distribute and cite this Discussion
Paper under the condition that you attribute it to Platform for Intercultural Europe.
The Platform for Intercultural
Europe’s Discussion Papers
Aim to develop an understanding of the
concepts behind intercultural dialogue in
action.
Other papers in the series:
DP 1 - Intercultural Dialogue and free full
and equal participation: Towards a new
agenda for an intercultural Europe - Joel
Anderson (2010)
DP 2 - Engaged Europe: The role of intercultural dialogue in developing full, free
and equal participation - Sukhvinder KaurStubbs (2010)
Platform for Intercultural Europe is an international not-for-profit association under
Belgian law since 2008.
www.intercultural-europe.org
dialogue@intercultural-europe.org
This publication has been realised with the support of the European
Commission. It does not reflect the views of the European Commission
and it cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of
the information contained therein.
The Platform for Intercultural Europe acknowledges the
support of the European Cultural Foundation.
Platform for Intercultural Europe - Discussion Paper 3
Four theses
for an
“Audit of Culture”
Mark Terkessidis
Foreword Sabine Frank
Foreword
Platform for Intercultural Europe’s history is tied to the European Year of Intercultural
Dialogue 2008. EU thematic years come and go; what’s high priority one year, fizzles
out in subsequent ones. PIE has stood against this trend and done its bit to keep
the topic on the EU agenda. In this respect, the establishment of an expert group on
Cultural Diversity & Intercultural Dialogue under the Open Method of Coordination1
in the field of culture by the Council Work Plan 2011-2014 was our most significant
(if small) advocacy success (first demanded in PIE’s Rainbow Paper2, then in its later
lobby paper3 and its contribution to the 2010 review of the EU’s Agenda for Culture4).
Recognised by the European Commission as a Structured Dialogue Platform (20092013), PIE had a role to play in this OMC work, which this publication illustrates.
PIE commissioned Mark Terkessidis5 to write a paper, which could first be discussed
by PIE’s membership6 and then presented as ‘food for thought’ to the group of national experts assembled for the first time in September 2012 to tackle the topic
“The role of public art and cultural institutions in the promotion of cultural diversity
and intercultural dialogue”. It was subsequently presented to different sets of public
officials trying to get to grips with diversity questions in public policies such as grant
schemes.7
1 The Open Method of Coordination was created in 2000 as an instrument of employment policy
an d part of the EU’s Lisbon strategy. It was later extended to social policy, education, youth
& training, and in 2007 to culture. It is a method of intergovernmental policy-making (mutual
policy-evaluation, peer-learning, establishing measuring instruments and benchmarking with a
view to directing national policies towards certain common objectives) in areas where the EU
only complements the primary competence of the Member States. Under the OMC, the European Commission only assists the Member States; the European Parliament plays no role in the
OMC process.
2
The Rainbow Paper. Intercultural Dialogue: From Practice to Policy and Back (Platform for
Intercultural Europe, 2008) http://www.intercultural-europe.org/site/rainbow/about
3 The Need for an EU Council Working Group on Intercultural Dialogue under the Open Method
of Coordination, Platform for Intercultural Europe, May 2010, http://www.intercultural-europe.
org/site/content/page/eu-structured-dialogue-field-culture-policy-history-and-record-our-involvement#overlay-context=content/page/political-role
4 European agenda for culture in a globalizing world, COM/2007/0242 final
5 Author of the book “Interkultur’, 2010
6 PIE OMC work group meeting April 2, 2012 in Brussels. Participants: Helena De Winter
(Reseau Européen des Musiques Anciennes, REMA), Rani Kasapi (Riksteatern, SE), Dorothea
Kolland (Kulturpolitische Gesellschaft, DE), Elisabeth Mayerhofer (IG Kultur Österreich), Niels
Righolt (Danish Centre for Arts and Interculture), Chris Torch (Intercult, SE).
7 E.g. EEA grant administrators’ meeting, Oslo, June 2013
2FOREWORD
Mark Terkessidis put forward ‘Four theses for an audit of culture’ as a provocation:
The promotion of intercultural dialogue through the arts & culture leads to a deep
questioning of the traditional offerings of European cultural institutions: Are they still
relevant? Are they the kind of culture into which participation by newcomers to society
needs to be promoted by all means?
The challenge of the intercultural opening of cultural institutions comes in an era
where theatre plays, classical music concerts, opera and ballet performances lag far
behind TV watching, cinema going and private music listening as forms of cultural
consumption. At the same time, active cultural participation is stronger through TV
shows, video-making, virtual game playing and craft activities than amateur acting
and singing in choirs. Without even making this distinction between passive and
active cultural participation, the 2013 Eurobarometer survey on cultural access and
participation “shows that the most common form of cultural participation in the EU is
watching or listening to a cultural programme on television or radio (72% did this at
least once in the past 12 months, a 6% decrease since 2007), followed by reading a
book (68%, down 3%). The least popular activity is going to see an opera, ballet or
dance performance (18%, no change). … 34% of the EU population say they never or
hardly ever participate in cultural activities, as 4% rise since 2007”.8
Of course, the value of a cultural offer is not just determined by its actual use at any
point in time. A cultural offer also has potential value, or ‘existence value’.9 – I might
not go to the theatre often, but still want it as an option in my life and for the benefit
of others. And specialist services are at hand to help cultural institutions target not
only existing audiences, but also potential audiences (and even ‘resistors’ and ‘rejectors’).10
Yet the challenge of the intercultural opening of cultural institutions is profound. In
the words of Yoel Gamzou, “Western art and culture started as a way of marking
and creating identity and it is sadly stuck there. But art which isn’t relevant – and
by relevant I mean that it affects not only its creator but also its receiver – is not
legitimate”.11 As the diversity of European societies and the complexity of individuals’
identity has received greater recognition and the reality of immigration into Europe
has been politically acknowledged, public cultural institutions need to depart from
their traditional authoritative role and become brokers of the relationships in current
societies marked by diversity.12
It was of course not possible for the OMC working group to take the depth of Mark
Terkessidis’ questioning fully on board – although individual experts have taken inspiration from it. The OMC working group was rather dominated by the challenge
to distill meaningful conclusions from synthesizing experiences from a large field of
practice in many countries.13 PIE participated in and reported on every meeting of
the OMC group to its membership and network. I recommend to any reader to assess
whether this little sample14 from the Open Method of Coordination supports the con8
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1023_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_special_399_380_en.htm#399
9
As Hasan Bakshi, NESTA, explained to the audience at the European Culture Forum on 4th
November 2013. See http://ec.europa.eu/culture/events/forum2013/presentations_en.htm
10 As Andrew McIntyre explained at the European Culture Forum on 5th November 2013.
htt p://mhminsight.com/
11 Founder, Artistic Director and Principal Conductor of International Mahler Orchestra, speaking
at European Culture Forum 5th November 2013;
12 PIE has used this formulation in its “Brokering Migrants’ Cultural Participation” project before.
13 18/28 EU Member States were represented at the majority of meetings.
14 ‘Cultural diversity & intercultural dialogue’ was the topic of the second phase (2012-2013)
of one of four priority areas in the 2011-2014 Council Workplan of which were subject to the OMC.
3FOREWORD
tention of Ulrich Beck and Edgar Grande that the Open Method of Coordination is one
of three possible tools of “differentiated European integration”, which will cure the
“malaise of the European project” by turning economic, social and cultural heterogeneity into an advantage.15 I do have my doubts, but it is too early to have the last
word on this.
Sabine Frank
Director, Platform for Intercultural Europe
December 2013
15 Ulrich Beck and Edgar Grande, Cosmopolitanism: Europe’s Way Out of Crisis, European
Journal of Social Theory (2007), p. 75
4
FOREWORD
Contents
Platform for Intercultural Europe Discussion Paper 3
Four Theses for an “Audit of Culture”
Mark Terkessidis
p.6
1. Moving the reference point: From the nation to the urban
parapolis
p.7
2. Moving the reference point further: the new multiplicity of
the postmigrant urbanity
p.9
3. General changes in the cultural world: shifting from emancipation, meaning, reception, autonomy, progress, knowledge/criticism to conversation, atmosphere, participation,
disposal, simultaneity and affect
p.11
4. A task for the entire cultural domain: a Programme Interculture, a change in staff, organisational culture and the
material conditions towards a future commonality
p.14
Bibliography
p.18
Open Method of Coordination:
Cultural diversity and intercultural
dialogue (Phase II) Experts group meetings 2012-2013
Meeting reports by Sabine Frank
on behalf of Platform for Intercultural Europe
p.19
Meeting 1: 24/25th September 2012, Brussels, Belgium
p.19
Meeting 2: 11/12th December 2012, Brussels, Belgium
p.22
Meeting 3: 18/19th March 2013, Brussels, Belgium
p.28
Meeting 4: 3/4th July 2013, Brussels, Belgium
p.35
Meeting 5: 10/11th October 2013, Brussels, Belgium
p.36
5CONTENTS
“
Platform for Intercultural Europe - Discussion Paper 3
Four Theses
for an
Audit of Culture
Mark Terkessidis
”
Mark Terkessidis Free author. Diploma in Psychology. PhD in Pedagogy on „Das
Wissen über Rassismus in der Zweiten Migrantengeneration” (“Knowledge about racism
in the second generation of immigrants”) - University of Mainz.
Editor of the magazine ‘Spex’ from 1992-1994. Lecturer at the university of Cologne
1999-2002. Since 2001 radio moderator at WDR (West German Broadcaster).
Research scholarship (2004/5) for a project on migration and tourism in the framework of an initiative of the German Kulturstiftung des Bundes (federal culture foundation).
Academic and journalistic publications on youth and popular culture, migration and
racism – examples: “Interkultur” (2010), Fliehkraft. Gesellschaft in Bewegung – von
Migranten und Touristen (2006), Die Banalität des Rassismus. Migranten zweiter
Generation entwickeln einen neuen Begriff (2004).
6
FOUR THESES FOR AN “AUDIT OF CULTURE”
1.
The cultural sphere in Europe is currently confronted with significant challenges.
These can be captured in four points:
Moving the reference point:
From the nation
to the urban parapolis
The nation state has traditionally been the framework for education and culture.
Without doubt a massive process of change took place within the cultural sector
during the 1960s and 1970s, and also without doubt has today’s culture become
significantly more international, in terms of its professionals, its productions and
agendas. The implicit point of reference has nonetheless remained the same as in the
19th century – the focus lies on national cultures. Actually, the nation state has not
at all disappeared, but the model is under pressure due to globalisation, European
integration and multiplicity1 from within. In this respect it makes sense to adjust
the reference point of cultural production. Ivo Kuyl from the Koninklijke Vlaamse
Schouwburg (KVS) has recently described how this theatre thoroughly analysed its
own environment and as a result shifted its reference from the category nation to
something like “urbanity”.2
The term urbanity focuses on the above-mentioned developments – and the term
is by no means only suitable for big cities. Migration, mobility and multiplicity have
always characterised life in cities – movement is normal urban reality. But in the
time after the Second World War, migration was treated as deviance. Then a return
to the category of the nation appeared to take place during the 1990s, now an
increasing awareness arises that in times of the so called globalisation, a policy of
strict demarcations or of clearly defined “cultural identities” does not correspond
with reality. Meanwhile cities are so much influenced by migration, mobility and
multiplicity, that it does not make sense anymore to define the political community as in the customary idea of the polis - by the settledness of the inhabitants.
Rather, this should be done along the lines of the volatility of their geographic or
cultural positions – the city has become a multi-faceted “parapolis”.3 The word
describes the ambiguous, more or less illegitimate “para”-version of the term polis.
Moreover, the modern Greek adjective “para poli” is hidden in it, meaning “very
much”: One could thus speak of a place of the “very much”, a place of abundance.
This “parapolis” needs institutions, which give consideration to the multiplicity of
cities.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, in many states of Europe, not only the Eastern ones,
a process of searching for the “own” started - in view of the new situation this was
quite understandable, but at the same time also fruitless. This search usually became
quite provincial and often enough led to the fact that the potentials of transnationality
1 I use the notion of multiplicity instead of diversity. It is a translation of the German word
„Vielheit“ which is more of a philosphical concept than a simple description of heterogeneity.
2 http://www.dramaturgische-gesellschaft.de/wordpress/wp-content/themes/paalam/
jah restag.php
3 cf. Mark Terkessidis: Parapolis, in: IBA_Hamburg (ed.): Metropolis: Cosmopolis, Berlin 2011.
7
FOUR THESES FOR AN “AUDIT OF CULTURE”
were not discovered. This for example is the case with Germany. As late as 2007, a
short story of the writer Herta Müller was published by the renowned publishing house
Reclam in an anthology for educational purposes labelled “Migrant Literature”. The
anthology contained an appendix in which not one article from the field of literature
could be found, merely sociological essays about “uprooting due to migration”,
“integration into the system” and - no joke - “migration and criminality”.4 In 2009,
the Romanian immigrant of German origin received the Nobel Prize of Literature only two years after the Nobel laureate was imprisoned in a ghetto called “Migrant
Literature”. Is this not evidence of an extensive waste of potential?
In Herta Müller a person received the Nobel Prize who in Germany was constantly
confronted with paradox expectations - as she wrote down in an article: On the one
hand she was torn from reality, as she - like so many people with the famous migration
background - was incessantly asked “Where are you from?” - and in her answer was
supposed to identify herself as a “foreigner”. On the other hand, many
literature critics demanded from her a kind of national normalisation:
She was a great writer, undoubtedly, but could she not at last leave
Romania alone and place her stories in Germany instead.5
Similar experiences were made by writers in countries like Great
Britain or France, even though the aspect of transnationality played a
different role here due to the colonial history, and in the debate about
“postcolonialism” in the 1990s, alternative cultural models were explicitly discussed.
The creative potential of migration, mobility and multiplicity can only be exhausted
when Herta Müller’s Romania is seen as part of a new transnational, “German” cultural
sphere. This is not a matter of covering up discontinuities, but of taking a closer look
at cultural spheres, which are in conflict and deeply connected at the same time.
For this, a definition of culture is necessary, which does not stop at national borders
and does not relate cultural articulations to the national framework. Every cultural
statement should be understood as a knot in a historical and current net
of connecting lines. In this sense, Eduard Glissant has once spoken of “poetics
of relationships”.6 A return to the national framework is not possible anymore - the
debates initiated by the state about an “identité nationale” in France have shown this.
The cultural production, cultural politics, related fields of science and criticism have
not yet properly dealt with the challenge this means for their organisation, their
concepts of culture and their aesthetic criteria.
“Where are
you from?”
4 Peter Müller & Jasmin Cicek (eds.): Migrantenliteratur, Stuttgart 2007.
5
cf. Herta Müller: Bei uns in Deutschland, in: Dies.: Der König verneigt sich und tötet,
Frankfurt am Main 2008.
6
cf. Eduard Glissant: Kultur und Identität. Aufsätze zu einer Poetik der Vielheit, Heidelberg
2005.
8
FOUR THESES FOR AN “AUDIT OF CULTURE”
2.
Moving the reference point
further: The new multiplicity of the
postmigrant urbanity
The theatre “Ballhaus Naunynstrasse”, opened in Berlin in 2008, describes its own
productions as “postmigrant”. In addition to urbanity, this term is quite attractive
as a further point of reference. Already in 1997, Homi Bhabha asked the polemic
question: “Post-this, post-that, but why never post-the-other?”7 But the term creates
also a continental European framework beyond the framework of “postcolonialism”:
In many parts of Europe multiplicity is not a question of colonial subjects re-emerging
in the process of migration, but is the history of striving for conquest, spheres of
influence, movement of populations and displacement. Moreover, “postmigrant”
stresses the point that migration has long taken place.
This finds its expression in a partly dramatic demographic change. It is known that
the Federal Republic of Germany stuck to the fiction of a homogenous nation state
until 1998. But since the Federal Statistical Office compiles data on the criterion
“migration background”, it has been acknowledged that in the cities, children with a
migration background have become the majority in the age group below 6 years. In
Frankfurt on Main, currently 67 percent of that age group have at least one parent
who themselves immigrated to the Federal Republic of Germany. Additionally, the
patterns of present-day migration have changed: for quite a while already, immigrants
do not only come through a contractual recruitment of workers for the lower jobs;
migration nowadays has become difficult to control and takes place in all segments of
the employment market with strongly differing perspectives concerning the duration
of their stay.
In today’s cities, people live as “foreigners” although they have actually been resident
for decades; “commuters”, who stay on average for half a year; “tolerated persons”,
whose further perspective is deemed half a year even after a decade of living there;
“persons without documents”, having entered the country as tourists and whose
existence is being completely obscured by official statistics. One can find numerous
students from other countries, staying for a certain time in a city; “expatriates” of
every kind, having come to a certain city because of work, love or a new perspective
of life; owners of secondary residencies, whose families live in another town, or
also tourists, who penetrate the texture of the city in an unprecedented way with
their repeated weekend trips and knowledge of the local scene. The status of these
persons is often ambivalent – in relation to their connection to the place, political
subjectivity and economic positioning.
So maybe mobility has long been the appropriate expression. Whether
we talk of ‘migration’ or of ‘mobility’, it does no longer make any sense to
adhere to the ideas of integration, which were developed in the 1970s: That
those groups of people who have come from elsewhere are considered to
have deficits and should usually be integrated into existing structures with
the help of compensatory special measures.
7 Homi Bhabha: Editor´s Introduction: Minority Maneuvres and Unsettled Negotiations, in:
Critical Inquiry 23 (Spring 1997), p. 433.
9
FOUR THESES FOR AN “AUDIT OF CULTURE”
In the face of the demographic facts and new movement patterns, these ideas have
become obsolete. To describe a society as “postmigrant” means to acknowledge the
multiplicity within it as a fact – and as a challenge and creative task. In many states
of Europe, heterogeneity is often enough connoted negatively. And indeed multiplicity
is not about romantic transfiguration – it often comes along with conflict and has to
be developed. But only if multiplicity is seen as normality can its potentials become
visible. Sure there is a need for specific adaptations but action should not be directed
to marginal groups but to the accommodation and innovation of the institutions of
society with regards to multiplicity.
This relation to the whole proves to be productive also because the cultural sphere
has a problem with the demographic development on a variety of grounds. The
traditional clientele – the well-educated middle class – is shrinking and is highly
unsure of its self-image: Currently,
parts of the middle class are in fear of
losing their economic status or cultural
interpretative authority. Obviously, the
so-called high culture has in practice lost
contact with the next generation. The
trend research institute “T-Factory” has
recently interviewed persons between
11 and 39 years of age and questioned
them about their cultural terminology and cultural interests. The research shows
that the interview partners still categorise culture along its high cultural forms of
expression like classical music or theatre. But at the same time, 95% of the teenagers
state to have never been to an opera or ballet, only a quarter has once been to a
theatre.8
Young people experience the traditional cultural scene as exclusive. The research
director explains: “For most young people, the opera is an old house in which old
people watch old things. For many this is something more or less ‘belonging’ to
an exclusive circle of adults and where teenagers just don’t have access”. 9 Here
the relevant question arises in which way the cultural sphere currently organises
access for persons who do not belong to this exclusive circle and who do not meet
its requirements. The results of the research also show an enormous contradiction
between cultural understanding and present practice. A traditional terminology of
culture is being maintained, while films, series, comedy, computer games, sport
and life style dominate daily behaviour. Such a discrepancy can also be found with
regard to the ‘nation’. In his research, Jens Schneider discovered for Germany that a
traditional, quite stereotypical understanding of “being German” persists (secondary
virtues, “German depth”) which is in no way compatible with the experiences of every
day life anymore.10 This clinging to national stereotypes in the face of very atypical
living circumstances can be observed throughout Europe. Change therefore has to
start by defining postmigrant urbanity as an innovative factor.
“To describe a society as ‘postmigrant’
means to acknowledge the multiplicity
within it as a fact - and as a challenge
and creative task.”
8
„Keine Lust auf Hochkultur“, Wiener Zeitung 29.02.2012.
9
ibid.
10 cf. Jens Schneider: Deutsch-Sein. Das Eigene, das Fremde und die Vergangenheit im
Selbstbild des vereinten Deutschland, Frankfurt am Main 2001.
10
FOUR THESES FOR AN “AUDIT OF CULTURE”
3.
General changes in the cultural
world: Shifting from emancipation,
meaning, reception, autonomy,
progress, knowledge/criticism
to conversation, atmosphere,
participation, disposal, simultaneity
and affect
These difficulties have of course already been recognised in the cultural world.
However, many debates and measures still remain in the logic of integration; which
shows in the central role given to “cultural education” and to “imparting cultural
knowledge”– with a strong imperative from the political establishment. While cultural
education is not wrong, it nonetheless suggests that the cultural sphere is intact and
only the audience is in need of reform. Due to the lack of presence of persons with
a migration background or minorities, it is often argued that these persons just do
not fulfil the right conditions – “they” do not speak the particular language correctly
enough, only watch commercial TV-programmes, are only interested in their “own”
culture etc.
If these opinions predominate, then education, imparting cultural knowledge and
“audience development” obviously serve the “enlightenment” of persons with deficits
and their introduction to the canon of the bourgeoisie and well-educated middle
class. But with this twist of perception the cultural sphere avoids the problem that its
own cultural terminology and canon have become unclear in the meantime. For the
cultural world is immanently confronted with what in the political sphere is called the
“crisis of representation”. The changes which have taken place since the 1960s have
led to a considerable spreading of topics, forms and cultural milieus as well as to an
enormous extension of cultural life and its offerings – one could actually speak of an
overproduction. At the same time, legitimacy of the cultural institutions has been
questioned and uncertainty has grown – for what does art exist, what are the criteria
for its promotion and quality, who produces and who benefits from art?
At the moment, this uncertainty is often still being grasped in form of very traditional
oppositions, in which the demands of an aesthetically valuable high culture are being
defended against the approaches of “socio-culture” or community arts on the one
hand and commercialisation on the other. But at the same time, the publicly funded
cultural institutions carry on by offering spectacular events to keep the middle-class
audience - the latter being increasingly oriented towards cultural “wellness” - and to
be able to compete with light art forms such as musicals. “The principle of an event
culture for the cultural bourgeoisie is being extended, which is defined by institutional
forms and fixed by political orders”, notes Pius Knüsel, director of the Swiss arts
foundation Pro Helvetia.11 But the big questions are being avoided. Even though the
discussion about mobility and multiplicity would be a good reason for an aesthetic
readjustment, there is still not much discussion about the adequacy of the ideas of
enlightenment and modernism, which still rule.
11
Pius Knüsel: Weniger ist mehr. Raum für Entwicklung, in: Kulturpoltische Mitteilungen,
Nr,133, II/2011.
11
FOUR THESES FOR AN “AUDIT OF CULTURE”
Actually, certain reference points of cultural production have been considerably
modified: emancipation, meaning, reception, autonomy, progress, knowledge/
criticism. The cultural sphere in Europe has its roots in a narrative of bourgeois
emancipation. But after decades of neoliberal rhetoric, individuals do not have
the impression that they need emancipation – they consider themselves to be
already free. It is questionable whether they are indeed so – but it is obvious that
emancipation has lost its attractiveness for cultural production and consumption.
Accordingly, neither are the production and decoding of meaning in the centre of
focus anymore. The subject no longer has
the need to express itself emphatically
against restrictions, but rather shows a
desire for aesthetical production which
creates an atmosphere in the sense of the
German philosopher Gernot Böhme.12 This
can be observed for instance in the popcultural total work of art of Lady Gaga. It
would not in the least make sense to search
for any coherent expressive meaning in her
various embodiments – rather, she creates
atmospheres, which enable sometimes dramatic aesthetic experiences. Altogether,
the whole sphere of aesthetical production has expanded. People may not be
interested in culture by definition, but they still have an aesthetical practice, as day
after day they create their individual atmosphere with the help of fashion, design or
cosmetics. Thus, culture is increasingly not being received passively-intellectually as
by the well-educated middle class, but is being experienced actively-affectively in a
process of exchange.
Young people in particular make videos to broadcast new dance steps on Youtube,
write and read blogs about fashion, handicrafts or gardening; they design elaborate
sites for social networks. Commercial projects like Etsy.com give private individuals
the possibility to offer their own products. Television, a medium classically enforcing
passivity, has reacted to its own loss of significance by offering (doubtlessly exploitative)
participation opportunities: casting-shows, reality TV etc. – incidentally, all of these
are formats in which the participation of persons with a migration background or
coming from minorities seems to be no problem at all. In these forms of expression it
also becomes apparent that the value of autonomy is not central anymore – nowadays
practices of showing-oneself and being-in-public are more relevant, at the expense of
the conventional idea of privacy.
In the field of culture, the idea of history has much changed too. There is no longer any
succession of vanguards - the discussion about progress itself has become historical.
The web has ensured that an enormous archive of cultural publications is constantly
available. So individuals live in a cultural sphere of simultaneity, in which modular
components from very different eras and cultural spheres become available. This can
definitely evoke feelings of being unable to cope with the variety of possibilities. At
the same time, new systems of peer-to-peer advice have been established, often
based on subjectivity and similarity, which replace the old dominance of (expert)
knowledge/criticism.
Instead of reacting to these processes with disapproval or complaints, it might
be worthwhile to invest in a new ‘coordinate system’ that uses the parameters of
conversation, atmosphere, participation, disposal, simultaneity and affect. In his
book “Conversation Pieces”, Grant H. Kester has criticized the modernistic approach
of the artist who changes the perception of the consumers via shock. He suggested
a concept of dialogical aesthetics. Actually, art has already moved away from object
“Culture is increasingly not being
received passively-intellectually as
by the well-educated middle class,
but is being experienced activelyaffectively in a process of exchange.”
12
12
cf. Gernot Böhme: Atmosphäre. Essays zur neuen Ästhetik, Frankfurt am Main 1995.
FOUR THESES FOR AN “AUDIT OF CULTURE”
and representation in the 1960s. So art could currently be understood as a mode to
create a space, which serves as a platform and laboratory for unconventional thinking
and design in collaborative forms.
As soon as the word participation is uttered, many advocates of high culture anticipate
a loss of quality. But why should dialogical aesthetics inevitably go hand in hand
with a loss of quality? And who defines the quality criteria? “The notion of quality
has been the most effective bludgeon on the side of homogeneity in the modernist
and postmodernist periods”13, as Lucy Lippard rightly stated already in 1990.
Often enough, conservational powers in the educated middle class are legislators,
prosecutors, judges and people gaining profit through distinction all in one. Of course
this is no matter of simply dropping expert knowledge and informed criticism. The
question is how to connect knowledge and criticism to physical experience. They are
still considered to be solely intellectual work, but this is underlining habitual codes of
belonging to a particular social class. How can we use the affective potential of art to
support learning and change?
When politics deals with education and integration, its demands of the subsidised
cultural field are often instrumental – the cultural field is supposed to make up for
the deficits of regular schooling. Barbara Mundel and Josef Mackert from the Freiburg
theatre rightly emphasise: “We have to deal with these demands”. They admonish
“the nonsensical separation of the administrative fields for culture and education on
the level of cities and provinces”.14 Thus, purely instrumental demands have to be
rejected while at the same time the challenges need to be accepted. There is a need
to break radically with the still implicitly ruling ideas of the artist-genius who produces
lonely while the audience is supposed to come together afterwards. And if it does not
show it has to be prepared through “cultural education”. How would a cultural sphere
be constituted, in which artistic production processes are thought from the start in
terms of their relationship with their audience, their potential educational tasks and
the forms of impartation. At the same time the educational system needs to bring
together knowledge acquisition and artistic practice. Just like Jack Lang tried it in his
“mission” at the beginning of the 2000s in an interesting attempt to bring aesthetical
practice to schools as a creative alternative to traditional lessons.
This disintegration of the static borders can establish the cultural sphere as a place,
where a self-image of society can be negotiated and individuals may find orientation
anew. A simple return to the nation is plainly not feasible anymore – the division
of society would be the consequences of such politics. A commonly developed selfimage would be based on the active citizenship of the individuals – specific individuals
whose preconditions, backgrounds and frames of reference differ from each other.
Marsha Meskimmon has recently published a book in which she explains the term
“cosmopolitan imagination” by using the examples of current art works: “(These
works) all engage productively with the processes and practices of inhabiting a global
world, they all constitute a form of `being at home´ that is simultaneously marked
by movement, change and multiplicity”.15 This energy of a mobile imagination is
however not new. If one recalls the 1950s and 1960s, a cultural scene characterised
by migration and cosmopolitanism already existed – I would only like to mention the
names of Iannis Xenakis, Mauricio Kagel, David Medalla, Nam June Paik, Takis etc.
13 Lucy Lippard: Mixed Blessings: New Art in a Multicultural America, New York 1990, p.7.
14 Barbara Mundel und Josef Mackert: Das Prinzip für die ganze Gesellschaft, in: Theater
heute, 8-9/2010, p.41f.
15 Marsha Meskimmon: Contemporary Art and the Cosmpolitan Imagination“, Oxon 2011, p. 5.
13
FOUR THESES FOR AN “AUDIT OF CULTURE”
4.
A task for the entire cultural
domain: A Programme Interculture,
a change in staff, organisational
culture and the material conditions
towards a future commonality
Considering the challenges of multiplicity, the logic of integration also prevents general
questions connected to the organisation of. The organisation of the cultural sphere
undoubtedly differs a lot in the states of the European Union. While in many countries
the topic “intercultural opening” has already been discussed for a while, it has mostly
been related to the police, social services and administration – institutions considered
in contact with persons who have a migration background or with minorities. In many
cases, the opening merely consists of “intercultural competence”-training for the
autochthonous staff members – often resulting in the passing on of something like an
ethnic “knowledge of recipes”. A change of personnel has until now been tackled only
very hesitantly. There is a need for a systematic “Programme Interculture” as a task
for all institutions, therefore also for the cultural sphere.
Interculture in this process has to be a program for the entire field and not only for
a particular field covering certain groups. To put it in slightly exaggerated terms,
publicly funded cultural life in Europe has so far found three versions of the integration
of “others”. The first is the compensatory model: it is based on the assumption that
those “having come along” have cultural deficits, which have to be corrected through
special treatment. The second could be described as a reservation model: “migrant
cultures” are being supported, often enough producing dancing or singing events
of unclear quality which are regarded as part of a tradition. The third is the street
model; it is the well-meant but often enough ethnographical-theatrical exhibition of
the “own life”, mostly performed by young people allegedly “coming from the streets”,
usually via hip hop. All three models have in common that they reduce migrants and
minorities to imperfection and authenticity. This prevents the development of an
intercultural terrain in which mixture and development could take place.
First of all one has to become aware of the following: a “migration background”
or “minority” can be used only in the most limited way as cultural categories of
description. In the first place, they are heuristic designations for persons who are
potentially affected by affiliations, discriminations or limited opportunities to act or
gain access. Being so affected often does not result from people’s ethnic background
but to the same extent also from their belonging to a certain social class. In the face
of multiplicity, an earnest programme interculture is paradoxically forced to find a
way to consider the category ‘origin’ on the one hand and on the other hand to let it
become trivial. In this sense one principally should not work with the assumption of
“normal” and “other”, i.e. the integration of certain groups into existing structures,
but generally work on the basis of individuals and their backgrounds, prerequisites,
frames of reference and potentials.
This does not mean that collectivity based on ethnicity is not allowed or would not
play a role anymore. However, it should mean that ethnicity no longer constitutes an
unquestioned category, but that individuals actively integrate it into their personal
14
FOUR THESES FOR AN “AUDIT OF CULTURE”
frames of reference in very different ways. Due to this, though, the perspective
changes: it is no longer taken for granted that problems lie in the deficits of the
“others”, but in the barriers of the institutions; in the composition of personnel, their
culture of organisation and material circumstances, the design of the facilities. The
staff members of the publicly funded cultural institutions do in no way represent
the multiplicity of society – seen from the point of reference formed by postmigrant
urbanity, this personnel truly is something coming close to a “parallel society”. This
leads to a lack of correspondence with the audience and often to a distortion in
perception, too.
It is not really astonishing that migration and heterogeneity mainly appear under the
category “problem” in the media if one considers the fact that only one (!) percent
of the journalists and staff members of the daily press in a country like Germany
are of non-German origin.16 For the journalists it is difficult to describe a society of
immigration as “normal” because this “normality” does not take place in their every
day life – neither in their jobs, nor in their neighbourhoods or in the kindergartens or
schools of their children does the postmigrant urbanity show; their environment is to
a large extent homogenous. If cultural institutions are supposed to serve the whole
society, then the whole society has to be represented in their personnel.
Currently, this is not even the case in countries like the Netherlands, where diversitystrategies have already been tested since the 1980s: Here the change within
the staffs should be realised proactively,
according to clear aims. “Tokenism” should
be avoided, in which persons of certain
backgrounds are being instrumentalised to be
exclusively responsible for “integration”, i.e.
to “supply” the unchanged institution, which
produces the same programme with new
clients. Furthermore it should be possible for
employees with a non-autochthonous or nonmiddle class background to contribute their experience of barriers to the work of the
institution. If a code dominates which demands the adaptation to the conversational
and social codex of the well-educated middle class, nothing will change. The German
educational offensive of the 1970s has certainly brought many persons from working
class families into higher positions, but it happened at the price of denying their
specific “proletarian” knowledge and experience.
Without doubt a change of organisational culture is a difficult process, but it launches
the institutions into a process of innovation. At the moment though, further tendencies
of ‘outsourcing’ can be detected. Naturally, the curatorial and artistic personnel of
museums or theatres emphasise that their efforts were directed towards everybody
in society, but in many institutions a consensus about the audience exists implicitly
– especially about their educational level - and it should be added that the so called
educational disadvantage is principally being identified in the context of migration.
A short time ago an evaluation of the London “Tate Modern” has shown that many
mistakes were made with regard to the “diversity” question. Special educational
programmes were targeted at specific ethnic groups, who did not only not take them
up, but actively rejected them – people just do not want to be categorised like that
anymore.17
Especially with regard to the intellectual orientation of the cultural sphere, the
separation between the aesthetic demands of high culture, the communication
function of a meeting place, the pedagogical forms of cultural learning, and
“If cultural institutions are supposed
to serve the whole society, then the
whole society has to be represented
in their personnel.”
16
cf. Rainer Geißler u.a.: Wenig ethnische Diversität in deutschen Zeitungsredaktionen,
in: Rainer Geißler und Horst Pöttker (eds.), Massenmedien und die Integration ethnischer
Minderheiten in Deutschland, Band 2, Bielefeld 2009.
17
Andrew Dewdney & David Dibosa & Victoria Walsh: Britishness and Visual Culture, London
2011.
15
FOUR THESES FOR AN “AUDIT OF CULTURE”
commercial distraction do not in the least make sense any more. As long as this
separation is being maintained, persons with a migration background and minorities
will usually find themselves on the side of social work and commerce. They are not
under-represented in the many pedagogical projects in which aesthetical expression
has an instrumental function: These projects are financed by governmental social
programs and optionally serve as therapies for disadvantaged people, for dialogue
between cultures or even as preparation for the labour market. Even though such
projects are sometimes quite challenging from the artistic point of view, their results
are still only seen from the perspective of “help for every day life”. Likewise, persons
with a migration background are not under-represented in the field of commercial
offerings – especially in those being orientated towards participation like the search
for the “superstar”, the “top model” or “talent”.
Of all cultural places, persons with a migration background are underrepresented in the state-subsidised cultural institutions.
These cultural separations must be overcome - and it will be helpful to take an
interest in the way institutions in other domains have changed. A questioning
approach would be necessary that leaves both the ideological blinkers of high culture
and the contempt for commerce behind. In order for postmigrant urbanity to become
the central reference, cooperation, networking and consultation are needed. In the
German speaking parts of Europe, the directors of big theatres are at a loss with
regard to intercultural opening, whilst dozens of intercultural theatre projects exist in
their cities to which they have never paid attention. They ask themselves with which
topics and methods this unknown urban society can be reached while not actually
involving this urban society. Participation has become a buzzword, which often only
serves the purpose of letting the “people” give their blessing to a programme already
determined in advance.
It is crucial to involve persons in cultural programming who have different backgrounds
and come from different disciplines. The KSV mentioned at the beginning has replaced
the directorship through a committee of 8 persons. In the Rotterdam theatre at the
Zuidplein, the former director Ruud Breteler has set up a commission in which the
audience could decide on the programme. It is the aim of such measures to bring
together expert knowledge and manifold cultural interests and demands; to pass on
responsibility without simultaneously expecting too much from people. At the same
time, consultations help to establish networks in urban societies and understand the
various communication structures of the parapolis.
Equally important are the material conditions of cultural institutions, their design. Do
thresholds exist? What impression does the building make from the outside? What is
in the entrance like, what kinds of people are seen going to it? Are there spaces for
socialising, which are unconnected to the reception and production of art? Are there
in between-spaces, membranes between the institution and public space? Does the
institution have to “come out of its shell” and work in a more mobile and ambulant
manner?
In the past decades, several attempts have been made in different places in Europe
to design cultural spaces in a more multifunctional, open and communicative way.
Nonetheless, the existing cultural institutions are being seen as places, which have
codes that seem exclusive and off-putting. In fact, in many institutions a code
of conduct still dominates which does not correspond to the reality of life – the
demands for discipline, silence and control over movements are enormous and hard
to meet especially by teenagers. But a reorientation is only possible when institutions
like museums modify their self-image. The administration and exhibition of an art
collection may not necessarily have continual priority over the subjective needs and
16
FOUR THESES FOR AN “AUDIT OF CULTURE”
modes of usage of the people. The inhabitants will only accept the museum as a
place of learning, if its spaces and activities offer them convenient possibilities of
“adoption”.
But all these measures will only be possible, if the organisation of an institution and its
subsidising are reassessed. Not the demands for “more money for integration” should
come first, but the idea of a reform of structures, which orientates the institution
towards new conditions and which will finally be of benefit to everybody. Intercultural
opening is not just a question of exercising “intercultural competence” with regard to
“people from other cultural areas” anymore, but of creating “barrier-free institutions”
and doing so in order to develop an experience-based and flexible knowledge of the
context of individuals with highly differing frames of reference. Before a process of
opening is being initiated, it is also necessary to “measure” or to “map” the potentials
of an institution and its environment and not until then to go into concrete planning.
For such planning, conceptual ideas have been mentioned, but only with the basis of
empirical data can strategies and specific measures be developed. The intercultural
orientation of an institution does not start from zero; it is a matter of learning from
the experience of other institutions through networking and of coordination so as to
avoid competition, repetition and replacement. “Best Practice” has become a popular
term, but if one takes a look at ”best practice” collections, one mostly finds half a
page of description outlining the success of a project in a very cursory way. In order
to enable a true transfer of learning, much more detailed descriptions are needed,
which include explanations of difficulties and mistakes.
The German sociologist Erol Yildiz once noted that the extension of life-styles,
which often are described as postmodernism really are a “structurally developed
multiculturalism”.18 At the same time he pointed out that this postmodernism is
“divided in half” with regard to ethnicity – origin represents the form of “marker”
which constantly drops out of the accepted “normality” of multiplicity. So it is a
matter of extending i.e. adjusting the term “normality”.
When cultural institutions where created, they have contributed to negotiating and defining the self-image of society as bourgeois and national.
Now they have to engage in the difficult process of negotiating the selfimage of the “parapolis” or the “intercultural city”.19 In the multiplicity of
postmigrant urbanity only a short period of shared history exists, but there
is a long common future. In a process of intercultural alphabetisation this is
a question of inventing the community of the future. It is a creative situation,
in which everybody learns a new language.
At the moment, the process itself is more important than immediate results. One
can currently get the impression that the reaction of the cultural sphere to these
challenges is overproduction. But reflection may be more important. To change the
“structures of art production” the artist Gustav Metzger called for a form of artists’
strike - it was the proclamation of “years without art” in the 1970s. As to be expected,
nobody followed. On a symbolic level, it is a good idea.
Translator (German into English): Sonia Schmitz - Editor: Sabine Frank
© Platform for Intercultural Europe and Mark Terkessidis, 2012
18 Erol Yildiz: Die halbierte Gesellschaft der Postmoderne, Opladen 1997, p.24.
19 cf. Jude Bloomfield & Franco Bianchini: Planning for the Intercultural City, Stroud 2004;
Council of Europe: Intercultural Cities. Towards a Model for Intercultural Integration, Strasbourg
2010.
17
FOUR THESES FOR AN “AUDIT OF CULTURE”
Bibliography
Bhabha, Homi: Editor´s Introduction: Minority Manoeuvres and Unsettled
Negotiations, in: Critical Inquiry 23 (Spring 1997).
Bloomfield, Jude & Franco Bianchini: Planning for the Intercultural City, Stroud
2004; Council of Europe: Intercultural Cities. Towards a Model for Intercultural
Integration, Strasbourg 2010.
Böhme, Gernot: Atmosphäre. Essays zur neuen Ästhetik, Frankfurt am Main 1995
Dewdney, Andrew & David Dibosa & Victoria Walsh: Britishness and Visual Culture,
London 2011.
Geißler, Rainer u.a., Wenig ethnische Diversität in deutschen Zeitungsredaktionen, in: Rainer Geißler und Horst Pöttker (eds.), Massenmedien und die
Integration ethnischer Minderheiten in Deutschland, Band 2, Bielefeld 2009.
Glissant, Eduard: Kultur und Identität. Aufsätze zu einer Poetik der Vielheit,
Heidelberg 2005.
Gregg, Melissa and Gregory J. Seigworth (eds.): The Affect Theory Reader,
Durham & London 2010
Knüsel, Pius: Weniger ist mehr. Raum für Entwicklung, in: Kulturpoltische
Mitteilungen, Nr. 133.
Lippard, Lucy: Mixed Blessings: New Art in a Multicultural America, New York
1990.
Meskimmon, Marsha: Contemporary Art and the Cosmopolitan Imagination“, Oxon
2011
Müller, Herta: Bei uns in Deutschland, in: Dies.: Der König verneigt sich und
tötet, Frankfurt am Main 2008.
Müller, Peter & Jasmin Cicek (eds.): Migrantenliteratur, Stuttgart 2007.
Mundel, Barbara und Josef Mackert: Das Prinzip für die ganze Gesellschaft, in:
Theater heute, 8-9/2010
Schneider, Jens: Deutsch-Sein. Das Eigene, das Fremde und die Vergangenheit
im Selbstbild des vereinten Deutschland, Frankfurt am Main 2001.
Terkessidis, Mark: Parapolis, in: IBA_Hamburg (ed.): Metropolis: Cosmopolis,
Berlin 2011.
Yildiz, Erol: Die halbierte Gesellschaft der Postmoderne, Opladen 1997
18
FOUR THESES FOR AN “AUDIT OF CULTURE”
“
Open Method of Coordination:
Cultural diversity and intercultural
dialogue (Phase II)
”
Expert group meetings 2012-2013
Meeting reports by Sabine Frank on behalf of
Platform for Intercultural Europe
Meeting 1: 24/25th September 2012
Brussels, Belgium
A fresh set of national experts came together to launch phase II of the Open Method
of Coordination (OMC) process on “Accessible and inclusive culture cultural diversity
and intercultural dialogue”. Their task is “to identify policies and good practices in
creating spaces in public arts and cultural institutions to facilitate exchanges among
cultures and between social groups, in particular by highlighting the intercultural
dimension of the heritage and by promoting artistic and cultural education and developing intercultural competences”. The output of the group as defined by the EU
Culture Council Workplan 2011-2014 is a “policies and good practice manual for public arts and cultural institutions”.
20 EU Member States have so far nominated experts. The Czech Republic and Slovakia will not be participating, which leaves 5 nominations pending (Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and Sweden). 14 countries were represented at this first
meeting – some with two representatives (Austria, Spain, Poland and Romania).
After a first tour de table, Sonja Kralj Bervar from the Slovenian Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport was elected to chair the group. Her record includes
chairing the EU Council’s Cultural Affairs Committee (CAC) during the first half of the
European Year for Intercultural Dialogue 2008, which involved drafting the Council
Conclusions on Intercultural Competences, and heading the Slovenian Committee for
the implementation of the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity.
Mandate and Working Method
Given that most of the appointed experts are new to the OMC process, the European
Commission gave a presentation to introduce the mandate and the working method,
and also explained the involvement of the Platform for Intercultural Europe as well as
the Access to Culture Platform. While the group must concern itself with the practice
19
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
of cultural institutions as well as with public policies, the Commission appealed to
the experts who are not all from cultural ministries: “Whatever your background, remember that the objective of the OMC is policy-making.” PIE’s concerns that the OMC
could loose itself in a mere practice exchange have therefore been addressed. The
Commission also pointed out that the group would be required to build on the results
of the first phase – the report being due in mid-October. Commission representative
Laura Cassio gave a preview on the report’s conclusion which PIE can only salute: Removing barriers of access to cultural institutions is not sufficient to make more people
come. The main challenge for enhancing participation is for cultural institutions to be
relevant to diverse interests and needs, and for cultural institutions to take ownership
of initiatives intended to enhance participation.
PIE presentation
PIE Secretary General, Sabine Frank, was then given a floor for a presentation of
PIE’s suggestions to the expert group1. She stated that “Intercultural spaces are no
add-on. The challenge is for public arts and cultural institutions to become intercultural spaces in their entirety. The wholesale transformation of institutions is at stake.”
She outlined the reasons for such change, sketched what institutional transformation
entails, and what role public policies play in it, before addressing expectations to the
OMC group.
In a second tour de table, the Member State representatives expressed their first
ideas for the work of the group:
•
Some experts mentioned the national cultural strategies of their countries
and the role which cultural diversity or intercultural dialogue is given within
them; it was suggested that these could be compared (Poland, Denmark,
Estonia). This seems interesting as a background work but should not take
time away from the core work of the group.
•
Several delegates acknowledged art as a tool for social transformation, for
emancipation or for intercultural dialogue (Poland, Austria, Hungary, Belgium).
•
Some experts pointed out that in their countries the pre-dominant concern
was the participation of minorities rather than of migrants (Finland, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Slovenia). Several of them seemed already to have
practice examples in mind, which they would like to present.
•
Rather than collecting new practice examples, it was also suggested that existing practice collections could be examined, e.g. the practices documented
during the European Year for Intercultural Dialogue (EYID) 2008. This should
be treated with caution since an analysis of the practice of public cultural institutions was not central to the EYID.
•
The question whether the group needed to look at definitions of intercultural
dialogue came up, but was discouraged both by the Commission and the
Chair. Instead it was agreed that a broad notion of cultural diversity should
be used, encompassing migrants, minorities and differences between social
groups. This seems wise given the limited time the group has to fulfil its
mandate.
•
Some experts also wanted to look at ‘manifestations of Intercultural dialogue
in EU programmes’. This would lead to recommendations addressed to EU
1 http://www.intercultural-europe.org/site/sites/default/files/2012%20Sept.%20PIE%20
Secretary%20General%27s%20presentation%20to%20OMC.pdf
20
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
institution. The Commission swiftly pointed out that this would be optional,
i.e. that the primary addresses should be the Member States and public
cultural institutions. While the support of EU programmes for the promotion
of intercultural dialogue is certainly a concern, it is wise counsel to omit this
task from the group’s work programme.
•
The Finnish delegate stood out with his statement that injections of diversity into cultural institutions might not guarantee their survival because the
young generation questions the authority of cultural institutions altogether.
This is close to what PIE’s OMC working group discussed.
EENC presentation
The OMC group heard a reflection paper by Chris Torch2 on behalf of the European
Expert Network on Culture (EENC). Chris highlighted that besides making art, cultural institutions needed to accept the ethical mission of giving people a voice. This,
he said, is the key tool for the non-violent transformation of the European continent.
Chris outlined four factors in the intercultural transformation of cultural institutions:
their programme, their audience, their education work and their empowerment
policies. He pleaded that in a time “between failed multiculturalism and not yet developed interculturalism”, it is important to tackle the questions, what places, what
competences, what networks and what resources are needed to embrace mutual
transformation for the emergence of interculture. Chris finally held out to the OMC
group that its central concern should be the policies needed to support intercultural
action.
In a third tour de table, the Member State representatives gave their ideas for the
focus and the working method of the group:
•
Some highlighted that suggestions for policies needed to be born out with
practice examples and that good as well as bad practice needed to be drawn
on (Estonia, Austria).
•
Several delegates emphasised that it was important to consider the role of
arts education in schools for making cultural institutions places for intercultural exchange (Denmark, Belgium, Lithuania).
•
The Italian representative offered the analysis scheme for the national reports on the implementation of the UNESCO Convention for inspiration to the
group. Several members of the group supported the idea of developing a matrix for the comparison of practice examples, which experts will contribute.
•
The Polish representatives pointed out that it would be wise to use an understanding of diversity, which encompasses the effects of international migration as well as differences between social groups or regional cultures. Otherwise the relevance of the group’s work would be limited for Poland, which
has been experiencing more emigration than immigration. The Hungarian
representative reinforced this perspective.
What qualifies as a space for exchanges between cultures?
The Commission representative, Laura Cassio, aided the group’s discussion of what
it should focus on by listing thirteen model cultural institutions with different activity
profiles – she asked the group to identify which of these they would consider “spaces
for intercultural dialogue”. Delegate were hesitant to chose, but the greatest num2 http://www.intercultural-europe.org/site/sites/default/files/u67/CTorch%20-%20Cultural%20Diversity%20%26%20Intercultural%20Dialogue%20OMC%20Reflection%20Paper.pdf
21
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
ber of ‘votes’ went to “a traditional institution not radically changing its mainstream
programme, but doing side work with associations in the neighbourhoods, e.g. community arts” and “an institution undergoing a radical revision of its programme and
organization to respond to the need of the local population – starting by asking them
what is relevant”.
Synergies between policy fields
In the spirit of cooperation between the services of the European Commission, Giulia
Amaducci from DG HOME addressed the OMC group with an overview of the instruments of EU policy for the integration of third-country-nationals. She expressed the
hope for synergies between the work of the OMC group and the European Integration
Forum.
The meeting concluded with agreement on the homework group members have to
accomplish before the next meeting on 11-12 December.
PIE position paper on OMC “Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue3” (as presented on 24th September 2012)
Meeting 2: 11/12th December 2012
Brussels, Belgium
The second meeting of national experts on cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue
in the framework of the Open Method of Coordination was introduced with a keynote
by Naseem Khan4 which provided ‘five pointers’ for work on interculturalism. Further
inspiration was provided by presentations on the French Scientific Interest Group Heritage Institutions and Intercultural Practices5, on the Cultural Plan for Brussels6,
on a Slovenian municipal library’s project “Roma people invited to the library”, and
on the Austrian community arts centre Brunnenpassage7. The experts then took a
look at the ‘homework’ they had done since the last meeting: collecting good practice
examples from their respective country. The delegates’ recounting of their experience with collecting examples revealed interesting differences between the countries
in terms of the preoccupations of cultural policy-making and the political status of
questions of interculturality. It transpired that the ‘good practice examples’ tend to be
exceptional and that austerity measures are taking their toll.
An as yet inconclusive discussion ensued on the analytical framework to be used
for the collation of policy and practice examples, and the method by which the
group would arrive at recommendations. A number of EU Member States were
represented for the first time in this second round: Flemish-speaking Belgium,
the Netherlands, Germany, Greece, Slovakia and Portugal – the latter two only
appointed days before the meeting. The group will from now on also have a participant from accession country Croatia.
Under the motivating chairwomanship of Slovenian expert, Sonja Kralj-Bervar, the group displays energy to undertake a good piece of work togeth3 http://www.intercultural-europe.org/site/sites/default/files/2012%20Sept.%20PIE%20submission%20to%20OMC%20w%20MT%20paper.pdf
4 http://www.intercultural-europe.org/site/sites/default/files/Naseem%20Khan%20INTERCULTURALISM%20%20%20Brussels%20%20December%2011th%202012.pdf
5 http://www.ipapic.eu/
6 http://www.brusselskunstenoverleg.be/nl/node/5074
7 http://www.brunnenpassage.at/
22
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
er. Since group members communicate directly with each other in English and socialising possibilities were on offer, the group might gel. Yet
national political constraints might yet come in the way of ambitious results.
Platform for Intercultural Europe participated actively in the deliberations, and its
membership OMC working group will identify further input to the process.
KEYNOTE BY NASEEM KHAN:
“Five Pointers for work on interculturalism”
Naseem Khan who is decorated with high British honours for her work on diversity,
innovation and social change, provided the meeting with first food for thought. Her
1976 report “The Arts Britain Ignores” is considered to have been ground-breaking – to her it is important to note how long the debate on diversity recognition has
now been going on and from how many sources it keeps being enriched (contact
theory, well-being as a policy indicators, knowledge from the neuro-sciences etc).
Naseem Khan’s 5-point advice was not so much on public policy-making as on the
approach of cultural organisations to interculturalism:
1. Work with commonalities rather than differences: To target cultural
programming at specific ethnic groups can backfire – it might not make them
join audiences. Better to programme around universal human themes and
interests.
2. Be in it for the long haul: To open a cultural institution to a culturally
diverse population is an endeavour, which needs to be sustained over long
periods. Besides tackling outright discriminatory practices and the prejudices
at their heart, many obstacles to access in language, style and tacit assumptions need to be identified and removed. Sustenance also needs to come
from public policy: public funding and public awareness raising for unacceptable state of affairs.
3. Don’t expect to understand everything and everybody: Complete comprehension of one another is an illusion. Intercultural work needs to be granted time for mutual learning.
4. Don’t be afraid of tradition: It doesn’t “prevent people from coming out of
their ghettos”. Rather, it roots people for healthy cultural growth.
5. Build competences into the fabric of organisations: Token individuals
charged with intercultural dialogue cannot bring about institutional change.
An intercultural overhaul of a cultural institution needs to happen top to
bottom, from its board to its catering arrangements and outreach activities.
Sabine Frank, PIE’s Secretary General, pointed out that Naseem Khan’s fifth recommendation corresponds perfectly with Platform for Intercultural Europe’s advocacy
position. However, the question how public policy makers can encourage and support
intercultural transformations of cultural institutions could unfortunately not be advanced at this moment of the meeting.
PRESENTATION OF EXAMPLES:
A policy example: Intercultural work in French heritage institutions
Hélène Hatzfeld from the French Ministry for Culture and Communication (one
of the experts on the OMC group) presented a French policy initiative born out of work
in the context of the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity and the European Year
23
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
of Intercultural Dialogue 2008. What started as a workshop on Intercultural Dialogue
in heritage institutions in 2008 became a network in 2011: the Scientific Interest
Group - Heritage Institutions and Intercultural Practices (Groupement d’intérêt scientifique - Institutions Patrimoniales et Pratiques Interculturelles8). IPAPIC
is dedicated to research on intercultural practices in heritage institutions (concerning
the content of collections, what from collections is shown, audience policies etc),
which apparently vary more strongly than those of arts institutions. It reinforces dialogue between researchers, professionals and network members, who all also have
their different cultures. Furthermore, IPAPIC aims at changing conceptions about the
relationship between heritage and national values – it tries to cut a path between
French republican universalism and multiculturalism. The speaker illustrated the work
of IPAPIC but also pointed out that its work is far from mainstream, marginal to the
interests of the ministry in question and hampered by a lack of financial support. A
further interesting point the speaker made was that interest in intercultural work is
greater in French local cultural institutions than in the big national ones. Even the
Quai Branly museum of ethnography9 with the slogan “where cultures dialogue” (“là
où dialoguent les cultures”) was truly about the dialogue between different aesthetic
traditions rather than about rendering a cultural service to diverse people.
Practice examples:
Belgium: Cultural Plan for Brussels
Two invited experts from Belgium, Leen de Spiegelaare (Brussels Kunstenoverleg10) and Sophie Alexandre (Réseau des Arts à Bruxelles11) presented12. The initiative of their two networks to achieve a concertation of the cultural sector in Brussels
divided between Flemish and French-speaking institutions and with a total of 42
government officials in the city with a responsibility for culture at different levels of
authority in the federal state, the need for a common Cultural Plan for Brussels13
was felt, negotiated over two years and put in place in 2009: The plan is embedded
in a wider debate on the future of Brussels – a city where 50% of the population is
of foreign origin, where one in three is under thirty and the socio-economic situation
is volatile. The Plan addresses 34 proposals to the cultural sector and in particular to
relevant government bodies. One of the four priorities of the Action Plan is ‘diversity
and cultural accessibility’, and a Working Group on Interculturalism started in
January 2010 and has been active since. It has three sub-groups. One covers the
development of staff diversity plans for cultural institutions. Another deals with audience development and has, for example, organised training for arts ‘mediators’,
i.e. the communication and education specialists of cultural institutions, to respond
to the complex cultural and linguistic situation in Brussels. The third sub-group comprises artists and deals with intercultural programming. The obstacles they come up
against in promoting intercultural programming include perceived conflicts with the
established identities of cultural institutions and concerns about artistic quality. Differences in approach play out in different vocabulary preferences – ‘social cohesion’
being a preoccupation of the French-speaking side, whereas the Flemish-speaking
side emphasises ‘interculturality’. The big challenge on both sides, so the verdict of
the presenters, is to get interculturalism on the agendas of the directors of cultural
institutions.
8
http://www.ipapic.eu/
9
http://www.quaibranly.fr/
10 http://www.brusselskunstenoverleg.be/nl
11 http://www.reseaudesartsabruxelles.be/fr
12 /site/sites/default/files/Bru%20Kunstenoverleg%20Reseau%20des%20Arts%2011-122012_eng%5B1%5D.ppt
13 http://www.brusselskunstenoverleg.be/nl/node/5074
24
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
Slovenia (Metlika): Romani People Invited to the Library
An invited expert from Slovenia, Marta Strahnic, Head Librarian of the public library in the municipality of Metlika14, presented the project “Romani people invited
to the library”. The project started from the observation that very few individuals
from the over 300 Roma people in the municipality used the library. Weak knowledge of the Slovenian language and lack of transportation between the five Roma
settlements of the municipality and its central town were some of the obstacles.
Based on personal invitations, the visits of Roma to the library were facilitated. Library events, which offer the possibility to socialise were organised. A mobile library service to the Roma settlements was set up and reading encouraged through
story-telling hours, puppet shows etc. The project was backed up through cooperation with kindergartens, schools and the Roma society “Kham Metlika”. After
years of persistent work, the use of the library by Roma people has intensified.
The project won the International Reading Association Award for Innovative Reading
Promotion in Europe in 2011. A future challenge for the project is both to encourage Roma to read non-Roma authors and to provide books in the different Romani
languages. In future the library also hopes to have to rely less on events targeted
specifically at Roma people and to be able to mix its user groups.
Austria (Vienna): Brunnenpassage
A fourth example presented was the work of the KunstSozialRaum Brunnenpassage15
in Vienna with the motto “Art for everyone!” Austrian OMC delegate, Anne Wiederhold, also artistic director of the Brunnenpassage, explained the mission and activities of this community arts centre: Located in an old market hall in Ottakring, a
traditionally working class district with a foreign population higher than the average
of Vienna, it offers art workshops free of charge to people of different origins so as to
enable them to live and develop their identities, as well as to get to know each other.
Brunnenpassage provides access to dance, singing, story-telling etc for people who
are not reached by the publically subsidized cultural establishment of the city. See
video16. It offers a “touch and go” format for participation where no registration is
required, as well as a “grab and go” format where participants sign up for activities.
It offers activities on its own premises as well as going out to other venues and public spaces. Its mission is rooted in Article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights
(free participation in cultural life and enjoyment of the arts). Brunnenpassage prides
itself in cooperating only with highly professional artists. It considers cooperation
with other organisations essential – both migrants’ associations such as the Istanbul
Kulturverein and the institutions of high culture such as Wiener Sängerknaben and
Wiener Konzerthaus. It is innovative in its advertising and outreach work.
Questions which the examples raise
The examples are vastly different in respect of the size of the populations segments, which they serve (and also the size of the territory to which they apply).
However, what they appear to have in common is that they are singular examples with the scope of much emulation and in need of much wider support.
Although the importance of looking at ‘important failure’ has been repeatedly pointed
out, none has been put forward yet. For such ‘soul-baring’, the OMC exchange might
be too much of a ‘showing-off to each other’ exercise after all.
14 http://www.culture.si/en/Metlika_People%E2%80%99s_Library
15 http://www.intercultural-europe.org/site/sites/default/files/u67/BrunnenPassage_
Pr%C3%A4sentation_En.pdf
16 http://vimeo.com/50123347
25
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
TOUR DE TABLE: SCOPING THE WORK AND SIZING THE TASK
In a first tour de table, experts were invited to comment on the scope of Intercultural Dialogue, which they would like to see covered by the work of the group, and on
whether only public cultural institutions or also cultural NGOs should be the subject
of the mapping of practices. Moreover, they were asked to relay the political context
of their countries within which they are scanning for practice examples to contribute
to the OMC process.
Scope of Intercultural Dialogue to be covered by the work of the group
There was consensus amongst the experts, that besides migrants, ethnic minorities
and Roma people needed to be taken into account in selecting intercultural practice
examples. The Polish delegates also advocated to consider underprivileged people
whatever their origins. The Dutch responded by saying that she agreed in principle
with the widening of the scope, but sees the danger - born out of experience from the
Netherlands - that “migration issues can then get side-lined”.
Inclusion of NGOs in the analysis
Opinions
were
divided
on
whether
non-governmental
organisations should be included in the mapping – depending on the roles they
play and the degree to which they are ‘public’ in the different countries.
Several national experts recommended an exclusive focus on public cultural institutions (Spain, Denmark, Romania, France). Guillermo Kurtz (Spain) commented
succinctly “the mainstream must change”. Gabriele Pfennings (Germany) reminded
the group that the Cultural Affairs Committee expects it to “focus on public duties”.
There was also a set of experts who suggested that NGOs should be included in the mapping, but recommendations could be limited to public institutions (Hungary, Greece, Portugal, Croatia and Belgium). Deborah
Hustić pointed out that cultural NGOs are of crucial importance in South-Eastern Europe, but that “it is the public institutions which need to change.”
A couple of experts questioned the distinction between public institutions and
NGOs completely. The Polish delegates pointed out that some public functions
are delegated to NGOs, and that there are platforms for collaboration between
NGOs and public institutions. The Dutch delegate said that the distinction between NGOs and public institutions didn’t make sense for the Netherlands either - it was better do distinguish between large, mainstream institutions (which
largely have not adopted intercultural work) and smaller institutions (which
do most intercultural work, but are disappearing because of funding cuts).
The British and Slovak delegates rounded the discussion off by suggesting that NGOs
should be included if they receive government money. The group therefore reached
the same conclusion as it predecessor, namely that the key task is to examine what
is being done with public money.
Intercultural Dialogue in the national contexts
Experts from 12 of the Member States had submitted policy and practice examples in
writing prior to the meeting. A number of experts explained that there were no specific policies or government department on Intercultural Dialogue in their countries
(Spain, Portugal, Slovakia) or that since the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue
2008, there has been no financial support for Intercultural Dialogue work (Austria)
– no funding for research and the transfer of experience in particular. In other countries, Intercultural Dialogue features with different intensity on the political agenda,
though nowhere at the top of priorities:
26
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
•
The Irish delegate pointed out that the Chester Beatty Library is the only national Irish institution with an express commitment to Intercultural Dialogue.
The Arts Council of Ireland provides some guidelines in respect of managing
diversity, but runs no particular initiatives at present.
•
In Denmark, Intercultural Dialogue has a place in policy on international
cooperation. The centre-left Danish government in place since October 2011
has a priority commitment to diversity, and the Danish Arts Council has made
ICD part of its new action plan. The use of public cultural institutions (museums and libraries in particular) has been under intense scrutiny in recent
times.
•
The Dutch delegate pointed out that the Netherlands have had an Intercultural Dialogue strategy for a long time, but its implementation is incomplete
and was interrupted for two years under the conservative-liberal minority
government supported by Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (2010-2012). In
the Netherlands, so the OMC expert, Intercultural Dialogue policies are hampered by being seen as left wing.
•
In Germany, the focus of cultural policy is on inclusion through cultural
education. The debate on interculture has recently been stimulated by the
InterKulturBarometer – a representative survey of people with and without a
migration background on their cultural interests and attitudes, carried out by
the Zentrum für Kulturforschung17 for the first time in 2012 and supported by
the federal state (Bundesbeauftragter für Kultur und Medien, BKM) and two
Länder (Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia). (This study concluded
with recommendations on the review and renewal of the repertoire of public
cultural institutions, the need for intercultural arts development and audience
development.)
•
Both in French-speaking and in Flemish-speaking Belgium, Intercultural Dialogue is an issue permeating cultural policy although there are no specific
bodies promoting it.
•
In Estonia, a public deliberation on state cultural policy has just been concluded. Given that the 1.3 million inhabitants of Estonia comprise over 100
different nationalities (of which 40 are represented with cultural organisations), a lack of mutual knowledge is perceived as the main challenge. Accordingly, the news portal Etnoweb–Uniting Cultures18 has been designed to
offer space for information sharing.
DISCUSSION OF WORKING METHODS
The meeting split into two working groups and then assembled back in plenary to
discuss how work could proceed in earnest. The group was feeling its way forward on
the following questions:
How could the analytical exercise be structured?
Remarks included the following:
17
18
27
http://www.kulturforschung.de/institutsprofil.html
http://www.etnoweb.ee/
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
•
The template for the mapping, with staffing, programming and outreach as
domains of enquiry, could be the basis for the analytical framework.
•
The UNESCO Convention implementation reports of the Member States
should be considered.
•
The analytical framework could include a distinction between material and
cognitive aspects of access to culture.
•
Work could take place in subgroups by target group or by type of institution.
•
Mapping should not be comprehensive but illustrative.
Recommendations: What should be the process for formulating them, their
nature and addressees?
The following suggestions were made:
•
Look for recommendations systematically in each practice example.
•
Members should highlight the importance of the examples they present and
propose recommendations based on them.
•
Recommendations must be based on lessons learnt.
•
PIE suggested that each example is peer-reviewed and that the reviewer
identifies recommendations in the example in question. Moreover, each
delegate could identify recommendations from the totality of examples
which they think are pertinent for their country/which they would like to see
go back to their government. These could then be amalgamated into group
recommendations.
•
Address recommendations to EU institutions, Member States and operators.
•
Laura Cassio, European Commission, mentioned that “the double mandate
(examination of policies and practices) needs to be respected”.
The undercurrent of this discussion was the sense that Intercultural Dialogue is a politically charged topic in many countries. The Chair even cautioned that the recommendations from the group couldn’t be “too prescriptive”. Rather, they should be part of “building sensitivity”. The Commission official further advised that the ‘recommendations’
of the group should merely be ‘conclusions’, i.e. findings of its deliberations. In other
words, they should not contain concrete calls for action addressed to specific powers.
The Greek delegate pointed out that the outcome of the work would depend
a lot on whether the group members would see themselves primarily as experts (i.e. as independent and obliged to their knowledge and professional insight) or as national delegates (i.e. beholden to their national governments).
The Slovak delegate, Lydia Šuchova seemed to hope for the former. She said, “the
importance of Intercultural Dialogue needs to be defended.”
Meeting 3: 18/19th March 2013
Brussels, Belgium
With their March meeting, the national experts on cultural diversity and intercultural
dialogue are over half way with their work in the framework of the Open Method of
Coordination. Two more meetings and their achievements will have to be presented.
28
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
What did the March meeting deliver? Invited speakers presented more examples of
good diversity practice from cultural institutions in Poland, Italy, Belgium and the
UK to inspire the deliberations. Chris Torch - on behalf of the Commission appointed
European Expert Network on Culture - presented a template for the presentation of
practice examples, for which Platform for Intercultural Europe had put forward the
first draft. The purpose of the template is to make the practice examples comparable
and to solicit the kind of information that will make their analysis interesting. The
template asks, for example, “Has this action been inspired/necessitated by public
policy?” or “Has this action influenced or changed public policy?” Chris Torch also introduced the group members to the idea of a matrix, which correlates practice examples to the involvement of public policy. Practice examples will be placed in the matrix
in order to map the prevalent relationship of practice with policy. Recommendations
to policy-makers will be possible on this basis. The Open Method of Coordination as
an EU tool for intergovernmental collaboration on the advancement of national policies might fulfil its purpose here. In another part of the meeting, the national experts
worked in four subgroups on ‘programming’, ‘staffing’, ‘reaching out to new publics’
and on ‘creating spaces of encounter’ in order to start elaborating the components of
the expert group’s final report.
Read more on the presentations of the invited speakers. We ask how exactly they fit
in the work of the OMC group:
‘The craft of bridge-builders or re-inventing agora in European borderlands’
Krzysztof Czyzewski spoke from his 22 years of experience as director of the “Borderland of Arts, Cultures, Nations19” Centre in Sejny, a town in north-eastern Poland close
to the border with Lithuania and Belarus – a territory having changed hands many
times over the centuries, leaving scars in its many different peoples’ memories. Krzysztof chose this location in 1990 to start a complex artistic and educational programme
to explore the ‘borderland’ region’s conflictual history and to create a new plural society out of long-term processes of interaction and co-creation. In the meantime, the
Borderland Centre has become emulated in over a dozen locations across the world.
Krzysztof explained his philosophy along the line of four keywords: space, time,
language and craft:
•
The work of the Borderland centre offers people from different ethnic and
religious communities shared activities in a common space, and encourages
the recognition of their common heritage. This contrasts with the prevalent
‘minority culture’ practice.
•
Both the timing and the length of a cultural initiative is considered crucial at
Borderland. The emphasis is on continuity.
•
The term ‘Borderland’ (pogranicze) was used so as to shed its negative meaning and both to replace terms associated with Polish domination of the East
and as an alternative to the ‘artificial, positive’ term ‘intercultural dialogue’.
•
The fact that the artistic work at Borderland is intercultural, i.e. socially motivated, doesn’t release the artists from a responsibility for the quality of their
work: “A bridge must be well built.” And: intercultural dialogue doesn’t ensue
from artists’ relationships with audiences, but out of co-creation.
Prompted by questions from the OMC experts, including by Platform for Intercultural
Europe, Krzysztof revealed information of stricter relevance to the work of the group:
19
http://www.pogranicze.sejny.pl/?lang=en
29
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
•
He considers the Borderland Centre a public cultural institution. It was a civil
initiative which eventually found support first from the local government and
finally from the national ministry of culture.
•
He does see the practice of the Borderland Centre in opposition to “a culture
of evening performances” and to “stage art”.
•
His strongest message to the experts was:
“We will either reform mainstream cultural institutions from within
or there will be post-cultural, and not just post-industrial spaces in our
cities.”
•
A question about the effect the example of the Borderland Centre has so far
had on mainstream cultural institutions in Poland unfortunately remained unanswered. But the listeners heard that the movement of decentralisation of
culture in Poland after 1989 has paradoxically favoured big players, especially
since the arrival of EU money.
It was important that the OMC group heard an example from Central Europe, which
highlighted the need to deal with ‘indigenous’ diversity. May be it dispelled concerns
by OMC experts from the Baltic states – expressed during the lunch break – that the
OMC work wasn’t so relevant to them because there were few immigrants in their
countries.
Heritage and Interculture (Italy)
Simona Bodo explained that her work on the topic started with her participation in the
study “Sharing Diversity, National Approaches to Intercultural Dialogue” (ERICarts,
2007). She reminded the OMC group that museums were established in order to represent and validate local, regional and national cultures, and that they are therefore
fundamentally at odds with the idea that museum collections should be used in order
to emphasise their inclusive and shared meanings. After years of effort, Intercultural
Dialogue was still at best understood as one aim of museums amongst several rather
than an engrained museum practice. The prevailing approaches to intercultural museum work are:
•
Showcasing cultural difference to the cultural mainstream
•
Promoting newcomers’ (mainstream) heritage literacy
•
Enhancing self-awareness in migrant communities through culturally specific
programming.
The motivation for these approaches is often to fill cultural deficits or to compensate for
misrepresentations of cultural groups. However, they do not encourage cross-cultural
engagement and neglect processes, which create new knowledge and new relationships.
Moreover, when museums target specific cultural groups with special programmes, they
face the danger of “reproducing racialised thinking”. Nevertheless, the challenge to work
interculturally, was essential in order to avoid “museums’ irrelevance to their society”.
Simona referred to the “From the Margins to the Core” conference at the Victoria &
Albert Museum in London in 2010 (nearly 700 international delegates), which explored the “significance of diversity and equality in contemporary museum and heritage policy and practice” and was considered groundbreaking. One of the conference
speakers (Mark O’Neill, Head of Art & Museums at Glasgow City Council) had distinguished two models of diversity practice in the museum sector: the standard
30
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
‘welfare model’, where temporary exhibitions, education and outreach activities are
bolted on to an unchanged traditional functioning of museums, and the ‘social justice
model’, where ‘marginalised’ communities are implicated in curatorship, conservation
and display. Mark O’Neill’s verdict on the two models was clear: the ‘welfare model’
“replicates existing power relationships”, whereas the ‘social justice model’ “breaks
down unhelpful dichotomies and creates a sense of the museum as a living resource,
connected to culture” (see conference proceedings).
Simona went on to present five ‘strands of experimental intercultural work’ in Italian
museums – all projects centred on participation:
•
Training and actively involving museum mediators with a migration
background in the planning of narrative trails, collaborative exhibitions etc.
in order to achieve “a more dialogical, multi-vocal interpretation of collections” (e.g. “Brera: another story. Intercultural trails in the museum”, National Picture Gallery, Brera, 2012-13).
•
Engaging mixed groups through mediation methods such as storytelling and theatre in order to develop new, shared narratives around collections
(e.g. “Plural Stories”, Guatelli Museum of Everyday Life, near Parma, 20082009).
•
Promoting a gradual acquaintance of diverse audiences with collections by relating museum objects to personal objects (e.g. “TAM TAM – The
Museum for All”, Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Milan, 2011-2012).
•
Encouraging the “adoption” of museum objects as a means of building
new bridges between artefacts and individuals (e.g. “Choose the Piece”, Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Modena, 2008-2009).
•
Promoting interaction between project participants and contemporary artists in order to develop new perspectives on heritage or identity (e.g. “City Telling”, Sandretto Re Rebaudengo Foundation, Turin, 2008-2009).
These six projects all appear to have been of short-term nature and as such closer to
the ‘welfare model’ than to the ‘social justice model’ – a critical aspect of the Brera
project20 was, for example, that “museum staff not directly taking part in the project
(from upper management to front-of-house staff) was not sufficiently involved.”*[see
reply below]
The examples were picked from a collection of over 30 practice descriptions in the
“on-line resource devoted to heritage education from an intercultural perspective21”
of Fondazione ISMU (Initiatives and Studies on Multiethnicity), updated quarterly.
This collection illustrates that a broad range of Italian museums experiment with
intercultural work, and that there is a growing community of practice (considering
that Italy has around 3.800 museums, of which 420 are state museums - source:
Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities). The on-line resource is part of a longterm programme intended to involve as wide a professional community as possible
in debate and exchange. However, Simona admitted that the practice descriptions
in the on-line resource remain quite unknown and are frightening to many of those
from traditional museums who find out about them. Moreover, intercultural ways of
working are still absent from the training of museum professionals.
20 http://37.206.0.17/patrimonioeintercultura/index.php?page=esperienze-show.
php&id=98
21 http://37.206.0.17/patrimonioeintercultura/
31
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
When asked about the role of public policies, Simona Bodo most astoundingly said:
“No political agenda can change museum practice.
Museums must be willing to change;
support by public authorities is then welcome.”
Was she speaking out of resignation over the state of affairs in Italy, or was she really
suggesting that museums across Europe are immune to direction from government
(and from democratic decision-making)?*[see reply below]
At the very least museum practice and public policy is linked via the question of
resources. Consider the ‘lessons learnt’ about “Brera: another story”: It “would not
have been possible without a considerable involvement of external experts. Any museum with features similar to those of Brera Picture Gallery (i.e. a state museum
lacking autonomous status), or without a structured education service, wishing to
promote a similar project, should (…) determine whether resources are available to
involve external experts (…) The production of ‘intercultural’ audio-guides is of vital
importance to (…) ensuring that the project leaves a permanent trace in the museum’s exhibition spaces (…), and is accessible to all visitors at any time (…) On the
other hand, it is undeniable that the intercultural trails personally guided by museum
mediators are more likely to have a much stronger impact on visitors (…) the offer
of guided tours on a permanent basis would cost the museum around 15.000 euro
per year. (…) There was no budget specifically earmarked for communication: most
participants in the experimental trails, especially those with a migrant background,
learned about the project from museum mediators and more in general by word of
mouth.” (See project description in “Heritage and Interculture”.)
If museums depend on more funds for intercultural work, they have a reason to talk to policy-makers. On the other hand, if public funds for museums
are tight, policy-makers have the option of making them conditional on intercultural work being carried out in museums.
In terms of making Simona Bodo’s presentation useful for the purposes of the OMC
group’s work, the on-line practice collection “Heritage and Interculture” of Fondazione ISMU should be captured as a practice example (rather than the individual examples it contains). However, the ‘lessons learnt’ which are described in each of the
project descriptions could also be usefully summarised to inform the conclusions of
the OMC group. In terms of placing “Heritage and Interculture” on the OMC group’s
matrix of relationships between policy and practice, it should be noted that the initiative is that of a private foundation. It is comparable in purpose to IPAPIC (Institutions Patrimoniales et Pratiques Interculturelles), a French initiative presented at the
previous meeting.
Approaches to diversity in Brussels cultural institutions
This set of presentations followed on from the presentation of the “Cultural Plan for
Brussels” at the previous meeting. The representatives from the two biggest theatres
of Belgium, the Théâtre National of the French-speaking community and the Koninklijke Vlaamse Schouwburg (KVS) of the Flemish-speaking community, explained
how their respective houses both consider themselves invested in the present and
therefore in contemporary creation, and recognise the multicultural nature of Brussels –a principally French-speaking city, with pervasive Flemish culture, a multitude
of immigrant communities and the capital of Europe.
32
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
Alexandre Caputo (Artistic Adviser, Théâtre National) highlighted the initiative Toernee General, a cooperation (since 2006) between both houses whereby their audiences get the opportunity “to get to know the shows from ‘over the language border’
which they find good, exciting or relevant.” Co-productions within this cooperation
allow artist from the different language communities to meet.
Danny Op de Beeck (Financial Director, KVS) explained how in the course of a 5-year
renovation of the KVS building, during which the company moved to the district of
Molenbeek, where socio-economic problems are rife, the theatre was transformed
from a traditional theatre with lots of season card holders to a modern outreach theatre with an audience of 50-60 thousand per year made up of individuals who come
once or twice per year.
Willy Thomas (KVS Theatrical Company member) drew attention to the Tok Toc
Knock22 Festival, a project with which “KVS, the Brussels city theatre, is leaving its
haven behind and going out into Brussels for a whole season (2012/13) … to create
theatre and related art in and together with the districts involved. … Seventeen artists of various backgrounds, Dutch-speaking and French-speaking, from Brussels or
elsewhere … will be working in the city for several months.”
Asked how quality is ensured in their approach to theatre making, Alexandre Caputo
said that “quality can hinge on risk and innovation”; Willy Thomas answered that “the
engagement created, the importance of the moment can be central to quality.”
To show just how ‘root-and-branch’ the overhaul of Théâtre National and KVS has
been, the OMC group also heard of the ‘diversity plans’, which the two institutions
have adopted in collaboration with Actiris, the Belgian employment agency. Mark
Trullemans from Actiris explained that diversity plans take a comprehensive approach
to diversity; they consider women, young people, people over 55, handicapped people, less educated people, and people of ‘other origins’. Actiris develops diversity
plans with enterprise from all sectors (in a consultative process involving employers
and employees); in the cultural sector it has so far worked with 10 institutions, 6
of which now have a diversity plan in place. Diversity plans entail interventions in
four areas: management, staff policies (e.g. neutral recruitment processes), internal
communications and external communications (website, charter). When a diversity
plan has been put in place, the organisation concerned gets Actiris’ diversity label for
two years. Mark Trullemans answered Platform for Intercultural Europe’s questions
whether there was a critical size for organisations to adopt a diversity plan with “No,
the smallest organisation with a diversity plan has only 2 staff and adopted the plan
in view of future expansion.”
In terms of placing Théâtre National and KVS together on the OMC group’s matrix
of relationships between policy and practice, it should be noted that the initiative for
their institutional change and cooperation came from themselves, and was effectively
endorsed years later (December 2012) by a cultural cooperation agreement signed
by the culture minsters of Belgium’s two linguistic communities, Fadila Laanan and
Joke Schauvliege.
Paul Hamlyn Roundhouse Studios (UK)
Régis Cochefert, Arts Programme Manager at Paul Hamlyn Foundation, introduced
The Roundhouse23, North London, UK, to which the Paul Hamlyn Foundation (one of
the UK’s ten largest foundations) is the single biggest benefactor.
22http://toktocknocken.wordpress.com/
23http://www.roundhouse.org.uk/
33
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
The roundhouse was built in 1847 to house a railway turntable, but was soon used
for a sequence of different purposes, then fell into a long period of disuse until being
opened as a performing arts (theatre) venue in 1966. In the 1980s, a period of decline ensued until an expensive redevelopment started in 2004. The point of interest
to the OMC work is that when the venue was reopened as a music and performance
venue in 2006, it was combined with a state-of-the-art creative centre for young
people in the building’s under croft (Paul Hamlyn Roundhouse Studios), which “annually provides 3000 young people with opportunities to develop skills in music and
music production, circus, theatre, poetry, TV and video, radio and digital media. …
The creative programme that takes place inside the Studios encompasses creative
projects open to all 11-25 year-olds, plus projects with education partners and targeted community and outreach work specifically designed for those who are disabled,
homeless, out of education or training, excluded or at risk.” The founding belief of
the programme is “that participation in arts activity unlocks young people’s creative
skills, empathy, knowledge and self-confidence, and that this will help them to live
fulfilling lives and contribute in a positive way to society.” Amongst the success stories
which have emanated from the programme are the artists Scottee and Tres B.
For the purposes of the OMC work (with the remit to look at public cultural institutions), we must ask:
In what sense, if any, is The Roundhouse a public cultural institution?
While during its first incarnation as a cultural venue, the building was owned by public
authorities (Greater London Council 1966 until 1983, then Camden Borough Council)
and the tenants probably rented at non-commercial rates and received public funding for their work, the building was bought by a private benefactor in 1996, and The
Roundhouse was set up as a trust in 1998. Since then The Roundhouse has operated
largely as a commercial arts venue (two thirds earned income), and amongst the
subsidies it receives (to fund its 11-25s creative programme in total and partly the
arts venue), only a third comes from public sources (Arts Council). Since its reopening in 2006 it is also a registered charity and as such runs the creative programme
for 11-25s.
So The Roundhouse partly exists to fulfil a public good and it does collaborate with
public education and employment agencies, but it seems otherwise private in nature.
Moreover, public policies do not appear to have much of a bearing on the activities of
The Roundhouse, nor vice versa.
As such The Roundhouse is relevant to the OMC in that one could ask whether public
institutions engage enough in the kind of work which Paul Hamlyn Roundhouse Studios carries out and take an example from it. Amongst the lessons which the Studios
might offer are:
34
•
The importance of low-threshold access: besides structured learning programmes, “, low-to-no-pressure ways in” are on offer, e.g. weekly open access drop-in sessions.
•
Involvement of the target group in decision-making: The Roundhouse has a
Youth Advisory Board and from that two delegates to the board of trustees.
Both tutoring and empowering youth is considered the most important (but
also difficult) balance.
•
A permanent endeavour to seek out needs and opportunities and respond to
them: “DELIVERY, EVALUATION, INVENTION - repeat as necessary…”
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
Decibel Performing Arts Showcase (UK)
Tony Panayiotou, Director for Diversity at Arts Council England, presented the Decibel
Performing Arts Showcase24, a business event originally intended to showcase Black,
African-Caribbean and Asian artist (2003 to 2008). Since 2009, Decibel has taken
a much broader approach to diversity in the arts, and deliberately targeted female
artists and LGBTG (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transsexual) artists. During a 4-day
Decibel Showcase, about 40 performances take place. Artists can present tour-ready
work, work in progress or can pitch an idea to cultural programmers. Decibel also
entails support to artists on how to market themselves, how to pitch their work and
how to apply for Arts Council funding.
Decibel Performing Arts Showcase is an example of an initiative in favour of diversity
in the arts by a public agency. It is interesting in that it abandoned an exclusive focus
on ethnic diversity and recognised ‘multi-layers of discrimination’.
*A reply from Simona Bodo (22nd April 2013)
“I don’t think it is fair to say that ‘These projects all appear to have been of shortterm nature and as such closer to the welfare model than to the social justice model’.
The museums, which promoted them, may find it hard to secure financial sustainability and institutional change at all levels, but the notion of participation underlying
their projects is definitely in line with the ‘social justice model’, and they may be
defined as ‘ground-breaking’ precisely for this reason.
When I said ‘No political agenda can change museum practice …’, I was certainly
speaking out of resignation over the Italian situation. In fact, I deplored how radically
the situation has changed in countries such as the UK, where direction from government has been dwindling in the past few years.
What I rather wished to argue is that unless a radical change takes place in the
‘institutional culture’ of museums, public resources may well be made available to
encourage the development of more diverse audiences, but museums will use them
only to pay lip service to the notion of ‘intercultural dialogue’. Without change from
within, museums will remain unable to go beyond policies, which target individuals
and groups according to their racial origin and ethnicity. The creation of ‘third spaces’
cannot be initiated through a top-down approach.”
Meeting 4: 3/4th July 2013
Brussels, Belgium
At their penultimate meeting, the nationally appointed experts grafted hard to get
closer to the expected output of the group - a report identifying policies and a good
practice manual for public arts and cultural institutions. They divided into four subgroups in order to each examine four practice examples according to a set of parameters proposed by Chris Torch from the European Expert Network on Culture
(appointed by the European Commission to help steer the work). Since the previous
meeting, the experts brought together a total of 80 examples of intercultural work,
presented in a single format. Chris Torch selected 32 ‘revealing actions’ and placed
them on a matrix, which maps different kinds of relationships between practice and
public policy.
24http://www.decibelpas.com/
35
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
PIE contributed to the subgroup on ‘diversifying the staff and boards of cultural institutions’, and offered its help with drafting the final report which will be discussed in
the group’s last meeting in October.
Presentations by representatives of particular intercultural practices occupied less
space than previously, but provided welcome relief from intense and sometimes controversial discussion: Jenny Siung from the Chester Beatty Library25 in Dublin (a museum of holy text from several world religions) outlined the institutions activities as
a “centre for intercultural learning and dialogue” and its programme of engagement
with the communities reflected in its collection and present in today’s Ireland – the
relocation of the museum to Dublin Castle 13 years ago, which enabled a vast increase in visitors’ numbers, coincided with the arrival of new people in Ireland.
Roisin McDonough and Nick Livingstone from Arts Council Northern Ireland presented
their Intercultural Arts grant-making programme, which acknowledges that diversity
in Northern Ireland goes way beyond the different catholic and protestant communities. The programme builds on a strong tradition of community arts and supports
arts projects which both strengthen the artistic expression of different ethnic groups
and enhance their engagement with each other. When PIE held its Sixth Intercultural
Practice Exchange26 with Arts Council Northern Ireland in Belfast in November 2012,
the Intercultural Arts Programme27 was still in its starting blocks – it was nice to hear
with what political attention it has in the meantime been launched and what interesting projects have got underway.
Meeting 5: 10/11th October 2013
Brussels, Belgium
Experts from 11 EU Member States formed the hard core who thrashed out which
recommendations from the work of over one year should make it into the final report
of the group on Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue (under the Open Method of Coordination). The group set itself the challenge to condense over sixty draft
recommendations into a final twelve, which would have a chance of being taken up.
PIE provided strong encouragement to avoid ‘general recommendations’ and consider
the addressees of each – in particular to be clear about the responsibilities of national
policy-makers, and to include proposals for the next EU Council Work Plan on Culture.
Chairwoman Sonja Kralj-Bervar and four other experts had previously met in Budapest to draw the work of four subgroups together in a first draft. By its fifth meeting
the group had reached the level of maturity for really engaged discussion, but it was
still apparent that more time would be needed to come to a deep common understanding.
A controversial discussion ensued, for example, over the draft recommendation “Do
not renounce artistic quality when working with special target groups.” The experience behind this is of course the discomfort, which some cultural institutions feel in
what they see as ‘crossing the line between artistic and social projects’ in the course
of engaging with more diverse audiences. Yet the recommendation implies that by
working with and for people with a migration background, for example, artistic quality is in danger. In the discussion only the comparison with gender equality finally
25 http://www.cbl.ie/
26 http://www.intercultural-europe.org/site/sites/default/files/2012%206th%20PE%20Belfast%20-%20Report%20FINAL.pdf
27 http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/news/2013/news19032013a.html
36
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
brought out the intricacy of the recommendation: Imagine that somebody warned
that working more with and for women might be a danger to artistic quality!
The group also grappled once more with the scarcity of examples on staff diversification, which in some countries has to do with structural obstacles: In Portugal and
Spain, for example, the employees of cultural institutions are civil servants who are
recruited for the civil service as a whole rather than specially for the cultural field.
Neither is the lack of a diverse staff intake compensated for by staff training on inclusivity in these countries. PIE argued that the lack of examples should be interpreted
as a challenge to invest particular effort in this domain. The Commission official present however countered: “No recommendations should be made in areas where there
is no good practice. Recommendations to Member States will have no effect. It is best
to demonstrate what works.” PIE also proposed to recommend that the next Council
work plan for culture includes a project for the development of intercultural training
programmes for staff in cultural institutions (taking examples from other domains
such as the business sector).
In connection with the groups prospective recommendation for diversity benchmarking in cultural institutions, PIE director, Sabine Frank, was invited to present PIE’s
“Brokering Migrants’ Cultural Participation” project which centres around a benchmarking tool for diversity management in cultural institutions. The project was welcomed and several OMC experts offered to collaborate in its implementation.
It is now in the hands of the chair and the assigned Commission official to finish the
report. While some national experts had contributed over a dozen practice examples
for their country, each expert was requested to make a final selection of three, which
could go into the annex of the report. An “on-line competence centre” was called for
in order to make the wealth of examples collated by the group publicly accessible.
Publication of this OMC group’s report is due early in 2014. Its success will hinge
on the efforts put into its dissemination. The suggestion was made that each expert
– if in their power – helps organise a national meeting where key stakeholders are
invited to respond to the recommendations. The group might then meet once more
informally in March 2014 to share their experiences with disseminating the report in
the Member States.
Meeting reports by Sabine Frank on behalf of Platform for intercultural Europe
© Platform for Intercultural Europe, 2013
37
OMC: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE (PHASE II)
Platform for Intercultural Europe Discussion Papers
Developing understanding of the concepts behind
intercultural dialogue and action
“
“
Mark Terkessidis’ Four theses for an Audit of Culture and Platform for
Intercultural Europe’s reports on the meetings of experts delegated
by EU Member States to compare the state of affairs with interculturalism in cultural institutions might seem strange bedfellows. Yet
they perfectly juxtapose what ought to be considered, and what can
be achieved through the mechanisms of EU policy-making in the field
of culture. Anybody interested in the challenge of interculturalism as
posed to the world of the arts & culture from a European perspective,
will find inspiration in these complementary considerations.
”
Gottfried Wagner, Special envoy for international cultural-political
projects at the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Arts and Culture
Under the Open Method of Coordination a diverse group of civil servants and experts engaged in a dialogue, shared experiences and case
studies in order to rethink intercultural challenges throughout Europe.
When finding common ground, it can be formed into clear concerns
and recommendations and advocated throughout the EU. Things can
really happen then.
PIE’s contribution to this process has been exemplary. It took on a
broad responsibility, stimulating and questioning approaches presented to the group. This greatly contributed to a shared perspective, despite the OMC group’s varying experience. It is hard to imagine a successful OMC process without this hands-on dedication from a European
network for critical thinking like PIE.
”
Chris Torch, Senior Associate Intercult (Stockholm) and Board member
Culture Action Europe. Designated expert to the OMC Diversity group
www.intercultural-europe.org