commissioned by EFAH and IG Kultur Österreich; supported by BKA, II/9
"On nous parle de l'avenir de l'Europe, et de la nécessité
d'accorder les banques, les assurances,
les marchés
intérieurs, les entreprises, les polices, consensus,
consensus, consensus, mais le devenir des gens?"
(Gilles Deleuze)
The European convention seeks to set up a feasible future
constitution of a European Union, which will succeed in becoming
both deepened and enlarged. This constitutional process is
to be seen as a late condensation making the existing treaties
and their interconnections transparent, controllable and criticisable,
rather than a centralisation that minimizes the rights of
the people living in Europe. Even more, this occasion must
have wider consequences beyond a consensus of the leaders
and the upcoming ratification of new constitution documents.
It needs to become a constituting process, provoke
ongoing conflictual debates on the future of Europe, and result
in a formative period of European public spheres, in which
the people living in Europe can engage.
This paper aims to intensify the debate by raising awareness
about the specific functions of the contemporary cultural
field, its actors and institutions in the future development
of Europe, along with the convention, but also beyond. The
discussion of an issue like this has to start with the preconditions,
i.e. the legal framework and the current state of approaches
to cultural policies at EU level. Therefore, this paper will
first attempt to re-evaluate the current situation regarding
cultural policies at EU level by looking at the historical
development, re-reading and discussing the existing documents,
and drawing attention to paragraphs that have not yet been
implemented.
This paper aims to anticipate concepts that overcome the narrow discourses of cultural policy, which often seem to concentrate either on their primary counterpart, the market, or simply on themselves. As it is, cultural policy in Europe revolves around outdated notions with few links to contemporary discursive and theoretical considerations. The basis of cultural policy today seems to consist mainly of rumours from the Brussels corridors and gossip spread on the flights to and from Brussels. In order to overcome this vicious circle of traditional cultural policy talk and its hollow phraseology, to interconnect contemporary theories with contemporary cultural policies, in the second part of the paper we propose a new set of terms and concepts to be deployed in these discourses: Thus we focus on more general and crucial concepts, which serve as a basis for a new understanding of cultural policies. These include politics of difference, temporary autonomy in the cultural field, new modes of subjectification in the cultural field, transversality, participation and the creation of critical public spheres.
Finally, in the third part of this paper, we propose a preliminary list of adequate measures to be taken in order to strengthen the contemporary cultural field and to support the implementation of new cultural policies within the legal framework of the European Union. The intention of this provisional list is to provoke a continuing debate on the concrete measures and programmes, which is able to transcend the commonplaces of cultural policies. We know that this list is just a beginning. Nevertheless we feel it is necessary to design a model - fragmentary as it may be - in order to develop a broad range of concrete proposals from the abstract concepts. Our aim is to continue the work on this linkage and to intervene in the discourse throughout the upcoming months and years from the perspective of the eipcp as well as with the help of EFAH and the networks, operators and actors of the cultural field in Europe.
As the three parts of this paper represent three levels of policies/politics (from the analytical to the conceptual to the pragmatic), they necessarily make use of different styles and do not hide the discursive gaps and ruptures between the three levels. As these differences are implicitly significant for the characteristics of the respective discourses, one of the main aims and the underlying conception of the eipcp is to explore the lines that traverse the different levels of theories, practices and policies.
In this paper we did not start from scratch. Instead, we drew upon the ideas, thoughts, questions and proposals developed in numerous documents, discussions papers, debates etc. by many individuals and organisations in the cultural and academic fields. Some of these documents are listed in the annex; we apologize for not having been able to trace all the lines of authorship in recent years and to credit all those who have contributed to the process of conceptualising European cultural policies.
In this paper we take a critical stance on nationalist and
localist views that have scrupulously prevented every mention
of European cultural policies, based on a constrained understanding
of the 'principle of subsidiarity'. In some way, this is turned
upside down here. We will not take into consideration other
levels of cultural policies, but will exclusively focus on
possible scenarios for European cultural policies and
the argument for compelling reasons to do so. However, not
specifically discussing the question of the division of responsibilities
and competencies among the local, regional, national and European
levels does not mean abandoning the principle of a division
of competencies. Instead, we urge that the concept of subsidiarity
should not be used as an excuse for avoiding a critical discussion
and concrete action concerning the responsibilities and opportunities
of the EU. For this reason, the paper focuses on promoting
diversity and the politics of difference by implementing concrete
European cultural policies.
Special Thanks
to Frédérique Chabaud and Dragan Klaic (EFAH),
Raimund Minichbauer and Stefan Nowotny (eipcp) for their advice and support
Editing: Aileen Derieg
Culture in the EU: An Ambiguous Condition
Practically speaking, policies and policy action regarding
culture as currently emerging at EU level seem to be caught
up in a condition of ambiguity, in a state informed by inconsistency
between grand ambitions on the one hand and a lack of political
pouvoir on the other, between financial neglect, disinterest
and its instrumentalisation as an ideological battlefield.
Nevertheless, international and transnational cultural activities
in Europe and beyond have significantly increased, and there
is an obvious need to translate the functions that culture
should and could take into concrete action in response to
current political and social developments within the EU as
well as in a global context.
This difficult situation is largely due to the fact that culture
is bound to a relatively limited legal framework at EU level
and a more than modest budget is allocated to it. The funds
available cover neither the prospects and needs of the cultural
sector (e.g. networking, mobility, transversal and interdisciplinary
activity, as well as securing social standards for cultural
actors, etc.) nor the prestigious programmes developed by
policy makers, such as the various framework programmes for
culture. As regards the legal basis, culture is supported
mainly by one article. In the 10 years since it was included
in the treaties establishing the European Community, however,
this article has not produced the intended effects. Its full
implementation could not be achieved.
Because it is of minor importance and yet ideologically highly
charged at the same time, culture is considered a controversial
issue - especially when it comes to discussing the division
of competencies between the EU and its member states. In the
context of the debate in the European convention and attempts
to overcome conflicts of interest and power between the member
states, this means that culture is clearly not one of the
top priorities on the agenda. There is too much concern that
culture is one of the points that cannot be negotiated without
risking the eruption of new rifts between different member
states, which will not be easy to bridge.
Tied to a too narrow interpretation of the principle of subsidiarity,
policies and actions concerning culture in the EU remain restricted
to "harmless areas" such as cooperation and exchange.
Yet, a look at the actual reality of concrete action, both
at the levels of the various actors in the cultural field
and the so-called cultural or creative industries and the
many aspects of the debate within the EU institutions, suggests
that these boundaries have already been transgressed. New
and wider scopes for action and for reflection have already
been entered and explored - for better and for worse.
Arguing for European Cultural Policies
While the programmes and budget lines for culture meet with
tremendous response, interest and engagement from a sector
that has long been active at a transnational and transdisciplinary
level within the EU as well as beyond its borders, and while
the debate about culture in the European context and in relation
to other policies and issues has long reached a stage of concrete
and constructive proposals, the mention of "European
cultural policies" still remains the unspeakable, a taboo.
In this paper, we intend to argue for the further development
of European cultural policies mainly on the grounds of two
points. First, a new momentum for European cultural policies
would represent the logical consequence of a development that
can be traced throughout the history of the EU, from its very
beginnings up to the inclusion of Article 151 in the Treaties
establishing the European Community and further. Secondly,
what we now see in the EU, is that there already ARE such
policies, even if they cannot be considered adequate to meet
the demands and challenges of the changing European landscape
and a "global" context. This applies, for instance,
to the existing transnational activities of many cultural
initiatives, networks, artists and intellectuals, etc. far
beyond the cultural activities of the foreign offices of their
countries and with support from national and international
agencies as well as the EU - despite obstacles and a lack
of funds. In addition, culture has meanwhile clearly assumed
the position of a relevant factor with respect to employment,
urban and structural development, various sectors of production
and services, etc. However, - and this applies particularly
to the audiovisual sector and what is generally referred to
as the 'cultural industries' - there is a tendency to take
a one-sided view, focusing mainly on the commercial aspects
of culture.
"European cultural policies" will need to formulate
a strong response and concrete action against these developments
towards a one-dimensional, neoliberal understanding of culture
driven by success and profit, which only employs the argument
for the "preservation and protection of the cultural
diversity" for its protectionist agenda. Appropriate
legal, financial and political preconditions will have to
be provided in order to allow the cultural field to assume
its role as part of a democratic development of the EU, enabling
the creation of critical public spheres. This involves a progressive
approach to (cultural) diversity, difference and conflict
and actively dealing with issues of social change, the so-called
knowledge society, education, migration, globalisation, etc.
In short, this means taking the transversal quality of culture
into consideration. This is not meant to offer legitimation
and justification for the support of culture, but to foster
the political dimension of the cultural field in an
open and democratic Europe, enabling the permeability of its
boundaries and the transgression of distinctive fields.
A Historical View on a Continuous Development
From the Very Beginnings to the Inclusion of Culture in the Treaties
With the Maastricht Treaty, adopted by the European Council
in December 1991, the EU formally added an article on culture
to the Treaties for the first time. Until then, culture had
not been recognised as a European competency, but a gradual
development had led to this legislative regulation for multilateral
cultural cooperation. This development can be traced throughout
the history of the EU along the lines of its transition from
an economic to a political union, and it is especially linked
to the aspect of European "integration". Another
aspect relating to culture, although more economically motivated,
was the establishment of policies regarding the matter of
"cultural goods and services" in the common market.
In both aspects, debates and arguments have been interconnected
with the idea of promoting and safeguarding "cultural
diversity" in the EU, and they were supported by a variety
of conventions, declarations and other instruments.
Although there were no specific legal regulations, cultural
aspects were already taken into account at a relatively early
stage. In the Treaties of Brussels 1948 and Paris 1954 (Western
European Union), cultural cooperation was only "welcomed",
but as early as 1949, the Council of Europe was established
with the objective of fostering democracy, human rights and
cultural cooperation. It was the first European institution
to undertake an active commitment to develop cultural cooperation.
Emphasizing the international context of the promotion of
cultural cooperation and preceded by the International Institute
of Intellectual Co-operation (IICI), UNESCO was established
in 1945 in London with the aim "to contribute to peace
and security by promoting collaboration among nations through
education, science and culture". The Universal Declaration
of Human Rights in 1948 asserted the right to participate
in cultural life as being among those conditions that are
"necessary for human survival, integrity and human dignity",
putting culture into a much wider political context.
In 1954 the European Cultural Convention was promoted, based
on which the Council of Europe gradually took over the responsibilities
of the WEU's Cultural Affairs Commission. In 1957 the Treaty
of Rome stipulated "culture as exception", meaning
the exception to the free circulation of goods for "national
treasures possessing artistic, historic and archaeological
value".
The development from the European Economic Community to a
political union also involved more culture: Already in 1961,
the Fouchet Plan defined scientific and cultural cooperation
as one of the objectives of the Union, and between the late
60s and early 70s, culture was also related to social or regional
issues as new areas within the Community's framework. Especially
from 1977 onwards, the European Commission stimulated a debate
on culture through a number of "communications"
(1977 "Community action in the cultural sector",
1982 "Stronger Community action in the cultural sector",
1987 "A fresh boost for culture in the European community").
The 3rd communication included a chapter on cultural cooperation,
which became the source of Article 128 of the Treaty of Maastricht
(now Article 151 of the Treaty of Amsterdam).
During the 1980s, cultural aspects generally experienced a
boost in the EU, e.g. in relation to the European Community's
Official Declaration, signed 1983 in Stuttgart, which encouraged
the member states to foster joint activities in cultural promotion,
and first funding strategies were developed. This was often
due to the efforts of the European Parliament. The Council
passed several resolutions inaugurating various cultural actions,
from the European cultural city event (1985) to transnational
cultural itineraries (1986), some of which can be seen as
first pilot experiments and forerunners for the programmes
to be launched later by the Commission. The meetings of the
ministers for culture were institutionalised in 1987, the
Cultural
Affairs Committee was set up in 1988.
Growing dynamics in community programmes
The Maastricht Treaty establishing the European Community
included a special article dedicated to culture (then Article
128, now Article 151 of the Treaty of Amsterdam). This formally
assigned responsibility for culture to the EU for the first
time. In conjunction with this, the Commission presented a
Communication on "New Prospects for Community Cultural
Action" in 1992. Although the funding schemes were always
limited and the new programmes for culture came only about
after lengthy negotiations, a further dynamisation of cultural
action took place.
A new comminication in 1994 was accompanied by the proposals
for the programmes "Kaleidoscope 2000" (artistic
and cultural projects of European dimension) and "Ariane"
(books and reading), and one year later the Commission presented
a proposal on a cultural heritage programme. In 1996, the
"First Report on the Consideration of Cultural Aspects
in European Community Action" was published, assessing
the application of Article 151. The programme 'Kaleidoscope'
was established in the same year, the programmes 'Ariane'
and 'Raphael' (cultural heritage) a year later, in 1997.
In 1998 the Commission presented a single programme of finance
and programming in support of cultural cooperation ("Culture
2000") and organised the first "European Union Cultural
Forum" in order to review EC action in the field of culture
since 1993. While the Kaleidoscope and Ariadne programmes
were extended, the programme "Connect" was set up
in 1999 to promote joint education and culture programmes.
It successfully made use of the transversal potential of culture.
In 2000 Parliament and Council approved the programme "Culture
2000" with a budget of 167 million Euro and set to
last 5 years, 2000-2004. The programme has meanwhile been
extended until 2006, and discussions on a successor programme
are underway.
A Continuous Development at Different Levels
This chronological outline of a continuous development of
EC action in the field of culture, which was expanded and
intensified from the 1970s onwards and especially during the
1980s and 1990s, clearly shows that none of the cultural actions
actually started in 1993. There were a variety of cultural
initiatives and activities in different fields before the
Maastricht Treaty went into effect.
Evidence of a continuation of this trend is found, for example,
in support for the European content industry (e.g. MEDIA),
the 1989 Directive "Television Without Frontiers",
vocational cultural training, education (Leonardo, Socrates),
culture in regional policies, research and technological development
applied to the cultural sector, etc.
One of the most significant examples to be mentioned is the
financing of cultural projects through the Structural Funds
since 1989, making up the greatest portion of EU funding for
culture. The main objective of the four programmes INTERREG,
LEADER, EQUAL and URBAN, which are among the mechanisms to
distribute the Structural Funds and from which the cultural
field has also benefited considerably, is to "redress
regional imbalances in the Community" and to "promote
stable and sustainable development". The cultural field
is thus acknowledged as a major factor in pursuing these aims,
namely in the areas of employment, social cohesion, regional
development, IT, tourism etc. This again indicates the transversal
quality of the cultural field, its interconnectedness with
almost every aspect of contemporary life - and reaching far
beyond the realm of cultural exchange and cooperation as the
main objective of current policy action for culture in the
EU. This should not serve the instrumentalisation of the cultural
field or its mere justification, but rather indicate the existence
of a variety of intersections that cultural policies
- and not only regional, economic or development policies
- should take into account.
Parallel to this development at the level of the EU institutions,
complementing and more often advancing it, there has been
an ongoing dynamisation of cross-border cooperation, interaction
and exchange in the so-called third sector, among independent
cultural initiatives and organisations of many kinds. This
has included the creation of formal and informal trans-European
networks, which have continuously developed their activities
and competencies. Moreover, they have been increasingly concerned
with raising awareness for European issues, as well as acting
as an interface between the European institutions and the
'field'.
These networks have certainly been particularly affected by
the precarious funding situation, which is often exacerbated
by the fact that national and regional authorities do not
feel responsible for supporting them, while the European institutions
do not have sufficient resources to do so - let alone with
a middle or long term strategy in view. Nevertheless, as in
the case of the European Forum
for Arts and Heritage (EFAH) and many others, networking
certainly intensified from 1992 onwards. Many networks that
were already founded in the 1980s, parallel to the intensification
of EU measures in culture, set up coordination offices, held
first constitutional meetings and expanded their networks
of members, while others were created to boost mutual exchange,
mobility and cooperation in the most diverse areas and aspects
of the cultural field.
The legislative framework today: a close reading of Article
151
There are three articles concerning culture in the Treaty
of Amsterdam: Article 3q states that the activities of the
Community shall include "a contribution to education
and training of quality and to the flowering of the cultures
of the Member States", thus stipulating a certain
responsibility of the Community in this field. Article 87(3)d
addresses culture in relation to trade regulations. It authorises
the Member States to provide aid for economic operators in
order to promote culture and heritage conservation, provided
such aid is compatible with the common market.
The main legal basis for any cultural action at EU level,
however, is Article 151 of the Treaty of Amsterdam (ex-Article
128 in the Treaty of Maastricht). It asks the EU to make use
of its instruments to support cultural initiatives under the
twofold objective that the community shall "contribute
to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while
respecting their national and regional diversity, and at the
same time to bring their common cultural heritage to the fore"
(Clause 1).
This statement of principle already evokes the tension between
the two most crucial conceptions in this context: an assumed
commonality supported by the idea of a shared history, common
heritage etc. on the one hand, and the cultural diversity
of the people living in Europe that needs to be protected
and safeguarded on the other. Generally, this tension is perceived
not so much as a contradiction in itself, but appears easily
reconcilable in what is called "the unity of diversities".
The construction of a "common cultural arena" built
on a shared history and heritage with the intention to foster
a 'European consciousness', an enhanced sense of belonging,
is to be considered problematic, when it promotes an exclusionary,
fixed and seemingly coherent conception of Europe as a cultural
space, based on binary oppositions of inside and outside.
A conservative interpretation of diversity insists on stable
identities, forcing the concept back into an essentialist
framework of consent and unification and can be as empty as
reactionary.
If cultural diversity, however, does not only take into account
the differences between the Member States or regions, but
also within them, if it is understood as a matter of continuous
processes of intersection, exchange, change and differentiation
in time and space, it can be a productive concept. A progressive
understanding of diversity does not only (critically) consider
political, social and economic developments such as migration
or current processes of increasing differentiation and individualization
in society. It also neither defensively denies difference
nor does it fear conflict, but implies promoting the idea
of dynamic differences, which are a matter of constant
exchange and negotiation.
Cooperation and Exchange
Clause 2 of the Article 151 defines the scope for community
action with regard to culture as follows:
- improving the knowledge and dissemination of the culture
and history of the European peoples
- conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European
significance
- non-commercial cultural exchanges
- artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual
sector
This can clearly be interpreted as a responsibility of the
EU concerning culture, from the level of artistic/cultural
production, to the level of the distribution of all cultural
production including historical knowledge about it, to the
level of its preservation. A progressive reading of the latter
not only entails what has become part of history or heritage
- tangible and intangible - but also as something that is
constantly in process and enriched by what is currently being
produced or happening in the cultural field in Europe. Yet,
the main focus of the article lies on the issue of cooperation
and exchange, notably on non-commercial cultural exchange.
This is not only a remarkably clear statement, but also represents
an indispensable requirement in relation to the increasing
dominance of the "cultural industries" in transnational
cultural activities in Europe as well as on a global scale.
However, we should not overlook the fact that in the article
these activities are limited to the "culture and history"
(singular!) of the European peoples. This again
constructs a fixed and homogenous cultural "entity",
while histories and cultures that cannot be ascribed to the
"European peoples" are automatically excluded from
this discourse about learning from each other, about exchange
and cooperation - no matter how significant their influences
on and intersections with Europe have been over time. It also
does not allow all people living in Europe to be part
of the aims and activities as sketched out in these lines.
Clause 3 then stipulates that "the European Union
promotes measures involving cooperation between cultural operators
from the various Member States and supports their initiatives
and cooperation is encouraged with third countries, international
organisations and in particular the Council of Europe".
This opens up the closure, but not to the "non-Europeans"
within the EU. Here the Union is prepared to reach beyond
its borders and to take into account a wider conception of
Europe in its activities, which is certainly related to the
approaches and activities of the Council of Europe that preceded
community action in the field of culture at many levels. Supported
by agreements such as the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (1995)
or the Cotonou Partnership Agreement between the members of
the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States and the
EU (2000), the article would enable not only cooperation in
Central and South-Eastern Europe, but also the Mediterranean
or in the context of a post-colonial situation.
As regards the implementation of Article 151 - and this will
certainly be much more the case after the enlargement of the
EU - questions must be addressed about both legal and financial
preconditions for a real and successful implementation of
the objective of exchange and cooperation. The question arises,
whether all the Member States, regions and operators inside
and outside the EU borders have the same rights and possibilities
to access and participate in programmes such as 'Culture 2000'
or the European city of culture - even if they are eligible
to do so. There are significant imbalances and inadequacies
between different regions or states, e.g. in tax regulations,
the recognition of diplomas, local/national funding etc.,
which can pose hindrances. The divergence of cultural administration
or funding systems in the various countries can represent
a major obstacle, and with the new Member States joining the
EU and with the members of the Council of Europe, this problematic
situation becomes an even more urgent issue.
Another important point is that a future-oriented and progressive
implementation of the article will have to leave behind a
conservative logic of bilateral cooperation. Until
now, a real understanding of the preconditions and requirements
for new forms of multilateral transnational cooperation
and exchange, which are often much more complex, risky and
expensive, has not yet been reached in Europe. These new forms
include, e.g., networking projects over a longer period of
time, for which the member states mostly do not feel responsible.
Based on Article 151, the EU should invest in these forms
of transnational cultural action to a much greater extent.
Further, conceptions of cultural cooperation should not only
consider an expanded Europe and especially promote exchange
with "neglected" or hitherto excluded areas, but
should also apply to a global dimension, working on cooperation
activities with Africa or Asia.
The Subsidiarity Principle
Article 151 comprises two different, very elementary facets:
on the one hand it clearly states a responsibility and obligation
for the EC to act in the field of culture. On the other hand,
the scope of action is relatively limited, clearly restricted
to the areas mentioned above, i.e. mainly cooperation and
exchange. But most importantly, the article's implementation
is subjected to the threefold restriction of the principle
of subsidiarity, the exclusion of harmonisation and the unanimity
requirement, as expressed in Clause 5 of Article 151. This
also applies to all formal instruments concerning culture
in the EU.
Regarding areas such as culture or education, which do not
fall within the EU's exclusive competence, Article 5(2) of
the treaty declares that "the Community shall take
action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,
only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action
cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can
therefore, by reason of scale and effects of the proposed
action, be better achieved by the Community".
The Community is thus obliged to supplement and support the
actions of the Member States, but it can intervene only under
the condition that certain aims cannot be achieved by the
Member States themselves and that an action by the EU can
guarantee greater efficiency. For proof that this obligation
is more than justified in many instances in the cultural field,
one only has to look at the various forms of current transnational
multilateral cultural activities, especially those of European
networks. As stated in Article 151, these activities are also
clearly defined as a shared objective of the Member States.
But the Treaty lacks a clear division of competencies between
Community and Member States, and invoking the principle of
subsidiarity serves all too well for some, in order to avoid
any further development of policies, programmes, ideas, visions
etc. at the European level. A too narrow application of the
subsidiarity principle in connection with the requirement
of unanimity within the Council of Ministers in co-decision
with Parliament has slowed the processing of cultural programmes
considerably. This seriously impedes the successful implementation
of the article.
This does not mean that the principle of subsidiarity and
the aspect of a division of competencies in the field of culture
should be abandoned. However, a useful and future-oriented
clarification of the levels of competencies will also have
to entail a closer look at the very specific aspects in culture,
where the shared objectives can better and more efficiently
be achieved at European level. Similarly, this has become
necessary in the fields of education or research, for example,
in order to guarantee higher quality, an amplification of
impact and the enhancement of long-term strategies. As a set
of criteria for scale and reach in Europe and beyond its borders,
these aspects not only legitimate a shift of competence and
responsibility from the national to the European level with
regard to many already existing transnational multilateral
activities and cooperations. Properly implemented, this would
also contribute to a further enhancement of projects and exchanges,
as well as the creation of public spheres and spaces, specifically
and actively dealing with the cultural dimension of
European integration.
Clause 4: Great Potential and Missing Implementation
Finally, there is Clause 4, which has become one of the main
focal points in the current discussion about the implementation
of Article 151. It stipulates that the EC must "take
cultural aspects into account under other provisions of the
Treaty, in particular in order to respect and to promote the
diversity of its culture". In comparison with other
stipulations in the article, the formulation of this clause
implies a wide-ranging field of activity and could have a
considerable impact, even though the Treaty does not provide
a clarification of the scope of this obligation.
On the one hand, Clause 4 marks the important recognition
that culture is an issue that cuts across many different segments,
and it establishes a formal relation between culture and other
spheres of life, work, society, etc., which allows cultural
agencies to claim a greater share of resources from programmes
whose objectives are not exclusively cultural (e.g. the Structural
Funds). On the other hand, it asks for a critical assessment
of the impact and the effects that decisions in other policy
areas might have on the cultural field (in German: 'Kulturverträglichkeitsklausel')
This takes the possibility into account that cultural life
and development could be impaired by other decisions, which
applies to competition or other trade regulations, for example.
The experience of the last ten years has shown that the implementation
of Clause 4 has not been at all satisfactory. If it were seriously
implemented, however, it could create a better understanding
of the relevance of culture in a variety of fields, and raise
awareness for cultural issues and how they relate to other
spheres and policies. This should not lead merely to instrumentalising
the cultural field in order to boost certain sectors in the
economy or employment, but rather to an enhanced understanding
of the transversality of the cultural field.
What is at Stake in the Current Work Programmes
With this historical and legal background in mind, it is
worthwhile to consider how and in which direction the debate
within the institutions has most recently evolved. During
the Belgian presidency, in the second half of the year 2001,
the three Community institutions again took up the debate
on the future of European cultural action. It was an important
moment to do so, as the summit of Laeken, mapping out the
parameters for the debate on the future of Europe in the Convention
and leading up to the intergovernmental conference in 2004,
was to take place in December 2001, and ten years of the existence
of Article 151 called for an evaluation of its effects and
its implementation. Yet no concrete action took effect, neither
regarding the Declaration nor the Convention.
Already in July 2001, the European Parliament had published
its "Report on cultural cooperation in the European Union"
by Giorgio Ruffolo, which was most influential in this debate.
The report was not only critical of the current situation,
especially reiterating the facts of a lack of cooperation
and chronic under-funding for culture in the EU (0,1% of the
Community funding in 2000), but also proposed a number of
concrete targets. These include the institution of a "European
agency to monitor cultural cooperation, with the aim of promoting
the exchange of information and coordination between the cultural
policies of the Member States and Community cultural policy".
Further, Ruffolo explicitly called for an increase in efforts
in the area of culture and proposed "the extension
of qualified majority voting in any further revision of the
Treaty to ensure support for measures in the cultural sector".
Based on this report, the European Parliament issued its "Resolution
on Cultural Cooperation in the EU", aspiring to extend
the field of cultural cooperation.
On 23 May 2002, under the Spanish presidency, the Council
adopted a resolution on the implementation of a new work plan
for European cooperation in the field of culture, including
the priorities of establishing mechanisms to ensure that culture
is represented in other Community actions and the creation
of permanent institutional networks for cooperation between
the various cultural sectors, in order to foster the mobility
of artists and works of art.
In the meantime, a "Study on the Mobility and Free Movement
of People and Products in the Cultural Sector" has been
published by the European Commission. The Danish presidency
focused on the "analysis and definition of the added
value of European actions in the field of culture". These
examples illustrate that no groundbreaking action is being
taken at the level of the institutions, nor are there significant
plans with respect to a further development of the legal instruments
for culture in the treaty to come. Although these are important
issues in themselves, they are not part of a bigger contextual
and political framework, and they lack an active engagement
with the future of European cultural policies.
Perspectives for the Future?
As far as Article 151 is concerned, we can conclude that
in spite of all its imperfections, it provides a basis for
the European Community to play an active role in terms of
culture, but what it has actually achieved so far is generally
disappointing. Since the inclusion of the article in the Treaties,
the Community has failed to really articulate this role and
take on its responsibilities.
There no longer seems to be any danger that Article 151 might
be removed from the Treaty in the course of a redrafting of
the division of competences. It is most likely that the article
will remain in the treaties in its current fashion, that is
focusing on the aspects of cooperation and exchange under
the two-fold objective of contributing to the cultural life
of the Member States, while paying special attention to the
diversity in the EU, and including a clause on the obligation
to consider cultural aspects in other provisions of the treaty.
From a pragmatic point of view this might not be the worst
situation to face. However, if the cultural field is to take
an active role in Europe as a future-oriented political project,
the legal and financial preconditions in relation to it have
to be considerably enhanced. Firstly, this asks for an interpretation
of the subsidiarity principle that does not any longer deny
the growing presence and the specific needs of transnational
activities in the cultural field, which definitely lie beyond
the possibilities and policies of the Member States. Secondly,
it urgently asks for the replacement of the unanimity requirement,
which hampers a dynamic development of cultural policies at
EU level, by qualified majority voting in decision making.
Generally, the often very lengthy processes of negotiating
and decision making, bearing in most cases no relation to
the budgets in question, have to be simplified and speeded
up. The same goes for future programming, notably the design
of the new framework programme for culture, which is to succeed
the programme 'Culture 2000' in 2006.
Although the current legislation's full potential has not
yet been exploited and its proper implementation would enable
wider schemes of cultural cooperation, in the longer term
the article in its present formulation will neither suffice
nor provide an answer to the pressing questions of cultural
politics and practices in Europe. Apart from its wording,
which partly indicates a rigid and exclusionist conception
of the European sphere, it will have to be developed and taken
further according to the role that the cultural field should
take in the future development of the EU. This refers especially
to the conception of culture in relation to questions of democratic
development, citizenship, transversality, access and participation.
The debate will have to be taken up in order to overcome the
rather defensive strategies of the actors in the field and
to draw proactive lines of perspectives for "European
cultural policies".
Culture as such is not necessarily good. Plato, in the interest
of community life, symbolically banned artists, thinking they
would endanger his ideal state. The Frankfurt School taught
us about the "affirmative character of culture"
(Marcuse) and the damage that is brought about to societies
by the cultural industry (Adorno/Horkheimer), and contemporary
Cultural Studies propose a fundamental critique of the indestructible,
conservative and colonializing concepts of culture divided
into "high" and "low".
In daily life we also learn about the negative aspects of
culture being used to mobilize and direct, control and influence
people: In the central and subway stations of Hamburg and
Vienna for instance, the sounds of Mozart and Beethoven, distorted
through the speakers systems of public transport, are instrumentalized
to expel marginal groups from their familiar spaces. Along
with the hype of creative industries, artists and cultural
workers are increasingly forced to work in the experimental
grounds of hyperflexibilisation and to function - without
having been asked - as pioneers of the New Economy. And in
the discourses of "cultural clashes" and "cultural
wars", "cultural identity" is referred to as
something that is absolutely fixed, something that separates
people from one another or even incites them to kill one another.
Cultural heritage thus develops into a tool for restricting
the public spheres, cultural industries turn out to induce
postfordist processes of (self-)exploitation, and cultural
identity becomes a concept to justify exclusion and wars.
Despite this theoretical and practical evidence, in the discourse on cultural policies (regardless of whether right-wing or left-wing) we still find the same commonplaces about "culture as such" constituting identity and bringing peace and harmony to people's lives. The usual justification strategies for culture as such still employ the classical humanistic argument without any further reasoning: When theatres and museums are in danger of being closed, it is argued that culture is a part of the human condition. To refute this, it is not even necessary to quote Adorno's statement about the impossibility of writing poetry after Auschwitz. Since culture as a pure and positive aspect of civilisation and humanity has always been reserved to the small portion of white, heterosexual bourgeois people, this never has been a democratic argument. It becomes totally inappropriate under the postmodern conditions of control society, especially whenever universal rights are instrumentalised for particular interests.
There is an urgent need to replace the hollow phraseology
of culture between high pathos and technocratic speech using
terms and definitions that say nothing at all. This applies
not only to the concept of culture, but to all the cultural
policy terms and concepts that have been ornaments of ideologies
for too long and too extensively, so that they remain void
of all content.
Let us briefly examine the case of the term cultural identity
as an example: In most of the cultural policy papers and speeches,
cultural identity is referred to as the most important positive
argument for the support of culture - but again either without
any argument or with the most different arguments
imaginable:
- the nationalist/localist argument: Some use it in the context
of a defensive, somewhat chauvinistic argument concerning
one's "homeland" <heimat>, national, regional
or local background. This tactic of homogenizing and standardizing
a certain geographical area and its inhabitants is in fact
also becoming an increasingly important instrument of populist
power strategies. Constructing an artificial "we"
against the absolute outside of "them" paves the
way for exclusionist and racist politics. A cultural policy
that takes up a discourse like this uses the concept of cultural
identity for building monuments that remind us of a great
past, or organizing big cultural events that are suitable
for unifying collective feelings. At the European level, "identity
without nation" does not solve the problem, but simply
transfers it to a supranational level.
- the neoliberal argument: Others use it in the economic context
of branding, of improving the image and the marketability
of places, cities, states. Within this notion of cultural
identity, culture is put to the service of generating a sense
of authenticity and uniqueness for quasi-promotional agendas.
Culture turns into a perfect tool of appropriation for the
valorization of (urban or national) images and becomes a complementary
measure for advertising and marketing.
- the visibility argument: Finally, some desperately use it
in a smaller administrative context, losing every sense of
proportions. For them cultural identity means that culture
is the perfect field for raising the visibility of the European
Union, for designing the corporate identity of Europe with
a few crumbs like the EU-budget for cultural cooperation.
A thousand EU logos on folders and websites should win the
hearts of the Europeans.
If we do not want to cling to this kind of background of intellectual void with its familiar arguments, or just rely on the assumption that culture as such is good, we have to search for new arguments and to propose a set of terms and issues, which ensure that the concepts of cultural politics can be built on firmer ground. Through these new arguments, cultural politics have to become a nucleus of democratic politics. So in order to find out about the - positive, productive - political functions of culture in a future Europe, we have to risk leaving the paths of the familiar cultural policy talk and try to find new terms to express new concepts or to express concepts at all. In the sense of new concepts, we would like to propose a framework of categories to serve as a new basis for European cultural politics and for the diverse levels of cultural policies and their concrete fields of action.
Temporary Autonomy in the Cultural Field
"If the remnants of public, civic culture aim to make art appear useful to the voting population as a form of social service and tourism, then how long can the idea of artistic autonomy and its celebration of individual freedom, even in its current, transparently bankrupt form, remain useful to the de-territorialized needs of global capital?" (Gregory Sholette)
Stating that there is no implicitly positive culture as such
and investigating the political functions of culture does
not mean abandoning every concept of autonomy in the cultural
field. On the contrary: the actors in the cultural field need
a clear vision about what the functions of culture and cultural
politics are and will be, in order to defend its autonomy
against inroads from neoliberal globalization and its catchwords
and categories like cultural/creative industries, cultural
entrepeneurs and the eternal promise of bread and spectacles.
Thus, in the present situation the cultural field needs to
regain new forms of autonomy. In saying this, we do not mean
ideological constructions of autonomy as an imaginary realm
of independence. After more than a century of aestheticism
and after some decades of postfordism, what remained of this
old version of artistic autonomy is only a specialized marketing
tool of both conservative elitism and mass media industries.
Nor do we wish to cling to a descriptive sociological concept
of the autonomy of the cultural or the arts field (cf. Niklas
Luhmann or Pierre Bourdieu), relying on the obvious fact that
each field has its own rules and structures and therefore
its relative autonomy.
At a time when the economy is breaking down borders and crashing
the gates of all fields, we prefer to use more precarious
concepts of autonomy, which must constantly be struggled for;
concepts of critiques of power, subversion and subversive
affirmation, which focus on a temporary form of autonomy.
This autonomy is an autonomy of collectives, rather than one
of autonomous individuals. It strives for the self-determination
and self-management of these collectives, which exist only
for a limited period of time. Here the cultural field seems
to function like a laboratory for experimenting with new forms
of organisation.
This of course is a political concept of autonomy, which basically
propagates that every initiative, every institution and every
project in the cultural field should act as independently
as possible, and at the same time take up a specific function
in the struggle against the overall dominance of global economy.
Being autonomous then means not being forced to yield to the
ideological pressure of financiers or other power structures,
and at the same time to become a part of a cultural field
through this - temporary, precarious and collective - autonomy,
which provides spaces for diversity and difference in contrast
to the encroaching and homogenizing tendency of economy.
The Pluralisation of Public Spheres
" [...] a European federal state that deserves the name of a democratic Europe is - in a normative view - impossible, if within the horizon of a common political culture there is no European wide integrated public sphere, a civil society of communities of interests, non-governmental organizations, citizens movements, etc. [...] in short a context of communication which reaches beyond the borders of the so far only national public spheres." (Jürgen Habermas)
Complaining about the lack of a European public sphere has
already become a commonplace in recent decades, and yet an
integrated sphere of this kind is not emerging anywhere at
all. In the contrary, the situation seems to be growing worse.
This is not only due to the strength of the national
frameworks and the respective public spheres, or to the evidently
increasing domination of the media markets by few transnational
media corporations (which is both a complementary and paradoxical
development), but also to a fundamental misunderstanding of
the options, the impacts and the desirable size of public
spheres and public spaces. A singular European public sphere
is not only impossible, but would also be in no way productive,
as long as it is not conceived in the plural. What counts
is not claiming or conceptualizing a single public
sphere (whether it is one exclusively for privileged classes
or for an all-encompassing meta-public), but rather permanently
constituting plural public spheres corresponding to the many
facets of the people living in Europe: a multiplicity of public
spheres, not imagined statically, but rather as the becomings
of articulatory and emancipatory practices.
Such dynamic public spheres create the preconditions for mutually
exchanging different positions, for the different relating
to the different. Their boundaries are permeable, they themselves
are neither exclusive-excluding, nor inclusive-uniforming.
It is thus not a matter of consensually unifying the existing
public spheres in Europe into one powerful public sphere throughout
the whole of Europe, but rather of conflictually opening and
multiplying them. What counts is not homogenization, but rather
permanent contention, the constant renegotiation of different
positions.
Accordingly, "culture" should neither be used as
the last resort in constructing and reproducing national identities,
nor should it be instrumentalized in the attempt to systematically
construct a European identity. Rather it should be understood
as a laboratory of exemplary models for the processual, constructive
dynamisation of differences. Such models have developed an
especially strong and diverse quality in different parts of
Europe. Concrete cultural initiatives, from sociocultural
centres and their experiments in collective real spaces to
the virtual spaces of media arts projects, from community
arts to the various forms of interventionist practices and
performances between theatre and visual arts, from independent
radios to netculture, have proved that they can produce specific
political spaces and public spheres.
Their first advantage is that they promote the positions and
the participation of minorities against all forms of majoritarian
homogenization. Moreover, these public spheres in the cultural
field presuppose a structure that is in opposition to two
dangerous phenomena of populism today: the pluralization of
cultural and media landscapes is to be supported distinctly
against an increasingly transnationalised media concentration.
The growing instrumentalization of direct democracy procedures
by populist politics is to be fought by giving more people
access to solid, serious and plural information and to small-scale
decision making. Within a multitude of public spheres, they
are able to actively express and exchange their needs. And
where are these spheres and spaces to be found, if not in
the cultural field?
But whereas the aforementioned forms of concrete cultural
initiatives are based on the principles of temporariness and
change, the respective cultural policies seem to concentrate
on the opposite, on a retrogressive tendency to support steady
institutions and even to institutionalize, to organize the
stasis of movement. Even though 1968 has often been mystified
as marking a great change in (cultural) policies, the changes
since then have really only been of a cosmetic nature regarding
public support for non-profit organisations in the cultural
field in comparison with big public institutions.
It is the Member States' and the EU's duty to establish the
preconditions for the production of state-independent public
spheres. This means that the states have to guarantee conditions
for public debate, for cultural and intellectual fora in the
broadest possible forms at all levels. Freedom of expression,
freedom of the press, freedom of art mean more than to be
free from pressure and censorship. Against the dominant
tendency of monopoles and oligopolies controlling (cultural)
markets, there has to be active state support for activating
and pluralising expression, the press, the arts, so that they
are free for producing public debates.
If this is the case at the regional and national levels, there
is even much more need to act at the European level. Whereas
public spheres exist and thrive, to a greater or lesser extent,
in the European nations, there are almost no procedures and
fora for European debates, there are almost no European public
spheres. However, there is also a positive side to this: in
the creation of European public spheres, we have the option
of starting from zero, seizing a real new opportunity. Small
and medium-sized cultural initiatives and media could play
an important role in facilitating a Europe that is radically
oriented to participation. Cultural politics has an obligation
to help transform these initiatives into a heterogeneous landscape
of European public spheres.
Specific Intellectuals
New Modes of Subjectification in the Cultural Field
"The engagement of artists, authors and scholars in social confrontations is becoming indispensable, especially today, as power takes totally new forms. Historical research has given sufficient evidence about the role of academic think tanks in the development and proliferation of today's world ruling neoliberal ideology. These conservative think tanks and experts are to be confronted by critical ones, in which 'specific intellectuals' (in the Foucauldian sense experts that are competent in specific fields and affairs) come together in intellectual co-operations capable of defining objectives and aims of their actions." (Pierre Bourdieu)
When French philosopher Bourdieu took up the concept of his philosopher colleague Michel Foucault, he did so in order to propose a weapon against neoliberal ideology. Artists and intellectuals should not be instrumentalized and should not expose themselves as assistants to power, but rather interconnect their competencies with experts from other fields in order to resist power, to resist majoritarian structures.
Intellectuals have positioned themselves as advocates of
the universal for a long time. This of course is an old European
tradition from Zola to Sartre, from Karl Kraus to Günter
Grass. But Foucault proposes something completely different:
Against the traditional concept of the universal intellectual
thinking and talking about and for the others,
Foucault demands a concept of the specific intellectual
sharing his/her specific knowledge with the specific knowledge
of others, thinking and talking with them, or as one
of them. Whereas the structure of universal intellectuals
is a structure that doubles representation and hierarchical
communication and tends to get into the position of the majority,
of constituted power, specific intellectuals prefer
collective work and non-representational practices. In an
a-hierarchical system of specific cross-connections the different
competencies form a stream of constituent power (which
never is supposed to become constituted power).
In contexts like this, artists and intellectuals no longer
understand themselves as (part-time)citoyens, whose political
activism exists independently from their work as theoreticians
or artists. Instead, they weave their competencies and activities
into networks that reject a clear separation between political
activities on the one hand, and science or art on the other.
As a consequence, the traditional separation between theory
and practice, between intellectual everyday life and political
exception, between aesthetics and politics is dissolved in
temporary overlaps and gives way to multiple interactions
and superimpositions within the subjects themselves.
Foucault's concept is indeed the basis of every progressive
understanding of the political function that is to be assigned
to the actors in the cultural field. It is only if intellectuals,
artists and cultural workers discharge the strategies of representation,
that they can assume an active role in overcoming the two
contemporary models of universal intellectuals in an age of
neoliberal instrumentalization: 1. intellectuals directly
supporting the neoliberal power structures via think tanks,
2. "media intellectuals" (Bourdieu) feeding into
the machines of spectacle and extinguishing any complex debate
through reductionist and populist commentaries. To oppose
these relicts and remodellings of a false universality, progressive
cultural policies have to develop strategies and programmes
that support models of networking specific competencies and
transversal cooperation, that foster modes of subjectification
such as "authors as producers" (Walter Benjamin),
rather than mystifying and instrumentalizing artists and intellectuals.
From Interdisiplinarity to Transversality
Together with Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Michel
Foucault introduced the term "transversality", which
is to be conceived - at least in the contexts of the cultural
field - as a proactive successor to the term "interdisciplinarity".
Whereas interdisciplinarity has become a mainstream issue
and commonplace in all forms of contemporary art and theory
production, transversality tends to transcend the borders
of the arts field, the academic field, or the political field.
The concept of transversality does not imply a notion of certain
points or disciplines as being connected, but a line of flight
that constitutes new directions beyond the existing points
and produces constant change. The notion of transversality
is thus more than a descriptive tool in the arts world, it
becomes a concept concerned with political struggles.
Firstly, transversal struggles are struggles that "are
not limited to a certain country" (Foucault). So one
meaning of transversality is that it constructs a radical
suspension of national discourses. Of course the cultural
field is an exemplary field when it comes to developing concepts
and realities of Europe, a field that is permanently processing
in relation to enlargement, or more broader speaking, to multilateral
transnational collaboration. But such forms of multilateral
collaboration are complex, risky and consequently expensive.
Thus they become a crucial cultural policy issue that has
to be strengthened through programmes that break the bilateral
logic so many cultural politicians tend to prefer; programmes
that do not consolidate the existing links and hierarchies
in the cultural fields, but try to strengthen the structures
that are "beneath" or "outside".
Secondly, transversality as a term contests one-dimensional,
limiting and particularizing concepts. In the cultural field
this concerns transsectorial activities and cooperation
with different fields such as education, politics and science.
Again, this does not mean repeating the commonplaces of interdisciplinarity,
such as "transcending the borders between theatre and
visual arts", but rather proposing and supporting new
forms of collective cooperation among individuals and organisations
from the most diverse sectors.
Of course actors in the cultural field are permanently creating
new networking practices that surface at the intersections
of different nations and different fields of knowledge, which
are normally kept separate. But what is at stake is a permanent
tendency to push practices that use these methods in order
to achieve a transversalisation of society. The basis for
this kind of transversality is a multitude of transversal
structures that do not represent particular, isolated (sub)cultures,
but instead traverse many different situations within a patchwork
of minorities. The manifold forms of cultural initiatives
in Europe need to be supported, so that they do not yield
to the pressures of homogenization and particularization.
These experiences and assets of transversal practices in the
cultural field are to be seen as prototypes for a future republic
and therefore to be disseminated as models for other fields.
Remapping Access
Culture Commons instead of Cultural Industries
In the last thirty years cultural policies in many parts
of Europe acknowledged the importance of upholding the culture
commons and tried to maximize equal access to culture and
cultural institutions. These developments, often linked to
the progress of social democracies in Europe (with concepts
like the German "Kultur für alle"), do not
lack certain problematic aspects: Cheap tickets for theatres,
opera houses and galleries cannot solve all the problems of
aesthetic quality and political relevance, and the emancipatory
aspect of "culture for all" very often turned into
an attitude of producing state-supported spectacles as part
of populist policies. In the most negative cases, this led
to unfair competition for independent cultural initiatives.
Nevertheless, the right to public access has not only transformed
the surface of what is called "high culture", it
has also set standards in newly emerging sectors. In order
to explore and to promote new participatory kinds of citizenship,
public access policies not only have to be safeguarded, but
offensively extended and permanently adapted to new forms
of production, e.g. in the fields of media art, digital arts,
electronic and net culture.
On the other side it seems that due to the concept and the
hype of the "creative industries", there is a tendency
to focus on the possibilities of economic exploitation rather
than on the critical, participatory and political potential
of cultural content. Creative industries as postfordist versions
of the huge structures of cultural industry (cf. Horkheimer/Adorno)
tend to limit, rather than to expand the range and the concepts
of what is mainstreamed as culture. They largely oligopolize
access and thus are in sharp contrast to the perception of
culture commons and public access, and to the development
and empowerment of wider and more active publics.
Pluralistic developments, programmes in favour of public access
and models of availability in the cultural field are the only
measure to counter the fragmentation and fencing off of business-driven
cultural clusters optimizing their revenue sources. To counter
the trend biased towards economic reasoning (capacity audiences,
indirect profitability, evaluations, etc.) it is necessary
to reinforce aspects of public access and participation at
all levels of policies.
Transparency Plus Participation Means Critique
When it comes to problems of transparency on the one
hand and participation on the other, Eurocrats think
they are referring to image problems of the European Union
or to the euroscepticism of its citizens. This logic denies
an important aspect of the correlation between the two topics.
The main criteria of most of the reform proposals for European
administration, the criteria of participation and transparency,
remain empty if not related to each other. What is the use
of transparency when nobody makes use of it? And what is the
use of participation, if only national representatives are
allowed to participate on the stage of decision-making?
The mechanisms necessary to make transparency effective are
not achieving consensus or majority votes of representatives,
but rather activating as many individuals and partial public
spheres as possible. This is the sole and urgent alternative
to the discourses of security and control that are interspersed
in postmodern democracies in an extremely dangerous form.
In the context of today's control society, the classical fears
of the abstract state (the fear of losing the rights of participation
and self-management, the fear of anonymous bureaucracies and
the fear of redistribution of resources) are not to be countered
by a monstrous copy of the national states' political mechanisms
transformed and multiplied to the supranational level. Instead,
transparency is to be extended in conjunction with stimulating
a permanent and constructive critical momentum.
Critical discourse is not only the motor of democracy, it
is also the only chance to make strategies for transparency
useful. If no intellectual, artistic, political discourses
are developed which criticise what is going on in Europe,
there will be no interest, no participation in European issues
at all. The respective resources, actors, institutions and
initiatives of the cultural field are to be mobilized and
supported for a continuous critical reflection on more general
ideas about Europe, as well as for the constant expansion
of participation in the debates and critique of the structures
and discourses of the "official" Europe. The cultural
field is the perfect ground for debates, disputes and conflicts,
it is a ground for difference and diversity, it is a ground
for people's permanent becoming.
multilateral!
measures to support multilateral cooperation in an expanded
Europe and beyond
· to enable, promote and support transnational multilateral
cooperation projects while taking into account their complexity
and specific requirements
· to enhance mobility and cross-border cultural activities,
balancing economic and social inequalities between EU Member
States and other countries
· to promote and support multilinguality
· to install positive discrimination for funding projects,
in which initiatives from an expanded Europe participate,
especially the Ukraine, Moldavia, Byelorussia, Russia, Yugoslavia
and Albania as well as the non-EU countries of the Mediterranean
· to enhance and further develop new programmes and
define new targets in cooperation projects with African and
Asian Countries as well as the Americas, while making use
of existing agreements (EuroMED, Cotonou, etc.)
public!
measures to support the creation and development of critical
public spheres
· to support cultural initiatives that contribute to
the production of critical public spheres, activate and pluralise
public debates
· to support cultural initiatives that actively deal
with issues of democratic politics such as equality, gender,
migration and citizenship
· to enable public access and models of participation
in the cultural field, especially in relation to the new information
technologies
· to foster contemporary transversal research, development
and theory production in the cultural field
network!
measures to support new organisational forms of cooperation
in the cultural field
· to support new models of transversal (transsectorial
and transnational) cooperation
· to hold both EU and Member States responsible for
supporting trans-European networks regardless of where they
are based
· to enhance the building of transnational networks
of smaller initiatives and organisations and facilitate their
access to culture programmes
administrate!
measures to implement appropriate financial and administrative
preconditions for cultural activity in Europe
· to significantly increase the EU-budget for cultural
activities for the benefit of innovative projects that meet
the criteria of transversality, multilateral cooperation and
the production of critical public spheres
· to improve the stringency and ensure the proper implementation
of Article 151, notably of Clause 4, and remove the unanimity
requirement
· enable faster processing of decisions in cultural
policy
· to stop the funding of emblematic or symbolic projects
· to simplify application and implementation procedures,
advance the whole decision process, stop the delays in contracting
and payment in project administration
Tony Bennett: Differing diversities. Transversal study on the theme of cultural policy and cultural diversity, Council of Europe 2001
Culture, Trade and Globalisation. UNESCO. Questions and Answers. Draft Version, 2000
Gilles Deleuze: Pourparlers, Paris 1990
Rod Fisher: A step change in cross-border engagement? The
potential of a European Observatory for Cultural Co-operation.
An initial discussion paper for the European Cultural Foundation,
October 2002
Christopher Gordon and Simon Mundy: European Perspectives
on Cultural Policy, UNESCO, 2001
In from the margins. A contribution to the Debate on Culture and Development in Europe. Report by the Council of Europe and the European Task Force on Culture and Development, 1997
Raj Isar: The intercultural challenge; an imperative of solidarity. Paper for the 'Intercultural Dialogue' conference, organised by the European Commission DG EAC on 20-21 March 2002
Issues Statement of the Working Group on " Culture and European Policy", Citizens' Assembly 14 December 2001
Oliver Marchart: Art, Space and the Public Sphere(s). Some
basic observations on the difficult relation of public art,
urbanism and political theory, http://www.eipcp.net/diskurs/d07/text/
marchart_prepublic_en.html
Oliver Marchart: Für eine radikal-demokratische Kulturpolitik/Politikkultur. Warum und wie Kultur neu legitimiert werden muss, in: Gerald Raunig (Hg.): Klimawechsel. Für eine neue Politik kultureller Differenz, Wien 1999, S.8-20
Raimund Minichbauer, Elke Mitterdorfer: European Cultural Networks and Networking in Central and Eastern Europe, http://www.eipcp.net/studien/s01/01deckblatt.html
Stefan Nowotny: Ethnos or Demos? Ideological implications within the discourse on "European culture", http://www.eipcp.net/diskurs/d01/text/sn02.html
RADICAL core group: The Radical Manifesto, http://www.get-radical.net/
user_documents/THE%20RADICAL%20
MANIFESTO, %20core%20group.doc
Gerald Raunig (Hg.): Klimawechsel. Für eine neue Politik kultureller Differenz, Wien 1999
Gregory Sholette: Some Call It Art. From Imaginary Autonomy to Autonomous Collectivity, http://www.eipcp.net/diskurs/d07/text/sholette_en.html
Cris Shore: The cultural policies of the European Union and cultural diversity, Research position paper in Tony (ed.): Differing Diversities. Cultural Policy and cultural diversity, Council of Europe Publishing 2001
Joost Smiers: The role of the European community concerning the cultural article 151 in the Treaty of Amsterdam, research paper, Utrecht School of the Arts, April 2002
Bettina Stadler: "Eastward Expansion" in the Cultural Sector. Reports from Central and Eastern European Members of Cultural Networks, http://www.eipcp.net/studien/s02/01deckblatt.html
Hilde Teuchies: Division of competences for culture in Europe, discussion paper, 28.2.2002
Antonio Zapatero: 'Ten years on' Reflections on Article 151 of the EC Treaty: expectations and outcomes, Council of the EU, 12 December 2001
The Unity of diversities. Cultural cooperation in the European Union, edited by the parliamentary group of the PSE, European Parliament
Council and European Parliament Resolutions, Communications,
Reports and Notes
Council Resolution of 21 January 2002 on the role of culture
in the development of the European Union
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/reg/en_register_1640.html
European Parliament Resolution on cultual cooperation on the European Union (2000/2323(INI) of 5 September 2001, Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (A5-0281/2001)
New prospects for Community cultural action, Communication (COM(92)). Conclusions of the Ministers of Culture of 12 November 1992 on guidelines for Community cultural action (OJ C 336, 19.12.1992)
Note from the Danish Presidency the Cultural Affairs Committee on European Added Value, July 2002 (10378/02)
Report on cultural cooperation in the European Union (2000/2323(INI)), Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Rapporteur: Giorgio Ruffolo, 2001
Report on the implementation of the 'Culture 2000 Programme'
(2000/2317(INI)), Committee on Culture, Youth, Education,
Media and Sport, Rapporteur: Vasco Graca Moura, adopted on
4 March 2002
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-
//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A5-2002- 0018+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&L=EN&LEVEL=3&NAV=S&LSTDOC=Y
Study on the mobility and free movement of fpeople and products in the cultural sector, carried out for the European Commission, DG EAC by Olivier Audéoud/Université de Paris X, April 2002. Study No DGEAC/08/00
Declarations
UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, adopted November 2001
The Council of Europe Declaration on Cultural Diversity, adopted in December 2000
Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policies, World Conference
on Cultural Policies Mexico City 1982