Chimera, Camel or Chrysalis?

Christopher Gordon and Theodoor Adams argue on Cultural Policy in Europe. “The European Union has struggled, often with good - but rather limited intentions to ‘do something’ for culture - as a sector - since the mid-1980s.”, they mean and: “Within the EU’s rather complex political and administrative scenario, it is helpful to make a clear distinction between the position and roles of the different actors and their habitual attitudes towards EU ‘cultural policy’.  In no particular order of priority this would need to include the following:

·         individual charismatic politicians with some personal vision and mission (e.g. Melina Mercouri);

·         the EU Commissioner for Culture – symbolic figurehead for culture and ‘one Europe’ (a concept which tends to remain vague and poorly articulated).  The Commissioner often seems to conflate the meanings and thereby adds to the confusion;

·         the Commission’s responsible Department General – formerly DGX, now DG Education & Culture – comprising career civil servants with no particular experience in cultural administration or policy making;

·         the Cultural Council – comprising the Ministers for Culture of the 27 member states under the chairmanship of the Minister from the country currently holding the Presidency;

·         the European Parliament (EP), whose Committee on Culture has striven over the years to take a positive outlook on the arts/culture spanning the EU’s remit but whose efforts can be neutralised by the larger member states (also the Committee of the Regions, with only minor influence);

·         the professional cultural sector and artists whose main objective is usually EU money they might be able to extract from the system for their own purposes;

·         member states which exhibit a positive interest in some active European cultural policy, even if this often may have some GATS or anti-USA/global intent;

·         other member states which tend to be more sceptical, not least because they are net contributors or suspect they will end up paying the bill (e.g. Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark);

·         smaller and more specifically the former socialist member states which have an opportunistic approach to picking up any funding for culture and will work in alliances with others to try to achieve this;

·         ‘star’ figures from the professional sector who occasionally intervene (e.g. Yehudi Menuhin and Bob Geldof) and are listened to by politicians who may wish to bask in the reflected glory.

The general approach to ‘the arts’ has however tended to seem passive (responding to demands ad hoc from the professional sector, often mediated through the Parliament which is susceptible to institutional lobbying by powerful voices and individuals).  The odd ‘symbolic’ European cultural gesture has been directly driven by politicians from the individual member states.  The attitude of several influential countries has, ever since the arrival of legal competence in Maastricht Article 128 in 1993, been restrictive to both policy aspirations and budgets, whilst Commissioners and their DGs understandably pursue their own ‘unjoined up’ agendas in the customary manner of all government systems.”

Read more