European crisis is also cultural problem

“I am a “late bourgeois” writer” declared the communist writer Stephan Hermlin in a speech (1979) that has raised a good deal of dust in the former GDR. After the “Haager Treffen” (1982) he explained the for that time extraordinary statement: “I mean two things. First the social class of which I come from. From that situation I became a communist as a youngster. I still am related to that class, however I have broken. I am her son and above I am a child from the decade in which “Alexandrines” were written. That is my culture; without that culture, there is no culture”.   With this statement back in mind, I looked at the theoretical models that the Dutch culture sociologist Yvonne van Baarle introduced 25 years ago in her spectacular book “De kunst van het socialisme” (The art of socialism).

In Europe, culture and art policy has not enough taken into account until now, the differences between cultural lifestyles in different populations.  Although, there were some local attempts. So the Amsterdam alderman Hannah Belliot introduced intercultural togetherness as a starting point in art politics (2003). But she was that vague in her definitions, that it was the start and finish on inter cultural dialogue at the same moment.

When we compare to 25 years ago, there are a few new important elements in the international cultural debate.

In the first place internet: in combination to globalisation. At one hand it makes cultural exchange much easier, at the other hand fast communication is not at all a guarantee for profound communication and understanding.

Secondly: public-private partnership (sponsoring). Already common in the UK, but on the continent there was a vehement debate and at least the attitude towards the business community was rather restrained.

But what never occurred was a debate in which we could imagine that different cultures in Europe could clash. It is since the last decade that intercultural dialogue plays a dominant role. And specifically in the last few years, we handle, in general, the debate with “political correctness”, caused rather by fear than by a balanced vision.

Cultural heritage

I shall not try to define the “arts” as such, neither “cultural heritage”. But I like to underline that cultural heritage is not static concept. It is a sum of creative expressions that that during decades or centuries obtained their place in our western society. Mozart, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, but also the Acropolis and the forum Romanum, all big cathedrals, but for example also The Beatles. What nowadays we consider as cultural heritage, was in the time of its conception not self-evident at all. The social critical function of the arts has developed itself during the time parallel with the development of the arts itself.

Also in the 18^th century art could be disintegrating the expectations of the audience.  Mozart started the piano solo without finishing the orchestral introduction (Jeunehomme   concert, KV 271) and Beethoven had no orchestral introduction at all in his fourth piano concerto. Today it is self evident and part of our cultural heritage. But also the concept of abstract painting in the beginning of last century or the construction of the “Centre Pompidou” in Paris (1976) , in which all vital functions of the building were exposed in basic colours at the outside of the building. It was an experiment in the time of construction and nowadays it belongs all to our cultural heritage.

The cultural debate in Europe

The last few years the current debate was mainly based on four standards: marketing and public range, public private partnership (sponsoring), the economic function of the arts and recently the intercultural dialogue in a multicultural society. 

Beyond there is the everlasting questing or we are speaking about high culture (the arts) and low culture, what the difference is etc. In our multicultural European society it is at the present day politic correct to deny, or better to neglect, the distinction. Nonsense. It does make sense to distinguish both conceptions from each other. Art is one of the expressions within a culture. Since the Enlightment the arts can be confronting (the esthetic shrill; see box). It is one of the instruments to help us to develop and to learn us to think independently.  In form: the beginning of cubism or in music Mozart and Beethoven (see above). The main issue is that an open society is open tot new confronting developments in the arts itself. Not to accept that confrontation in advance as it should be insulting or worse, is the quintessence of the current debate between western society and “The Islam”.  To presume that bonding and bridging can be useful conceptions, is rather wishful thinking, than reality. Because culture is in its own conception always conservative (literally) and consuming. In that sense culture is bonding, also beyond borders. The arts have a social critical function, is confronting and the consumer is never only consuming, but always acting to discover new elements. In a painting, in a sculpture or in a opera performance.

Who considers the programming of museums concert halls or theatres in cities like Ankara and even more Istanbul, find a western oriented programming, however with some other accents. In Japan and China symphony orchestras were founded and no music competition can exists without participants from that countries. When we look at the Mozart year 2006 this composer was played all over the world. And the cues for the Louvre and the Van Gogh Museum are formed by tourists from Japan, China and South Korea. And we from our are cueing for the Egyptian Faraos like Tutang Ahmon and former role models like Nephrotite.

The cultural problem in Western Europe with new citizens from countries like Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco (especially in Holland) and Turkey (especially in Germany), is that they are coming from poor and, let us be honest, retarded regions.  They feel displaced in the Western society also because they had no natural link to western values in there own country when they went abroad. Just very slow, at the second and third generation we see a movement to an acceptance of Western values. But in majority they entertain the values from their parents who were dominant at the tome of their arrival in the west. This not accusing, but more a fact we have to deal with. We have to realise this and to accept that it is inevitable. In their country of origin the most of them had no connection to the modern development in their capitals. This is a fundamental problem we have to solve the next decade.

The Arts

Back to the arts. Modern art is threatening. Not only for people with an Islamic background, but for them even more. It threatens them in their ambiguous identity. They realise rationally that there are missing links to modern developments in their country of origin. And emotionally, their roots are in their Heimat, as the Germans say.

To compare another example: By the official state visit of Queen Beatrix in 2003 to Brasilia, the local Dutch community was asked to prepare a cultural or artistic contribution. They offered the Queen a “klompendans” (wooden shoe folkdance). It illustrates that they fully lost the connection with the modern developments in The Netherlands. They keep their culture from the moment they left Holland alive. So it is an universal phenomenon and not a problem of people with an Islamic background. However there is a complicating factor; too much youngsters do not finish their school and (so) they are unemployed. But ask well educated expats from Germany and all eastern European EU members: Christmas time is holy!

Western European Identity

In the present Europe there are five standards which is a basis part of our identity. The pentagram of the 21^st century: freedom, equality, solidarity (former “fraternité) and nowadays human rights and sustainability. These standards are leading. What happened is that these standards are more or less annexed by the extreme right wing movements and political parties. And we let it happen. The most of the big politic parties have reacted in most defensive way; not pro active and not setting the agenda. The cultural debate became an integration debate. With at both sides a tone of vehemence and intolerance.

We need to get the agenda back. For convincing in the cultural debate a strong own identity is required. The “NO” to the proposed European constitution by France and The Netherlands was not a “no” against Europe, even not against it institutions, but moreover a signal of fear of loosing its own cultural identity. The Europe grows bigger, is more extending, the more important is the possibility to identify with the local culture.

The more extending Europe will become, and inevitably it will enlarge (until a certain extend), the more important the local or regional culture, the Heimatkultur, will be. This cultural identity we have to formulate and to stand for. It is the wine and the beer, the bread and the cheese, the music we listen to and the books we are reading.

If we do not have a common answer to the Islam, is that also caused by the fact that we have omitted tot formulate and to (re)confirm our cultural identity in broadest sense and we did not claim the open character of our arts. This is a complete different issue than nationalism!!! It is the raison d’être why we live the way we do. The discussion on the constitutional treaty in 2005 was dominated by the economic recession of these days, which was linked to the Euro. But moreover it was dominated by future entry of Turkey into the EU.

The absence of a unisono European answer at the “cartoon affair” is just one example of not having a framework of what we consider as the European core values. How difficult it is, it is a prerequisite. Also on the (much later) organised protest in the Islam world itself was no adequate answer: at one hand we supported fully the freedom of speech, at the other hand we were so prudent not to insult the Muslims in Europe. But what to say from the “holocaust cartoons” in Teheran?  Or the headlines in the British tabloids: “From Hiltlerjugend to Papa-Razzi” when cardinal Ratzinger was elected as the new Pope. Unconscious our western experience of freedom of speech is so internalised, that we accepted it as an expression. Which is not the same as acceptance as good taste.

Apart from all, it is only 20 years ago that that in the European Jewish community raised a good deal of dust about the supposed anti-Semitism in the theatre play Der Müll, die Stadt und der Tod by Werner Reiner Fassbinder. It was sharp as a razor, but not anti-Semitic. (I am Jewish and I have read and seen the play at that time).

The future

There is one point that should be central on the agenda the next decade: de escalation. The by the Federal government (Bundesregierung), and specially the Minister of internal Affairs Wolfgang Schäuble, organised “Islam Conferences” are an excellent example how to initiate a intercultural dialogue. With making use of all talent that is available in the Islam community. One can blame the EU, and the commission in particular, that they only looked to the EU as an economic process and not as a cultural entity. As an economic entity the EU is accepted, but to the extend of a recession. In a time of economic recession it avenges the lack of an outspoken cultural identity. In a time that rather nobody is still aware of the ideals of Monnet and Schuman.

The development of an European Canon is a necessity. In grammar and high schools we have to pay much more attention in modern European history. So a curriculum has to be developed. Furthermore, especially on local level: local communities and in particular city councils in big cities have to develop a policy on cultural diversity.

And finally cooperation between universities should be intensified and cultural institutes from countries, as well from Eastern Europe as from Northern Africa has to be facilitated. There is no reasonable argument not to expose their culture, as we did the same with our cultural institutes. But within the achievements we reached in our society. When our Western tolerance only exists in acceptance of intolerance from the side of the Islam, the debate will be only more complicated. Therefore we love to much our cultural expressions, from the nudes of Rubens to the direction of Hans Neuenfels of Idomeneo.

Jurriaan Fransman, Musician (clarinet), scientist, journalist, communication manager. He is associated with Total Identity International in Amsterdam und also Secretary of the Board of the 20th Century Song Foundation which was awarded with the Szymanowski Award 2004.