Why Culture Policy Room
6 June 2024
Global challenges, political reversals, and fast-paced realities amidst the perpetually delayed positive change... The world has become ever more interconnected, yet silos multiply and become stronger. The quest for evidence and measurable proof is transforming public policies, yet the polarisation of opinions grows alongside the increasing piles of data. How does this picture come into play in the field of culture and cultural policies? We - Lina Kirjazovaite, Valentina Montalto, and Elena Polivtseva - invite you to our room for debate, analysis, and new visions. Read below why the Culture Policy Room was created.
A Quest for a New Narrative
Elena Polivtseva
We work in a sector that is hard to define. As Raymond Williams, the Welsh literary scholar, famously stated in 1976, ‘culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language’(1). The situation has not changed much since then. Over the past decades, the definition of 'culture' has expanded to include many different fields now embracing more common ones, such as music and theatre, but also less evident ones, such as video games, software, amusement parks, advertising, fashion, broadcasting, religion, and more.
We are also uncertain whether we work in a sector or an industry, and whether this distinction even matters. It is common for us to use terms quite loosely, frequently shifting from arts to culture, from culture to creativity, from sector to industry, from industry to ecosystem, and from ecosystem to community. We debate these terms in our meetings, diverting attention from the actual topics at hand. As Justin O’Connor rightly observed: ‘What other industrial sector spends half of its time trying to describe what it is?’(2).
The versatility of contemporary politics adds another layer of complexity. For some political groups, culture is married with language and identity, while for others, it is about business creativity and innovation. Even such seemingly universal notions as freedom of expression, in some political agendas, is used to promote artists’ entrepreneurship and financial autonomy, and in others, serves to justify the right of nationalistic narratives to exist. Perhaps, all attempts to define culture might anyway be futile, as some argue that society's understanding of 'culture' is a product of history, and culture is ‘shaped by how society manages it’ (3). Can the cultural sector influence how society does it?
In any case, while debated and redefined, culture continues to represent an essential value for humanity. Yet this value is forever hard to articulate. Our advocacy is often confused and lacks confidence. It seems we are more likely to accept a system that generates profit for profit’s sake than to champion the notoriously shameful 'art for art’s sake'.
The issue is not the difficulty in articulating the value of culture. Many important things are hard to explain or measure universally. For example, how do you measure the taste of a dish or a sense of security? How can one define, in economic or social terms, the ultimate meaning of life? The crux of the matter is the excessive demand to be particularly detailed and concrete about the value of culture. There are still goods whose inherent value is acknowledged without resorting to their contributions to other areas. How often do we emphasise the economic value of a hospital? Do we justify the need for education by first presenting a well-being card? We don’t. But when discussing the value of culture, the conversation typically starts with aspects secondary to its true essence.
We urgently need a new narrative on culture. To develop and promote it, we need a professional and critical debate on the current condition and situation of culture and culture policy.
Establishing the Culture Policy Room is for me an ambitious attempt to create a space for collective, honest, and knowledgeable reflection on contemporary culture narratives. Working agilely and independently, we aim to stay attuned to current trends, capture emerging ideas, and frame relevant conversations. In a landscape of twisted definitions, we will emphasise the importance of nuance, critical perspectives, and vigilance in shaping the future of cultural policies.
A Cultural Policy that is Evidence-Based and Human-Centred
Valentina Montalto
About 40 years ago, a burgeoning number of studies began to explore the potential of culture for economic and territorial regeneration. This led to the definition of Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs), which garnered enthusiasm from diverse circles excited about the new economic role of culture.
Where are we now? What impact has this new way of conceptualising and measuring culture had? The results have not been as grand as expected. National budgets for culture have generally been shrinking, with government spending across countries decreasing in the last decade. Despite years of investing in cultural management skills, the sector still struggles with endemic unsustainability. We seem to be circling the same old issues, adding more pressure on cultural actors to justify their existence without adequately addressing the business and working conditions that make the sector structurally fragile, but not less socially valuable.
What is the reason for this? In my view, the problem is both conceptual and practical. First, we likely erred in (fully) equating culture with any other economic sector, distancing it from the concept of a basic human right, such as access to education and health services. We lost sight of the true essence of culture, weakly supporting the majority of operators in the sector (freelancers and micro-companies) while only measuring the economic size of a few larger operators. This led to narratives and policies based on poorly conceptualised and collected evidence.
Second, policymakers often treat culture as a ‘nice to have’ that offers a big return for little investment. Only few policymakers have moved beyond ‘cultural celebration’ or ‘tourism-led’ models. Despite the limited data, our body of research is now rich enough that we cannot continue with ‘business as usual’. Cultural policy needs to become more informed, effective, and measurable in its results, understanding what achieving economic, social, and cultural objectives entails, under different cost-benefit scenarios.
Bridging gaps between policy, research and practice circles lies at the very essence of the Culture Policy Room think tank—a small, agile, evidence-based collaborative team wishing to respond to policy needs, in a timely way. We wish to make sense of existing evidence and nurture policies 'in the making.' At the same time, we want to unpack uncomfortable but necessary discussions, making support for culture less ideological and more factual. We seek to tackle very well-known dilemmas, such as the need to break away from competitive evaluation models to novel indicators that shift focus from rankings to (peer) learning.
We acknowledge that we are embarking on an ambitious mission. This is because we believe Europe greatly needs an independent space for provocative yet constructive reflection on this specific policy area. This space would allow us to address the elephants in the room and place them at the centre of policy discussions without filters.
Now is a timely moment to shake up the debate. Not only access to culture, but also access to education, and health cannot be taken for granted. A renewed cultural policy must be part of a revised economic development model that puts human beings at its core, starting from the basic needs required for a fully functioning society and economy. Future EU leaders have the duty and opportunity to consider the legacy of Agenda 2030, now reaching its final stages, in developing such alternative models and defining the role of culture within them.
Breaking the Silos in the Spirit of Collaboration
Lina Kirjazovaite
Today’s fabric of the world and pressing challenges look very different than even a couple of years ago. Around the world, the augmentation of already complex crises is leading to increased violent conflict, political instability, and destruction of the social and economic infrastructure. Crises unfold in diverse contexts with varying levels of fragility, revealing the ineffectiveness of existing approaches. The need is evident for more innovative, multi-sectoral, and multi-stakeholder strategies to address these global challenges today.
To think that culture and cultural policy would solve all the present challenges, from climate emergency to conflict and widening inequalities, would be more than naïve. However, to look afresh at the ecosystem of culture and creativity, and the innovative and flexible approaches it offers can potentially help us understand how the world works and provide tools for problem-solving, fostering collaboration and inclusivity. In this way, it could even lead to more proactive and informed policy making, rather than simply reacting to issues as they arise.
To do so, we need a stronger nexus for policy, theory, and practice in culture and international partnerships and cooperation. This nexus should facilitate a collective approach among stakeholders and global actors, promoting learning and sharing of best practices. Moreover, we must raise awareness and provide evidence that culture and cultural policies are not secondary concerns. They are integral threads that can create connections and drive substantial change in our societies today. Lastly, there is a need for more inclusive, bottom-up policymaking, bringing different voices and experiences to the forefront of practice-led policies and decision-making.
Why the Cultural Policy Room? The Cultural Policy Room for me is a cross-sectorial and transnational think tank – a space for understanding, sharing and reflection. It will serve as an observatory to bridge policy and practice and collectively apply those when and where needed. In the hope of providing visibility for research-based policy work in a timely and inclusive manner.
I have been involved in cultural cooperation and international relations all my professional life, often through past and current political priorities. The cultural sector as such, fragmented and dispersed, often fails to gather their knowledge and practices to pursue a common goal. While us, the practitioners, focus on what, when and how we do what we do, the critical questions of why we pursue one strategy or programme and what long-term impact we want to achieve are often neglected. The contemporary context in which we operate is not easy; it is becoming increasingly difficult to respond to global challenges in a more coherent voice today. For me, the Cultural Policy Room is an attempt to move from the complaints of being underfunded or not taken seriously to creating a space and digestible information that can not only improve policy making but also facilitate the sharing of knowledge and learning. And most importantly, bringing the evidence from research, policy and practice to the forefront of decision-making.
In the end, I believe if we do not pay enough attention to the complexities of diverse cultures and remain in our silos and sectors, we risk missing – or misunderstanding – the causes and consequences of the challenges facing our societies, a risk that none of us can afford to take in today's interconnected world.
Williams, R 1976, Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontara
O’Connor, J 2024, Culture is not an Industry
Qaissi, A 2024, Reframing Cultural Governance: Instrumentality and the Discursive Turn in Cultural Policy, journal of Public Policy and Administration 2024, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 44-60
