Global Cultural Policy at the Crossroads: Reflections on the Summit of the Future

7 November 2024

by Justin O’Connor, Professor of Cultural Economy at the University of South Australia

In the wake of the UN’s Summit of the Future and the adoption of the Pact for the Future, which did not bring any significant political breakthrough for culture, Justin O’Connor identifies key blind spots in the global policy approach to culture and suggests pathways for reframing current paradigms. He revisits recent history to map out milestones in the global discourse on culture, including UNESCO’s definition of culture first enshrined in the Mondiacult Declaration 1982, the UN’s Our Creative Diversity agenda (1995), the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, and the recent concept of culture as a global public good. Moving beyond the familiar dichotomy of 'instrumental' versus 'intrinsic' value, O’Connor offers a deeper understanding of culture’s value and outlines features of the 'culture-as-public-good’ vision.

Here are the key insights from the Reflection paper (download below):

• Without a dedicated culture-related goal for sustainable development, culture risks being sidelined in critical political decisions. 

The UN’s framework of 17 Sustainable Development Goals is far more than an added layer of bureaucracy; it directs global investments and shapes political agendas, making it an essential tool for policy planning, advocacy, and budget allocation. If culture is not included in these goals, it risks marginalisation in critical decision-making processes. The missed opportunity in 2015 was significant, heightening the stakes for advocates pushing for a cultural goal in the upcoming 2030 iteration of the SDGs.

• The Pact for the Future did not achieve a breakthrough in recognising culture. Today, we must be even more assertive in promoting culture as a human right.

Establishing a distinct sustainable development goal for culture would be  a crucial step for global cultural policy, though success is extremely uncertain. An early draft of the Pact for the Future called for a culture goal, but this was dropped, replaced by platitudes about sport and culture being important for social and economic policies. The culture goal was not ignored, rather the member states allowed it to be removed. It might be time to assert culture as a human right and a crucial social infrastructure. That culture does not ‘just happen’ but is socially produced on the basis of a range of public infrastructural goods (including regulatory frameworks) and the care for cultural ecosystems and markets, which are also producers of public good(s).

• The ambiguity in defining culture is one of the barriers to effective cultural policy-making.

But what do we mean by ‘culture’? To effectively advocate for culture as a goal, as a human right, or as a public good, we must resolve the issues of the ambiguity about the potential impact and the definition of ‘culture’. This issue goes beyond administrative language; it underscores the need for a new narrative regarding culture's role in public policy and development. Ultimately, this debate is about clearly defining the remit of cultural ministries and the scope of cultural policies.

• Culture is not an industry, nor is it ‘everything that is not nature.’

Viewing culture solely as an industry is neither an effective nor comprehensive paradigm. This approach overlooks culture’s core role as a fundamental aspect of social existence, instead emphasising its supposed economic-industrial value. However, moving beyond the 'creative economy' does not imply abandoning the idea of culture as a sector or exclusively embracing a broad view of culture as a way of life, heritage, tradition, language, religion, the arts, food, clothing, or the wide array of cultural commodities available.

• Cultural policy does not own the major cultural shifts happening in society

The anthropological definition of culture as ‘a whole way of life’ or as ‘the glue that holds society together’, did not prove its relevance, as cultural policy today has far less influence over the sweeping socio-cultural transformations it aimed for in the 1980s and 1990s. Over the past 40 years, it has been other forces, such as the ‘welfare state’ paradigm and other features of the emerging global economic order that have tried to shape society’s ‘souls’ and influence deep cultural change. In fact, genuine cultural shifts - changes in society’s spiritual, material, intellectual, and emotional features and its modes of life, value systems, traditions, and beliefs - have largely occurred independently of cultural policy. 

• For culture to serve as a 'transversal vector' of development, it must first become a cohesive sector recognised for its unique public purpose.

Positioning culture as a sector is the most effective way to establish it as a focus of public policy. Culture is not all-encompassing, nor does it organise itself spontaneously. While it’s important to avoid rigid silos and foster cross-cutting connections, cultural policy must have a place ‘at the table’ as a distinct sector, serving a unique public purpose, with the same identity, legitimacy, and capacity as other sectors. For culture to act as a ‘transversal vector,’ it must first be a cohesive sector with sufficient capacity to fulfil its role in sustainable development.

• There are various roles that culture plays; an instrumental role is one of them, but it is neither the primary nor the most crucial.

As defined by Amartya Sen, there are three different roles culture plays: constitutive, giving people the opportunity to understand and cultivate their creativity; evaluative, the ability to make judgements of what we value; and instrumental, where culture can translate into economic growth but also other improvements in the quality of life. The transformative ideals we place on culture relate to the particular exercise of creative freedom we experience through the capacity to enjoy, engage, participate, make, experience, critique, and celebrate art and culture. That’s surely the cultural sector’s brief and the role it needs to claim in public policy.

• The UN's invitation to define culture as a global public good has not yet been fulfilled, and time is running out.

The concept of culture as a global public good (GPG) was introduced by the UN Secretary-General ahead of the September summit. The Summit aimed to renew the UN’s mission as a global governance agency amidst conflicts, climate change, democratic challenges, and stalled development. Traditionally, GPGs are regulatory frameworks - such as those for finance, global health, and climate change - that require international cooperation. However, applying this idea to culture proved challenging. UNESCO mainly highlighted culture’s contributions to areas like peace and sustainability, but many saw the GPG concept as reducing culture to commodities or found its purpose unclear. This reflects a significant lack of cultural political imagination. 

How can culture as a public good be defined?