Gjorgji Kalinski is experienced analyst and professional in strategic management in culture and cultural diplomacy, as well as protection, conservation and presentation of cultural heritage. He has considerable experience in international project management within the fields of culture and international relations. He worked for number of years in the National Conservation Centre of Cultural Heritage of Macedonia (NKC), where he focused on projects fostering international cooperation in the field. Attended several workshops on arts and cultural management (ENCATC/Utrecht School of the Arts, the Netherlands), and gave several presentations at thematic conferences concerning contextual heritage conceptualization (European Science Foundation (ESF)/National Gallery of Slovenia, Ljubljana; University of Wales, Swansea/Institute of Historical Research, London; University of Lund, Sweden). He holds a BA degree in Journalism from the University of St. Cyrus and Methodius in Skopje, and MSc degree in Cultural Policy (majoring political science) from the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. His Master’s thesis is titled: Strategic Partnerships: En-route to anticipated heritage and the neo-liberal conceptualizations.

 

Cultural Development, International Cultural Co-operation, and European Cultural Policy

 

 

Living the first decade of the new millennium has brought several dramatic changes within our global reality. The inequalities in the level of economic production and distribution of the goods and services inevitably deepen the gap between the rich and poor societies even more. Consequently, this tendency creates a fertile soil for many antagonisms to be deepening too. Cultural issues are then the most recognizable ones upon which the communities segregate and focus their negative energy. In such a reality, “the others” and their distinguishing marks are often perceived as something that generates the problems of “our settings”.

Therefore, one must accept the fact that only by systematically shaped policy for development of cultural relations, practiced at all levels within the society in question, these unconstructive developments are likely to be neutralized. In addition, it is all about learning how to address the right issues, communicate the different, justify the inevitable, sustain and improve the already learnt, flourish the creative, inspire the progressive, protect what is worth. Anyway, this is easier to be said, rather than done.

The overall level of development of the so-called “digital literacy” plays important role in determining the development of many sectors within a society. And the fact is that the digital revolution that was introduced not that long ago, dramatically changed the relationships practiced within societies, as it has made communication processes easier. The technological advancement as never before became a crucial part for emergence of many new industries, which consequently require specific knowledge and sets of predefined actions for running the new types of relationships. And it is more than obvious now that the term “a quarter of century” is becoming just too long unit to measure the distinctive historic periods, at least from the technological point of view. “Homo digitalicus” is becoming a reality…

Global tendencies of consumerism and uniformity however are not equally accepted throughout the World. The reasons could be of objective, as well of subjective nature. As a conclusion, one can only notice that the so-called, “culture for the masses” is surely becoming a prerequisite for development, a vital ring in the chain of integration.

Our European actuality witnesses a great mixture of distinguished cultural and artistic marks. Having perceived it as a part of our common cultural heritage, the European Union is striving to create and sustain a common policy for developing the cultural diversity too, which is primarily understood in terms of variety of forms for expression and a free flow of cultural goods and ideas.

Rather than, identifying the ideal of cultural diversity within the set policies as a well-balanced approach towards the cultural and artistic offer from ethnic, racial, or sexual point of view, as mentioned, in practice the emphasis is given to the idea of developing and sustaining the diversity of forms for artistic expression and their distribution. This policy ideally is to be maintained on the principles of equality (whatever it might mean!), freedom of expression and subsidarity. In this regard, the Article 151 from the EU treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 has an important role as a basic outline, which sets the general principles for future engagement of the Union in the sphere of arts and culture.

However, what is potentially dangerous situation here, in terms of deepening the antagonisms in Europe is the inequality within the level of economic development through the Continent. One can easily presuppose that the development of new and sustaining the already existent forms of artistic and cultural expressions is very much dependent on the level of economic development of each individual state. The truth is however, that the European Union so far, did not succeed to anticipate such problems and integrate priorities for over bridging the differences within the continent. The fact is that it failed to escape from its “shell” of self-centeredness even in its newly build environment too, and develop a coherent and justified cultural policy of common interest.

Although in the Article 151 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Community builds up a solid declarative basis for getting an active role in defining its future doctrine in the process of building the common European cultural identity, in practice it seems that the emphasis is placed upon one or two aspects only. These are primarily the ones that secure undisturbed market value of the national cultural brands. Artistic innovation is quite often seen through the means of technological advancements, only.

It is more than evident that the idea of European common cultural interest is widely practiced within the administrative borders of the EU only. There are areas of Europe, greatly marginalized in many senses, among which the cultural too. Among these, naturally comes the Balkans. It is not the case that the European administrative structures are very much in favour of this trend, but the fact is that their “phantom” programmes such as PHARE, CARDS, or the Stability Pact for the South and South East Europe did not succeed to greater extent in bringing the common senses of European cultural belonging. This fact would largely apply to the peoples of the Balkan, but even more, to the citizens of the EU.

This way, practically contradicting some of the basic principles upon which the Community lays its foundations, such as the respect for cultural pluralism and human rights, the antagonisms within richer and poorer societies of Europe are deepening. Marginalizing the idea that “… care should be exercised that all cultures can express themselves and make themselves known”, as stated in the Article 6 of UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, the European bureaucracy continues with the ignorant approach and narrowed meaning of the term “cultural diversity”.

As a result, it justifies the ignorant attitudes of the western European societies. To date it fails to find efficient and widely justified modes for practical implementation of the principles contained in the Article 151 of the Amsterdam Treaty.

In this regard, the Section 3 of the Article 151 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which says that “The Community and the Member States shall foster cooperation with third countries and the competent international organizations in the sphere of culture, in particular the Council of Europe” sounds as a real grotesque. Even more, because the emphasis is given to the Council of Europe itself, whose Committee of Ministers in the Declaration on Cultural Diversity, section 1.1 defines the cultural diversity the following way: “Cultural diversity is expressed in the co-existence and exchange of culturally different practices and in the provision and consumption of culturally different services and products”.

Failure to clearly identify the term “cultural diversity” as something nearly “embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up humankind” as stated in the Article 1 of the UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, is a constant danger in the relations of European cultures. Rather than seeing it as mere “practices”, in the same Article 6 of the Universal Declaration, and no matter how naively, UNESCO affirms, “the possibility for all cultures to have access to the means of expression and dissemination are guarantees of cultural diversity”.

As the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity was adopted less than two months after the tragic events of 9/11, it is obvious that these happenings greatly influenced the final course of this document.  

However, the Article 151 represents a significant outlook of basic principles upon which, a more justified European cultural policy is to be developing in future. The principles of cultural cooperation and subsidiarity in this sense occur as a fundamental focal point for such development.

Nevertheless, what is missing here, in such a way existing doctrine, is the stronger declarative commitment on maintaining some sort of egalitarian approach towards the engagement of the Community in “flowering the cultures of the Member States”. It is not a case that the Community does not practice any rightful approach at all, but to date it is obvious that such results have not been very effective. In fact, it is also evident that the Community did not even practically succeed to harmonize its role in a manner of more active player with greater level of efficiency for delivering the essences of Europeanism to its own citizens, through the initial and still, unproductive common cultural policy. The reasons for this may be of various natures.

The European Parliament, Commission, and the Council are the key players that need to stimulate the cultural cooperation within Europe. In his research paper “The Role of the European Community Concerning the Cultural Article 151 in the Treaty of Amsterdam”, Joost Smiers argues that “The primary goal of European Cultural Policy should be to support the development of the intercultural competence of citizens”.

Cultural competence of the individuals is a process that as its basic line contains the need for effective communication to be taking place, as well as finding modes for easier and more intensive mobility of various artistic groups and individuals across the continent. The exchange programmes as a matter of fact, require a substantial amount of funds. This is the acute problem in the sphere of cultural cooperation. Supporting and supplementing such actions requires a well-designed policy for financial contribution in forms of outcomes from their national budgets for culture by the Member States.

One could only imagine the complexity of issues that are likely to appear on a long-scale period when it comes to the questions of funding the cultural cooperation at European level. The difficulties are primarily to be caused by the inequalities in perception of the idea of Euro-integration of national establishments (or let us better say the “dishonesty of perception”). The European administrative and scientific structures are therefore in urgent need to find modalities for predicting and to dispassionate to the highest level possible, the national attitudes concerning this question. But first and most of all, they are in great need for a reform of that kind themselves, suppressing that way their attitudes of practicing the local-patriotism in regard to issues of essential importance to the wider community.

As a very promising trend nowadays however, is the existence and function of many cultural networks across Europe. The European Community is more or less involved in supporting their activities.

These networks represent a good environment where artist and cultural mediators meet and extent the cultural cooperation. As forums for discussion and exchanging of experiences, which generate ideas for further development of cultural and artistic life, these structures are very likely to become a driving force for the future shaping of the European cultural policy.

Furthermore, they represent a valuable source of ideas for the European decision makers, concerning the arts and culture, in terms of addressing the relevant issues for cultural integration. It is very likely to believe that these structures would slowly shape what is to be the common European cultural policy, providing relevant information and initiating certain actions concerning cultural cooperation and integration.

Another important fact to be taken into consideration when it comes to cultural networks is the opportunities that these structures offer for the development of strategic dialogue between the public, private, and non-governmental sector. Though various elements of these three social pillars could be found in the network organizations themselves, the very nature of these (most of them) informal structures creates a fertile soil for easier approach and elaboration of various standpoints, whose creative outcomes are put forward to the European decision makers and scientific circles for further concern.

Funding such structures is of great importance, especially as Joost Smiers argues that “If the result of the meetings of the networks is the much desired cooperation among cultural initiatives throughout the whole of Europe, than the artist and the projects should be funded by the participating member states”. However, even this trend is in need of greater clarification and establishment of modes for interaction. Surely, the effectiveness of existing of these network organizations is something that is in need to be measured and evaluated too. Most importantly, there is a great need to create effective opportunities for cooperation.

The ongoing debate in global frameworks about the so-called “cultural exception” when it comes to global trade, is another issue of exceptional interest. It is a matter of great importance for the European societies to try to preserve their national cultural features and create new ones that will emphasize the essentiality of Europeanism with its variety of forms and distinguishing marks. However, there is a great conflict inside the Europe itself, as to whether the culture and arts are to be treated as mere commercial products.

On one hand, most of the European societies greatly oppose the “cultural invasion” from across the Atlantic, but on the other, they create preconditions for culture to be perceived as nothing but another commercial product.

These circumstances could be easily anticipated through the cultural idealism practiced by the European institutions, where as already mentioned, the conception of cultural diversity is merely seen as “practices”, and the emphasis is given to the free flow of cultural goods and ideas. Such positioning will undoubtedly, and naturally center the activities towards the richer societies in Europe, where the markets will greatly reduce the offer in terms of authenticity mostly, as in regard to the complying trends taking place in the given momentum.

It will be much wiser if the Community besides these, practice the policy of subsidizing reciprocal processes of cultural diffusion on a greater scale. This refers mostly to the processes of mobility of artists and the existence of cultural networks.

Europe is in great need to develop an efficient system for cultural cooperation. This system is in must to be positioned to the practices of subsidizing the actions that bring the common sense of Europeanism to the fore. Seems that as never before Europe needs a great deal of courage to overcome its own frustrations and fears. No matter how odd it might sound, the fact is that it first needs to consolidate its infrastructure and assets upon which to identify its goals. Otherwise, it all comes to the borderline of practicing the national elitism and inherited hegemony modified to the needs of our times. Examples of such practices are numerous within our European reality.

more…