Anyone who is new to Brussels and to the business of the European Union will have a special kind of experience whenever they hear the word “culture”. There is barely an event, symposium or congress where this word fails to crop up, and sometimes (though less often) whole lectures and debates are dedicated to this theme.
But “culture” always seems to be dealt with in the same way as a business sector or industry. The arguments generally run along the lines that something must be done for culture so that culture is then in a position to achieve this, that or the other; that Europe and its culture are something special and the EU should display more commitment to this area, and so on. If you listen closely, you realise they could be talking about any industry, like agriculture, fisheries or energy – it’s only the headings which are different.
If I interpret it correctly, it seems to me that this way of talking exposes an error of categorisation: culture can never be understood in terms of sectors, but has to be conceptualised in a much more fundamental way. Culture is not some kind of social system or sector of industry. Rather, it is the foundation, the modus operandi, the treble clef which sets the tone for society’s systems as a whole. In his 2007 essay entitled “A Culture of Freedom. Ancient Greece and the Origins of Europe”, historian Christian Meier wrote:
“Cultures provide ways for people to organise their world, both in terms of their environment and themselves. This not only means adapting to different technologies and systems and different forms of civilised behaviour and human development, but it is also a question of finding one’s way in the world in the right way, so that the world goes along with the assumption that things are as they should be.”
In this sense, culture is “always there”. It is the process which underlies all shared human existence and which provides the channels for this existence to play out, depending on the particular place, community or nation, social class or historical situation. When we express something we use language, and so we are of necessity bound by that language’s parameters, but at the same time we can shape the language afresh every time we use it. In the same way, we are always part of culture in everything that we do, and of course are constantly changing that too. This is why culture can never be thought of as a sector, industry or social sub-system.
A good indicator of the misguided concept of culture which prevails in the EU is the way the word has become fashionable and hugely over-used in the creative industries and how it has become such a major focus of attention over recent years. So in fact there is a sector: designers, architects, fashion, etc. and their associated businesses. This provides the necessary degree of concreteness to give bureaucrats a foot in the door, along with the longed-for stage on which to parade value creation, employment and other factors which can be reflected in GDP. But I think things are different when it comes to culture.
A good indicator of the misguided concept of culture which prevails in the EU is the way the word has become fashionable and hugely over-used in the creative industries.
I believe it is no accident that this way of looking at culture is so popular in EU circles. The EU thinks in terms of industries, systems and sectors. This is how it has been set up and this is how it views reality. This is the price to be paid for the fact that up to now the EU has basically existed as a bureaucracy rather than as a political project, and certainly not as a cultural project. This is a criticism which has been made about it often enough, so there is no need to repeat it again here, but just to state it as a fact.
When we look at what is happening in Brussels we can make another observation: whenever Europe’s official representatives talk about culture – usually with the best of intentions – a strange thing seems to happen with remarkable regularity. They all seem to claim that culture is something wonderful and magnificent that enriches people and their lives (they seem to have in mind a huge playground for artists and intellectuals, for debates and events, where, as we say in Germany, “das Gute, Wahre und Schöne” (the Good, the True and the Beautiful) can be nurtured). They then love to whole-heartedly proclaim that this wonderful culture should now be applied wherever things are not going so well.
An ambivalent relationship
So “culture” is constantly being bestowed with wondrous, almost supernatural powers along the lines of: we have a problem here, we’re not getting along, we have a clash of opposites, there is social and economic unrest and all the usual remedies from politicians and social workers have had no effect. So let’s try throwing in a bit of culture and everything will be just fine – culture will sort it all out! It seems to me that “culture” is being treated as a kind of miracle cure with almost magical properties.
Of course this kind of talk is not an EU invention; rather it is a symptom of the ambivalent relationship between politics and culture in many modern democracies. As far as the Goethe Institute is concerned, this can also be said of German foreign cultural policy. This is reflected in the way our foreign office politicians regularly seem to espouse the idea – with the best of intentions – that “Germany still doesn’t have enough friends around the world, but the Goethe Institute will make these friends for us”. Or: “Germany wants to sell its manufactured goods all over the world – so throwing in a bit of Beethoven or Habermis won’t do any harm.” Or: “We need to upgrade our relations with such-and-such an important partner country, so let’s bundle together parts of our culture to show it off in some ‘Germany Weeks’”.
To say the least, I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding which has arisen from the mistaken categorisation of culture which was discussed earlier. If it is true that culture should be seen as something more radical than just a kind of social sticking plaster, then culture won’t let itself be exploited in this way. It means that culture as a whole can be “applied” or “employed” to a much lesser extent than was previously thought. It also sends the rather disturbing message that – despite so many claims to the contrary – culture is not always “one of the good guys”.
They then love to whole-heartedly proclaim that this wonderful culture should be applied wherever things are not going so well.
A more appropriate and radical idea of culture means that culture is no longer innocent – quite the opposite in fact. Culture is not a priori good or bad, but is a part of the fabric of all social action. Unfortunately it is more often part of the problem than part of the solution. Who would deny that such issues as fundamentalism, racism or even the new right-wing populism which is gaining ground in Europe are anything other than cultural phenomena?
Let’s take this one step further – isn’t it true to say that war is in fact culture in the most extreme sense of the word? But all this means that we, and particularly the EU, have to make a fundamental shift in our political understanding of culture. Anyone who takes European culture to countries outside Europe, to North Africa for example, is soon going to find out that our culture is generally viewed in a very ambivalent way. It is seen as being a bearer of great humanitarianism, while at the same time bearing the stigma of colonial oppression. Culture is simultaneously guilty and innocent, and we have to reflect this dichotomy by being particularly self-critical when we turn up somewhere with our European culture.
New instruments and institutions
In the meantime, the EU is changing: the reforms introduced by the Lisbon Treaty have brought with them new tasks and different institutional configurations. The European Parliament now has more powers (though it remains to be seen whether it actually has more power), and its members have developed a new sense of selfconfidence. Apparently all the well-known shortcomings in the area of foreign policy will now be sorted out. With the creation of the position of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the establishment of the European External Action Service, new instruments and institutions for the EU’s external representation have been unveiled to the world.
If the member states really had the political will, there would now be no more obstacles to prevent them speaking to the international business world with a strong and unified voice. But could they also speak with one voice when it comes to culture?
It is stated quite clearly in the Lisbon Treaty that culture is not part of the EU’s remit. And first indications from the nascent European External Action Service do not suggest that it has any particular plans for a European foreign cultural policy. But on the other hand, this does not mean that these newly-established EU institutions will keep their fingers totally out of cultural affairs. On the contrary, I tend to think that the wide scope of cultural issues will provide the new European diplomats with a major sphere of activity. Indeed, many EU delegations have already set up cultural or quasi-cultural projects in poorer countries under the banner of development cooperation. Unfortunately, these have generally not been organised in a very professional manner, often just throwing around too much money and sometimes displaying a barely-concealed spirit of paternalism.
We can expect to see more and more of these kinds of initiatives, not only in the poorer countries, and of course not just because diplomats understandably love to cut the coloured tape at exhibition openings, see themselves listed as patrons in catalogues and adorn their receptions with invitations to prominent artists.
Indeed, there are good professional reasons for engaging with culture, as is apparent from the paradigm change which has taken place in the area of diplomacy. These days, the traditional functions of diplomacy, such as representing international law and reporting back to the home country are fading more and more into the background (80 percent of intelligence information is nowadays gleaned from the internet). And those activities which were traditionally the focal point for foreign trade representatives in post-war Europe have also become less prominent. This is because of an increasingly balanced multilateralism in worldwide institutions and a new culture of direct relations between governments, as evidenced by the global continuum of all kinds of summit meetings. Diplomats are largely left out in the cold, or just find themselves playing the role of Sherpa.
But otherwise they are working on new forms of diplomacy, in the areas of communication, media and – culture! The magic words are “cultural diplomacy”. Good diplomats have to strive to get results in the public domain of their host countries, where they try to position themselves as being credible representatives of their nation and its interests. “Soft power“ is the second buzzword of this new approach, and this is where EU diplomacy will be looking for opportunities. This is how Europe hopes to present an international image of being a peaceful continent which is committed to human rights, development and dialogue. Its foreign diplomats will act accordingly, not just because of their personal commitment to this mission but also because, for the time being, “hard power” will remain with national representatives.
So does cultural diplomacy also form a hidden agenda for the new EU delegations, in particular of course in non-European countries? This certainly seems to be supported by the fact that this form of diplomacy will end up being a major part of the European External Action Service’s portfolio, which is still being drawn up. In principle, this would not be a problem, if it were not for the fact that experience has shown us that the words cultural and diplomacy to some extent present us with an unsolvable paradox. Diplomacy is about politics and even if it is not part of a power game it is at the very least a legitimate representation of interests, if not indeed part of the power game. Even if its aims are to achieve understanding and cooperation within the democratic spectrum, it is still part of the paradigm of national interests and it will always be viewed as such.
On the other hand, culture – in the sense outlined above – needs the freedom and openness of a radical reflection such as can be found in bold artistic action or intellectual debate free from taboos and restrictions. This is where diplomacy really reaches its limits, bound as it is by ist ineluctable professional code of consideration, protocol and procedure (which in themselves have a high cultural value!).
In isolated cases it may be possible to fill the credibility gap resulting from this paradox at the heart of cultural diplomacy – mainly through charismatic individuals – but generally it is just a case of trying to square the circle and has other consequences for the system as a whole. In short, these consequences entail a structured removal of diplomacy from Europe’s and the EU’s cultural dialogue. It has even got to the point where the argument has been made that Europe’s international cultural image and activities would be more successful if they were conceived and carried out without diplomatic influence. This point of view is supported by professional experience. The story of the Goethe Institute also proves that it makes sense to design international cultural exchange programmes without diplomatic influence. The Institute is an official, but independent, intermediary organisation which has links to foreign policy contractually and within a clear set of rules of engagement but which sets ist own quality standards and makes its own decisions in terms of content.
Europe’s international cultural image and activities would be more successful if they were conceived and carried out without diplomatic influence.
At first this particularly German structure was faced with a dilemma because of the way Germany’s cultural reputation had been destroyed by the war and the political and cultural catastrophe of Nazi rule. The new idea of having a Goethe Institute which was free of diplomatic influence arose from an anti-state movement (after the disaster of National Socialism’s centralisation of culture, which had been previously unknown in Germany, people hearkened back to a more traditional German federalism). The new approach systematically set out to restore the country’s destroyed credibility in the long-term by means of non-governmental action which was directly rooted in culture, art and the mind and spirit.
These post-war problems have now been resolved. The benefits which have accrued from the way German foreign cultural policy has been set up are still having an effect, despite the fact that the world is now politically a different place. If we now take stock on the occasion of the Goethe Institute’s 60th anniversary, we can say with some justification that ist greatest successes have tended to come at times when it has consistently acted as a non-diplomatic organisation.
Despite their histories being quite different to that of Germany, many other European countries have decided to set up their national cultural organisations along similar lines. EUNIC, the European Union National Institutes for Culture, provides an EU framework for all these different national institutes, and it stresses that its operations are not necessarily part of the diplomatic process. Joint, multilateral actions also offer institutes that are more closely linked to diplomacy a chance to act more independently and keep official foreign policy at arm’s length (without wishing to call into the question the right of politicians to draw up policy guidelines).
This is how EUNIC can make a strong contribution to the EU. The map showing the locations of the various EUNIC cultural institutes around the world paints an impressive picture. The potential is clear, not only in the sheer number of offices, but also in the dense network of contacts which have been built up over many years. Our institutes are on-the-spot, we know the local scene and wherever possible we are part of it, right at the heart of civil society. Internally, EUNIC can provide its institutional partners in the EU with reports, access and contacts; while externally the EUNIC institutes stand for credibility, sustainability and creativity.
The times of bilateral showcase events are long gone. Important issues for the future now have to be dealt with in a way that is both interdisciplinary and with multiple perspectives. However, multilateralism is not just a method; it is at the same time a hands-on way of getting to grips with the diversity that we are always hearing about. The mere fact of so many individual players coming together under one European banner is proof positive of how specific EUNIC projects can reflect core European values.
As things stand, the omens for culture in the EU are not particularly auspicious. “Agenda 2020” and the prospect of a stagnant budget over the next seven-year financial period send out a clear message and are currently causing pessimistic noises to emanate from the Commission. But a new ally has appeared in the shape of the European Parliament. Early in 2010 its Culture Committee published its “Report on the Cultural Dimensions of the EU’s External Actions“ – to all intents and purposes with the new diplomatic service in mind – which called for serious efforts to be made in the area of an EU foreign cultural policy (even though such a thing is not officially allowed!).
EUNIC presents an outstanding opportunity, not just for Europe’s national cultural institutes (and particularly for the institutes of smaller countries which find that arenas and spheres of activity are being opened up to them through their partnership with larger institutes that they would never have had access to before with their own limited means). And it seems that many EU bureaucrats are now starting to recognise these opportunities. They have now not only grasped the fact that national cultural institutes now have a lobbying umbrella organisation (just like European handball players or the textile industry), but also that this organisation can potentially become a uniquely-qualified partner.
The usual methods of the EU Commission which involve projects and funding aimed at civil society are still basically the right approach: stimulating and encouraging projects at grass-roots level. But in countries outside of Europe these kinds of projects have to be set up quite differently from those at home, they need to be developed on the ground and realised by means of fair partnerships. It is precisely here that EUNIC can find its new role, by acting as a creative intermediary with the right partners.
At the moment there is a window of opportunity open, but it may not stay open for much longer. EUNIC has to act quickly if it wants to take advantage of these opportunities. This also requires some shrewd selfassessment, because it is clear that EUNIC will never be the kind of organisation that many strategists dream of: a powerful European institution with a strong base and a dynamic and efficient network of offices all over the world that enjoy the same kind of relationship as the Goethe Institute’s offices abroad have with their parent in Munich. So we have to quickly prove that we have a certain degree of flexibility and efficiency. Some quite respectable pilot projects are to be announced in the area of encouraging multilingualism. It can be assumed that this is an area which will be a priority for EUNIC’s work within Europe in the immediate future.
Another field of activity could be the area of international cultural education. A European scholarship and training programme, certified by EUNIC (perhaps also in collaboration with appropriate universities) with internships at the head offices of the various EUNIC member institutes in various countries and a period spent in Brussels would be a tempting offer for many young people who are interested in pursuing a career in culture. But more importantly, the current challenge of quickly delivering high-quality projects in the southern Mediterranean region and its new developing countries is becoming something of a stress or litmus test. Much of EUNIC’s future depends on this challenge being successfully met.
We do not need a crystal ball to predict that this new offspring of the European project, like all those which have gone before it, will have to suffer the usual European birth pains and childhood illnesses. It would be a miracle if it were otherwise. For EUNIC, like for every other European project, success will only be achieved by thinking and acting in a way that is simultaneously realistic and utopian.
