The new agenda for culture as a tool for European integration: a critical analysis

1. The new agenda for culture as a tool for European integration: a critical analysis Dr Karsten Xuereb University of Malta https://culturalpolicy.blog/ 26 September 2018, RUC

2. Research paper overview • In May 2018 the European Commission published A New Agenda for Culture. Acknowledging the social and political challenges Europe faces today, through this Communication the Commission aims at contributing to European cohesion and integration through culture.

3. This paper critically addresses the Communication in its form as the latest exercise by the European Commission, in relation to other institutions forming the European Union (EU), to address a sense of European malaise resulting from a democratic deficit through cultural means. The experiences of more than three decades of cultural competence and the limits thereof in relation to the principle of subsidiarity exercised by Member States, traced back to the Treaty of the European Union of 1992, are examined for the visions set out by the EU, the expectations generated and shortcomings suffered.

4. The paper argues that the array of instruments conceived by the EU in the field of culture seems to have been counterproductive: rather than helping achieve social aims, it seems to have contributed to further alienation in part due to the self-serving purpose of these instruments (Barnett: 2001; Valentine: 2018). • This paper argues that cultural projects, including Creative Europe flagships like the European Capital of Culture, have turned efforts at participation and engagement into matters of self-satisfying bureaucratic merit and achievement.

5. The tension between neoliberal economic aims and progressive social concerns that cuts across the new culture agenda is highlighted in the context of wider European cultural policy. • Possible outcomes of the agenda are assessed in relation to the general political and social climate of the EU.

6. Culture & disintegration • In a slim yet insightful book published earlier this year, Italian anthropologist Adriano Favole (2018) identifies what may be described as the traps and pitfalls of culture (48). He writes about how these may be overcome through an open-minded approach to the norms and patterns of human relations. It is ironic that, from this perspective, culture itself may be considered to be one of the contributing factors to the disintegration of society. This is so when people, particularly those aggregated in groups with an intention to promote what is understood and presented as a common, uniform and prioritised agenda, is imposed on others that may belong or identify with that group, as well as others outside it (40).

7. The EU machinery • It is ironic that the very mechanism envisaged to support the cultural dimension in Europe today, and that is successful in part, may be criticised for being counter-productive in achieving this aim. It is at times waterlogged with bureaucracy that slows down, if not eviscerates, the spirit of cultural exchange based on inspiration and innovative creativity so proudly delineated in the EU’s new agenda for culture. The agenda in and of itself tries to balance an up-to-date analysis with optimistic proposals based on the inherent value of culture as well as an instrumental interpretation of it.

8. On solutionism • In a recent analytical text on the ironic lack of value and capability to deliver any significant outcome through a great deal of technical preparation in what is described as ‘solutionism’, Spanish cultural critic Marina Garcés (2017: 8) notes how: • ‘Education, knowledge and science sink, today, in a loss of prestige. They can resurface only if they can show they can offer workable, technical and economic solutions. Solutionism is the alibi of a knowledge that has lost the attribution of making us better, as people and as a society. We no longer believe this is possible, and therefore only ask for solutions and more solutions. We do not believe we can improve ourselves, but only gain more or less privileges in a span of time that goes nowhere, because we have given up on aiming for a better future.’

9. Valentine (2018: 156) applies such a perspective to the European context. He refers to Clive Barnett (2001) in relation to New Public Management practices applying neoliberal market structures to cultural governance and practice, and notes how Barnett’s analysis of the development of cultural policy in the EU exposes the failure of the EU to achieve to make good on its motto of ‘unity in diversity.’ • This is despite the efforts of European elites to develop a reference point embedded in Europe’s cultural heritage to act as a foundation for affective legitimacy, as well as in spite of the fragmented nature of governance at EU level within which cultural policy is distributed and among which policy actors strive for influence.

10. In conclusion • One may wonder whether the European Commission acknowledges the irony of its statement in the agenda that ‘[a]n impressive number of actions have been undertaken by MS […] inspired by EU policy collaboration through successive Council Work Plans for Culture, through projects funded by EU programmes, and through macro-regional strategies’, referring the reader to the staff working document accompanying the communication, which provides an overview of actions under the previous agenda, as well as ‘details of actions proposed in this new Agenda plus other relevant actions ongoing or planned, and details of consultations, statistics and surveys which have informed its development.’ In the light of decades of cultural action and with the benefit of hindsight, a quantitative argument needs to be supported through a critical, qualitative assessment. • European Commission (2018) p.2 referring to European Commission, SWD/2018/167, Brussels

11. ‘Europe is more than a system of legal norms and rules and political institutions which regulate European citizenship. Europe is also a symbolic space where projections and memories, the collective experiences and identifications of the people of Europe are represented. Europe has a cultural meaning’ (Eder 2000: 245).

12. Thank you https://culturalpolicy.blog/