Gedanken über Kulturpolitik

„Kultur ist nicht nur ein Bereich öffentlicher Maßnahmen, sondern eine Dimension öffentlicher Maßnahmen, da es wenige Politikbereiche gebe, die keinen Bezug zu Kultur hätten, schreibt Jacques Rigaud, der stellvertretende Vorsitzende der Robert-Schuman-Stiftung in einem im April veröffentlichten Bericht. 

„Policy is action, so a space of will. It is the art of the possible, of the relative, of the compromise […]. It is also an area of conflict [and of] power relations,“ declares Rigaud.

„In Western Europe, the word ‚culture‘ […] has long aroused suspicion, as the authoritarian regimes created the ‚ministries of culture‘ which were only propaganda agencies,“ he explains.

„However, culture and policy are inseparable,“ he says. „Culture is not just a secret garden, a well-designed ‚French‘ park […] or garden weeds. [It] is a social practice too, which lives only through sharing and exchange. It is […] the expression of a desire to live together, beyond the inevitable differences in beliefs, references and tastes which give it its meaning, its dynamic and its fertility,“ the paper states.

„Culture is both an heritage and a project for the benefit of the many. By then, it has to do with policy,“ Rigaud argues.

Highlighting the role of „networks“, the author declares that „there is no large exhibition, festival or opera production of any size which is conceivable without the cooperation of similar institutions from several European countries“.

Such cooperation is „natural“ and „professional“, he explains, because it has become normal for the heads of major national cultural institutions to come from other EU countries. For example, he points out that an Englishman heads the Berliner Philharmoniker (Berlin Philharmonic), an Italian leads the Wiener Staatsoper (Vienna State Opera) and a Frenchman heads La Scala in Milan.

Moreover, „corporate philanthropy is increasingly borderless, especially in the cultural field,“ Rigaud states.

The teachings of our common history

„Culture is not only a sector of public action, it is a dimension,“ the paper argues. „Education […] cannot ignore the awakening of artistic sensibility […] we can’t develop planning or land-use policy without a cultural dimension. It is similar for external action, diplomacy and social policy,“ Rigaud explains.

„Taking account of culture as a cross-cutting common concern in many cases requires political will at the highest level,“ he adds.

„It doesn’t pretend that everything is culture and that culture must be predominant. It only pretends to never forget it. This is the only way to be truly faithful to the teachings of our common history,“ he stresses.

„At the national or European level, multiculturalism is not a solution, but rather an admission of failure. Cultures only live through exchanges,“ Rigaud argues.

„Cultural diversity, in which Europe has been a champion on the international scene, doesn’t only imply the acknowledgment of the plurality of models and their equal dignity. It requires each of us to make the effort to know and appreciate not only other languages, but also other cultures than ours. It leads us to experience a deep sense of belonging to a European culture [which is] inseparable from each of our own cultures,“ the paper states.

„Not until the 1990s and the Maastricht Treaty did the European treaties take culture into account. [But] there are no regrets, as the ‚common market‘ of culture spontaneously worked by itself for a long time,“ Rigaud explains.

„The legal and financial tools of the European Union, in which culture is now eligible, can certainly accelerate or facilitate trade, as proved by the Erasmus programme,“ his paper concludes. „But what is known in the European jargon as ’subsidiarity‘ […] offers the richness and intensity of spontaneous cultural exchange in Europe,“ it adds.