Use some imagination

Date: 13/11/1997

The concept of 'culture' is easily hi-jacked by politicians and interest groups for a variety of spurious purposes, argues Simon Mundy. But in the Treaty of Amsterdam, the European Union has given itself an instrument which could - if used with flair - transform the lives of its citizens for the better

CULTURE resonates very nicely in a politician's vocabulary. Slipped into a speech or the final statement of a dreary meeting, it can give just the right nuance of civilised concern.

For a start, culture has a comfortable habit of making the politician sound cultured, with that hint of a sense of history, of the high values of society that if appropriated skilfully can turn a mere politician into a statesman.

Invoke culture and nationalism suddenly has a softer face. Offer the justification of culture and nobody can argue that your heart is not in the right place.

The results are not always very pretty. Presidents dump hideous concrete opera houses into the middle of cities and would have us believe they are trying to enhance culture rather than their own flimsy immortality.

The far right uses culture as the excuse to terrorise newer residents, usually of a conveniently different colour for easy identification, and to march in defence of a concept which is little more than folk memory mixed with fear and distorted into inaccurate legend.

They know in their gut that culture embodies all the assumptions, expressions and habits which define our way of life. Therefore, to cry that our culture is in imminent danger is a rallying call which cannot fail to evoke a belligerent response.

Narrow the meaning down a little, though, so that as well as freedom of expression for all it means supporting those who package that expression to make a living, and the enthusiasm can be seen draining from the political visage.

Automatically, culture slips from the delightful realm of inherent human characteristics - like skin, we all have culture, whether it is presentable or not - and becomes a minor afterthought in the public spending process.

So those who work in the cultural arena are constantly bewildered to find that they are treated in diametrically opposite ways. In one direction they are told that culture is a vital element of democratic life and that people have no identity without culture. In the other, they are regarded as mere entertainment, a bit of froth on top of the real economic dish.

Those who use culture as a trade need to sell things just as much as anybody else who earns a living, of course, and when culture does sell, it does so spectacularly successfully, as the publishing, fashion, recording and film industries frequently demonstrate.

But this is not always the case and, as in any other line of business, for every idea that makes millions, there will be a few hundred that earn very little.

Sometimes this is because the work is just plain bad. (Although that does not stop rubbish doing well. Sam Goldwyn's dictum that "nobody ever went bust underestimating the taste of the American public" applies just as effectively to European art.) Often, though, contemporary lack of interest is as much because the work is challenging the convenient and the familiar as because its quality is dubious.

For governments and European institutions, therefore, culture is a difficult subject. It can arouse passion quite out of proportion to its real value. At the same time, because the one thing that culture can never guarantee is measurable value for money, it is hard to defend against charges of extravagance.

However, there is an awareness that the richness and vitality of life depend on being able to demonstrate that there is more to society than the delivery of material comforts.

Bars and clubs can and do argue that they are more basic to the culture than anything else, but any decision-maker knows that a culture which relied on these alone would be unhealthy (in more ways than one). Cultural activity does not mean the things you do when you are not doing anything more worthwhile.

And it is disturbing for governments. It vigorously proclaims its right to be critical, even subversive. Worse, it expects the public purse to help it criticise.

Even the heritage business, the exploitation of our cultural past, inevitably makes some unpalatable comparisons with the present. Museums are not always relaxing places in which preconceptions can be validated.

For me, it is this ambivalence at the core of official attitudes which explains why it took so long for culture to be seen as necessary to the process of European union. It also goes some way to explaining why, having had a remarkably well-worded cultural article inserted into the Maastricht Treaty, Europe and its member states have been so loath to do anything which realises its potential beyond the cosmetic.

Culture is, it is true, subject to a decision-making procedure which, if applied to the railways, would ensure that no train ever left the station.

Yet that still does not quite account for the lack of progress. The cultural action programmes which the Directorate-General for information, communication and culture (DGX) does foster - Kaleidoscope, Ariane and Raphael - are limited, short of cash and universally seen as inadequate for the task.

As in all other areas of EU policy, each member state projects its own attitudes and prejudices on the European screen. Too often, sadly, they then announce that these prejudices themselves have a cultural basis.

This is an immense pity. The Union, in its new treaty, has given itself an instrument which could transform the way Europe works and enjoys itself.

The scope of the relevant article is tantalisingly broad. Even though it tries to be protectionist, limiting EU action to those things the member states choose not to do for themselves, the fact that they do so little means that an awful lot could be done by the Union.

So far, European cultural action has taken the form of either paying for grand emblematic gestures which are rarely more than public relations exercises for the EU itself, or reacting with too little, too late to plaintive demands from the cultural sector.

Little thought has been given to the real goal of the cultural article, which should be to make people in Europe more secure by ensuring the expressions through which they define themselves are respected, made widely available and supported.

It is self-confidence which will bring new dynamism and prosperity to Europe, not just decent living conditions.

Because nation states seem automatically to think either parochially or bilaterally, it is up to the European Union and Council of Europe to help people make connections that are more complex.

If the networking can be made to function properly, professionals will gradually gain a perspective which is able to jump borders as effectively as the weather.

Where they lead, however, the fiscal and social security systems must follow.

At the moment, the majority of creative people working in the cultural sector personify the flexible, mobile and open-minded worker that economists say is essential for future growth.

Yet they are normally treated by the taxation and welfare systems as though they are unemployed car workers, useless to society unless they have a weekly wage packet in their hands. If they were treated as a resource, constantly adapting, inventing and researching, so that future production could take place, a far more constructive environment could be created.

In the end, though, good cultural policy is not about professional artists or performers. They are just its servants. It is about helping people to realise their own expressive potential in a way which makes the most of their cultural past. In a multinational world, participating in cultural life cannot happen only in the context of old states.

Let us have, then, cultural programmes which promote generously the fluidity, the individuality and the creativity of culture in Europe. It is not so much money as official imagination which is in short supply.

A rich culture - rich in participation levels as well as content - will not make Europeans better people. It will not necessarily make them happier or any more likely to re-elect tired old governments.

But it will make Europeans more friendly towards each other, and the territory itself a far more interesting place to live.

Simon Mundy is vice-president of the European Forum for the Arts and Heritage (EFAH). His latest book, 'Making It Home - Europe and the Politics of Culture', is published by the European Cultural Foundation this month.

Author is Vice President of the European Forum for the Arts and Heritage (EFAH).