http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0213-0557
![Sample our Urban Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110826/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Urban-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Culture is often promoted as crucial in efforts to achieve economic growth and social cohesion. In recent debates, greater attention has been directed at the importance of culture in creating democratic and just cities. Drawing on theories concerning participation, we study the processes of citizen participation in the creation of culture in relation to the European Capital of Culture in Umeå in Northern Sweden. The city has been praised for its focus on participation and the ‘co-creation’ of culture. We scrutinize the idea of co-creation, how it is filled with meaning by different actors, the way it is operationalized by city officials and cultural actors/practitioners and the possibilities for public participation and the power relationships at play in the city. We conclude that culture tends to be depoliticized and turned into an arena available for all on supposedly equal terms and ignores the very unequal terms on which different actors participate. It ignores how power relations affect and construct who gets to speak and be heard; that there are conflicting meanings of culture and co-creation and how power influences whose definition of culture is accepted.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors .
ORCID
Christine Hudson http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0213-0557
Linda Sandberg http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8531-3748
Ulrika Schmauch http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2814-9451
Notes
1. N.B. we are not suggesting that co-creation is more appropriate for culture but rather this is the participatory approach adopted by Umeå municipality for Umeå2014.
2. We have not tried to define culture as such, but have rather worked from what the municipality ‘defined’ as cultural activities through the projects it chose to fund.
3. These sought to awakened interest in equal opportunities amongst audiences.
4. These concerned demonstrating creative thinking, gender equality, accessibility, diversity and sustainability
5. A cultural centre for young people run by Umeå municipality.
6. This is based on the Open Source software movement, ‘where users have full access to the source code and are empowered to make their own changes and improvements to it’ (Umeå Municipality, Citation2008, p. 17).
7. Head of Urban Development and Sustainability, Umeå2014.
8. Over 200 applications were received and less than half were funded.
9. Co-funding from external actors was required. There was another type of funding for smaller projects that did not require co-funding. These were financed within the Kulturskjutsen (Cultural Boost) programme that arose out of the need highlighted by groups and independent actors to test and develop their ideas prior to the ECOC. It was possible to apply for a grant of max SEK 20 014 (about €2200) and these relatively small projects were clearly defined in time and space. They included actors with little prior experience of organizing cultural events and were thus one way for citizens to ‘get involved’. Very few of these projects were able to mobilize further funding and to put together larger applications under the main programme.
10. Only the successful applications were analysed as we did not have access to nor the opportunity to study the applications not granted co-funding. We only had the municipality's very brief general description of the grounds on which projects were rejected and not the more detailed reasons why individual projects were refused. Thus, we can only present the municipality's account of the projects that were prioritized and selected to be part of the Capital of Culture year. Obviously we miss part of the story. Nevertheless, our analysis provides an understanding of how co-creation was filled with content and how priorities were set with regard to those who were selected to co-create.