![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
Mirroring Jacques Delors’ much quoted ‘No one falls in love with a common market,’ there has been an increased emphasis on ‘culture’ as a vital tool in the European Union (EU) integration process. Yet, how these programs for ‘cultural exchange and dialogue’ affect artistic production, and reception, is rarely discussed. Drawing on interviews with actors in Berlin and Istanbul who engage with cultural policy in the European arena (2005–2008), this paper aims to illuminate the tensions that this nascent European cultural policy has engendered, not least with regard to the EU stipulations on national cultural sovereignty. I argue that while EU cultural initiatives indeed produce a kind of ‘Europeanization,’ they do so mainly through thematic and institutional incorporation. However, this type of integration tends to recast power differentials within the EU and beyond, despite proclaimed goals to the contrary, as cultural exchange programs tend to reinforce distinctions between ‘art proper’ and ‘ethnic cultural production.’
Notes
1. This article is based on research for my dissertation entitled ‘Claiming modernity through aesthetics: a comparative look at Germany and Turkey’ and was aided by a Dissertation Fieldwork Grant by the Wenner‐Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research (2005–2006). The write‐up was supported by a Dissertation Fellowship from the European Union Studies Center at the Graduate Center, City University of New York (2007–2008). I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and express my deepest gratitude to Ceren Özgül, Theodore Powers, Mary N. Taylor, and Nathan D. Woods for their valuable feedback on various permutations of this article.
2. Passed in August 2002, these reforms have remained fragile as incidents reported by Human Rights Watch show (see for example HRW Citation2003, pp. 365–366).
3. For a final report of Culture 2000 that had a budget of 236.5 millions, see http://ec.europa.eu/culture/archive/sources_info/evaluation/pdf_word/culture2000_final_report/executive_summary_31012008_EX_EN.pdf. An overview of the follow‐up program Culture 2007–2013 can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/doc411_en.htm. Designated to support ‘projects and initiatives to celebrate Europe’s cultural diversity and enhance our shared cultural heritage through the development of cross‐border co‐operation between cultural operators and institutions,’ its budget is 400 million.
4. As Turkey failed to pay into the Culture 2000 fund, Turkish arts organizations were not eligible for the program per se. Some arts organizations, however, were able to access Culture 2000 funds for certain projects by cooperating with arts organizations from eligible countries.
5. As Istanbul‐based curator, Beral Madra, notes the Mondrian Foundation, the Prince Claus Fund, European Cultural Foundation, Roberto Cimetta Fund, and Anna Lindh Foundation have been among those providing support for intercultural dialogue and residency programs for artists from Turkey in the EU (Citation2008, p. 106). These types of cooperations have been intensified since Istanbul’s nomination as one of the European Capitals of Culture of 2010.
6. József Böröcz and Mahua Sarkar argue that these crises are structural as ‘the lack of an executive apparatus puts the EU always at a one‐step removed relationship from the source of legitimacy’ (Citation2005, p. 156).
7. A preliminary evaluation of the program is included in the ‘Council Conclusions on the Promotion of Cultural and Intercultural Dialogue in the External Relations Union and its Member States’ published by the Council of the European Union; available online from http://www.interculturaldialogue2008.eu/fileadmin/downloads/documents/240-officialdocuments/081120_Council_Conclusions.pdf.
8. There are, of course, alternative histories of Europe: Tony Judt’s (Citation1996) essay on the contingencies of the idea of Europe and its institutional manifestation and Mark Mazower’s (Citation2000) work on National Socialism as a European phenomenon are but two examples.
9. This type of blindspot is also indicative for the fall‐outs that intercultural dialogue initiatives often produce in terms of their reception (see below).
10. As anthropologist Mahmood Mamdani has argued, the identification of ‘culture’ as a source of contemporary political quandaries serves to detach problematic issues from their socioeconomic and political conditions.
11. Although the notion of l’exception culturelle was originally developed in the French context to demarcate the exemption of culture from international trade agreements (such as WTO and GATS), it is now frequently used as a synonym for guarantees of national cultural sovereignty in the EU framework (see also Kiwan and Meinhof Citation2006, pp. 62–69).
12. In these changing labor markets, the precariousness and flexibility of the cultural sector serves as a model (Goehler Citation2006) and provides support for the so‐called ‘life long learning’ programs that are also called for by the Lisbon Agenda (2008).
13. Another facet frequently overlooked is that of the foreign cultural policy as it is subsumed under the competencies of foreign relations departments rather than of cultural ministries. A substantial number of artists and cultural producers I spoke to in Istanbul outright rejected the idea to turn to the Ministry of Culture out of fear of potential manipulation or experiences of prior unresponsiveness on the side of the ministry (see also Tan Citation2006) – although it seems that these attitudes are slowly changing. Many noted, however, that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has frequently proven to be more willing to pay airfares or offer other small kinds of logistical help through the tanitim fonu – a fund earmarked to promote Turkey’s image abroad. Similarly, in Germany, foreign cultural policy programs, including those led by the Goethe Institute, have helped a number of artists I interviewed to produce or show works abroad, in turn allowing them to support their living and working arrangements in Berlin.
14. This fragmentation has been recently reiterated and criticized by the Federation of European Film Directors (FERA) as they have been since 2004 confronted with ‘Culture, Audiovisual Policy and Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) [being] scattered in three different Directorates‐General with three different Commissioners in charge’ (Citation2009).
15. Although a growing number of studies exist, such as the Cultural Policy Compendium, research conducted by EFAH, or even by artists themselves, they too tend to reflect the above‐described fragmentation of competencies and legislation.
16. For a comprehensive overview beginning with the European Cultural Convention in 1954, the Council of Europe, and its signaling force for the EU, see Obuljen Citation2005 (p. 22 ff).
17. Similarly, Mirza (Citation2005) argues that rather than addressing root causes of social exclusion, national cultural policy in Britain increasingly aims to mend the psychological impact of exclusion through the arts.
18. The ‘Final External Evaluation of the Culture 2000 programme (2000–2006)’ that ‘[o]verall, the Culture 2000 program has been successful in generating the intended results and impacts but less successful in capturing detailed information and evidence regarding the extent of achievement’ (ECOTEC Citation2008, p. 9) strikes me as highly problematic and seems to suggest that what constitutes (measurable) success in these programs requires further qualitative research.
19. Not least, as Staiger outlines, due to the ‘relative weakness of the DG in terms of its bearing on EU institutional policy articulation’ (Citation2009, p. 9). Together with the above‐described departmental fragmentation, this also hinders systematic application of Article 151.4 (Gordon and Adams Citation2007, pp. 9–10; see Appendix 1).
