New perspectives on instrumentalism: an empirical study of cultural diplomacy

Abstract

Museums are increasingly recognised as having a role to play within international relations, to facilitate cultural exchange, assert national identity and foster mutual understanding. Whilst international work is perceived to be politically motivated and diplomatically advantageous, it can be highly beneficial to cultural institutions. In this paper, ‘cultural diplomacy' is shown to be a strategy used by museums to enable organisational development and economic growth. This paper demonstrates how national museums adopted a political rhetoric and used strategic lobbying to formulate a new cultural policy, which expanded the scale and scope of their international work. By defining the parameters and principles of this policy, the institutions wield power, thus challenging the conventional perceptions of policy-making and contradicting commentators who accuse museums of political subservience. Throwing the notion of instrumentalism into disarray, this paper calls for a theoretical and conceptual rethinking, to revamp understanding and bring it in line with practice.

Keywords:

• cultural diplomacy
• instrumentalism
• international cultural policy

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the interviewees who participated in this research, representing Arts Council England, British Council, British Museum, DCMS, Demos, Ikon Gallery, Tate, V&A and Visiting Arts, as well as a number of independent artists and curators. I would also like to thank the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) for funding this study through the doctoral bursary programme. I would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers of this article for their insightful comments.

Notes

1. Fifteen semi-structured interviews were undertaken with directors, curators, arts managers, civil servants, policy-makers and artists. The interviewees were selected due to their involvement in the policy-making process, either as policy-makers themselves, such as civil servants; those who implement policy, for example, representatives from the Arts Council or the ‘recipients’ of policy funding, such as those within cultural institutions. The interviews lasted between 40 and 60 minutes in duration. Thematic analysis was the technique chosen to analyse the interview data, a process which took around 10 months.

2. Indeed, these issues with formal definitions and the delineation of terms echo similar concerns surrounding the definition of the word ‘culture’. Due to its subjective nature, this lack of consensus is not something that can be resolved but nevertheless it has implications for policy. The wide ranging, rather unwieldy remit of the DCMS is a prime example of this.

3. Normally I would seek to avoid generic dictionary definitions but this potentially provides a useful starting point for further conceptualisation.

4. It is important to note that these individuals are those at the highest echelons of major cultural institutions. These are nationally accredited organisations based in London, they own collections of international significance, enjoy great status and have multimillion pound budgets.

5. The role of think tanks within cultural policy-making under New Labour will form the basis of a subsequent paper.

6. This article seeks to avoid overstating the influence of Tiffany Jenkins. However, she is one of the few to write about cultural diplomacy from a cultural perspective and is the only academic within this area to comment specifically on the Demos report.