Cultural policy-making: negotiations in an overlapping zone between culture, politics and money

Abstract

The article describes, analyses and discusses how cultural policy in democratic societies takes place on a socially constructed arena or ‘space’ which I call an overlapping zone between culture, politics and money. The concept is inspired by Bourdieu's theory about social fields (champs) but adapted to the research focus of this article, which is the making of cultural policies. The point of departure is an analysis of which kind of approach to culture and the arts the activities in the overlapping zone rests on, and concludes that for many countries it is an elitist approach, even in Nordic countries with egalitarian traditions. I proceed with a presentation of the overlapping zone as a theoretical model, then follows an analysis of four groups of agents who negotiate cultural policies in the zone: politicians, civil servants/bureaucrats, professional leaders of cultural institutions and organisations and professional artists. The article ends with a discussion whether the overlapping zone is a democratic arena and whether it will survive in the future. The conclusion is that a vivid overlapping zone is dependent on an active state in the cultural field, and that the agents working in the zone represent collective interests, not only themselves as individuals.

Keywords:

• cultural policy-making
• overlapping zone
• agents
• democracy

Notes

1. About cultural policies in former Soviet states, see Egle Rindzeviciute’s article in this issue but even her earlier studies, for example, Rindzeviciute (2008, 2009).

2. In his doctoral thesis ‘Norwegian cultural policy: a civilising mission?’, Egil Bjørnsen (2009) has written in detail about ‘the civilising mission’, with reference to Arnold (2009).

3. Vestheim (2009a), cited in Beckman and Månsson (2009).

4. I am aware it is a simplification to label cultural forms as high and low and that the borderlines between them are being blurred and sometimes not relevant. But my aim in this article is to point to tendencies and general developments – that is why I use concepts that are ideal typical in a Weberian sense, not as instruments for measuring concrete details.

5. See Rindzeviciute (2008, 2009).

6. Bourdieu and his colleagues carried through studies of several cultural fields already in the 1960s and his concept champ originates from 1966, cf. Broady (1998, p. 11).

7. This is the case both with UNESCO, The European Union and The Council of Europe which do not have a mandate to act on behalf of citizens in the same way as is the case with political bodies in nation states.

8. Vestheim (2009a, pp. 56–63), cited in Beckman and Månsson (2009).

9. There is a quite encompassing literature on cultural policy history of the Nordic countries, see, e.g. Mangset (1992), Vestheim (1995), Duelund (2003) and Engberg (2011) cited in Poirrier (2011), Dahl and Helseth (2006), Frenander (2005), Kangas and Sokka (2011), cited in Poirrier (2011), Nilsson (1999) NS Wikander (2011, cited in Philippe Poirrier (2011)).

10. See Mangset (2010) ‘Fransk kulturpolitikk, før under og etter Malraux’ and Vestheim (2010) ‘André Malraux, Augustin Girard og den franske kulturpolitikken 1959–1993’, both published in Nordisk Kulturpolitisk Tidskrift 2–2010.

11. Rothstein (2010, Fjärde upplagan), p. 17, names this ‘den legalbyråkratiska modellen’ (the legal-bureaucratic model).

12. Vestheim (2007, 2009b), cited in Pyykkönen, Simanainen and Sokka (2009).

13. Weber(1922/1971, Norwegian issue), p. 53, see also Engelstad (1999).

14. For a more detailed and nuanced discussion of the differences between the Nordic countries, see Kangas and Vestheim (2010).

15. About cultural policies in former Soviet states, see Egle Rindzeviciute’s article in this issue but even her earlier studies, e.g. Rindzeviciute (2008, 2009).