Heritage diplomacy through the lens of the European Capitals of Culture programme

ABSTRACT

This article will contribute to the existing debates on heritage diplomacy. It will build on an understanding of heritage diplomacy through the lenses of decolonial thinking. The core case study is one of the main policy programmes for culture at the European level, the European Capital of Culture, which contributes to the building of a shared European Heritage. Whereas the opportunities for diplomacy work afforded by the programme itself will be considered, the analysis will mainly focus on the representation of colonial heritage in ECoC programmes. The article draws on work conducted in the EU-funded ECHOES project (European Colonial Heritage Modalities in Entangled Cities). The analysis presented will query why dissonant heritage, such as that of a colonial nature, is often left out of discussions of European heritage more generally. Lessons will be drawn on what the implications might be for advancing European heritage diplomacy and cultural policy.

KEYWORDS:

• Heritage diplomacy
• festivals
• European Capitals of Culture

Culture is a matter that is devolved at the European level and member states bear responsibility for this sector of activity. Culture, however, is essential for Europeanisation also, and programmes such as the European Capitals of Culture (ECoC hereafter) or the European Heritage Label were devised to build a supranational layer for cultural activities that could potentially advance the integration process. One cannot expect a solely economic union to spark passion and reach the emotional key strings that items such as culture and heritage touch in people across the union (Clopot and Strani 2019).

As Tibor Navracsics (2015, 1), European Union Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Sport argued:

By providing opportunities for Europeans to meet and discover the great cultural diversity of our continent and to take a fresh look at our common history and values, the European Capitals of Culture promote mutual understanding and intercultural dialogue among citizens and increase their sense of belonging to a community.

This brief quote concisely presents the ambition of the programme, emphasising its role as a tool that aims to drive Europeanisation from below (Clopot and Strani 2019). As an important element of cultural policy, the European Capitals of Culture project has led to a flurry of research on different topics, such as scholarship focused on the short- and long-term effects and impacts of holding the title (García and Cox 2013). Others have looked at how the programme’s development emphasised existing inequalities (Hudson, Sandberg, and Schmauch 2017) or its spillover effects into the political arena (Žilič-Fišer and Erjavec 2017). There is, however, less attention paid to the programme’s effects on cultural policy more generally, and analysing ECoC through the lens of heritage diplomacy can offer some interesting reflections.

This article sets to contribute to academic debates on heritage diplomacy and European cultural policy. It aims to critically engage with and interrogate three core questions: can the ECoC programme serve as a medium for heritage diplomacy (Clopot, Andersen and Oldfield 2022)?; How have different ECoCs dealt with their colonial pasts, and how is this reflected in their programmes? Can we conduct decolonial heritage diplomacy through major policy initiatives such as ECoC? Bringing these questions together will facilitate the international debate needed to address the colonial amnesia that researchers have noted still shrouds significant engagement with Europe’s past (Andersen, Knudsen, and Kølvraa 2019). Such discussions, as I explain below, are of key relevance to heritage diplomacy.

As Winter (2015, 1007) amongst others has argued, heritage diplomacy is essentially a practice of communication, of collaboration around ‘cultural and natural pasts shared between and across nations’. The common interpretation of heritage diplomacy has been based on Europe-centric knowledge regimes, and traditional projects are often offshoots of such thinking and some reflect power relations established during the colonial period. Analysing heritage diplomacy through the lense of colonialism (Clopot 2020; Scott 2014) is important for building sustainable futures and addressing the past legacies that still influence the practice of diplomacy today. Addressing the colonial amnesia then head-on, through programmes such as ECoC, can bring novel approaches to the practice of heritage diplomacy. As I discuss in a separate section below, the analysis presented here builds on decolonial thinking (Mignolo and Walsh 2018), to propose new ways of conceiving heritage diplomacy at the national and international levels.

Data set and methodology

The initial fieldwork planned for this article had to be abandoned as the world was adapting to life with Covid-19. The empirical material that the discussion draws on here is based on a corpus of text and a set of qualitative interviews. The main elements of text analysed are formed by the ECoC bids which are available electronically on dedicated city websites, as well as ex-post evaluation documents available on the main ECoC website (EC n.d). The corpus analysed included bids for the ECoC titles from 2013 to 2024 (usually 2 per year, hence around 20 bids were analysed for winning cities, although in some cases bids from non-winning cities were also available). This wide selection was deemed appropriate to ensure sufficient breadth of data to identify large patterns. This choice also considered the availability of data, as earlier bids are no longer available online.

The year 2013 is also important in ECoC history as at that time a landmark study of ECoCs was published (García and Cox 2013), which led to a revision of the selection procedure (EP and CoEU 2014). Such evaluation reports, as Oancă (2017) has explored in her research, are instrumental in building the networks of experts and knowledge regime frameworks that over time have led to several changes to the selection process and increased standardisation.

To capture different views thus, the study brought together different types of data. In addition to the large textual data mentioned above, the views of a set of key people involved in managing and/or evaluating coordinating ECoC projects were sought through qualitative interviews. Although I had initially hoped to interview more people, as I explain further below, I encountered several rejections and ended up conducting four interviews only. The majority of the data then draws on the thematic analysis of the bids. Interviews were conducted online via Zoom or by phone and were semi-structured in format.

To reflect on the proposed research questions, a thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2013) was conducted based on an inductive coding approach to identify specific patterns. As Braun and Clarke (2013) have noted, one of the strengths of thematic analysis is its flexibility as a method, suitable to tackle large datasets such as the one compiled for this study. The main themes identified were as follows: diversity, shared history, problematic histories, and internal colonialism. The analysis of the themes was conducted with reference to recent work in the ECHOES research project. ECHOES researchers have developed a toolkit with several categories to interpret approaches to colonialism, which include four main modalities of repression, reframing, removal and re-emergence (Andersen, Knudsen, and Kølvraa 2019). Where suitable, the themes identified were discussed in reference to these categories also.

The analysis proceeded from an understanding of heritage as an evolving, changing discursive practice (Smith 2006). Looking closely at discourse enables an understanding of its underlying principles, values, etc. The discursive practices of ECoC materials (especially those used in the bid books that candidate cities present) have now become well established. Yet, that is not to say that they have become more easily operationalised by candidate cities in their bids. Indeed, in its bid for the ECoC title in 2015, Pilsen’s (the Czech Republic) team had noted:

The ‘language of Brussels’ is far removed from the reality in which people live. It seems academic, sophisticated, dull and often incomprehensible. This is truly a shame, as the direction that the European cultural agenda has taken in recent years is attractive and in harmony with the feelings of the vast majority of experts and regular citizens of the Czech Republic. The candidature team expended much energy in explaining and reformulating the terminology of Brussels. (City of Pilsen 2010, 242)

The specific discursive regime that is referenced here has also featured in my interviews, where local teams from ECoC cities had to perform such translations of opaque concepts, often citing the European dimension section of the bids amongst these. This further emphasises the important role of discourse in shaping particular understandings of heritage through the ECoC project.

ECoCs and heritage diplomacy

While it is not necessary to rehearse here fully the history of the ECoC action, which has already been covered by other researchers in-depth, it would be useful to mention a few key details to frame the analysis presented below. The European Capital of Culture programme has been running now for 34 years. The first cities were initially designated ‘City’ of Culture, but this was then changed to reflect the central position of these cities as symbolic centre of Europe during the designated year. During these three decades, there have been significant changes in the procedures for designation as well as in the evaluation criteria, as discussed in the previous section. The pattern of designation has also changed, but in recent years, the model of two cities sharing the title has become the norm, usually one of the older members of the EU and a more recent member (Clopot and Strani 2019). The running order of countries to host the title is assigned beforehand at the European level.

The ECoC title follows a 6-year-long preliminary period, when the programmed countries first conduct a national pre-selection, with several candidates’ bids evaluated by a panel of designated international ECoC experts. The year-long celebration aims to foreground cultural diversity, foster shared heritage and belonging, as well as facilitate economic regeneration and promote tourism. As evaluators, the ECoC panel members have a powerful role in shaping the programmes of these cities, and it was thus particularly important to consider some of their views for this study also. The bids that are proposed by the cities usually present one central concept and several key themes, which are then distilled into an indicative programme for the year. The bid books follow a preconceived structure which includes key sections such as the European dimension, where cities are asked to discursively narrate their contribution as European, or the international dimension, where cities are asked to reflect on links with other ECoCs or foreign creative industry representatives.

These bid books then epitomise the European heritage-making discursive practices and as Immler and Sakkers (2014, 16) had argued ‘the European dimension is most visible when the ECoC candidates reflect their history as part of European history’. This is not an easy feat, as cultural agents involved in ECoC projects often mention this requirement as a particularly challenging aspect of creating the bids. The limitations of discursively objectifying such an abstract concept were also noted by specialists evaluating the overall performance of the bids (e.g. see for instance the influential reports by Palmer (2004) or García and Cox (2013)).

The link between ECoC and heritage diplomacy might not be obvious at first sight, yet as the objectives of the programme suggest, it can be analysed from this perspective. Heritage diplomacy emphasises exchanges based on heritage. Following Winter’s (2015) distinction of heritage as diplomacy and heritage in diplomacy, ECoC programmes can be interpreted in both ways. They build on particular interpretations of heritage, thus using heritage as diplomacy at the European level. They also often refer to intercultural dialogue and emphasise the importance of international collaborations among cities and artists, often building on national, regional or group heritage and identities, thus reflecting the second type of engagement, of heritage in diplomacy. ECoCs can then be important tools and media for diplomatic encounters enacted through discourse and practice. These are both directed towards other European cities and countries, but also the international community more generally. With this small interlude, it is now time to look more closely at the discursive practices that can be observed in relation to the colonial past.

Decolonial heritage diplomacy

Up to this point, we have not yet discussed how the concept of heritage diplomacy might be of interest or indeed, perhaps, help address the above-mentioned European affliction. Before discussing this though, it would be useful to present some conceptual demarcations. EU policy work has more recently focused on the notion of international cultural relations (ICR), to capture grassroots international engagement that is based on equal power positions and intercultural dialogue. This approach has now become influential in different policy circles as it presents a better model of engagement than those based on cultural diplomacy. The latter is perceived to be driven by self-interest and to be infused by Eurocentric thinking, whereas ICR offers room for pursuing shared objectives. Ongoing work by key actors, such as the different national institutes and more centrally the EU National Institutes for Culture (EUNIC), now fully embraces this new vision (see Čeginskas and Lähdesmäki 2023). Whereas European discourse sometimes slips into the use of the former term, ICR has now become so prominent that the Council of the European Union’s recent document on the EU’s cultural priorities included this item as one of the fundamental pillars for the 2019–22 work programme:

Building on the notion that culture is a value in its own right, the international cultural relations of the EU should strengthen awareness of the vital role of culture and its positive socio-economic effects, which address important issues and challenges at global level. A strategic step-by-step approach to international cultural relations followed by concrete actions for its implementation is necessary. Such an approach should entail a bottom-up perspective, encourage people-to-people contacts and promote intercultural dialogue. (Council of the European Union 2018, 14)

The approach described here is salutary, as I have discussed elsewhere (Andersen, Clopot, and Ifversen 2020; Clopot, Andersen, and Oldfield 2022), through its ambition to bring to the fore grassroots efforts. Yet, it runs counter to a concurrent discourse in circulation, which emphasises that Europe is superior to its neighbours. The former High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, for instance, has emphasised repeatedly that the EU is a ‘superpower’, such as in this speech:

We are by definition, as Europeans, a soft power. And even now that we are investing more than ever in developing our hard power – that sometimes is needed – our European Defence, our strategic autonomy that sometimes might be needed we continue to be a cultural superpower. Let me say, the cultural superpower in the world. I definitely do not need to convince this audience about the importance of cultural diplomacy. European countries have always understood the power of international cultural relations – first of all for our economies, but also for our international relations. (Mogherini 2018)

That a high-level representative of the EEAS (European Union External Action Service), as a primary actor of the EU, would both promote the glorified vision of Europe and confuse cultural diplomacy and international cultural relations (ICR) in the same segment is quite telling for the tenuous development of the ICR agenda. The views of institutions such as EEAS ultimately impact the ECoC projects also.

ICR has become even more prominent at the international level since the time I conducted the primary research for this article (2019–2020). Yet, as a task force in the ECHOES project has discussed, there are better ways of addressing relationships to accommodate and account for Europe’s deep colonial inheritance. To this end, we have proposed the concept of decolonial heritage diplomacy (Clopot, Andersen, and Oldfield 2022; Andersen, Clopot, and Ifversen 2020). Taking inspiration from decolonial thinking (Mignolo and Walsh 2018) and new diplomacy (Murray et al. 2011), this type of diplomacy proposes a meaningful engagement through the practice of interculturality (Andersen, Clopot, and Ifversen 2020). Central to such endeavours is listening, perceived as a type of activity that is an end in itself. As we discuss elsewhere (Clopot, Andersen, and Oldfield 2022), this type of listening is particularly important in relationships where asymmetries derived from former colonial histories are present. This type of diplomacy, we argue, will discard dominant, often ‘Western’ (Mignolo and Walsh 2018) conceptions of knowledge, to ensure different types of knowledge are acknowledged and embraced in encounters.

A prerequisite for such diplomatic engagements is to allow and encourage often disregarded or silenced voices to participate, thus opening the pool of actors engaged beyond traditional state actors. Enlarging the range of actors that can engage in diplomacy beyond the state, this practice enables the type of bottom-up engagements that are intended to be part of the ICR agenda. In relation to Winter’s distinction, decolonial approaches can be found in both types of heritage diplomacy. This approach would allow marginalised people to engage in activities and force Europeans sitting in comfortable power positions to listen deeply. While a decolonial heritage diplomacy has affinities with ICR, it is at odds with any discussions of Europe as a super-power. If we are to engage seriously with the legacies of the colonial past and to consider the full implications of past histories, this can only be achieved by disengaging from the Eurocentric and limited view of what counts as European heritage and this is where work in ECoCs is key.

Coloniality in ECoCs

Most EU cultural initiatives seek to advance a notion of a shared European heritage, largely by similar means, be that through the ECoC project or the European Heritage Label (see for instance Lähdesmäki 2014a, Mäkinen et al. 2023). However, as I have discussed elsewhere (Clopot and Strani 2019), the concept of heritage remains ever as elusive and subject to interpretation. There are, nevertheless, some general themes or topics that have become more mainstream in European policy discourse, as well as increasingly visible through cultural activities. As Whitehead et al. (2019, 4) observe, ‘a core of established heritage templates and layers exist that are indeed powerfully “European”’. This includes, for instance, the now well-recognised and accepted discourse on the atrocities of the two World Wars and the Holocaust. The colonial past, however, remains a difficult and, at times, maybe even painful topic to address.

In a report for the European Parliament, researchers from the ECHOES project reflect on this absence and argue that:

in the official master narrative of European history, postwar decolonization would signal the final chapter of Europe’s colonial past. The obvious existence of a postcolonial Europe would be left unnoticed and repressed or only resurface within the European nation-states that succeeded the colonial empires in times of conflict (such as involvement in colonial wars). (ECHOES 2020, 4)

The complex entanglements (Buettner 2018a, 2018b) that have led not only to complicated shared history with different third-party states but also substantively contributed to the diversity that is often projected as one of the strengths of the union, are often naively couched in celebratory tones under the European adage of ‘unity in diversity’. That is not to say that concurrent efforts are not to be found at European level. As Sierp (2020) observed in her study, although there was some interest and pressure from the European Parliament to integrate colonialism into activities and discourses of the European past, this remains at times tokenistic or relegated to specific northern European states (Andersen, Knudsen, and Kølvraa 2019).

The interpretation of colonialism integrated in this article is based on research prepared by ECHOES researchers. Buettner (2018b), for instance, reflects on the long history of colonial entanglements in different areas of Europe, with some not seemingly involved in colonial pursuits. As she argues: ‘viewing intra- and extra-European forms of European colonialism as candidates for comparative treatment and potential cross-fertilisation rather than splendid isolation allows empire to be examined as a common European heritage’. Such entanglements are not limited to Western Europe, where external colonisation is more common, but, as Buettner herself and Głowacka-Grajper (2018) have argued, Central and Eastern Europe’s history can be interpreted through the lens of colonialism, as sites of internal colonisation (Hechter 1975[2017]).

Considering what was discussed above in relation to the European Capital of Culture, it is then not surprising to affirm that little will be found in this thematic analysis on the topic of colonialism in the ECoC programme. Yet, patterns of absence are as relevant as those identified through presence. Indeed, that is what I have often been offered when asking the range of people intended to interview for this study. The interviews with cultural managers and evaluators of ECoC were meant to complement the desk-based element of research which considered the discourse in ECoC bids. Some blatantly refused and suggested that I’d better find other research interests as there is nothing to find on this theme, others expressed similar sentiments in a more delicate manner. Following that train of thought, this article would then end here: there is no colonialism in ECoC, and the project cannot contribute to decolonial heritage diplomacy. Although the programme aims to reflect and represent European heritage, it seems to suffer from the same affliction as the prevailing discourse at the European level. Interpreting this based on the categories designated in the ECHOES project, this would be most adequately understood under the label of repression (Andersen, Knudsen, and Kølvraa 2019).

In the interviews conducted, interviewees emphasised that ECoC is ultimately not focused on heritage, but rather on arts and culture or creative industries. For others, however, heritage is acknowledged as cities ‘really use heritage to build the candidacy’ (interview, ECoC evaluator). The colonial element is of limited reach in ECoC one interviewee argued, as it is not so visible at European level, where the debates focused on the recent past are more prominent. She said:

And therefore, I think that those two – post-socialism, post-communism – the more closer [the subject is it is] perceived [as a] more important topic, than to talk about twinning with Africa or Southeast Asia or South America, it was not really I think so high on the agenda. And … but it is not only something we need to blame the ECoCs, because it’s the general European debate. Now, in recent years, it started to come up a little bit, but then it came up in … under a very specific angle, it came up under this restitution element. And this is much, from my point of view, is much too narrow. And it does not concern all the ECoCs now, because this is normally the biggest problem in the capital cities with the big museums. (interview, ECoC evaluator)

Based on this ECoC official evaluator’s view then, as ECoC’s recently nominated cities are smaller in size they would be unlikely to host artefacts of a colonial nature and thus the reach of colonialism is limited. Other interviewees also emphasised that while the colonial question is relevant to the Northern European countries (e.g. the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, etc.), it is not in essence a topic that is relevant at a European level, reflecting the arguments presented by Buettner (2018b) on the common interpretation of colonialism. Some researchers have critiqued such a view explaining that ‘Eurocentrism is above all ‘West-centrism” (Głowacka-Grajper 2018) and thus the model of colonialism often presented is that oriented towards expansion outside Europe. This was exemplified by interviewees by making recourse at the importance of this discussion in Britain, which, as several people pointed out, had one of the largest empires.

Yet, the picture is much more complex than that, and for instance, researchers had signalled colonialism as a feature of bids and programmes for ECoC since the early days of programme (such as in the case of Liverpool’s programme in 2008 (Immler and Sakkers 2014)). Indeed, Immler and Sakkers (2014) offer some brief reflections of the different colonial references as strategies to narrate cities’ histories as European history, thus fulfilling the requirements for building a ‘European dimension’ in the programme. The bid books analysed by me, those of candidate cities from 2013 to 2024, do offer reflections on general trends to address the colonial past through specific discursive practices.

The theme of diversity is often presented in ECoC bids in a celebratory manner, giving little recognition to the fact that the current make-up of cities can create hierarchies of power between different groups, especially when they reflect the entanglements of colonial history (Clopot, Andersen, and Oldfield 2022). The Sami communities, for instance, are mentioned in several bids as the only indigenous people in Europe. The Bodø (Norway) bid notes that there is very little knowledge amongst the majority population about Sami culture and language. However, the bid proposes to address this:

The Sami story is a story characterised by oppression and stigma, but also resilience. When we are currently opening up this realm, different stories appear. Oppression and stigmatisation are burdens for the entire population, both the oppressed and the society altogether. As the past few decades are characterised by ever-greater acceptance, recognition, and freedom for all, we are now finding ways to cope and heal together. We believe Bodø2024 can become a catalyst for this process, at the same time creating great cultural content. (Kommune 2019, 54)

This is one of the few examples where the discourse openly acknowledges the painful past. Although it brushes over the history of colonisation of the Sami population and simply treats the Sami as an indigenous group, it at least nods to lasting tensions in inter-relationships. Based on ECHOES proposed methodologies, this is a strategy of reframing which consists of ‘inserting and staging a legacy into new narratives and creating experiential material environments or curatorial spaces around them’ (Knudsen 2018b). Tensions are also mentioned in the Swedish city Umeå’s bid book, which notes that ‘the relationship between the Sami and the majority society is complex and in the Sami programme seminars and other activities will discuss conflicts and dialogues between the Sami and the rest of Swedish society’ (Umeå 2014 2008, 13).

Matera’s (Italy) bid uses a common discursive strategy adopted in other bids also, that of a synecdoche (Clopot and Strani 2019) that presents the city as an exemplar of wider European trends. It emphasises the city’s resilience and its shame which stems, amongst others, from existing inequalities, racism, as well as the limited acceptance of refugees. Colonial links, however, seem to be celebrated rather than interpreted as a source of shame: ‘Mobility is this region’s lifeblood – from Magna Graecia and Rome to Byzantium and the Lombards, Arabs, Swabia or the House of Anjou, Basilicata has existed as a space of encounter and convergence.’ (Bollo, Grima, and D’Auria 2016, 7).

Whereas discussions of colonialism in Europe are often perceived in relation to European countries’ expansionism towards the outside, internal colonialism (Hechter [1975[2017]) is often completely forgotten (Głowacka-Grajper 2018). Yet, couched as a legacy of the wars or indeed the Holocaust, this theme of internal colonialism surfaces more easily in bids. The Kaunas (Lithuania) bid, for instance, laments its peripheral position and hints toward the complexities of its colonial recent past:

The Jewish, German, Russian, and Polish periods of influence in Kaunas came to an end in a confusion that often still persists. Consequently, we have the Tear Down the Wall programme, which will open mental spaces for discussions and co-creative practices, focusing on the Russian, Polish, German cultures, and also new-comers to the City. The projects will target the topic of dissonant heritage, which includes the fortress complex from the period of the Russian Empire’s rule and the legacy of the Soviet period (1940–1990) consisting of the material and intangible emotional relicts. (Kaunas City Municipality 2017, 40)

Applicant cities from post-socialist countries often make reference to their socialist past (Lähdesmäki 2014b) and use their ECoC title to re-emphasise their right to belong to Europe. Although the discourse on socialism has become more readily recognised at European level, Central and Eastern European cities frame their discourses from a position of marginality where they aspire to belong to a shifting European centre (Whitehead et al. 2019), often represented by the West (Mignolo and Walsh 2018). This type of past might not be presented as a matter of colonialism, but it is still nonetheless an accepted form of dissonant heritage. In Pilsen (the Czech Republic), for instance, the bid team projects a future whereby links with the totalitarian regimes of the past are severed as ‘a long-term and complicated process lasting probably more than two generations less scarred by the past, unburdened by prejudices and distortions’ (City of Pilsen 2010, 15).

The theme of problematic histories was also interesting to note in the materials analysed. In rhetoric that probably brings to mind different moments today influenced by the Black Lives Matter movements of 2020 and the debates around the Cecil Rhodes statue (Clopot, Andersen, and Oldfield 2022) in the UK and other colonial statues across Europe, Riga’s (Latvia) bid reflected on the impact of colonial heritage. Monuments are interpreted as elements raising debates:

In Riga, as one of the settings of war, monuments have always battled and been the ritualistic embodiment of the combat between ideas, the fruits of the writers and re-writers of history, the embodiment of the consciousness of the winners and the losers. (Rožkalne 2009, 51)

It is encouraging to see such a discussion in a bid book, even though it is not explicitly linked to colonialism. As we discussed in our previous work, items such as monuments and other forms of public representations are important symbolic markers for heritage work and can present important tools for heritage diplomacy (see for instance Andersen, Clopot, and Ifversen 2020).

Rijeka’s (Croatia) bid also highlighted the painful memories of shifting political alliances and occupation and used a similar argument to Riga:

The experience of being divided has shaped the identity of many European cities. The City of Rijeka has lived a divided history, between the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Italy, resulting in a short period as the Free State of Fiume, the first fascist state. By 2020 exactly 100 years will have passed. What followed was a controversial and bloody re-population of Rijeka. This division is still visible in the city’s tissue, architecture and conflicting collective memories. (Rijeka 2020 2016, 41)

Read in this light then, European heritage is also discursively represented through this history of division. This pattern also links with other bids, especially those from cities from Central and Eastern Europe, whereby identity, and especially the label of European identity, is not easily adopted and can lead to contestation.

Whereas Tartu’s (Estonia) bid also follows this route, it also emphasises its continuing relationship with the coloniser and the legacies of the past, through the presence of Russian minority in a celebratory manner.

Tartu has a long history of creative, academic and dissident mediation between European-minded Russians and Russophile Estonians/Europeans. We’ve received warm gratitude for our support of democracy, artistic freedom and the possibilities of partaking in finding solutions for European as well as global challenges. Our literary festivals are especially known for maintaining and developing this link. (Tartu City Government Department of Culture 2019, 53)

The theme of shared history is also used in bids in reference to colonialism. A repressive technique of addressing colonialism is also present in the Donostia San Sebastian’s (Spain) bid. It promisingly initially mentions the colonial past early on in the bid, however it continues by saying: ‘Putting our colonial memory to one side, we can redefine our economic and socio-cultural relations with the southern hemisphere of the world. Africa and Latin America must play a central role in shaping the international map of the future’ (Donostia 2016 Foundation 2010, 84). The solution is thus not to address this complicated past and its legacy but to further repress it by looking to the future. The San Sebastian bid, a bid where coloniality featured more prominently than others analysed, advanced a Eurocentric vision of history and its colonial past:

Relations between Europe and Africa pivot around our shared memory. Along history giving shape to a myriad of irregular connections. These connections, often unfair, also include other moments of coming together in solidarity. From the first colonial incursions to today’s reactions by the Arab world as different countries rise against their dictators, Europe has played an essential part in shaping the political map of Africa and its economic, cultural and social development. (Donostia 2016 Foundation 2010, 7)

The bid emphasises in particular the historic and contemporary links with the city of Boujdour, on the Western Sahara coast and frames the ECoC project as ‘a unique opportunity to assume Spain’s moral and political debt’ (Donostia 2016 Foundation 2010, 26). Overlapping strategies for addressing the colonial past can be identified here, more specifically a combination of repression and resurgence (see Knudsen 2018a, 2018b, Andersen, Knudsen, and Kølvraa 2019).

The celebratory discourse on colonialism was also present in most of the references in Malta’s ECoC, Valletta. The Maltese bid’s content, which was largely discarded in the final programme when the original bidding team was replaced, often refers to the Mediterranean Sea. This is presented as a space of encounter for European and non-European people, with Mediterraneity signifying exceptionality. The celebratory tone is seen in assertions like: ‘Throughout the centuries the Maltese Islands, and especially Valletta, have been enriched with diverse cultures that have reached our shores from Europe and the Mediterranean’ (Valletta 2018 Foundation 2012, 81). As I discuss elsewhere (Clopot 2020), discourses of shared heritage can be highly problematic, especially when they are used strategically to enforce the interests of the coloniser (see also Scott 2014).

A fellow Mediterranean city, Marseille (France) also constructed its bid around its position by the sea. As Immler and Sakkers (2014) observed, the bid team presented the city at the centre of the region rather than at the periphery of Europe, emphasising its links with non-European countries. Although given the focus on shared history, you would expect colonialism to focus more prominently and overtly in the bid book, this is not so. The discourse is strikingly repressive: ‘The history of the Mediterranean and of its civilisations is one that is centered on travel. It has been built through boldness, science and technology’ (Marseille-Provence 2013 2008, 35).

The proposed grand narratives to engage with neighbours across the Mediterranean were only marginally reflected in the programme. As an interviewee close to the Marseille-Provence 2013 project said it is ‘very difficult to find real relationships and real partnerships on the North of Africa’ (interview with French cultural manager), citing the political regimes in the region but also more general difficulties that seemed to reflect Eurocentric approaches to knowledge production that are counter-productive to international engagement and are not recommended in either heritage diplomacy or international cultural relations (Clopot, Anderson and Oldfield 2022).

In some of the bid books, the long tail of European history is presented through the heritage traces of long-gone former empires such as the Ottoman Empire in the case of Plovdiv (Bulgaria), or the Magna Graecia reference in Matera. Given the significant length of time passed since the times of these former colonialist attempts, this type of heritage is easier to engage with for current generations than the more recent and painful pasts discussed above.

Although the strategies of different cities are diverse, the general patterns presented above align with the ECHOES key strategies that can be found at general level in Europe, especially those of repression and reframing.

Potentialities – a decolonial heritage diplomacy through ECoC

The ties of history, especially those related to colonial relations, have left a long shadow over time. In a collection of conference proceedings from a conference held during Rijeka’s title as ECoC, a series of invited guests reflected on both ICR and cultural diplomacy. Isar (2021), a reputed researcher of European policies, notes in his entry that Rijeka intended to develop both ICR and cultural diplomacy activities through its programme. He highlights that international collaborations are often conducted based on a North-South axis, thus reinforcing the asymmetry of relations noted by decolonial thinkers. Moreover, it continues the pattern of colonial connections, whereby power relations remain unequal, with funding resting often with the former coloniser. While ECoCs can represent useful arenas for diplomacy, the spectres of colonialism loom large in some cases, as international engagement with African partners can bring to the fore ingrained attitudes of superiority and African ‘artists are generally seen as potential immigrants, as a danger for the European civilisation, a threat for Europe’ (Mbuyamba 2021, 113).

Some of the recent ECoCs have explicitly adopted the EU’s growing interest in ICR in their programme, by formally incorporating this as a theme (e.g. Rijeka). Whereas the ‘international dimension’ has been a long-term feature of ECoC bids, this was not framed specifically through the prism of ICR. The Kaunas bid for instance mentions that it intends to leverage international links with both European and non-European countries through digital diplomacy. Veszprém on the other hand turns to food which is considered as ‘the most basic language of cultural diplomacy’ (Veszprém City Municipality 2018, 53).

As one of my interviewees reflected, the international dimension for ECoC projects is a suitable laboratory: ‘together with other ECoCs, it’s about the ECoCs networks, etc, and this is something where we have all the tools, and all the tools could be all used for the international cooperation, and all the tools could be all the time used for this topic of decolonization and colonial debates’ (interview, ECoC Evaluator). In this interview, the evaluator then went on to mention exchanges such as artist residencies, which regularly feature in ECoC projects; these would provide a suitable model for engagement as ‘methods [that] are proved to work’. As international collaboration is a compulsory element for the evaluation, candidate cities integrate this international dimension in their programmes by developing activities such as exchanges with other ECoCs, interactions with international artists who are invited to contribute to programmes in various ways, mini-festivals, etc. The framework is thus amenable to diplomatic exchanges such as those explained in the framework of decolonial diplomacy.

An example of an event that can be read in a decolonial frame comes from Marseille-Provence. Marseille is recognised for its diverse population, a result of historic entanglements as well as more recent migration in this port city. In reaction to the limitations of the official programme, some cultural actors created the Off, a parallel festival which appeared as a ‘criticism of the institutionalisation of culture and the romanticised portrayal of the Mediterranean promoted by the ECOC programme’ (Giovanangeli 2015, 232). The critique could be expanded to the superficial treatment of colonialism in the ECoC bid and programme, as one of the interviewees explained the colonial links were limited. They were emphasised, for instance, in the opening of the Museum of Civilizations of Europe and the Mediterranean (MUCEM), a project that had been delayed for years due to controversy. The Off then served to fill the gaps of what the creators saw as missing in the aestheticized ECoC programme, including reflecting on social inequality and parochialism. Reclaiming Marseille’s colonial inheritance, ‘Merguez Capitale’ (Giovanangeli 2015), was one of the four central themes in the Off programme.

The Off, with its focus on bringing colonial links to the fore, can be interpreted as a form of re-emergence based on the ECHOES categories, which ‘allows the ghosts of the colonial past to re-appear in the becoming of new futures’ (Knudsen 2018a). This form of activism then points to the complexities of Marseille’s identity which builds on its colonial entanglements.

While there is much potential for ECoCs to engage in heritage diplomacy and to bring colonial matters to the fore through their interpretation of European heritage, there is a lot of work to be done both at the level of candidate cities but also in mainstreaming colonialism in the discourse at European level which influences ECOC facilitators (policy-makers, evaluators, etc.) in shaping the programme. Discourse plays an important part in this, and the framing of the bid books and programmes presented on the official websites can transform ‘the social representations shared by groups, and the mental models that in turn are the specific instances of these social representations’ (van Dijk 2001, 114).

Conclusion

It would be easy to say that there is no colonialism in ECoC, mimicking the colonial amnesia that affects the European discourse more generally. The analysis presented here I hope has proven that is far from true. Some general tendencies in addressing the colonial past in ECoC bids have been identified. Repression was a key strategy for some candidate cities, while others resorted to reframing to present their dissonant heritage. The links between individual (national) histories and general European themes were most often portrayed through references to shared histories of socialism, wars or migration. Diversity is also most often celebrated. The presentation of diversity as a result of the cities’ colonial/imperial legacy is more common in bids from Central and Eastern Europe than in the rest of Europe.

The implementation of ECoC projects includes a wide net of different actors. Bottom-up, largely grass-roots actors at city level are involved in bid and programme development. As I have discussed above, there is thus potential for contributing to the re-emergence (Andersen, Knudsen, and Kølvraa 2019) of colonial debates in one of the main programmes that drives cultural policies at European level.

A decolonial heritage diplomacy lens can push discourses on colonial heritage towards the centre, European level. It can frame more sympathetic diplomatic engagements (including ICR) through the ECoC projects. These would involve non-state marginalised actors, coming together to develop activities that foster intercultural dialogue. These can allow them to reflect on the painful legacies of the shared past and the legacies of colonial entanglements. Considered from this perspective then, ECoC represents a perfect playground for developing new models of cooperation. These projects have the potential to facilitate heritage diplomacy both by fostering external relations and by allowing past historic entanglements to be reflected in their narration of European Heritage. When candidate cities are asked to create their bids, reflecting on the much-maligned European dimension especially, they are discursively creating particular views of heritage. As grassroots efforts, the bidding process could comply with the bottom-up imperative of a decolonial approach. They can facilitate listening to marginalised perspectives, so that intercultural encounters fully consider the entanglements created through our colonial past.

By reflecting on colonial heritage then cities can address the colonial amnesia mentioned at the beginning of this article and ultimately push forward new ways of conceiving heritage at European level. Reclaiming the dissonant heritage of their past, candidate cities can discursively contribute to more nuanced reflections of European heritage.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Research for this article was developed in the framework of the ECHOES (European Colonial Heritage Modalities in Entangled Cities) project, funded through the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, GA No 770248.

Notes on contributors

Cristina Clopot

Cristina Clopot currently contributes to the development of the Scottish Arts and Humanities Alliance initiative, acting as a Policy and Communications Officer for the host organisation, the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Scotland, UK). She holds a PhD in Heritage Studies from Heriot-Watt University (Edinburgh, UK) (2017) and has conducted research on festivals and heritage diplomacy in two EU-funded Horizon 2020 projects: ECHOES (European Colonial Heritage Modalities in Entangled Cities) and CoHERE (Critical Heritages of Europe). Cristina is a board member of the Anthropological Journal of European Cultures and a committee member of the Association of Critical Heritage Studies’ Intangible Cultural Heritage Network. She is co-editor of the 2020 Routledge collection Heritage and Festivals in Europe: Performing Identities.