|
| Bistra
Nikiforova
|
| THE
END OF THE "EUROPEAN CULTURAL MONTH" EVENT?
Diversity will remain
the hallmark of European politics
Guiliano Amato
This is a work about how cultural policy of the European Union is
influenced by the historical and identity changes. Two cultural
events ? the ?European City of Culture? and the ?European Cultural
Month? - are taken as examples but their existence is used as a
precondition for analyzing the way in which Western Europeans construct
their political and cultural borders. At the same time the events
are analyzed as something that had to express in a very compressed
way the common moods and feelings of European citizens. But the
way in which relations between them and the others and among them
are established questions the ?commonness? of the European identity,
i.e. the possibility and the sense of existence of such European
identity are problematic. The analysis of the ?European City of
Culture? and ?European Cultural Month? events will try to localize
the public presence of the Creator ? artist, writer, actor ? in
the end of the 20th century. The main idea of the events: to arrange
a ?true? appointment of Europe?s people ? of those who create cultural
?products? and of those who ?consume? them ? raise the question
how the EU politics look towards the culture as a matter of politic.
Thus, the work is passing through three main levels: 1) the two
events ? the ?European City of Culture? and the ?European Cultural
Month?, established to present development of the European common
feeling; 2) the official idea of the European Community on how the
European identity has to be build and 3) the limits of the European
identity in global aspect.
Locality in the space and time
Although the title of this part sounds very undefined, the main
problem is very concrete: how a person could be located in the theoretical
dimensions of the European (inside and outside) integration. The
other side of the problem here is the locality itself.
?The identity of man [woman] is based, not on ?belongingness? which
implies either owning or being owned by culture, but on a style
of self-consciousness that is capable of negotiating ever new formations
of reality. In this sense a multicultural man [woman] is a radical
departure from the kinds of identities found in both traditional
and mass societies. He [She] is neither totally part of, nor totally
apart from his [her] culture; he [she] lives, instead, on the boundary?
(Adler 1982:391 in Dahl 1998:part5: 7). Living on the boundary means
permanent choice. But the choice can?t be directed outside the mental
construction of the world. Although in the idea of the (Western)
European integration the direction has already been defined. So
the first limit of the personal choice is set; the choice will be
made inside these boundaries. And because the boundary separates
two things, which have forms, dimensions or values as in that case
(these are all connotative meanings of the ?Europeanness?), the
choice inside some borders is restricted. One could choose from
a certain number of opportunities, which could be much or less.
One of these opportunities is to leave the boundary, i.e. to leave
the locality (Europe). Then one can choose at the global level.
The problem of this work is whether the choice inside the local
place is really free or there is some kind of ?invisible? control,
hidden behind the ideology of the ?common good?.
?The content of the Maastricht treaty is supranational and calls
for a new political community through economic, monetary and political
union.? (Zetterholm 1994:81). The EU treaty establishes the boundaries
of the personal choice. It is trying to direct the process of constructing
European commonsense. Then a personal resistance towards the outside
choice could be developed and its manifestation is through the organization
of a private world inside the borders or going beyond them. These
are the two possible reactions towards the ?Brussels? decisions
of developing a common European identity, constructed from ?common
elements and national and regional diversity?. The decisions become
problematic when they are expressed through the language of high
culture and fine arts. In everyday life they work at the level of
the unconsciousness.
The ?European City of Culture? and the ?European Cultural Month?
Events
In this part we will discuss the way in which the European Community
sets and looses its cultural and political borders.
In the year 1985 in Athens the ?European City of Culture? event
was held for the first time. Melina Mercouri - the Minister of Cultural
Affairs in Greece then - introduced the idea for a common European
event in the field of culture. The birth was symbolic: in the cradle
of the European civilization, by a famous Greek woman. The symbolism
of the beginning had to insure the success of the event. The tradition
was reproduced: just like the ideas of the Ancient Greeks influenced
the European thought throughout the centuries, Mercouri?s idea had
to set the base for developing a common European feeling. In the
beginning these ideas were only chimeras ? words without any content:
?The event has been established to help bring the peoples of the
Member States closer together??, ?(the event) is characterized by
having both common elements and richness born of diversity?? (Resolution
No 85/C 153/02). But the political and cultural frontiers were established
? basically Member States and ?where appropriate, non-European countries
may also be associated with the preparation of the event? (Resolution
No 85/C 153/02). Nobody talked about the countries from the other
side of the Iron Curtain. Member States were separated from non-Member
not only politically but culturally too. The ?European City of Culture?
institutionalised culture as the last ?weapon? for setting borders
between the Western European world and the others. So, through the
promotion of the event the Western Europeans would be brought ?closer
together? inside their borders. That was the first separation from
the ?outside? world through common cultural production. The second
distinguishing had to happen inside the EU borders. The reason is
obvious ? as Members of the EU they shared common presence and future.
The past had also been shared: national histories were transformed
into a common European history. The common past was one of these
?common elements?, which justified the establishing of the event.
But the ?common elements? produce the danger of unification, so
the ?diversity? has to go together with them in the determination
of European culture. Throughout the years historical changes filled
the words with meaning. But the meaning itself produces the pressure
in the situation because the borders of the common elements and
diversity are questionable.
?On the 18th May 1990 the Council, at the suggestion of the Commission,
agreed to set up a new cultural initiative to be known as the European
Cultural Month. Its objective was to provide the cities of Central
and Eastern Europe and EFTA with a similar opportunity to that afforded
by the European City of Culture program.? (ECU-Note?) It would ?take
place each year in one city in a European country basing itself
on the principles of democracy, pluralism and the rule of law?.
(in Decision No 719/96/EC)
The ?European Cultural Month? also has its symbolic birth. But it
was political symbolism, promoted as a high cultural action (nobody
was talking about ?common elements and cultural diversity?. That
would be an event produced by the rules of the Western world). So
it could be explained only in comparison with the ?European City
of Culture?. The comparison is a cultural one rather than political
(because the latter is for the countries from the Central and Eastern
Europe and the former is for the countries from the EU), The names
of the events present the two fundamental categories ? the time
and space ? which construct a strange continuum. So the space is
in the name of the ?European City of Culture? event and it is in
relation with the common European tradition. Similarly the time
is in the name of the ?European Cultural Month?, but it receives
its name through spatial separation: it exists because the EU sets
political borders which delimit its own cultural event from the
event of the ex-communist countries. ?Bringing ?culture? onto the
agenda as a particular problem in the case of the new Central and
Eastern European applicants looks like yet another symptom of Western
Europeans deploying their prejudices in order to justify delaying
enlargement.? (Amato1999: 6).
Relations between the East and the West turned into game, in which
the ?winner? was known. The aim of the game was for the ?loser?
to lose the least possible. The difficulty was for the ?winner?
to keep the ?loser? at a distance as long as he could. At the same
time nobody knew whether the distance is good or bad for either
player. In the beginning the winner did not care about the second
player at all. Later (when the situation changed) the rules were
softened: ?the event [the European city of Culture] is opened not
only to Community cities but also to cities in other European countries
basing themselves on the principles of democracy, pluralism, the
rule of law and respect of human rights? (92/C 336/02). Even though
the second player wasn?t defined clearly. The rules only allowed
an equal start for the players. But the distance between them was
still very obvious: one of the players knew the rules, the other
had just begun to learn them. And because the distance was clear
the tension was strong. The West easily kept the East away. But
the countries from the Central and Eastern Europe, following behavior
models of the West and with its agreement, learned democracy lessons
fast. (?The future new members from Central and Eastern Europe may
in fact bring with them a more intense commitment to the idea of
a common European culture by virtue of their insecure position at
the periphery, while those long-established at the ?core? of Europe
may enjoy the ?luxury? of indifference or even resistance to the
promotion of cultural convergence.? (Amato 1999: 7)). And if in
the beginning culture and politic were not separated, some years
later relations were changed and established in every concrete sphere.
Many words for cooperation and common future development were spoken
at the official level:
?Whereas the participation of the associated CCEE in Community programs
of relevance to them is of major importance for their integration
into the Union and for their accession;
Whereas the promotion of cultural exchanges and the enhancement
of the cultural heritage in Central and Eastern Europe are a major
opportunity for the whole of Europe?? (95/C 247/02)
So the ?winner? reduced the distance alone. This process of accession
of the Other inside the borders happened simultaneously with the
process of reestablishing and redefining the idea of common European
identity. In the beginning everything was clear and there were general
principles that determined Western Europe. Later the West started
to lose its uniqueness and its borders could hardly be defined.
European culture started to globalize. The new society offered two
choices: small regionalism and full Globalisation. ?Brussels? preferred
the second possibility. The transformation was presented at official
level with only one act: the establishment of a new cultural event,
which organizes previous two events in one common event.
?(9) Whereas it is appropriate for the Council to designate the
Capitals of Culture in view of the great symbolic importance in
the Member states of such a designation;? (Decision 1419/1999/EC)
?A Community action entitled ?European Capital of Culture? shall
be established. Its objective shall be to highlight the richness
and diversity of European cultures and the features they share,
as well as to promote greater mutual acquaintance between European
citizens? (Article 1 in Decision 1419/ 1999/EC)?
?European non-member countries may participate in this action. Any
such country may nominate one city as a European Capital of Culture
and should notify its nomination to the European Parliament, the
Council, the Commission and the Committee of the Regions? (Article
4 in Decision 1419/1999/ EC)9
In this process the second player cannot exactly be named. Now the
?winner? has to play against him.
Cultural diversity and cultural cooperation
In this part the two main characteristics of the European identity
? diversity and integration through it ? will be discussed.
1. Cooperation of the diversity
?The European Community consists of varied and unique cultures which
have enriched one another over the centuries, and it is determined
to ensure respect for cultural diversity within the open cultural
area which it constitutes? (Explicit integration? p.1)
Official documents of the European community generalize the definition
of the European culture: something consisting from ?unique cultures,
enriching one another over the centuries?. From a historical point
of view this assertion is wrong because the diversity of cultures
is a product of the last hundred years. So it is hard to speak of
?unique? cultures inside Europe. Something is unique only if it
hasn?t had any outside influence. So cultures which have enriched
one another can?t be unique. Especially when Europe pretends to
be ?open cultural area?, i.e. to allow entering of different cultures
inside its borders. (?Globalisation, as it dissolves the barriers
of distance, makes the encounter of colonial centre and colonized
periphery immediate and intense? (Dahl 1998:part3: 2) In a typical
postmodern way Western Europe as a centre assimilates cultures at
its borders. Thus the European diversity is born in the ?cooperation?
with the other, different culture. In that relation the other culture
has to present ?absolute otherness, mutual exclusion, categorial
opposition? (Dallmayr 1996:284) towards which the dominant group
embodies the norm from which the other deviates. But in post-colonial
era, i.e. for the last 30 years, cultural inequality started to
lose power. ?As Young comments ? ?Difference now comes to mean not
otherness, exclusive opposition, but specificity, variation, heterogeneity.
Difference names relations of similarity and dissimilarity that
can be reduced to neither coextensive identity nor nonoverlapping
otherness? (Dallmayr 1996: 284) There aren?t any more dominant and
subordinate cultures any more. The second kind of cultures invented
in the space dominant culture, restructuring its norms and values.
And because this process is new enough its acceptance is very hard
in the EC circles. ?Our emphasis on the political community implies
that the creation of new central institutions to which some decision-making
power is transferred ? even in the form of restricted use of majority
decision-making ? does not in itself lead to citizen resistance.
Only when these institutions and procedures are perceived by the
population as creating a new multicultural political community,
which would in turn weaken or dissolve the old political community,
will they tend to generate resistance and political mobilization
in order to block the creation of the new political community?.
(Zetterholm 1994:74) The new conditions more than ever provide ?the
opportunity and the need for institutional inventiveness and flexibility.?
(Dallmayr 1996:289). The problem is whether the EC is flexible enough
to adapt its policy to the new conditions or not.
2. The European Union guarantees the preservation of the European
cultural identity
?The European Union preserves the identities and the cultural rights
of each community; the public need ? consider the Union ? as something
which guarantees the existence and flowering of their cultures?
(Communication from the Commission? p.2)
The guarantees are legally defined. But the laws are created in
?Brussels?. So the first and general guarantee is the existence
of ?Brussels?. They produce laws, which protect their actions and
thus every action is legally correct. Even intervention in the cultural
development of the Member States has its legal reasons: ?In line
with the need to maintain cultural diversity, which is a priority
for the European Community, its field of intervention is the European
dimension of European cultures, i.e. the values and elements that
are common to the different national and regional cultures. This
is stated twice in Article 128: in paragraph 1, which stipulates
that Community action must ?[bring] the common cultural heritage
to the fore? and in paragraph 2, which mentions ?cultural heritage
of European significance?. The Community?s method of intervention
is based on cooperation.? (Communication from the Commission?p.4)
The EC established supranational control that obviously has only
one aim ? to withstand the Globalisation of the European identity.
And because control is organised very well, every unsuccessful act
and move is marked (?In certain cases, [these] projects could not
have been completed as successfully without Community support, which
has made cooperation and exchanges possible??visibility of Community
intervention? As a result of the very nature of the programs? the
overall impact of Community intervention has less than been expected.?
(Communication from the Commission? p.6). The diversity of European
cultures is also well controlled through such institutionalised
events like ?European City of culture? and ?European Cultural Month?.
The sense of their existence disappeared in the global world because
they are only artificial products of a legal system, which could
not keep control over the social development.
3. Is art creator still a mediator?
If we look at European cultural history for the last five hundred
years, we?ll see that the position of the art creator is always
between the Power and the mass. He has to translate and to explain
the ruler?s will through the means of art.
The idea of the ?European City of Culture? and the ?European Cultural
Month? events is the same: to organize in one space, in one time,
with one main theme, all the best art-creators to express the EU
cultural policy ? ?unity in diversity? and ?diversity in unity?.
But participants in these events could not be limited by the idea
of common European identity, because they communicate through the
universal language of the art. So the problem of the possible dimensions
of European identity remains at the level of everyday life and everyday
communication. Art creators could only be marginal to mainstream
policies.
Beyond the European identity
In this part we will discuss the unconscious level of the personal
self-determination as something that is going beyond the organised
and well-controlled program of the EC for establishing a ?unique?
European identity.
??travel and mass tourism bring greater familiarity and contribute
to demystifying ?alien? cultures; whether pop music, films and satellite
TV now create convergence in cultural values remains, however, a
matter of doubt.
On one hand, these contacts may have a rather superficial effect,
and in any case are likely to be assimilated into pre-existing cultural
contexts. Thus the net effect of increased cross-cultural contact
is to promote convergence, or to enhance awareness of difference,
and even confirm prejudice, can hardly be generally predicted. On
the other hand, what evidence there is for a common culture transcending
national frontiers points to its being rather than distinctively
European, in content. Its sources are as much, if not more, extra-European
than European, given the vital role of the US in cultural innovation,
production and distribution. And this global culture is as easily
available and readily consumed throughout the rest of the world
as it is in Europe. It is difficult to see culture of this sort
contributing to a coherent political identity which might underpin
the process of constructing an integrated European polity.? (Amato1999:5)
The ?fight?, because this can?t be a dialogue, between so called
?European culture? and globalizing cultural models, is a fight between
products and values of the high and mass culture. In the near past
two cultures existed simultaneously but now, through communication
possibilities, high culture loses its space and becomes part of
the ?ready for consuming? products. So interest towards such an
event as the ?European Capital of Culture? will not keep for a long
time: it is not ?ready for consuming?, because it questions the
existence of the world values.
Simultaneously with the process of Globalisation another process
is happening: namely the fragmentation of culture. This fragmentation
happens at the local level, which is not in opposition with globalization.
?The programming of most media has become non-political and non-critical,
it displays the same content to a world-wide audience, either through
globally shared programs, or locally produced programs with a global
content? (Dahl 1998:part3:14). Local and global are two choices
for development of the European identity. At the official Community
level global is preferred although it leads to unification, i.e.
loosing of the diversity; at the everyday level of culture regionalism
is stronger than ever.
The answer to the question about the end of the ?European Cultural
Month? is still not very sure. Officially from the year 2000 it
will be held no more. That means the Member States have associated
the Other culture inside their borders. The new event ? the ?European
Capital of Culture? has to express deeper cooperation between the
EU Member States and all the other countries. But at the same time
it is only an expression of the process of globalization. So the
problem is what this event represents ? the new period of development
of the European common feeling or one of the great events of the
new culture (like MTV Awards, Oscar Awards or the Year 2000 celebration).
And when will its end come.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
AMATO, G. 1999 ?The long term implications of the EU enlargement:
Culture and National Identity?, in:
http://www.iue.it/RSC/Amato99-PP.htm
COMMUNICATION from the Committee of the European Parliament, the
Council and the Committee of the regions, in:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/program-2000-part1_en.html
CONCLUSIONS of the Ministers of Culture, meeting within the Council
of 12 November 1992 on the procedure for designation of European
cities of cultures (92/c 336/02)
COUNCIL RESOLUTION of 4 April 1995 concerning cooperation with the
associated countries of Central and Eastern European the cultural
domain (95/C 247/02)
DAHL, S. 1998 ?Communication and Cultural Transformation?, in:
http://www.stephweb.com/capstone/index.htm
DALLMAYR, F 1996 ?Democracy and Multiculturalism?, in Democracy
and Difference, Sheyla Benhabib (ed.), Princeton University Press,
USA
DECISION No 719/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 29 March 1996 establishing a program to support artistic and
cultural activities having a European dimension (Kaleidoscope)
DECISION No 1419/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 25 May 1999 establishing a Community action for the European
capital of culture event for the years 2005 to 2019
EXPLICIT integration of cultural aspects into Community action and
policy, in:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/program-2000-part3_en.html
RESOLUTION of the Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs, meeting
within the Council, of 13 June 1985, concerning annual event ?European
City of Culture? (85/C 153/02)
ZETTERHOLM, S. 1994 ?Why Is Cultural Diversity a Political Problem??,
in National Cultures and European Integration. Zetterholm, Staffan
(ed.). Berg Publishers, USA
|