What is the link between culture and populism? What should we know about EU cultural policy? And what is the function of philanthropy in shaping contemporary culture? Leszek Jażdżewski (Fundacja Liberte!) talks to Isabelle Schwarz, manager of Public Policy at the European Cultural Foundation (ECF) in Amsterdam. Previously, she was manager of ENCATC (European Network for Cultural Policy Management and Education), president of the Thomassen Fund (focused on east and Central Europe) and founder of the Nordic-Baltic Cultural Management Platform. She has previously besides held investigation and task management positions in the UN planet Committee on Culture and Development, the Council of Europe, the abroad Department of the Ministry of Culture of France, foundations and NGOs.
Leszek Jażdżewski (LJ): What should we know about the results of the elections in France, and can we see a turn to the right?
Isabelle Schwarz (IS): We are terrified of the consequence of the first circular of elections. Although this is shocking, to any degree it was predictable, due to the fact that for 20 years we have been constantly seeing an increase in the number of far-right parties, not only in France but besides in another parts of Europe.
After each election, we were relieved erstwhile the forces of the far right did not come to power. But it was apparent that at any point they would be very, very close. We are now at a point where possibly for the first time in the modern past of France we will be ruled by an utmost right-wing government. Currently, the 3 founding members of the European Union – France, the Netherlands and Italy – which means very crucial players, can become countries that will regulation far-right forces.
However, even though we witnessed these phenomena, we were not active adequate to balance these forces. The European institutions, governments, including liberal governments, as well as foundations and civilian society, proceed to do quite a few work in their own battles, but not adequate has been done and lacks synergies. We request to work much more strategically for democracy, solidarity and Europe and to keep our minds much more open alternatively of moving towards what we are presently taking.
LJ: What is the link between culture and populism? Do you think that culture can play a function in opposing the forces that can now endanger key democracies in Europe?
IS: These are actually 2 sides of the same medal – a affirmative and negative point of view appears here. On the negative side, we see that far-right forces are actually taking an highly strategical approach to working with and through culture in a very broad sense, including media and audiovisual content. erstwhile the right-wing forces take the lead, they actually choose this kind of portfolio first.
However, in liberal democracies, this is actually the last part to be reached – instead, finance and economy are chosen, abroad trade, global relations, and erstwhile politicians yet scope the cultural area, nothing remains. Meanwhile, far right populists truly know how to scope people and influence their hearts and minds. This is essential in creating convincing narratives.
At European level, the affirmative embodiment of culture and its possible to influence hearts and minds has not yet reached the right space of the political spectrum. That is why it is simply a fight we will proceed to fight. due to the fact that culture is definitely not only the foundation of the European Union, but besides an essential part of who we are, how we think, how we work together and with who and how we live, consume and travel.
All the key challenges facing Europe – starting with climate change, artificial intelligence, global relations and social cohesion – have a very strong cultural dimension. However, this dimension does not translate into forward-looking policies and budgets.
LJ: Nostalgia for an imaginary national past seems to play an crucial function in combating European integration by populist forces. Should any of these demands be taken into account in Europe's cultural future? Or should we make a more unifying counternarration? Where will the fight for European culture take place?
IS: The fight is already taking place and it is very active, especially in the digital sphere. This is simply a very concrete example of the function culture plays here – it is mostly about polarized ideas, battles of ideas and competitive narratives. Europe's culture and the full of Europe's environment (including the thought behind Europe) are based on the concept of cooperation, dialog and learning to perceive to each another in order to make advancement through dialogue.
Meanwhile, there are competitive narratives that actually land in their own bubble without communicating with each other. This phenomenon besides translates into physical space, specified as today's policy – we are not truly talking about uncovering joint projects that together with citizens will push us forward and make us dream again. It's more about fighting each another on the tv screen, which is truly disgusting.
As for the nostalgia behind the past and populism, there are parties associated with fascism that are now knocking on the door of power and entering the mainstream political stream. In this respect, culture helps us to better realize the past and interpret it. It besides helps us critically measure the present. At the same time, thanks to the creativity and creative approach culture brings, it besides helps us to imagine a future different from the 1 we are seeing now, alternatively of just trying to solve the most pressing problems – this is simply a dimension that is very lacking today.
Because of the velocity of change faced by citizens, we do not have adequate space (both physical and pictorial) to imagine ourselves in this alternate version of the future. In this light, it is much more about the cost of life, the purchasing power or the energy crisis, not what cultural and social task we citizens want to build together. And that's where culture comes in.
LJ: To what degree should culture become more political? Or does he have another function to play? How should we balance this tension?
IS: Firstly, culture is by definition political, as it is behind a peculiar imagination and model of society's organization. It so has a political aspect. I would totally reject the thought that art exists only to be beautiful, to give pleasance or to make dreams. Nevertheless, art and culture are absolutely essential in this political projection.
The level of engagement of art and culture varies – we have seen it with artists and cultural institutions. During war or conflict (such as in the Balkans or Ukraine) we can see the importance of culture as a force of resilience and resistance. There are cultural institutions that are very active in social combat. Therefore, culture should not be separated from society, but alternatively provided with any privileged position – due to the fact that so far this has not happened.
Culture is the component and cement of our society. For me, therefore, culture and political imagination go hand in hand.
LJ: What is the function and mission of the European Cultural Foundation (European Cultural Foundation, ECF)? What is the function of culture in the European task as such?
IS: The European Cultural Foundation has the same founding father as the European Union – Robert Schumann. In 1954, in collaboration with specified persons as Swiss philosopher Denis de Rougemont and His Majesty Prince Bernhard, a European Cultural Foundation was established. The founding fathers were convinced that cultural education must be at the centre of this community if we want to build a relationship, a community. And in this sense, the power to imagine ourselves in the future requires the location of cultural education at the heart of this process.
Since then, we have frequently been talking about the alleged "Cedural Mission", which is about promoting European sentiments among European citizens. And the cathedral mission is kind of a very long-term horizon. You start building a cathedral, but you never know erstwhile this cathedral will be completed. And what we can see in Europe present is everyday work and an endless project. If we think about the medium, the seeds of European sentiment that will make among European citizens, this is simply a very, very hard task - both interior and external forces are facing.
However, the thought underlying the European Cultural Foundation was that transnational cooperation was needed as a shared experience for Europe. Therefore, in principle, 3 elements are needed to enable the emergence and improvement of European sentiment or a sense of belonging.
Above all, the ability to imagine a Europe capable of sharing resources, projects and aspirations is needed. Experience of being part of the European task is besides needed. 1 of the most successful European projects and programmes that we have co-founded with the EU in the context of a philanthropic public-private partnership is the Erasmus programme.
The ECF was an crucial part of the establishment of the Erasmus programme by developing transnational educational cooperation projects. The European Union wanted specified a programme to be implemented, but it did not have the capacity and resources to actually program and manage it. That's why we did it at first, getting large and very successful results. To date, more than 15 million European citizens have participated in the Erasmus programme, which enables the individual to learn about Europe, what it can offer, and better realize what it means by sharing common European space and values.
Everyone who left for Erasmus erstwhile they come home is no longer the same. You gain a completely different approach to Europe, realize more and frequently learn a fresh abroad language. You gain the ability to imagine what it means to live in another country, you have contact with another priorities and challenges, but you inactive want to grow together as a community.
In the ECF, we believe that everyone, virtually all European citizen, should have this privilege, a chance to participate in Erasmus. There are already different types of Erasmus programmes – not only for students, teachers and entrepreneurs but besides for another people. Nevertheless, we should find a way (maybe again in a public philanthropic partnership) to enable all citizen to gain this experience. I hope that the Erasmus for All programme will be available someday.
LJ: It's a wonderful vision. You mentioned the function of philanthropy. How do you think the division of power between national countries, the EU and philanthropic organisations should look? What is the function of philanthropy in cultural improvement in Europe?
IS: The challenges we all face are so large that no of the players can solve them alone. That is why we have come to a point in past where the various resources we have must be utilized in a synergistic and much more strategical way – including culture. In this light, we cannot compare the strength of the EU or associate States with the strength of philanthropy or individual philanthropists. However, philanthropy inactive has assets that neither the EU nor the associate States have.
For example, philanthropic organisations operate even locally, facing local challenges, while maintaining their flexibility, agility, velocity and independence. With this capacity for ECF, a bridge from local to European level (and back) can be created. This is an area where the European Union and the associate States conflict to break the argument as to how local solutions can affect Europe's improvement and how European policies can besides address local disparities.
If we look at the assets of the foundation in Europe, they are $510 billion. A certain percent of these funds could be allocated to this purpose. For example, if we were seeking 1% of the Foundation's expenditure in Europe (or about 600 billion per year), that would be 600 million that could be used. If we had very pragmatic but ambitious instruments that could be developed together with the institutions - and possibly besides with the associate States - this would be a crucial signal that it is no longer about competing with each other, but about tackling the challenges together.
However, as far as the European institutions are concerned, the framework for cooperation is not designed in a way conducive to the creation of this kind of partnership. There are very crucial obstacles – legal, fiscal and financial barriers – to this cooperation. Even if there is presently an interest (also money from philanthropic activities, but not only) in existing financial regulations do not let specified cooperation. That is why now is truly the time to think about how to change these financial regulations if they no longer meet our needs.
LJ: This leads us to the last question. Why do we request cultural governance for Europe?
IS: The beginnings of the Cultural Agreement for Europe date back to the time erstwhile 3 civilian society organisations (Culture Action Europe, European Cultural Foundation and Europe Nostra) joined forces during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time, culture and cultural heritage were 1 of the sectors most affected by the pandemic.
We wanted not only to show the strength of culture for individuals at a time erstwhile culture was sometimes a lifeline for citizens, but besides to effort to incorporate culture into the task of public renewal and recovery plans as such. Therefore, in November 2020, these 3 organisations launched a Cultural Agreement for Europe, calling on the EU and 27 associate States to include culture in their national reconstruction and resilience funds, setting a 2% target, and we achieved this goal cumulatively. This meant 12 billion for culture, cultural heritage and creative industry, which was highly successful – although not at the same level in all 27 associate States (some countries did not take this into account at all, others did so more).
Nevertheless, the fight must proceed due to the fact that we are now returning to the issue of populism in Europe and the presence of the utmost right at decision-making level in national governments. This is the case in the Netherlands (and possibly besides in France and Italy) and Austria. We see how these political changes affect a widely understood culture very rapidly – including the media.
We observe how spaces of free speech (both physical and online) are choked or liquidated. We see that the backing of culture is greatly limited. Here, in the Netherlands, there is simply quite a few debate about the financing of the lottery and what part of the lottery money can actually be allocated to good goals – including culture. So there will be crucial cuts.
A VAT increase on cultural products is then planned – for example, 21% for books. This means that all access to culture will be greatly hampered. It's highly disturbing. And here again the easiest way – which is not the right way, which we have already witnessed – is that people come to philanthropy and ask: can you compensate for that?
But the point is not to compensate, not to interfere. The aim is to imagine this policy, this culture from the ground up together as the European Union, as liberal associate States, foundations and civilian society, and then make common resources. That would make a immense difference.
This podcast was produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with the Movieno Liberal Social and the Liberté Foundation!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are liable for the content of the podcast nor for any way of utilizing it.
Podcast is besides available on platforms Sound, Apple Podcast, Stitcher and Spotify
Dr. Olga Łabendowicz translated from English
Read English at 4liberty.eu
