Doris Pack
Doris Pack, Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education (2009-2014)
Hijacked by federalists?
On the nature and necessity of European cultural policy
Europe on a quest: some search for a way toward the implementation – be it gradual or fast and radical – of what is dramatically yet aptly described as a work of European integration and a unique project of civilisation and civilising, though for some time now it has no longer had the undivided support of the people.
Others seek a way to reinvent the narrative, for which the preservation of peace in Europe was once motive enough, but which has long since lost its status as a popular bedtime story.
Geopolitical, economic, technological and environmental processes of change and crisis phenomena in recent years have not only challenged all subdivisions of society and day-to-day politics, but also led to a many-voiced and controversial effort to make sense of it all and find some orientation. Answers to the question of whether the European Union is part of the problem or whether it offers Europe an opportunity – perhaps the only opportunity – for a thriving future – or even both – have varied considerably, and continue to do so.
In his wonderful essay ‘The European Courier’, written in 2012, Robert Menasse provides a counterpoint to the widely circulated, damning EU reviews published by Broder, Enzensberger and Co.
The latter failed to make an enlightening contribution to enriching the public debate, either as a result of unreliable research, or because of crude polemics or narrow-minded, often misleading and at times malicious trains of thought.
In contrast, Menasse not only talks to those about whom he subsequently writes (namely the players of the ‘Brussels Bubble’), but also demonstrates that he is linguistically more sophisticated and historically more aware and more future-oriented than the morose and cantankerous journalistic competition.
Incidentally, this harsh judgment in no way means that critics of the status quo are not urgently required or that the floor should be yielded to EU enthusiasts. But the same applies to polemising intellectuals as in the case of the pressurised and aimlessly wandering British Prime Minister. That is not how it should be done!
Many of the old and new so-called ‘EU sceptics’ would therefore be well advised to read the ‘European Courier’.However, Menasse is wrong on two points. On the one hand, he expresses sympathy for the European Parliament, attributing great importance to it for succeeding in achieving European integration, while on the other, he ignores its actual opportunities for development since the Treaty of Lisbon came into effect. It is practically impossible today for proposed legislation to come into force without being drafted and adopted by both legislative bodies.
The hallmark and influence of the EU Parliament is therefore permanently in evidence. This holds true for the agreements on ACTA, SWIFT and later TTIP, as well as for the fundamental principles of the legislation on banking supervision, the stability pact, bankers’ bonuses and Erasmus+.
By the bye: the much bemoaned ‘democratic deficit’ in the EU does not therefore consist in a supposed incompleteness of the (inter)institutional architecture and balance of power. The problem is far rather that the policies in Brussels are often played out far away from media attention and public debate. The public does not become aware of the work of the most transparent of all the European Parliaments until a few weeks before a European election, if at all.
Menasse’s second error of judgment revolves around a phrase he coined: the ‘required withering away’ of the nation states in favour of supranational institutions.
Admittedly, the development and formation of sovereign nation states – on a historical scale – came to pass only recently, in the Peace of Westphalia. And, as a predominantly political construct, the nations will certainly be dissolved again.
But, given the situation today, are ideals and radical (r)evolutionary processes of the kind referred to here really suitable for re-igniting more confidence in and passion for the idea of a united Europe?
It appears more banal, but also more promising, to first provide proof that the institutions of this Union have steeled themselves for the current challenges and are in a position to solve the enormous problems facing them and tackle the tasks that lie ahead.
Another important building block, in turn, is mentioned by Menasse himself, when he makes a passionate plea for a strong European cultural policy (in the process of elaborating on and commending its success as remarkable when measured by its use of resources).
“EU cultural policy as an expression of Brussels’ fantasies of omnipotence and a tool for evening out cultural diversity?”
Menasse quite rightly rejects this point of view as being absurd, in fact ridiculous. The reasoning used here has been shown by experience to be the more popular the less those who employ it know and understand cultural policy at European level. As a result, EU politicians set little store by national and regional cultures and, as naïve federalists, are gradually selling off and destroying valuable national cultural landscapes. Instead, they want to create a kind of porridge by artificial means, namely one European culture.
However attractively and incisively this opinion may come across, it is slightly flawed: it is demonstrably not the case!
For ‘Brussels’ too, cultural policy is certainly not a playground for centralists, especially since the European cultural sphere extends far beyond the borders of the EU. It would be presumptuous of us to play the guardian and structure European cultural policy on such a premise of universal responsibility.
European agreements also reflect this clearly: according to the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU supplements national policies wherever added European value can be created. In this way, it should ‘contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States while respecting their national and regional diversity, at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore’ – a rather long-winded formulation, which nevertheless contains a clear mandate for action.
Consequently, the competences of the EU (not only in this area, by the way) are well defined and above all restricted – and that is only right and proper.
Falsely attributed to one of the founding fathers of European integration is the sentence:
“If I had to do it again, I would begin with culture.”
Cultural Union in place of the European Coal and Steel Community and the EEC?
Such a sentence would definitely never have passed the lips of the wise and pragmatic Jean Monnet.
Inherent to the basic peace-making principles of European integration then and now were, and continue to be, not only a rejection of reciprocal military deterrence, mistrust of neighbours and chauvinism, but also a resounding ‘yes’ to cross-border exchange, mutual understanding and bringing the peoples of Europe closer together. It immediately becomes apparent that all these are also driving forces for action under cultural policy!
It follows that good cultural policy is indispensable when putting this sense of entitlement into practice.
Constantly increasing interdependencies and the shift of agreement and decision-making processes to European level are leading to a situation in which culture is forced to rely on strong advocates there.
For example, the European Parliament has already made it clear that a free-trade agreement with the USA will only achieve the necessary majority if it ensures the preservation of cultural diversity in Europe. Otherwise – and the unreserved advocates and chief negotiators also know this – the MEPs will oppose the agreement and it will fail.
It is also necessary to be vigilant in the case of state aid and fixed book price legislation in order to protect the European film-making industry and book trade against various kinds of intervention by the EU Commission.
Those at work in EU cultural policy are not enthusiasts of a cultural Europe who monopolise culture and would like to standardise it, but pragmatists who take a calculated proactive approach with the intention of providing assistance. This allows us to promote Europe-wide mobility and projects in the cultural sector, support the cross-border propagation of artistic works, and contribute to encouraging the intercultural dialogue.
Some 1,500 million euros will have been invested by 2020 to promote the cultural and creative sector via the ‘Creative Europe’ programme. More than half the funds are allotted to the programmes MEDIA and MEDIA Mundus to promote film-making. In comparison with the preceding programme, we have been able to increase the budget by 8%.
The slight shift of emphasis in the promotion of culture toward economic development has been controversial. I myself have also warned against essentially reducing EU promotion of culture to a growth programme.
Having said that, the fact is that the main focus of the European Commission in times like these rests on economic development. And that is exactly what has been called for, especially by the Member States. Linking up the economic and cultural sectors also results in fiscal policymakers being more willing to spend money on culture. And besides, there is no shame in drawing attention to the economic viability of many cultural projects and the increasing share of the cultural and creative industries in generating added value.
In any case, the maintenance of regional theatre landscapes and other cultural infrastructures cannot be centrally financed and controlled from Brussels, (whereby significant amounts of money flow into this sector from structural funds, above all for regional development; a situation that is mostly ignored in the ritualistic criticism of the extent of the EU culture budget).
The financial support provided by the EU often serves as seed capital and encourages other backers to become involved too. The leverage achieved is enormous, the help provided to creative artists in many cases crucial in realising their projects. The MEDIA film-promoting programme is by no means the only entity familiar with such cases.
But financial support is only one of the components of EU cultural policy. The virtual library Europeana brings Europe’s cultural and scientific heritage together. Initiatives such as the European Capitals of Culture, the European Heritage Label and the European Union Prize for Literature similarly offer a forum in which creative artists can present their work to a wide, transnational public.
However, the fundamental consensus on what European cultural policy should achieve and how it should be structured in practice all too often stands on feet of clay.
This is demonstrated by an example from the inter-institutional negotiations on the reformation of the legal basis for the European Capitals of Culture. While the Commission and Parliament agreed that the concepts of the applicant cities should also feature a genuine European dimension, this criterion was vehemently disputed by the Member States – and this, it should be noted, was in an initiative whose name already contained the word ‘European’!
The Council of Culture Ministers made even greater solo efforts to ensure that the Member States play the dominant role in the official nomination of the European Capitals of Culture instead of leaving this purely declarative act to the executive authority, i.e. the Commission. After all, the formal decision is taken by an independent commission anyway.
Those who experienced the additional rounds of negotiations required solely for this reason reached a point of not knowing whether to laugh or cry at this ridiculous farce. So unfortunately, the risk of tiring trench warfare and passionately exhibited vanities (not only in cultural policy) continues to exist.
Significantly, a further initiative, namely the LUX film prize, is not financed from the EU budget but from the communication budget of the EU Parliament. The LUX prize and the events associated with it (in particular with young people) create a platform for engaging in conversation, overcoming the confines of language and mentality through the medium of film and, as a result, appreciating how precious this European Union still is, for all its weaknesses.
Every year, the LUX prize reminds us that cultural activities do not necessarily have to be the plaything of a small group of intellectual aesthetes. And it is much easier to reach many, especially young people in this way than it is through expensive image campaigns and colourful brochures.
Therefore, cultural policy can help us directly to engage in a better and more frequent dialogue on (co)existence in Europe, our common history, and the future of our European Union. We must give even greater consideration to this insight in the future.
All this shows that the commitment to a strong European cultural policy in no way implies clinging desperately to the chimera of a European (cultural) identity to unify us all. There will not be such a unified identity in the foreseeable future, and I personally believe – as opposed to what I believed a few decades ago – that we do not necessarily need it.
“What we do need is awareness that the innumerable cultural identities found in the European Union are intertwined and linked to one another in a variety of ways. ”
This has always been the case in the violent history of our continent.
However, war, hardship and forced migration have prevented us from treating otherness and foreignness with benevolent curiosity. Instead, culture has also had to bow to aggressive nationalist thinking.
Resolving disputes by the sword or gun is a thing of the past, yet we see again and again how fragile the ties of civilisation established in recent decades are.
Nevertheless, an entity unique in the history of mankind has been created, in which the diversity of cultures is maintained and promoted. This period of peace, unparalleled in European history, enables us to discover the distinctive cultural features of our neighbours and follow the footprints of our own and others' ancestors. Time after time, we also come across roots of our native cultural landscapes. Cultural policy can gently monitor and promote these processes of rapprochement and discovery.
“This does not require any kind of amazing new vision, but ‘merely’ some light to be shed on what constitutes the soul of Europe.”
That soul already exists; it does not need to be created by politicians who only work with hype and ballyhoo. It exists in the depths and the dynamism of our common cultures and common heritage.
The more people discover this soul and heritage, the more stable our joint venture to unify Europe becomes. For important as rational arguments for the necessity of European integration are, it is at least just as important to captivate the people’s hearts, not only their minds, through the soul of Europe.
The alternative is spiritual and spatial isolation and, as a consequence, inevitably also cultural alienation. And that, as not only the 20th century has taught us, can cause upheaval of a completely different nature.
We should not take the risk.
