Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
4 8 July 2016
CULTURE
W
hen Andrius Mockus became
mayor of Bogotá with its commu-
nities destroyed by drugs, crime
and corruption he coined the
phrase ‘citizen culture’, and
called his strategy ‘subart’. The city’s cultural
strategy was to encourage people to trust them-
selves, to take their lives into their own hands
and to feel responsible as makers of the city - to
live better together. The United Nations has
argued that culture is about people and human
flourishing, not as isolated citizens but in “com-
munities and groups”.
This locates culture in a politics of transform-
ative change. What is the role of culture? Is it a
goal in itself, an independent element of devel-
opment? Is it a mediator between the social,
economic and environmental elements of devel-
opment? Should it be the overarching goal of
development?
Development is about sustainability of what
can be produced in the present to imagine a
process of social solidarity in the future. Cul
-
tural policy too-focused on market or state
goals and without direct involvement of civil
society and citizens can’t support people-cen-
tred transformative change. It can’t be the
creative innovator of the public good that we
regard as comprising human development:
social, economic and environmental.
These issues of cultural purpose provide the
frame for assessing the current battle for the
prize of European Capital of Culture in 2020
between the Three Sisters (Wexford, Waterford
and Kilkenny), Limerick, and Galway city and
county.
Galway’s bid is called Making Waves, Limer-
ick’s is called Embracing Multiplicity - Creating
Belonging and the Three Sisters’ is called Re-
imaging The Region.
Each contestant has now published its cul-
tural strategy. The focus must be not so much
on who wins, but on whether whoever wins can
place culture as the overarching goal of devel-
opment and assure the necessary cultural
participation for this.
It is not a good start that the priority in all
strategies is to increase the agency of institu-
tions and the efficacy of delivery. The lack of
guidance from the EU on where to locate culture
and the absence of an Irish cultural policy is not
helpful. On the other hand rigidity would be
problematic.
Limerick’s strategy is top-down and primarily
sees culture as an independent element in
development. Its idea is to emphasise culture
and link it to education, research, environment,
and to physical, social and economic develop-
ment. With a proposed budget of €37m, the
strategy seeks to grow the infrastructure and
support for culture. It integrates culture at the
heart of economic growth and regeneration.
The Three Sisters’ strategy, with a budget of
€31m sees culture mediating between the
social, economic and environmental. Imple
-
mentation would be based on new governance
structures and action focused on the excellence
of the delivery of services. It is not clear whether
the strategy envisages a New York like ‘Com-
missioner for Culture’ employed in the Council
or an agreement with the private sector to
deliver services. What is clear in governance is
that there is no vision for co-governance with
local politicians or the local community.
Galway, with a budget of €45.75m, seeks to
build a model of cultural excellence across vari-
ous domains: safeguarding cultural heritage,
supporting training initiatives, enabling access
to learning partnerships for the artistic and
creative communities; and improving ways for
new media channels to transmit cultural com-
munication, presentation and production.
Governance is to include the development of a
Charter of Cultural Rights and a management
agency, like a Cultural Council. Galway sees cul-
ture as an independent element of development
and as a mediator between the social, eco-
nomic and environmental.
The three strategies do articulate various
engagement strategies for the public. However,
the language of top-down engagement pre-
vails, and participation is not a core value. No
effort is made to find new forms of participa-
tion. This is an impoverished vision of culture
based on local cultural policies that do not pro-
vide for community mobilisation, capacity
building, and empowerment. The cultural rights
of excluded groups thrive best when freed from
institutions. Culture without community cannot
weave a new social fabric.
No effort is made to address the precarious-
ness of artists who often work voluntarily,
moving from project to festival, spending a lot
of time unemployed. If we value the contribu-
tion of these citizen-artists, if we value culture’s
overarching role in development, surely we
should make their contributions more secure?
If we believe in this role of culture as an over-
arching goal of development, local authorities
need to demonstrate it, especially when in com
-
petition with others for excellence against a
background where funds are scandalously
scarce.
It’s not about economics or tourism, the con-
cerns that currently dominate. It is about
building an ecology where culture can deliver
transformative change for human good.
Ed Carroll is the convenor of Blue Drum
Culture bids can
be about change,
not money
The three Irish contestants for
EU Capital of Culture 2020 are top-down
and inadequately focus on culture as an
agent for transforming people
by Ed Carroll
Culture is the creative
innovator of the public
good comprising
human development:
social, economic and
environmental
