Navigation
"Productivity of Culture" by Guy Féaux de la Croix
Guy Féaux de la Croix is Deputy German Ambassador to Greece and Vice-Chairman, European Union Club of Athens
Guy Feaux de la Croix Photo: Kostas Kartelias
Carin Fisher
Thank you, Prof. Kacem, for that very important presentation. I think certainly between you two gentlemen that you have started a real dialogue. I am sorry to say time passes very quickly and therefore we have to move quickly on to Mr. Guy Feaux de la Croix,who is Minister Deputy, Head of Mission, Vice-chair of the European Union Club of Athens, and also in addition, you may not know this, he is a sculpturer and essayists on art. It is very nice to have you here. You will of course have had in your work to deal more on a practical level with the concept of culture and the organization, and what importance dialogue plays. The floor is yours.
Guy Feaux de la Croix
Abstract
European identity and the cultural dimension of the Europe’s external relations is a huge topic. This is why some reflections on the productivity of culture can be applied as well by using the term 'productivity of cultural diplomacy'. It can show how culture affects and alters the perspectives in the external relations of the European Union, and on the political imperative of European identity
In the history of humankind tribes and nations have fought their wars over territory, economic opportunities, dynastic egotisms. It should, however, not be overlooked that in their origins many violent conflicts had a cultural dimension: From our human beginnings culture has been the agent of the individual’s collective identity, a means of identification. Culture being the linkage between the individual and society without which only an hermit can survive, even though not very comfortably, is of existential importance.
In extremis culture may be a question of war and peace, for example when people feel threatened in their religious faith. And yet, as compared to the enormous effort which states invest in expensive military deterrence the possibilities to defuse conflicts by addressing their cultural roots are grossly neglected.
The cultural dimension in international relations does, however, not only come to bear in the ultimate question of war and peace: In more peaceful times it serves as an agent sometimes favouring, sometimes forming obstacles to the development of fruitful relations. The standing of a nation in the international society is importantly determined by its international cultural profile. Some states engage in spectacular festivities like Olympic Games or the football world championships. Others entertain networks for a world wide cultural presence. And others yet show little ambition to project themselves in the international arena as cultural players at all.
Writers, artists and other producers of culture do not like to think of the political or economic implications of their productions. They tend to resent their works being subjected to the measure of political productivity or commercial utility. The productivity of culture in their respective fields, however, is precisely what politicians, diplomats, and industrial sponsors will be interested in.
Take language capabilities for an example: English being a lingua franca of international trade relations, countries like Germany and France depend, in their foreign trade and investment, very much on people abroad which, as partners or employees, are familiar with their language and culture. Much of their trade and investment would simply not happen were they not stimulated and supported by an intercultural network, from schools through academic exchanges to concerts, lectures and exhibitions organised by the cultural institutes.
We have come to see, from three different angles, the importance of the cultural dimension in international relations: As a question of war and peace, as an obstacle or promoter of peaceful political co-operation, and as a catalyst for profitable trade and investment relations. Measured in terms of its factual or potential productivity culture is, however, regularly underrated as an instrument of diplomacy. On the stock markets analysts would point to an under-capitalisation, of an insufficiently exploited growth potential.
There is no standard model for a cultural diplomacy. The institutional arrangements of the cultural institutes of Britain, France, Italy, Spain and Germany, these five being the major players of cultural diplomacy in Europe, are similar and yet they clearly have their own specificities. This applies for example for the degree of their dependence, respectively autonomy, vis-à-vis their governments and embassies. Some cultural institutes are run as de facto sections of their embassy, coming under the full control of the ambassador, others are decidedly sovereign in their relations to “their” diplomatic mission, the latter often appearing to be no more than a service-station for the former.
A reflection on which model is the most successful, i.e. in terms of the cost and effects ratio, can hardly go beyond very personal impressions. A comparative evaluation, as tempting and useful it would appear to be, would require a body of research on cultural diplomacy which practically does not exist.
Guy Feaux de la Croix
Presentation
Thank you very much, Mrs. Chair Lady
I have been asked to speak on the subject of cultural diplomacy. I wish it to be understood that in my terminology cultural diplomacy always includes at the same time educational diplomacy.
Now the time frame which the chair lady has set is 12 minutes, so I feel compelled to concentrate my reflections in ten positions, ten pieces if you so wish - that includes even the summary.
Now, firstly, productivity of culture, that is certainly a term which artists, writers, others actors of culture will find less appealing, if not appalling. It suggests the use of culture for purposes other than for cultural ones. But business people, diplomats, as it is politicians will take exactly the opposite view, in thinking it is to be perfectly legitimate to employ culture for their purposes, in order to sell their wares, to promote their electoral chances, to employ culture to bolster an ambassador’s standing in his host country.
Now Ministers of Culture, for example, need to invoke the productivity of culture to justify their budgets and expenditures. The two different worlds meet usually when it comes to financing a cultural action and that leads to the support of industrial sponsors, governments, diplomats etc.
The autonomy of art, I believe, that is also something for artists and cultural people to draw the line and to make sure that they do not prostitute themselves for the sake of financial benefits.
Now today in this Symposium let us lay aside for a moment those scruples and take an empirical look at the productive role culture plays and especially also at the potential it has of playing in international relations.
It has already been mentioned by Prof. Sidjanski, yes, culture may also be not only a dimension of peace, but culture may also be an element of war. In the history of human kind, tribes and nations have fought their wars not only over territory or economic opportunities. They have gone to war quite often over culture. In extreme cases culture may be a question of war especially when people feel threatened in their religious faith.
So, if that is the root of many conflicts, it follows that military deterrents as a means of avoiding war is addressing only the symptoms but not the causes.
Concepts for cultural conflict prevention, analysing the causes, promoting remedies should therefore play a much greater role and be fully exploited. There is still a great potential for the productivity of culture in the international system of peace keeping and conflict prevention.
But in more peaceful times, my third point already, culture serves as an agent facilitating the development of fruitful relations. In the business world companies from countries like Germany and France depend in their commerce and investment largely on people who understand and speak our language, know our culture.
A lot of the trade would not happen were it not supported and stimulated by an intercultural network from schools, through academic exchanges to concerts, lectures, exhibitions. In other words, cultural education account for a large portion by bilateral and multi-lateral trade relations, so I think the Ministers of Finance who are unfortunately absent from this symposium, should also realize a lot of that creativity and productivity ends up in their budgetary coffers.
My fourth point is that cultural diplomacy should be a maxim in international relations. There is no standard for cultural diplomacy. Some countries engage in large scale cultural and educational programs; it is a pillar of our international presence. Take for example, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, but other countries, most EU countries do not have cultural institutes and regrettably some very major powers are completely absent from the scene of cultural dialogue. They do not seem to feel the need to explain themselves and here I must say especially some very large powers do not feel the need to explain themselves and much like in a family, the need, the wish and the readiness to explain yourself is so essential for an understanding and for peace keeping.
Looking at the situation here in Greece, for example, I am delighted that so many participants in this symposium come from the other side of the Aegean. But I do would like to see a lot more investment in cultural terms of Greece’s neighbouring countries and especially as so many conflicts around this country, and on the Balkans, around the Aegean are of a cultural nature.
So let culture diplomacy become a maxim in international relations. I do not know if it ever addressed the subject but this would be something for UNESCO to agree on encouraging cultural diplomacy and setting some standards for it.
My fifth point would be the dialogue principle but it takes two to tangle. Countries that often sought to demonstrate their power and potential by showing off the glory of their culture, but a cultural diplomacy which eyes a long term partnership with other nations will have to engage in dialogue.
But obviously in a very unequal world many of the poorer nations, let us say of Africa, how they find it nearly impossible in investing much in sending musicians and exhibitions to the buzzing capitals in Europe. So I think we must always think to include those poorer nations in our programmes. This is a suggestion for the European Capitals of Culture here to make it a rule to include cultural manifestations of our less fortunate partner regions in their programmes which should cover a wider world than just Europe
Now, the idea of dialogue surely had an ethical dimension of universalism. But always it takes two to tangle, and in some regions of the world some very affluent countries show very little interest in engaging in cultural exchanges. It is all very well to propagate the importance of the Euro-Islamic dialogue and of course I am happy that today we have such a large number of participants coming from the Islamic world, but I think some of us who have engaged in that dialogue had sometimes found it very difficult to find a second partner, in order to establish that dialogue. Especially how do we reach out to the Conservative-Fundamentalist sectors of Islam?
I believe one of the cultural heritage treasures of Greece is really universalism. Despite the shortcomings, Prof. Sidjanski, of the Athenian democracy that principle was established. It is quite amazing when you read through the history of the Peloponnesian war how up to the very last moment they engaged in dialogue. I mean delegations were exchanged. Delegations of Athens in the middle of the war went to Corinth and Sparta to argue in front of their parliaments. Try to translate that into the world of today: delegations speaking in Parliaments of countries with which they are at war. It is quite amazing and that is one of the highest treasures, I think, and messages despite the shortcomings of the Athenian democracy and Greek culture, which we should remember: the universalism which is to accept the arguments of another partner despite his origins or whatever his origin may be.
Now the idea of the constitutional project was certainly to stimulate a European identity, and so at last to create a framework, yes, permitting the individual European citizen to identify with the European Union as the collective body to which he or she relates of being his or her society. For example, the golden star flag was supposed to be our flag of Europe. Beethoven’s hymn was supposed to by our hymn. These expressions of identification, even though supported by a great majority of European people, have to be sacrificed to appease the reservation of only a few. And yet in the reform treaty which is being discussed today in Lisbon, and being presented for the approval of the European countries, I believe that the substance of the constitutional project has been sufficiently translated to give us some hope that in fact culture will be treated on the same level, as the text says, as health protection, industry, tourism, education and even disaster prevention. So cultural aspects will be taken into account in all the spheres of activities of the European Union.
The seventh point is European cultural commonality. In a critical assessment of European Union texts of culture you always find like a mill the repetitive reference to the diversity of European culture and the prime ordeal focus on the inheritance. Now I must say that this seems to be rather an expression of the defence of Cultural Ministers’ competences against the commonality of the cultural heritage. I think we should refocus our cultural policy in Europe to give the commonality of culture a greater value. Now not withstanding the multiplicity of national cultures, these have been regularly the variations of the cultural European mainstream from the Greek Antiquity, through the Middle Ages, Renaissance, Enlightenment, Nationalism, Romanticism. There is an ever renewed process of creating contemporary art. We should readjust that focus on diversity to seek in that diversity the commonality of European culture.
Jean Monnet, you quoted him Mr., Sidjanski, probably didn’t say what you quoted. It is a very nice saying, isn’t it. But I must say we should take a more realistic view of what culture can do in society. I would rather think that Brecht was right in saying “food comes first, then comes culture!” And culture must be in our dimension, but I doubt it if we ever got so far as we got with the European Union if we started only with culture.
So the eights point would be the emergence of a European identity. Identities cannot be manufactured out of the blue, not an individual’s identity or a collective identity. A collective identity needs both: a sufficiently solid commonality in history and cultural traditions and the will to be a group, or a tribe or a nation or Europe
In the case of Europe it would be difficult to deny a common body of history and culture. The people of Europe are ready for a cultural identity and their awareness of a political identity is greatly fostered, I think, by a recognition of the existential challenges which we face in terms of the environment and of other global challenges.
Teaching history, I think it was mentioned by you, Prof. Sidjanski, yes, sure but I remember during the wars in the Balkans that history can often stand in the way of the future. Teaching history is fine, but you have already pointed to the fact there must be a point where reconciliation must take the higher place over fixation to history. I think the obsession with the past must never stand in the way to master the future.
The ninth point is, where are we going with the external presence of the European Union. Well, it is now in the reform treaty the idea of a European diplomatic service and I think we all ought to agree here that the future foreign service of the European Union should from the beginning also include a strong cultural dimension.
I doubt it really if Europe is really impregnated and determined by a Euro-centrist view. Such views exist, but if any continent is reaching out to others, seeking partnership, then it is Europe. Europe is practicing that outreach in our own traditions and in our own daily life in the European Union and we are applying the same principle of partnership to our relations with the outside world.
Now the summary is that culture can play a much greater role in preventing and in overcoming international conflicts and cultural diplomacy is one of the ways to bring its potential to bear in international relations. All countries should be encouraged to invest themselves in cultural diplomacy and cultural educational exchanges.
Based on awareness of cultural commonality, and in the face of global challenges, we should witness and promote the emergence of European identity, which is the attachment of the European citizen to the European Union as being their framework and their umbrella for their individual and their collective lives.
The ongoing process of reform in the European Union will open up new opportunities for culture, but we, the cultural people, should keep a very keen eye on what the politicians are making of it. Much will now depend upon their political will. And we should also encourage them to develop our commonality of our diversity.
For all this we shall need no longer to wait for tomorrow. We shall start today to readjust our visions, to better understand the role culture can play in Europe in our relations with the world and to bring fully to bear in Europe the productivity of culture.
Guy Feaux de la Croix behind Spyros Mercouris and Nuri N. Colakoglu
« "Is the necessary dialogue between cultures still possible?" by Kacem Abdelaziz | "European Identity and the Cultural Dimension of Europe's External Relations" by Guy Féaux de la Croix »