Can we listen?
IETM - International Network for Contemporary Performing Arts is a network of more than 500 institutional and individual members which advocates for the value of arts and culture in a changing world, aims to give professionals in the performing arts access to knowledge and international connections and seeks to make this environment more inclusive and diverse. It organises two annual plenary meetings. The last one, in which we had the opportunity to take part, took place in Brussels, from 23 to 26 Novembe 2017.
Can we talk? Art in the Age of Populism was the very stimulating title of this meeting, which invited us to reflect on issues often raised in our conversations with colleagues, but giving us the possibility to discuss them in an international forum and on a larger scale: What is populism? A threat to democracy or its last hope? Is it evil by nature or is it the disguise with which it emerges? Can the arts sector do anything to resist populist hysteria and the polarisation it causes? And can we, as professionals and as citizens, break the bubble we are trapped in and become more involved with our co-citizens?
[Image 2_Keynote speech, Eric Corijn, Photo @ApitzSabrina no Twitter]
Erik Corijn, professor of Social and Cultural Geography at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and keynote speaker, opened the meeting with a clear and captivating speech that created a good basis for the issues that would be discussed in the following days. He considers that populism is a symptom of the crisis of representative democracy and stated that, in the way it is presented, it has nothing to do with "popular". Those who speak in the name of the "people", in the name of those who have been forgotten and marginalized by the elites and who have no voice, belong themselves to elites and seldom to the most popular social strata. They also present a rather authoritarian vision of representativeness (they are the leader, the Führer, the father of the nation).
Next, Korijn made us think about the "people": Who exactly is "the people" that legitimate power? Who takes part, who is a member, who is a citizen? He looked at European history and pointed out the difference between the republic that resulted from the French Revolution, where in order to be a citizen it was enough to accept the values of that republic; and nation-states in nineteenth-century Europe, where belonging to the ethnos (nation) was not the result of a free choice or a social contract, but rather of the existence of common bonds (a history, an identity, a language, a collective soul, a way of life, a particular culture). Thus, nationality becomes the basis of citizenship and has a cultural format. There is a common narrative represented in politics, in education, in culture. It is thanks to this narrative that some populists speak in the name of the "people" without even asking them.
Corijn pointed out that, while the market, economy and finance become global, democracy, culture and representation remain national. Governments have come to regulate society in function of global competition, rather than regulating the economy in function of social goals. Parliaments submitted to governments and governments to new public management theories that govern national policies without political discussion. It is a decline of democratic control which, in Corijn's opinion, becomes even more pronounced in cities - more hybrid, more mixed - that do not fit the nation mould. Cities, to be represented, need more consultation, more participation, more co-production; they need a participatory democracy.
Democracy, says Corijn, needs a demos (people), but continues to be dominated by the ethnos (nation). While belonging to the latter requires a common identity, in the urban world we need to learn to live on the basis of difference. The model of building societies based on integration into an established national community does not work here. Cities have multiple communities to be integrated into a society.
Corijn concluded by saying that in the urbanised world we have to rethink the place of culture in an extremely diverse context. The arts, the artistic sector and the artists take a central position in the reconstruction of a collective vision, of a new inclusive narrative, of a reinvented democracy. This is because the media, education and other forms of socialisation, institutions for socio-cultural reproduction, still work on the basis of old models. The remodeling of the imaginary, to propose forms of imagination and symbolic expression, is precisely the profession of the artists. Art and scientific research are at the heart of the knowledge society.
Eric Corijn's speech was very stimulating, although it presented some weaknesses, which became more evident during Q&A. Questions such as the representation of citizens who are not "white men - heterosexuals - without disabilities - educated" (such as Corijn) or the security of the "cities-demos" that wish to be independent of the "states-ethnos" remained unanswered . There is still much to think about, but Corijn's speech was a great way to start three days of intense reflection.
[Image 3_Session City of Arrival, Photo: Jana Gellinck]
The superdiversity of cities was the theme of a specific session at this meeting, called City of Arrival, which started with the city of Brussels itself. Dirk Geldof, author of the book Superdiversity in the heart of Europe (2016), spoke of the concept of superdiversity, which goes beyond multiculturalism. Today, most of the residents in many of the major European cities are of foreign origin. However, the most relevant feature of this superdiversity is its "slow and often contested" normalisation, which is reflected in the fact that several contexts remain very "white", including the world of culture and the arts, becoming an issue which should be seen as a central management issue in organisations such as museums and theatres. The discussion that was generated touched on essential points. While some people complained about the lack of space and representativeness in the management of cultural organisations (suggesting that public funding should be cut off from those entities that do not seek to meet these requirements and that white administrators be removed to make room for others), others said that there would be no progress with punitive measures, that we should consider space sharing and collaboration, and that we should also be concerned about the non-exclusion of whites, recognising that change causes fear in people who have so far felt secure and showing some sensitivity towards this fact.
[Image 4_Session Meanwhile in the Countryside, "Come over for a cup of tea and a biscuit and share what matters to you", Photo: Encounters Arts]
In another session, called Meanwhile in the Countryside, we were transported from the world of cities to the countryside. The synopsis quoted architect Rem Koolhaas who said that one cannot understand the city without understanding the countryside. The countryside is currently undergoing a profound transformation and populations living outside urban centers are considered more susceptible to populist discourses. Is it because they feel they are not heard, that they are invisible? Is it because 90% of funding for culture is invested in cities, while 40% of the European population lives in the countryside? There were some references in this session that seemed very relevant to us: firstly, the re-orientation of the Arts Council England funding, for the cultural and artistic creation developed with the citizens and outside the great urban centers and mainstream cultural organisations (almost simultaneous to the publishing of King's College London report Towards Cultural Democracy: promoting cultural capabilities for everyone). The second reference that seemed very relevant is that the countryside does not lack Culture, it is not just about "taking things over there". It is necessary to try to know who is living in a certain territory, to listen actively, to know the stories of these people and to present "more local stories to local stages". "Do not give us what we want, give us what we cannot imagine," exclaimed the resident of a Danish village to artist Lene Noer. We also spoke about the responsibility of the artists towards the communities they work with and the importance of remaining in these territories for periods of 3 to 5 years, in order to also deal with the impacts of the work that is being developed.
[Imagem 5_Session Arts and Civic Movements, Photo: Jana Gellinck]
The last session we had the opportunity to attend was called Arts and Civic Movements. Despite a somewhat incomprehensible introduction to the synopsis of the session ("Today artists have lost the will to question the world as outsiders"), which generated some discussion, what became readily obvious was that many artists and collectives intend to participate actively in the discussions that are taking place in society, they intend to intervene and try to influence the course of events. According to Nick Millet, artistic director of the Elapse organisation in France, the act of questioning, which is the essence of the arts, promptly initiates political effects in society. Thomas Edder, of LAFT Berlin, added that the arts are questioning routines and, if the public gets involved in this questioning, there is room for change. During the debate, it became clear that it cannot be expected that the arts combat populism. However, they can provide some energy for greater participation in the critical debate. The issue of funding, and the limitations it implies (also with regard to self-censorship), was widely discussed in this session, as well as the need for artists and culture professionals to get out of the bubble in which they have been living comfortably, seemingly detached from the world and therefore caught by surprise with recent political developments in Europe and the US. It was suggested reading the interview of Adam Curtis, filmmaker and producer of the BBC, entitled Is the Artworld Responsible for Trump?
The session Meanwhile in the Countryside had begun with a short video with philosopher John Berger, who spoke of the act of listening. Listening, Berger said, seems to be a passive condition, but it is an act. Many discourses and the positioning of several people in the debates were marked by the need to classify people and actions as "right" or "left". This classification has several extensions: stupid or intelligent; xenophobic or tolerant; essentially, good or bad. This often results in a "disconnecting" from active listening and intensifies the polarisation that is taking place today in many societies. As culture professionals, is this what we want to contribute to? Thus, we were left wondering if the essential question at this moment, more than whether we are able to speak (Can we talk?), should be whether we are able to listen (Can we listen?).
We think that lack of empathy is a very worrying fact in our life together - in society - in the city and in the countryside. Culture should reflect on how it can contribute to the creation of more empathetic spaces, which can guarantee an open dialogue, however uncomfortable. Taking as a fact the honest intention of all participants to reflect on our living together, cultural spaces can be places where people can speak and be heard. We must be aware that the act of listening may be what really constitutes activism or, rather, a starting point for activism. The reference made by some participants in the EITM meeting to the bubble in which we have become accustomed to living comfortably, as well as to the recognition of the fear that a large part of the population feels about the transformations that are taking place in society, have been for us a clear sign that part of the cultural sector (artists and managers) has begun to listen.
Resources made available by IETM:
Video and transcription of the keynote speech by Erik Corijn Art in the Age of Populism
Summary of the session City of arrival
Summary of the session Meanwhile in the countryside
Summary of the session Art and Civic Movements
Article originally published in Portuguese on Artecapital on 25.1.2018.