CultureLink's new publication, released in June 2011, “Networks: The Evolving Aspects of Culture in the 21st Century”, includes an article by Kathrin Deventer, Secretary General of the European Festivals Association (EFA). In this publication, researchers from all continents investigate the role and relevance that cultural networks have in cultural development and communication, and new perspectives of cultural networking in the 21st century. Kathrin Deventer reviews the (recent) history of cultural networking and argues that cultural networks do not only serve cultural development but goes beyond this role: they enrich and broaden a society’s culture and arts. She discusses three major aspects of cultural networking: members, arts and politics. Towards a cultural Europe “Is cultural networking not something that has always been around? Has it not always been the desire of artists and arts organisations to look beyond borders, to collaborate on an international level, to share ideas and to exchange information? It enriches, it broadens and above all it is beneficial to a society’s culture and art. An example of this founding of cultural networks at the time is the European Festivals Association (founded in 1952 as the European Music Festivals Association). East and West European festivals were able to meet in spite of the division of Europe, manifested by the ‘iron curtain’. Starting from the assumption that networking and the role of cultural networks is to serve cultural development, I would like to argue that the task of a cultural network goes beyond this role. In a conversation with Simon Mundy I once discussed the task of cultural networks. Simon Mundy is not only a poet and novelist, festival director and cultural policy adviser but also an influential networker, with a thorough knowledge of cultural networking. Based on his idea of three ‘circles’ of cultural network tasks, I am going to discuss three major and basic aspects of cultural networking. 1. Members: the internal debate The first circle refers to the idea that networks are there to make the work of their members better. In particular since the 1980s international cultural networks have grown: there is a long list of networks for dance, theatre production, chamber music ensembles and composers. They have been established around a certain discipline for members to meet, discuss, reinforce, be in an international environment, professionalize, communicate, exchange best practices, initiate projects – that is the inner circle, the inner debate, the inner educational task of a network.” 2. Arts: the cultural debate Th e second circle refers to the idea that networks are there to make the world of the arts better within the artistic reality. Networks have to mobilize the sector. They are important for cultural development. Th ey show the different assets of the arts’ impact on many issues in a wider creative ecology; they are there to advocate for the improvement of the arts sectors’ conditions. These expert networks in that sense are counterparts and interlocutors for the respective political decision makers: a supporting strand for networks was introduced, and recently the platforms established in the framework of the European Agenda for Culture are considered as representatives of the field, almost ‘unions’ speaking on behalf of their members and representing their members’ interests. 3. Politics: the political debate The third circle refers to the political debate: networks are there to have a position in a wider political context in Europe, not only a sectoral one, but a wider political one. Networks have a task to underline the role of culture in society as such, to be taken into account in all policy areas. Therefore, a thorough change of thinking about and attitude towards culture needs to take place. This task goes further than the improvement of the cultural sector. It includes the quality of culture as the most essential basis for societal transformation that should be taken into account in all policy areas. It also includes identifying dialogue platforms with policies in various ways in order to have the cultural dimension on all political agendas. This task requires an alert educated sector that positions itself in a wider scenario of challenges. Most of the time, the mission statements and constitutions of networks include ambitions regarding the three circles, but too often they are not reflected in the activity proposal (there are various reasons for this; in the first place it is a financial one). The first circle (improving conditions for members’ ‘homework’ first hand – hands on skills and tools concerning communication, sponsoring, marketing, programming, etc.) is virtually always seen as the most important one: this is why a member joins a network. How many times do heads of (cultural) networks hear the question: What’s the added value to be a member of the network? This question can be answered with another a question: Why is it that you invest into a network? What is the added value you give to the network? It should be for members’ own good, of course, but also for the artistic community and for society in general. What do you want the network to achieve in a broader European society? It is very difficult to argue for the second and third circle as they are not directly and evidently linked to the practical daily work of a member. But, if the cultural sector does not take up the task in a broader European political context and ‘educate’ not only itself but also political decision makers, it will fail, because if there is no cultural Europe, there is none, as the initiative A Soul for Europe states. ‘What is at stake is the future of the Union …. The cultural sector must take a firm hold of the European question’, underlined Daphne Tepper, policy analyst at Culture Action Europe (Tepper, 2009). The sector has to understand this task, and there is an opportunity for a shift in the perception of policies. The need to find pathways towards an integrated Europe is ranked higher and higher on the agenda. We are invited to tell decision-making bodies why culture matters in Europe. In 2007, the European Commission devised the European Agenda for Culture which is a crucial instrument and a politically very strong sign of real empowerment of culture as it goes far in terms of mainstreaming. The Commission has put enormous efforts into empowering civil society – the Council does the same. Platforms for structured dialogue have been established in this framework. The cultural sector has to prepare for this challenge of educating all political decision-making bodies and tell them why culture matters in Europe. How should the cultural sector take up this challenge? Definition of the three circles First, networks have to define those three circles that are already laid down in the statutes; in order to avoid: • getting lost in administrative and financial obstacles; • isolating the sector from broader political fields and wider issues such as democratisation, participation, access, citizens’ rights, etc. We have to define our allies, our counterparts, our interlocutors: (1) members, (2) the sector, and (3) politics at large, that is, the different ministries, directorates general, etc. We have to identify collective interests and devise activities and tools that serve the purposes. We have to play an initiating political role. We have to educate civil servants who in all fields and at all levels have to put culture as a priority in their policies. Networks and umbrella organizations are one element in this – there are others, with individuals in the first place of course. EFA and the three circles Against this background, the European Festivals Association (EFA) serves as a good example: EFA is one of the oldest cultural networks in Europe. Created in 1952, EFA is highly ambitious to bring Europeans together and in 2012, EFA will evaluate sixty years of networking. An important reason for establishing the EFA was undoubtedly linked to the creation and development of the European Community after the Second World War. Europe was built as a unit, certainly as an economic and monetary unit and already partly as a political unit. The cultural sector felt the need to unite on a European level partly because of the creation of a new societal reality, especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Nowadays there is a more outspoken feeling of European solidarity and coherence, especially amongst young people. It is striking to see how many young people today feel at home across the continent, how many young Europeans are travelling easily from one end of the continent to the other, creating international collaborations in a smooth and ‘natural’ manner. This is certainly the case in cultural matters because of its very subjects: creation, artists, the urge to express oneself and the search for an increasingly large public all stimulate the need for contacts. This very European ‘development process’ stimulates international networking without discussion (De Greef, 2008). A second reason for initiating the EFA after the Second World War and carrying on its mission until today is the desire to reinforce festivals internationally within similar fields of interest, artistic disciplines, presentation forms or expertise. Network members are looking for added values by joining structural relationships with colleagues from other countries who are active in the same or in similar fields. Circle 1. The EFA was created because 15 eminent European festivals that had certain interests put their forces together: it was about co-productions, touring, presenting, etc. Subsequently, the EFA grew, more and more festivals from all over Europe and beyond joined the association and today more than 100 festivals are part of the network. EFA members come together regularly to discuss and exchange on issues that concern their daily practice. Circle 2. In 2004, the EFA moved to Brussels. It was then that the EFA started embracing broader sectoral questions and tried to position festivals in that cultural and artistic ecology. The EFA itself became a member of other cultural networks, such as International Network for Contemporary Performing Arts (IETM), Performing Arts Employers Associations League Europe (Pearle), Culture Action Europe and others – to position festivals in this cultural debate and support other networks that acted in other fields linked to other kinds of practices in the sector. The need to support the arts is reflected in many EFA initiatives, such as the training programme European Atelier for Young Festival Managers or the EFA BOOKS series that the EFA launched in 2006 to contribute to the cultural debate in Europe. In 2007, the EFA organized a conference on ‘Cultural Networks at Work’, also in collaboration with another network, namely the International Society for the Performing Arts (ISPA). The conference concluded with a declaration of intent to create a ‘European House for Culture’ in Brussels. Circle 3. In 2009, the EFA launched the European House for Culture. The initiative is a concrete offer to bring forward a dialogue between the cultural sector, other sectors and different levels of different policies. The arts and cultural sector has to develop an authoritative voice and set up a structured consultation process – as other sectors in Europe already do, by organizing themselves within a certain constitution – to influence the European decision-making process, helping to shape the agenda of the decision process itself. The stronger this voice is and the better the process itself is developed in terms of content and visibility, the more effective it will be. The European House for Culture is one step in the direction of a stronger, more prominent positioning of arts and culture in the European decision-making process. The mission of the European House for Culture is to advocate for the place of culture in Europe and the world, to strengthen the power of the cultural sector, to enhance the visibility of its position and to create new dynamics within the sector in order to influence the decision-making process. The aims are to create synergies, to individualize common interests, join forces and offer a home – or an embassy – to networks and initiatives in the field of culture, in order to stimulate dialogue and interaction between cultural networks. The European Festivals Association looked beyond its own network – into the need of the sector, and the wish to contribute quite a bit to offering a platform for discussion about a cultural Europe – serving the networks and a common mission which is to play a role in the political Europe. ‘We have to grow up’, said Robert Palmer. The European House for Culture is the physical manifestation of the wish to be linked with each other, to present as much as possible, to communicate – and to understand the political mechanisms. If we engage more in these alliances, if we are more aware of our wider societal roles and if also we – the secretariats – are claiming this role more and more from our networks that gave us the mandate, we can speak of the maturity of the sector, and not get lost in the trap of keeping ourselves busy with our immediate problems. We are not only advocating for better conditions for the arts and culture, we are also advocating for the immeasurable role of culture in the European project. This message has been promoted already for quite some time by the initiative A Soul for Europe and is being taken up by more and more cultural networks. It is about the responsibility of networks and of individuals at the same time: if we are really looking for the union of peoples, of Europeans – a union that is based on a bottom-up process – this implies personal responsibilities, possibilities of networks. For artists, intellectuals, scientists and cultural operators, a cultural international Europe is part of their everyday life. Let’s follow their foot prints and make others follow it. I would like to conclude with a quote by Hugo De Greef, former EFA Secretary General and co-founder of the European House for Culture, taken from EFA BOOKS 2 that is dedicated to cultural networks: ‘International collaboration and cultural networking contribute to a better society, to living together agreeably, to a global intercultural society, to increased tolerance … in short: to peace, however modest the role we are playing might be’ (De Greef, 2008).” Related links and documents: • Full article by Kathrin Deventer, EFA Secretary General • More information on the publication here