Does Australia need a national cultural policy?

Does Australia need a national cultural policy? Benita Harrison, September 2014 Master of Community Cultural Development, ‘Brokering Partnerships’ (VCA/ Melbourne University)

INTRODUCTION In many respects Australia is a nation still developing its identity and world profile. While the arts and culture may have existed in Australia for thousands of years prior to colonisation it is only in the last 100 years that it has been thought necessary to have a ‘cultural identity’ so that artworks of all kinds may be defined as being ‘Australian’, or at least of Australian origin, and contributing to the cultural profile of our country on the world stage. Governments of many diverse nations recognize the need for a formalization of cultural identity1, not only to provide a convenient label for marketing the arts and cultural experiences as commodities2, but also so that those working in cultural pursuits and development of the arts may achieve a formal, policy-defined level of recognition. Throughout the world cultural policies are used as frameworks and guidelines for cultural development3 and funding for cultural programs, and each policy is developed with certain focus areas and desired outcomes in mind. The dialogue and consultation that occurs so that these policies may be developed are usually limited to boards and groups of people who are selected for their capacity to engage in ‘educated’ discussion and in doing so formulate policy, thereby excluding a large range of peoples extant in the countries and communities who will be at the coal face of the implementation of policies. It is an imperfect method of creating a framework or guideline for cultural development of the diverse communities that make up countries such as Australia. This essay will address the need for Australia to have a national cultural policy. It will discuss the social, political and artistic problems that arise when developing a national cultural policy, while considering the benefits of having a national cultural policy, despite it being imperfect.

THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL CULTURAL IDENTITY Is a defined national cultural identity “a benign but positive affirmation of a nation’s distinctiveness” (Caust 2014), or a xenophobic response to an increasingly diverse and ‘multicultural’ society that lacks social cohesion in the greater sense? The outlook of those instrumental in developing both the Creative Nation (1994) and Creative Australia (2013) national cultural policies for Australia is that national 1

Examples of cultural policies from around the world can be found at http://www.worldcp.org/ (Prodnik 2012) 3 (IFACCA 2014) 2

B Harrison – essay 1 – Brokering Partnerships

policies, and development of national cultural identities are “informed by the belief that a creative nation is a productive nation in the fullest sense…” (Commonwealth of Australia 2013). Since Federation in Australia we have been struggling to develop our national cultural identity by establishing national boards, groups and administrations to distribute funding and manage the development of artworks. 4 In many instances the basis for policy development has been largely economic; ensuring proper distribution of funding, managing collections of valuable works endowed on us by our Commonwealth benefactors, and developing arts-associated industries with a view to boosting employment opportunities. The first identifiable move toward developing a national structure for arts and culture as an integral part of Australian society was with Whitlam in the early 1970s – In any civilised community the arts and associated amenities must occupy a central place. Their enjoyment should not be seen as something remote from everyday life. Of all the objectives of my Government none had a higher priority than the encouragement of the arts, the preservation and enrichment of our cultural and intellectual heritage. … Our other objectives are all means to an end; the enjoyment of the arts is an end in itself.5 Still largely ignored to this point, however, was the contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures to our overall national cultural heritage and identity. It took another two decades, a national Arts Council, and the first national cultural policy (Creative Nation) for ATSI cultural works to even be considered an essential element in the mix of what (culturally) made Australia identifiably ‘Australian’, rather than just ‘exotic native’ tourist attractions. With the rise of multi-national companies, international brands, cross-national cultures and subcultures, and an increasing trend towards globalisation it may seem that a national identity is no longer an important part of social identification. Certainly, as Professor Ieng Yang says “Identity is important, but identity can only be looked at these days in a global context.” 6 Yet, taking into consideration Bourdieu’s notion of ‘cultural capital’7 in its broadest application for the individual, national identity is still a part of defining who we are as individuals and how we interact with the world. It may well be that as a result of globalisation, the growth of the internet as both a communication tool and a platform for presentation of arts and representations of culture, and the migration of peoples from a more diverse

4

Refer to the Dr J Gardiner-Garden (2009) article for an overview of the development of national arts policies in Australia (Whitlam 1985) 6 (Watt 2006) 7 (Bourdieu, The Forms Of Capital 1986) 5

B Harrison – essay 1 – Brokering Partnerships

spread of countries coming into Australia that we require at least a nominal marker of identity to define ourselves in the global morass.

POLICY AS A MEANS OF DEVELOPING IDENTITY How then to develop this national cultural identity, or at least to give some boundaries to how we are defined culturally as Australians? To follow the Whitlam ideal we need to develop and support the arts in our country; to provide funding, administration, curation and promotion of Australian artists and performers. This may be possible through the use of NGOs and private philanthropic funding, however, as a democratic nation with working political and financial systems it would seem logical to include the government in the equation, as a centralised body that has the infrastructure to administer a truly national program. A national policy can give a clear structure and framework for the development of cultural identity by identifying areas of excellence, as well as areas in need of support. It can assist the growth of creative industries and foster opportunities for meaningful employment in the arts sector (Cunningham 2011). National cultural policy can also provide mechanisms for agencies and interpreters to highlight certain unique artists and groups who exemplify the values and ideals of the nation in both process and product. The question then arises as to what extent we allow the government to control artistic and cultural activity; in funding, in censorship and in promotion. If the government develops the policy as a guideline, rather than as law, then who is ultimately responsible for deciding on what works get funded, administered and promoted? Alternatively, if there is no administration, or at least curatorship, then how do we know what outcomes are being met, and if indeed a national cultural identity is being developed? By examining the development of cultural policies in other nations we can gain some insight into how we might continue to develop our own policy and identity, and hopefully avoid some of the issues related to ownership, consultation, management and control. There must be some merit in having a national cultural policy as many other countries have developed (or in some cases imposed) one. The website ‘World Cultural Profiles’ (IFACCA 2014) lists the cultural profiles of 24 countries, and refers to a sister site which hosts a further 30 European profiles. Resources such as this free-access, nonmembership site can be used as reference and comparison tools by anyone with an interest in cultural policy and cultural identity. There are also examples being provided by our Asia-Pacific neighbours, including New Zealand. In research conducted for The Social Report 2010 (a quasi-cultural policy document created for the B Harrison – essay 1 – Brokering Partnerships

government of New Zealand) it was posited that “Cultural identity is an important contributor to people’s wellbeing. Identifying with a particular culture helps people feel they belong and gives them a sense of security. An established cultural identity has also been linked with positive outcomes in areas such as health and education.8 It provides access to social networks, which provide support and shared values and aspirations. Social networks can help to break down barriers and build a sense of trust between people, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as social capital.” (Government of New Zealand Ministry of Social Development 2010). The development of policy to support identity is not without its problems, however, and it is imperative that equitable, fair and transparent process be applied to the gathering of data and information that provide the basis for policy development.

POLICY AND EQUITY “…an autocratic government might use a cultural policy as a statement of how the nation’s people should behave and how information can or cannot flow.” (Caust 2014) In her 2014 essay, “Cultural wars in an Australian context: challenges in developing a national cultural policy”, Josephine Caust highlights the need for an equitable and transparent process in cultural policy development. Who is a part of the consultative process is as important as what outcomes are derived from the process, as this inevitably informs the relevance and accessibility of the policy guidelines to those engaging in cultural practice. By consulting a diverse range of people when developing policy it would be hoped that no one ‘voice’ will shout louder than the others, and that we would have a range of stimulating ideas and ways of developing culture and the arts in Australia. Prior to the development of ‘Creative Australia’, Professor David Throsby, a professor of economics, provided an interesting take on developing culture in Australia by saying that a cultural policy needed to foster economic development of creative and cultural works “…the whole way in which we ought to conceptualise the creative industries is a series of concentric circles with the creative arts right in the centre, and that you won't have a dynamic, creative economy right across the board unless you have a flourishing, dynamic creative arts right in the middle.”9

THE BENEFITS OF A NATIONAL POLICY Economic benefits aside, there are a number of other positive potential outcomes from developing a national cultural policy and identity. These include:

8 9

(Durie 2002) Sourced from a transcript of a panel presentation (Watt 2006)

B Harrison – essay 1 – Brokering Partnerships

1. Driving a spirit of national collectivism, a way of lessening feelings of diaspora for those who have sought refuge in our country after being forced to flee from their countries of birth (Bhugra 2005) 2. Providing formal recognition of fields of cultural and artistic endeavour 3. A reduction of cultural hegemony10 by means of including ‘everyday’ people in the consultative process 4. Provision of clear guidelines for state and local councils, and private funding bodies, in relation to supporting cultural development activities at various levels of society, in diverse community settings 5. Frameworks on which to build not only cultural works today, but also to develop and adapt in the future to meet as-yet unseen needs and expressions of culture within our society 6. The capacity to engage a diverse range of peoples from around the nation in dialogue about culture and identity and how we choose to present ourselves to the world 7. Wider acceptance of a diverse range of culture being a part of the greater national culture

Utopian idealism aside, these possibilities are nonetheless exciting, inspiring and provide something to strive for when engaging in discourse and development related to cultural policy in Australia. Should the current government wish to completely ignore the potential of the ‘Creative Australia’ policy simply because they were not the progenitors is politically naïve and should raise the ire of anyone who objects to taxpayer funds being wasted at a Federal level.

CONCLUSION Although we have by no means achieved the pinnacle of cultural development with the ‘Creative Australia’ policy, we now, at least, have a more distinct foundation on which to build and grow our national cultural identity. The conversation on how we define ourselves culturally as a nation, and what we value in cultural terms, has moved forward a step from ‘Creative Nation’, and we are able to critically reflect on our successes, and to consider the future, in a global context. A national cultural policy is not only desirable in assisting us to develop and maintain an international identity, but it is also essential for us to see ourselves as a culturally diverse and creative country.

10

(Gramsci 1971)

B Harrison – essay 1 – Brokering Partnerships

Bibliography Arts Council England. The value of arts and culture to people and society – an evidence review. March 14, 2014. http://www.ifacca.org/publications/2014/03/14/value-arts-and-culture-people-and-society-evidence/ (accessed September 1, 2014). Australia Council for the Arts. Arts in Daily Life. Government Research, Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia, 2014. Bhugra, D., Becker, M.A. "Migration, cultural bereavement and cultural identity." World Psychiatry, 2005: 18-24. Bourdieu, Pierre. "The Forms Of Capital." In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, by J. Richardson (Ed.), 241-258. New York: Greenwood, 1986. —. The State Nobility. Bloomington: Stanford University Press, 1996. Caust, Josephine. "Cultural wars in an Australian context: challenges in developing a national cultural policy." International Journal of Cultural Policy, March 5, 2014: 1-16. Commonwealth of Australia. Creative Australia - The National Cultural Policy. Government Policy Document, Canberra: Licensed from the Commonwealth of Australia under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence., 2013. —. Creative Nation, Commonwealth Cultural Policy. October 1994. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/21336/20031011-0000/www.nla.gov.au/creative.nation/contents.html (accessed September 4, 2014). Cunningham, Stuart. Where the jobs are: why a national cultural policy matters. October 14, 2011. http://theconversation.com/where-the-jobs-are-why-a-national-cultural-policy-matters-3430 (accessed September 1, 2014). Durie, M., Fitzgerald, E., Kingi, T., McKinley, S. and Stevenson, B. Māori Specific Outcomes and Indicators: A Report Prepared for Te Puni Kōkiri. Report to government, Wellington: Te Puni Kōkiri, 2002. Gardiner-Garden, Dr John. Parliament of Australia, Commonwealth Arts Policy and Administration. May 7, 2009. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN /0809/ArtsPolicy (accessed September 1, 2014). Government of New Zealand Ministry of Social Development. "Cultural Identity." The Social Report 2010. 2010. http://socialreport.msd.govt.nz/cultural-identity/ (accessed September 10, 2014). Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, translated and edited by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. New York: International Publishers, 1971. Gray, Clive. "Democratic cultural policy: democratic forms and policy." International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol. 18, No. 5, November 2012: 505-518. IFACCA. World Cultural Profiles Home. 2014. http://www.worldcp.org/ (accessed September 9, 2014). Mukanga, Florence. "Zimbabwe." World CP, Internationa Database of Cultural Policies. August 31, 2012. http://www.worldcp.org/zimbabwe.php (accessed September 4, 2014). Perrin, Thomas, and Jean-Cédric Delvainquière. "France." World CP, International Database of Cultural Policies. July 26, 2013. http://www.worldcp.org/france.php (accessed September 4, 2014). B Harrison – essay 1 – Brokering Partnerships

Prodnik, Jernej. "A Note on the Ongoing Processes of Commodification: From the Audience Commodity to the Social Factory." triple-C: Cognition, Communication, Co-operation (Vol. 10, No. 2) - special issue "Marx is Back", 2012: 274 - 301. Seares, Margaret. "Australia." World CP, International Database of Cultural Policies. December 26, 2013. http://www.worldcp.org/australia.php (accessed September 4, 2014). Watt, Jarrod. "Does Australia Need A National Cultural Policy?" ABC North Coast. August 6, 2006. http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2006/08/06/1706342.htm (accessed September 9, 2014). Whitlam, Gough. "The Whitlam Government 1972-1975." p. 553. Ringwood: Viking Press, 1985.

B Harrison – essay 1 – Brokering Partnerships