Re)defining Cultural Development: Paradigm Shifts in Brazilian Cultural Policy

(Re)defining Cultural Development: Paradigm Shifts in Brazilian Cultural Policy

Julijana Nicha Department of Politics Erasmus Mundus Master Programme in Public Policy: Governance and Development 2015/2016 Word Count: 12,116

Julijana Nicha

Abstract The objective of the research is to understand what cultural development is and how its ideas changed overtime. Brazil is taken as case study due to its active participation in international discussions on the subject and its distinguishing cultural polices. The question is addressed by studying on macro level the institutional paradigmatic changes in cultural development, and on micro level the programme Points of Culture which is considered a best practice of cultural policy. The research contributes to the literature of cultural development and policymaking because it highlights the importance of ideas in relation to socially inclusive policies. The narrative is structured historically, tracing the emergence and paradigmatic change of the ideas of cultural development in Brazil from the emergence of the concept in 1937, until 2010. Discursive Institutionalism is used as theoretical framework. Key entrepreneurial agents, who construct the meaning of the concept within an institutional setting, use their background ideational and their foreground discursive abilities as mean of institutional continuation or change. The theoretical framework is complemented by research methods as case study, interviews and document analysis. Drawing from the case of Brazil, the main argument states that development has historically followed the dominant economic streams, and cultural development has simply been an arm of economic development. Development policies solemnly focusing on economic advantages result in social and political exclusion of certain groups, such as traditional cultures. From 1937 until 2003, the strong presence of the neoliberal and conservative delvelopmentalism discourse coalitions resulted in large investment in the classical arts and the limited development of the cultural industries. The paradigm from 2003 to 2010, hybrid developmentalism, presents that a socialist stream of (economic) development is responsible for a shift in this thinking, due to the core ideas socialist discourse coalitions share, that is closing the inequality gap and providing equally for all social groups.

ii

Julijana Nicha

Para meu amor, Francisco Cereno! Obrigada por compartilhar essa viagem comigo. Obrigada por escutar e apoiar minhas ideas. Obrigada por seu amor, paciência e compreendimento.

За моите родители.

Ti Maja shi Papu.

iii

Julijana Nicha

Acknowledgments I would like to thank everyone who helped in any way for this research to take its shape.

Special thanks to Sebastian Gerlic for assisting in the formulation of the title of the thesis, his valuable comments, as well as his kind overlooking of the development of the research. I also want to thank Mr. Lee Pergler, Maria Cecilia Gomes and Luiza Teixera for helping me form the ideas by brainstorming with me at the beginning of the research journey. My colleagues from the Mundus Mapp programme for following and commenting on the research process. Thanks to Jose Marcio Barros and Alexandre Barbalho for sharing their articles on Brazilian cultural policies. Sincere gratitude to all involved in the interview process, through skype, email and even in person.

Finally and most importantly, I would like to thank Karim Knio and Alejandro Pena, my two supervisors who have guided me and unselfishly shared their experience and knowledge.

iv

Julijana Nicha

Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. iv Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ vi Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 Research Question and Methods ........................................................................................ 2 Chapter I: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 5 Cultural Development as a political process ...................................................................... 5 Theoretical Framework....................................................................................................... 8 Methodology..................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter II: Paradigm shifts in Brazilian cultural development policies ............................... 14 Variants of Developmentalism(1937 –1964) ................................................................... 14 Embedding of Neoliberalism (1964-2002) ....................................................................... 17 Hybrid Developmentalism (2003-2010)........................................................................... 21 Chapter III:From culture as an industry to culture as a way of life ...................................... 24 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 31 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 35 Annexes ................................................................................................................................ 40 Table I: Streams of Development thinking....................................................................... 40 Table II: Document Analysis ............................................................................................ 41

v

Julijana Nicha

Abbreviations

vi

Julijana Nicha

Introduction Cultural development is a contemporary phenomenon, which has been rapidly implemented into policy. The emergence and change of the concept overtime hasresulted in different practices due to the influence by various actors and ideas. Currently, its broad meaning has been translated in policymaking as culture for development and culture in development (UNESCO). The first stresses the importance of culture in all social spheres and the latter focuses on the development of the creative industries1. Brazil followed the international trend and embodied the idea of cultural development, whichmeaning has been transformed in the local context. The continuity of the concept was shaped by the dominant governance ideas that followed an economic trend of development. Historically, Brazilian cultural policies addressed greater focus on culture in development, implementing policies for the high culture2 andnot acknowledging the diversity of the traditional cultures. In 20043, the introduction of the programme Points of Culture causeda turning point in the paradigm. The programme offered recognition, social inclusion and financial assistance for cultural practices of traditional groups, arguing that contributed to the sustainable development of the country. The program is also internationally recognized and replicatedin countries as Colombia, Mexico and the United Kingdom (Kozymka, 2014). The problem that the research identifies is the historic exclusion of traditional cultures from policymaking which directly affects the process of cultural development. Moreover, the public discourse on cultural development does not reflect the policies. Besides the discursive inclusion of traditional cultures, in practice the target group of Brazilian cultural policies have been the high

1

Creative industries include all industries subject to the patent law, such as design, fashion, literature, video games, etc. 2 High culture refers to the classical art, painting, ballet, opera, etc., usually originated in Europe. 3 President Lula took office in December 2003, but his policy implementations started on 2004. Thus, the research will consider the study from 2004.

1

Julijana Nicha

cultures. The exclusion of traditional communities as social groups, not only slows down the development process, but it also deepens social inequality. Thus, the question the research seeks to answer is: whatis cultural development in Brazil and how this concept has changed overtime? As the research shows, besides the recent attempt to foster traditional cultures, the different streams of cultural development have focused on the economic development of culture and have continued to marginalize the traditional cultural expressions in Brazil (Barbalho, 2007; Kozymka, 2014). In order to understand what the ideas about cultural development are, the research delivers contextual understanding of the meaning(s) of cultural development in Brazil from 1937 until 2010 by studying the economic paradigm shifts in relation to the ideas of cultural development.Moreover, itidentifies the paradigm from 2003 until 2010 as exceptional due to its socialist stream of understanding development.

Research Question and Methods The concept cultural development entered in Brazilian public discourse through external actors, such as the United Nations (UN) organ for cultural issues – the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Before the 1980s, UN agencies associated culture with backwardness and barbarism, considering it an obstacle to modernism and development. However, the results of this thinking were increased poverty and failure of implementation of international projects. These results caused a change in thinking about culture, thus UN agencies focused on the importance of culture in policymaking (De Beukelaer, 2015). The Brazilian thinking of cultural development has emerged in line with the international one. In Brazil the different governing regimes were widely influenced by European classical arts, and later on adopted all UNESCO conventions on culture. Historically, traditional cultural expressions were repressed and high culture was highly valued. In 1930s, the regime of Getulio Vargas recognized the important role of culture in identity creation and development, thus he is the first Brazilian Head of State which institutionalized cultural policies (Barbalho, 2007).The

2

Julijana Nicha

continuation and change of the national structure and institutions influenced the type of cultural policies. Extensive reading of the literature on the subject informs that there is limited research on the historic development and interpretation of the concept of cultural development in Brazil, as well as its policy implications upon traditional cultures. Secondly, even though there are discursive developments and acknowledgment of traditional cultural diversity in the Brazilian Constitution, the cultural policies do not reflect the discourse. Thus, there is a gap in the national discourse for cultural development and the policy implementations (Barbalho, 2007). The problem this research tackles is the historical exclusion of traditional groups from policymaking due to limited understanding of the role of culture for development. Dominant ideas about development are directly reflected in policies which affect the status of traditional cultures in society. The identification, study and analysis of paradigm shifts is important for understanding the concept because it shapes cultural policies and constructs the future policy decisions. The research seeks to understand whatis cultural development in Brazil and how this concept has changed overtime? Moreover, how does the programme Points of Culture reflect the 2003-2010 stream of thinking about development? The questionsare studied on macro and micro level. The literature review covered in Chapter I introduces the concepts and the general emergence of the idea of cultural policies and development in Brazil. Moreover, it presents the methodological and theoretical approach of the study.The research takes a constructivist approach and traces the process of cultural development through paradigm shifts (Hall, 1993). It argues that the ideas for cultural development stream from the dominant thinking about development, which is economic in nature. The methodological design is historical and qualitative. It draws from Schmidt‟s Discursive Institutionalism (DI) and analyses the „background ideational abilities‟ (BIA) and the meaning of context, and the „foreground discursive abilities‟ (FDA) and the logic of communication (2008; 2011).The discourse is studied through policy practices and discourse coalitions in order to analyse the policies under study.

3

Julijana Nicha

Individual ideas are taken as variables because they influence policies and guide social action which put the collective knowledge into practice (Adler, 1997, p.322). Moreover, case study, interviews and document analysis, are used as complementary research methods. Chapter II focuses on a macro level. It takes a historic perspective and parallels the economic-driven development agenda and the emergence, continuity and change of the cultural policies through the identification of paradigm shifts in ideas about cultural development from 1937 until 2010. Within this period, five paradigms are identified. The paradigm shifts follow a pattern with a change of governance in Brazil, because as Hall explains, another paradigm begins when its supporters take the position of policymakers and occupy the operational positions to institutionalize the paradigm (1993, p.280). Chapter III focuses on a micro level, by analysing the program Points of Culture, from its beginning in 2003 until the end of the presidency of Lula, in 2010. It studies the programme of the policy Cultura Viva, the Points of Culture which promised protection and promotion of traditional cultures and relates the findings with the dominant stream of thinking about cultural development. The research will not cover the later developments of the program Points of Culture (from 2010 until present, during the presidency of Dilma Russeff) due to the recent occurrence of the phenomena and lack of reliable data whose results can be thoroughly analysed. A focused study of this paradigm will contribute to the understanding of the relation between dominant economic thoughts for development and the status of culture in society.

4

Julijana Nicha

Chapter I: Literature Review This chapter introduces the literature on institutionalization of cultural development and the debate on development in a global context. Additionally, the literature on governance, paradigm shift and discursive institutionalism, will be covered, taking them as theoretical framework. The primary literature on methodology departs from Schmidt‟s „background ideational abilities‟ (BIA) and „foreground discursive abilities‟ (FDA), but it is complemented with interviews and document analysis.

Cultural Development as a political process Development is a multi-layered process, including economic, cultural, political, environmental, industrial aspect (De Beukelaer, 2012). Furthermore, it is an institutive process, embedded in other institutions and all social spheres (Polanyi, 1965). States execute their development strategy through institutionalized national plans that mostly underline economic development ideas as departure point for the entire societal development (Sen, 2004). Pereira defines national development strategy as “a set of economic-development oriented values, ideas, laws and policies conducive to the creation of opportunities for risk-taking entrepreneurs to invest and innovate” (2009, p.4-5). He continues by arguing that development ideas gain meaning when materialized in institutions and laws that respond to social demands and economic environment (ibid). Leftwich, on the other hand, argues that alongside the economic growth, development needs to be understood as political process which governance differs in the manner of management, coordination and distribution of resources (2000, p.7). Development as institutive process is the result of people‟s thoughts, expressions and actions, thus, the institutions are both, constrain for the actor and a structure that can be changed by the actor himself (Schmidt, 2008). Institutions are material constructions shaped by people‟s collective understanding of the material and their interactions in it. The collective knowledge guides people

5

Julijana Nicha

how to use their material abilities and power (Adler, 1997). Thus, social reality is collectively produced and reproduced by social actors through their practices and shared system of meaning which frame the rules of the game and the consequences of the processes. The ideas of cultural development are materialized through cultural policies that tackle governmental decisions and activities related to arts and culture (Mulcahy, 2006). Cultural policies run across different social fields in the private and public sphere, including education, health, communication, etc. which can have potential impact on the cultural sphere (Princeton University, 1999). Culture is not created by governments, but by the cultural diversity of the people, however the understanding and definition of culture by governments affects the decision making and the behaviour of the people (ibid). Thus, this research focuses on the definition of culture understood by formal institutions based on norms and values upon which they shape policies. The implementation of cultural development into policy is a long process of negotiation between the formal, the informal institutions and the different ideas about development which contribute to the complexity of development policymaking, making it be a slow process of social learning (Hall, 1993). That being said, only in the past decade, the potential of cultural industries has been considered part of the development process (Hesmondhalgh and Patt, 2005). In the 1980s, culture and traditional cultural expressions were seen as obstacle to development and modernization. Policies and practices by the UN institutions caused deepening of the poverty gap, which urged for rethinking of the status of culture. The term cultural development emerged in the 1990s with the publication of the report “Our Creative Diversity” and since then culture became the missing puzzle for endogenous development (WCCD, 1996). From the 1990s, the literature on culture and development merged and culture entered in the policy debate (De Beukelaer, 2015). Britain and Australia were the first countries to identify the potential of culture as drive for employment and economic development and to institutionalize cultural policies. Their policies were taken as reference for other countries (Hesmondhalgh and Pratt, 2013).

6

Julijana Nicha

UNESCO is the international body that motivates its members to develop policies on cultural issues through conventions and declarations. UNESCO‟s Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity (2001) and the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005) are main documents used as reference for national cultural polices. At the Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity, culture is defined as “the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, values systems, traditions and believes” (2001). Additionally, Maraña complements that culture determinates the structure and context embedded in subjective behaviours in which the development process operates (2010, p.5). De Beukelaer and Frietas challenge UNESCO‟s definition by arguing that culture is more than identity, but ”it is the fabric from which transformative ideas emerge, breaking boundaries and establishing new human and social development paths” (2015, p.208). Additionally, they argue that in the development process, culture cannot be simply understood as arts or identity, but needs to acknowledge the social differences and target all social groups. Policy exclusion of social groups does not contribute to the process of development (ibid). Concerning development, UNESCO suggests that the cultural dimension of development is a strategy with two dimensions. On the one hand, the development of the cultural sector through the creative industries (culture in development) and on the other hand, the overall process of development (culture for development) integrating culture in all policies (education, health, environment, etc.). This strategy would result in greater social cohesion (UNESCO, 2014, emphasis added). UNESCO‟s reasoning of the role of culture in and for development presents a very broad and ambiguous understanding of the term that is interpreted in different ways by different actors (De Beukelaer and Freitas, 2015). More recently, the continuity of the concept of development embraced a sustainable dimension. The idea emerged in the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Sustainable development refers to the cautious usage of

7

Julijana Nicha

resources that meet the needs of current generation without compromising the needs of future generations. Sustainability as a concept emerged from environmental concerns to which in an additional note, culture is understood as an instrument for its achievement (UNESCO, n.d.). Sustainable development, however, is the final result of environmental, economic, social and cultural development. Thus, in this case, cultural sustainability is considered a forth pillar of development, along with environmental responsibility, economic wellbeing and social equity (Soini and Birkeland, 2013, p.213).Critics as De Beukelaer and Frietas argue that the 2005 Convention offers limited conceptualization of development because cultural expressions are subject to private funding which is not enough for the process of development and it excludes the understanding of cultural expressions as a way of life which is “inherently related to sustainability” (2015, p.204-5).

Theoretical Framework The research departs from a constructivist perspective, analysing discursively paradigm changes by using the role of ideas, discourse and actors in order to explain institutional change and continuity of cultural development in Brazil. Discursive institutionalism is an analytical framework which takes discourse and ideas seriously in institutional context and in contrast to the other three Institutionalisms, Historical (HI), Rational Choice (RCI) and Sociological Institutionalism (SI), DI successfully explains institutional change. It analyses the duality of institutions, as constrains and enablers of people‟s actions. The BIA are internalised by the actors which allows them to act within the existing institutions and the constructed rules that results in maintaining and continuation of the institutions. FDA are the abilities to think and act critically, which allows actors to challenge and change the institutional settings through individual or collective action (Schmidt, 2008; 2012). Ideas manifest in different forms and types at different level and change at different pace, incrementally or revolutionary. Hall distinguishes among three order changes (1993). First order change occurs in targets modification, keeping the same structure and template. Second order policy change is a change of policy instruments with the objective of better implementing the same goals.

8

Julijana Nicha

Finally, the third order policy change corresponds to a paradigm shift i.e. a change of the underlying assumptions of the ruling theory (Hall, 1993). Hall‟s classification, though, fails to acknowledge the smaller changes in ideas, or gradual layering of new policies one on top of the other which could lead to revolutionary change in a slower pace (Schmidt and Carstensen, 2016). Moreover, Hall‟s usage of paradigm shift fails to describe how and why the shift happens, as well as why one idea dominates over another rivalry idea. Schmidt fills in this gap by arguing that third order changes are difficult to be identified if they are not revolutionary, particularly because BIA are difficult to identify and contest. In that case, studying policy and programme changes which are a reflection of the third order, allows the actor to challenge debate and contest the dominant ideas through his FDA (Schmidt, 2011). Schmidt‟s fundamental argument is that institutional change occurs through discourse as an interactive process and a tool of communicative action through which actors generate their ideas and organise in discourse coalitions (Schmidt, 2012). Discourse coalition members promote policy programmes and develop arguments that policy actors adopt and later generate into policy. Moreover, she argues that ideas can be cognitive or normative - depending of the level they are expressed - policy, programme or philosophy level (2011). On policy level, specific policies are proposed as solutions; on the programme level are the general assumptions and frames of reference that shape the principles of policy and on philosophy level are the worldviews or the underlying ideas and values about knowledge and society (Schmidt, 2008).Policy and programme ideas are foreground discursive because they are debated and changed constantly. Philosophy ideas are the ideas within which policy values are constructed, and thus are background ideational ideas, reactive to change only in times of crises (Schmidt, 2008). In that case, cognitive ideas are elaborating the logic of policy necessity and the normative ideas are persuasive, following the logic of appropriateness (Schmidt, 2008). Schmidt also explains better the role of ideas, than Hall‟s usage of ideas as battles, which is very instrumental. She argues that ideas are substantive content of discourse whose resonance

9

Julijana Nicha

manifests through discourse (Schmidt, 2012). Ideas in discourse are articulated by actors, as sentiment beings, in formal and informal institutional contexts which they constantly challenge and pose fluid ideas about institutions. Institutional change happens through the logic of communication or the process of meaning making (Schmidt, 2008). Schmidt unpacks the process of meaning making though BIA and FDA, and explains the logic of communication as the agent‟s articulation between the two. In that sense, the institutional context within which ideas and discourses are articulated is the setting in which meaning is created (Schmidt, 2012). Ideas are articulated through coordinative discourse by policy actors who construct ideas, shape, influenceand adopt policies or communicative discourse through political actors who deliver their ideas to the general public in order to shape the public opinion. Both, coordinative construction and communicative policy legitimization are interrelated (Schmidt, 2012, emphasis added). Pereira argues that the change of ideas is a constant process in which social actors play an important role (2011).Hall argues that authorities are central to the paradigm changes, thus the movement from one paradigm to another is preceded by a change in authority (1993). Discursive change and meaning-making is created in the institutional context which is dominated by specific elite or discursive coalition at certain time. This means that elite dominated ideas exercise power through top-down discourse. However, Schmidt argues that power cannot be defined simply by the actor‟s position in society. She argues that actors generate power from discourse and ideas and actors give power to their ideas, particularly when they are able to set the agenda as public entrepreneurs. If agents do not occupy a position of agenda setters, than they give power to their ideas through discourse coalitions who adopt the social construct of the idea. Discourse allows actors to persuade the public to change institutions by forming coalitions, that is a group of experts and non-experts that share a social construct (Pereira, 2011). Power is also derived from the audience of the idea, how it is accepted and supported by them (Schmidt and, 2012). This process is facilitated through actor`s FDA which allows them to criticise and change institutions while acting in them. FDA also explain how ideas can go bottom-up, facilitated through media, interest groups,

10

Julijana Nicha

policy forums, public intellectuals, social movements and everyday people as opinion and will formers. The advantages of DI as theoretical framework are that it takes ideas and discourse seriously. HI can also explain the paradigmatic changes however, it assumes that the institutional design creates a lock-in effect and critical moments of change are not clearly explained. DI uses ideas and discourse to understand how historical events are changed, and understands change in a more evolutionary manner. Consequently, DI analyses even small changes and it does not focus only on the paradigmatic ones. Additionally, HI uses a static explanation of agency, by using the explanation of RI and SI as interest-oriented or norms-based. DI interactive process between ideas and discourse does not offer a mere interpretation of a text, but it studies the meaning of ideas and discourse through interaction. Moreover, constructivism provides theoretical and empirical understanding of institutions and change by studying the structure and the agency, treating them as interrelated. Particularly, DI avoids the weaknesses of rational theorists which focus on the structural conditions of a phenomenon (Adler, 1997). The study of paradigm shifts is not simply historical overview, but offers an understanding of how concepts have emerged, developed, shaped and changed over time, how actors influenced the change and what were the underlying conditions for it. Acknowledging history is important for the understanding of processes, of the notions that existed before and shaped the changes that have taken place. Transformation and change are always from one point to another, but we cannot explain the current state unless we make sense of the previous processes.

Methodology The research adopts historical and qualitative methods. Schmidt‟s link between BIA and FDA is used as tool of explaining the resonance of ideas and paradigm shifts. Other methods, such as case study, interviews and document analysis are used for the process of interpretation.

11

Julijana Nicha

Brazil as case study represents a unique case of cultural policies in relation to cultural development as a contemporary phenomenon (Yin, 1994). Its programme Points of Culture has been internationally recognized and replicated in other countries such as Colombia, Mexico and the United Kingdom (Kozmyka, 2014). This approach also avoids generalizations for the concept of cultural development and presents it only in the context of Brazil. The processes of paradigm shifts is analysed through „background ideational abilities‟ (BIA) and „foreground discursive abilities‟ (FDA) in order to explain the change of ideas and institutions (Hall, 1993; Schmidt, 2008; 2010; 2011). Moreover, the research focuses on actors` discourse in institutional setting by using Schmidt‟s‟ coordinative discourse which explains the way policy actors construct ideas. Coordinative discourses are analysed in the Chapter II, where paradigm shifts and streams of thinking about culture and development are further analysed. Communicative discourse explains the discursive expressions of a paradigm between discourse coalitions and non-experts and it will be particularly useful for the Chapter III and the interpretation of the programme Points of Culture. Discourse coalitions study the interdependence and power relations among all social actors that allow the research to present a holistic and inclusive study of policy making, legitimization and implementation (Risse, 2004). Additionally, governmental authorities are studied as entrepreneurial agents, catalysts of change who articulate ideas of various discourse coalitions. The mutual constitutive link between BIA and FDA are used as methods of explaining the resonance of ideas (Schmidt, 2008; 2012). Interviews are one of the most important sources for case study. They contributed greatly in the identification of the different discourse coalitions presented by experts and non-experts in the field (Tellis, 1997). Moreover, the interview questions are formulated in accordance to the actor‟s usage of coordinative or communicative discourse. Twenty interviews via email, Skype and personal encounters were conducted with government officials from the Ministry of Culture (MinC), representatives from different Points of Culture and intellectuals. A snowballing effect was used where every interviewee indicated another person that would accept to be part of the study.Six

12

Julijana Nicha

from the twenty interviews were selectively used in the research. All interviews are anonymous which allowed the interviewee to provide critical answers without compromising their position. Document analysis is a complementary methodology of the theoretical framework (Table 2). The documents were mainly used to trace the change of meaning overtime of development and culture in Brazilian policymaking. Furthermore, the comparison among broad range of documents (academic publications, dissertations, governmental documents, speeches and journalistic articles) verified the reliability and validity of the information. Document analysis also helped with the formulation of questions for the interviews (Bowen, 2009).

13

Julijana Nicha

Chapter II: Paradigm shifts in Brazilian cultural development policies The development of cultural policies in Brazil followed the international trend. Since its independence from Portugal, Brazil has gone under constant political changeswhich have introduced different ideas about governance and development. The introduction of different ideas resulted in paradigm changes as turning points for cultural development polices (Barbalho, 2007). As Bielschowsky argues, the ideas of cultural development parallel the dominant policies for economic development (1991). The research merges the literatures on economic paradigm shift and the cultural policies in order to trace the process of cultural development (Bresser-Pereira, 2009; Cedro, 2013). Third order changes (paradigm shifts) from 1937 until2010 are studied through policies and programmes because philosophic ideas are embedded in them, but they are questioned and debated constantly by actors. The three levels of ideas are hardly inseparable, particularly when they become accepted and not challenged. The research identifies key events, actors and ideas that are relevant to the narrative andstarted or continued the paradigm, by focusing on the actors‟discursive interactions through coordinative and communicative discourses (see Table 1) (Schmidt and Carstensen, 2016).

Variants of Developmentalism(1937 –1964) The period from 1937 until 1964 is marked by different ideas about developmentalism. Streams of nationalist, social and non-nationalist developmentalism emerged over time by different discourse coalitions. The period from 1937 to 1945, also known as the Vargas era, is a period in which ideas about development emerge in Brazilian society. The main assumption behind Vargas governance

14

Julijana Nicha

ideas was economic developmentalism, arguing that development is understood in a linear direction, from traditional to industrialized stage. Developmentalism theory stressed industrialization, promotion of people‟s welfare, increased national economic performance and economic autonomy from the international community and donors. The promotion of welfare and economic stability provided primary the source of regime legitimacy. The aim was gaining greater independence and industrial development in order to break the national dependency from richer and more industrially developed countries. In the context of Brazil, these ideas were adopted in a slightly different manner, with a greater focus on nationalism. Bielschowsky4 refers to this variant as national developmentalism because the state assumed the role of main actordelivering the objectives and providing balance between state and market intervention (1991). Additionally, national developmentalism is reflected within the growth strategy relying on import substitution, protectionism and planned industrialization (Bielschowsky, 1991). Culture had a particular role in creating the national identity. Prior to Vargas, the cultural sector in Brazil was not institutionalized and had limited appearance in education thought the French Artistic Mission that taught European classical art (Barbalho, 2007). Vargas established the Ministry of Education and Health, responsible for cultural programmes, as well as the Department of Print and Propaganda, among others which addressed thenew policy issues. The institutions were closely monitored by the regime which conducted censorship and shaped the national imagery internationally (Barbalho, 2007; Moreira, n.d.). Vargas` normative discourse used ideas as frames of reference for policymaking. The ideas that were not accepted prior to Vargas, have now become national symbols, such as the Carnival. Selected elites and intellectuals were given the responsibility to shape Brazilian culture among which Gilberto Freyre and Mario de Andrade. Brazilian identity became a mixture of different ethnic and religious groups, including Indigenous, European settlers and Afro-Brazilians; feijoada, 4

Bielschowsky saw developmentalism as Eurocentric theory burdened by two main disadvantages: a) linear understanding of development, from traditional to modern/industrialized stage; b) Eurocentric approach in its approach which tries to universalize the stage to development (1991).

15

Julijana Nicha

samba and football were constructed as national symbols and the Carnival as national heritage (Silva, 2001). In regard to the Carnival, which is an afro-Brazilian ritual, only certain dances, songs and rituals were allowed to be performed, banning others by law (Barbalho, 2007). Books as Masters and Slaves by Freyre became the backbone of national identity, however they were very selective of what kind of culture would represent. The communicative discourse was delivered by the military regime which enjoying nearly no political resistance. The dominant coalition was hardly challenged due to the oppressive nature of the governance, thus the third order policy was not seriously confronted (Junior, n.d.). Simultaneously, a neoliberal discourse coalition was present, but did not challenge the policies that were supportive of modern industrialisation (Bielschowsky, 1991). Ideas about development strengthened after the Vargas era and the democratization period, from 1946 until 1964. The end of the Vargas era was marked by the thinking of Celso Furtado who founded the social developmentalism theory, deriving from national developmentalism. This theory was challenged by the non-nationalist developmantalism coalition which encouraged foreign investment in the national industrialization process. Social developmentalism theory was in support of constant industrialization, national production, substitution of imported goodsand decrease unemployment rates and the poverty gap. Their main assumption was that massive job creation, increased wage and redistribution of income, in the long run would increase productivity, consumption, innovation and thus, growth. (Bielschowsky, 1991; Besser-Pereira, 2009, emphasis added). Moreover, the theory draws from Keynesian understanding of state-led process of development. The ideas propagated by Furtado, gained further reliability when he became part of the team of the United Nation Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNECLAC), a member of UNESCO‟s World Commissionon Culture and Development. His legacy continued as Minister of Culture under the presidency of Jose Sarney. Most importantly, Furtado is the first agent who formally introduced the idea of cultural development in Brazilian policy (Kay, 2005).

16

Julijana Nicha

The social-developmentalism discourse coalition was challenged by the smaller in number non-nationalist development coalition that prioritized private-based development practices combining national and foreign capital. The proponents argued that the state should play lesser role in industrial planning. This coalition became stronger during the second mandate of Vargas (19501954) with the construction of the National Economic Development Bank, which ultimately finished the era Vargas by using unbearable pressures via sabotages. The main agent of this minor coalition was the economist Roberto Campos who opposed state involvement in the development process (Bielschowsky, 1991). The shared objectives of both developmentalist theorists were continuous industrialization. Social developmentalists were concerned with resolving issues such as poverty and cultural backwardness. At this time, traditional cultural practices were considered backwards and in need of modernization. Non-nationalist developmentalists, in contrast, were not as concerned with policies regarding neither social development nor culture. In general, the elite were still `in charge` of the cultural policies, but this time of maintaining the identity created in the Vargas era.In 1953, the Ministry of Education and Health was dissembled and theMinistry of Education and Culture was created. Barbalho argues that the policies polarised the elite and the traditional cultures, treating the traditional cultures as „the other‟, a reasoning that allowed the elite culture to distinguish itself (2007). The coordinative discourse was mainly propagated by Celso Furdado, as the intellectual of the era and the communicative discourse was weak, done through media mostly. Meanwhile, newly emerging cultural trends such as Bossa Nova, the beginning steps of Brazilian cinema and modern painting were not addressed formally through policies (Barbalho, 2007).

Embedding of Neoliberalism (1964-2002) Greater turn happens from 1964 onwards due to the foreground presence of neoliberal ideas. From 1964 Brazil was governed by number of military coups, which occurred as a suppressive

17

Julijana Nicha

responseagainst emerging communist ideas in the country (Silva, 2001). They brought another paradigm shift to the policies of cultural development, from developmentalsim to neoliberal orthodoxy. The governance practiced conservative modernization ideas and traditional orthodox values (Cedro, 2013). The ideas complemented dependent development of foreign relation and capital and both currents adopted neoliberalism as an underlying thought (Bielschowsky, 1991). Culture followed an industrial logic, where the state invested heavily in the audio-visual sector and propaganda. Movements such as Tropicalia and New Cinema emerged as a reaction to the heavily censored cultural industries which were seen as a symbol of institutional resistance (Rubim, 2007). The 1970s and 1980s were marked by embeddings of neoliberal and conservative ideas in the economic and social fabric of Brazilian society. The expansion of the Washington Consensus in Latin America also affected the Brazilian coalitions, particularly the conservative which became stronger. The orthodox coalition grew in strength in the 1980s following the economic crisis. The coalitionequated development with traditionalism, populism and backwardness and suggested neoliberalization of institutions – meaning privatization of state owned industries, lifting trade tariffs. A conservative variant of developmentalism was still vaguely present and did not depart far from the orthodox coalition. The main objectives of the orthodox coalition were greater production of luxury goods, termination of the import substitution strategy and implementation of the Washington Consensus policies (Besser-Pereira, 2006). Due to the oppressive nature of the regime, polices were enforced through violent means: imprisonment, torture and censorship. An important policy development for culture was the implementation of the National Plan for Culture, introduced by the government of Ernesto Geisel in 1975. The plan established a link between culture and development and manifested the presence of UNESCO‟s ideas in Brazil (Rubim, 2007). It was developed by the newly opened organ, the Federal Council of Culture (FCC), and its aim was “a full realization of the Brazilian men as a person” and acknowledgment of the Brazilian cultural diversity (Política Nacional de Cultura, 1975). The execution of this program followed global trends, incorporating the international debate on cultural development and

18

Julijana Nicha

acknowledgment of culture as a mean of growth, focusing on its expansion on the national and international market (Silva, 2001). Traditional culture was perceived as an obstacle to development, thus the policies referred mostly to cultural industries and high culture. The culturally tolerant narrative was not reflected in the policy implementation. The values of tolerance, solidarity, pacifism and benevolence listed in the National Policy of Culture were only conceptually used as symbolic language to justify the policies (Silva, 2001). Recording and publishing companies, as well as TV marketing boomed due to the institutionalization of these ideas in institutions as the National Foundation of the Arts (FUNARTE), The Popular Centre of Culture, EMBRAFILME, etc. (Lima, 2014). The creation of FUNARTE, particularly, was a step forward for the development of cultural polices because a distinction between issues on culture and education were recognized. Thus far, each individual federal ministry would tackle cultural policies within its own department and FUNARTE created independent, more centralized debates about cultural policies (Silva, 2001). Aloísio Magalhães, an artist, designer and Secretary of Culture, was the main actor in the institutional and administrational design of the abovementioned institutions (Rubim, 2007). As a parallel wave to the market-led cultural development policies, new cultural movements emerged in Brazil called Tropicallia and New Cinema. Both gave birth to agents such as Gilberto Gil and Caetano Veloso among many others, who had great impact on the public opinion of the mass. The protagonists of Tropicalia who challenged the mainstream ideas were forced into exile. Later on, from 2003, they contributed to the creation of cultural development polices (Silva, 2001).The New Cinema was an independent production and a reaction to the commercial cinematography. It focused on the Braziliannes and the national reality, not streaming away from the governmental objectives for culture, but trying to create new wave, distancing Brazilian cinema from foreign influence (Silva, 2001). However, as in the Vargas period, cultural practices were selected carefully in order to continue the hegemonic image of “the Brazilian man” (ibid).

19

Julijana Nicha

The period from the late 1985 until the beginning of the 2000s is mainly a continuation of the previous orthodox neoliberalism and conservative developmentalism. Even though this period is a continuation of a neoliberal philosophical thinking, a paradigm can occur as “result of layering new policies onto the old in a given policy programme” (Schmidt and Carstensen, 2016, p.11). Building upon the previous paradigm, the current added a socialist dimension to development by introducing specific policies for cultural inclusion of historically marginalized cultures. The two coalitions manifest themselves through the amendment of the Constitution in favour of traditional cultures and implementation of cultural incentive laws, in favour of cultural marketing for private firms (Barbalho, 2007). As mentioned previously, the neoliberal coalition argued for further privatisation of industries, including the cultural industry, and lesser state intervention which, they argue, would resultin greater policy efficiency. The presidencies of Collor de Mello and Ferando Henrique Cardoso furthered the embedding of neoliberal ideas in development. Social developmentalism, in contrast, argued for more socially inclusive growth by reducing inequality and poverty (BesserPereira, 2009). Furtado`s ideas reclaimed attention in the democratization period following the military coups. Furtado was the third Minister of Culture after the creation of the Ministry in 1985, under the presidency of Jose Sarney (Kay, 2006). Prominently, a highlight in the cultural policy is the fiscal Law Sarney5, which was an incentive law for private firms to invest in cultural production in return to tax-relief. This law made private firms the main agents of cultural production and development and it deepened the private investment in the national cultural market (Barbalho, 2007; Sarney, 2011). The Law Sarney was later slightly modified to Law Roaunet6 which still exists today and is a subject to heated debate. Most private firms are in favour of the law because it allows them to gain

5

The Law was advertised under the slogan “Culture is a good business”. Law Roaunet was modified by the president Collor in 1990, which besides the private incentive funds, opened two public funds for cultural sponsorship, the National Fund for Culture and the Fund for Cultural and Artistic Investment. 6

20

Julijana Nicha

visibility through cultural marketing (Silva, 2001). However, critics as Barbalho argue that cultural marketing satisfies the taste of the masses and it is thus highly exclusive and selective in the shortrun. Additionally, it fails to draw investments intolong-term cultural projects of traditional cultural groups (2007). These types of policies were a reflection of a continuation of neoliberal thinking, practicing limited state intervention and greater market liberties (Bersser-Pereira, 2009; Cedro, 2011). Another crucial event during the presidency of Sarney is the modification of the Brazilian Constitution in 1988. The new Constitution brought progressive changes such as women‟s rights, worker‟s rights, minimal salaries for disabled, and it gave culture the status of a human right7, giving the marginalized cultural groups, such as Indigenous and Afro-Brazilian cultures societal recognition. Cultural practices such as Capoeira or Candomble8, which were punishable by law, became legal and free to practice (Lima, 2014; Ministerio da Cultura, 2012). This shift of thought reflected international ideas about cultural development from UNESCO‟s report “Our Creative Diversity” which identified traditional culture as the missing puzzle for endogenous development (WCCD, 1996).

Hybrid Developmentalism (2003-2010) The election of Luíz Inácio Lula da Silva as President brought another paradigm shift in cultural policies in Brazil. Due to the socialist leaning of the Worker‟s Party, the socialist discourse coalition gained centrality in the policy making, propagating the ideas of new developmentalism theory (Cerdo, 2013; Bresser-Pereira, 2009). New developmentalism theory is export-oriented, rejects protectionism and pressures from developed countries and promotes national interest. In its 7

Selected Articles from the Constitution modified in 1998:“Art 215 • Integration of ethnic communities The State will guarantee full exercise of all cultural rights and access to sources of national culture, and shall support and grant incentives for appreciation and diffusion of cultural expression. §1°. The National Government shall protect expressions of popular, indigenous and Afro-Brazilian cultures and those of other participant groups in the process of national civilization.”(ConstituiçãodaRepublicaFederativa do Brasil, 1988, personal translation) 8 Afro-Brazilian spiritual religion

21

Julijana Nicha

nature, it is a blend of neoliberal, social and republican nationalism (Besser-Pereira, 2009). Due to the merging of different coalitions, Lula‟s government is known as hybrid developmentalism. These discourses deepened the policy of cultural industries i.e. culture for development, however were complemented with policies that treat culture as a way of life i.e. culture in development. The Cultural Plan for Brazilian Development recognized culture as the missing puzzle of the process of sustainable development and used the world culture in plural, embracing the country‟s diversity (Kozymka, 2014). There were minor changes of Law Roaunet and implementation of newpolicies which strengthened the role of the state in cultural affairs and actively involved the civil society in the process of sustainable policy-making (Lima, 2014). These policies were directly translated from UNESCO‟s 2001 Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity and 2005 Convention of Protection and Promotion of Cultural Expressions and were institutionalized in the newly-opened Secretary of Citizenship and Cultural Diversity (SCDC) (Maraña, 2010; „Plano National de Cultura‟, 2014). The main action of the Secretary was the policy Cultura Viva. This policy was an attempt to balance the dominant private funding of the cultural sectors (mainly conducted through the Law Sarney and Law Ruanet) with state funding. Additionally, the policy aimed involving civil society in the process of policy development through state and municipal Cultural Councils. Cultura Viva was nominated as best practice by UNESCO and an initiative by the Secretary of Citizenship and Cultural Diversity was taken to replicate the policy in other Latin American countries such as Colombia, Mexico and the United Kingdom (Kozymka, 2014; UNESCO, 2000). Moreover, other institutions, as the International Centre of Creative Economyfacilitated the continuation of the neoliberal coalition by investing in video game production and other cultural industries which generate employment and revenue (Rubim, 2007). Among the main actors were Gilberlo Gil and Juca Ferreira who were the Minister and the secretary of Culture, respectively. Both were prominent actors of delivering the communicative discourse of the policy to the public. Particularly, Gil also known as the leader of the musical and cultural movement Tropicalia, played a key role in the promotion of this discourse nationally,

22

Julijana Nicha

travelling along Brazil and internationally participating at UNESCO conferences, international events for culture, etc. (Kozymka, 2014). Coordinative discourse was mainly used by the government aligned think-tank, the Research Institute of Applied Economics (IPEA) which publishes on the performance of the policy. Further analysis of this paradigm follows in Chapter III. The paradigm changes happened through policy actors and their interaction among themselves and with the public aiming to legitimize their programmes. The interaction is done through discourse which is the carrier of ideas and values about policies (Schmidt, 2002).The third order paradigmatic changes from 1937 until 2010 brought not only change in policy instruments and methods, but also fundamental ideational changes of understanding culture and its role in society. The identification of paradigm shifts and different streams of development show that the ideas for cultural development follow the dominant thinking of economic development across time. The shift in the dominant economic discourse coalition created a shift in the dominant policy thinking about cultural development. Moreover, it shows that the drives of cultural development are policy ideas which aim social inclusion, employment and poverty reduction, mainly characteristic of the socialist discourse coalitions. The analysis also shows that the third order ideas, or worldviews, are enforced by certain elites who dominate at a period of time, but also emphasise the role of intellectuals who through their foreground discursive abilities, challenge the hegemonic discourse (Schmidt, 2008). The national process of cultural development followed the global emergence of the concept, by adopting UNESCO‟s conventions. Up until 2003, the role of culture was perceived as culture in development. The implementation of the policy Cultura Viva was thus a reaction to the failure to include traditional cultures in policymaking. Cultura Viva shifted the role of culture as culture for development.The following chapter presents a micro level analysis of cultural development by focusing in depth on the paradigm between 2003 and 2010 and the policy Cultura Viva, particularly the program Points of Culture.

23

Julijana Nicha

Chapter III:From culture as an industry to culture as a way of life This chapter studies cultural development on micro level. The paradigm between 2003 and 2010 treated the role of culture in society as a mean for development, treating culture in policymaking as art and as a way of life (Gil, 2004, emphasis added). The previous paradigms treated culture as an industry, exploiting its economic potential or as identity builder (Barbalho, 2007). The policy Cultura Viva brought substantive recognition of the traditional cultural practices, however, in relation to the overall national cultural development plan, the policy did not fundamentally challenge the neoliberal discourse coalition. The explanation lies in the overall administration of culture which was a reflection of the paradigm hybrid developmentalism, reflecting the discourse of the socialist, neoliberal and new developmentalism discourse coalitions in Brazil. This chapter analyses the communicative discourse of social movements and Cultural Councils and coordinative discourse of the political discourse coalitions. Moreover, it argues that the uniqueness of the paradigm which benefited traditional cultures lies in the socialist stream of thinking about development. The Brazilian MinC`s understanding of culture departs from three dimensions: culture: as symbolic expression (aesthetic and anthropologic), economic development (income and job generation) and political right (citizenship rights, social cohesion) (Minsiterio da Cultura, 2006). The shift to anthropological9 understanding of the concept, in addition to the economic one, was a reflection of the more socialist leaning political values and a reaction to the failures of the onedimensional understanding of culture, mainly as a commodity (Besser-Pereira, 2009). The underlying ideas of the socialist coalition were to reduce inequality and poverty which would result in socially inclusive national growth (Cerdo, 2013). The socialist coalition strengthened its presence in society and started exercising its power when President Lula came into power. From his first mandate, Lula constantly referred to the amended Constitution in 1988 and stressed the importance

9

Human culture for social structure, religion, language, art, technology, etc.

24

Julijana Nicha

of integration of culture in the spectrum of other social reforms he was implementing in the country (Lima, 2014). The policy Cultura Viva is a reflection of this understanding. Cultura Viva – Art, Culture and Citizenship was launched in 2004, primary appealing to the younger population and traditional communities in needof greater institutional recognition (Lima, 2014). It was a reaction of governmental failure to incentivize private companies to invest in traditional cultural expressions through Law Rouanet (Rodrigues, 2015). Since then there are around 4500 Points of Culture throughout Brazil. According to the Cultural Programme for Brazilian Development the aim of the policy is to facilitate and broaden the access to cultural rights, production and circulation of material and immaterial cultural goods and give public funds to formal cultural associations, thus to democratize the access to culture (Ministério da Cultura, 2006). The programme is based on collaboration between existing cultural groups, the MinC, state and municipal institutions, schools and universities. The objectives of the policy are divided in five programmes: Points of Culture, Digital Culture, Agents Living Culture, Grio10 and School Viva. Point of Culture is the central programme of the policy that joins cultural organizations, which produce or create culture in communities outside of the high culture circuits. The programme is particularly dedicated to the preservation and promotion of traditional cultures, such as Indigenous, Afro-Brazilian descendants, Gypsies, etc. Already existing groups which fall in the categories presented above can apply to become a Point of Culture through a public application at the MinC. The selected groups receive three years funding (180.000 Reais, around 33.000 pounds) and technical support, mostly electronic equipment (Interviewee C, 2016). After the three years financial assistance ends, the Points of Culture articulate through a network called Big Points of Culture (Pontões de Cultura) and Network Cultura Viva, which are means of sharing information, knowledge and technology among the cultural groups (IPEA, 2014). Interviewees A and F, both operating a Pont of Culture, commented that the policy has given them enormous social visibility in their region and has increased the knowledge and 10

knowledgeable masters

25

Julijana Nicha

technology exchange with similar groups across Brazil. Both recognized this programme as crucial to their continuity (Personal interviews, 2015 and 2016). The programme has also received a lot of criticism of being over bureaucratic, delaying the payments, lacking human resources in the public administration, lacking monitoring mechanism and ambiguous of the policy‟s objectives and concepts (Interviewee A, 2015). Moreover, these funds are hardly accessible by traditional groups, even if they tried to apply (Rodrigues, 2015). The limited accessibility of the traditional culture lies in the language barrier (most indigenous do not speak Portuguese), do not have training of how to apply, do not have a bank account or formal documents necessary for the administration, etc. (Interviewee A, 2015). More importantly, the financial support is only for limited time which doesn‟t guarantee the continuity and sustainability of the groups (Interviewee C, 2016). The policy Cultura Viva is materialization of UNESCO‟s 2001 and 2005 Conventions which aim preservation and promotion of cultural diversity as well as advocating for the inclusion of culture in policymaking as a mean for sustainable development (Interviewee B, 2015).Cultural sustainability, in the case of Brazil, refers to the``social and cultural acceptance of decisions concerning development. It strongly calls for participatory planning methods and for educational programs aimed at sustaining the cultures of the diasporas, indigenous, and minority groups``. (Soni and Birkeland, 2013,p.217). As Soini and Birkeland argue, this understanding of cultural sustainability is characteristic for a socialist stream of thinking about development (2013). The programme Point of Culture is also a materialization of the government‟s normative ideas which values are attached to the political goals and aim to legitimize the programme through the logic of appropriateness. Discourse has meaning andcommunicative force within an institutional setting (Schmidt, 2012). However, when concepts such as UNESCO‟s idea for sustainable development, is implemented nationally, the concept is appropriated differently and it is given different meaning. Interviewee B, working at the SCDC stated that UNESCO‟s ideas of cultural diversity, cultural sustainability and sustainable development are not used in the Brazilian context.

26

Julijana Nicha

The ideas of Cultura Viva are linked with the international concepts, but other concepts such as “democratisation of culture” and “cultural access” are most commonly used in the Brazilian discourse (Interviewee B, 2015). “First of all, I have noticed that here, at the Secretary, it [cultural development] is not a concept we use daily. It is not a key word. I am being very sincere. Concepts such as “protagonist”, “autonomous groups”, “partnership with the society”, are very key concepts that guide our vision and thinking. The concept of cultural development is very vague and thus it does not orient the thinking of everydayness…The concept of cultural development, for this Ministry, comes from outside. It is a concept, important for economic development…this concept of development, it is linked with capitalist economy interpreting development with economic prosperity which actually means that the rich become richer and the poor poorer. Currently, Brazil is trying to keep up with the concepts, such as “sustainability”, “solidarity economy”, and “creative economy”. (Interviewee B, 2015). The greatest failure of the cultural development programme is its inability to equally distribute the funds available for culture. This is due to the various discourse coalitions coexisting with the socialist one. The neoliberal discourse continued through the Law Rouanet which provided 80% of the total governmental investment in culture and stressed the importance of the creative economy and the development of the art sector as mean of generating jobs and income. The new developmentalist discourse was reflected through the overall idea of export of Brazilian culture abroad and protecting the national identity. This discourse was particularly manifested though Brazil`s relation with UNESCO by exporting Brazilian cultural policies abroad as well as

27

Julijana Nicha

straightening the national image internationally (Interviewee C, 2016). The different ideas reflect the dominant discourse coalitions in the hybrid developmentalism paradigm. The top-down coordinative discourse entered in Brazilian society and was later appropriated by, mainly, the Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil and the public administration.Through the BIA actors behaved within the institutional settings. Another important actor is Celio Turino, the father of the programme, who argues that that the fundamental aim of the program is to democratise culture and provide equal access to cultural expressions to all Brazilians (2010). Since the introduction of this policy, terms such as „democratisation of culture‟, `digital citizenship`, `cultural diversity`, `access to culture` became trendy in the public discourse. The vagueness of the terms appeared to be one of the failures of the programme, because the terms became subject to wide interpretation. However, these terms reshaped the identification of many traditional groups. Interviewee A, who is a director of the indigenous cultural group Thydêwá, mentioned that before applying for Point of Culture, the group did not think that access to the internet and active social media page was part of being a Brazilian citizen. When they applied to become a Point of Culture, the public application used a discourse which required adjustment of Thydêwá`s objectives in order to become a Point of Culture. One of them was introducing digital culture i.e. video making, access to the internet in the indigenous communities and active social media page (Interviewee A, 2015). Thus, the groups` actions were shaped and changed by the demands of the public discourse. Traditional groups needed to embed new identity in order to (re)gain social importance. As Adler argues, the evolutionary change transforms collective understandings and reshapes identities, interests and expectations of social actors, but the change becomes embedded when the actors modify their identities towards their interest (Adler, 1997, p.339). The communicative discourse, as Schmidt argues, is the communication between the elites and the general public and allows bottom-up communication to be part of the public narratives, debates and argumentations (2016). In regard to the hybrid developmentalism paradigm, there was

28

Julijana Nicha

greater engagement and empowerment of the National Councils of Culture, as main interlocutors between the government and the mass. From their formation in 1941 until 2013, 138 national conferences were held, from which 97 were held after the first mandate of President Lula (Barros, 2015). The results of these conferences are legal modifications of programmes and policies initiated by civil society (ibid). New actors were introduced in the social structure whose discourse became more powerful and influenced the political realm. Through their FDA actors questioned, challenged and influenced policymaking.Moreover, the organization of cultural groups and community leadersin Points and Big Points of Culture and their engagement with social media increased their visibility in the Brazilian society. The government sponsored think tank IPEA and the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) also produced qualitative and quantitative data for further improvement of the policy which was accepted by the government (IPEA, 2014). The communicative arrows go bottom-up from the discursive interactions of social and cultural groups. However, as in the case of the Big Points of Culture, the arrows stay on the civil society level as communication among the groups themselves. Finally, the arrows go top-down, where the governance shapes the ideas and introduces them to society through their communicative discourse. Moreover, it legitimizes thenormative ideas by attaching values and the policies through the logic of appropriateness (Schmidt, 2012). It is crucial to identify which ways the arrows go in order to understand the background ideas of a policy. The uniqueness of this paradigm is in the change of perception of culture in society which gave institutional empowerment of civil society and traditional cultural groups.There was a great reallocation of values and resources.The shift to anthropological understanding of the concept, in addition to the economic one, was a reflection of the more socialist leaning political values which aimed inequality and poverty reduction. Moreover the policy was a reaction to the failures of the one-dimensional understanding of culture, mainly as a commodity. Even though the socialist stream of thought was more emphasized discursively, it lived side by side with the previous streams of cultural policy which focused on production of high culture and the cultural industries. 80% of the

29

Julijana Nicha

overall national finance for culture came from the incentive Law Ruanet and the private companies‟ investment in cultural products. This shows that the programme Points of Culture is not sustainable in its nature, because as De Beukelaer and Freitas argue, traditional cultures are dependent on funding, mostly private, which is not enough for the development process (2015).

30

Julijana Nicha

Conclusion The concept cultural development has emerged differently in different countries, but all have used culture in two broad ways. One, as culture for development, which focuses on the importance of culture in all social spheres and two, as culture in development, which focuses on the development of the creative industries. Although UNESCO is the international organ which shapes the general ideas, individual countries adapt and change the concepts in relation to their own structures. In the case of Brazil, cultural development in policymaking emerged in 1937 and since then its meaning has been reshaped by different actors and governance ideas (Cerdo, 2015). On macro level, the research identified a parallel link between ideas about economic and cultural development in Brazil. For that reason, drawing from the literature on economic development, paradigmatic ideas were identified and their influence on the national cultural development policies were analysed. Institutional change happens due to shift in ideas and actors in the governance which are the articulators of discourses. Discourse is the interactive process of generating ideas and depending on which level ideas are communicated, different level of change occurs (Hall, 1993; Schmidt, 2008). The first order change occurs when policies are changed, second order change occurs when programmes are changed and third order change occurs when the fundamental understanding of society (i.e. worldviews) are changed (ibid). As Schmidt argues, by studying only the third order policies one falls in a trap of not identifying a slow pace change, and due to the interconnections of the three order changes and actor`s FDA which challenge and change institutions, one needs to study the three levels accordingly (2012). Following this logic, the research considered revolutionary and incremental change of ideas. Since 1937 until 2010, in Brazil, there were five paradigm shifts in thinking about development and culture which derive from the core economic thinking about development: nationalist developmentalism (1937-1945), social and non-nationalist developmentalism (19451964), conservative developmentalism and orthodox neoliberalism (1964-1982), neoliberal and

31

Julijana Nicha

social developmentalism (1985-2002) and hybrid developmentalism (2003-2010). The paradigm changes show that meaning is socially constructed and the emergence and change of institutional understanding of the role of culture depends on the discourse coalitions in power. Entrepreneurial actors or experts, in this case Presidents and Ministers of Cultures, intellectuals, artists, and politicians are the ones who activate the discourse, and change the norms and rules of cultural preference (Schmidt, 2008). Institutional change and continuity depends on actors‟ behaviour. Through their background ideational abilities actors think and act within the existing institutions without challenging the core values and ideas. In this case, top-down coordinative discourse is exercised by policymakers. This allows institutions to persist. Through their foreground discursive abilities, however, actors question, challenge and change institutions. In this case, a bottom-up institutional change is possible, where intellectuals, politicians and civil society can challenge and change institutions through collective action. Discursive interactions and logic of communication allow the actors to influence and change the core values and ideas through gradual change of first and second order ideas (Schmidt, 2008; 2012). The first four paradigms treated culture instrumentally, for creation of national identity and generation of revenues by investing in the creative industries, such as design, fashion, video games, etc. These types of cultural policies are a reflection of the core ideas about the different economic development, such as industrialization, increased national performance and privatization. The policy target group were the high culture, classical art and the audio-visual sector. Social groups, such as Afro-Brazilian, Indigenous and Gypsy were suppressed and excluded from the policymaking process. The first part of the research shows that the primary ideas about development are economic and that cultural development ideas are an extension of the economic one. This is not to argue that economic development is bad, however that it is not always socially inclusive. The latter paradigm, hybrid developmentalism, seems to be different. Besides the dominant ideas pursuing economic development, it was also socially inclusive. For that reason, the second

32

Julijana Nicha

part of the research studied in depth the hybrid developmentalism paradigm through the policy Cultura Viva and its most significant programme Point of Culture. The policy shifted the understanding of culture as inseparable mean for development. Besides in its economic value, it understands culture in an anthropologic sense, focusing on the importance of preservation of traditional cultural groups and their practices (Barbalho, 2007). The policy Cultura Viva and its programme Point of Culture are a reflection of the ideas about cultural development at the time, and the overall government plan for culture is a reflection of the paradigm hybrid developmentalism. The limited financial and human resources provided by the programme stagnated the implementation of the policy, regardless, many traditional cultural groups managed to elevate their social status through the institutional recognition using the Cultural Councils. The data collected through interviews, also shaped the narrative of the second part of the research and reflected the complex interaction between the communicative and the coordinative discourse which results in top-down and bottom-up policy influence. The research argues that the hybrid developmentalism paradigm addressed the inclusion of traditional cultures in policymaking because of the strong presence of the socialist discourse coalition, whose core ideas are reducing inequality and social exclusion. However, due to the simultaneous existence of neoliberal and new developmentalist discourse coalitions which had different ideas about cultural development, the programme Points of Culture was not sustainable in its nature. 80% of the national fund for culture was provided through the Law Rouanet, which addressed neoliberal policies and concentrated the fund to the creative industries. Thus, answering the research question, cultural development in Brazil seems to be a slow process of political and social learning which is subject to constant change due to the change of actors and ideas in power, as well as the interaction of the dominant discourse coalition(s) and civil society. The importance of the research lies in its attempt to acknowledge governance ideas which are socially inclusive, thus contributing to the aim of development. Moreover, culture is an essential

33

Julijana Nicha

part of development because it is the fabric which transforms social relations from which breaking ideas emerge (De Beukelaer and Frietas, 2015). Public policies influence the daily actions and decisions of people, thus the unpacking of the concept cultural development allows people to take informed decisions which affect their actions and critically engage or challenge their socio-political environment. Due to technical limitations, such as word limit, the research failed to analyse in greater detail the actors and events in each paradigm shift, as well as the social impact of the programme Points of Culture and its administrative weaknesses. These two questions are open for further research.

34

Julijana Nicha

Bibliography Adler, Emanuel (1997) Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics. European Journal of International Relations.(3)3:3319-363. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 30 October 2015] Barbalho, Alexandre (2007) Políticas Culturais no Brasil: Identidade e Diversidade sem Diferença. Encontro de Estudos Multidisciplinares em Cultura. Faculdade da Comunicação, Salvador, Bahia. [Print] [Accessed 30 October 2015] Barros, Jose Marcio (2015) As eleições para os colegiados do Conselho Nacional de Política Cultural (CNPC): um processo em curso. [Online] [Accessed 3 November 2015] Bielschowsky, Ricardo (1991) Ideology and Development: Brazil 1930-1064. CEPAL Review (45).[Online] Available at: [Accessed 17 July 2015] Bowen, Glenn A. (2009) Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method.Qualitative Research Journal. (9)2:27-40. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 13 August 2015] Bresser- Pereira, Luiz Carlos (2009) From Old to New Developmentalism in Latin America.Escolar de Economia de Sao Paolo.[Online] Available at: [Accessed 15 July 2015] Cedro, Rafael Rosa (2013) Policy paradigms, networks and practices: analyzing change in the thinking about economic development adopted and used in policy and strategy making in contemporary Brazil, PhD Research Design. Institute of Social Studies. The Hague [Print] [Accessed 20 July 2015] Senado Federal: Secretaria Especial de Informática. (1988) Constituição da RepublicaFederativa do Brasil[Online] Available at: [Accessed 15 July 2015] De Beukelaer, Christiaan (2012) Developing Cultural Industries: Learning from the Palimpsest of Practice. Amsterdam: European Cultural Foundation. [Print] [Accessed 20 May 2015] De Beukelaer, Christiaan and Raquel Freitas (2015) Culture and Sustainable Development: Beyond the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in De Beukelaer, Christiaan, Pyykkönen, Miikka, and Singh, J. P. (eds) Globalization, Culture, and Development: The UNESCO Convention on

35

Julijana Nicha

Cultural Diversity, pp. 203-221. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [Print] [Accessed 20 January 2016] De Marchi, Leandro (2014) Analysis of the Secretariat of the Creative Economy Plan and the Transformations in the Relation of State and Culture in Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ciências da Comunicação. 37(1):193-215. São Paulo, Brazil: Intercom[Print] [Accessed 27 January 2015] Gil, Gilberto (2003) Acesso: A Palavra Chave in Programa Cultural para o desenvolvimento do Brasil. Brasília: Ministério da Cultura. [Print] [Accessed 7 December 2015] Hall, Peter (1990) Policy Paradigms, Experts, and the State, in Brooks, Stephen and Alain Gagnon (eds) Social Scientists, Policy and the State, pp. 53-78. New York: Praeger. [Online] [Accessed 2 February 2015] Hall, Peter (1993) Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25(3): 275–296. [Online] [Accessed 2 February 2015] Hesmondhalgh, David and Andy Patt (2005) Cultural Industries and Cultural Policies. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 11(1): 1-13 [Online] [Accessed 18 February 2015] Interviewee A (2015) Skype and Email Interview. Resource for MA dissertation. 16/5/2015. The Hague, Netherlands Interviewee B (2015) Skype Interview. Resource for MA dissertation. 11/12/2015. York, UK Interviewee C (2016) Personal Interview.Resource for MA dissertation. 31/3/2016. Sao Paulo, Brazil Interviewee D (2015) Email Interview.Resource for MA dissertation. 14/8/2015 Interviewee E (2015) Skype Interview. Resource for MA dissertation. 25/7/2015. The Hague, Netherlands Interviewee F (2016) Personal Interview. Resource for MA dissertation 20/2/2016.Belo Horizonte, Brazil Junior, Marcos (n.d.) Governo de Getúlio Vargas – Primeiro e segundo mandato. [Online] Available at: http://www.estudopratico.com.br/governo-de-getulio-vargas-primeiro-esegundo-mandato/[Accessed 21 August 2016] Kay, Cristobal (2005) Celso Furtado: Pioner of Structuralist development Theory. Development and Change.36(6): 1201–1207.[Online] [Accessed 1 June 2015] Leftwich, Adrian (2000) States of Development: On the Primacy of Politics in Development. Wiley [Print]

36

Julijana Nicha

Lima, Barbara Alessandra Ribeiro de Miranda (2014) Bibliotecas Públicas de Vargas a Rousseff: Políticas Culturais e Formação Humana na Desigualdade Brasileira. FundacaoOswaldo Cruz. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 15 July 2015] Maraña, Maider (2010) Culture and Development: Evolution and Prospects. UNESCO Extea. Bilbao, Spain. [Online] Available at: < http://www.unesco.or.kr/eng/front/programmes/links/6_CultureandDevelopment.pdf> [Accessed 25 June 2015] Medeiros, Jotabe (2015) Nova Secretaria do Ministério da Cultura já fez criticas a Dilma. [Online] Available at: http://cultura.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,nova-secretaria-do-ministerio-dacultura-ja-fez-criticas-a-dilma,1619420 [Accessed 19 July 2015] Ministério da Cultura (2006) Programa Cultural para o desenvolvimento do Brasil. Brasília: MinistryofCulture [Print] Ministério da Cultura (2012a) Plano da Secretaria da Economia Criativa 2011-2014. Brazilia: MinistryofCulture [Print] Ministério da Cultura (2012b) Plano Setorial Para As Culturas Populares. 2nd Edition. Brasilia: Ministry of Culture. [Online]Available at: [Accessed 22 July 2015] Ministério da Cultura (2013) Secretaria de Cidadania e Diversidade Cultural. [Online]Available at: [Accessed 27 May 2015] Ministério da Cultura (2014) Plano Nacional de Cultura. [Online]Available at: http://www.cultura.gov.br/plano-nacional-de-cultura-pnc-[Accessed 12 June 2015] Ministério da Educação e Cultura (1975) Política Nacional De Cultura. Brasília: MinsitryofEducationandCulture Moreira, Jane Bomsucesso (n.d.) Política Cultural na Era Vargas. [Online]Available at: [Accessed 13 July 2015] Mulcahy, Kevin (2006) Cultural Policies in Guy Peters and Jon Pierre (eds) Handbook of Public Policy. SAGE Pereira, Ana Karine (2011) Book Review: Daniel Béland e Robert Henry Cox (eds.) – Ideas and politics in social science research. New York: Oxford University Press. [Online]Available at: [Accessed 28 July 2015] Polanyi, Karl (1965) The Great Transformation- the political and economic origin of our time. Beacon Press: Boston [Print]

37

Julijana Nicha

Princeton University (1999) What is Cultural Policy? A Dialogue for an Emerging Field. Centre for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies Faculty and Student Affiliates. [Online]Available at: [Accessed 17th October 2015] Risse, Thomas (2004) Social Constructivism Meets Globalization. Draft for David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds) Understating Globalization: Theories and Controversies. Cambridge: Polity Press [Print] Rubim, Antonio (2007) Políticas culturais no Brasil: tristes tradições, enormes desafios in (eds) Antonio Rubim and Alexandre Barbalho Politicas Culturais no Brasil. EDUFBA: Bhaia [Online] Sarney, Jose (2011) Lei Sarney de Incentivo a Cultura. [Online]Available at: [Accessed 13 July 2015] Schmidt, Vivien A. (2008) Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science (11):303-326 [Online] Available at: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342 [Accessed 4 March 2015] Schmidt, Vivien A. (2010) Analyzing ideas and tracing discursive interactions in institutional change: from historical institutionalism to discursive institutionalism. Paper prepared for presentation for the panel: “Ideas, Power and Public Policy” at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC [Online] [Accessed 30 August 2015] Schmidt, Vivien A. (2011) „Speaking of change: why discourse is key to the dynamics of policy transformation‟. Critical Policy Studies (5)2:106-126. [Online] DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2011.576520 Schmidt, Vivien A. (2012) Discursive Institutionalism: Scope, Dynamics, and Philosophical Underpinnings. Forthcoming in: The Argumentative Turn Revised: Public Policy as Communicative Practice eds. Frank Fischer and John Forester. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Schmidt, Vivien and Martin Carstensen (2016) Power through, over and in ideas: conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy. (23)3: 318-337 [Online] DOI:10.1080/13501763.2015.1115534 Sen, Amartya (2004) How does culture matter? inVijayendraRao and Michael Walton (eds) Culture and Public Action: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on Development Policy. London: Stanford Press. [Print] Soni,Katariina and IngerBirkeland (2013) Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. Geoforum (51):213–223

38

Julijana Nicha

Tellis, Winston M. (1997) Application of a Case Study Methodology.The Qualitative Report.3(3):119. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 15 August 2015] UNESCO (2000) Mapping Cultural Diversity- Good Practices from Around the Globe.A Contribution to the Debate on the Implementation of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. German Commission for UNESCO / Asia-Europe Foundation [Online] [Accessed 15 September 2015] UNESCO (2001) Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity. Paris: UNESCO. [Online] Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=13179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [Accessed 12 October 2015] UNESCO (2014) Culture and Development. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 9th June 2015] UNESCO (n.d.) Culture for Sustainable Development. [Online] Available at: http://en.unesco.org/themes/culture-sustainable-development [Accessed 17 October 2015] WCCD (1996) Our Creative Diversity. Paris: UNESCO. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 12 August 2015] WCED (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Online] Available at: < http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf>[ Accessed 12 August 2015] Weffort, Francisco (2000) A cultura e as revoluções da modernização. Rio de Janeiro: Fundo Nacional de Cultura Yin, Robert (2014) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th Edition. SAGE [Print]

39

Julijana Nicha

Annexes Table I: Streams of Development thinking

40

Julijana Nicha

Table II: Document Analysis

41