Century Cosmopolitization of Foreign Cultural Policy in Europe: Approximating the Work of the British Council and the Goethe-Institut in the 21 Master of Arts Thesis Euroculture

(1)

Master of Arts Thesis

Euroculture

University of Groningen (Home) University of Göttingen (Host)

Cosmopolitization of Foreign Cultural Policy in Europe:

Approximating the Work of the British Council and the

Goethe-Institut in the 21

st

Century

(2)

2

MA Programme Euroculture Declaration

I, Reena James hereby declare that this thesis, entitled ―Cosmopolitization of Foreign Cultural Policy in Europe: Approximating the Work of the British Council and the Goethe-Institut in the 21st Century‖, submitted as partial requirement for the MA Programme Euroculture, is my own original work and expressed in my own words. Any use made within it of works of other authors in any form (e.g. ideas, figures, texts, tables, etc.) are properly acknowledged in the text as well as in the List of References.

(3)

3

Preface

(5)

5

List of Abbreviations

AA= Auswärtiges Amt

BBC= British Broadcasting Corporation BC=British Council

DCMS= Department of Culture, Media and Sport DW= Deutsche Welle

EEAS= European External Action Service

EUNIC= European Union National Institutes for Culture EU = European Union

FCO= Foreign and Commonwealth Office FRG= Federal Republic of Germany GI= Goethe-Institut

NDPB= Non-Departmental Public Body

UNESCO= United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation UK= The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, short United Kingdom

(6)

6

1. Introduction

Though originating in philosophical thought and hitherto very often dispatched as elements of a utopian idea, cosmopolitan principles are deemed worthwhile to look at in the current social sciences that deal with Europe and with European integration in particular. Whereas studies on Europeanization have so far dominantly dealt with institutional processes and policy-making in the European Union (EU), the role of the social and cultural has gained importance in the academic research on Europe. Sociologists Gerard Delanty and Chris Rumford advocate a "social constructivist conception of Europeanization" and elaborate on a constructivist theory of society that draws from the assumption that the social is an ever-changing reality in light of processes of modernity and globalization and that it cannot be merely seen and studied as an exclusive unit of the nation-state.1 They theorize a cosmopolitan conception of Europe, and not explicitly the EU, that better takes into account the current social transformations and Europe's place, among others, in the world.2 As Florian Pichler fittingly describes, political and economic integration but also cross-cultural diffusion, the increase in world-wide mobility and transnational migration, modern communication technologies and the existence of global risks demonstrate the global interconnectedness of today. Thus, "cosmopolitanization of society is considered a response to these developments and their intended and unintended effects on societies" which are commonly framed as processes of globalization.3 Most prominently in this debate the sociologist Ulrich Beck proposes cosmopolitanism as a methodological and analytical solution to approach Europeanization today. He and Ciaran Cronin describe in their work The Cosmopolitan Vision that the global condition of today is not only characterized by ―really existing cosmopolitanization‖ but increasingly so by developments to establish a ―cosmopolitan outlook‖ and institutionalized forms of cosmopolitanism.4 Beck and Edgar Grande's attempt to rethink Europe has lead them to conceptualize a "cosmopolitan Europe" as a novel analytical and political vision for

1_{Gerard Delanty and Chris Rumford, Rethinking Europe. Social theory and the implication of}

Europeanization, (London: Routledge, 2005), 2.

2_{Delanty and Rumford, Rethinking Europe, 192-195.}

3_{Florian Pichler, "How Real is Cosmopolitanism in Europe‖? Sociology 42 (2008): 1107-1108, accessed}

January 2, 2011, doi: 10.1177/0038038508096936.

(7)

7 Europe.5 One underlying reasoning in this concept is instead of working with the dichotomy nation-state or Europe to work with a both/and category when studying contemporary Europe and Europeanization, thus taking into account the multi-level sociopolitical reality of today.

But, to say it in the words of Florian Pichler, "How real is cosmopolitanism in Europe"? Hitherto in the debate on the cosmopolitanization of Europe and European society a clear reference to ―social, cultural, political and economic features of the modern globalized era‖ is not very pronounced or hardly existent.6 In order to add to the rather normative and theoretical notions of this new cosmopolitanism, attempts have been made to ground the debate on cosmopolitization through empirical research and less abstract conceptions in favor of concrete examples and case studies in Europe.7 In addition, one can discern certain themes within this new cosmopolitanism. These aim to describe how cosmopolitan thoughts find their way in the different spheres of contemporary society. Cultural cosmopolitanism for instance describes a concept on recognizing and handling common human moral obligations while maintaining human cultural diversity and fostering cross-cultural dialogue. It does not deny particular cultural belongings but promotes additional attachment to principles that transcend these. Proponents of this concept argue that it is better fit to deal with the complexity and cultural diversity of modern societies than a mere national sense of belonging or identity.

Locating cosmopolitanism in contemporary Europe implies that it is part of what characterizes and defines Europe, amongst other things. If cosmopolitanism is increasingly considered a feature of Europe and the life world of its citizens, as some of these authors suggest, then it certainly is reflected in the image and self-understanding, more precisely in the cultural identity, of Europe and of European states as it is perceived from within and from the outside. The governing of culture through cultural policy is an essential part of what makes up the idea and the image of Europe and has a regulating function on what is perceived as part of cultural identity. As with other policy areas, cultural policy has a certain role in the way human structure and design their

5

Ulrich Beck and Edgar Grande, Cosmopolitan Europe, transl. by Ciaran Cronin, (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2007), 4.

6

Zlatko Skrbis, Gavin Kendall, and Ian Woodward, "Locating Cosmopolitanism: Between Humanist Ideal and Grounded Social Category," Theory, Culture & Society 21, no. 6 (2004): 116, accessed September 19, 2010, doi:10.1177/0263276404047418.

7_{Cf. Pichler 2008, Haller and Roudometof 2010, Mau, Mewes and Zimmermann 2008, Nowicka and}

(8)

8 social life in a polity. Cultural policy deals with a state‘s actions in the field of culture which can include a broad range of areas from education to sciences, arts and media. Cultural policy of states can cover administrative, legal and bureaucratic spheres with regard to issues such as arts management, taxation, property rights, copyright, or digitalization. Understood in this sense cultural policy refers to public administration of the arts and culture. In this thesis however the main focus will be on cultural policy as a social policy. Cultural policy in sociopolitical terms plays a decisive role in constructing and maintaining collective identity. As cultural policy scholars Justin Lewis and Toby Miller denote, one aim of cultural policy is "to find, serve and nurture a sense of belonging" in the individual and another is to format "public collective subjectivity".8 Governance as management of social collectives requires that there is some degree of loyalty to the governing entity, which can be instilled by promoting a sense of belonging. Governing culture can be seen as a form of upholding hegemony, as cultural policy scholars Toby Miller and Georg Yudice maintain, insofar as cultural elements are used to justify and legitimize the rule of the dominant cultural group.9 With the nation-state that developed to be the predominant unit of social structure in the modern age, the concept of national culture was introduced. As Miller and Yudice content the cultural policies of nation-states are a "privileged terrain of hegemony" as they are the instruments to reconcile "contending cultural identities by holding up the nation as an essence that transcends particular interest".10 Culture then serves as a unifying element and cultural policy as attempt to foster communal bonds and establish a collective cultural identity.

Since the 19th century several nation-states in Europe have developed not only mechanisms for an internal cultural policy but aimed to project their culture abroad as well. In the framework of foreign cultural policies European states began to actively disseminate their respective cultures and languages abroad, thus conveying a certain image and a certain cultural identity of a country. Some states consider it today an essential part of their conventional foreign policy and use it deliberately as ―soft power‖ tool, as coined by political scientist Joseph Nye, for instance in the form of public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy. Public and cultural diplomacy activities are

8_{Justin Lewis and Toby Miller. Introduction to Critical Cultural Studies. A Reader, edited by Justin}

Lewis and Toby Miller, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 2.

9_{Toby Miller and Georg Yudice, Cultural Policy, (London: Sage, 2002), 7.} 10

(9)

9 traditionally the realms of cultural institutes, which are embedded in the overall structural framework of foreign cultural policies.

The scope and approaches of the foreign cultural policy of European states vary widely and are very much formed and influenced by a state‘s history, its values and concepts of self-portrayal and its political culture. Over the recent years though, the action fields of foreign cultural policy have broadened and adjusted to the social and political reality of today. On the one hand we see the Europeanization of EU member states politics' that takes effect also in the foreign policy. On the other hand states in Europe will have to adapt to globalization and apply strategies that take social and cultural developments within their societies and worldwide into consideration. The scope of interconnectedness of internal and external cultural policies of European states increases equally with the development of global social contexts, overlapping interest and action fields and societal transformations. What it inevitably precedes is a critical and constant reflection on what should be considered as ―national‖ culture in a respective state, which kind of self-image should be considered both eligible for maintaining, promoting and communicating to its own and foreign citizens and how culture serves as a tool to maintain social cohesion and peace in increasingly heterogeneous European societies. More and more on the agenda of foreign cultural policy is the need for engagement of citizens in intercultural dialogue both within the multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies in the EU, Europe and abroad and the mutual exchange of ideas through culture. These are areas which increasingly and more easily can be entered by individuals, given that modern communication and information technology facilitate interaction globally. Foreign cultural policy agenda today therefore is characterized increasingly by an emphasis on providing platforms for intercultural dialogue and debates on values and ideas leaving space for the diversity of local, national and European cultures. How to strike the balance between these divergent perspectives? Is the concept of cosmopolitanism helpful in this regard?

(10)

(11)

11

2. Europeanization rethought: Cosmopolitan Europe

2.1 The Notion of a Cosmopolitan Europe

Rethinking Europeanization presupposes that there is a yet existent concept of what Europeanization signifies. However, the literature on Europeanization suggests different meanings of the term. In some cases, Europeanization relates to Europe, in others more specifically to the EU. In the latter case Europeanization refers to "the changing nature of relations between the EU and its member (and accession) states" and this definition is used in the political sciences and international relations predominantly, as Ian Bache and Stephen George assert.11 In this context Europeanization mainly came to be understood as a process of domestic policy change in the EU. As such it relates to EU integration solemnly, has a strong focus on the institutional framework of the EU and is predominantly a perspective from within the EU. Bache and George describe that most of these approaches in the study of European integration and the EU have been characterized by rationalist perspectives only that emphasize the view that the EU is mainly a rational product of conscious-led action by national states. Notably, constructivist scholars who apply a social constructivist approach to the study of the EU and European integration challenged this "rationalist ontology" since the late 1990s.12 This is mirrored by a general acknowledgement of different approaches to Europeanization in other social sciences that are more inclusive and less minimalistic. Kevin Featherstone and Claudio Radelli therefore distinguish between the usage of the term as a "process of institutional adaptation" and "adaptation of policy and policy processes", which conforms to the EU-focused perspective, and the broader interpretation of Europeanization as "historic phenomenon" and "transnational cultural diffusion".13 The broader interpretations of Europeanization describe the spread and diffusion of European culture, norms and practices but also the social transformations in Europe from a multidisciplinary view, including history, sociology and anthropology. They do not exclude the institutional arrangement of the EU but rather embed them within a broader research agenda that refers to the areas of culture, society, politics and history in Europe. Moreover, in this conception of Europeanization there is now a

11

Ian Bache and Stephen George, Politics in the European Union, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 32.

12_{Bache and George, Politics in the European Union, 42.}

13_{Kevin Featherstone and Claudio M. Radaelli. The Politics of Europeanization. (Oxford: Oxford}

(12)

12 stronger focus on the role of Europe and the EU in a global context and in the way social transformations change the way of how the image of contemporary Europe is constructed and perceived.

As Chris Rumford notes, cosmopolitanism is not an issue most scholars who study the EU have taken seriously and the official EU discourse does not refer to ―Europeans as cosmopolitans‖.14

However, he argues that cosmopolitan perspectives are now more and more taken into account when studying the EU, European integration, and in more general terms, Europe. Rumford distinguishes three dimensions to the cosmopolitization of the agenda of EU studies: ―(i) a rethinking of transnationalism and globalization in relation to the EU, (ii) an increasing interest in the social dimensions of Europeanization, and (iii) a growing multi-disciplinarity in approaches to the study of contemporary Europe‖.15

The first dimension describes the impetus to rethink the nation-centred model of the European Union and to acknowledge the effects of globalization and transnational processes that puts European integration in a global context. The second dimension wants us to rethink Europeanization by including the context of social transformation and new social relations rather than merely consider the context of institutionalization, whereas the third asks to allow for more academic multidisciplinarity in the research of the EU and Europe.16 This is not to say that the role of the nation-state in the European Union is no longer the subject of debate. Rather, it opens up new and broader perspectives to see and study Europeanization and contemporary Europe. Cosmopolitanism puts ―Europe within a wider context of study‖ through relativizing the role and development of Europe globally and allowing its people to become more open and accessible for attachments that do not restrict to national or European categories.17 Rumford and Delanty advocate a "social constructivist conception of Europeanization" and animate to think about a cosmopolitan conception of Europe, and not explicitly the EU, that better takes into account the current social transformations and Europe's place, among others, in the world.18

14_{Chris Rumford, Editorial to "Cosmopolitanism and Europe: Towards a new EU studies agenda?"}

Innovation 18, no. 1 (2005): 5, accessed May 23, 2010, doi: 10.1080/1351161042000334754.

15_{Rumford, Editorial, 3.}

16_{Delanty and Rumford, Rethinking Europe, 1.} 17_{Ibid. 6}

18

(13)

13 Apparently, cosmopolitan thoughts are getting more attention in the discourse on globalization and Europeanization. Robert Fine observed that in the recent decades, explicitly since 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall, we see a "radical" flourishing of cosmopolitan thinking in the social sciences that confronts fundamentalist streams and globalization forces which threaten to destabilize political life in our age.19 This has resonated in the linkage of cosmopolitan ways of thinking in various academic disciplines but also in an increasing number of scholarly discussions and conferences and of academic and non-academic literature that deal with cosmopolitanism in one way or another as has been confirmed by David A. Hollinger.20As previously noted, much of contemporary cosmopolitan thinking is linked to Europe and the EU specifically. In the introduction to a recently published handbook to European Studies, Rumford argues that publications on cosmopolitanism by now have begun to establish themselves along mainstream EU studies literature because they offer novel and broad approaches to study Europe.21 Notably, in this collection of literature on Europe, Craig Calhoun remarks that Europe as study object today is often linked with "the notion of a more cosmopolitan Europe", which is an idea taken up and further developed in various disciplines.22

Cosmopolitanism, though, should not be understood as an exclusive feature of Europe. The speeded up processes of social transformation in the global age are phenomena not restricted to Europe but have effect in other regions of the world as well. Global trade, migration and mass-communication, to name just a few crucial factors for current social transformations, effectively influence societies and communities world-wide, be they in Europe, America, Asia or elsewhere. The reaction towards this global influx of new and foreign practices, methods, techniques, and people, however, are diverse. The self-transformation of these societies can result in the retreat into closed and skeptical positions, which find their most extreme expressions in exclusionary mechanisms and discriminatory ideologies. But it can also mirror the need and understanding to be more open and inclusive. It is not suggested here that these are the

19

Robert Fine, "Taking the 'Ism' out of Cosmopolitanism: An Essay in Reconstruction" European Journal of Social Theory 6 no. 4 (2003), accessed August 11, 2010, doi: 10.1177/13684310030064005, 452.

20

David A. Hollinger, "Not Universalists, Not Pluralists: The New Cosmopolitans Find Their Own Way," Constellations 8, no. 2 (2001), accessed December 1, 2010, doi: 10.1111/1467-8675.00228, 236.

21_{Chris Rumford," Introduction: The Stuff of European Studies,"} _{in The SAGE Handbook of European}

Studies, ed. Chris Rumford, (London: SAGE Publ., 2009), 7.

22

(14)

14 two only development options, rather they mark the extreme opposites of social self-transformation. Clearly, the notion of cosmopolitanism is related to the latter and may well describe the situation outside of Europe. But the mentioned authors contend that it is seemingly to be found more often in contemporary Europe. Calhoun affirms that "various different sorts of 'cosmopolitan' concerns and theories applied in principle to the world as a whole" but "they were not only developed disproportionally in Europe" but presented Europe as a "prime example" for it.23 He further observes that there are three different images through which the notion of cosmopolitanism is implicitly related to Europe. These are the persistent popular image of a sophisticated cultured Europe, the image of Europe as a showcase of political transformations, which included projects of national and European integration despite internal divisions, and the image of Europe as a center of a cosmopolitan outlook on itself and the world.24 Particular the latter image informs the self-understanding of Europe as it is seen by proponents of a cosmopolitan Europe. This cosmopolitan self-understanding is informed by "high levels of foreign assistance" and "human rights advocacy", by "a sense of being in a global as well as a continental community of fate" and by "European efforts to work through or in cooperation with the United Nations".25 Notably, this cosmopolitan notion has prompted Europeans to rethink the themes of universal ethics and global diversity. As Calhoun describes, Europe finds itself faced with the task to not only sort out its relation to people outside of Europe but even more so to acknowledge its internal diversity.26 The ideas deriving from cosmopolitanism have therefore informed strongly the self-understanding and self-representation of Europe.

2.2 The Resurgence of Cosmopolitanism

This attention to the idea of cosmopolitanism has not emanated from recent debates but from early human philosophy. The origin of the term cosmopolitanism can be traced back to the Greek words cosmos for world or universe and polis for city or state and the first use of the compound word is ascribed to the Greek Cynics philosopher Diogenes of Sinope, who supposedly declared himself to be a cosmopolitan, commonly translated as "a citizen of the world", rather than merely

23

Calhoun, "Cosmopolitan Europe and European Studies," 645.

24

Calhoun, "Cosmopolitan Europe and European Studies," 637-638.

25

Calhoun, "Cosmopolitan Europe and European Studies," 638.

26

(15)

15 bound to his city-state.27 The notion of world citizenship came to be closely associated with the term and the discourse in European intellectual history on cosmopolitanism ever since.28 That discourse had been prominently informed by the ideas of the Stoic philosophy, the Enlightenment and the political philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Stoic philosophy has elaborated extensively on cosmopolitan principles of earlier Cynic philosophers, argues Garret W. Brown, and it established the notion of universality of the human species, its common human capacity for reason, the concept of natural law and the harmonization of human reason and natural law with nature.29 In the context of the Enlightenment era in the 18th century cosmopolitanism again came to the fore of intellectual thinking. However, as stated in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it was less thought of as a "determinate" philosophical theory then as "attitude of open-mindedness and impartiality", which was prominent with the intellectual and urbane elite of a time that presented different elements important for the context of the resurgence of cosmopolitan thinking:

The increasing rise of capitalism and world-wide trade and its theoretical reflections; the reality of ever expanding empires whose reach extended across the globe; the voyages around the world and the anthropological so-called ‗discoveries‘ facilitated through these; the renewed interest in Hellenistic philosophy; and the emergence of a notion of human rights and a philosophical focus on human reason.30

Notably, cosmopolitan thinking, in particular the thought of human sociability independent from communitarian concepts, formed the intellectual background for the revolutionary movements of the era and prepared the first "universal" rights formulations such as the 1789 Declaration of Human Rights in France.31 With the development of the idea of an international legal order, Kant transferred cosmopolitan thinking into a political theory of international relations. His political philosophy foresaw that the traditional law of nations, which was based on social contract theory

27

"Cosmopolitanism", A Dictionary of Critical Theory by Ian Buchanan, Oxford University Press 2010. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Groningen, accessed February 3, 2011, http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t306.e149.

28_{Note that the contemporary discourse on cosmopolitanism and the literature consulted resorts back to}

mainly European or Western intellectual traditions and ideas which falsely suggest that cosmopolitan ideas are an exclusive European or Western phenomenon. For non-western perspectives on the discourse on cosmopolitanism see Breckenridge et al. 2002 and Appiah 2007.

29_{Garrett Wallace Brown, Grounding Cosmopolitanism: From Kant to the Idea of a Cosmopolitan}

Constitution, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), 5-7.

30

Pauline Kleingeld and Eric Brown, "Cosmopolitanism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, accessed March 2, 2011,

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/cosmopolitanism.

31

(16)

16 and the idea of rights through membership in a political community, had to be complemented by a higher cosmopolitan law that accounts to the universal moral worth of all humans and creates imperative moral obligations towards every human being.32 While cosmopolitan principles effectively had resonated into political, legal, even economic forms through the advocacy of freer trade, cosmopolitanism continues to be grounded in its philosophical form as describing a certain mode of being that involves attachment to the global human community despite ethnic, cultural, national or political differences.33

Still, cosmopolitanism consistently was interpreted anew, given additional meaning and applied in different contexts over time. Notably, as Derek Heater argues, since its beginnings in the Greek antiquity the idea of cosmopolitanism stood on an equal or at least similar footing with other concepts of political identification such as state citizenship and nation. Only the conflation of the concept of state and nation, the ideological construction of nation-states in the 18th and 19th century, gave halt to this:

In classical thinking about sociopolitical identities, from ancient Greece to Enlightenment Europe, citizenship, nationhood and world citizenship were held in mutually compatible, parallel spheres of life. (…)Then, for two hundred years, from c.1800 to c. 2000 the nation-state, girded up by the doctrine of nationalism, demanded a single political identity for its people: national-citizenship. Cosmopolitan citizenship, even as an idea, let alone a programme, had, as far as was possible, to be pushed out of human consciousness. This was an aberration - a mere two-century diversion from the more than two millennia tradition of possible multiple identity.34

Though Heater's explanation seems a bit generalized and exclusively focused on the idea of world citizenship, he still makes a good point. Cosmopolitanism was as much a mere conceptual framework and vague entity as was the nation and the state before the conflation of an ethnic or cultural entity, a nation, with a political entity, the state. That this combination is not a natural or pre-given structure of sociopolitical order but was created and developed with either existing or artificially created ties to shared systems of social belonging, such as language and culture, and such of political belonging, such as citizenship, has been argued widely in modernist theory and studies on nationalism.35

32

Brown, Grounding Cosmopolitanism, 7-8.

33

Kleingeld and Brown, "Cosmopolitanism".

34_{Derek Heater, "Does Cosmopolitan Thinking have a Future?"} _{Review of International Studies}

Vol. 26, How Might We Live? Global Ethics in a New Century (December 2000), 184, Cambridge University Press, accessed August 15, 2010, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097718 .

35

(17)

17 This makes a case, if not for cosmopolitan citizenship explicitly at this stage, then for cosmopolitanism in general as the notion of nationhood and nation-state in the age of globalization and transnational regimes is questioned.

It seems globalization, which is often described as a dominant feature of a postmodern condition, has rekindled the engagement with normative concepts that absorb the deficiency of a nation-state-centered political order. This political unit struggles to cope with global challenges, if we think, for example, of the recent global financial crisis, environmental threats and terrorism that are not restricted to state borders and therefore call for joint action and common approaches. Rumford argues that the harm nationalism has caused in the late 20th century, and even more so the increasing de-coupling of the nation and the state, the coming-to-power of international organizations, NGOs and global social movements have undermined the role of the nation-state and promoted the idea of cosmopolitan democracy.36 Other indicators of globalization such as the overall intensified range of social interactions and transformations that result in increased global interconnectedness and awareness of global threats and concerns may hint to a cosmopolitization of societies.37 And from a methodological view, some scholars argue that the social and political sciences cannot accommodate these changes of the global age under conventional terms and call for a reconceptualization that makes use of cosmopolitan ideas.38 Cosmopolitan thinking thus is going through a revival in our times as it offers interesting options and approaches to study and describe our current life world.

But what exactly is this "new" cosmopolitanism? Different than before it is not only the discipline of philosophy that engages in the debate on cosmopolitanism. More so it forms an interesting venue also for anthropology, ethnology, history, the cultural, political and social sciences as David Hollinger explains. Many scholars of each of these disciplines and others, he writes, find a certain feature that makes the idea of

36

Rumford, Editorial, 4. See also Breckenridge et al. 2002.

37_{As the authors Stephan Keukeleire and Jennifer MacNaughton explain, globalization}

"[…] essentially refers to the expanding scale, growing magnitude, speeding up and deepening impact of patterns of social interaction and interregional flows of people, trade, capital, information, technological knowledge, ideas, values and norms. Indeed, few areas of social life escape its reach. These increasingly intensive flows are facilitated by different kinds of physical infrastructure (such as transport networks and communication and banking systems), but also by immaterial, normative and symbolic factors (such as trade rules, the spread of Western values and customs, and of English as the lingua franca)."

Stephan Keukeleire and Jennifer MacNaughton, "The Context and Nature of EU Foreign Policy", in The Foreign Policy of the European Union, (London: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2009), 17, accessed February 4, 2011. http://www.palgrave.com/PDFs/1403947228.Pdf

38_{Torill Strand, "The Making of a New Cosmopolitanism", Stud Philos Educ 29 (2010): 231–234,}

(18)

18 cosmopolitanism of today an interesting subject to theorize and to study. Several authors across and within the disciplines have attempted to describe how they conceive of contemporary cosmopolitanism harking back to earlier conceptions of it and interpreting it anew. 39 Torill Strand's approach to structure and summarize the focal points of the discourse on cosmopolitanism foresees three tentative perceptions of cosmopolitanism as a way of life, as a moral, political, and legal ideal, and as an outlook.40 Cosmopolitanism as a metaphor for a way of life would then refer to an individual life world characterized by openness, adaptability and mobility. Strand believes this to be but rather in a superficial way involving frequent travelling or exposure to different cultures that accounts to either a chosen superior or privileged way of life or to involuntary detachments and uprooting but not so much to a conscious embracing of a cosmopolitan ethos. Cosmopolitanism as moral, political and legal ideal then describes a conscious-focused view that strives for normative and institutional consolidation of cosmopolitan ideas as in the form of moral commitments, political structures and laws on a global scale. With particular reference to the contemporary social reality a cosmopolitan outlook implies a new way of seeing and analyzing the world, both triggered by the actual sociopolitical state of the world and the different points of view on the world it thus generates.41 These initial mappings of what contemporary cosmopolitanism can entail show how complex the discourse on cosmopolitanism can turn out since it is often twofold, at times even paradox. It can both refer "to the new ways of the world and the new ways of seeing the world"42. Or, as Fine formulates it, the new cosmopolitanism is "at once a theoretical approach toward understanding the world" and a "normative stance in favour of universalistic standards of moral judgement, international law and political action". 43

Still, the question remains what is actually "new" in the new cosmopolitanism? Fine answers the question as such:

From this viewpoint (of the limited character of ancient cosmopolitanism), what makes the new cosmopolitanism new is that it distances itself from this classical tradition and seeks instead to reconcile the idea of universal species-wide human solidarity with particular solidarities that are smaller and more speciﬁc than the species.44

39_{Hollinger, "Not Universalists," 236.} 40

Strand, "The Making", 231.

41_{Strand, "The Making ", 231–234.} 42_{Ibid. 230.}

43_{Fine, "Taking the 'Ism'", 452.} 44

(19)

19 In consequence, the new cosmopolitanism, though not denying or rejecting it, pays less attention to the universal human collective but rather focuses on particular or local collectives. In more descriptive terms Benedikt Köhler, who resorts in his work mainly to the writings of Ulrich Beck, explains the distinction one can make now is between a normative-philosophical and a social-scientific or methodological perspective. The first is fed from classical cosmopolitan views that take universal principles such as mankind as the main and only focal point. The second perspective relates more to the human encounter with the cultural other or the foreign. Both perspectives have a resonance and impact on what is deemed today the new cosmopolitanism. But the second, as Köhler argues, is the one that better offers a realistic or realizable version of a contemporary cosmopolitanism.45 It is a perspective that grounds itself in the sociopolitical reality of today where the daily encounter with the foreign or unknown turns more and more into something of a mainstream experience than an elite or minority phenomena, and in the need to describe and analyze this experience. The guiding principle for the new cosmopolitanism is no longer the ethical obligation of the individual towards mankind, though it still remains an essential principle, but rather the acceptance of the otherness of the other. This implies a different starting point of the concept of cosmopolitanism and comes with changed thought threads. The new cosmopolitanism therefore is less about sameness or universalist positions (such as we are all human thus we are all the same) but more about difference and diversity (such as we are all human but at the same time different to some extent).46 Moreover, the new cosmopolitanism presents the

45_{Benedikt Köhler, Soziologie des Neuen Kosmopolitismus, (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für}

Sozialwissenschaften, 2006), 37.

46

See David Hollinger's detailed distinction between the "new" cosmopolitanism, universalism, and pluralism in: Hollinger, ―Not Universalists‖, 239-240: "We can distinguish between a universalist will to find common ground and a cosmopolitan will to engage human diversity. For cosmopolitans, the diversity of humankind is a fact; for universalists it is a problem. Cosmopolitanism shares with universalism a suspicion of enclosures, but the cosmopolitan understands the necessity of enclosures in their capacity as contingent and provisionally bounded domains in which people can form intimate and sustaining relationships, and can indeed create diversity. (…)Another term the new cosmopolitans tend to avoid is pluralism. Cosmopolitanism and pluralism have been united often in the common cause of promoting tolerance and diversity. But cosmopolitanism is more liberal in style: it is more oriented to the individual, and expects individuals to be simultaneously and importantly affiliated with a number of groups,

(20)

20 attempt to counterbalance the handling of otherness, which should then help to structure the way we perceive of and approach social interaction today on local, national and global levels, and in different areas, i.e. political, economic, cultural. In the elaboration of Beck this means cosmopolitanism is neither dissolved into its universal principles nor essentialized into its particular feature.47 This makes way for a conception of cosmopolitanism that tries to consolidate both universal and particular aspects and is rather inclusive than exclusive. It allows for, what Beck calls, the "both/and" principle and it sees no contradiction in promoting dichotomies which are seemingly at odds.48 Hence, one should not be surprised to find an accumulation of contemporary literature on cosmopolitanism that combine, by appearance, mutually exclusive ideas and concepts such as "rooted cosmopolitanism", "national cosmopolitanism" or "European cosmopolitanism".49

This, as a consequence, puts the question forward where the limits are drawn between accepting difference and adhering to universal norms and morals. To proclaim an inclusive and tolerant stance towards others when dealing with cultural difference comes with the danger of overly relativism. In theory therefore cosmopolitanism might be able to reconcile divergent views and attachments. But how is this new cosmopolitanism attainable when dealing with actual cultural diversity and difference? Indeed, this poses a reasonable objection to the formulation of cosmopolitanism as a realistic concept. Köhler points out that most proponents take a clear stand on this by referring to the ethical minimum consensus that classical cosmopolitanism has provided. This is often formulated in the form of basic human or unalienable rights which lead to a set of common procedural norms and a minimum consensus that enables dialogue between the self and other. Another possible thought, he writes, would be to not to think of the positive but rather the negative norms, the minimum consensus on what ought not to be.50 However, some hint to the fact that even a common agreement on "universal" norms is not apt but has to be contextualized or localized in a reflexive

See on the different modalities of social treatments, i.e. universalism, relativism, ethnicism, nationalism, and (realistic) cosmopolitanism also: Beck, Cosmopolitan Vision, 50-57.

47_{Beck, Cosmopolitan Vision, 57.} 48

Ibid.

49_{Groundbreaking in this context were the works by Antony Appiah's but also of other authors who}

thought of cosmopolitanism as bridging notions of global solidarity with smaller social bonds of community. See Appiah 2007 and Hollinger, ―Not Universalists‖, 238.

50

(21)

21 way. This has been taken up by Breckenridge et al. who resort to the example of the feminist movement:

No true universalism can be constructed without recognizing that there is a diversity of universals on which analyses are based, and that these are often in fact quite particular – not universal at all, but rather interpretations devised for particular historical and conceptual situations. These are less universals, and more in the nature of arguments for the universal. Twentieth-century feminism developed concurrently in many parts of the world with an apparent promise of universality. It held out the hope that feminism would be good for all womankind and would dispel all national, racial, and cultural barriers. Feminism was to be a global touchstone for all humankind. But feminism has had to critically engage historical change, as well as the tendency towards exclusion in centers of dominance, based on gender, race, class, and regional biases. Thus, recognition of the plurality of feminism (and their own need for internal debate and differentiation) has not become a commonplace alternative to the idea that there exists a singular, universal feminism.51

Values and ideas that claim universal validity then might not be valid everywhere and require contextualization. This thought certainly echoes the prominent critique that contemporary mentioning of cosmopolitanism is predominantly led by Western voices. This is a dilemma when looking back to historical experience since past calls and demands for global human rights and equality has not always resulted in granting those rights to every human being but rather in promoting double-standards. And the demands of a western universalism raise questions and fears of neo-colonialism. Beck argues that a form of contextual universalism therefore might be a probable concept to come closer to a cosmopolitan common sense. He refers to the example of human rights, "which are neither alien nor irrelevant to non-Western cultures" but rather contextualized in local and national "cultural and political traditions".52 In practice, this demands a rethinking of claims of universal values and dialogue at eye level to agree on ethical minimum standards for peaceful global cohabitation.

The whole discourse however still lacks a clear reference to what characterizes the social reality in our global age as Skrbis, Kendall and Woodward have criticized.53 This is a claim that goes to the core of the issue presented here. How can we move from the normative-ethical theories of this new cosmopolitanism towards the feasible or verifiable concept of it? After all, this is the general claim made by the authors in the

51_{Breckenridge et al., Cosmopolitanism, 7-8.} 52

Ulrich Beck, The Cosmopolitan Vision, 59-60.

53

(22)

22 field who speak of either a cosmopolitan Europe, a real existing cosmopolitanism or cosmopolitanism as a solution to the global challenges we face today.54A first approximation to this difficulty is to define the different conceptions that exist in contemporary cosmopolitan literature. Garret Wallace Brown and David Held make out five interrelated dimensions: global justice, legal cosmopolitanism, political cosmopolitanism, civic cosmopolitanism, and cultural cosmopolitanism. These themes overlap in many regards, both authors assess, but they provide guiding elements within the broad spectrum of contemporary cosmopolitan thoughts. 55 For our purpose to speak of the new cosmopolitanism and its resonance in the area of culture it is a logical step to advance to the idea of cultural cosmopolitanism.

2.3 Cultural Cosmopolitanism

Whereas the categories of legal, political and civic cosmopolitanism have more distinct resonance in the form of laws, political institutions or citizenship right schemes, cultural cosmopolitanism still forms a rather abstract category that serves to argue for the case of global justice and cosmopolitan principles. For once, cultural cosmopolitanism locates and mediates a set of universal principles as part of human culture and consequential common moral positions and norms. According to Brown and Held these can be "common human traits like human reason" or "a universal requirement for basic needs".56 Probably this has been expressed best in the form of human rights conventions like The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but also in earlier manifestations that proclaimed the inherent rights and duties of people. Through cultural cosmopolitanism the individual is reminded of what he has in common with fellow human beings independent of whether he feels in any way connected to them through culture, ethnicity or nationality. The existing bond results in the formulation of "unifying moral duties and rights" that transcend culturally and locally defined

54_{Beck and Grande, Cosmopolitan Europe; Delanty and Rumford, Rethinking Europe;} _{David Held,}

Cosmopolitanism: ideals and realities, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010).

55_{Garret W. Brown and David Held, Editor's introduction to The Cosmopolitan Reader, ed. Garret W.}

Brown and David Held, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010), 9.

Brown and Held explain that the concern with global justice is at the core of cosmopolitan thinking, which hitherto has been a rather ethical and philosophical discourse that revolves around the fundamental belief in individual human worth and how to develop this from ethical and practical angles. Legal, political and civic cosmopolitanism are themes that continue to look at how these moral principles of cosmopolitanism and global justice can be situated and established in the specific spheres of law, politics and citizenship.

56

(23)

23 obligations.57 At the same time, the very acknowledgement of the claim that individuals can have multiple cultural obligations is an argument that reinforces the claim that one can have a cosmopolitan identity alongside his cultural or localized identity.

That is to say that cultural cosmopolitanism emanates from a reflexive view on cultural identity. In the words of Brown and Held, "cultural cosmopolitans generally assert that all individuals are made up of multifarious cultural identities and influences".58 This view runs counter to conceptions of culture as a purist, static unit that provides the referential points for one's cultural identity. Instead, cultural cosmopolitanism stresses the fluidity of cultural identity as Held and Brown maintain.59 Jeremy Waldron also rejects the notion of culture as a bounded and definite entity. He reasons that the increased possibilities of encounter between people, cultures and ideas that already are at place in the metropolises of the world make the idea of a single homogenous culture outdated and the idea of cosmopolitanism prevail. The life in the global urban centers is characterized by a diversity of cultural influences that one can hardly escape even if wanted. More specifically, he characterizes the very intercultural exchange as a fundamental feature of human interaction that in consequence is at odds with speaking of a homogenous culture as the norm.60 This, however, should not lead to the conclusion that cultural cosmopolitanism neglects the importance of communitarian concepts for cultural identity. Rather, it accommodates itself into existing frameworks of cultural traditions that provide references for our cultural identity such as national culture.

Therefore, in accordance with the claim of the new cosmopolitanism to reconcile the universal with the particular, the concept of cultural nationalism is not discarded.61 In contrast, it is endorsed as one of the most stable and consistent reference points of

57_Ibid. 58_Ibid. 59 Ibid. 60

Jeremy Waldron, "What is Cosmopolitan?" The Journal of Political Philosophy 8 no.2 (2000): 227– 243, accessed February 4, 2011, doi: 10.1111/1467-9760.00100.

As Waldron asserts humans "are curious and adventurous animals: they travel, they migrate, they trade, they fight, and they plunder. And they report back what they have found out about the ways in which others live (and trade and fight etc.). (…). For human cultures, it is the rule, not the exception, that ideas and ways of doing things are propagated and transmitted, noticed and adapted. No doubt – from a purist's point of view – they are violated and distorted in the process; but (…) there is nothing normative about the purist's point of view."(232)

61

According to Chaim Gans cultural nationalism describes a nationalism in which "members of groups sharing a common history and societal culture have a fundamental, morally significant interest in adhering to their culture and in sustaining it across generations."

(24)

24 self-identity of most people. What this contains and amounts to will be discussed further in the following chapters that relate to national culture and cultural policy in general. Important to note at this point is, however, that cultural cosmopolitanism is frequently presented as a concept that tries to accommodate cosmopolitan ideals and outlooks with particular cultural belongings or collective identities, notably national identity. Held describes cultural cosmopolitanism as therefore not being "at loggerheads with national culture" but rather as referring to "the capacity to mediate between national cultures, communities of fate and alternative styles of life".62 A basic requirement of cultural cosmopolitanism he sees in "the celebration of difference, diversity and hybridity while learning how to 'reason from the point of view of others' and mediate traditions".63 We may conclude that cultural cosmopolitanism is a concept that aims to deal with cultural diversity in an affirmative and inclusive way. It is affirmative insofar as it promotes recognition and respect of difference on equal terms and inclusive insofar as it rejects fatalistic notions of culture and accepts a reflexive stand to individual and collective identity.

62_{David Held, "Culture and Political Community: National, Global, and Cosmopolitan", in Conceiving}

Cosmopolitanism. Theory, Context, and Practice, by Steven Vertovec and Robin Cohen, (Oxford et al: Oxford University Press, 2002), 57-58.

63

(25)

25

3. Culture and Cultural Policy

3.1 Nation and Culture in Europe

If proponents of cultural cosmopolitanism emphasize the solidity and significance of national cultures, it seems legitimate to ask where this apparent strong validity comes from. This requires a closer look on the relation between nation and culture. Starting from the very terms we can assert that nation refers to a certain concept of a social collective whereas culture, which is a rather complex term, in this specific context describes "a shared set of meanings".64 What we understand today as national culture often refers to the standard language of a certain country, the shared practices, traditions, culture and values that come to represent the group that is more or less assembled under the label nation. Stuart Hall describes these as elements of cultural systems that, when shared within a group or collective, can provide a certain sense of belonging, a cultural identity. He writes that this feeling of belonging is intensified when sharing of cultural systems such as language, traditions, and practices are in the long run accompanied by the sharing of location through joint settlement. An even stronger notion of cultural identity is formed when this development is complemented by the sharing of familiar ties through intermarriage and the maintenance of a chain of common genealogy. Then we can speak of a shared ethnos and a shared ethnic identity.65 From this understanding culture played a significant role in providing substance to the idea of nations. Hall argues that national culture was nothing more than the product of the attempt to politically unify culturally diverse peoples and provide them with a shared common sense of belonging:

The role of national culture – perhaps of cultures in general – is therefore not to express the unitary feelings of belongingness which are 'always there in the culture', but to represent what are, in fact, real differences as a unity; to produce through its ongoing 'narrative of the nation' (in education, literature, painting, the media, popular culture, the historical heritage, the leisure industry, advertising, marketing, etc.) an identification, a sense of belongingness which, without constant nurturing, would not be sufficient to bind the nation together across the

64_{Doreen Massey and Pat Jess, Editor's introduction to "New Cultures for Old?"in A Place in the World?}

Places, Cultures and Globalization, by Stuart Hall, ed. Doreen Massey and Pat Jess (1995), reprinted in: The Cultural Geography Reader", ed. Timothy Oakes and Patricia L. Price, (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2008), 264.

65_{Stuart Hall, "New Cultures for Old?"in A Place in the World? Places, Cultures and Globalization, ed.}

(26)

26 divisions of class, region, gender, 'race' and the unevenness of economic

development.66

From his reasoning the coming about of the national cultures of Europe can be traced back to the political unification processes of the 18th and 19th century.

The Europe of the 18th century was for large parts a Europe of multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic empires with absolutist monarchies, smaller independent land units and city-states. The 18th century, however, was also the period when the continent experienced drastic changes and developments, most notably the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution,that would lead to a far-reaching reorganization of the former political units by the end of the century. Nationalism was on the rise and the appearance of the modern nation-state is commonly ascribed to this period.67 The ideology of nationalism presumed a "world of exclusive nations" as Adam Smith explains, and nationalists saw political power, loyalty and individual freedom only in the context of the nation. Therefore, the overlap of nations and states, the first a "cultural and social" concept, the latter a "legal and institutional" concept was an evolution of this time.68 An exact dating of the coming-into-existence of the state is from a historian perspective disputed, as Michael Billig explains, but the nation-state system established itself as the regular organization form for society ever-since. Similarly, the debate on whether the emergence of the nation-states resulted in the creation of national identities or national identities, more specifically collectives that claim for themselves a common cultural identity, existed before they formed political unions in a "nation-as-state" is complex and present arguments for both positions.69

In the overall debate on nation-states and national identity the general conclusions drawn in contemporary debates are that these entities should not be seen as predestined but rather constructed. Analog to the definition given by Hall, Benedict Anderson once described nations as "imagined communities" that rested on "cultural roots", that is on the creation of a national consciousness through culture.70 Eric J.

66_{Hall, "New Cultures", 269.}

67_{See Peter Rietbergen, Europe. A Cultural History, 2}nd_{ed. (London: Routledge, 2006), 366-391.} 68_{Anthony D. Smith, "National Identity and the Idea of European Unity", International Affairs (Royal}

Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 68 no. 1 (January 1992), 62, accessed August10, 2010, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2620461.

69_{Michael Billig, Banal Nationalism, (London:Sage, 1995), 19-27.}

70_{Benedict R. Anderson, Imagined communities : reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism.}

(27)

27 Hobsbawm coined the notion of the "invented tradition" which he meant as "a set of practices" that served to "inculcate certain values and norms of behavior" in a repetitive way so that a historical continuity is pretended.71 The nation in the sense of being a cultural homogenous unit that is based on a single people with a fixed shared identity is therefore rather a myth than reality – and national culture therefore rather the attempt to maintain social cohesion and power by privileging certain practices and narratives. As Hall has argued, to uphold the idea of a national culture means a "constant nurturing" of it, an ongoing effort to keep the collective stable and to provide it with a sense of belonging. In sum, while the 18th and 19th century saw the development of nation-states in Europe, the success of this type of social structure rested strongly on the state's capacity and authority to regulate the area of culture through policy and maintain the idea of a national culture.72

3.2 Nurturing Culture? Domestic Cultural Policy in Europe

―How we understand cultural policy depends on how we define culture‖ remarked the cultural policy scientists Justin Lewis and Toby Miller.73 Analyzing a policy and research field such as cultural policy requires again an approximation of the

Anderson argues that print capitalism, the resulting consciousness of print-language communities and the rise of vernacular languages laid the basis for a national consciousness and were essential to the forming of the nation-states.

See also Billig, Banal Nationalism, 29-27.

Billig argues that language as an official national language also has to be seen as a construct or invented tradition that served to award hegemony.

71_{Eric. J., Hobsbawm , Introduction to The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric. J. Hobsbawm and T. O.}

Ranger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 1.

72

As cultural policy expert Armin Klein explains the political sciences distinguish between polity, politics and policy. The polity describes the structural dimension of dealing with public and social questions. It refers to the formal, normative and institutional framework in which policy is applied, e.g. the political order, the constitution or the system of government. Politics describes the procedural dimension, the structure that accompanies the opinion- and decision-making process as for example voting and election procedures, lobbyism and exercise of influence. Policy then refers to the concrete context of different areas of politics and the formulation of certain ideas and concepts in order to achieve specific results or goals. In the area of culture it can refer for instance to a concept on making cultural resources accessible to everyone or on how to maintain these.

Armin Klein, Kulturpolitik:Eine Einfuhrung, 3rd ed. (Wiesbaden: VS, Verl. fur Sozialwissenschaften, 2009), 29-30.

In common understanding polity, politics and policy are conflated to describe a purposeful human action that aims to reach a certain goal which not only affects the individual but collectives. As the German language does not distinguish between the three terms, the usual German term which is used is "Politik", in the area of culture "Kulturpolitik". The respective literature in English also tends to refer mainly to "cultural policy" while in the actual sense often meaning to refer to the dimensions of polity and politics as well.

See also:"Martina Klein and Klaus Schubert, "policy" in Das Politiklexikon. 4th ed. (Bonn: Dietz 2006), accessed February 18, 2011, http://www.bpb.de/popup/popup_lemmata.html?guid=F6IURB.

73

(28)

28 term ―culture‖ as subject of government policy before proceeding to a concluding working definition of the term ―cultural policy‖ for our purposes. Even within this narrower framework, definition of the term continues to be contentious and subject to manifold interpretations. However, certain limitations are made in the respective academic literature dealing with cultural policy. Jim McGuigan pins down the two categories that appear to be essential to understand culture in the political discourse – the aesthetic and the anthropological category.74

The conceptualization of the aesthetic category of culture focuses on artistic creativity and production and carries, compared to the second one, a highly elitist notion of culture. Herewith, ―culture is defined not only by artistic traditions,‖ explain Lewis and Miller, ―but the scholarly disciplines that define and interpret the select repertoires of great art‖.75

These repertoires of art usually refer to material and immaterial products and practices of human creativity in the fields of literature, music or artistry. Art in this regard is thus only considered art when the respective authority sees aesthetic value in it. High-valued art can then become canonized and promoted as what is often commonly classified as high culture, while other products of creative activity might be neglected or looked down upon. A meaning of culture as anthropological category given by Edward B. Tyler, in contrast, describes culture as "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society".76 In general, culture would then describe the way we live and structure our life as part of society. This broad meaning of the term is too encompassing to use it for research and analysis purposes. And the aesthetic notion of culture as defined by cultural elites is a very narrow one and nowadays less compatible with a rather common understanding of culture as entailing both high or elitist and low or popular culture. A concise and more helpful concept of culture, argues McGuigan, was given by Raymond Williams who describes culture as referring particularly

(…) to the practices and institutions that make meaning, practices and institutions where symbolic communication is usually, by definition, the

74

Jim McGuigan, "Cultural Policy Studies", in Critical Cultural Studies. A Reader, ed. Justin Lewis and Toby Miller (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 23.

75_{Lewis and Miller, Introduction, 2.}

76_{Edward B. Tylor, Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy,}

(29)

29 main purpose and even an end in itself, like going to the cinema to see a

feature film.77

This depicts an all-encompassing culture term that still touches all aspects of human society, which has made it subject to regulatory guidelines in the form of cultural policies.

There are several reasons why cultural policy in Europe has come to be justified as a legitimate government tool. Historically, the origin of current cultural policies can be seen in the patronage of the arts by individuals in past centuries. Kevin Mulcahy observes that cultural patronage was a distinct mode of the powerful to give expression to their personal taste but also to self-glorification and national glorification as in the case of the French king Louis XIV's funding of the grand palace of Versailles. This kind of self-interest might have been only one of many motifs to subsidize the arts or certain artists, as Mulcahy admits, but from the European renaissance well into the 20th century it was usually the aesthetic preference of influential individuals that decided over the patronage of the arts.78 The idea of the state as patron of the arts is therefore rather a development of the late 19th and 20th century. More explicitly, Hobsbawm has drawn a typology of the repertoire of invented traditions since the Industrial Revolution that demonstrate that there are three spheres, that show the distinct connections between the development of nation-states and cultural policy.79 Chris Shore has summarized these as " 'cohesion',' legitimacy' and 'socialisation'", which are delivered by cultural policy.80 In modern democratic societies cultural policy presents a governing tool that serves to foster and maintain "a sense of belonging" of the individual in society through the creation of institutions and practices that promote cultural elements, such as language, history, heritage, education, religion defining the respective society.81 Looked at it from the opposite, cultural policy transfers a sense of legitimacy to the respective policing agency. As Miller and Yudice maintain, cultural policy can secure hegemony when ―the dominant culture" uses these elements "to make its dominance appear normal and natural to the heterogeneous groups that constitute society‖. At the same time cultural policy educates members of society, namely as citizens, in a way as anticipated

77_{McGuigan, "Cultural Policy", 24.}

78_{Kevin Mulcahey, "Cultural Policy," Handbook of Public Policy. 2006. SAGE Publications, accessed}

January 11, 2011. http://www.sage-ereference.com/hdbk_pubpolicy/Article_n16.html.

79_{Hobsbawm, "Introduction", 9.}

80_{Chris Shore Building Europe. The Cultural Politics of European Integration. 2}nd_{ed. (London:}

Routledge, 2002), 41.

81