Existence of networks that link together culture activists has been something known from time immemorial. Always and everywhere such networks were a strong point of the world of culture. But networks with specifically European structure do not have such a long history.
The oldest and still working one is, undoubtedly, TransEurope Halles, created by cultural activists from several West European countries who turned out successful in saving places that on the one hand had the status of a cultural heritage with some symbolic value, and on the other hand were threatened with destruction, as there were plans to build parking lots and shopping centres instead... Such were the famous ‘fallows’ that cultural activists appropriated so eagerly.
The phenomenon of TransEurope Halles showed that even activists being completely separated in their city or country could win hard battles if their friends – those local, but also and mainly foreign ones – offered them support and solidarity.
Culture is a sector vulnerable to threats, as it is politically little pugnacious and in most cases underfinanced. We see repeatedly how the international support puts some projects in the public eye and thus becomes a factor that plays a decisive role when some problems appear and/or helps gain acceptance. It is not only that people who want to realize some projects become noticed by decision makers, but also that they break out of isolation and free themselves of the sense of helplessness.
What we are talking about right here is something similar to capoeira, a dance of Black slaves from Brazil, in which weaker dancers gain advantage over stronger ones because they use the weight and strength of the latter, thus reversing the initial force system.
Unfortunately, cultural activists are too often pushed back (or they push themselves back) to the position of mere clients, if not beggars. But lacking recognition of the role of cultural activists does not deprive them of importance - in both the symbolic and signifying dimension and as a powerful developmental and economic factor. To persuade sceptics, it would be enough to introduce them to the subject matter of the European Year of Creativity and Innovation.
In my opinion, all those ‘years’ smack of institutional propaganda, but sometimes they do light up the shadow area in cultural policies. Just on such occasions cultural activists can reverse the logic of situation and bring their projects to acceptance by those, who would like to use them in a positive and useful manner or – at the worst – take advantage of them out of self-interest. Thus one has to learn how to dance capoeira…
Cultural networks have been emerging for several dozen years to finally become a tool necessary at the EU and international level. They turn our more flexible, and motivation of their members is higher than that of users of more traditional channels of co-operation.
At this stage it seems reasonable to explore relations between networks and countries/regions or the EU. First of all, it is necessary to understand that networks, being a part of the civil society, are determined to maintain their freedom of expression and organization, regardless of the cost. On the other hand, countries’ liking to networks is usually restrained, as state authorities have no control of them. Furthermore, networks’ structure transcends borders of particular countries and evolves in a quite free manner, contrary to administration bodies.
About ten years ago, a projective – and a bit based on mythological thinking – trend appeared in the works of the Council of Europe. In this view, networks could replace cultural policies being realized by regional and state authorities.
Of course, that is not possible. These two worlds are very distant. The only contact between them comes about when some network’s members try to transfer ideas or projects discussed within the network to official institutions in their country. That happens very rarely; but if it does, it can be very useful.
The situation looks different in the EU. It would be logically justified to assume that cultural networks are natural and important allies of the EU and its aspirations (which emerged quite late anyway) to become a significant actor on the cultural scene. Unfortunately, interactions seem hopelessly weak, since EU has an irresistible predilection for institutions of corresponding size, establishment and resources. For this reason it rarely takes networks into consideration or finances – within specific programs – only well exposed and renowned ones.
Nevertheless, there are highly representative networks that in specific cases can influence policies and prompt MEPs or other high-ranking officials some ideas they may realize. That is just the case of Culture Action Europe, an organization that was established under another name – European Forum for the Arts and Heritage.
Besides, whilst discussing cultural networks we should never forget that they are living organisms, not petrified institutions. Surviving for thousand years in the unchanged form is not their raison d’être. As Neil Wallace put it: „Network’s life does not depend on any structure, but on the will to cooperate, to do something, and to be, not to have.” According to his proposal, the life of a cultural network has five stages:
- Forming: start, network’s beginnings;
- Storming: initial chaos, ideas result in the first phase of activity;
- Norming: network begins to appear and stabilize;
-Performing: network knows where it is, how it should perform, and who are its members;
- Adjourning: the most difficult and delicate stage – network must become aware that its life has come to an end and either the work should be started anew or it is time to do something new.
Part of the already existing networks work well, others are in crisis. Nevertheless, the above model is outdated and new development directions should be explored, or those already known should be deepened, to secure that networks will keep on playing and important and useful part in the cultural area.
Cultural networks encounter various kinds of difficulties:
- financial:
Networks almost never are subsidized by state authorities, as by definition they are supranational. Besides, state or regional authorities think that there is no sense in financing structures they have no control of. Therefore membership fees are the ‘natural’ source of network’s financing, although it covers at the utmost 25% of costs, even those reduced to the absolute minimum. Finally, the EU finances only few cultural networks, mainly the biggest and/or most noticeable ones.
- fatigue
It is good to know that the energy the network needs to function and gain momentum to a large degree comes from the involvement of its founder members. Sometimes they get tired and it is difficult to find replacements who will ‘take care of the child’ and create conditions for the network’s further development. In such a case, the network’s future can differ from the vision conceived by founding fathers and mothers, who sometimes hang on tightly to their power that in the meantime became marginal, if not symbolic only.
- strategy
This is a crucial, albeit rarely mentioned element. Networks usually build on the foundation of members’ common interests, their need to do and share something together, and their enthusiasm. However, networks sometimes, not always consciously, transform and then change their strategy and become driven by improper motives (to survive financially, to meet demands of some ‘members-consumers’, etc.). In such cases networks often limit their activity to the role of service providers and lose their spirit – enthusiasm and interactions disappear, no one searches for new meaningful possibilities any longer, thus the dynamics of debates, mutual exchanges and perspective-building efforts evaporates. At worst, networks can commit a mortal sin: its members start to compete to sign contracts or launch projects that will give them money.
There is no need to bring ready-made recipes that are good for everyone and every situation. It is obvious that each network must draw on its own experiences, take care of its own vitality and find its own path.
We can only propose some guidelines for reflection and actions to be discussed, but these proposals are neither complete nor the absolute truth.
We are of the opinion that cultural networks:
- should professionalize to seize financing and manage projects submitted. That must never harm neither any network member, as they play the crucial part, nor any member’s ‘cultural passion’, because lack of both those elements will turn networks into ordinary service-advisory units;
- in some cases should aspire to function accordingly to the logic of a co-operation platform, in response to the needs of some cultural activists that would like to co-operate with other countries/regions, but lack any points of reference, methodological tools, or contacts.
- can play a strategic role – something they have not been doing at all or have been doing rarely so far. The thing is to establish interactions with national, European or international cultural policies. This can be done at various levels, by advisory, lobbying and submitting proposals.
These few guidelines may serve as a starting point for the debate on the new stage of the development of cultural networks.
