Konference om Integration, kultur og biblioteker - Statsbiblioteket

KONSULENTER
FOR BIBLIOTEKSBETJENING
AF ETNISKE MINORITETER
In the 1960’s and 70’s the opinion took hold that spreading bourgeois culture was paternalistic. People
should be introduced to many different forms of culture and art and then make autonomous choices.
At the same time, the case was made for the social relevance of art. Art was seen as an instrument for
democratisation, emancipation and social change. The field of arts education embraced these ideas,
aesthetic training being a tool for raising consciousness.
A reaction to these 1970’s ideas was inevitable, and thus during the 1980’s, art was seen to have an
intrinsic value and not to be subservient to political ideals. Art was autonomous and quality was the
maxim of the 1980’s.
Subsequently, in the Netherlands of the 1990’s, we saw a moral appeal to the Dutch government,
politicians and society to make every effort to stimulate cultural competence and participation. The
Dutch author Hans Blokland - a proponent of the humanistic cultural ideal - argued that people were
not simply free to read a book, or go to a theatre, concert or museum. People need to become familiar
with literature, other art forms, culture and internet. By being presented with a wide range of
experiences, the individual can be equipped to make autonomous choices. In this context, autonomous
means that the individual possesses a certain amount of knowledge, experiences and competences in
order to develop a personal artistic and moral opinion. Only then can he make choices which are
relevant to him, personally.
In the 1950’s, it was incorrectly assumed that material conditions like good
geographic distribution of cultural facilities would automatically lead to participation. But it is not
only material inconveniences which make people shy away from arts and culture; it is also immaterial
obstacles. To stimulate participation, parents, friends and teachers have to be committed to nurturing
cultural competence. They need to give children and young people the experience, knowledge and
opportunity to practice art so that they can later choose to spend their ‘cultural capital’ either by
reading, enjoying art or making it. Of course there is no such thing as a fully autonomous person; each
individual is the product of conditioning and various socializing processes. But wouldn’t it be
wonderful if more and more people were able to develop the capacity to question the sort of culture
that is pushed by the market and the mass media? Wouldn’t it be nice if more and more people
questioned the populism that is imposed on them? Ideally, the culturally competent individual has an
understanding of external influences and power balances. Remarkably enough, Hans Blokland stated
that the most important thing for him is quote “the freedom to choose oneself to benefit or not from
the aesthetic pleasures which Western civilization has produced”. end quote (Blokland 1997). Here too
we can detect paternalism. Blokland seems to ignore internationalism, globalisation and the
multicultural society. Should we, in the field of arts and libraries, simply disregard high quality
modern art and literature from Asia, Latin America, Africa or the Arab world? And should we neglect
contemporary and postmodern hybrid forms of art, with cross-overs between western and non-western
aesthetic traditions - hybrid forms where tradition and modernity, high and low culture, elite and
popular culture are blended and juxtaposed? In a multicultural society like ours, the Euro-American
canon cannot be the only point of departure. We must also include the post-colonial discourse, as well
- 14 -