Tony Bennett, Differing diversities - Council of Europe

Cultural planning and cultural diversityResearch position paper 4By Lia GhilardiNoema Research and Planning LtdLondonIntroductionCulture, as stated by the World Conference on Cultural Policies in Mexico City in1982, is a leading source of intellectual renewal and human growth, and can beunderstood as embracing all creative activity, not only the traditional, or “high”,arts but popular mass culture as well. Anthropologist Ulf Hannerz (1992: 3) givesit a collective slant when he defines culture as “the meanings which people create,and which create people as members of societies”. In The Long Revolution,Raymond Williams (1961: 57) identifies three general categories in the definition ofculture, one of which is relevant to this paper: culture can be understood as “a particularway of life, which expresses certain meanings and values not only in art andlearning, but also in institutions and ordinary behaviour”. Thus, bearing in mindthis fundamental link between culture and society, this paper will be mostly concernedwith an exploration of new approaches to cultural policy, such as culturalplanning, and with the applicability of these frameworks to societies where culturaldiversity is increasingly challenging and replacing vertical and hierarchical policymodels with a fragmented patchwork of different ethical orientations, or as Frenchsociologist Michel Maffesoli puts it (1996: 69), “affinity-based” social groups.This paper will first offer an overview of the issues raised in current debates aboutcultural diversity. It will then introduce the cultural planning framework as a toolemployed in the development of a more integrated approach to cultural developmentin contemporary urban settings. And finally, issues of governance and ethicswill be raised as areas where further research is needed.Cultural diversity and planning: issues and current debatesIn the post-war era, European discourses about cultural diversity have beenfocused on the liberal principle of equal respect for all where the aim of minoritygroups’ struggles has been to get rid of difference as an ideological construction inorder to rescue a more universalistic idea of justice. More recently, other ways ofreading difference have gained intellectual ground. In Charles Taylor’s perspective(1992), for example, differences, instead of being undervalued, are prized andcultivated as empowering forces which deserve public recognition.123