Tony Bennett, Differing diversities - Council of Europe

Transversal study on the theme of cultural policy and cultural diversityshould include. Equally important, it is through their incorporation into thenational public sphere that minority cultures acquire a “footprint” into the dominantculture that allows them to enter into dialogue with the “mainstream” andserve as a means of educating public opinion in the virtues and benefits of diversity.This capacity of institutions in the national public sphere to act as a means ofeffecting cross-cultural exchange means that they have a significant long-term roleto play in building public support for diversity.Recognition of this is, however, variable across the countries surveyed and, fromthe evidence presented, seems to be the most developed in Canada, in relation toboth First Nations and immigrant groups, and the United Kingdom, principally inrelation to immigrant communities. In both contexts, a range of policy instrumentshas been developed to diversify the national public sphere. These include the provisionin broadcasting regulations for multicultural programming; the requirementthat diversity be included in the corporate plans of publicly-funded theatres, artgalleries and museums; the promotion of diversity through equal opportunityemployment practices; and the critical examination of management practices andstructures to ensure that members of minority groups are represented at all levels,from boardroom to canteen. It is also clear, however, that making the national publicsphere more responsive to the requirements of diversity involves changes to theassumptions on which they operate. In the case of museums and archives, forexample, it means that the conceptual basis on which collections are acquired,managed and made publicly accessible needs to be reconsidered.There is little doubt, though, that diversifying the national public sphere is seen asinsufficient from the perspective of both indigenous and immigrant communities.On the one hand, the process is seen as slow, frustrating, and subject to a good dealof window-dressing on the part of many cultural organisations which, their criticsargue, often grudge the diversity requirements they are obliged to meet and thereforecomply with them largely formalistically. It is also often argued that the criteriaof excellence which inform many of the institutions in the national publicsphere are – whether explicitly or implicitly – ethnocentric or racist. On the otherhand, diversifying the national public sphere is not seen as an adequate means ofgiving voice to the full range of creativity in culturally diverse societies. Here, thedevelopment of separate or alternative provision is seen as having a central role toplay in sustaining the operation of a range of different public spheres which serveas the vehicles for debate, cultural expression and solidarity within and betweenthe members of different communities – and, in some cases, for dialogue with thewider society but on terms set by the communities in question.Again, there are many policy measures that have been developed to serve theseends. The indigenous media systems developed in Canada – and Australia – arecases in point, as are the varied forms of community radio and television that existin many European countries. Community arts and theatre programmes, and thedevelopment of specific community museums or – in the case of indigenous peoples– keeping places have also been important. Common issues that are posedacross these different sectors include the need for staff training and development;57