gBDkI

paid to re-shaping the definition of culture starts from an analysis of the changes in cultural practice
of the population. The definition of participation in cultural life has evolved to include rights such as
freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression, use of language, conservation of culture and
more, and it is also understood as “access and active collaboration in the design and
implementation of policies, collective action and manifestation of the freedom of choice”
(Laaksonen, 2005). Nowadays, “developing a broader and more inclusive definition of participation
is not just an academic issue; it is critical to the future of cultural policy” (NEA, 2011). In the
developing world, cultural statistics are still in their infancy, but the inclusive definition of cultural
participation is of great significance in societies that are both very culturally diverse and where
cultural activity is much more likely to be through community activities than formal arts
programmes.
In explaining its adoption of the culture cycle model, UNESCO states that “understanding which
part of the process is being measured is an important element in designing the appropriate public
policies for intervention in cultural production” (UNESCO-UIS, 2009). Although the focus here is on
cultural production, this sentence recognises the role of cultural participation studies as a tool for
policy formulation. The relationship between culture and public institutions has, however, changed
radically in the past few decades and this has an impact on cultural statistics in general and on
participation studies in particular. The field of cultural policy has shifted from areas traditionally
quite closely allied with the state and state intervention toward “more of a relationship with, and
dependence upon” industry (Schuster, 1987). As a consequence, it follows that research on such
issues is increasingly becoming the task of specialised research centres rather than central
organizations which could foster the adoption of more developed statistical methodologies. On the
other hand, according to the 2009 FCS (UNESCO-UIS, 2009) the growth and spread of cultural
industries has increased the importance of culture in public policies. International trade in cultural
products has increased on a global scale, the market’s power has grown and is concentrated in a
few multinational conglomerates that operate across cultural industries, and the public and private
spheres have developed complex inter-dependencies. This new situation calls for new frameworks
for cultural statistics, for which the text revised in 2009 provides a model.
Defining and measuring cultural participation can be a tool for informing and planning cultural
policies. Intelligent design and use of surveys helps us to identify features, gaps and critical points,
to evaluate whether existing policies fit current needs and to define guidelines for new policies
targeting precise aims. Murray suggests that “measuring cultural participation enables
governments to decide how to extend a sense of cultural citizenship” (Laaksonen, 2010). In
Australia, questions about what impact participation in the arts and cultural activities has on other
areas of individual and community experience, attitudes and actions, have arisen “as the
environment in which arts policymakers operate has changed to one where governments both
seek to find new ways of approaching intractable social issues, such as poverty and social
exclusion, and demand more accountability for public funds spent in terms of these issues”
(Australian Expert Group in Industry Studies, 2004).
The concern about social impacts of cultural participation and related policies seems widespread,
while it seems less easy to find studies supplying clear-cut and ready answers to the questions.
Due attention must be paid to obviating any risk of conceiving the arts and culture only as tools for
producing social effects: “Nowadays cultural operators are expected to take a stand and to offer
new solutions to a wide range of social problems – even if we have to remind politicians that
culture cannot be treated as a supermarket for easy answers” (Laaksonen, 2010). “Culture is not a
remedy for all illnesses in society” (Wiesand, 2000), but instead of “social engineering” efforts, “a
more constructive objective of cultural policy in pluralist countries could be to improve our means of
governing differences and managing conflict”. This includes “the ability of minorities to uphold what
- 70 -