My brief is to reflect on the debates around cultural diversity within the North-South divide, and to propose a way forward beyond some of the more debilitating aspects of these debates. By way of introduction, much of what I have to say reflects my own rather recent entry into these debates, and it is shaped largely by my living in South Africa as part of the African continent.
When the INCD met in Cape Town last year, the first time that it had held its annual conference in a developing country, and the first time that it had as many conference delegates from the developing world as it did, it would be true to say that there was much suspicion on the part of some of the African delegates.
The basis of these suspicions was the very concept and language of “cultural diversity” because of the colonial and apartheid baggage that the term carries. The divide-and-rule strategies of the minority governments that came to plague Africa were rooted in the premise that since different cultural groups spoke different languages, practised different religions, had different world views and cultural practices, it was necessary to keep these groups apart to prevent conflict. The reality of cultural diversity in Africa, thus became an oppressive tool of colonialism and apartheid and was associated with all its attendant abuses of human rights. Thus, to advocate cultural diversity against this background, was potentially to promote neo-apartheid and to resurrect negative memories of exploitation, indignity and powerlessness.
A second reason for the suspicion about the language of “cultural diversity” is that in too many instances, culture has been used as the basis for groups or individuals to pursue political power and that often had oppressive and even genocidal consequences for other cultural groups. Belonging to a particular cultural group could be the means to political, social or other privileges for some, while belonging to another cultural group could mean marginalisation. Even in post-colonial Africa then, cultural diversity has sometimes had profoundly negative consequences, so that the promotion thereof raised understandable suspicions.
Thirdly, concerns were expressed about the promotion of cultural diversity as a romantic notion, including the uncritical affirmation of traditional cultures, when in some cases, traditional cultures set back the democratic project because of their feudal nature, while others could potentially reverse the gains made in liberating women from oppressive, culturally-induced roles.
It was feared that at worst, the proposed Convention on Cultural Diversity could be used to advance neo-apartheid, justify gender oppression and even be the basis for genocide. At best, the notion of cultural diversity displayed a gross lack of sensitivity on the part of the developed world to the oppressive histories of the colonised world.
In the conference corridors, in private discussions, sometimes in the plenary sessions and certainly after the conference, this was the essential point of suspicion: that in order to protect the cultural – mainly audio-visual - industries of a few, primarily developed countries, the developing world was simply being used to make up the numbers in the battle against the US at the World Trade Organisation because
There were other cultural priorities in the developing world, like simply getting governments to support arts and culture, getting them to take the cultural dimension of development seriously, with artists struggling simply to survive in these countries. The WTO, TRIPS, GATS, WIPO and a list of other acronyms appeared to have little relevance to the lives of artists in developing countries. On the basis of the experience of the conference, some argued that even if they became involved in the global cultural diversity movement, it was clearly led by those from the developed world, and the historical momentum was such that despite the Convention making gestures towards the developing world, the immediate strategic decisions and priorities would be driven by those with interests that could be affected by the WTO in the short term.
These were some of the sentiments that prevailed at the INCD conference about a year ago. However, at least four-and-a-half years before the INCD conference in Cape Town, and before the INCD was even born, the issues of cultural diversity – understood as globalised trade and the impact on culture - were discussed on the continent. At a conference in Togo in 1998, delegates from 29 African countries met at the Pan African Consultation on Cultural Policies for Development to discuss the challenge of cultural diversity, the redefinition of cultural policies for development, and a regional strategy in preparation for the intergovernmental conference on cultural policies that was to be held in Stockholm later that year.
I quote from the report: “The central theme of the first session…examined the issue of cultural diversity by situating it in the present context of economic and trade globalisation. Such a context doubtless presents certain dangers for cultures such as African cultures….What must Africa do? Wait and continue to suffer or become involved in the movement of the world? In this case, it will have to decide to give itself the means to do so.”
This reflects at least one earlier debate about cultural diversity but, as with many other good initiatives on the continent, a combination of the lack of resources, lack of capacity, lack of political will and lack of organisational structures through which to take forward such initiatives, meant that the discussions and strategies initiated in 1998, were never followed through on any meaningful scale, so that for many delegates at Cape Town, they were confronting the concept of cultural diversity understood in the context of globalised trade, for the first time.
What we have learned is that while the current hegemony around the language of cultural diversity describes the sphere of global trade and its potentially adverse impact on cultural industries and cultures generally, we need to be sensitive to, and acknowledge the negative baggage that the concept carries, for we attach different experiential, historical and intellectual meanings to the same words and concepts.
In some contexts, cultural diversity conjures up notions of divide-and-rule, neo-colonial associations. For others, it means integrating minority and immigrant cultures in national programmes of multiculturalism. We need to be clear though, that when we talk about it, we refer to globalised trade, the liberalisation of market access and the potentially harmful effects on the arts, on cultural industries, and on cultures in a broad sense. Simply foregrounding this in our discussions within the developing world, will help us to move forward and not spend unnecessary time at first base.
After the challenge of language, a second challenge is to show that all countries are indeed affected by globalisation and its impact on arts and culture, and not only developed countries. It is true that those countries with well-developed audio-visual, music and publishing industries will have more visible and immediate concerns than those countries with little or no cultural industries, and for this reason it is understandable that countries that have much to lose in trade liberalisation discussions would take the initiative to launch and fund a body like the INCD. But it is also true that developing and underdeveloped countries are themselves affected by globalisation.
One of the reasons why we do not have cultural industries or that we have limited cultural industries in many developing world countries is because it is cheaper to buy cultural products from abroad, than to produce local content. This has direct consequences for our artists, who do not get work because we’re buying products from abroad. Simply by doing so, we have entered the world of globalised trade by becoming a market for such work. Our cinema screens, our television programmes, our music and book stores generally reflect products that are created elsewhere, and they carry with them the worldviews, the ideas, the values and perspectives that arise out of particular cultural contexts, and they transfer these values, ideas and worldviews to our worlds. Because they dominate our televisions, airwaves, bookshelves and screens, when our countries do eventually develop the capacity to tell our own stories or produce our own music, our audiences and markets are reluctant to buy local products because they have internalised the values, the themes and the aesthetics of the foreign cultural products, to which they have become accustomed.
Even the cuts to cultural subsidies in some of our countries are the direct consequence our governments buying into the notion of being globally competitive, implying that if a cultural product or practice cannot be supported in the market place, it doesn’t deserve a place at all.
Culture is also the sphere in which hegemonic struggle takes place, the struggle between ideas, values, worldviews, beliefs. At the re-entry of the US to UNESCO, Laura Bush is quoted as having said that the organisation “can now help to achieve peace by spreading the values that will defeat terror and lead to a better and safe world”. Whose values they are, and what exactly these values are, are of course great questions for debate, but there is an assumption that we all aspire to have the same values, without questioning the values, ideas, beliefs, worldviews and the practices that lead to terror in the first place.
Whether we like it or not, whether we care to admit it or not, we are all affected by globalisation, by international trade in cultural products, by the inexorable need of multinationals to find new markets, to increase profits, by the influence of foreign cultural products on our values, our worldviews, ideas and belief systems.
At the same time, we need to acknowledge and respect the fact that different countries are at different levels of development with respect to cultural industries, with respect to cultural policies and support for artists. Even in the south, in the developing world, we are not homogenous, we do not speak with one voice. We have competing interests, or different ambitions on the world or continental stages, and different historical conditions that place us in a better or worse position to compete within the global markets.
How we sell cultural diversity, how we build a global movement requires of us then that we be visionary, yet pragmatic; clear in setting our priorities, yet flexible in how we pursue them; firm in our standpoints, yet open to the insights gleaned in different conditions.
The third challenge revolves around the Convention itself. This has been a key strategy to promote cultural diversity, but the experience in many African countries has made practitioners cynical about the effect of treaties, conventions and declarations. For many, their countries are already signatories to various treaties about human rights, cultural rights, the rights of artists, etc, yet the reality is that their governments often pay little respect to these. Sometimes, governments have little respect for their own constitution or laws, so how would yet another Convention make an impact in the context of the continent?
While the Convention is promoted by many in the developed world where there is respect for international law and conventions, the global cultural diversity movement needs to understand that for many practitioners in developing countries, the Convention would be little more than a symbolic document, that may be used for organisational and mobilisation purposes, but it wouldn’t necessarily be regarded as the definitive strategy to promote and protect cultural diversity.
What then, are other strategies that could be used as hooks to bring on board practitioners in the developing world? One of the best ways to protect and extend global cultural diversity is to develop the capacity and the means globally for countries to produce their own cultural products, to be able to compete in the local and global market places and offer their citizens both local and international choices. If there are no, or few, cultural products in the south and if those that exist are of inferior quality, then the conditions are created for cultural homogenisation as products from a few are exported to the many. It is in the interests of those who seek to protect their own cultural industries to promote and develop the cultural industries and the artistic practices of the south. The global cultural diversity movement would be more attractive to the developing world if it were seen to be doing or facilitating such development.
Last year, the idea of a Global Fund to promote the development of cultural industries in the south was raised in a paper, but we never took it up. Now the idea appears in the latest draft of the INCP’s Convention, and we have lost an opportunity to claim a strategic victory.
Perhaps we should run a campaign to lobby all development agencies and all governments that donate development funds to contractually oblige recipient countries to allocate a percentage to the arts and to the development of cultural industries. There has been so much talk, so many papers and conferences about the subject and two UNESCO World Decades on Culture and Development, yet many beneficiaries of development funds have no idea of the relationship between culture and development and no respect for the concept. Launching a campaign to allocate a percentage of development funds for cultural industries would serve to educate governments about the relationship between culture and development, will contribute to real global diversity by advancing cultural industries in the south, and will be an attractive entry point for practitioners from the developing world into the global cultural diversity movement.
Finally, in building such a movement that includes the south as an integral force, we need to be aware of the practical challenges. It is generally cheaper to fly to Europe from Africa than to fly within Africa. Our colonial heritage means that our continent is divided by language between those who speak English, those who speak French and those who speak Portuguese, while Arabic is a fourth major language. One of the papers to be discussed at this conference reflects the digital divide on the continent - less than 7 million out of 861 million people are connected to the internet. We face basic struggles for democracy, for respect for human rights, for respect for the law. Our continent is the worse hit in terms of the AIDS pandemic, so that life itself is under enormous threat.
But none of these is sufficient to prevent us from building a cultural diversity movement. For the struggles to ensure cultural diversity are integral to the struggles for democracy, for the practice and freedom to express our artistic visions, for human rights, for sustainable environmental practices, for a better quality of life for everyone.
And it is up to us to make a difference. We in the south have to organise ourselves in order to make a difference, in order to take responsibility for our own destinies. At the Cape Town conference last year, artists in South Africa recognised the need for a national body to serve as our voice, to take up issues of global trade and its impact on our cultural industries with our government. We have now launched the Network for Arts and Culture South Africa, a direct consequence of the INCD conference, that is now in a position to take a up a range of issues on behalf of the sector, including issues of cultural diversity. We have also applied to be cooperating body with our national UNESCO commission so that our voice will be heard there on issues of cultural diversity.
And this is the only way in which we are going to build a global movement. To organise, organise and organise. And we have to do this ourselves. If we no longer want to be victims, if we no longer want to be on the margins, if we want to players in our own destinies, we have to organise ourselves so that we are strong enough at national, continental and global levels to be heard and to make a difference.
The INCD provides us with an international forum to set an agenda, to determine strategies, to articulate our concerns as civil society. But for the INCD to become even more effective, the south and developing countries need to take more active part in it, to help to shape its direction and its priorities, to help give effect to its strategies, and to take joint and equal ownership of the organisation as a vehicle to serve our collective, yet at times disparate, interests.
We live in a global village. We need each other. The long term interests of the north are directly linked to the long term interests of the south, and vice versa. We need to engage with each other in ensuring a sustainable, culturally diverse world that offers the hope of a better quality of life for all. We have no other choice but to work together.
The INCD provides us with the means to do exactly that.
Mike van Graan
October 2003