Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The social dimension of culture
Date: 2006-03-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: cultural cooperation, cultural policy, cultural promotion, globalisation, intellectual capital, knowledge economy, knowledge management

C 110/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.5.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The social dimension of culture

(2006/C 110/07)

On 16 September 2004, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29 of the
Implementing Provisions of the Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an additional opinion on The social
dimension of culture.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 22 February 2006. The rapporteur was
Mr Le Scornet.

At its 425th plenary session, held on 15 and 16 March 2006 (meeting of 15 March), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 137 votes to 3 with 6 abstentions.

1. Summary

1.1
The objective of this additional opinion is to propose
various operational follow-ups and tools for the opinion on the
social dimension of culture adopted by the EESC on 31 March
2004.

1.2
It endeavours to define the concept of a social dimen-
sion of culture, with reference to three key words. These key
words — familiar to our Committee which studies them in
depth on an ongoing basis — are ‘knowledge-based economy’,
‘economic globalisation’ and ‘civil society’.

still appears to be excessively fixated on issues of patrimony
and on conserving heritage rather than on creativity, ongoing
processes, and new departures of the imagination; nor does the
debate yet reflect the cultural ferment characteristic of social,
economic and environmental developments.

1.7
The opinion expresses the hope that the work of the
Dublin Foundation will be brought more forcefully to bear in
these areas. It proposes that, whenever the EESC deals with
subjects where there is an implied need for ‘cultural revolu-
tions’,
‘changes of mindset’ or ‘shifting away from inherited
paradigms’, there should be at least one paragraph devoted to
specific analysis of these ideas.

1.3
It does not pursue the ideas put forward in the first
opinion concerning the setting up of new structures such as
observatories, laboratories and task forces.

1.8
The opinion emphasises the extent to which the method
of good or best practice could, if not used in a merely rheto-
rical way — as is often the case — be a major tool
for
dialogue, exchange and transfer of knowledge and culture.

1.4
However, it does call on the Commission to specify the
qualitative and quantitative indicators justifying its assertion
that the current range of Community tools suffice to measure:

2. Introduction

— changes in cultural and artistic employment within the EU,
the qualitative and quantitative effects of those changes on
employment in general, growth and social cohesion, as well
as recognition and participation for everyone, including in
particular those social groups and categories that appear to
be most deprived;

— the extent to which intercultural dialogue has developed,
not just in mechanical terms (number of exchanges, initia-
tives of all kinds), but also in a more substantive way, given
the Committee's concern about the rise of the phenomena
of exclusion, racism (even in countries such as the Nether-
lands or France where it seemed that policies aimed at
inclusion and/or multiculturalism had created stable
models), decoupling of individual and general interests, and
fragmentation rather than convergence.

that

The opinion suggests

the Commission should
1.5
present a very detailed report on this phenomenon and this
objective, not least since 2008 has been designated the year of
intercultural dialogue. The EESC is willing to play a very active
role in the drafting of such a report.

On 31 March 2004, the Committee, acting on a referral from
the European Parliament, adopted an opinion on the social
dimension of culture.

2.1

This opinion put forward a number of ideas:

to affirm the EESC's cultural role, despite the lack of
2.2
formal competences conferred on our institution in this field to
date;

to work towards gradually setting up a European
2.2.1
observatory of cultural cooperation, which, together with
the European Parliament, could draw up its own annual report;

to achieve closer cooperation between the Euro-
2.2.2
pean Parliament and the EESC which, in addition to facili-
tating the establishment of the above-mentioned observatory,
could also make it possible to set
‘an annual objective of
promoting at least one truly shared cultural value’;

The opinion therefore proposes

1.6
launching a new
cultural debate on culture, particularly since the current debate

2.2.3
social, economic and environmental fields;

to launch a laboratory of cultural change in the

9.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/35

2.2.4
and artistic exchange in areas of conflict.

to set up a European ‘task force’ to encourage cultural

3. We must continue to explore the concept of the social
dimension of culture, and establish key points which
could be incorporated into all European policies.

2.3
The present additional opinion is warranted by the fact
that the earlier opinion had to be drafted quickly. Towards the
end of its term of office, the European Parliament had asked us
to launch a process and an EESC-EP partnership. Our Commit-
tee's enthusiasm for continuing its work has been heightened
by the fact
the very conception of the cultural dimension
within the EU institutions seems to have given a twin boost.

Initial

statements by Commission president

José
2.3.1
Manuel Barroso to the effect that the ‘moment of culture’ was
at hand, that ‘in the hierarchy of values, the cultural ones range
above the economic ones’ (1), were very encouraging and
marked a vital turning point. For us, this was the first boost.

following

The second boost has come from our very own
2.3.2
Committee,
the
unanimous
programme presented by its president, Ms Anne Marie
Sigmund, who has made this subject a central priority of her
term of office.

adoption of

its

However,

2.3.3
these efforts remain tentative, since the
programme presented by the new Commission does not actu-
ally translate this turning point into practice. It does not even
explicitly refer to the new emphasis on culture! In accordance
with standard procedures,
the 2007-2013 programme for
culture presented by the Commission has not been referred to
our organisation for an opinion. It is not therefore the task of
this opinion to comment on it other than to point out that the
programme does not take spontaneous account of the ‘social
dimension of culture’, and that the programme's funding is well
below what the European Parliament would like to have seen
allocated. Even in terms of the place of culture among the prio-
rities of the EESC's programme, it would be an exaggeration to
claim that specific action has already been taken.

in the regeneration of

2.3.4 Moreover, the role of culture and its social dimension
in particular
the European Union
the reflection
remains ill-defined in the current context of
period decided on by the Council following the rejection of the
Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in France and the
Netherlands (a treaty which included culture as one of the
objectives of the European Union [(Article.I-3.3)], envisaged
modifying decision-making processes in the field of culture and
in many areas would have overcome the paralysis imposed by
the unanimity requirement [(Articles I-17 and III-280)], and
given the modest scale of the compromise which was reached
on the financial perspective.

(1) Speech at the Europe and culture conference, Berlin, on 26 November

2004.

The EESC opinion on the social dimension of culture initi-

3.1
ally approached the subject from three main angles:

— a new ‘culture’ of interactions between economic, social and

environmental practices;

— the effects of changes in the world of work on the structure

of society and cultural values;

— a new culture of democracy.

3.2
This additional opinion aims to help find the essential
points, the ‘key words’ capable of meshing these initial reflec-
tions as simply as possible into current Community policies.

3.3 The first key word is the ‘knowledge-based society’.

3.3.1
As was noted in our opinion on the social dimension of
culture, the universal tendency to intellectualise all the aspects
of work,
including the ‘work’ of consumption, and the
increased role played in this context by relational, stylistic and
creative criteria, are and will continue to be at the heart of the
differentials of competitiveness, attractiveness, mutual respect
and entrepreneurship between the various geo-cultural regions
of the planet. Europe must — and is in a position to — take
the ‘creative economy’ as a reference point.

3.3.2
That is why the EESC opinion highlights, among other
things, the issue of work and employment in the fields of
culture and the arts, and of a culture-based economy, and it is
in these areas that the Committee would like to see better use
being made of the work of the Dublin Foundation. It would be
useful
to analyse how the forms assumed by cultural and
artistic work are given shape by a more creative assessment of
work as a whole and reflect the knowledge-based economy.

3.3.3
Our Committee does not resignedly accept the gulf
between ‘high culture’ and the cultural dimension of technical,
economic, social, health and environmental matters — areas
which are still much too far removed from one another.
Through its ongoing work, among other things, on lifelong
learning and the shaping of a ‘learning’ society, our Committee
is resolutely striving to help bridge that gulf.

3.3.4
The enormous need for activity and employment
which is both secure and flexible in the fields of communica-
its
tion, mediation, knowledge, art and representation in all
various forms, and knowledge about knowledge, runs into the
problem of employment models which, paradoxically, can
accentuate inflexibility and insecurity.

C 110/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.5.2006

3.3.5
The rigidity of traditional hierarchies of recognition
accorded to various occupations may also impede the emer-
gence of new occupations. More generally, it should be noted
that there is a failure to genuinely translate intangibles into
economic results, and insufficient mobility of artists and other
cultural practitioners — and their works — across Europe. The
shortcomings in terms of compiling and exchanging cultural
innovations, which would save continually having to reinvent
the wheel, should also be noted.

The success of the Erasmus and Television without Fron-
3.3.6
tiers programmes, the European contribution to regenerating
devastated areas, the revival of major urban centres thanks to
artistic activity, and the lasting gains experienced by the Euro-
pean Capitals of Culture are already an initial
indication of
what is meant by the ‘social dimension of culture’. Although
the EU's remit is limited to backing up national policies, it is
nevertheless often a key player in helping facilitate numerous
cultural events and activities; thus, its role is that of a catalyst.
Ongoing input of
information into a ‘knowledge’ database
could have a considerable multiplier effect.

the

losses

Equally,

earnings

in terms of

3.3.7
and
networking activity sustained across the entire social and
economic fabric when festivals and cultural events are discon-
tinued, even temporarily, demonstrate the holistic contribution
which artistic, cultural and mediation activity and employment
— and the free movement and cross-fertilisation thereof —
make to sustainable development.

3.4 The second key word is ‘economic globalisation’.

3.4.1
In the EESC's view, the mediocre results of the Lisbon
strategy relative to its ambitious objectives have mainly to do
with neglect of the human, cultural and participatory factor. In
a ‘globalised economy’, promotion of a European culture which
no longer separates or prioritises economic, social and environ-
mental factors is the only way for Europe to halt or even
reverse the detrimental development lag between it and most
other areas of the world.

3.4.2
In many European countries, and also in other parts
of the world, there can no longer be any doubts concerning the
economic weight of cultural and creative sectors, confirmed by
numerous reports, studies and quantitative assessments. Many
businesses and hence jobs have been created in these sectors
over the last few years. One cannot overlook the trend here for
the creation of small, micro- and one-person businesses, a
development which has complex social implications.

For example, networks have to be put in place, given that tasks
often have to be pooled due to the small size of the companies
concerned. This means
the players concerned need
communication, negotiation and presentation skills, as well as
expertise on contract law, licensing rules, etc.

that

Small companies often face major challenges, due to a partial
or sometimes total lack of such skills and knowledge, which
are essential for all modern businesses; at the same time, they
frequently lack the financial capacity to seek professional
support, although other small and medium enterprises have
become highly effective in these areas.

As for social policy, it must find solutions for social protection
issues (for example, sickness, pensions and unemployment
insurance) arising from new business structures and new forms
of employment.

3.4.3
Another social dimension arises from the fact that
businesses in ‘new’ economic sectors such as the creative indus-
tries are often isolated, given that they operate in fields which
are still characterised by a total or partial
lack of reference
values, model contracts, sectoral indicators, etc. This aspect too
is important for the future development of the creative industry
and it should be reflected in an appropriate way, especially
given that, due to increasing globalisation and the need to face
up to international competition, such basic information is vital
for economic progress.

3.4.4
Given that the European Union must itself redefine its
goals, it is all the better placed to understand how economic
globalisation is influencing and will continue to influence the
emergence of new global cultural values. This also reflects the
fact that the European Union is no longer, and can no longer
be, a club, a restricted federation of ‘advanced’ countries with a
relatively high degree of economic, cultural and spiritual homo-
geneity. The EU has fully opened itself up to Protestant,
Orthodox, and Muslim cultures, is launching negotiations on
Turkish accession — an enlargement, which if
it actually
happens, will be wholly unprecedented — and is placing its
relations with its
immediate neighbours on a systematic
footing. It is now also having to re-think its place and its par-
ticular role in a globalisation process which has also seen the
rules of the game change at a rapid pace (2).

3.4.5
A ‘cultural Europe’ born of nation states that were past
champions at waging war, colonising and empire-building is
now perhaps the most appropriate expression of Europe as a
‘great power’ with the capacity to export, disseminate and
‘professionalise’ a ‘culture of peace’, civility and excellence. This
represents a return to the very idea that was the driving force
behind the European venture — the desire to spread the values
and practices of peace, interaction and exchange, rather than
domination and hierarchy across the world.

(2) Not only has there been a rapid rise of ‘continent states’ such as
China, India, Russia and Brazil (a process which was expected, even
though one could hardly have imagined the pace at which it is
happening), but the nature of this process is different to what was
expected (overturning the traditional global division of labour with
manufacturing industry located outside the ‘advanced’ European
economies), and there is also a disturbing rise in environmental
‘risks’ and cultural clashes.

9.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/37

3.5 The third key word is ‘civil society’.

3.5.1
The fact that the EESC, whose formal remit has not
been explicitly expanded to include culture has, at its presi-
dent's instigation, adopted an overall action plan that gives
priority to culture (3), is a key political statement.

This could even be seen as a kind of affirmation of
3.5.2
culture,
in defiance of the hegemony of a way of thinking
which sees everything strictly in terms of economic benefits or
output, or even of social and environmental issues. This affir-
mation is all the more valuable for having been initiated by
European social and economic actors, representing organised
civil society across the board,
in the fields of production,
consumption and redistribution.

3.5.3
This evolving European culture, which the current
historic enlargement process is re-uniting, is the product of a
remarkable history and a unique form of development (4). It is
all the more important to be aware of its potential to overcome
a phenomenon which cannot be concealed or under-estimated:
the fact that ‘the public in the Member States shows little
interest or curiosity, or is simply indifferent, to the cultures of
other
(EU ‘cultural’
programmes) can of course have a significant impact on this
state of affairs, but only a holistic vision of culture and full
recognition of its social dimension will suffice to fully remedy
the problem.

Incentive policies

EU countries’ (5).

The wide range of

3.5.4
issues involved in the task of
devising a true social and cultural democracy would merit thor-
ough discussion with social movements, cultural networks and
the social partners — not just between institutions. One of the
major challenges to be met is undoubtedly that of establishing
a cooperation ethic and technology among all the partners
concerned, in order to work constructively towards a global set
of cultural values founded on non-violence.

3.5.5
Our societies can no longer afford not to recognise
and involve all their actors and all their environments. It has
been made clear both by the European Year of Disabled People
and EESC opinions and initiatives on this subject — and also
on all other subjects linked to various forms of discrimination
and severe poverty — that they will be judged on the place and
role they give to the most disadvantaged and marginalised
members of society. The aim is not only to give everyone their
due place, but also to ensure that the cultural impact of their
fight against poverty infuses humanity and provides an oppor-
tunity to revamp modern humanism. Should not the traditional
models of hierarchical command and ‘assisted dependence’ (cf.
the various forms of welfare state) now give way to a model

(3) Programme adopted by the EESC at its plenary session on 15 and

16 December 2004.

(4) A survey by the Dublin-based European Foundation for

the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions revealed that 80 %
of Europeans (in the 15 Member States at the time of the survey)
were satisfied with their lives, a finding which helps to confirm the
hypothesis that a coherent and qualitative European way of thinking
and a specific European way of life do in fact exist.

(5) Study on the Mobility and Free Movement of People and Products
in the Cultural Sector. Olivier Audiard, April 2002, Paris X Univer-
sity.

involving the active participation of each person, i.e. ‘empower-
ment’ of all the economic, social, family and cultural players?
This means that, in the new democratic mindset required and
facilitated by a globalised economy, ‘civil society’ can, despite
not having any direct claim to power, no longer be presented
as a subordinate factor or counteracting influence. To ensure a
stable future and protect itself from arbitrary developments,
civil society must promote its values of solidarity and preserve
the capacity and guarantee for ‘thinking collectively’.

4. Working towards proposals and further exploration of

the concept of the social dimension of culture

The EESC notes that, for the time being at least, its insti-
4.1
tutional partners (European Commission, Parliament) and to
some extent the Committee itself view the establishment of
new structures such as ‘observatories’,
‘laboratories’, and ‘task
forces’ as either useless, premature, or unrealistic.

4.2
For the European Commission and, it seems, the Parlia-
ment, the networking of structures such as the various existing
observatories could yield real results in terms of European
cultural cooperation without requiring new instruments to be
devised.

However,

4.3
the EESC would ask the Commission to
formulate quantitative and qualitative indicators, and to clarify
existing indicators, thus enabling objectives for the advance-
ment of intercultural dialogue, for the mobility of artists and
artworks, and for the transfer of knowledge and ideas between
hitherto highly compartmentalised fields,
to be discussed,
shaped and evaluated.

For the EESC, this is not just a matter of ex-post moni-
4.4
toring of quantitative progress towards such objectives. Indeed,
the proliferation of
intercultural contacts and events in an
enlarged Europe and in a more developed single market, parti-
cularly in terms of services, can only intensify.

It is also important to know whether measurable growth in
cultural consumption and tourism exchanges automatically
translates into gains in terms of enhanced knowledge, more
outward-looking attitudes and culture. It would be well not
only to quantify and describe, but also to seek to understand
the proliferation of phenomena such as exclusion, racism (even
in countries such as the Netherlands or France where it seemed
that long-term policies aimed at integration and/or multicultur-
alism had created stable models), decoupling of individual and
general interests, and fragmentation rather than convergence.

C 110/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.5.2006

4.5 Moreover, everyone is aware that many national cultural
policies, even those which benefited from determined and
coherent management over decades by EU Member States, have
had very little impact on inherited social class systems.

4.6
That is why the EESC is so strongly in favour of the
European Union becoming a forum for reflection and discus-
sion on the cultural policies of each Member State — a forum
for a new process of cultural reflection on culture. Preparations
for the year of
intercultural dialogue (2008) should be an
opportunity for the Commission to present a very detailed
document on the actual breadth of such dialogue, the persistent
or new obstacles which it encounters, and new ideas which
could help genuinely deepen it. The EESC is willing to play a
role in the drafting of such a report, for example from the
perspective of the social dimension of culture, and also from
that of the cultural dimension of social issues, for example in
terms of intergenerational relations.

4.7

This additional opinion also proposes the following:

4.7.1
sustained ‘cultural hygiene’ on the part of our
Committee: whenever an opinion deals with subjects where the
cultural aspect is of key importance, a section of the opinion
could explicitly discuss this aspect. Rather than referring in
abstract terms to the necessity for cultural revolutions, changes
of mindset and shifts away from inherited paradigms which
have since become obsolete,
required for
cultural transformations of this sort should be discussed in as
specific terms as possible.

the conditions

4.7.2
closer attention to the open method of coordination
and the use of ‘best practice’. Should not concepts and proce-

Brussels, 15 March 2006.

dures be ‘tightened up’ so that they can acquire a much more
specific operational capacity? This would help to ensure that
identification and transfer of knowledge and cultural changes
lead to more efficient, cost-effective and convergent reforms
which can be clearly explained, thus enabling their appropria-
tion and replication.

4.7.3

determination on the part of
the European Economic and
Social Committee — which is an ideal forum for encounters
between national, professional, social and societal cultures —
to launch a search in specific sectors for areas of activity where
there is scope for exchange of practices, for example between
the healthcare and educational sectors; these are sectors where
there are close parallels between cultural changes — both those
which are already underway and those which are desirable.
Such changes could help to establish new ways of controlling
complex systems, and offer
scope for more encounters,
exchanges and sharing. For example, promoting multidisci-
plinary team work can help to create common ground between
various professions, which by nature are isolated from one
another. Such interaction could help to overcome compartmen-
talised and blinkered attitudes in individual disciplines. It could
also enable progress in one field to benefit other areas of
than is usually the
activity more rapidly and extensively
in which
case. Finally,
economic, social and environmental aspects are no longer
divorced from one another, as a cultural unity for Europe is in
its diversity and in improving the living conditions of
its
peoples.

it would establish a systemic culture,

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND