The National Cultural Policy Discussion Paper - a response

The principles underpinning an Australian cultural policy should not be limited to the Australian context, but extend to inform and support effective international aid and development programs. More specifically the recently released National Cultural Policy Discussion Paper[1] states that the proposed policy ‘be based on an understanding that a creative nation produces a more inclusive society and a more expressive and confident citizenry by encouraging our ability to express, describe and share our diverse experiences – with each other and with the world.’ In this paper it is argued that the extension of these principles to Australia’s International Aid Program is a legal, moral and utilitarian imperative in the nation’s best interest. The ways in which this can be achieved is to engage creatively through shared values within trusting frameworks, using common tools and by collective learning. 

Domestic Cultural Policy and International Aid and Development Programs

Australia has a rich history of indigenous and non-indigenous artistic and cultural traditions. It was only in the early 1990s the notion of a ‘cultural policy’, as opposed to an ‘arts policy’ became a key part of the national political discourse for the first time.[2]  With the launch of Creative Nation in 1994 it set up a ten year framework within which different levels of government as well as cultural and artistic practitioners could relate and work toward a common cultural development paradigm. Culture defined in Creative Nation is ‘to say that we share ideas, values, sentiments and traditions, and that we see in all the various manifestations of these what it means to be Australian … [Culture] is the name we go by, the house in which we live. Culture is that which gives us a sense of ourselves.’[3] Hawkes goes one step further in stating ‘culture is not the decoration added after a society has dealt with its basic needs. Culture is the basic need – it is the bedrock of society’.[4]

The spirit of Creative Nation, being Australia’s first and only federal cultural policy, is now being continued by the Gillard government in the forming of a new National Cultural Policy. The discussion paper currently open for public comment takes into account a number of sector themes and interests. The overarching objective of the  National Cultural Policy will be to reflect the important role the arts and creativity play in the daily lives of Australians, and will help integrate arts and cultural policy within our broader social and economic goals.[5] This objective I believe should extend not only to the daily lives of Australians but to those of our global brothers and sisters.

In relation to International Aid and Development Programs, at the 2007 Federal elections the Australian Government committed to increase the Official Development Assistance (ODA) to a Gross National Income (GNI) ratio from 0.34% in 2009-10 to 0.5% by 2015-16. In 2011-2012 the Australian Government plans to spend almost $4.8 billion on development assistance. This is an estimated 0.35% of Gross National Income for the year.[6]

With this increasing aid budget the Federal Government is actively seeking partnerships and best practice examples from the Australian context. Areas that have been identified already are climate change mitigation, dry land agriculture and water resource management. [7] Underpinning the current approach is not an engagement on common principles but on exporting expertise and Australian culture into similar contexts. Below I argue that this approach is not morally, legally or in the nation’s best interests. Further, I present more suitable alternatives.

Cultural Policy looking out from a place within

In the National Cultural Discussion paper it states:

‘The policy will be based on an understanding that a creative nation produces a more inclusive society and a more expressive and confident citizenry by encouraging our ability to express, describe and share our diverse experiences – with each other and with the world.’[8] 

The Discussion Paper however as it stands is largely inward looking. It is upon the above paragraph that I wish to expand in this essay upon how the National Cultural Policy should start to look outward in informing our International Aid and Development Programs.

Exploring Common Values on a Creative Nations Playing Field

Looking out it is important to engage within frameworks and across common cultural values that we all hold. Some maintain that there are no universal human values, however the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights[9] and a more recent study by some of the largest global NGOs maintain we do hold in some common global human values,[10] and these should be explored in our aspirations to achieve greater global solidarity and peace.

Being creative is intrinsic to human life. As and Ewe proverb says; ‘Life is like an anthill, it is built from within out.’[11] The Ewe also believe as do many scholars that creativity is a fundamental component of human existence. Thompson goes on further to say that ‘creativity, is not only basic to human nature, but is woven into the very fabric of society’[12], that it is part of our cultural DNA. This would be true as for Melbourne as it would be for the tribal community of the Ewe. Therefore to engage in a creative process is to engage globally on an even and deeply rich playing field through exploring common values. Such an approach is in stark contrast to current global relationships dominated by finance and weapons.

Inclusive societies and a more expressive and confident global citizenry

As is stated in the UN Declaration;  ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.’[13]  Therefore, we are bound not just by moral obligation to be inclusive but also through international law.[14] We are also bound by our national interests in this ever increasing multi-polar  and volatile world. A recent study by Trocaire has shown that for countries to achieve social and physical well-being they must start to engage more even handedly across the globe. With the emergence of the BRIICs (Brazil, India, Indonesia & China) as the new powerhouses of development countries will survive more on their relationships as a good global citizen rather than its traditional ties and trading partners.[15]

Aid in general and the Australian aid Program in particular has had  a history of exporting solutions. This has resulted in aid dependency syndrome and a breakdown in confidence amongst developing communities.[16] As Robert Zoellick, World Bank President said in a recent speech; ‘They don't want handouts, they don't want policy prescriptions, they certainly don't want lectures from visiting dignitaries.’[17]  What many want is to be included in defining their own future based on individual reflection and collective dialogue. This requires even power balances which a trusting creative process allows. It also requires confidence by individuals and communities to engage meaningfully. Confidence within a trusting framework in which opportunity to engage is provided are key components of any successful development initiative.[18] These aspects together with an ability to reflect and learn is what I wish now to explore in bridging the gap between the National Cultural Policy and International Aid and Development programs.

The ability to express, describe and share our diverse experiences

Previous domestic cultural development and International development programs could be best described as a ‘democratisation’ of culture. A process aimed at engaging individuals from excluded groups in historically privileged cultural arenas.[19] Unfortunately in international development common terminology of ‘knowledge transfer’ and ‘sensitisation’ still prevail. What is offered here as an alternative to prescriptive solutions is an approach that enables an exploration of common solutions within a broad framework. Owen  presents us with the idea that we should see design of policy and development programs like natural selection[20]. That is we try different types of approaches based on previous experiences, see which one is best suited based on application in a context, create different versions of that approach and apply again and so on. This approach would allow individuals and communities to provide policy input and design alterations as they experience what works. Such an experiential process would not require deep analysis but a simple understanding of what is working and what is not. The Presencing Institute provides us with another alternative through Theory U. Theory U ‘suggests that the way in which we attend to a situation determines how a situation unfolds: I attend this way, therefore it emerges that way. As a practical social technology, Theory U offers a set of principles and practices for collectively creating the future that wants to emerge (following the movements of co-initiating, co-sensing, co-inspiring, co-creating, and co-evolving).’[21] More familiar to the Community Cultural Development discourse is the concept and practice of Cultural Democracy. Cultural Democracy emphasises people’s rights to public space and the public sector as domains of democratic expression.[22] That is instead of deciding what is good for a community, space is provided in which individuals and communities can explore common solutions  in pursuit of self actualisation. It is a process whereby cultural practice informs policy not whereby policy informs culture. Whether it be experiential (as in Owen’s example), presencing (as in Theory U) or buy providing space for cultural democracy they all have the same aim; that the National Cultural Policy and International Aid Programs be formed through an ongoing process of dialogue both within Australia and with our global brothers and sisters.

To engage both within Australia and beyond we need common tools in which to do so. These tools are numerous, however in this paper I wish to explore Information Communication Technology tools, more specifically the mobile phone. There are now more that 5 billion mobile phone subscriptions in the world, expanding at a rate of about 10% per year in the developing world. Subscriptions in Africa rose from 23 million to almost 350 million between 2002 and 2008, the quickest growth in the world.[23] Of note is that 2 out of every 3 new mobile subscribers are women.[24] The Swiss Agency for Development note that through mobile phones even the very poor and marginalized people have access to a personalized channel to the outside word breaking the longstanding monopoly of the male household head to information.[25] In Australia in 2011 there are approximately 28million mobile phone subscriptions, more than the Australian population.[26]  Mobile phone technology is being increasingly used to engage individuals and communities to inform Government policy and development programs. The reasons for this are; cost and time effectiveness (40% cheaper than face to face community dialogue), it is real time and more accurate (allowing for rapid input and analysis to specific issues), can reach more people, is gender sensitive and anonymous.[27] The potential creative engagement uses are also high as bandwidth and data limits expand. Using Mobiles to send photo, film and voice recording will collapse even more barriers between community and decision makers of policy and development programs over time. The use of mobile phones can therefore be vital not just in allowing individuals and communities across the globe to engage within common cultural frameworks but it will also allow for creative expression as a method in which to do so.

Collective engagement and common tools are not the only components needed, shared cultural learning will also be vital to inform domestic cultural policy and international aid and development programs.  Tocaire note that within the next 20 years most of the world’s poorest people will be found in some of the richest countries.[28] With immigration and a widening social divide Australia could very much be one of these countries. Therefore the principles in which we engage culturally in Australia, and the solutions we find may be shared with very similar global contexts if called to do so. Australia could potentially become a global cultural think tank for sharing the principles and frameworks through which we approach and solve issues. Australia would be better placed to do this as we have a relatively small population and are not facing the same demographic and historical pressures as countries like France or the United Kingdom. 

Conclusion – with each other and the world

An Australian cultural policy will define not only what it is and how it is to be Australian, but should also include our commonalities with global humanity. The need to do this will be increasingly so as contexts shift and new cultural relationships develop. Within the next twenty years the idea of ‘us and them’ will become even more blurred. It is important not only from moral or legal reasons that we engage on cultural principles with the global community but also as a matter for the nation’s best interest. The way to do this is not to export cultural solutions that has previously been the approach in our international aid and development programs. We must however engage under broad frameworks that allow for movements of co-initiating, co-sensing, co-inspiring, co-creating, and co-evolving. We now have the tools in which to do so in mobile phone technology  that allows not only communication but creative process. This done with a collective approach to learning both home and abroad will only increase cultural resilience to the ever increasing shocks of the multi-polar world. It is for these reasons that the National Cultural Policy must not only be limited to looking inward at the Australia cultural context but look outward and participate in the broader global collective.