Recently Creative Exchange, the network for culture and development, released a discussion paper by Helen Gould that invites us to examine the issues arising for arts organisations on the subject of ‘the arts and social inclusion’. Arts Hub’s Ali Howarth investigates ‘Culture and Social Development and asks, ‘Will cultural people and artists become the saviours of the World?’
Creative Exchange, formed in 1998 is an organisation with charitable status; it operates as an information and resource centre to its members – partners,
encouraging networking and a sharing of knowledge. They also lobby actively for policy that makes effective use of culture and the arts in achieving social change. Their stated charitable objective is, ‘to educate the public in the role of arts and culture in assisting the relief of need arising from poverty, sickness, infirmity, impotence, distress or age.’
Culture and Development is a relatively new term, coined in the 1980s and has evolved in practice to be the achievement of social development goals through the use of a wide range of arts and culture activities. These ‘social development goals’ are many and varied, including the promotion of education, debate and action in communities about important local issues such as: HIV/AIDS, conflict, human rights and environmental matters. Likewise the ‘arts and culture activities’ are wide-ranging and include: performing arts, creative writing, story telling, photography, radio and television, video, puppetry, craft/textiles, etc.
Since 1987, when UNESCO (United Nations educational scientific and cultural organization) launched the world decade on Culture and Development there has been a steady increase in the acknowledgement of the positive benefits that Arts and Culture are able to bring to communities when they are integral to social development projects. So what are the ‘positive benefits’? After reading Helen Gould’s paper, and many other sources on the subject, one can feel overwhelmed by the plethora of 3-letter acronyms and good intentions; the answers are as complex as the communities we inhabit. UNESCO has this to say:
‘UNESCO defends the case of indivisibility of culture and development, understood not simply in terms of economic growth, but also as a means of achieving a satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence. This development
may be defined as that set of capacities that allows groups, communities and nations to define their futures in an integrated manner.’
Speaking at the Common Threads Symposium, pertinent questions about Arts-based community activities and their effectiveness were posed by Bill Cleveland of the Center for Study of Art and Community in America. ‘How do the arts contribute to community health and vitality? What does it actually take to reduce recidivism or reduce drug taking or illiteracy using an arts based strategy?’ Bill spoke entertainingly and eloquently about methods and strategies to ensure increased effectiveness in arts-based projects…but confessed that he wasn’t satisfactorily able to answer the questions above. At the same conference, Simon Mundy offered his explanation as to why the arts are such an important tool in social development, [the arts] ‘allow the most deep felt and contentious issues to be confronted within a contained form, they can help people individually and, (in that little-used but useful word), severally to uncover the potential they have’.
The scope of Helen Gould’s paper addresses important issues of Social Inclusion. It also highlights the ways in which UK government policy is now engaging with community participation in arts and culture programmes as a means to empower individuals and groups, encourage their autonomy, and so contribute to sustainable
social development. The Government paper ‘Culture at the Heart of Regeneration’ (CHR) and its companion review sets out explicitly the case in support of using the arts and culture in UK social regeneration programmes and encourages more research and assessment of development projects in order to foster understanding
of the full range of benefits. Naturally, they are particularly keen for arts organisations to find a way of assessing the impact of their social projects in measurable economic terms.
‘Economic growth’ has become the primary measure of success in the World today and is frequently cited as one of the many ‘positive benefits’ in social development projects, but is it desirable, or even possible, for Culture and the Arts to be accountable only in economic terms? In the spirit of diversity and human difference, we must be open to accepting that human success indicators are not always easy to identify or to define and definitely not always financial. Social development projects that use the arts are expensive to initiate, even more so to sustain, however it’s a lot cheaper than the years of individual psychotherapy that would otherwise be needed to heal some of humanity’s scars. More effective too if we are to believe Richard Smith’s assertion from the British Medical Journal Dec 21, 2002, ‘If health is about adaptation, understanding and acceptance, then the arts may be more potent than anything medicine has to offer.’ With this in mind, he suggests boldly that 0.5% of the health budget be allocated to the Arts.
It is vital that funding is not only sufficient, but is utilised efficiently to the greatest effect. Creative Exchange supports social development programmes that are complex and dynamic and address a diverse range of community needs and issues, rather than only short-term ‘target hitters’ such as teenage pregnancy. They stress the need for funding to be stable in order to ensure that programmes are supported and nurtured, with the ultimate aim of projects that result
‘community connectedness’. Thus, individuals and communities are empowered to self-manage their development needs, and not be reliant forever on outside funding.
Helen Gould’s paper talks of the need to support those specialist arts organisations in the UK that are already working in the social development arena, as well as encouraging mainstream organisations to engage further. She urges an increased role for Arts Council England (ACE) in assisting the development of policy and strategies for ‘Arts and Social Inclusion’ whilst acknowledging the ways in which it has already been encouraging good practice. For some time now certain funding of arts institutions by the Arts Council has been contingent upon ensuring that buildings and services are accessible to all – a policy that has enabled people with physical disabilities meaningful participation where they were previously denied basic access.
In spite of its demands for economic accountability, the Government appears to have optimistic expectations of what the arts can achieve in social development. Dare we hope that we are entering an arts heyday, where arts organisations are no longer timidly holding out the begging bowl for funding and being considered a part-time hobby for society’s elite, but where creativity and arts are the inspiration for entire communities and ‘cultural people and artists are seen as the saviours of the World’ (Bert Mulder, Common Threads Symposium).
Helen Gould’s discussion paper is available to download from: www.creativeexchange.org
Other useful links and sources:
www.creativecommunities.org.uk (‘Common Threads Symposium, An Agenda for Active Citizenship’)
www.britishcouncil.org
www.culture.gov.uk
