DOES AUSTRALIA NEED
A CULTURAL POLICY?
© Donald Richardson, March, 2006
Professor David Throsby, who recently published a book with this
title (Currency House, 2006), answers his own question with a
resounding 'yes'. This is because he finds - quite validly -
that there are a number of inconsistencies and irrationalities
in the life of the nation which reflect on our culture and which
call for resolution.
We see ourselves as culturally independent, but this is questionable,
he says, and we don't even discuss how we can better reflect
our culture in our constitutional arrangements (for example,
in the free trade agreement with the USA). We see ourselves as
a tolerant, fair-minded people, yet we show cultural insensitivity
in relation to both refugees and indigenous Australians. We profess
the virtues of international cultural dialogue, yet (following
the position of the USA) we refuse to support the UN Convention
on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural
Expression. Throughout history there has never been a civilization
which did not have government arts patronage, yet - while our
government talks support for the arts - it is reluctant to provide
sufficient funding for either production or consumption. Our
artists live in penury.
Australia is a 'cultural pariah', he concludes.
While recognizing that we cannot blame all these problems on
the Federal government, Professor Throsby - a cultural economist
- nevertheless gives an economist's argument for the government
to address them. If we had a cultural policy which was aligned
with our economic policy, this would yield positive outcomes
in the communications media and other cultural industries in
the new service economy. While technological hardware is better
produced in other countries, our cultural sector would thrive
on producing software in the form of films, videos, games, publicity
etc.
"Where culture leads, trade follows", he says, in support
of having a cultural policy that is attuned to our foreign policy.
Australia needs a cultural body like France's Alliance Francaise
and Germany's Goethe Institut to promote our culture internationally,
but he does not think the Australia Council - which appears to
be 'keeping its head down' politically - is up to doing this.
Throsby deplores that government support for the ABC and the
SBS is not sufficient to enable them to fulfil their charters.
And a cultural approach to social policy would have wide-ranging
possibilities. But we first need a programme of informed public
discussion to help us make explicit what really are the fundamental
'Australian' values. One thing this would do is help us to formulate
our attitude to human rights and our handling of cultural differences.
This situation cries out for government intervention, but the
current government fails to recognize this - in spite of the
fact that taxpayers have indicated that they would welcome such
an initiative. The engine for change is the 'creative core' of
the arts and our cultural heritage. This is not a matter of special
pleading for cultural elites, but one which would yield general
community benefits, such as employment and wealth generation,
social cohesion and urban revitalization. Although the market
can assist, it cannot alone provide all the necessary energy.
Throsby's call has been widely discussed - although not in South
Australia. As was to be expected, artists generally have welcomed
it, but commentators in the right-wing press find it less than
praiseworthy, although their arguments have been superficial.
Throsby does make a case for at least researching the situation,
and along the lines he suggests. Disagreeing with the Prime Minister,
who - he says - asserts that there is no need to discuss 'Australian
identity', Throsby asserts that defining 'the subterranean aspects
of our culture' is precisely the crux of the matter. However,
his thesis does have two clear deficiencies. First, it shares
the belief - which governments and industry, internationally,
are currently inclined to buy already - that encouraging people
to study the arts educates them appropriately for a role in the
new creative/knowledge economy. But, this reduces the arts to
a mere instrument of business, economics and material prosperity,
and culture is valuable in its own right. While it may be true
that studying Picasso may make someone a better computer programmer
or salesperson, visiting his gallery in Paris is a personally
enriching and valuable experience in its own right.
The other weakness in Throsby's approach is that his definition
of culture is far too narrow. It is commonly accepted that culture
includes all the activities, rituals and values that a particular
group of humans share; it is not restricted to the arts and cultural
heritage. By not accepting this, Throsby condemns the arts to
a cultural and political ghetto. A cultural policy must include
all that is in the wider context - including sport, religion,
entertainment and recreation - and functional design - as well
as the arts as narrowly defined by him. Only then will it gain
universal acceptance and have the possibility of generating political
power. It is too easy for the philistines to reject an arts policy
as not having universal relevance (although they would be wrong).
Finally, Throsby's suggestion for a solution to the problem is
similarly proscribed. He can only suggest the formation of groups
of cognoscenti who would brain-storm discussion papers and write
manifestos to inspire public debate. This would culminate in
a summit (of what the Prime Minister would surely dub 'elites')
to devise a policy. One is reminded of the republic disaster!
Anyhow, he seems to have little confidence that this would work
- and this writer agrees. This is a matter so deep as well as
wide that no manifesto is likely even to scratch the surface.
But, like most arts administrators and academics, Throsby does
not even consider the most obvious - and most likely to succeed
- strategy: through education. These days, it is in the schools
and the market-place - more potently than in our homes and churches
- that culture is defined. Through these agents we have developed
a culture that places ridiculously high value on competitive
sport and mindless entertainment, to the exclusion of almost
everything else. But, more recently, we have come to value and
care for the environment - and this has surely been generated
in the primary schools of the nation. No one has condemned this
as social engineering, and it is no more so than television advertising
is. If we were to add the arts to this mix, we would have a complete
culture - and the possibility of defining a cultural policy.
But our schools are ill-equipped and disinclined to take on this
extra dimension. Perhaps our hope for cultural maturity lies
in the forward thinking of our new Education Minister, Julie
Bishop, who would be well advised to adopt as broad an approach
to cultural education as she has to preschool education.
|