State of culture in Europe

Last September, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the new College of Commissioners for the next five years. Malta’s Glenn Micallef, the youngest nominee, was assigned the portfolio for intergenerational fairness, youth, culture and sport. Micallef described the appointment as a privilege, noting on X that ‘few areas are as close to EU citizens’ daily lives’. However, POLITICO, a major EU media outlet, ranked Micallef among the ‘losers’ in their article ‘The winners and losers of the new European Commission’, calling his portfolio ‘of little relevance at the European level and with even less clout’. Maltese media echoed this sentiment, describing the portfolio as ‘weak’ and ‘one of the least crucial’.

Culture apparently continues to be viewed as irrelevant, uninfluential, and unimportant. This is after the sector’s relentless advocacy efforts to mainstream it across other policies. We, culture advocates, have gathered extensive data demonstrating culture’s role in various fields. We embraced post-COVID narratives about its impact on healthcare, and spent decades reframing culture as a vital industry. We have campaigned loudly to integrate culture into sustainable development agendas. We have learned the language, played by the rules. Yet culture has not been recognised as an equal partner in shaping a better future alongside other policy areas. It’s time for a critical reflection on what went wrong and how to move forward.

Instrumentalisation

Last year, together with Culture Action Europe¹, we embarked on a months-long exploration of the ‘state of culture’ in today’s Europe². We reviewed national cultural policy agendas, examined the evolution of the EU’s cultural policy framework, and gathered key data on the current global context. Our research highlights a familiar issue – the growing trend of hyper-instrumentalisation in cultural policy. Both national and European cultural policy agendas extensively emphasise why culture is important for various external fields, such as social cohesion, international relations, the economy, health and well-being, identity, education, and more. However, culture’s intrinsic value – its worth in its own right – has neither been clearly defined nor sufficiently defended, let alone placed at the forefront of policy discussions.  

In the meantime, the cultural sector, faced with multiple challenges and persistent precarity, adopted this discourse of instrumentalisation, matching the growing self-censorship driven by the fear of disappointing progressive segments of society on one hand, and clashing with conservative power holders on the other. In this reality, the sector has increasingly relied on promises to contribute to whatever is needed: social development, the economy, environmental awareness, democracy, diplomacy, rural regeneration, well-being, health, and more, as a means of survival. 

However, this has not led to significant improvements for the cultural sector itself. Culture has not become central to the EU’s policies or transformation agendas, whether in relation to democracy or the green transition. The idea of culture as a sustainable development goal remains a distant aspiration, as it was omitted from the UN’s Pact for the Future³. 

Moreover, according to the data compiled by UNESCO, the global level of cultural investment has dropped in the last decade⁴. In the EU, the average level of government expenditure on cultural services does not exceed 0.5 percent of GDP, and this level has remained stable since 2014. In nine EU countries the level has decreased, and in 12 member states it remained the same⁵. Although many new policies and frameworks have been put in place to enhance the conditions for cultural workers, global studies reveal persistent structural weaknesses within the cultural ecosystem⁶. 

The broader world is not in great shape either, grappling with climate change, social polarisation, threats from  digital technologies. For many major issues, solutions remain unclear. Policy discourse is becoming increasingly urgent and pragmatic, calling for swift decisions and precise calculations. 

In this context, culture fails to find a place in the EU’s major future-oriented strategies, and its imaginative potential is not harnessed to help the world break through the dark veil of uncertainty and crisis. Culture tends to be relegated to reflections on the past – exploring narratives of Europe’s shared heritage and history.  While the concept of a ‘shared past’ is important, what we urgently need is a narrative about Europe’s shared future. 

The new understanding of the value of culture

Although it might seem like there is no way out, by examining today’s key developments facing the cultural sector in Europe, we can identify crucial opportunities to reframe policy paradigms for the years ahead.

Firstly, the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) has created significant challenges for the cultural sector. AI-related issues include the erosion of human labour, diminished opportunities in creative fields, and concerns about transparency, intellectual property, and fair remuneration. This situation prompts a crucial debate about whether society values human creativity. Can we assume that creative jobs will be swept away by the digital revolution, like many other jobs in the past century? If policymakers come to recognise the value of human creativity, we may emerge from this debate with a deeper understanding of the value of culture at large. We may come to realise that culture is not merely about purchasing an artwork or text because it looks or reads good. Instead, culture involves a conversation with another human. Engaging with an art piece means valuing the author’s intent, whether it challenges or enriches your perspective. Acknowledging human creativity involves recognising that pluralistic and free human expressions are essential for shaping our collective future and advancing as a society.

The existential issue of freedom

Second, there is concern about the interaction between culture and politics. This concern arises from various factors, including the rise of political forces that view culture as a tool for consolidating national identities through narrow perspectives. Artistic freedom is under pressure from societal polarisation, increased public scrutiny, and a shrinking space for public debate. Without freedom, the role and impact of culture are reduced to mere ancillary purposes. When culture lacks autonomy, its influence becomes fragmented, and the sector is unable to fulfil its crucial role as a cornerstone of societal and individual life. Sooner or later, shrinking autonomy of culture will top cultural policy agendas.

Saving democracy through democratising culture

According to the Democracy Index, 20 EU member states are experiencing a decline in their democratic systems. Culture is increasingly acknowledged by EU policymakers as a means to bridge ideological and emotional divides and to bolster democracy, which faces pressures from both polarisation and the individualisation of societies.

However, cultural consumption has also been affected by these transformations. The platformisation of culture has led to a reality where not only cultural products but also cultural consumers are ‘manufactured’, as they are grouped and continuously presented with content based on their registered preferences. Additionally, culture itself has become a battleground for identities and ideologies, and cultural workers are part of the same polarised society, segmented into echo chambers. To rescue democracy, culture must first become democratic itself – to foster genuine democratic engagement, which encompasses not only the right to vote but also the right to be voted. If we are to truly save democracy in Europe, we must move beyond the broad concept of ‘access to culture’ and strive for cultural democracy.

Resolving the ‘culture and climate’ dilemma

Finally, the important theme of climate action will remain a priority for the EU in the coming years, and existing tensions between culture, climate, and policy need to be addressed. First, there is a concern that policymakers and other sectors may not fully grasp the potential of culture to help us reimagine the world and renew our value systems. The current policy focus seems to be primarily on reducing culture’s impact on the planet or making culture resilient in the face of climate change. While it is crucial to ensure that cultural organisations adopt green practices, this focus often overshadows the broader role culture can play in addressing the climate crisis.

The second tension involves the disparity between the public rhetoric on the role of culture in climate action and the actual support frameworks for the sustainability of the cultural sector itself. In simple terms, the cultural sector is uncertain about its ability to contribute effectively to the green transition while being plagued by precarity and overproduction.

Would these tensions arise if we imagined culture’s role, power, and value were fully grasped and recognised for their own worth? If such recognition would be reflected in the creation of a sustainable framework, encompassing legal, financial, political, and social and ethical dimensions, that would allow it to unleash its true transformative, and protect from shocks and challenges. This framework would assume ingraining cultural participation throughout society, and fully developing culture’s potential to transform visions and value systems, with all autonomy and political trust given to it.

Essential elements of such a foundation are autonomy for culture, a balanced approach to all creative sectors, broad social engagement with the arts, and sustainable working conditions for the whole cultural ecosystem.

Two questions may arise. First, and most challenging: How can the sector gain political trust during times of crisis, emergency, and pragmatism? If such trust hasn’t existed before, how can it be established now? To begin with, the sector needs to restore its own trust in itself, and rebuild its sense of self-worth. The cultural sector must articulate its value on its own terms and not let them be eroded every time there is another hit of the ‘wind of trends’. This is essential for building political trust which can ultimately lead to changes in cultural policy paradigms.

A second question might arise: What role does the EU play in changing the cultural policy paradigm? Despite the legal limitations on its role in cultural matters, the EU has consistently acted as a catalyst for forward-looking approaches, providing financial support, legal frameworks (where feasible), and fostering ongoing debate and knowledge creation. Whether through regulatory and political interventions, funding initiatives and their guiding values, or creating spaces and tools for peer exchange among member states, the EU excels in nurturing and promoting innovations that spread across Europe. This ability of being ahead of the curve can have greater effects on the long term than even a legal power.

However, for Europe to truly lead in innovation and adopt a bold new approach to culture, a shift in the foundational treaties is necessary. The focus on shared heritage and past needs to be explicitly extended to a shared future through culture, recognising culture’s essential role in today’s democracy in Europe. Moreover, a developing culture in its own right and emancipating it from hyper-instrumentalisation, requires a stronger role for the EU in the field of culture. As Commission President Von der Leyen stated in her 2024-2029 programme, ‘I believe we need Treaty change where it can improve our Union⁷.’

​​​​​We believe that a stronger Union is unimaginable without culture. In an era of growing polarisation, a shift to the political right, misinformation, declining civic engagement, and the need for Europe to solidify its global identity, how much longer can we afford to view culture as the ‘least relevant portfolio’ for the EU?