I am currently in the final stages of my PhD research with the Research School of Humanities and the Arts at Australian National University (but based in Paris, France). My interdisciplinary doctoral thesis investigates the gap between theoretical and practical understandings of "social impact" in socially engaged art, and is facilitated by multiple fieldworks and case studies from Europe, Asia, North America and Australia. I have otherwise conducted research with the Culture Section of UNESCO and other UNESCO-related organisations on the links between cultural diversity, cultural policy and sustainable development, notably within the framework of UNESCO's 2005 Convention on the diversity of cultural expressions and the 2003 Convention on the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. Crossing between my PhD and UNESCO-related research, I have developed and been pursuing an independent research project, which investigates how international debates on the integration of culture in sustainable development may enable remodelling global governance.
Socially engaged art (SEA) is a genre of contemporary art that emerged in the 1990s with particul... more Socially engaged art (SEA) is a genre of contemporary art that emerged in the 1990s with particular rigour in Europe and North America. By now, it has found its place among practitioners and scholars internationally, and is understood as a niche, innovative mode of social practice and scholarship. Yet, the cross-cultural relevance of foundational SEA theories and their applicability in cultural contexts other than those of their emergence have rarely been subject to systematic critical scrutiny. This paper draws on the author’s doctoral research on whether the normative theoretical assumptions about the role of SEA practice as an instrument of social change are congruent with the complexities of SEA practice in real-life situations, especially in a multicultural context. It will frame this discussion in terms of the author’s practice-led research with a small number of Muslim women and men in Melbourne and Canberra, who collaborated with her sporadically over a two-year period to investigate whether SEA theories could offer a solution to the problem of stereotyping of Islam and Muslims in Australia. It will conclude by articulating the implications of this and similar case studies for international scholarship on the social contributions of the arts.
This paper addresses the role of cultural policies in sustainable development processes and progr... more This paper addresses the role of cultural policies in sustainable development processes and programs, focusing on international cultural cooperation as key to sustainability. The frame of reference for my arguments is the so-called ‘Magna Carta’ of cultural policy, the UNESCO’s 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (hereafter, the Convention). Various Articles of the Convention (especially Articles 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18) outline multiple forms of cooperation and collaborative arrangements as the main mechanisms for its implementation at all local, national, regional, and international levels. The Convention is thus an important policy document based on which it can be argued, as does this paper, that the nature of cooperative mechanisms used to operationalise cultural policies can bear direct influences on development outcomes and on the extent to which development processes and programs may be sustainable.
Using the example of European Union’s (the EU) differentiated policy strands regarding the implementation of the Convention in its internal and external relations, I highlight the fundamental interdependence of different international cultural cooperation mechanisms and the sustainability of development outcomes. The key to understanding this interdependence, I argue, is the variable social and economic value attributed to the ‘cultural content’ of the diverse cultural goods and services that are used or produced under EU’s development programs in the wake of the Convention. ‘Cultural content’, as defined in the Convention, ‘refers to the symbolic meaning, artistic dimension and cultural values that originate from or express cultural identities’. I demonstrate some of the ways in which the EU’s methods of cultural cooperation for development in its external and internal relations respectively instrumentalise and de-instrumentalise this ‘cultural content’. Finally, the implications of these for the sustainability of EU’s culturally-based development programs are considered.
In recent years, academic and development policy communities have argued that the dominant, three... more In recent years, academic and development policy communities have argued that the dominant, three-pillar model of development implemented internationally for accomplishing United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by the target year of 2015 has been inadequate and ineffective. They deem the success of UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to depend upon adoption of a holistic approach to development, which augments the three social, economic, and environmental pillars of the older model with a fourth, cultural pillar. The new model shall prevail, they anticipate, because culture is ‘transversal’, that is, it concurs with and integrates the other three dimensions across all stages of sustainable development.
The aims of this paper are twofold. First, it discusses the nature of the transversal character attributed to culture within recent ‘culture and development’ debates, and the ways in which the capacity of culture to generate cultural and extra-cultural (here, social, economic, and environmental) value is implicitly or explicitly located in this inherent transversality. Second, it examines the analytical usefulness, as well as the policy and practical implications of this association of value with transversality.
This paper discusses EU’s culturally-oriented approach to global governance in the wake of its ra... more This paper discusses EU’s culturally-oriented approach to global governance in the wake of its ratification of the UNESCO 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (hereafter, the Convention) in December 2006. Broadly considered as the ‘Magna Carta’ of cultural policy, the Convention is a major international legal instrument that obliges Parties to enable diverse modes of cultural expression (including, inter alia, artistic creation, production, dissemination, distribution, and enjoyment) to thrive within and outside their territories, and thereby to mainstream culture as an essential requirement of sustainable development at local, national, regional and international levels. Since ratification, the EU has actively participated in implementing the Convention as a new pillar of global governance and as a legitimising instrument for the formulation of regulatory, legislative, institutional, policy, or financial measures in its internal and external conducts.
Cooperation and collaborative arrangements are among the main mechanisms that the EU utilises to operationalise these measures in light of the provisions of the Convention. However, its conception of collaboration and cooperation follows two distinct policy strands, different means and objectives, within the EU region and between the EU and its ‘developing partners’. The internal policies focus on culture as a source of creativity, and on culture-based creativity as an important driver of social and economic innovation and growth within the region. The EU Member States are encouraged to “move from cultural competition to cultural collaboration,” where ‘collaboration’ is understood in terms of clustering and generation of interactive, horizontal networks among the cultural and creative industries and workforce. The formation of these clusters and networks is supported by open coordination of cultural policies and projects with a pan-European reach. EU’s cooperation with developing countries, on the other hand, is of an ‘osmotic’ nature, insofar as it consists predominantly of EU providing financial and technical assistance, transfer of technology and expertise, as well as preferential treatment for artist and cultural professionals, and cultural goods and services, from these countries. In this paper, first, I compare the collaborative and cooperative dynamics within these two policy strands, favouring EU’s provisions for culture, cultural diversity, and creativity in its internal policies as more inclusive and dynamic than its external policies for culture and development. Secondly, I outline some ways in which EU’s internal mode of cultural governance may help conceive a model of global governance based on ad hoc, culture-based creative cooperation.
Socially engaged art (SEA) is a genre of contemporary art that emerged in the 1990s with particul... more Socially engaged art (SEA) is a genre of contemporary art that emerged in the 1990s with particular rigour in Europe and North America. By now, it has found its place among practitioners and scholars internationally, and is understood as a niche, innovative mode of social practice and scholarship. Yet, the cross-cultural relevance of foundational SEA theories and their applicability in cultural contexts other than those of their emergence have rarely been subject to systematic critical scrutiny. This paper draws on the author’s doctoral research on whether the normative theoretical assumptions about the role of SEA practice as an instrument of social change are congruent with the complexities of SEA practice in real-life situations, especially in a multicultural context. It will frame this discussion in terms of the author’s practice-led research with a small number of Muslim women and men in Melbourne and Canberra, who collaborated with her sporadically over a two-year period to investigate whether SEA theories could offer a solution to the problem of stereotyping of Islam and Muslims in Australia. It will conclude by articulating the implications of this and similar case studies for international scholarship on the social contributions of the arts.
This paper addresses the role of cultural policies in sustainable development processes and progr... more This paper addresses the role of cultural policies in sustainable development processes and programs, focusing on international cultural cooperation as key to sustainability. The frame of reference for my arguments is the so-called ‘Magna Carta’ of cultural policy, the UNESCO’s 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (hereafter, the Convention). Various Articles of the Convention (especially Articles 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18) outline multiple forms of cooperation and collaborative arrangements as the main mechanisms for its implementation at all local, national, regional, and international levels. The Convention is thus an important policy document based on which it can be argued, as does this paper, that the nature of cooperative mechanisms used to operationalise cultural policies can bear direct influences on development outcomes and on the extent to which development processes and programs may be sustainable.
Using the example of European Union’s (the EU) differentiated policy strands regarding the implementation of the Convention in its internal and external relations, I highlight the fundamental interdependence of different international cultural cooperation mechanisms and the sustainability of development outcomes. The key to understanding this interdependence, I argue, is the variable social and economic value attributed to the ‘cultural content’ of the diverse cultural goods and services that are used or produced under EU’s development programs in the wake of the Convention. ‘Cultural content’, as defined in the Convention, ‘refers to the symbolic meaning, artistic dimension and cultural values that originate from or express cultural identities’. I demonstrate some of the ways in which the EU’s methods of cultural cooperation for development in its external and internal relations respectively instrumentalise and de-instrumentalise this ‘cultural content’. Finally, the implications of these for the sustainability of EU’s culturally-based development programs are considered.
In recent years, academic and development policy communities have argued that the dominant, three... more In recent years, academic and development policy communities have argued that the dominant, three-pillar model of development implemented internationally for accomplishing United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by the target year of 2015 has been inadequate and ineffective. They deem the success of UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to depend upon adoption of a holistic approach to development, which augments the three social, economic, and environmental pillars of the older model with a fourth, cultural pillar. The new model shall prevail, they anticipate, because culture is ‘transversal’, that is, it concurs with and integrates the other three dimensions across all stages of sustainable development.
The aims of this paper are twofold. First, it discusses the nature of the transversal character attributed to culture within recent ‘culture and development’ debates, and the ways in which the capacity of culture to generate cultural and extra-cultural (here, social, economic, and environmental) value is implicitly or explicitly located in this inherent transversality. Second, it examines the analytical usefulness, as well as the policy and practical implications of this association of value with transversality.
This paper discusses EU’s culturally-oriented approach to global governance in the wake of its ra... more This paper discusses EU’s culturally-oriented approach to global governance in the wake of its ratification of the UNESCO 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (hereafter, the Convention) in December 2006. Broadly considered as the ‘Magna Carta’ of cultural policy, the Convention is a major international legal instrument that obliges Parties to enable diverse modes of cultural expression (including, inter alia, artistic creation, production, dissemination, distribution, and enjoyment) to thrive within and outside their territories, and thereby to mainstream culture as an essential requirement of sustainable development at local, national, regional and international levels. Since ratification, the EU has actively participated in implementing the Convention as a new pillar of global governance and as a legitimising instrument for the formulation of regulatory, legislative, institutional, policy, or financial measures in its internal and external conducts.
Cooperation and collaborative arrangements are among the main mechanisms that the EU utilises to operationalise these measures in light of the provisions of the Convention. However, its conception of collaboration and cooperation follows two distinct policy strands, different means and objectives, within the EU region and between the EU and its ‘developing partners’. The internal policies focus on culture as a source of creativity, and on culture-based creativity as an important driver of social and economic innovation and growth within the region. The EU Member States are encouraged to “move from cultural competition to cultural collaboration,” where ‘collaboration’ is understood in terms of clustering and generation of interactive, horizontal networks among the cultural and creative industries and workforce. The formation of these clusters and networks is supported by open coordination of cultural policies and projects with a pan-European reach. EU’s cooperation with developing countries, on the other hand, is of an ‘osmotic’ nature, insofar as it consists predominantly of EU providing financial and technical assistance, transfer of technology and expertise, as well as preferential treatment for artist and cultural professionals, and cultural goods and services, from these countries. In this paper, first, I compare the collaborative and cooperative dynamics within these two policy strands, favouring EU’s provisions for culture, cultural diversity, and creativity in its internal policies as more inclusive and dynamic than its external policies for culture and development. Secondly, I outline some ways in which EU’s internal mode of cultural governance may help conceive a model of global governance based on ad hoc, culture-based creative cooperation.
Uploads
Papers by Maryam Rashidi
Using the example of European Union’s (the EU) differentiated policy strands regarding the implementation of the Convention in its internal and external relations, I highlight the fundamental interdependence of different international cultural cooperation mechanisms and the sustainability of development outcomes. The key to understanding this interdependence, I argue, is the variable social and economic value attributed to the ‘cultural content’ of the diverse cultural goods and services that are used or produced under EU’s development programs in the wake of the Convention. ‘Cultural content’, as defined in the Convention, ‘refers to the symbolic meaning, artistic dimension and cultural values that originate from or express cultural identities’. I demonstrate some of the ways in which the EU’s methods of cultural cooperation for development in its external and internal relations respectively instrumentalise and de-instrumentalise this ‘cultural content’. Finally, the implications of these for the sustainability of EU’s culturally-based development programs are considered.
The aims of this paper are twofold. First, it discusses the nature of the transversal character attributed to culture within recent ‘culture and development’ debates, and the ways in which the capacity of culture to generate cultural and extra-cultural (here, social, economic, and environmental) value is implicitly or explicitly located in this inherent transversality. Second, it examines the analytical usefulness, as well as the policy and practical implications of this association of value with transversality.
Cooperation and collaborative arrangements are among the main mechanisms that the EU utilises to operationalise these measures in light of the provisions of the Convention. However, its conception of collaboration and cooperation follows two distinct policy strands, different means and objectives, within the EU region and between the EU and its ‘developing partners’. The internal policies focus on culture as a source of creativity, and on culture-based creativity as an important driver of social and economic innovation and growth within the region. The EU Member States are encouraged to “move from cultural competition to cultural collaboration,” where ‘collaboration’ is understood in terms of clustering and generation of interactive, horizontal networks among the cultural and creative industries and workforce. The formation of these clusters and networks is supported by open coordination of cultural policies and projects with a pan-European reach. EU’s cooperation with developing countries, on the other hand, is of an ‘osmotic’ nature, insofar as it consists predominantly of EU providing financial and technical assistance, transfer of technology and expertise, as well as preferential treatment for artist and cultural professionals, and cultural goods and services, from these countries. In this paper, first, I compare the collaborative and cooperative dynamics within these two policy strands, favouring EU’s provisions for culture, cultural diversity, and creativity in its internal policies as more inclusive and dynamic than its external policies for culture and development. Secondly, I outline some ways in which EU’s internal mode of cultural governance may help conceive a model of global governance based on ad hoc, culture-based creative cooperation.
Using the example of European Union’s (the EU) differentiated policy strands regarding the implementation of the Convention in its internal and external relations, I highlight the fundamental interdependence of different international cultural cooperation mechanisms and the sustainability of development outcomes. The key to understanding this interdependence, I argue, is the variable social and economic value attributed to the ‘cultural content’ of the diverse cultural goods and services that are used or produced under EU’s development programs in the wake of the Convention. ‘Cultural content’, as defined in the Convention, ‘refers to the symbolic meaning, artistic dimension and cultural values that originate from or express cultural identities’. I demonstrate some of the ways in which the EU’s methods of cultural cooperation for development in its external and internal relations respectively instrumentalise and de-instrumentalise this ‘cultural content’. Finally, the implications of these for the sustainability of EU’s culturally-based development programs are considered.
The aims of this paper are twofold. First, it discusses the nature of the transversal character attributed to culture within recent ‘culture and development’ debates, and the ways in which the capacity of culture to generate cultural and extra-cultural (here, social, economic, and environmental) value is implicitly or explicitly located in this inherent transversality. Second, it examines the analytical usefulness, as well as the policy and practical implications of this association of value with transversality.
Cooperation and collaborative arrangements are among the main mechanisms that the EU utilises to operationalise these measures in light of the provisions of the Convention. However, its conception of collaboration and cooperation follows two distinct policy strands, different means and objectives, within the EU region and between the EU and its ‘developing partners’. The internal policies focus on culture as a source of creativity, and on culture-based creativity as an important driver of social and economic innovation and growth within the region. The EU Member States are encouraged to “move from cultural competition to cultural collaboration,” where ‘collaboration’ is understood in terms of clustering and generation of interactive, horizontal networks among the cultural and creative industries and workforce. The formation of these clusters and networks is supported by open coordination of cultural policies and projects with a pan-European reach. EU’s cooperation with developing countries, on the other hand, is of an ‘osmotic’ nature, insofar as it consists predominantly of EU providing financial and technical assistance, transfer of technology and expertise, as well as preferential treatment for artist and cultural professionals, and cultural goods and services, from these countries. In this paper, first, I compare the collaborative and cooperative dynamics within these two policy strands, favouring EU’s provisions for culture, cultural diversity, and creativity in its internal policies as more inclusive and dynamic than its external policies for culture and development. Secondly, I outline some ways in which EU’s internal mode of cultural governance may help conceive a model of global governance based on ad hoc, culture-based creative cooperation.