Conference in Rio de Janiero, Brazil - July 2001

Something Rotten In the State of Denmark?
Multiculturalism and Public Funding
by Frederikke Hansen

We, MARGRETHE THE SECOND, by the Grace of God Queen of Denmark, hereby make known: Folketinget (the Danish Parliament) has approved, and we have by our Royal Assent provided, the following Act:

1. The object of the Ministry of Culture Development Fund is to ensure active development of Danish arts and cultural life by supporting and implementing national, regional or local initiatives of an innovative or interdisciplinary nature.

2. The State supports the FundÔs activities by awarding grants fixed in the annual Appropriation Acts. In addition, the Fund may receive other funds, for example pools and Lotto funds.

3. The Fund can award grants on application and implement initiatives on its own account.

[ ... ]

5. Subsection 2. At the start of the term of each new Board, the Minister of Culture shall be entitled to pinpoint special action areas for the coming term of office in consultation with the new Board.

[ ... ]

12. This Act shall not apply to the Farao Islands or Greenland.1

The Act quoted from above was given in Copenhagen in June 1998 and is the legal basis of a new Fund: the socalled Ministry of Culture Development Fund (Development Fund for short.)

As the 1990s wore on it became clear that the bureaucratic taxonomies regulating cultural work in Denmark were no longer adequate. New and interesting work would evade established dividing lines between branches, genres and media of art and hence disqualify itself for public support. A new and more flexible support system was needed and the Development Fund was conceived to be just such an open, cutting-edge foundation with venture capital in plenty.

I would like to first give you an outline of official Danish cultural policy and then return to the Development Fund. When Denmark adopted its first democratic constitution in the mid-nineteenth Century, responsability for support to the arts and culture shifted from the Royal Court to the newly constituted civil administration.2 It was not until 1961, however, that Denmark got a proper ministry for culture.

The paradigm of modernism was inscribed onto the foundation as well as the administration of the ministry. Art was thought of as a retreat where alienation and fragmentation could be aesthetically and intellectually analyzed and challenged. High-culture was supposed to function as an educational lever. As an epistemological instrument, high-culture would show people the way to a true and good life. Art represented a unified whole as well as an aesthetic competence carrying special values allowing the artist to criticise society.3 Politically speaking, the crux of the matter then was not so much content of the existing high-culture practices as how one shall make them available and understandable to all, no matter of geography and social class.

To put it bluntly: The good way of living was social democratic and the good society the Scandinavian welfare state. The notion underlying the administration of Danish art and culture has accordingly been one of general education alongside preservation of democracy and the welfare model. It is a notion unity and cultivation. The ministry of culture, however, does not involve itself in concrete subsidy allocation or act as an arbiter of taste. Instead the political doctrine of the "arm's length" principle has been adopted.4 In accordance with the division of powers so essential to modern democracy the executive of cultural politics is comprised of a bureaucratic complex of councils and boards.

In the mid-70s a change in the cultural policy could be detected in Denmark as in the rest of Europe. "Cultural Democracy" was the label of the new paradigm and under its aegis the individual has a right to his or her own culture. The notion of culture became a participatory one, including sports, amateur theater and visits to the museum. A policy of pluralism was substituted for the canon of unitary culture.

The more enterprising ministers of culture Ð and only the Queen knows how many Denmark has had since the ministry was established Ð have had a substantial report made giving a run-down on the current state of the arts as well as the cultural visions of his or her government. Social-liberal minister of culture Ole Vig Jensen had one made in 1989.

Here the Cultural Democracy doctrine is fully adopted.5 On the basis of his report a new foundation was set up: "Kulturfonden" (The Culture Fund.) Its political objective was twofold: To attempt a breaking down of the barriers between elite and ordinary people and to solve social problems arroused by isolation and lack of self confidence in a time of immense unemployment (or "forced leisure" as it was euphemistically put.)

Kulturfonden was severely criticized by conservative politicians and intellectuals alike. Also the culture institutions dissaproved of the fund. It was alledgedly endangering quality and professionalism. Conservative minister of culture Grethe Rostb¿ll warned in 1991 that Denmark was becoming an amateurs' paradise where the "hot message and the correct attitudes are supported at the expense of aesthetics and a sense of style."6 In this climate, in the mid-90s a special pool was set up to support the production of experimental art. The pool was done away with after only two years, but meanwhile the Culture Fund itself has abandoned its broad contextual notion of quality and gone in the direction of professionalism and innovation.

It seems, by way of a conclusion, that Danish cultural policy oscillate between professionalism and popular culture. The question remains: where should the money go? What contains identity and values? What is for the best of 'man and society': art or culture?

I will now return to the Develpment Fund. For the nine board members of the Development Fund there is no doubt. In the Action Plan laid out at the beginning of their tenure, they state that: "It is our fundamental belief that the development of art is one of the primary driving forces behind culture. We will be focusing on the experimental element of artistic endeavour and the artistic element of cultural endeavour."7 The Fund, we are furthermore told "regards itself as a flexible foundation that enjoys the advantage of not being bound by specific financial commitments to institutions, organisations or other permanently established structures. The Development Fund is therefore in a position to respond to new signals on the art scene and to support new initiatives and forms of cooperation that would not be eligible for benefits from elsewhere."8

It is true that the Fund enjoys extensive freedom owing to the fact that the legal Act does not specify how the money should be used beyond the somehow vague outline of "Danish arts and cultural life". However, it is quite interesting that the Fund understands itself as autonomous and not bound by any permanently established structures. After all it is THE CULTURAL MINISTRY'S Development Fund. The state is by all means an important institution in society. Moreover, in the case of the Development Fund, the usual arm's length principle, has been reduced to a finger's length inasmuch as the minster appoints the board members and pinpoints their special areas of action.

No government, no ruling elite makes cultural policy Ð and culture, without having an eye to the legitimation and thereby reinforcement of their own power.

I have decided to talk about The Development Fund as it seems to be the freshest and most interesting symptom of cultural hegemony in my country. Moreover I decided to talk about it because the Apex conference is indeed a great context for discussing certain aspects of national culture funding and policy making, in particular the possible negotiations between a dominant Western discourse and value system and those of non-Western immigrant and gastarbeiter cultures.

First, however, I would like to confess, that I have had some difficulties with the title of this conference: "Cultural Hegemony and the Reinvestigation of Indeginous Culture". How can I contribute to a reinvestigation of indigenous culture? You asked me furthermore what I want the other participants to know about my country and my culture that they may not have known about or have considered differently. I am Danish, for crying out loud. It is such a small country and I do not really expect anyone to know anything about it.

The Danish culture is no indigenous culture, to the extend that indigenous is defined as belonging to an original, non-dominant population, i.e. a population that is being politically, economically, intellectually and physically dominated by another group in the area where they both live.

Denmark is an old nation dating back to before year 800 A.D. Danes have been living and reigning in a territory called Denmark for more than 1200 years, then. Denmark has not been invaded and colonized by other cultures. If anything, the Danes have been the subjugators. In the early eighteenth century for instance, Greenland became a colonial territory of Denmark. Other colonies were founded in 1849, when Denmark ratified its first constitution.9 Greenland's colonial status officially ended in 1953 Ð when it became a county within Denmark! A benign colonial-style paternalism forcing further cultural adaptation on the part of the Inuit would prevail until Home Rule was introduced as late as 1979.

If one disregards Greenland and the Faroe Islands for a moment (like the Development Fund Act does altogether), then it is fair to say that Denmark is an extraordinarily homogenous territory in terms of language, religion and culture at large. Most other European and non-European states comprise multiple contiguous regions governed by means of centralized, differentiated, and autonomous structures. In the face of globalization, state sovereignty is being undermined everywhere and giving opportunities to sub-state minorities to claim more autonomy from the state.10 The myth of the European nation state has exploded and instead we see seperatist tendencies as in Lapland, the Basque country, North Italy and, of course, the Balkans.

As for Denmark, though, since it kindly gave back or lost its erstwhile territories in Scandinavia and North-Germany, it has been a homogenous little unit. I will argue, though, that the long stable history has led to a kind of mental intertia preventing the Danes from seeing that they are a responsible part of a broader picture of globalization. The circulation of labour force is a circulation of people and all people have culture. The last 30-odd years of migration of people has had its emphatic effects of Danish society as well.

Now, I would like to return to The Development Fund again. Minister of culture, Elsebeth Gerner Nielsen,11 did indeed use her power to define special areas of action for the first term of office. Although stated in the legal Act, that focus areas should be pinpointed in consultation with the new Board, a press communique was released from the ministerial offices announcing the nine members of the first board as well as their three focus areas. Those areas were emergent culture producers, digital media and ethnic minorities.

The new board's first task was to work out an Action Plan for their 3 1/2 year tenure. I have already been quoting from it. The board agreed to focus on two special action areas: the 'digital multimedia area' and the 'ethnic and multicultural art', as they were then labelled. I do not want to talk about the digital media here. I will focus on the support policies for the so-called ethnic art.

In the Action Plan it is stated that: "We [the board] will be emphasising exchange and interaction between ethnic and Danish art in order to counter-act the isolation of art of ethnic origin." It is furthermore specified that the word 'ethnic' "refers to the special characteristics of a people. By ethnic we mean non-Danish. By multicultural art we mean the art that arises through the interplay between different cultures. Multicultural art arises from interaction, cooperation and exchange."

This is of course so vague that is hardly a definition, nor a practical guide-line. Surely they do not mean that everything that is not Danish is ethnic. In that case Copenhagen would be more diverse, more 'ethnic' than New York or Rio. An substantial part of the Danish art scene is made up of Swedes coming from the other side of the Sound. They are hardly considered ethnic.

What is 'the special characteristics of a people' supposed to mean? Are the criteria of an ethnological or perhaps a genetic kind? I am pretty sure that they mean non-Western. Though, defining the Danish culture as Western in this context would mean inscribing oneself in a history and a discourse of cultural hegemony that has a whole post-colonial critical apparatus attached to it. Now Danes are much to humble for that! Or perhaps indolent.

I have often heard that post-colonial theory (as queer theory and feminism) is an American discourse and is good for America, where there are a lot of colored people, but not for Denmark, because "we were never an imperial power" and "we are not having a multicultural society."

Even the notion 'multicultural' is unclear. Obviously multicultural means 'of many cultures', and obviously the Development Fund is thinking of culture in the sense of geography and nationality. Culture, though, might as well be differentiated along the lines of sexual orientation, class, gender, and of course also taste. Within one national state there can be lots of different cultures and hence one person can belong to different cultures simultaneously.

My argument might seem hair-splitting, but, I will argue, that the fact that the board is so vague in its formulations is symptomatic of a certain blindness. They say: "While we find ourselves in this proces of understanding the ethnic and multicultural area, we claim the right to be paradoxical, insecure and taking small uncertain steps, also with respect to language."12 I would say as long as one does not try to understand oneÔs own language and its power position, real negotiaion is always already blocked, even invalidated.

One and a half years after the launch of the fund and its Action Plan the first Annual Report is published. The board assesses its own ideas as expressed in the Action Plan and states that "[t]hrough its undertaking, the Board has reached the conclusion that the question is not so much about Danish culture and ethnic culture seen in terms of 'us' and 'them', as it is that 'we' in Denmark are a multiethnic society with many social and cultural subsystems that above all must be acknowledged and respected on equal terms. We therefore need to confront the structural, institutional and prejudicial [sic.] obstacles so that each and every member of Danish society has the chance to be a part of cultural life and express themselves within it."13

The change in attitude came about because of going to Manchester and attending the conference "Who's Heritage?" in November 1999.14 Here the board members heard sociologist Stuart Hall talk about "Un-settling 'the heritage', re-imagining the post-nation." His paper is included in an abbreviated version in the Annual Report 1998/99. It is in a way astonishing that nine people, whom one with some justice can expect to be intellectuals, or at least well-informed culture makers, can Ð after one year of executing an 'ethnic' culture policy Ð be so shaken up by a conference, well in fact by one person's views. It is of course also reassuring one person can actually make a difference.

To sum up: In the 90s, a new tendency towards individualism, professionalism and internationalism makes itself felt in Danish cultural and political life. The Development Fund can be seen as a result of this tendency, just like the Culture Fund belonged to the paradigm of Cultural Democracy. At the same time a discussion of national identity and multiculturalism flares up. With more than $3 million to give away, the Development Fund makes projects possible that would otherwise have been given up due to their cross-disciplinary form or content. 10-20% goes to 'ethnic and cross-cultural' projects.

The Annual Report 2000 came out just recently.15 It opens up with the Board explaining that "[o]ur task is to chart new courses and blaze new trails in the Danish landscape of culture and arts" (p.50). The foreword, self-important and celebratory in its tone, tells us that not just the bottom line, but also all the many accounts are put forward in the report and that "only in this manner is it possible for us to meet our own standards of ambition to emerge as a sensitively registering, mentally visionary and radically active Fund. Neither more nor less."16

Like the foreword, the accounts reveal a whole catalogue of modernist assumptions, what seems to be a retrograde discourse of Western civilization and the brave genius artist in his studio. "We are convinced that artistic development springs from the artists and from their efforts regarding the work. When artists have the determination and the wish, and there is an inward urge, art will move and develop. [ ... ] It is moreover our conviction that developments are to be found, primarily, among the artistically experimenting elite and among the particularly promising talent to be found in sub-cultural environments. These two groups, in particular, with their starting point in the sublime and the specialised talent, may move so close to the artistic limits that these are challenged and at best exploded."17

The rethorics of the Development Fund have been toughened up. So have the demands on the conformity of the applicants, i.e. the cultural producers of Denmark. The Fund's "work has given rise to a paradox" according to the report. "The paradox is the political intention versus the quality requirement. The wish to make art created by artists from ethnic minorities more visible is paradoxical when we, at the same time, maintain the requirement of professionalism, quality and development, which is the Development Fund's requirement regarding experimental and crossover art."18

I nearly fell of my chair when I read this. Whatever happened to the "multiethnic Denmark with many social and cultural subsystems that above all must be acknowledged and respected on equal terms"? The true paradox in this case is not "ethnic is non-experimental", as "ethnic" is synomymical with "traditional" in our parlance, but rather the underlying "Western is Universal." Unfortunately this is never stated by the Board. It might have been more productive as the purpose of a paradox is to arrest attention and provoke fresh thought.

I should, however, before reaching my closing remarks confess that I have not talked about any projects submittet by ethnic artists. I know nothing about them. I have not mentioned, that the Fund has appointed and worked with (and soon after dismissed) an 'ethnic focus group', nor that they have had all artists of 'ethnic' origin living in Denmark mapped out, resulting in a public database and a seminar for 'ethnic' artists and others with a professional interest in them.

In my view, these extenuating circumstances do not change the fact, that the Ministry of Culture Development Fund is exerting cultural dominance based in ethnocentrism and that they will continue to do so as long as they maintain their values as being universal. We cannot abandon our values or dismiss our discourse over night. However, only when the Board members, their staff and their political superiors start mapping out their own positions will there be a possible change.

Footnotes:
1. "Act on the Danish Ministry of Culture Development Fund" (Act no. 316 of 3 June 1998) in Danish Ministry of Culture Development Fund Annual Report 98/99, p. 69.
2. "Danish Cultural Policy", 1999 published by the Danish Ministry of Culture on http://www.kum.dk/
3. Balling, Fazakerley and Skot-Hansen, KUF i det uproevede graensefelt Ð en midtvejsevaluering af Kulturministeriets Udviklingsfond. Kulturministeriets Udviklingsfond and Center for Kulturpolitiske Studier: Copenhagen 2001, p. 23 ff.
4. "Danish Cultural Policy", 1999.
5. Ibid., p. 26.
6. Ibid., p. 27.
7. Ministry of Culture Development Fund Annual Report 1998/99, p. 70.
8. Ibid., p.52.
9. Robert Petersen, "Colonialism As Seen From a Former Colonized Area" in Arctic Antropology Vol. 32, no. 2 (1995), p. 119.
10. Peter Kloos, "Secessionism in Europe in the Second Half of the 20th Century" published on http://casnws.scw.vu.nl/
11. Ms Elsebeth Gerner Nielsen began her social-liberal administration on 23 March 1998 and is still holds the office.
12. Ministry of Culture Development Fund Annual Report 2000, p. 55.
13. Ministry of Culture Development Fund Annual Report 1998/99, p. 61.
14. Balling, Fazakerley and Skot-Hansen, KUF i det uproevede graensefelt Ð en midtvejsevaluering af Kulturministeriets Udviklingsfond. Kulturministeriets Udviklingsfond and Center for Kulturpolitiske Studier: Copenhagen 2001, p. 23 ff.
15. This paper was prepared May/June 2001.
16. Ministry of Culture Development Fund Annual Report 2000, p. 51.
17. Ibid., p. 52.
18. Ibid., p. 54.
19. Encyclopedia Britannica on http://www.britannica.com/

Source material:
Kulturministeriets Udviklingsfond/The Development Fund Aarsberetning/Annual Report 98/99.
Kulturministeriets Udviklingsfond/The Development Fund Aarsberetning/Annual Report 00.
Gert Balling, Susan Fazakerley, Dorte Skot-Hansen, KUF i det uproevede graensefelt Ð en midtvejsevaluering af Kulturministeriets Udviklingsfond. Kulturministeriets Udviklingsfond and Center for Kulturpolitiske Studier, Copenhagen 2001. (The impartial mid-term evaluation of the Development Fund is available in Danish only at
http://www.kunstsekretariat.dk/) Danish Cultural Policy, Danish Ministry of Culture 1999. (Available at http://www.kum.dk/)