By Mette van Zoest
mettevzoest@gmail.com
Globally, we see arts and culture being under pressure as a result of undemocratic tendencies, authoritarian polices and leaders. Attempts to control narratives, cultures and the artistic sector also influence the work and position festivalmakers have within these contexts. The question of what role the arts are or should be playing within these contexts is much debated and complex one. Two main perspectives can be mentioned here. On the one hand people advocate for the recognition of the ‘resistant power of culture’, and the ways in which the arts can diversify our understanding and perspective on cultural, political, or social matters. From this perspective festivalmakers have a clear, and active voice within discourses and calls for (more) democratic societies. On the other hand, however, we are also faced with the reality in which the arts, and festivals included, are being instrumentalized by some politicians to push singular political ideologies. Here, the arts are strategically used by politicians and other actors to sustain or build one dominant cultural identity rather than taking a more democratic approach.
Douzan Arts Center (Center for Syrian arts based in Türkiye).
In reality, these two perspectives are obviously not as clear cut. Festivalmakers (are forced to) operate in much more dynamic and shifting manners, moving between various grey zones due to safety issues, mobility restrictions, or financial opportunities. These types of contexts ask for a more grounded understanding of tensions between festivalmakers and, for example, politicians, audiences, private entities, volunteers, funders and more, in order formulate a better understanding of the role and position of festivalmakers in contexts marked by undemocratic tendencies.
To get insights into these tensions, I spoke with 7 festivalmakers originally from, and/or still working in 6 different countries: Iran, Syria, Serbia, Poland, Senegal, and the United States. For safety reasons, nobody currently living in ‘strict authoritarian regimes’ with high potential of personal or professional risk has been asked to participate in this research. These conversations built the foundation of the research for my MA thesis and the research underlying a toolkit publication conducted for The Festival Academy.
Based on these conversations and a broader literature review, I formulated three terms indicating qualities of relations, through which we can talk and understand the tensions and relations between festivalmakers and other actors. The three terms proposed are that of ‘Conversation and Understanding’, ‘(Dis)trust’ and ‘Space’. Within the thesis, I connected these terms to the existing body of literature. Thereby, I argue that when looking closely, some links are already present in relevant discourses. By putting more emphasis on these connections and establishing a deeper understanding of what these terms and connections mean, we can strengthen our understandings and perspectives within conversations about festivalmakers, democracy and organizational struggles in contexts marked by un-democratic tendencies.
Conversation and Understanding
One term through which we can understand these types of cases is that of ‘Conversation and Understanding’. Although it sounds like quite an obvious theme to include within questions around democracy, it highlights various important relations and tensions. These include the relations between festivalmakers and politics, (and) the question of democracy and the social environment in which these are positioned. Additionally, it points out one of the characteristics that is often attached to arts and culture, namely that of being able to start conversation and establish certain (new) types of understandings of cultural expressions. Hence, it should not be overlooked within the context of this research. A strong connection can be found with the idea of democracy as public reasoning (Sen 2009) and the conversing qualities of festivals as often put forward in both academic and popular writing. Furthermore, conversations with festivalmakers highlight how relations and tensions can result from (a lack of) conversation with political actors, audiences and others, which strongly affects working methods, funding and festival structures. Hereby, examples include strong connections with volunteers and communities, but also the lack of response from political entities, and strong debates or conversation happening between festivalmakers and funders. Besides that, an urgent call was made by a number of festivalmakers highlighting the importance of conversation happening between festivalmakers themselves, and education processes happening within the sector as such. Sharing knowledge and education helps them to better understand their own impact in society and strengthen their positions and voices.
(Dis)trust
As a second term, I propose the idea of (dis)trust as a crucial element within the discourse about (un)democracy and festivals. Here, I argued that we should not understand trust and distrust as given, or static phenomena. Rather, I see actors move around, negotiating and (re)formulating (dis)trust as part of their relations. On top of that, I observe the group of festivalmakers within my research to be critical and very much aware of the (dis)trust happening between them and other actors, which gives them the possibility to formulate and apply strategies and the active choice to (not) put energy in certain relations as a result of (mutual) (dis)trust. The interplay of actors negotiating their position, while in full awareness of what the other might, or often indeed does, think of them, adds a layer of strategy and tactfulness to the organization of festivals. This is highlighted by, for example, double agenda’s, ‘playing along with the game’, and choices between unofficial versus official work in relation to underground or institutional organizing. Other key elements regarding (dis)trust include relations with local communities and audiences, (international) collaboration, shared/ing struggles, ethics, and shared values. Hereby it is important to critically look at how these relations and phenomena are shaped over time and influence organizational choices. These examples already indicate how relations and tensions can be understood from different perspectives and can transform, depending on changing (social and political, but also private and professional) dynamics and shifts in the position and agenda of the actor involved. This creates complex images of (mutual) (dis)trust between actors.
Space
The last term I put forward is that of ‘Space’. Taking the lens of space can help us understand tensions, relations, and positions in at least two ways. We can understand the implications of space both in terms of physical space and perceived space. First, approaching space as a physical concept, we can observe the tensions such as the interruptions and destructions of cultural spaces and the choice made by festivalmakers (not) to make use of public or institutional venues. On a larger scale, more structural or systematic policies are set up to reduce mobility between places, to confiscate passports or create administrative and financial obstacles to establish and maintain cultural spaces based on a given agenda. Second, ‘perceived space’ relates to the idea of influencing behavior or (creating) a sense of belonging. Here, examples include pushing a singular perception of culture and ‘what it means to be a citizen of a certain place,’ (local) authorities practicing social censorship or structural attempts to erase certain cultural groups and their cultural expressions of identity. Perceived space can shrink, with as result self-censorship, the need to ‘hide’ cultural activities or moving an organization underground or outside institutional spaces.
Taking a closer look at the movement of festivalmakers within and between various spaces, conversations I had with festivalmakers highlighted how we should not consider their position as static or stable. Many are actively making the decisions to work, for example, partly within institutional boundaries to gain advantages or space (both perceived and physical) for more independent work. At the same time, we can also recall the instrumentation of festivals by politicians, using them as platforms for their own political agendas, which can be subject to (seemingly) sudden changes of political agendas, changing social dynamics and positionality in relation to a festival. The presence of certain people within certain spaces does not always show how relations and tensions are situated in reality. We should understand positions, tensions, and relations in these cultural and political spaces as nuanced and being well thought through by all types of actors involved.
Concluding This set of terminology might seem straightforward or simplistic at first, but my research shows that there lies a lot more complexity behind these words, particularly within the specific cases included. Being aware of the complexities lying behind these terms can help to (re)draw the picture of how politics, relations and actors interact and behave with each other. On top of that, when talking about, and wanting to understand these types of vulnerable and complex contexts, there is a need for the creation of a shared language. I think both academics and cultural makers are constantly in search of these shared languages to both understand their own position and that of others. The creation of these languages is more important within the process of understanding than the final set of terms itself. Part of the creation of a shared language is active listening and making efforts. In other words, ‘simply’ sharing space, establishing trust and being in conversation with each other.