By Julie Goodman
Drexel University
/TEACHING EXPERIENCES
Whose Values? Decolonizing Discussions of Cultural Policy
Introduction
Cultural policy is, “the sum of a government’s activities with respect to the arts (including the for-profit cultural industries), the humanities, and heritage,” (Mulcahy 2006). The study of cultural policy in arts management education, then, is most often concerned with the actions of government. Though this may seem quite appropriate, it does not take into account that a government’s values, as evidenced by its policy actions, may not always represent or fully align with the values of those of its subjects or of others who are affected by its choices and actions.
This gap between the actions and intentions of power and the experiences and motivations of those affected by it creates a friction that an idealized, monolithic framing of cultural policy does not address. The literature on decolonization offers a vantage from which we can fruitfully interrogate these complexities. Decolonizing is concerned with both understanding the practices of and impacts of colonialism, and moving beyond the current influences of coloniality (how the effects of colonialism continue today) (Duvisac 2022). At its core lies the reclamation and restoration of indigenous knowledge, practices, and experiences. In the educational context, decolonization involves considering, “whose knowledge and ways of knowing are given priority,” (University of Victoria Centre for Youth and Society, n.d.). In the policy context, decoloniality asks us to re-prioritize and to, “reimagine the categories of thought and knowledge that underpin our social, economic, and political structures,” (Duvisac, 2022). A first step towards decolonizing the study of cultural policy within arts management education, then, is to examine non-governmental perspectives within government-led cultural activity.
This article shares my experiences teaching an in-class activity on cultural policy in Drexel University’s graduate program in Arts Administration & Museum Leadership (AAML), in which I am an Associate Professor. It was first shared as a presentation during the 2023 ENCATC Congress Education & Research Session.
The Course: AADM 505 Overview of the Arts
The course in which the teaching activity takes place is called Overview of the Arts. It is a required course, taken in the first term of study by all graduate students who choose arts administration as their concentration within the AAML degree. Drexel operates on a quarter term system, and this class meets in person for three hours, once a week, for ten weeks each fall. The course usually has around 10-20 students in it. Last year’s incoming students identified as 95% US citizens, 80% female, 64% white, 13% Hispanic, and 12% African American. This means the population of the class skewed more heavily female than the general population, and more heavily female and white than Philadelphia’s population.
The course takes a 30,000-foot view of arts and culture in the United States. We examine how the arts function as a system, and where this system intersects with other systems in our society, including government, education, the economy, and communities. The primary goal of the course is for students to become critical thinkers about arts and culture in society. The learning goals for the course are all related to this idea. They address students’ development as scholars, as professionals, and as people who care deeply about the arts.
Most of my students are people who have personal experiences in the arts that have deeply affected them. For many, those experiences were what led them to the program in the first place, so I believe that it is important for students who are already ‘bought in’ to the idea of the arts as a social good to explore both positive and negative aspects about the arts so that they can be effective leaders and advocates in their careers.
The course activity takes place in the third unit, whose topic is Cultural Exchange. The learning goals for this unit are that students will understand: the impacts of a lack of diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion in the arts and cultural ecosystem; the role of international cultural policy agencies; and the role of cultural heritage and cultural exchange in international cultural policy. The class activity focuses mostly on the third goal, though it also touches upon the other two.
The In-Class-Activity: Comparative Case Studies and Perspectives
In the course activity for this unit students compare and contrast three case studies of performing artists and arts organizations involved in US government-sponsored international exchange in the second half of the 20th Century, considering them from different viewpoints and experiences. The goal is for students to ascertain what values are expressed by different stakeholder groups involved in the exchanges, and to explore how those values are reflected in the programs themselves and in broader cultural policy. Though the alternate perspectives and knowledge being examined in these cases may not be indigenous ones, I use decolonizing as a guiding framework since many perspectives are those of people who have not held formal power in the situations being studied.
One case is about the Jazz Ambassadors. This is a program developed by the US Department of State in which leading jazz musicians were selected to tour Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa in the 1950s. They were tasked with serving as cultural ambassadors to promote American values. Another case is about the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, a multi-racial, black-led, modern dance company that toured the Far East, Southeast Asia, and Australia in 1962 as part of US President John F. Kennedy’s “President’s Special International Program for Cultural Presentations.” We also examine The Philadelphia Orchestra, who in 1973 became the first US orchestra to perform in China, at the request of US President Richard Nixon. The Orchestra has since returned to China eleven times, often on anniversaries of the 1973 event, and they will travel to China once again this November to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of their first performance there.
Before the class meets to discuss the cases, everyone is asked to watch two video lectures, one on international cultural policy and another on diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion. Students are also asked to complete a series of readings about diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the arts. Students submit a personal journal entry, a short reflection asking them to connect the materials from this week to that of prior weeks. The journal entries are shared directly with me online, and I read and respond to them before class.
The prior weeks’ class activities are about cultural policy and government systems in the US related to the arts, the history of arts management in the US, and the role of arts managers within the larger societal context in which their organizations operate. At this point in the course, students are starting to think deeply about the role of the arts in the world they live in, and questions about the origins and goals of US cultural policy are starting to arise. Against that background, they are asked to review materials for one of the three case studies. The materials include first-person accounts and memoirs, news and media articles, scholarly works, and promotional materials for the exchanges themselves.
When we meet, students participate in two different discussions. First, students meet with others assigned to the same case, and use the information from that case to respond collectively to questions that prompt them to consider the cultural exchange from various perspectives: government interests, artists’ interests, and the current interests of arts managers and organizations in the US about diversity, equity, access, and inclusion.
Reconvening as a full class, we share the stories of each case, and each group’s reflections. We then think as a group about what all three cases taken together say about why the US government values cultural exchange and how it values artists. Finally, we look at what we have come up with in light of what we have been discussing to date about US cultural policy.
In class, students often begin by talking about the positives of cultural exchange – transcending language and other barriers, building new relationships, creating new dialogues, learning about each other’s traditions, and finding common ground. As the discussion continues, though, what arises is that while the US government sees cultural exchange as a means of promotion, a demonstration of excellence, and a tangible statement of a particular ‘American identity’ to the world, some of the artists use it as an opportunity to speak out in ways they are unable to back home, and to agitate against social barriers of race and class that that very same government has reinforced. In discussing these cases, students often bring up their own unresolved tension between pride that these artists were chosen and supported by their government to represent the country alongside their discomfort that the artists may be being ‘used’ by the government. They often debate about the balance of the government support related to authentic cultural exchange versus political propaganda.
We then talk about how all of that translates into what we have previously observed about current US cultural policy, making connections about where the ideals of artists, arts leaders, and policymakers may differ, how unresolved societal tension can be reflected in cultural policy, and how this continues to pervade the systems of governmental arts support that exist today in the US. We use Kevin Mulcahy’s 2006 definition of cultural policy to frame the discussion in the context of the US.
Students’ reflections in their journal entries and at other points during the course allow me to evaluate their developing understanding of how values translate into policy and action, and how they extend that understanding from the case studies to their own work as an arts manager. That level of personal connection and understanding is exactly what I hope students achieve in this course as they begin their graduate study.
At the end of the course, I ask students for feedback on all of the assignments and course activities, and this one is often mentioned as a favorite by students whose interests lie in community-based programming, advocacy, or cultural policy. They report that it helps them consider different perspectives in new ways, and understand how cultural policy can shift over time and why.
Questions for Further Discussion
- How might your own country’s cultural exchange activity be viewed through this framework?
- How are the issues this reflection brings up the same or different than those it raises in this US experience?
References
(n.d.) Decolonization in an Educational Context. University of Victoria Centre for Youth and Society. https://www.uvic.ca/research/centres/youthsociety/assets/docs/briefs/decolonizing-education-research-brief.pdf
DUVISAC S. (2022) Decolonize! What Does It Mean? Oxfam. https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621456/rr-decolonize-what-does-it-mean-151222-en.pdf;jsessionid=549568DCC0E2A01C0CDD8814C5D0239F?sequence=1
MULCAHY, K. V. (2006). Cultural Policy: Definitions and Theoretical Approaches. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 35 (4), 319–330.
Biography
Julie Goodman joined Drexel University in the fall of 2011, and served as the graduate arts administration program’s director from 2012-2017. She was previously Executive Vice President for the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance, where for twelve years she led advocacy, field research, community engagement, and grant making efforts. At Drexel, she conducts research, advises students, and teaches courses in arts advocacy, cultural policy, and organizational strategy. She also works on consulting projects with arts organizations and artists such as Spiral Q Puppet Theatre and Fleisher Art Memorial. Goodman is a former board member and Treasurer of the Association of Arts Administration Educators (AAAE) and the Stockton Rush Bartol Foundation. She also served as Chair of the Mayor’s Cultural Advisory Council for the Philadelphia Office of Arts, Culture, and the Creative Economy, and chair of the Philadelphia Cultural Fund. Julie holds a BA in Public Policy from Duke University and an MFA in Dance from Temple University. Her research explores intersections of policy and practice in arts and culture, and examines the value of arts and culture to individuals and communities. Julie’s current research projects include the PA Humanities Discovery Project and Artura.org