Christopher Gordon suggests that a covert centralisation agenda continues to underpin the development of cultural policy in England.
Much of the recent DCMS consultation paper, ?Understanding the Future: Museums and 21st Century Life?(1), is common sense. It raises debate about the roles of collections, research, education and closer links with Higher and Further Education, and also hints at reforming the illogical funding mess resulting from Thatcher?s 1986 abolition of the English metropolitan counties.
Misunderstandings
According to the paper?s Summary, ?Globalisation has changed the rate and pace of change, and connects the local to the global... cultural identity in the 21st century is not necessarily defined by national borders.? One hears alarm bells ringing whenever politicians refer to ?cultural identity? and ?national borders?. When was cultural identity ever defined by national borders other than in the minds of national politicians wedded to the Nineteenth Century nation state?
How much did English ?UK? Arts Ministers ever really understand of Scottish or Welsh cultural identity ? much of which is only intelligible in opposition to English cultural assumptions? Raymond Williams(2) points out that the power of the English ruling political and economic class has always been equally oppressive to many of the regions of England itself. How does the DCMS see these varying identities ? which have never been accorded the profile recently vested in shifting understandings of diversity? Not by reference to folk roots, local tradition or the vernacular.
London-centricity
No, public cultural policy and spending since 1945 have mainly been funnelled through a particular Metropolitan London establishment with national cultural institutions and cultural diplomacy ? usually a thin disguise for the national interest (whether diplomatic, political or economic) ? as key unifying features. Hey presto: local and global already equal national. The rhetoric may have changed, but Lord Goodman?s (Arts Council Chair of the early 1970s) dictum lives: ?...it is idiotic that the regions, which are pretty barren of talent, should run the show?. New Labour?s government-led or sanctioned centralisation processes simply attest to a slightly more subtle approach, what Raymond Williams termed the British disease of ?administered consensus by co-option?, and where principled ?selective resignation only establishes consensus more thoroughly?.
The roll call of Arts Ministers (from the post?s 1965 creation till 1992) and Secretaries of State for Culture (1992 to the present) may provide us with further clues: Jennie Lee, Viscount Eccles, Norman St John Stevas (twice), Hugh Jenkins, Lord Donaldson, Paul Channon, the Earl of Gowrie, Richard Luce, David Mellor (twice), Tim Renton, Peter Brooke, Stephen Dorrell, Virginia Bottomley, Chris Smith and Tessa Jowell. If we treat that as seventeen periods of office held by the Minister responsible for overseeing cultural policy over 40 years, we notice that in addition to the massive influence exerted by London institutions and the London-based media with easy access to Parliament and funding institutions of government, the Ministers may themselves be part of the problem.
Jennie Lee, of West Fife mining stock, and with Parliamentary constituencies in Lanark and then Cannock in the West Midlands, is still regarded as the outstanding holder of the office. Subtract her legendary five and a half year reign, right at the start of the series, and less than one full year of office remains between 1970 and 2005 held by a Minister whose Parliamentary constituency was not in London or the South East of England (or in the Lords). That year (1994) belongs to Stephen Dorrell, who represented Loughborough in the East Midlands. Furthermore, we note that in addition to the three periods of office held by Lords, no less than seven involve MPs with London constituencies. The remainder were elected from Essex (Chelmsford, Southend), Sussex (Shoreham, Mid-Sussex) and Surrey (Farnham).
Creeping centralisation
I don?t, of course, suggest that these individuals were selected for the role because of their geographical or class affiliations, but I do believe constituency base influences attitudes. Let?s roll this forward to the present. Blair correctly identified by 1997 that without Scottish/Welsh devolution, the integrity of the UK was going to be increasingly at risk. That achieved, England is paying the price through creeping centralisation on Whitehall, despite the dubious rhetoric often designed to imply the opposite.
The Council of Europe?s (CoE) study of decentralisation trends in cultural policy in 2001 noted that in England a centralised concentration of power might be taking place through a supposedly decentralist process. First museum ?hubs?, then English Heritage ?consolidation?, BBC regional production contraction, ITV further concentration, and the Arts Council?s takeover of the Regional Arts Board. This is an established trend in which the DCMS is deeply implicated.
In the latter parts of the Museums consultation document which broach ?coherence and advocacy?, partnership and structures, the New Labour weasel words come so thick and fast they look like a veritable muster of mustelids. Consider closely the language and disarmingly innocent consultation questions posed for continuing evidence of this trend:
? Q9: Would structural changes better support museums and provide effective means of ensuring a national strategy for museums?
? Q10: How best do we combine more coherent and efficient delivery of museum services with a service that is responsive to the needs of local communities and users?
Yes, they?re at it again. This looks very like what the CoE study terms ?centralist measures justified in terms of better management and financial efficiency which negate any independent local or regional authority?. Elsewhere in the paper are fingerprints like ?fragmented? and ?disparate? (diverse is good, this week, but disparate bad, apparently). And (oops!) a ?unitary funding council? is floated for good measure in a paragraph referring to both the national and local levels.
Real life
Responsiveness to local needs and aspirations would be better advanced though the appropriate authority and resources being in local democratic hands, rather than through Whitehall meddling and/or conniving with centralised Quango ambition yet again. The local and the global already connect up very nicely, thank you, DCMS. It is not the ?paradox? it seems to you. It is just the way people live their lives, and it?s really not a problem. The real problem for the taxpayer, as ever, is with the organs of the outdated nation state (with ?Europe? as whipping boy) looking for roles to shore up their increasing marginality in many policy spheres.
Respond to the document, and tell them to drop their structural tinkering and central control dreams, concentrating rather on the real issues identified to help people make up their own minds as appropriate in changing circumstances.
Christopher Gordon has over 30 years? experience as an arts professional in the public sector, and is now an independent consultant in cultural policy.
e: christophergordon@compuserve.com
(1)Responses to the DCMS consultation paper ?Understanding the Future: Museums and 21st Century Life? must be submitted by 30 June. Download the document at http://www.culture.gov.uk
(2)Williams, R. (1983) ?Wales and England?, an essay reproduced in ?What I came to Say? (London: Hutchinson, 1989)