|
SEMINAR 2001 |
THE ARKLETON TRUST
|
|
[CONTENTS] [NEXT PAGE] |
3: Powerf: culture & development, and heritageAt its broadest, culture could be defined as everything a people have created or modified. One implication of this is that culture is not static, but continually evolving. All communities have cultures that are uniquely constituted by them and of which they are the subjects as well as objects. It is this unique-ness that marks the meanings and value of culture in terms of rural and community development. The operation of culture as a constituent of unique identity lies at the heart of its value to community development. This is expressed by the levels of self-respect and pride expressed by its members as a result of belonging to the culture. Culture is increasingly being seen as one source of local development but before this can go ahead, a number of problems must be surmounted.The first is the question of measurement. How can we 'measure the immeasurable'? Policy outcomes are usually measured by material or financial indicators and indicators of culture are notoriously resistant to this. The EU LEADER programme found this and the first evaluation of LEADER I the European Commission backed away from the problem and asked evaluators to use the conventional model of programme evaluation assessing more 'measurable' outcomes, especially job-creation which was not one of the original objectives of the programme. Although the evaluation did go beyond this remit, the Commission has now adopted a new methodology for LEADER evaluation which explicitly sets out to assess the 'less measurable' objectives of partnership & participation, integration, innovation, etc. One possible way around the problem can be found when dealing with partnerships and funders. In such a situation it may be possible to negotiate outcomes and include ways of evaluating non-material success. Generally though, there is a tension between fiscal responsibility and the slippery non-material aspects of culture, cultural development, and more generally the development of the capacities of people and local organisations from within. It was suggested that it is best not to try to define culture in this way and instead to look for locally constructed operational definitions, agreeing with the community as to what constitutes 'success'. Another problem is that development institutions tend to look at culture and heritage as synonymous. Heritage objects such as national or local built landscapes and traditional products such as foods or music tend to be simplistically substituted for 'culture'. Heritage in this sense is asset-based, whilst culture includes such material constructs but also represents interactions, meanings and ways of life which leave little direct trace on landscapes or ledger books. We must be careful to distinguish between culture and cultural artefacts. Community development must show respect for culture as well as for cultural artefacts, offering opportunities for local development of culture. For example, the Irish themed Pub is a cultural artefact, invented out of a culture and exported around the world. To develop pubs is not necessarily to be developing culture. Often the confusion between culture and cultural artefacts is expressed in 'cargo-cult' developments. In this situation, the idea is that a museum/cultural centre/heritage centre will help develop community strength when, in fact, the object is directed towards tourism or other outside interests. A community must resist external funding for tourist consumption only, and support such projects only if a direct benefit to the whole local community can be demonstrated. Thus a facility that services a short summer tourist season is only viable if it provides a year-round service to local residents as well. Rural people do not want to be museums. Rather, they want to develop their own cultures out of all the resources - past and present, local and extra-local - which are present in their worlds.
[The Funds] |