International Symposium - Cultural policies and social order 1968-2018: ethics, disparities, eventualities - Calenda

International Symposium

          Cultural policies and social order 1968–2018:
                 ethics, disparities, eventualities

         12 to 14 December 2018, in Lyon and Villeurbanne

                              Lyon Public Library collection, Photographers from the Rhône-Alpes region, Creative Commons

For this fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Villeurbanne – a political and ambiguous founding
document – the symposium will be focusing on the politicization of culture, taking 1968 as the turning
point. The shifting benchmarks for cultural action and the way they refer to (or keep quiet about) the
relationship between politics and culture will be examined along three lines of inquiry: specialization
of the cultural protagonists (i.e. operators, artists and the public); the territorialization of culture
(between the loss of impetus of national cultural policies, internationalization and the rise of
urbanization); and the institutional and organizational frameworks for cultural activities (their
restrictive nature and interstices).
A multidisciplinary and collective debate over changes to cultural policies will lead to the production
of a white paper on the current state of relations between cultural initiatives and political ethics.

Call for communication

In May 1968, a French national forum for culture was held at the Théâtre de la Cité de Villeurbanne,
with Roger Planchon and Francis Jeanson at the forefront: a landmark manifesto was drafted, entitled
Déclaration de Villeurbanne. Lyrical and forward-looking, the Declaration was the creation of a
collective authority made up of twenty-three directors of popular theaters and cultural centers.
Together, they supported a plan to break with the past as well as gain power, while describing a
fragmented public arena – in short, a sort of political ethic. The document was destined for a special
fate, both as a focal point and a variable point in political discourse on culture and the social role of
art, especially regarding the theater (Delhalle 2006, 2017).
The Declaration is still used today, though ambiguous and prone to varying interpretation, helping us
reflect on the continuities and breaks that influence contemporary cultural practices, policies and
productions. Yet if we are to look critically at current affairs in the art world

and cultural initiatives, we need to do away with meaningless categorizations and begin working
together to denaturalize lingering, resistant language and practices that in a variety of ways declare
democratization, emancipation and the alternative. Other themes may provide food for thought: the
concept of risk, for example (what about involvement today or the conformism of cultural actors?) ;
the issue of globalization (what about the internationalization of practices and the rise of local?) ; or
the very process of politicization (what about culture’s political role in the face of economic
arguments?).
Much research has been conducted on these topics in multiple fields of knowledge: theater studies,
information and communication technology, sociology, history, political science, etc.In keeping with
this research, the symposium is open to contributions from a variety of disciplines within the
humanities and social sciences. These contributions will take a critical, problem-focused look at
cultural policies, productions and/or practices, regardless of the artistic or cultural sector in question
(performing arts, circus arts, heritage, books, etc.). They will fall within one or several of the three
focus areas presented below.

        1. Public, operators, artists: protagonists on the path to specialization
                 If the word culture can still be taken seriously, it is insofar as it implies the demand for an
                 effective intervention tending to modify current relations between people, and consequently,
                 for an active investigation going from individual to individual, and seeking to take everyone
                 into account – in other words, in the end, an authentic form of cultural action (Declaration of
                 Villeurbanne).
                 The fact nevertheless remains that the ways in which this basic orientation will be put into
                 practice must be defined in close consultation with those concerned, that is: firstly with the
                 staff of our respective enterprises, and secondly with the different sections of the population,
                 the “non-public” (through intermediaries of all kinds who, by going from one individual to the
                 next, allow us to reach them), students, and the public we have already established
                 (Declaration of Villeurbanne).

Fifty years after the Declaration, France has around 250 master’s level courses in “cultural
management”, “cultural development”, “cultural engineering”, etc. While the names of the courses
may change, in line with changes in ideologies of cultural action (masters in “cultural
entrepreneurship” have been appearing over the last few years), they all relate to a single movement
that involves qualifying, specializing and professionalizing the actors of the world of culture. These fall
into three categories: “staff of our respective enterprises”, in other words cultural “operators”; artists;
and audiences (or the public). In this trilogy, by building themselves a social, professional, or political
position, each category of actors makes a statement about their relationship to the two others. Joëlle
Le Marec, for example, clearly demonstrated how changes to the training of museum visitor
experience managers, and the arrival of people with a marketing background in these departments in
particular, have contributed to creating an image of the public as the target of supposedly effective
communication (Le Marec, 2007).
On a different note, the legal, economic and political statuses of creators are changing. Amongst
others, instrumental conceptions are under development that make artists archetypes or
pathfinders for contemporary forms of work (Menger, 2005) in a society where creativity is
promoted as a source of value and “individuals”, instead of the “public”, are all potentially creative.
In the end, the recipients of cultural action are constantly being (re)qualified by research in social
sciences, as well as by political discourse and cultural actors. From the notion of “non-public”, which
appears in the Declaration as a standard to be followed, to that of “population” expressed by
Catherine Trautmann in 1998 in the French public service mission statement for the performing arts,
and the euphemized notions of “publics spécifiques” [specific audiences], “public du champ social”
[audiences of social concern], “public empêché” [inhibited audiences], and “public éloigné” [remote
audiences], these categories reflect intense work to specialize the relationship between artworks
and their social appropriation, while continuing to produce dismissals, disagreements and paradoxes
(Ghebaur, 2014; Rancière, 2008).

This topic area will involve reflecting on the trajectories of actors in cultural affairs, the processes of
category specialization and the effects of these forms of professionalization. The complex movements
covered by these terms call for an examination of the new configurations of authority in cultural
matters, but also its filiation, both direct and indirect, and particularly the role of cultural public policy
in the updating of benchmarks and frameworks of cultural action in the context of “innovation”.

        2. Regions and places: geographical and symbolic issues
                 The directors of popular theaters and cultural centers [...] protest against the unjustifiable
                 disparities prevailing both among the subsidies given to the diverse national institutions based
                 in Paris, and between these subsidies and those given to equivalent institutions in the suburbs
                 and provinces, as such disparities call into question the very idea of decentralization
                 (Declaration of Villeurbanne)

Cultural actors are faced with the rise of urbanization and loss of impetus of national cultural policies,
in terms of artistic production and cultural dissemination alike. This is reflected in the issue of cultural
municipalization from the 1970s, as shown in the Rencontres d’Avignon held from 1964 to 1970
chaired by Jean Vilar, with themes like “Cultural policy in cities” (1967) and “Cultural policy in seven
cities” (1969).
Some key terms or concepts thus became essential to the construction and depiction of professional
identities and cultural activities: “Cultural democratization”, “regional planning”, “ecological
transition”, “cultural development”, “Agenda 21 for culture”, among others. These labels, some of
whose origins date back to the 1960s, echo those that are now firmly established in describing new
urban dynamics and cultural policies: “Global city”, “Intercultural city”, “Creative cluster” and
“Participatory city”. But these terms also cause tensions: dismissed by cultural actors, imposed by the
State or demanded by local authorities, they reveal the balance of power between actors of cultural
action since 1970.

This topic area will involve identifying new intervention methods and the positioning of actors, not
just with a globalized, generic approach and rationale in the current context of internationalization
and industrialization of the artistic and cultural sectors, but also in their territorialization(s).

        3. Formal frameworks and leading figures in cultural action: (re)forms, pathways
            and omissions

For Jacques Rancière (2004), politics is the moment you begin to account for the uncounted, in other
words entering instituting frameworks, classifications and concepts, correct expressions, to turn them
into criticisms (Farge, 1992). By which mechanisms and via which pathways through time and space
do cultural policies form the place of cultural politicization, or is it the opposite, do they hinder it?
The document Declaration of Villeurbanne – far from being smooth and consistent – leaves room for
multiple interpretations that echo the not always compatible positions of those who produced it. This
constitutive ambivalence has not hindered the widespread distribution of the document and (some
of) its proposals. Some statements taken from the Declaration stand out and circulate like “formulas”
(Krieg- Planque, 2009), gradually relieving the text of its local anchorage and political force in favor of
rhetoric and stories whose origins have been forgotten. But at the same time, the text is mentioned
regularly and referred to as a foundational moment (Schlanger, 1992) that reiterated or reconstructed
origins and filiation.

This topic area will involve considering the materiality of pathways that shape and influence cultural
practices, policies and productions, between political lines and programs suggested “from above” and
grassroots interactions, and between long-term discussions and occasional meetings. These pathways
form through quotes, repetitions or more or less faithful and explicit reinterpretations, which may
benefit from discourse analysis. They also form through sorts of practice framing and schemes and
models that discretely insinuate themselves into cultural action: for example, the overrating of
quantitative indicators in assessment processes for cultural projects; project management tools like
the “logical framework matrix"; or program procedures funded by the European Union (Creative
Europe for transnational cultural projects or Erasmus + for artist mobility).

References

Bonaccorsi Julia, “The Role of the Term Non-public in Ordering Cultural Initiatives: Analysis of the
Modalities of the Term Non-public in Public Sector Literacy Initiatives”, in Looking For Non-publics,
Luckerhoff Jason, Jacobi Daniel (dir.), Presses de l’Université du Québec, 2012, p. 7-26
Delhalle Nancy, Vers un Théâtre Politique, Le Cri, Bruxelles, 2006
Delhalle Nancy, Théâtre dans la mondialisation. Communauté et utopie sur les scènes
contemporaines, PUL, Lyon, 2017
Farge Arlette Dire et mal dire. L'opinion publique au XVIIIesiècle. Le Seuil, Paris, 2013.
Ghebaur Cosmina, “C’est pas pour nous normalement”. La médiation culturelle et les non-publics”,
Tumultes, 42, 2014
Jeanson Francis, “La Réunion de Villeurbanne”, in La Décentralisation Théâtrale, 2., Les Années
Malraux, 1959-1968, Actes-Sud Papiers, coll. Théâtre, éducation, cahiers n° 6, Arles, 1993
Krieg-Planque Alice, La notion de ‘formule’ en analyse du discours: Cadre théorique et
méthodologique, Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté, Besançon, 2009
Le Marec Joëlle, Publics et musées: La confiance éprouvée, L’Harmattan, Paris, 2007
Madral Philippe, Le théâtre hors les murs. Six animateurs et trois élus municipaux nous parlent, Seuil
Coll. Théâtre, 1969
Menger Pierre-Michel, Profession artiste. Extension du domaine de la création, Textuel, Paris, 2005
Rancière Jacques, Aux bords du politique, Gallimard, Paris, 2004
Rancière Jacques, Le spectateur émancipé, La Fabrique, Paris, 2008
Schlanger Judith, “Fondation, nouveauté, limite, mémoire”, Communications n° 54, 1992, p. 289-298
Saez Guy, “L’être collectif du peuple à l’épreuve du projet d’un théâtre national populaire de
Wagner”, SociologieS, 2017

Submission requirements
Proposals are to be uploaded in pdf format to the platform: policult68.sciencesconf.org/
Proposals must comprise: a title (in French and English), an abstract (in French or English) of 7,000
characters including spaces (Times 12 pt), mentioning the issue, scope of the investigation,
methodology and main conclusions drawn. A few bibliographical references should also be added,
together with five keywords.

Proposal submission deadline: July 15, 2018 at 12 p.m.
Notice to authors: September 15, 2018
All proposals will undergo double-blind assessment by an international scientific committee.

Scientific Committee
Anouk Bélanger (Université du Québec à Montréal)
Julia Bonaccorsi (Université Lyon 2)

Jacques Bonniel (Centre Max Weber, UniversitéLyon 2)
Sarah Cordonnier (Université Lyon 2)
Jean Davallon (Université d’Avignon et des Pays du Vaucluse)
Damien Darcis (University of Mons)
Nancy Delhalle (University of Liège)
Milena Dragicevic Secic (University of Arts in Belgrade)
Isabelle Garcin-Marrou (Sciences Po Lyon)
Bérénice Hamidi-Kim (UniversitéLyon 2)
Jeremy Hamers (University of Liège)
Yves Jeanneret (Sorbonne University)
Camille Jutant (Université Lyon 2)
Visnja Kisic (University of Arts in Belgrade)
Michel Kneubhüler (Comité d’Histoire du Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication)
Joëlle Le Marec (Sorbonne University)
Jason Luckerhoff (Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières)
Katharina Niemeyer (Université du Québec à Montréal)
François Provenzano (University of Liège)
Guy Saez (CNRS, PACTE)
Cécile Tardy (Université de Lille)
Goran Tomka (University of Tourism of Novi Sad)
Daniel Urrutiaguer (Université Lyon 2)

Symposium Organization Committee
Julia Bonaccorsi (ELICO, Université Lyon 2)
Jacques Bonniel (Centre Max Weber,Lyon 2)
Sarah Cordonnier (ELICO, Université Lyon 2)
Camille Jutant (ELICO, Université Lyon 2)
Michel Kneubhüler (Comité d’Histoire du Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication)

Information: policult68@sciencesconf.org
Venues for the symposium: Université Lumière Lyon 2 and Théâtre National
Populaire, Villeurbanne