7AAYCC04 Dissertation 2013~14 Candidate No. T22616 1 MA Cultural and Creative Industries Dissertation cover sheet Candidate number T22616 Date 1/09/14 Dissertation title Taking the leap: A study of the role of intercultural dialogue in Romanian cultural organisations in London Word count 12 009 My dissertation research involved the participation of human subjects, and therefore needs Research Ethics clearance (Y / N) Y I have obtained the necessary Research Ethics clearance and attached the statement of approval from the Research Ethics committee (Y / N/ n/a) Y The act of submitting this essay confirms that I have read and understand the college guidance on plagiarism, and agree with the following statement: This assignment is entirely my own work. Quotations from secondary literature are indicated by the use of inverted commas around ALL such quotations AND by reference in the text or notes to the author concerned. ALL primary and secondary literature used in this piece of work is indicated in the bibliography placed at the end, and dependence upon ANY source used is indicated at the appropriate point in the text. I confirm that no sources have been used other than those stated. I UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY PLAGIARISM AND HAVE SIGNED THE DECLARATION CONCERNING THE AVOIDANCE OF PLAGIARISM. I UNDERSTAND THAT PLAGIARISM IS A SERIOUS EXAMINATIONS OFFENCE THAT MAY RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY ACTION BEING TAKEN.
Romanian Cultural Institute evaluation Cristina Baron
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
MA Cultural and Creative Industries Dissertation cover sheet
Candidate number T22616 Date 1/09/14 Dissertation title Taking the leap: A study of the role of
intercultural dialogue in Romanian cultural organisations in London
Word count 12 009 My dissertation research involved the participation of human subjects, and therefore needs Research Ethics clearance (Y / N)
Y
I have obtained the necessary Research Ethics clearance and attached the statement of approval from the Research Ethics committee (Y / N/ n/a)
Y
The act of submitting this essay confirms that I have read and understand the college guidance on plagiarism, and agree with the following statement: This assignment is entirely my own work. Quotations from secondary literature are indicated by the use of inverted commas around ALL such quotations AND by reference in the text or notes to the author concerned. ALL primary and secondary literature used in this piece of work is indicated in the bibliography placed at the end, and dependence upon ANY source used is indicated at the appropriate point in the text. I confirm that no sources have been used other than those stated. I UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY PLAGIARISM AND HAVE SIGNED THE DECLARATION CONCERNING THE AVOIDANCE OF PLAGIARISM. I UNDERSTAND THAT PLAGIARISM IS A SERIOUS EXAMINATIONS OFFENCE THAT MAY RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY ACTION BEING TAKEN.
Abstract This dissertation takes a postcolonial approach to investigate how cultural organisations utilise intercultural dialogue to bridge cultural differences and considers the factors that enable and constrain this occurrence. It considers the larger framework of the European Union to contextualise identity, culture and intercultural dialogue projects as set out by this homogenising supranational force. January 2014 marked the ending of transitional controls for Romanian immigrants and the beginning of a sometimes anti-‐rhetoric discourse in the UK media before and after restrictions were lifted. Inspired by the current situation, this dissertation explores how the Romanian Cultural Institute London and Romanian Cultural Centre address otherness. Using qualitative interviews from intercultural dialogue stakeholders, a short content analysis of the RCI and RCC, as well as documented EU sources to support my analysis, this study suggests that risk influences whether or not cultural organisations conduct intercultural dialogue projects.
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 Background information ............................................................................................................. 9
Contested Identities ........................................................................................................ 11 What’s all the fuss about? ......................................................................................................... 11 Identities in flux ........................................................................................................................ 12 A positive outlook ..................................................................................................................... 14
European Identity ............................................................................................................ 16 EU identity and otherness ......................................................................................................... 18
Intercultural dialogue ...................................................................................................... 21 Ethnocentrism and power ........................................................................................................ 21 The artist’s role ......................................................................................................................... 23
Methodology and Framework ......................................................................................... 24 Qualitative data ........................................................................................................................ 25 Quantitative data ...................................................................................................................... 26 Limitations and validity ............................................................................................................. 27
How does the RCC and RCI address otherness? .............................................................. 31 Identities: Past, present and future .......................................................................................... 31 Overcoming the fear of the other ............................................................................................. 31 Challenging perceptions ............................................................................................................ 33 Whose there, who cares? ......................................................................................................... 35
What are the factors that enable and constrain intercultural dialogue? ...................... 37 Romania in the EU family .......................................................................................................... 37 Are you an artist or a social worker? ........................................................................................ 39 Content analysis ........................................................................................................................ 40 How risky is too risky? ............................................................................................................... 43
Some UK tabloids and the UKIP in particular have turned their attention towards
Romanians – labeling them as "aggressive beggars" (Mail Online UK), "penniless
immigrants" (The Telegraph UK)" and raising safety issues if, "a group of Romanian
people suddenly moved next door” (Nigel Farage) (Calbeaza, 2014: 3; BBC, 2014). This
increase in the fear of the other brings forth questions of identity and belonging,
between each other as well as within the larger framework of the European Union.
Europe's slogan "unity in diversity" is inspiring, but does the image it wishes to
convey reflect its reality? In the current context of freedom of movement, the European
Commission (2014: 5) cautions that increasing ethnic conflicts may put ‘social cohesion,
and at the same time the European project at risk'. Accordingly, intercultural dialogue is
given increasing importance in homogenising and migrant-‐averse countries. To manage
the problems that can incur from the meeting of diverse cultures, the Council of Europe
(2008), also known as Europe’s leading human rights organisation, claims that
intercultural dialogue is a suitable strategy to mediate ethnic conflicts. Although
intercultural dialogue is victim of definitional ambiguity, the Council of Europe’s
definition is widely recognised and goes as follows:
[Intercultural dialogue] is a process that comprises an open and respectful exchange or interaction between individuals, groups and organizations with different cultural backgrounds or worldviews. Among its aims are: to develop a deeper understanding of diverse perspectives and practices; to increase participation and freedom and ability to make choices; to foster equality; and to enhance creative processes (2008: 10).
Moreover, for DuBois (n.d. cited in Bhabha, 1994: xxii), a ‘minority only discovers
its political force and its aesthetic form when it is articulated across and alongside
communities of difference, in acts of affiliation and contingent coalitions’. Within the
context of globalisation, these "across and alongside" encounters are relevant as
different cultures are increasingly in contact. Moreover, power differentials between
migrants and nationals also allow for these ‘acts of affiliations and contingent coalitions’
(Bhabha, 1994: xxii). Bhabha (1994) proposes the concept of hybridity in investigating
power differentials between oppressed and oppressor, as he states that hybrids emerge
from a “Third Space”:
These in between spaces provide the terrain for elaborating strategies of selfhood – singular or communal – that initiate new signs of identity and innovative sites of collaborating, and contestation in the act of defining the idea of society itself (Bhabha, 1994: 2).
This ‘Third Space’ allows for hybrids to create new alternatives from that of
those in the dominant discourse, and in this way, form their own constructions of “self’
(Bhabha, 1994: 5). On the other hand, Ahmad (1995 cited in Werbner and Modood,
1997: 21) argues that hybridity is problematic, in the sense that it ‘fails to move beyond
the ephemeral and the contingent; thus it masks long-‐term social and political
continuities and transformations’. The scholar further claims that change must come
from a ‘coherent sense of place, of belonging, of some stable commitment to one’s
class, gender or nation’ (Ahmad, 1995 cited in Werbner and Modood, 1997: 21).
It must be reiterated that this fixity that Ahmad (1995) brings forth is precisely
what Hall (1993); Bhabha (1994) and Said (1978) deem as central to the formation of
stereotypes. Werbner and Modood (1997: 3) rightfully ask, 'what is the place and
intercultural dialogue acts more like an "ideological vehicle" rather than a practical
solution. Aman (2012: 1018) is also critical of intercultural dialogue's success as he
states that 'intercultural dialogue is a resource to neutralise doctrines conflicting with
'European values'. Accordingly, intercultural dialogue is highly valued from the EU
policymaking point of view, yet academics question the success of its implementation
beyond its discourse on a supranational level.
The artist’s role
The stratified power relations found in rhetorical policymaking can be
exemplified when investigating the role of the arts in intercultural dialogue. It has been
argued that the arts are instrumentalised from a political perspective to attend to socio-‐
economic goals that exceed their purpose. The debate between excellence vs. access in
the creative and cultural industries can be reiterated in the context of intercultural
dialogue. Accordingly, Karaca (2010) defines this instrumentalisation towards ethnic
minorities as she argues:
At the institutional level of cultural policy, it is implicitly presumed that non-‐'white' immigrants will, above all, engage in cultural or artistic projects which are tied to the notion of ethnic and social identities and do not qualify as "serious" cultural contributions of artistic value (Karaca, 2010: 14).
In this way, immigrant groups are understood as distinct groups whose
'difference' is means entails that cultural production still remains primarily tied to socio-‐
political goals’ (Kiwan and Kosnic, 2006: 110). In this way, it is also difficult to assess
whether artists’ works are intrinsically or extrinsically motivated as culture ‘is expected
to be statements about cultural differences and Otherness’ (Kiwan and Kosnic, 2006:
The authors argue for 'new forms of cultural expression that transcend the boundaries of the national or the ethnic and create new types of artistic expression, new cultural and commercial networks for art products and eventually new realities of cultural diversity and cosmopolitanism' (Kiwan and Kosnick, 2006: 123).
To what extent must these cultural organisations have to deal with otherness,
whilst maintaining their artistic legitimacy? It has also been criticised that financial
support is at times provided not in regards to an artist’s work, but rather how the
artist’s work contributes to social matters (Karaca, 2010).
On the other hand, Intercultural Europe states that organisations need to
implement the cultural policies in regards to intercultural dialogue ‘as an instrument for
'peace and conflict prevention' (2010: 7). Thus, for “interculturalism” to become the
norm, cultural institutions need to change (EU, 2012), and manage the artists legitimacy
whilst also attending to events of a social nature. These conflicting views make it
difficult to assess the limits to which intercultural dialogue prioritises social issues over
the artist’s intrinsic motives.
Methodology and framework
Although the presence of intercultural dialogue in policymaking 'has been
growing at an exceptional rate' (Aman, 2012; 1010), there is a significant lack in
academic research on the topic (Ganesh and Holmes, 2011). The purpose of this
dissertation is to contribute to the existing academic research on intercultural dialogue
by exploring two case studies: the Romanian Cultural Institute London (RCI) and the
Romanian Cultural Center (RCC). This analysis examines how the RCI and RCC address
Center (RCC) in London. This section compares and contrasts the RCI and RCC,
acknowledging the internal structural differences, as the RCC is a private organisation,
whilst the RCI is government-‐funded.
Case studies
The RCC is a small, non-‐political organization founded in 1994 aiming 'to promote Romanian cultural programs, maintain connections within the Romanian community in Britain and facilitate cultural exchanges between Britain and Romania’ (RCC, 2014). The RCI is part of a global network of cultural institutes and acts as ‘a diplomatic mission, cultural management unit, artistic and PR agency as well as a center for research and documentation. It devotes equal energy to initiatives about Britain for Romanians and collaborates with Romanians in the UK on community projects' (RCI, 2014).
How does the RCI and RCC address otherness?
Identity: Past, present, future 'Identities are the names we give to the different ways we are positioned by, and
position ourselves within the narratives of the past' (Hall, 1993: 225; Bhabha, 1994). In
this way, the Romanian identity today can only be understood by its past. After the fall
of communism in 1989, Romania was tasked with re-‐inventing its identity, which is still
today contested. In Andreea Paris’ article ‘Negotiating the Romanian Quest for Cultural
Identity after 1989’, the scholar takes a post-‐colonial approach to investigate the
construction of Romanian identities. Within the context of the USSR’s ideological and
cultural oppression on Eastern European countries, Romanians were under colonisation,
subjected to the dominant discourse (Paris, 2014).
Paris (2014: 272) describes the Romanian identity as one that struggles with ‘a
seemingly endless period of transition, of in betweenness with respect to a possible
Western future and its communist past'. In this way, Romania finds itself embezzled
between two ideological frameworks that have culturally and politically entrapped its
image in "colonial otherness" (Paris, 2014: 273).
This “crisis of identity” (Paris, 2014: 276) explains itself in the way Romania’s
searches for authenticity, yet finds itself entrapped in mimicry by imitating its former
colonisers (Paris, 2014: 276). It can be argued that Bhabha’s theory of the “Third Space'”
from which cultural hybridity emerges is where Romania currently stands in search for
its identity. This paper assumes that the RCI and RCC situate this “Third Space”, where
the Romanian diaspora can shape their identities through the arts; ‘where in this space,
we emerge as the others of our selves’ (Bhabha, 1994: 56).
When asked how cultural activities at the RCI enable the Romanian diaspora to
construct its identity, Deputy Director of the ICR Magda Stroe responds:
From the artistic point of view, identities are not logic – they are always in search, and this search of identity is an artistic act in itself. By engaging with cultural products and cultural creations, one tries to find their identity – be it the [Romanian] artist, or the audience. This is also an artistic act in itself (Interview, 2014).
RCC Project Manager Carmean Campeanu responds in a more pragmatic way:
All the effort should be put into developing their own personalities, trying to configure this post-‐communist Romanian identity so efforts in Romania should be put towards something different, and efforts in London shut be put towards starting a dialogue and trying to bridge the two cultures [Romanian and Britannic] through various cultural projects' (Interview, 2014).
about Romanian migrants by some UK media. Campeanu notes, 'from my experience
and what I heard from other journalists, when something Romania-‐related happens in
the UK, they try to approach Romanian institutions and the Embassy' (Interview, 2014).
The project manager explains the RCC’s approach to the issue:
We are open to everyone. We spoke directly to maybe about 100 journalists in the past 16 months such as BBC and The Sun. We've been trying to open a dialogue, to invite people to have a look at Romania from the Romania that we are trying to present and meet people we know and meet the Romanians in Romania (Interview, 2014).
When asked if the RCC initiated the conversation with journalists, Campeanu
replies, ‘they were the ones calling us. But sometimes, we would call them as well, when
we would see a horrible article or horrible news report, we would approach them’
(Interview, 2014). Van Dijk (2012) problematises the mild racism:
The more modern, subtle and indirect forms of ethnic or racial inequality, and especially the racism or rather ethnicism based on constructions of cultural difference and incompatibility, is seldom characterized as racism but at most xenophobia and more often than not as legitimate cultural self-‐defense (2012: 93)
Campeanu rightfully argues, 'but when you have mild racism or mild hatred
towards immigration, it's very hard to sue someone from that, it's very nuanced'
(Interview, 2014). While the RCC proactively engaged with the media to start a dialogue,
the RCI on the other hand were reluctant in starting a conversation or even responding
to third parties requests. This can be further exemplified by the difficulty encountered
to contact the RCI as stated in the methodology section.
Stroe explains their reluctance when she states, ‘we thought that everything that
means public position in relation to these articles should be conducted by the Embassy.
As a cultural institute, it is not opportune or efficient to bring work that is politically
sensible, social’ (Interview, 2014). Given the RCI acts as an “artist and PR office” as listed
on its website, it is difficult to understand their role in managing the diaspora’s image
reputation by omitting to respond to dialogue initiated by third parties.
Challenging perceptions
As iterated in the introduction, Romania’s faces a negative image reputation not
only in the UK but in Europe as well. Suciu defines Romania’s problematic image as a
result of the Roma problem, the poorness, and more specifically Romanians in the UK
not adhering to English values (Interview, 2014). Suciu further states, 'The English -‐ you
can't sell them the Romanian culture, you have to sell them values, if you don't give
them values then what do we talk about then?' (Interview, 2014) When asked how their
respective cultural events challenge the UK’s sometimes negative perception about
Romanian immigrants, Campeanu responds:
Our aim is not to change someone's perspective about immigration or Romania, it is to start a dialogue' (my emphasis). RCC just wants to make them curious. Last year we commissioned a documentary about Romanian night workers in London -‐ not only showing good parts of Romanians or the Romanian diaspora here but it was a really good and necessary discussion and a dialogue started (Interview, 2014).
On the other hand, Stroe argues that it is through the RCI’s artists that it attempts to
break stereotypes when she states:
Because people who knew nothing about Romania come and discover a new culture: our music and traditions – or people that had a certain perception of Romania, ah! It is poor country from the East of Europe, and coming here they see our artists…(Interview, 2014).
Thus, both the RCI and RCC address otherness through arts and culture in different
ways: the former by depicting the realities of the Romanian migrant, the latter by
community as Campeanu states that ‘there is a tendency for Romanians to make a
distinction between Roma and Romanians in a way that is discriminating the Roma . This
is a thing that we felt the need to address’ (Interview, 2014). In this way, the RCC
decided to spread awareness about the Roma problem, in contrast to the RCI’s
reluctance to address topics of a sensitive nature.
Campeanu considers the reflexive approach entailed in imagining intercultural
dialogue events as she considers, ‘the whole idea was not to create something you think
resonates with the Roma community, but to actually bring them on Board (Interview,
2014). Accordingly, the project was conceived by British academics, members of the EU
commission and the UK Roma Support Group. In Linda Alcoff’s (1991) article 'The
problem of speaking for Others', the scholar questions the researcher’s superiority
when representing minorities, and suggests that rather than speaking for the other, we
should engage with the other. Although this project does not directly relate to the
Romano-‐British relation, it does provide insight into best practices for intercultural
dialogue in terms of collectively discussing with the other in order to correctly represent
the other.
Whose there, who cares?
The involvement of immigrants in local cultural life is a fundamental tool for breaking the sense of exclusion; and may foster a sense of integration to the country of settlement. Culture, and in particular intercultural dialogue, may act as vehicles promoting cultural dialogue, inclusion and a vision of a multicultural society (Kosic and Triandafyllidou, 2006: 174).
Given the said importance of culture for citizens to overcome otherness, it is
important to investigate the RCC and RCI’s willingness to include the diaspora in their
cultural activities. As intercultural dialogue involves an exchange between participants
(EU, 2012), it is fitting to consider the cultural background of guests attending the
events in question. At the RCI, it was noted that the audience is of roughly 60% British or
international and 40% Romanian (Stroe, Interview, 2014), while the RCC’s public is
“roughly” made up of a 60% Romanian audience and 40% other (Campeanu, Interview,
2014). The RCI claims that its goal is to attract a foreign audience, whilst the RCC seeks
to cater to both a foreign audience as well as the Romanian diaspora. Both
representatives noted that audience characteristics often depended on the type of
cultural event presented.
As described in the literature review, a diaspora’s cultural participation is
sometimes limited and can take place at a highly stratified level (Kosic and
Triandafyllidou, 2006). Van-‐Hovart (2012) further critiques power relations found in
intercultural dialogue projects when he states:
It is an ideological vehicle for the reproduction of a Eurocentric image of the tolerance and openness of the new Europeans [and] shows little desire to seek conditions, which would encourage dominant communities to search for sources of empowerment for the deprivileged and dispossessed as the basis for enhancing social cohesion and solidarity. It is ill-‐equipped to deal with social change and the tensions triggered by Europeanization and globalisation' (Van-‐Horvat, 2012: 41).
Dragulescu (2013: 9) describes the RCI’s audience as “elite” and “niche”, made
up of ‘highly culturally educated people, diplomatic communities, or local dignitaries’.
Accordingly, as most of the RCI's public is somewhat 'elitist', it is rather difficult to reach
a wider audience, thus raising the excellence vs. access debate (Van-‐Hovart, 2012). As
the RCI functions as Romania's main arm for cultural diplomacy in London (RCI, 2014), it
would be suitable if the organisation also worked for the better integration of the
Romanian diaspora in London. Thus, the RCI’s reluctance to include Romanians from
different socio-‐economic backgrounds reinforces the already established class relations
and in so doing reiterates the process of exclusion.
What enables and constrains intercultural dialogue?
Romania in the EU family
All 28 members of the EU must in some way adhere to the EU’s ideology, as
they are now confined to the union’s common rules, ethics, and values. Accordingly,
Romania’s conditional accession to the EU in 2007 brings forth responsibilities of
attending to culture and intercultural dialogue projects that reflect its newfound EU
identity. Stroe acknowledges the RCI’s attempts to better respond to this inclusion as
she states:
Once with the adherence of Romania in the EU in 2007, the European countries were open to Romanian culture and the mode in which this can be viewed as an exotic place (my emphasis). We noticed in the first years a larger opening of the Romanian culture – as a culture that is diverse, a place where the arts and the culture in general, but the arts in particular, are seen as a place of interaction between the local public and Romanian artists that come to present their work – be it visual creations or performing arts. RCI through this proposes diversity in the arts, a balance and a dialogue of the Romano-‐Britannic interactions (Interview, 2014).
In response to some of the UK media's labelling of a "Romanian invasion" before
the 2007 accession (Stroe, Interview, 2014), the RCI decided to frame this as 'A
Romanian cultural invasion'. The institute thus attempted to challenge perceptions by
promoting its artists. Stroe adds, 'It was a difficult year, but an important one to show
that a population can be known through its arts, its music, its traditional culture'
Stroe also notes that Romania’s inclusion to the EU has strengthened
relationships with EU cultural programs, such as EUNIC (2006), which is a financial
assistance body for networks within the union. As stated on its website, EUNIC’s mission
is to ‘promote European values and to contribute to cultural diversity inside and outside
of the EU [and] aims to strengthen cultural dialogue, exchange and sustainable
cooperation worldwide’ (EUNIC, 2014).
EUNIC’s 2012 panel discussion entitled ‘Cultural Diplomacy in a Changing World:
How to Respond to the Current Challenges’ was held at the RCI London and reflected
upon the network’s best practices and future strategic plans. It is interesting to note
that during the roundtable conference, Turkish Professor Tunc Aybak states,
One of the most important challenges ahead is the cultural geo-‐politics of inclusion […] there are countries that are subject to this “anxiety of exclusion” not only as a result of the economic crisis, but also because of the rhetoric of populist politics, do you have anything on your agenda do address these issues, to manage these, and to engage with these? (EUNIC, 29.30, 2012)
EUNIC President Delphine Borione-‐Pratesi responds that ‘It is not our role’, and
that these challenges are culturally addressed through the notion of “unity in diversity”
(EUNIC, 2012). Accordingly, the EUNIC example is illustrative of the critiques brought
forth by Vidmar-‐Hovart (2012); Karaca (2010) and Sassatelli (2006) about EU cultural
initiatives devising a rhetoric, which lacks pragmatic validity within the context of
globalisation and merging of different cultures. The visions of the RCI as a standalone
institute as well as part of the EUNIC program reflect this aversion of addressing the
It is crucial to consider the cultural organisation’s mission when questioning the
extent to which the latter addresses otherness. Kiwan and Kosnick (2006) study the
difference between art works created by artists, and those imagined by artists labeled
as “ethnic”. As discussed in the literature review, cultural events conducted by ethnic
minorities are often expected to be 'statements about cultural differences and
Otherness' (Kiwan and Kosnic, 2006: 123). These statements take form in various ways,
such as art works that are purely traditional, where recognised nation symbols are more
than evident, or where struggles of ethnic minorities are the main focus of discussion.
The RCI defies this assumption of minorities required to present ethnic art as it
chooses to implement cultural events that focus on the artists’ legitimacy. This is
exemplified by the RCI’s multiple partnerships with recognised institutes such as the
Barbican, Tate Modern, Royal Academy of Arts and the Victoria & Albert Museum (ICR,
2014). In this way, the ICR aims to increase the visibility of already established Romanian
artists by integrating them in London’s arts and culture, as Stroe notes:
We want to show that Romanian artists and cultural events can be created in the capital of culture, one of the biggest cultural cities in the world. In fact, the subliminal message is that Romanian artists are framed in the European cultural market. So somehow, bottom line, arts and Romanian culture take place in a cultural European discourse (Interview, 2014). Accordingly, by challenging the expected mantra of foreign cultural organisations focusing on ethnic issues, the RCI brings forth the Excellency of Romanian artists and cultural products.
In this way, the RCI’s directional focus allows for ‘new realities of cultural
diversity’ (Karaca, 2010: 15) for nationals and immigrants where there is a sense of
equality. The RCC however aims at increasing visibility for both emerging artists as well
as those working for a social cause (RCC, 2014). When asked how the RCC differs from
the RCI in terms of approaching certain types of artists, Campeanu replies,
We try to give space for the Romanians that aren't necessarily established artists but just want a little bit of support to prove themselves, and we have a way smaller budget and a smaller team (Interview, 2013).
Thus, the organisation’s internal structure in terms of finance distribution and
available labour influences the chosen artists, regardless of a higher moral purpose. In
imagining cultural events that are of a sensitive nature, the RCC can be perceived as
reinforcing the idea of ethnic production of culture in a way that reiterates their
difference. The question is: what is the balance between legitimacy and the fight for a
social cause, whilst simultaneously enabling communal integration for ethnic
minorities? This question is subjective, and depends on one’s priorities. Yet, it can be
argued that intercultural dialogue is more effective when it draws attention to social
issues, as it confronts ethnic integration realities at face value.
Content Analysis on RCI and RCC intercultural dialogue events
To support the thematic analysis of the interviews, it was important to explore
the nature and frequency of the intercultural dialogue events conducted at both the RCI
and RCC. This short content analysis explores the events devised under the umbrella
term intercultural dialogue to respond to the first research question: how do the RCI
and RCC address otherness. The study covers the RCI and RCC’s events conducted in
London during the period of June 2013 to June 2014. Three categories were devised to
collect data namely; how often are the events dedicated to promoting Romanian artists;
social issues (panel discussions, debates); or both social issues and the arts. How artists
To understand why the RCI is less amenable in conducting intercultural events of
a sensitive nature, it is important to consider the risk factor. Accordingly, it has been
found that an organisation’s funding body greatly influences the imagination of its
projects. The RCI receives funding by both the Romanian government, and must have its
projects proposals approved by the Senate (Dragulescu, 2003). Said (1978: 9) quotes
influential cultural critic Matthew Arnold (n.d.) when he states that 'the power of
culture is potentially nothing less than the power of the State'. Implicit in that statement
is that the State is perceived as an ideological vehicle for culture. Accordingly, when the
RCI was under the Communist regime, the institute’s arts and culture were censored in
regards to values that failed to adhere to the Communist ideal (Dragulescu, 2003: 3). As
Said (1978) contends:
Culture is ‘a system of exclusions legislated from above but enacted throughout its polity by which such things as anarchy, disorder, irrationality, inferiority bad taste and immorality are identified then deposited outside the culture, and kept there by its institutions. (1978: 54)
Said (1978) argues that state-‐governed culture is in some way filtered for ulterior
purposes that transcend that of disseminating culture. Sešić and Dragojećvic (2006: 50)
agree as they write, 'the state perceives the cultural institute as evidence of national
sovereignty and benchmarks of national identity’. When asked if ICR conducts events of
a sensitive nature, Stroe replies, 'here, the risk is bigger’ (Interview, 2014). Stroe
explains the government’s role in restricting certain subjects as she states, ‘we don’t
have total autonomy; we can’t do, if we wanted, an exposition with a sensitive subject.
We won’t do it even if we would want to – because the Board of Directors would say it
isn’t opportune’ (Interview, 2014).
In so doing, cultural organisations may deem it unorthodox to conduct
intercultural events that are of a more sensitive nature, although the latter can be more
rewarding in terms of receiving more attention. As Bhabha (1994: 163) argues, 'cultural
production is always most productive where it is most ambivalent and transgressive'.
Taking this into consideration, it can therefore be said that cultural events are most
successful when they are of a riskier nature. Accordingly, when asked about the benefits
of conducting events that are less conventional, Campeanu replies:
The good surprise is that every time we are doing risky project we get a larger audience, much more attention, so there is a need for projects that are representing the everyday realities of the diaspora. Not just the flashy aspect of the Romanian community, not just to the established one, but to give space to others to talk about themselves (Interview, 2014).
Important to note here is the clear distinction between government-‐funded
projects and those that are privately financed. Campeanu relates freedom of the
imagination of projects to the fact that the RCC is not affiliated with the government
(Interview, 2014). When asked what types of events are most effective in allowing for a
dialogue, Campeanu answers: 'When we are trying to be more bold and address issue
that we normally don't see with Romanian cultural organisations abroad, we get a
positive feedback from foreign audiences' (Interview, 2014). This dissertation thus
suggests that risk plays an important factor in whether cultural organisations engage
with intercultural dialogue projects that are of a sensitive nature, and also claims that
the risk factor can increase the success of its events.
Bibliography Benedict, A., 1983. Imagined Communities. London: Verso. Bhabha, H. K., 1994. The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.
Bomberg E., Stubb, A., 2003. The European Union: How Does it Work? New York: Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. 2012. Social Research Methods. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Bryne, B., 2012. Qualitative interviewing. In: Seale, C., 2012. 3rd ed. Researching Society and Culture, Sage Publications Ltd. Macey, D., 2000. Dictionary of Critical Theory. London: Penguin Group.
Meinhof, U.H. and Triandafyllidou, A., ed., 2006. Transcultural Europe: Cultural Policy in a Changing Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Neuliep, J. W., 1957. Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach. New York: Sage Publications. Said, E. W., 1978. Orientalism. London: Penguin Classics.
Werbner, P. and Modood, T., ed., 1997. Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-‐Cultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-‐Racism. London: Zed Books. Articles Andreev, S.A., 2009. The unbearable lightness of membership: Bulgaria and Romania after the 2007 EU accession. Communist and Post-‐Communist Studies, [online] Available at: <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967067X09000361> [Accessed August 15 2014]. Alcoff, L. 1991. The Problem of Speaking for Others. Cultural Critique, [online] Available at: <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1354221?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21104575920547> [Accessed 15 2014]. Aman, R., 2012. The EU and the Recycling of Colonialism: Formation of Europeans through intercultural dialogue. Educational Philosophy and Theory, [online] Available at:
<https://www.academia.edu/1567233/The_EU_and_the_Recycling_of_Colonialism_Formation_of_Europeans_through_intercultural_dialogue> [Accessed August 12 2014]. Braun, V., Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, [online] Available at: <http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/11735/2/thematic_analysis_revised_-‐_final.pdf> [Accessed August 12 2014]. Bourdieu, P. 1980. The Aristocracy of Culture. Media Culture and Society. [online] Available at: http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/2/3/225 [Accessed August 10 2014]. Calbeaza, A.D., 2014. The anti-‐migration discourse with regard to Romanian and Bulgarian citizens in France and Great Britain: between blame culture, negative stereotypes and prejudice. Romanian Center for European Policies, [online] Available at: <http://www.crpe.ro/wp-‐content/uploads/2014/07/studiu-‐Andreea-‐Calbeaza.pdf> [Accessed August 1 2014]. Creswell, J. W. 2009. A qualitative procedure. In: Research design: qualitative , quantitative and mixed methods approaches, [online] Available at: <http://keats.kcl.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/619495/mod_resource/content/1/7AAYCC30_66544_Creswell_Qualitative.pdf> [Accessed August 12 2014]. Dragulescu, E.D., 2013. The Romanian Cultural Institute: A Need for Consistency. Academy for Cultural Diplomacy, [online] Available at: <http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/case-‐studies/Emilia-‐Delia-‐Dragulescu_-‐_The-‐Romanian-‐Cultural-‐Institute-‐_A-‐Need-‐for-‐Consistency.pdf> [Accessed August 1 2014]. Fox, E.J., Morosanu, L. and Szilassy, E., 2012. The Racialization of the New European Migration to the UK. Sage Journals Sociology, [online] Available at: <http://soc.sagepub.com/content/46/4/680> [Accessed August 5 2014] Finlay, L., 2002. “Outing” the Researcher: The Provenance, Process, and Practice of Reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, [online] Available at: <http://keats.kcl.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/619564/mod_resource/content/1/Finlay%2C%20article%20on%20reflexivity.pdf> [Accessed August 15 2014]. Ganesh S., Holmes, P., 2011. Positioning Intercultural Dialogue :Theories, Pragmatics, and an Agenda. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, [online] Available at: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17513057.2011.557482> [Accessed July 30 2014].
Hall, S., 1993. Cultural Identity and Diaspora. Framework, [online] Available at: <http://www.unipa.it/~michele.cometa/hall_cultural_identity.pdf> [Accessed July 12 2014]. Karaca, B., 2010. The art of integration: probing the role of cultural policy in the making of Europe. International Journal of Cultural Policy, [online] Available at: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10286630903038899#.U_UtmjnjaAY> [Accessed August 5 2014]. Kiossev, A. 2003. Self-‐colonising Cultures. Scribd. Available at: <http://www.scribd.com/doc/123725319/Kiossev-‐self-‐colonization> [Accessed August 22 2014]. Oakley, A., 1999. Paradigm Wars. In: A. Oakley, Experiments in knowing: gender and method in the social sciences. Available at: http://keats.kcl.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/619500/mod_resource/content/1/7AAYCC30_66543_Oakley_Paradigm.pdf [Accessed August 10 2014]. Paris, A.C., 2014. Negotiating the Romanian Quest for Cultural Identity after 1989: Between authenticity and mimicry, self and neo-‐colonization. European Scientific Journal, [online] Available at: <http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/3562> [Accessed July 1 2014]. Phinnemore, D., 2010. And We’d Like to Thank…Romania’s Integration into the European Union, 1989-‐2007. European Integration, [online] Available at: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07036331003646827> [Accessed August 12 2014]. Van Dijk., 1992. Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society, [online] Available at: <http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Discourse%20and%20the%20 denial%20of%20racism.pdf> [Accessed August 15 2014]. Vidmar-‐Horvat, K., 2012. The Predicament of Intercultural Dialogue: Reconsidering the Politics of Culture and Identity in the EU. Cultural Sociology, [online] Available at: <http://cus.sagepub.com/content/6/1/27> [Accessed August 10 2014]. Newspaper Brussels, I.T., 2013. Cameron urges curb on EU freedom of movement: Prime minister hints at UK veto on new states joining Call comes at summit of EU leaders in Brussels, The Guardian, 21 December. Available at: <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do> [Accessed August 15 2014].
Taylor, M., 2014. Bulgarian and Romanian students in UK find their maintenance stopped, The Guardian, 31 January. Available at: <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/31/bulgarian-‐romanian-‐students-‐uk-‐university-‐financing> [Accessed August 25 2014]. BBC, 2014. Nigel Farage attacked over Romanians ‘slur’, BBC News, 18 May. Available at<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-‐27459923> {Accessed August 25 2014]. Conference papers Council of Europe, 2008. White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue: "Living Together As Equals in Dignity". Strasbourg, June 2007. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Intercultural Europe, 2010. Intercultural Dialogue: As an Objective in the EU Culture Programme (2007-‐2013). UK, July 2010. Annual report European Commission, 2014. Report on the role of public arts and cultural institutions in the promotion of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue. [online] Available at: <http://ec.europa.eu/culture/library/reports/201405-‐omc-‐diversity-‐dialogue_en.pdf> [Accessed August 2 2014]. The Migration Observatory, 2014. Bulgarians and Romanians in the British National Press: 1 December 2012 – 1 December 2013. [online] Available at: <http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Report-‐Bulgarians_Romanians_Press_0.pdf> [Accessed August 20 2014]. The Migration Observatory, 2014. Briefing: Geographical Distribution and Characteristics of Long-‐Term International Migration Flows to the UK. [online] Available at: <http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Briefing%20-‐%20Geographical%20Distribution%20and%20Characteristics.pdf> [Accessed July 20 2014]. Online resources European Union. 2014. The EU motto. [online] Available at: <http://europa.eu/about-‐eu/basic-‐information/symbols/motto/index_en.htm> [Accessed August 5 2014]. EUNIC. 2014. Who we are. [online] Available at: <http://www.eunic-‐online.eu/?q=content/who-‐we-‐are> [Accessed August 25 2014].
Mokre, M., 2006. European Cultural Policies and European Democracy. [online] January 01. Available at: <http://eipcp.net/policies/dpie/mokre/en> [Accessed August 25 2014] Romanian Cultural Center Events. July 30 2013. No One Belongs Here More Than You. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfeBDfjZr00 [Accessed July 20 2014]. Romanian Cultural Centre, 2014. [online] Available at: <http://www.romanianculturalcentre.org.uk> [Accessed August 26 2014]. Romanian Cultural Institute London, 2014. [online] Available at: <http://www.icr-‐london.co.uk/> [Accessed August 26 2014]. Youtube Clip ICR Londra. 2012. Cultural Diplomacy in a Changing World: How to Respond to the Current Challenges: part 1. [online] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7O6TySPAf4> [Accessed August 15 2014]. Audio Brown, W., 2008. Philosophy Bites (November 2008), [podcast] November 2008. Available at: <http://philosophybites.com/2008/11/wendy-‐brown-‐on-‐tolerance.html> [Accessed July 12 2014]. Original Interviews Interview with Carmen Campeanu, 26 July 2014 Interview with Paul Suciu, 30 July 2014 Interview with Magda Stroe, 16 August 2014
Appendix C: Ethical Approval from King’s College London
King's College London Rm 5.2 FWB (Waterloo Bridge Wing)
Stamford Street London
SE1 9NH 26 June 2014 TO: Christine Baron SUBJECT: Approval of ethics application Dear Christine, KCL/13/14-916 - Reactive Nation Branding: The role of Romanian Cultural Organisations in the UK I am pleased to inform you that full approval for your project has been granted by the A&H Research Ethics Panel. Any specific conditions of approval are laid out at the end of this letter which should be followed in addition to the standard terms and conditions of approval, to be overseen by your Supervisor:
o Ethical approval is granted for a period of one year from 26 June 2014. You will not receive a reminder that your approval is about to lapse so it is your responsibility to apply for an extension prior to the project lapsing if you need one (see below for instructions).
o You should report any untoward events or unforeseen ethical problems arising from the project to the panel Chairman within a week of the occurrence. Information about the panel may be accessed at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/research/support/ethics/committees/sshl/reps/index.aspx
o If you wish to change your project or request an extension of approval, please complete the Modification Proforma. A signed hard copy of this should be submitted to the Research Ethics Office, along with an electronic version to [email protected] . Please be sure to quote your low risk reference number on all correspondence. Details of how to fill a modification request can be found at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/research/support/ethics/applications/modifications.aspx
o All research should be conducted in accordance with the King’s College London Guidelines on Good Practice in Academic Research available at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iop/research/office/help/Assets/good20practice20Sept200920FINAL.pdf
If you require signed confirmation of your approval please email [email protected] indicating why it is required and the address you would like it to be sent to. Please would you also note that we may, for the purposes of audit, contact you from time to time to ascertain the status of your research.