“Unity through diversity” is the enigmatic phrase which you will find in many EU and Council of Europe documents as a new Europe struggles to achieve a cohesion of identity which matches the aspirations it has for its cohesive economic policies. This new, and rather enigmatic phrase, comes at a time when Europe has suffered some terrible and traumatic events which has moved culture to the fore of the debate about “identity”, and national economic survival.

What does “unity through diversity” actually mean?!

At worst, of course, it means a bland homogenisation of all aspects of culture - buildings, road-signs, television, art, museums, social structures and aspirations.

However, if culture can seize the opportunity offered to it by initiatives such as INTERREG II, I believe there is an opportunity to fulfil the true potential of “unity through diversity” by preserving, enhancing and proudly presenting that which, regardless of political boundaries, we can all relate to as our cultural heritage.



PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY CULTURE


But if culture is becoming rapidly more important in this strangely unified diversity of Europe, it is doing so in two very different areas. Firstly in the political arena and secondly, in terms of its “democratisation” within the community itself.

This raises a number of crucial questions. Firstly, should cultural organisations be funded on the basis of the importance of their collections as defined by a relatively elite group of “connoisseurs” or on their contribution to the community at large and their potential contribution to the economy which supports that community?

The answer of course is for both reasons. The problem is that too few sources of finance (usually politicians in Government) recognise the innate cultural importance of cultural institutions, and too few cultural professionals recognise the need to communicate this importance to people who do not immediately see it as a priority of community need.

This is because, traditionally, these two groups of key players in the new cultural Europe have rarely felt the need to talk to each other - in fact, by and large, they have been enemies - the politicians regarding the cultural professionals as wasteful and indulgent and the cultural professionals regarding the politicians as philistines.

It has been said that “Museums are society's relationship with the past” (Jane Sarre - SHCG Journal vol23 1997-8 p32)but I would suggest that a presentation of national heritage is as much a statement about the perceived image of the present and the future as about the past.

For an island such as the Isle of Man, the definitions of the “cultural territory” and the “cultural community” (which operates as an active participant rather than a passive consumer) within it, are fundamental to the heritage development strategy.

Museums and other cultural centres have outgrown their passive custodial role - they are becoming part of a growing web of interconnected ideas and institutions combining throughout Europe to feed off the past for the future in terms of a common cultural heritage.

By facilitating access to the reservoir of identity, or “belonging” that is embodied in our separate cultures, cultural professionals are in the fore-front of creating the new "confident cultural citizen" of Europe.

In a climate of constant change, it is becoming increasingly accepted that culture plays a vital role in the construction and reinforcement of social stability within a community, whether on the local, national or international scale.

Clearly, it is one of the ambitions of the politically inspired interventions on culture from Europe that Museums and other cultural organisations can become models for new patterns of economic, social and cultural integration between the peoples of Europe.

If the foundation of a rich European cultural diversity lies in a common European heritage - museums can uniquely reveal the message of the mix of the local and the universal - collaboration is the way this message can be portrayed most strongly.

We must learn to work in partnerships which may not be with organisations from our normal sphere - emphasising action and lasting outcomes, based upon a synergy of purpose and agreed benefits.

THE DEFINITION OF THE CULTURAL SPACE

But does the definition of the “cultural space” always equate to the political area under consideration? Clearly, when considering matters of culture, this is seldom the case.

This contribution will examine the need to redefine "cultural space" and "public space". I think we should be examining more closely the various opportunities available to cultural professionals to create more dynamic links with other sectors of the community and with existing public infrastructure.

- How "public" do we really want the cultural space to be?

- There still seem to be those who want to preserve the elitist mystery

- How do we define that "public"?

- Does the "cultural message” about your territory have to end as soon as the visitor steps outside a special building designed to house (or control) it?

- Can other aspects of the community life be classed and developed as cultural assets?

- Can a new synergy of "networked" buildings, spaces and messages enhance the core cultural mission which we all profess to believe in?

The perceptions of the makers, the suppliers and the users of cultural spaces is to me one of the most important elements of any discussion about cultural spaces.

- who is it for?

- what is its role?

- how is it relevant to the community which is paying for it and which it should be serving?


It is the way Manx National Heritage has based its work upon the concept that the whole of the community landscape should be the subject of the ”museum” presentation, which is seen to be an important model within Europe.

This strategy closely reflects that outlined in the Council of Europe’s 1995 recommendation on “The Integrated Conservation of Cultural Landscape Areas as Part of Landscape Policies.” Specifically:

"The need to develop strategies for integrating the managed evolution of the landscape and the preservation of cultural landscape areas as part of a comprehensive policy for the whole landscape, by providing for the unified protection of the cultural, aesthetic, ecological, economic and social interests of the territory concerned.”

Article 1 of the Council of Europe’s Recommendations, defining “landscape”, reads like a portion of the Manx National Heritage organizational mission-statement:

Landscape is taken to have a threefold cultural dimension, considering that:

-it is defined and characterised by the way in which a given territory is perceived by an individual or community.

-it testifies to the past and present relationships between individuals and their environment

-it helps to mould local cultures, sensitivities, practices, beliefs and traditions.”

(Council of Europe “Recommendations No. R (95) 9 - 1995)


Such a concept of regional interpretation, based upon the natural interaction of a community with its landscape, is the essence of the Isle of Man “Story of Mann” project.

In methodological terms, the designation of this “cultural territory” does not mean that you have to be an island to succeed! Elsewhere in Europe, the defined cultural territory may or may not coincide with political areas or formalised geographical boundaries. The critical first step is to consider carefully what does constitute your particular cultural territory, (a village, a town, a region, and industrial area, a country) and define your role clearly within it.

But to be successful, the criteria which govern the delineation of the cultural space will relate to the environmental atmosphere, setting, or thematic qualities of the heritage assets being offered. They must also relate to the determined enthusiasm of a local group of people (large or small in number) to identify themselves clearly enough to present themselves and their culture to others. In this model, fundamentally, the individual creates and accesses his/her own culture but also shares it with others who share the same sense of “ownership”.