Active Participation in European Cultural Policy

A critical reading of the Sector Blueprint and Culture Compass

#2 READING CULTURAL POLICY BEYOND THE TEXTS

By Giorgio Bacchiega

Before turning to the solutions they propose, cultural policy documents require a close reading of what they assume about culture itself, since these assumptions influence what can be recognised as a problem and, consequently, what kinds of solutions appear plausible. However, such framings are more visible in how documents organise their contents than in formal statements of intent, where gaps frequently emerge between what they claim to value and how they actually propose to deliver it.

THE FRAMING INTERPRETATION
Every policy narrative implicitly establishes what counts as legitimate practices, primarily distinguishing between actors identified as creators and others as recipients of culture created elsewhere. When participation is presented as a strategic priority, the language reflects how participants themselves are imagined: a text that speaks of reaching and delivering rests on a different premise than one that emphasises enabling and supporting. Both visions are defensible in principle and rooted in longstanding traditions, yet they lead to divergent practical effects: the first positions people outside culture, as a target to be reached; the second recognises them as key actors whose practices require supportive conditions. These are not simply editorial choices but structural ones, inviting a closer look at how consistently the values expressed on paper align with the approach taken.

A second dimension concerns the bureaucratic logic through which policy is typically structured. Here, problems and solutions are treated in isolation: culture for health, culture for education, culture for democracy: each addressed independently. Such a method, however, rarely considers how priorities interact or conflict, misunderstanding how culture actually works. When people create together, they do not address one priority at a time but simultaneously contribute to well-being, share knowledge, build relationships, enact democratic participation, and sustain neighbourhood life. Expecting culture to deliver specific outcomes separately is like asking a community choir to focus on well-being on Tuesdays, social cohesion on Thursdays, and heritage preservation on weekends. These effects cannot be isolated without sacrificing culture’s intrinsically layered nature.

THE TWO-COMPASS ASYMMETRY

The two Compasses offer a useful illustration of how reading the architectures of each document becomes as important as examining its content. The Sector Blueprint is organised around ten thematic areas: artistic freedom, working conditions, artistic research, international relations, health and well-being, sustainability, participation, education, security, and digital transformation. At first glance, this resembles a set of discrete priorities. Yet the document’s collaborative authorship gives them a broader function. Developed through dialogue among thirty cultural organisations, it works both as a shared articulation of sector perspectives and as a platform through which diverse actors attempt to align their experiences and expectations. Each thematic brief opens with gaps and failures, following a context-problem- solution model that is the grammar of advocacy. Taken together, the ten briefs perform something beyond argument: they demonstrate the organisational scope of the sector, suggesting to the Commission that these networks possess both the expertise and the coordination to be interlocutors in programme design.

The Commission’s Compass, by contrast, develops from a different premise. Composed of a central Communication supported by a draft Joint Declaration for co-signature by European institutions, supporting factsheets, consultation summaries, and Eurobarometer quantitative data, it reflects the Commission’s political mandate. The text first establishes the strategic importance of culture through quantitative evidence, then articulates a dual perspective structured around “Europe for Culture”, emphasizing rights and sectoral support, and “Culture for Europe”, highlighting culture’s contribution to democratic resilience, competitiveness, and territorial cohesion, from which derive key directions moving outward from values and cultural rights, through the empowerment of artists and professionals, towards competitiveness and resilience, and finally international cultural relations and partnerships. These priorities are then operationalised through flagship initiatives, funding mechanisms, and implementation timelines, translating cultural complexity into actionable categories.

THE POLICY TRANSLATION
Distinct logics generate distinct expectations, so understanding them provides a foundation for assessing what each text can coherently achieve. Holding this in mind is the necessary precondition for what follows, which will examine the ways in which both documents frame the environment in which cultural practice takes place, how participation is understood, how informed policymaking shapes the kinds of data considered relevant for policy decisions, and how each Compass, from its own institutional position, navigates between cultural autonomy and instrumentalisation.

---

This series is intended as a critical yet constructive contribution to the Culture Compass debate, exploring where active participation challenges existing policy assumptions and where new frameworks may emerge. Future entries will address participation versus access, indicators and measurement, and the place of grassroots practices within European cultural ecosystems.

---

Consulta Periferie Milano is a network-centric platform (formally a second-level association of undertakings or association of associations of undertakings) formed by 36 cultural, charity, trade, visual and performing arts organisations, cultural centres and local newspapers active in the peripheries of Milan with the purpose of drawing constant attention and find original solutions to the problems of the multifaceted peripheral landscape of Milan in cooperation with academic, political and societal forces.