Active Participation in European Cultural Policy

A critical reading of the Sector Blueprint and Culture Compass

#4 FRAMING PARTICIPATION: FROM PRINCIPLES TO POLICY OBJECT

By Giorgio Bacchiega

Participation has increasingly become a central concept in cultural policy, as it connects democratic legitimacy and the social dimensions of life. Its meaning, however, remains fluid: it may refer to receptive engagement, such as attendance or consumption, or to taking part in practices through which the members of a community shape their cultural life. What primarily distinguishes these forms is the degree of agency they imply, with participants ranging from passive recipients to active agents of creation. When policymaking fails to align the activities it actually supports with the outcomes it expects, this fluidity creates space for contradictions to emerge.

THE PARTICIPATION PRINCIPLE
Both the Culture Compass and the Sector Blueprint frame participation as a core democratic right. The Blueprint does so by defining access and participation as distinct but equally fundamental aspects of culture. Access, here, refers to removing barriers so that people can enjoy existing cultural offerings, while participation describes a more active approach, where people engage directly in determining its direction and meaning. Drawing on the Porto Santo Charter, the Blueprint places this distinction within a vision of cultural democracy, where culture is shaped by a plurality of voices rather than controlled by a narrow elite, that leads to the notion of cultural citizenship, in which agency is understood as an integral aspect of civic belonging.

The Commission’s Compass reaches a similar position through a different route. It affirms the right to participate in culture and to enjoy the fundamental freedom of artistic expression, situating culture as a public good within a broader European policy framework, linking participation to well-being, social cohesion, democratic resilience, and European competitiveness.

Taken together, the two texts converge on the centrality of participation in policymaking, even as they differ in focus: the Blueprint emphasises agency and co-creation, whereas the Compass positions it within a broader set of strategic objectives.

THE BOUNDARY AMBIGUITY

Policy, however, does not operate at the level of principles alone, but translates values into concrete policy objects, which in turn inform instruments and measures. Yet, already in the first transition from abstract principles to the definition of the policy object, a subtle but significant transformation emerges.

Within the Commission’s Compass, cultural participation and access are described as essential for promoting active citizenship and strengthening democratic life. At first glance, this appears consistent with the principles outlined earlier. However, a closer reading suggests a shift in the approach: the language of “promotion” denotes participation less as the core element of cultural life and more as a mechanism for producing desirable societal outcomes. In this formulation, participants move from the starting point of cultural processes to the endpoint of a policy chain.

The Sector Blueprint, by contrast, remains generally more attentive to this risk and frequently appeals to the intrinsic value of culture. Yet a similar gap emerges. When it links active participation to broader civic outcomes, such as a higher likelihood of engagement in democratic life, it clearly aims at reinforcing the relevance of participation within democratic systems, but also introduces an element of ambiguity. This relationship can be interpreted in two contrasting ways: as a correlation, viewing participation as part of a broader civic ecology, or as causation, assessing it as a tool for the outcomes it produces. In the latter case, participatory practices such as community choirs or amateur theatre groups risk being primarily visible to policymaking through the civic outputs they generate, rather than through the quality of the engagement itself.

THE POLICY TRANSLATION
This dual framing is not inherently problematic, but it complicates the definition of the policy object. When participation is treated both as a value in itself and as a means related to external goals, the boundaries of policy expectations may become blurred. While participation and civic engagement correlate, presenting this relationship as causal risks shifting attention away from its intrinsic value, with external outcomes taking precedence over participants’ perspectives in defining what participation truly means to them.

This tension becomes particularly visible in the transition from framing the policy object to specifying concrete measures. At this stage, the solutions proposed in each Compass reveal, explicitly or not, the coherence of the policy’s logic and the types of cultural engagement that will be recognised and supported. It is here that the gap between stated principles and practical measures emerges most clearly, and where the underlying nature of the policy operation becomes legible beyond its formal rhetoric.

---

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.