DEMOCRATISATION OF CULTURE
The concept ‘democratisation of culture’ came about as part of substantive political changes aimed at achieving a more evolved democracy after WWII. It was formulated in 1959 and put into practice by the French Ministry of Culture, headed at the time by the famous writer André Malraux. The idea behind the concept was that the insufficient development of cultural needs and habits in a wider population was caused by their being denied the opportunity to encounter works of art and high culture in general. Hence, the aim was to provide equal opportunities for all citizens to participate in publicly organized and financed cultural activities. This was expected to eventually lead to the development of their cultural needs and habits.
Democratisation of culture was inspired by a belief in the civilizing value of the arts and culture and a desire to democratise access to them. In practical terms, cultural policies based on the concept made cultural activities accessible to a broader section of the population through reduced admission prices, free entry to museums and galleries, and the touring of top theatre, opera, and ballet performances as well as visual arts exhibitions. Culture was also popularised through educational programs and state media broadcasting.
From today’s vantage point, it can be said that democratisation of culture played a highly important role in familiarising broad circles of the population with the achievements of art, especially modern art. Moreover, one could also argue that the diffusion of elite, legitimate culture by state-funded institutions to the general population has indeed at least partly succeeded in bringing about more aesthetic enlightenment and educational development than had previously been the case.
However, the concept of democratisation of culture has also been criticised on several counts. To begin with, it can be considered ‘insufficiently democratic’. Namely, it represents a top-down approach that can be seen as an example of cultural elitism. Such an approach seems to assume that there is one valuable culture – the culture of privileged social groups – that satisfies the cultural needs of all members of society and that, accordingly, is the only one that deserves to be disseminated.
Another reason for criticism is that the concept aiming to democratise culture was in practice reduced mainly to the democratisation of the reception of art, while production and distribution remained in the hands of ‘professional’ cultural actors.
Furthermore, it was assumed that a mere encounter between the work and the audience was enough for the development of artistic enjoyment. Contrary to that assumption, research and policy practice have shown that to enjoy works of art, it is necessary to be familiar with the codes of those arts. Without knowing this ‘language’ of art, which is learned from early childhood or through the educational process, visitors to concerts and exhibitions feel lost in the chaos of sounds and visual experiences.
And finally, cultural policy practices based on the concept of democratisation of culture have shown that barriers to accessing culture are not merely material but also symbolic. Many people do not enter theatres, museums, or galleries because they feel as if they do not belong there.
The criticisms of democratisation of culture have led to new conceptualisations of the relationship between democracy and culture. The first challenge came from the counter-cultural movements of the 1960s, which questioned traditional hierarchies between elite and popular culture. In the 1970s, the alternative concept of cultural democracy (or cultural pluralism) appeared. It acknowledged the existence of many cultures in society – seeing elite culture as only one among them – and claimed that they all deserved to be supported, produced, distributed, and received. (PC)