On the way to the creative society12 the EU institutions have regularly employed both the British approach to the creative industries and Richard Florida's approach to the creative ethos in urban space. 13 Different explanations for the strong European interest during the early 2000s in the American theory and practice of the creative city and its creative class could be given at that point, but a highly cited one would be a rapid rise in popularity of Florida's theory in both academic and political contexts all over the world. After the publication of *The Rise of the Creative Class* (2002) 14 Florida was almost immediately proclaimed a "guru" of the creative society. His key argument will be briefly summarised and compared with Charles Landry's one below.

individual creativity, skill and talent and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property' (DCMS, 1998).

9 Ibid.

10 The European Parliament report *On Cultural Industries* employs the notion 'cultural and creative industries.' See European Parliament, *European Parliament Report on Cultural Industries*, 13 July 2003, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A5-2003- 0276&language=EN.

11 Following this *Agenda*, the European Commission adopted *A New European Agenda for Culture* in 2018: https://ec.europa.eu/culture/sites/culture/files/commission\_communication\_-

\_a\_new\_european\_agenda\_for\_culture\_2018.pdf. This new agenda introduces an objective 'to foster the cultural capability of all Europeans' and employs Amartya Sen's 'capability approach': Amartya Sen, "Capability and Well-being," in *The Quality of Life* by Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen (New York: Routledge, 2004), 30-53. See also Amartya Sen, "Development as Capability Expansion," in *Readings in Human Development*, ed. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr et al. (New Delhi/New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 3-16.

12 This notion was introduced by the Council of the European Union in the following document: Council of the European Union, *Council Conclusions on Culture as a Catalyst for Creativity and Innovation* (Brussels, 12 May 2009),

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms\_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/107642.pdf.

13 Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions on the Contribution of the Cultural and Creative Sectors to the Achievement of the Lisbon Objecties, Brussels, 8 May 2007; European Commission, *Unlocking the Potential of Cultural and Creative Industries: Green Paper*, COM(2010)183 (Brussels, 2010), http://ec.europa.eu/culture/documents/greenpaper\_creative\_industries\_en.pdf.

14 Richard Florida, *The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life* (New York: Basic Books, 2002).

The theory of the creative class intends to explain the role and place of creative activities in present-day society, and in the economy in particular. Referring to Michael Porter's cluster analysis,15 Florida raises the question why diverse businesses are grouped together in clusters. He claims that innovative companies tend to group and develop in the same location in the form of clusters in order to accumulate knowledge, skills and experience of the most creative persons, since a real source of power in clusters is talented individuals. These clusters are situated in the so-called creative centres, where high-tech and cultural industries settle down, businesses flourish and accumulate the highly educated creative class in diverse and vibrant urban places.

At that point one may raise a question concerning relationships between the European concepts of the creative industries and the creative city and the American concept of the creative class. It is necessary to underline that the USA in their socio-economic and cultural policies have never been focused on the creative industries *per se*, rather on different types of political reforms aimed at the revival of the creative community and its creative place in depressive regions: from *The* C*reative Society* programme of R. Reagan's 1966 campaign (in opposition to *The Great Society* programme of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964-1965 directed at reducing poverty and discouraging racial discrimination) through culture-led placemaking policies in the 1960-1990s towards creative placemaking16 policies in the 2000-2010s. The latter has been developing in a great amount of diverse subnational initiatives, especially within civil society, aimed at urban cultural revival, the transformation of communities into lively and resilient places with the arts at their core. This cultural policy has contributed to the promotion of the creative class strategy, which intends to attract investments for cultural infrastructures, to improve the quality of life in urban quarters by means of art activities and cultural entertainments. The American turn to creative city practices coincides in time with the publication of Florida's *The Rise of the Creative Class* (2002), which generalised achievements of new urban policies of the previous decades with their focus on human capital and social creativity.17 However, the very concept of the creative city was coined and developed in Europe by urbanists Francesco Bianchini and Charles Landry during the 1980s and 1990s. Though Florida did not refer to European urbanists in his *magnum opus*, it is impossible to ignore the role of the European discourse on the creative city in the formation and development of his theory.

At the same time, even when taking into account the role of Bianchini's and Landry's paradigm in the development of the European discourse on cultural poli-

15 Michael Porter, *The Competitive Advantage of Nations* (New York: Free Press, 1998).

16 The term 'creative placemaking' was coined by economist Ann Markusen and urban planner Anne Gadwa in 2010. See Ann Markusen and Anne Gadwa, *The Creative Placemaking* (Washington: National Endowment for the Arts, 2010).

17 Despite the fact that the concept 'creative city' was invented by Landry in the late 1980s and its manifesto was penned in 1995 by Landry and Bianchini, Florida did not refer in his 2002's book *The Rise of the Creative Class* to their work. See also Landry's Biography: http://charleslandry.com/aboutcharles-landry/biography/.

cies, it is hardly possible to ignore the influence of the 1960s' American political and psychological discourse of creativity. The British creative turn in the 1990s may be considered a revival of the American political strategy with its pragmatic focus on creativity.18 The national and federal treasuries were *hollowed out* through 'Thatcherite policies' and the onset of 'Reagonomics' during the 1980s.19 The invention of the creative industries in the 1990s was shaped by state attempts to find alternative resources to support local small businesses, and especially the most economically vulnerable sector of culture in the light of its strong dependence on state funding, which was substantially reduced. Moreover, it implied the intention to rebrand state policies in terms of a new culture-led economy and urban entrepreneurialism, thereby inspire and foster economic growth of the country in the globalised world. The successful experience of the US placemaking tradition20 in a dialogue with the European one21 in the 1960-1980s was effectively employed in the 1990s' UK as an instrument to adapt to the rapidly changing landscape of the global market and the new international division of labour.

Being sensitive enough to this productive dialogue between the US and UK approaches to creativity as an economic and political resource of urban revival in the 1990s' depressive regions, it is possible to outline major perspectives of its further development. Without any attempt to distinguish clearly and sharply *British* and *American* approaches or diminish one's originality and authenticity, this section turns to the overview of possible substantial influence of some of American theories and practices in the field of creative economy on *European* cultural policies in the early 2000s. Simultaneously, this analysis intends to overcome any one-sided accounts that emphasise predominantly a master narrative of American creative democracy in the European creative turn*.* It might be argued that crucial to the transformation of Europe into a so-called "place to create" becomes the authentic European *style of life,*22 which quite differs from the American one.

The European style of life has enabled common practices to develop across a range of different cultures. In this way the European creative space has to be ex-

18 Hans Joas, *Die Entstehung der Werte* (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1999).

19 Oli Mould, *Urban Subversion and the Creative City* (New York: Routledge, 2015).

20 Jane Jacobs, *The Death and Life of Great American Cities* (New York: Vintage Books, 1961); Jane Jacobs, *The Economy of Cities* (New York: Vintage Books, 1970); William H. Whyte, *The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces* (Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation, 1980); Kevin A. Lynch, *The Image of the City* (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960). American economists Richard Florida and Edward Glaser were strongly influenced by American-born Canadian urbanist, writer and activist Jane Jacobs.

21 Italian architect Aldo Rossi, Luxembourgish architect Leon Krier, German architect Hans Kollhoff, Danish architect Jan Gehl and other representatives of the European urban discourse of public space.

22 For a general description of contemporary European and American lifestyles, see: David Parrish, *T-Shirts and Suits. A Guide to the Business of Creativity* (Liverpool: Merseyside ACME, 2006); Jonas Ridderstrale and Kjelle A.Nordstrom, *Funky Business Talent Makes Capital Dance* (Hoboken: Financial Times Management, 2002); Richard Florida, "The Experiential Life," in *Creative Industries,* ed. John Hartley (Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 133-146; Pierre Bourdieu, *Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste*. Trans. Richard Nice (London: Routledge, 2007).

plored with an appropriate social theory, which would be receptive to the challenges of the creative age and sensitive enough to nuances and overtones of *the European ethos.*23 Probably, this value aspect of analysis is one of the major fields for the demonstration of the necessity and possibility to differentiate *European and American approaches* to the creative society. Even when being influenced by Florida's narrative of the creative class, one could attempt to outline an identifiable difference between European and American concepts of creative society, a clear divergence between two approaches to the same thematic field in theory and practice.

This section illustrates the relative divergence with a comparative analysis of Richard Florida's and Charles Landry's key statements and their employment by European scholars and experts in the field of the creative economy. Let us begin with the American invention of the creative class, most vividly demonstrated in terms of economic and sociological statistical validity by Florida's works.

Florida aims at building a bridge between the concepts of creative economy (introduced by John Howkins in 2001)24 and creative society.25 This process is embodied in the concept of the creative class. Florida demonstrates that a particular type of creative individuals, who are able to create new ideas and capitalise on them, concentrate in the creative sector, i.e. in the field of the production of meaningful forms. All those who are able to produce and transform ideas into economic value belong to the so-called creative class. By differentiating creativity degrees Florida delineates subclasses around the super-active core of those who are able to produce innovations.

Building the theory of the creative class, Florida moves from the analysis of creative activities to their infrastructure, which reproduces the social structure of creativity. The latter is embodied in new technologies, forms of entrepreneurship, models of manufacturing, cultural environment, social networks of communication. Florida argues that neither venture capital, nor quantity or quality of innovations attract social, cultural and financial capital, but rather the creative social structure accumulates talents and their required resources.

The contemporary embodiment of the creative economy is, however, the Achilles' heel of any democratic state. A vivid proof is Florida's recent book, *The*

23 'This ethos should embed itself in the genius loci, chime with its culture and an assessment of the potential of its cultural resources.' (Landry 2006, 69). Charles Landry, *The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators* (London: Earthscan, 2006).

24 John Howkins, *The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas* (London: Penguin Books, 2007). The term 'creative economy' was coined by Peter Coy, the economics editor for Bloomberg *BusinessWeek*, in the article "The Creative Economy" written for a special issue of *BusinessWeek* in 2000, see Peter Coy, "The Creative Economy," *BusinessWeek*, 28 August 2000,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2000-08-27/the-creative-economy.

25 For an introduction to the political conception of the creative society in the USA, see

Louis Galambos, *The Creative Society – and the Price Americans Paid for It* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Jonathan Schoenwald, *A Time for Choosing: The Rise of Modern American Conservatism* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

*New Urban Crisis* (2017),26 which confirms that those who do not fit in with the new elite will inevitably be isolated in cultural ghettos of megapolises.

Despite the fact that Florida is considered to be a world guru of the creative society, the European paradigm of cultural creativity in urban space has been substantially shaped by Charles Landry. In *The Creative City* (2001)27 he formulates key principles of cultural thinking in accordance with values of sustainable development. The British urbanist employs sociological categories for building a model of social organisation aimed at sustainable development. Landry underlines that in a society with an effective model of social organisation, creativity works as a method of exploitation and renewal of cultural resources. In such a way it functions as its own renewable material for the creation of basic cultural values. This focus on sustainability distinguishes Landry's approach from Florida's mostly economically driven one.

The *Americanness* of Florida's approach is revealed in its emphasis on the economically situated everyday creativity of the individual. The *Europeanness* of Landry's perspective may be delineated in his focus on cultural thinking, the cultural milieu and its sustainable development. The European interpretation of creativity is more culture-centred, whereas the American one is more rooted in the neoliberal discourse of market-driven creativity and its role in democracy building. At the same time, the current mutually beneficial dialogue between these approaches contributes to the further reassessment and broadening of the creativity concept beyond predominantly either cultural or economic fields. This dualism is partly overcome in today's totality of creativity as a universal social phenomenon.

Florida's and Landry's conceptions may be considered representative examples of American and European theoretical approaches to the creative society in the twenty-first century. European researchers have tried to employ their concepts and apply them to the European reality.

One of the first attempts to estimate the development of European creativity by means of Florida's *Creativity Index*28 (the framework for measuring technology, talent and tolerance) was fulfilled in 2004. 29 However, Florida's theory has recently been subjected to more scientifically grounded criticism within academia in the USA30 and in Europe. 31 A relative divergence between the American and Europe-

26 Richard Florida, *The New Urban Crisis: How Our Cities Are Increasing Inequality, Deepening Segregation, and Failing the Middle Class? And What We Can Do About It* (New York: Basic Books, 2017).

27 Landry, *The Creative City.*

28 Florida, *The Rise of the Creative Class*.

29 Richard Florida and Irene Tinagli, *Europe in the Creative Age* (London: Demos, 2004).

30 Enrico Moretti, *The New Geography of Jobs* (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012); Edward Glaeser, *Triumph of the City: How Our Best Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier* (New York: Penguin Press, 2011); Louis Galambos, *The Creative Society;* Mark J. Stern and Susan C. Seifert, "From Creative Economy to Creative Society," *Culture and Community Revitalisation: A Collaboration* 6 (2008).

31 Høgni Kalsø Hansen, Bjørn Asheim and Jan Vang, "The European Creative Class and Regional Development: How Relevant is Florida's Theory for Europe?," *Creative Economies, Creative Cities. The GeoJournal Library* 98 (2009): 99-120; Ron Boschma and Michael Fritsch, "Creative Class and Regional

an experiences in fostering the development of the creative industries has gradually become quite noticeable.

The input of Charles Landry's approach may be seen in attempts of European experts to map cultural capital in Europe. Landry's *Creative Cities Index* is regularly employed in Europe and beyond.32 However, the very language and framework references of EU expert reports in the field of the cultural economy33 demonstrate that Florida's economic and sociological instruments were more widespread and influential in European policy writing in the early 2000s. For example, it is possible to reveal Florida's ideas and notions, as well as references to his texts, in the KEA European Affairs34 reports prepared for the EU institutions in the 2000s.

Florida's approach to creative economy shapes the initial KEA analyses. *The Economy of Culture in Europe*35 is the first KEA study of the European creative and cultural industries prepared for the European Commission. Being aware of the UK creative industries model, introduced several years earlier by the British government, the KEA report briefly reviews the UK approach and turns to Florida's concepts of the creative class and the creative sector, improving their definitions in accordance with categories of the Eurostat's data. Comparing different national approaches to cultural policies, KEA experts introduce their own definitions of *cultural sector* and *creative sector* as a point of departure for the elaboration of the European approach to these sectors.

The term *cultural sector* within the KEA reports signifies the combination of 'non-industrial sectors producing non-reproducible goods and services aimed at being *consumed* on the spot (a concert, an art fair, an exhibition)' and 'industrial sectors producing cultural products aimed at mass reproduction, massdissemination and exports (a book, a film, a sound recording).'36 The term *creative sector* covers 'the remaining industries and activities that use culture as an addedvalue for the production of non-cultural products.'37 Combining these terms the KEA report coined the notion *cultural&creative sector* (CCS) to signify the economy

Growth: Empirical Evidence from Seven European Countries," *Economic Geography* 85, no. 4 (2009): 391-423; Angela McRobbie, *Be Creative: Making a Living in the New Culture Industries* (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2016); Nerijus Stasiulis, "The Idea of the Creative Society and the Development of Creative Industries," *Economics and Sociology* 10, no. 2 (2017): 217-226.

32 For more information on Landry' index, methodology and results, see

http://charleslandry.com/themes/creative-cities-index/.

33 Du Gay and Pryke (eds), *Cultural Economy;* Anheier and Raj Isar (eds), *The Cultural Economy*.

34 *KEA European Affairs* is a Brussels-based strategic consultancy, specialising in providing advice, support and research in relation to cultural and creative industries. Since 1999, KEA European Affairs has been advising territories, organisations and people to unlock the potential of cultural and creative industries. For more information on KEA, see http://www.keanet.eu/.

35 KEA, *The Economy of Culture in Europe: A Study Prepared for the European Commission*, October 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/culture/library/studies/cultural-economy\_en.pdf.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

of culture. This notion is employed nowadays by the *Creative Europe* programme as a central one. 38

The term *cultural & creative sector* was coined as a toolkit for the collection of statistical data. However, it was not adopted by Eurostat, due to the lack of a robust definition of culture. 39 Eurostat employed the pragmatic approach to the term of culture developed by the European Leadership Group (LEG).40

In the quest of threads for convergence the EU institutions called for the elaboration of a European approach to this new sector. The term *creative Europe* was introduced already in the KEA 2006 report in interplay with the concept of the European creative economy.41 Its main task was to push Lisbon forward. However, the interpretation of the creative core was reduced at that time mainly to technological innovations. Culture was considered as a surplus next in line after technology, management and production. The theoretical framework of this study was substantially shaped by Florida's ideas and notions (see next section).

The KEA 2009 report, 42 however, demonstrated a turn to the mapping of the European economy in cultural terms. The term *creative economy* was left backstage. The report underlined the necessity to map its creative capital without reducing it to technological and innovative dimensions. The term 'creative ecology' was coined to signify the task of 'the development of Europe through art and culture'.43

The concepts of European culture and creativity in the KEA reports have gradually joined the discourse of sustainable development. An implicit reference may be glimpsed here to Charles Landry's view of a culture-driven creative milieu through the lens of sustainability: 'Sustainability shapes creative endeavour by stressing the need to test consequences and resilience in the face of external shocks.'44

38 '"Cultural and creative sectors" means all sectors whose activities are based on cultural values and/or artistic and other creative expressions, whether those activities are market- or non-marketoriented, whatever the type of structure that carries them out, and irrespective of how that structure is financed. Those activities include the development, the creation, the production, the dissemination and the preservation of goods and services which embody cultural, artistic or other creative expressions, as well as related functions such as education or management.' (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013*,* Article 2).

39 European Commission and Eurostat, *Cultural Statistics* (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2007),

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3930297/5960638/KS-77-07-296-EN.PDF/2cdad7c0- 6da3-4294-ad86-f6df336ed297.

40 In accordance with the LEG approach, the term covered the scope of 'eight domains': 'artistic and monumental heritage, archives, libraries, books and press, visual arts, architecture, performing arts and audiovisual/multimedia' (Ibid.). This classification became the foundation for the first comparable data relating to culture in Europe (Eurostat, 2007).

41 KEA, *The Economy of Culture in Europe*.

42 KEA, *The Impact of Culture on Creativity: A Study Prepared for the European Commission*, June 2009, http://www.keanet.eu/docs/impactculturecreativityfull.pdf.

43 Ibid.

44 Charles Landry, *The Creative City*, 62.

The notion of culture-based creativity was coined by the KEA to signify a kind of human sensibility45 rooted in local responsibilities, rights and duties. Its specific nature may be embodied in creative places with their hubs and clusters, in the creative time of leisure-work diffusion through individual self-fulfillment, in intellectual property and flexible infrastructures of social communication. The focus on the term *culture-based creativity* refers to forms of creativity, localised in space and time, rooted in cultural heritage and shaped with particular responsibilities.

This turn to local places and attempts to map creative potential may be illustrated with the European conception of the creative city, launched and developed by Charles Landry (he supervised the European creative cities policies). The primary intention of new cultural policies was 'to make Europe's creativity visible'.46

The next crucial step in the conceptual formation of European creative society was the *Creative Europe* programme (2014-2020). 47 It was elaborated in accordance with the main objectives of the *Europe 2020 Strategy* and its flagship initiatives. Key strands of this programme are culture, media and cross-sector.

The *Creative Europe* programme is intended to support the activities of 'the European cultural and creative sectors,' to strengthen their global competitiveness (in particular of the audiovisual sector), to foster innovation development, to advance business and management models, to promote European cultural heritage, diversity, sustainable development and transnational cooperation. Being partly open to the European Neighbourhood Policy countries, it demonstrates a presentday strategy for the European creative sector beyond EU borders. 48

A great amount of literature substantiates a general vision of the future of European creative economy and the role of creative capital in the sustainable development of European regions. In the quest of socio-philosophical theories, which could be used to ground the *Creative Europe* programme, it is noticeable that the discourse on information, knowledge, digital and innovative society still predominates in European policy writing, especially in the *Europe 2020 Strategy*. However, a new vector towards a creative society may partly be observed in the range of recent political manifestations49 and their media rhetoric. The next section seeks to

45 KEA, *The Impact of Culture on Creativity*.

46 Ibid.

47 For more information on the legal framework of the *Creative Europe* programme, see Dossi, *The Creative Europe Programme.*

48 Cornelia Bruell, *ifa-Edition Culture and Foreign Policy Creative Europe 2014–2020. A New Programme – A New Cultural Policy as Well?* (Stuttgart and Berlin: ifa, Institute for Foreign Cultural Relations, 2013); Iryna Matsevich-Dukhan, "Mapping European Cultural Actors: Addressing the Case of Belarus," in *European Neighbourhood Policy: Geopolitics Between Integration and Security*, ed. Bettina Bruns, Dorit Happ and Helga Zichner (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 207-230.

49 European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2021 to 2027) and Repealing Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013, COM(2018)366. COM/2018/366 Final - 2018/0190 (COD), https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2018%3A366%3AFIN; KEA, *Research for CULT Committee – Creative Europe: Towards the Next Programme Generation,* June 2018,

http://www.keanet.eu/wp-content/uploads/IPOL\_STU2018617479\_EN.pdf.

delineate the theoretical framework to which the expert discourse of the *Creative Europe* programme refers.

#### **3 In Quest of the Theoretical Groundwork for Creative Europe**

The present-day set of programmes titled *Creative Europe 2014-2020* implicitly refers to a broad framework of preparatory interdisciplinary research, 50 which is reflected in the range of expert reports written for the EU institutions in the form of recommendations. From the 2000s to the present day, a gradually rising interest of EU policy experts in social theory has become more articulated within the *Creative Europe* programme framework of references and is quite apparent in preparatory expert reports, especially in the KEA expert research. I will focus on reports of the KEA European Affairs, which celebrated its twentieth anniversary in 2019. It was established in 1999 as 'the first independent consultancy in Brussels focusing solely on the representation of culture industries vis-à-vis the European Union.'51 Since then, it has been developing research on the creative industries and providing policy advices to unlock the potential of European culture. The KEA is considered to be a pioneer in the field of expertise on the creative industries policy in Europe. Nowadays the KEA plays the role of key expert on the *Creative Europe* programme to the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and the European Investment Fund. 52

In 2006, the KEA experts introduced the concept of Europe's cultural & creative economy53 and elaborated it within the socio-economic research framework54 of the creative economy, substantially shaped by American and Australian approaches during the early 2000s. In quest of notions and instruments to describe a

 50 Porter, *The Competitive Advantage of Nations*; Richard E. Caves, *Creative Industries: Contracts Between Art and Commerce* (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2002); Florida, *The Rise of the Creative Class*; Landry, *The Creative City;* Throsby, *Economics and Culture*; Stuart D. Cunningham, "From Cultural to Creative Industries: Theory, Industry and Policy Implications," *Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy: Quarterly Journal of Media Research and Resources* 102, no. 1 (2002): 54-65; Howkins, *The Creative Economy*; Scott Lash and John Urry, *Economies of Signs and Space* (London: Sage, 1994); Scott Lash and Celia Lury, *Global Culture Industry* (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007).

51 For more information on the mission of the KEA European Affairs, see http://www.keanet.eu.

52 Ibid.

53 KEA, *The Economy of Culture in Europe*.

54 Florida, *The Rise of the Creative Class;* Florida and Tinagli, *Europe in the Creative Age*; Howkins, *The Creative Economy*; Andy C. Pratt, "The Cultural Economy: A Call for Spatialized 'Production of Culture' Perspectives," *International Journal of Cultural Studies* 7, no. 1 (2004): 117-128; Allen J. Scott, *The Cultural Economy of Cities* (London: SAGE, 2000); Throsby, *Economics and Culture*; Tyler Cowen, *In Praise of Commercial Culture* (London: Harvard University Press, 1988); Xavier Greffe, *Arts et artistes au miroir de l'économie* (Paris: Economica, 2002); François**e** Benhamou*, L'économie de la culture* (Paris: La Découverte, 2008); Joseph Schumpeter, *Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy* (London: Allen & Unwin, 1943).

new economy, economy of experience, sharing economy, creative economy, 55 the KEA broadened its theoretical background without any attempt to substantiate it in a coherent way.

The bibliography of the KEA study, *The Impact of Culture on Creativity*, 56 impresses with its broad interdisciplinary horizons and a special emphasis on philosophical groundwork. In addition to a sharpened interest in the creative industries' discourse, the KEA also drew special attention to a broad range of (mostly continental) socio-philosophical and sociological works. 57 It even employed Kant's *Critique of Judgement*58 to hint at the implied roots of the whole classical aesthetic discourse. The bibliography is quite eclectic but does not answer the key question: which of these theories could describe and explain the nature of an emerging European creative reality as a whole?

In 2018, the KEA presented in the European Parliament its report *Creative Europe: Towards the Next Programme Generation*. 59 The KEA experts estimated the results of the programme implementation and delivered recommendations for its next financial period (2020-2027). In comparison with previous research reports, it misses the previous theoretical perspectives grounded in social theory. The only philosophical text used to ground the expert research was H. Jenkins' *Convergence Culture* (2016), 60 introducing a new paradigm for understanding media change.

Despite the long list of representatives of diverse methodological schools cited in the first reports, these do not clarify which research works could shape the European approach to the emerging concept of creative society. A variety of theoretical concepts and sources much cited in expert reports indicate some temporary shifts in discourse without giving a theoretical and methodological groundwork for further verification of their main claims.

The emerging concept of creative Europe in policy documents has recently demonstrated the EU's political vision of creative society and its role in our com-

55 KEA*. The Impact of Culture on Creativity*.

56 Ibid.

57 Bourdieu, *Distinction: A Social Critique;* Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello, *The New Spirit of Capitalism*, trans. Gregory Elliott (London: Verso, 2007); Lash and Urry, *Economies of Signs and Space*; Gilles Lipovetsky, *Le bonheur paradoxal. Essai sur la société d'hyperconsommation* (Paris: Gallimard, 2008); Richard Lloyd, *Neo-bohemia: Culture and Capital in Postindustrial Chicago* (New York: Routledge, 2005); Richard Sennett, *The Culture of the New Capitalism* (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2006); Jeremy Rifkin, *The Age of Access: How the Shift From Ownership to Access is Transforming Modern Life* (London: Penguin, 2001); Jacques Rancière, *Chronique des temps consensuels* (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2005); Hannah Arendt, *La crise de la culture – Huit exercices de pensée politique* (Paris: Gallimard, 2003); Nelson Goodman, *Ways of Worldmaking* (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1978); Jürgen Habermas, *Theory of Communication Action*, 2 vols, trans. T. McCarthy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984/1987 and Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991/1987); David Harvey, *The Condition of Postmodernity* (Oxford: Blackwells, 1989); Jean Baudrillard, *The Conspiracy of Art* (New York: Semiotexte, 2005); Jean Baudrillard, *La société de consommation* (Paris: Gallimard, 1996).

58 Immanuel Kant, *The Critique of Judgement* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).

59 KEA, *Research for CULT Committee*.

60 Henry Jenkins, *Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide* (New York: New York University Press, 2008).

mon future. A vast array of scientific articles has been written to formulate and support this view. The primary premises of the *Creative Europe* programme were formulated in the EU's strategic documents with a great amount of references to American and Australian experts on the creative industries and creative economy.61 Their texts shape the concepts of cultural and creative industries, creative cluster, creative class and creative economy, and introduce methodological approaches to these socio-economic phenomena. European political reports on the creative industries refer to their concepts and definitions as instruments for the visualisation of the creative world, and its key actors. The rapid rise of references to the Australian and American middle range models of social and economic theories has recently been balanced with the emerging European approach to the cultural and creative sector.

Borrowing the vocabulary of philosophical, sociological and economic conceptions with fuzzy guidelines of their application in empirical social research, European scholars have tried to adapt both approaches to their own regional perspectives and evaluate the European potential in the creative age. The representative example of a dialogue between American and European approaches to the creative society is the productive scientific collaboration between American and Italian economists, Richard Florida and Irene Tinagli,62 which resulted in the research report *Europe in the Creative Age* (2004) and introduced Florida's *Euro-Creativity Index*. For more than a decade, Florida has been working with the Swedish economist Charlotta Mellander63 on diverse research cases of European creative economy. The evident consequence of these attempts is the formation of the concept of European creative society, which partly shares with, but still differs quite substantially from the key claims of Florida's original theory.64 The relevance of Florida's initial theory for Europe was substantially questioned in the late 2000s.65

Meanwhile, German sociologist Andreas Reckwitz introduced a new version of the creative society theory with a clear intent to transcend the empirical level of

"Creative Industries," in *Creative Industries*, ed. John Hartley (Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing), 1-40; Stuart Cunningham, "From Cultural to Creative Industries"; Terry Flew, "Beyond Ad Hocery: Defining Creative Industries," *The University of Auckland Library* (2002),

61 Porter, *The Competitive Advantage of Nations*; Michael Porter, "Local Clusters in a Global Economy," in *Creative Industries*, ed. John Hartley (Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 259-267; Florida, *The Rise of the Creative Class*; Howkins, *The Creative Economy*; Caves, *Creative Industries;* John Hartley,

www.library.auckland.ac.nz/subjects/bus/ExecProg/docs/creative\_industries.pdf; Throsby, *Economics and Culture*.

62 Florida and Tinagli, *Europe in the Creative Age*.

63 Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander, "The Geography of the Global Super-Rich," *Cities* 88 (2019): 112-124; Patrick Adler, Richard Florida, Karen King and Charlotta Mellander, "The City and High-tech Startups: The Spatial Organisation of Schumpeterian Entrepreneurship," *Cities* 87 (2019): 121-130.

64 Carlos Miguel Correia and José da Silva Costa, "Measuring Creativity in the EU Member States," *Investigaciones Regionales* 30 (2014): 7-26; Ron Boschma and Michael Fritsch, "Creative Class and Regional Growth: Empirical Evidence from Seven European Countries," *Economic Geography* 85, no. 4 (2009): 391-423.

65 Hansen, Asheim and Vang, "The European Creative Class and Regional Development."

above-mentioned research models. His comprehensive critical reflection on the cultural foundations of late modern society demonstrates an authentic attempt to understand the transformation of the European culture into the creative ethos which has been expanding and colonising the whole world since the late eighteenth century, reaching its new heights in late modernity. Taking into account key ideas of Richard Florida's and Charles Landry's conceptions, he distances his ideas from the rhetoric of their policy programmes and claims that the main task of his own research project is to trace the formation of a new social regime in the socalled age of creativity.

### **4 Reckwitz's Practice Theory of the Creative Society**

Andreas Reckwitz's *The Invention of Creativity* (2012) begins with brief critical remarks about Florida's programmatic text *The Rise of the Creative Class* (2002). The latter has established a kind of the global normative model of creativity, which implies that everybody *ought* to be creative. According to Reckwitz, the American sociologist promotes the creative imperative without providing enough arguments to support this imperative. The study that seems to be far from a neutral account may hardly establish theoretical foundations for further sound reasoning.

Turning to Landry's model of the creative city, Reckwitz criticises its dependence on the political method of cultural planning, its intention to control and govern culture, to delineate the unwanted non-cultural and non-creative. Landry's politicisation of civic creativity within programmes for the systematic selfculturalisation of the city has been subjected to both ecological and ethical criticism. Reckwitz highlights the rising tension between urban planning, its cultural control, and the individual's freedom of expression in an endless diversity of urban experiences. Unfortunately, Landry has not provided policy makers with instruments to ease this tension.

In comparison with these politically applied models, the crucial achievement of Reckwitz's highly abstract analysis of modern society is the demonstration of a radical shift in the system of social values towards the category of creativity, which signifies a new obligatory social order in the world. Moreover, the German sociologist has found a methodological instrument to reveal and explain this universal shift. He has interlocked social theory with detailed genealogical analysis of creativity and thereby has bridged the gap between a sociological theory of a particular modern society and social theory as a general theory of human practice.

Social theory directs theories of modern society to 'a particular socialtheoretical fundamental conceptuality'66 of their subject matter. From this perspective, Reckwitz's practice theory intends to direct diverse theories of modern society to the fundamental conceptuality of the creativity dispositif. The latter signifies a

66 Reckwitz, *Kreativität und Soziale Praxis,* 17.

specific mode of aestheticisation of social practices, which imposes on them a particular structure and thereby establishes its own social order of aesthetic modernity. The elevation of the content and role of everyday creativity, its radical expansion in all areas of today's society, motivates a researcher to reconsider the subject matter of social theory and question traditional definitions of the social. However, he underlines that the social can in no way be reduced to the aesthetic. This hope directs him to the further elaboration of social theory in a form of the so-called practice theory.

Reckwitz's theory aims at the comprehension of late modern society with the focus on culturalisation and aestheticisation of the social, 67 going beyond the sociological analysis of formal rationalisation and functional differentiation of the social, but without any attempt to get rid of the social. He seeks to develop both social theory in general and a particular theory of modern society in the forms of the practice theory68 and an emerging theory of creative society.69 Within these theories he intends to demonstrate the conceptuality of both the social reality (*soziale Realität*) and the societal reality (*gesellschaftliche Realität*) in the creative age.

The analysis of the social demonstrates the antagonism between rationalisation and aestheticisation/culturalisation processes in the orientation towards the new, authentic, experimental self-transgression, affectivity, sensuousness, creativity and singularity (in opposition to formalism, scientism and effectivity of the past). He employs the concept of singularities to signify objects and subjects with the claim to the special. Social subjects and groups are replaced with singularities, which ought to participate in the late modern fight for attention. 70

In *The Invention of Creativity* (2012), *Creativity and Social Praxis* (2016) and *The Society of Singularities* (2017),71 Reckwitz tries to build the sociological model for explaining the development of the creativity dispositif, to introduce a certain critical reflectiveness about this phenomenon. He enquires into the cultural foundations and forms of its embodiment by answering the following questions: why does the opinion that 'nothing determines today's culture to the degree creativity does' appear to be so influential and widespread? What is the present-day social orientation towards creativity? How have late modern subjects learnt to see and model themselves as creative?

Reckwitz presents historical and cultural research of creativity over the past two centuries. Comparing different stages in the development of a sharpened sense and awareness of one's own individual creativity (Romanticism, counter-

67 Ibid., 10.

68 Andreas Reckwitz, "Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing," *European Journal of Social Theory* 5, no. 2 (2002): 243-263; Reckwitz, *Kreativität und soziale Praxis.*

69 Andreas Reckwitz, *Die Erfindung der Kreativität. Zum Prozess gesellschaftlicher Ästhetisierung* (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2012).

70 Ibid., 13-18.

71 Andreas Reckwitz, *Die Gesellschaft der Singularitäten: Zum Strukturwandel der Moderne* (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2017).

culture of the bourgeois society, late modernity), he concludes that the contemporary total aestheticisation begins in the 1960-1970s,72 and intensifies and expresses itself in new forms at the end of the 1990s in all spheres of society. To some extent the explosion of creativity in the twenty-first century is determined by the emergence of the creative industries sector, which has almost devoured arts, sciences, technologies and business.

Relative borderlines of the aesthetic public space have been gradually blurred. Any space may be considered as an aesthetic one if it produces and multiplies fresh emotions. Their endless repetitive multiplication leads to senseless hopes in the quest of an empty newness resulting in 'the weariness of the self'*.* 73 Everybody ought to play an original role in the performance of self-realisation, which produces as a by-product psychological stress and results in the 'total burnout' of personality in all spheres of social life.

Though Florida and Landry have replaced the differentiated reality of economic and cultural fields of social action with the totality of creative experience, Reckwitz argues for the possibility to preserve the social (tightly bound up with the category of the moral). The weakening of the creativity dispositif might be fulfilled with the spread of alternative forms of aestheticisation, such as ecological selflimitation of creative action, profane creativity liberated from heightening and the tranquillisation art of everyday repetition. At that point, the German sociologist turns to the ancient Chinese and Japanese experience of moderate emotion.

The twenty-first century has witnessed the increasing interest in the creativity dispositif and various ways of its embodiment in social, political, cultural and economic practices. They may be criticised from within for 'the compulsion to creative heightening; the discrepancy between creative achievement and creative success; the scattering of attention; and aesthetic overstretching'.74 These problems are determined by the very structure of the creativity dispositif as a network of practices and discourses in the 'social regime of novelty'.75 To explain their specific character in today's Europe, the following questions need further elaboration. What are the defining features of creative Europe that provide its distinctiveness? Which of social theories, if any, might constitute a conceptual reference framework for the *Creative Europe* programme? What is the creative age of Europe and of what does its creative capital consist? However, these particular European questions go beyond the scope of Reckwitz's research, since his study is an attempt to outline the universal mode of late modern social practices. The *Europeannes* of

72 Aestheticisation is 'a process focused on the production and uptake of new aesthetic events'; 'designates a force shaping society and postulates of this force that it is expanding and increasing in complexity' (Reckwitz 2017). Andreas Reckwitz, *The Invention of Creativity. Modern Society and the Culture of the New.* Trans. Steven Black (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2017), 9-10.

73 Andreas Reckwitz, "Creativity Hysteria. Creativity Has Become a Kind of Performance Pressure," *Goethe.de*, June 2013, https://www.goethe.de/en/kul/ges/20368887.html.

74 Andreas Reckwitz, *The Invention of Creativity*, 222.

75 Ibid., 9.

Reckwitz's approach may be implied neither in the very subject-matter of his research nor in its further possible application to the *Creative Europe* programme, but rather in the very European socio-philosophical methodological tradition to which he constantly refers and in which he feels himself being present and deeply rooted.76

In this section I have tackled quite abstract problems of Reckwitz's social theory with the intention to illustrate a possible mission of the grand theory of creative society, which would both support and criticise the vividly manifested project of *Creative Europe.* This signification may be skeptically considered as a political metaphor or a construct, which needs further elaboration in order to be transformed into a scientific concept. At the same time, we may face a widespread opinion that the variety of political programmes embraced under the title *Creative Europe* has already accumulated and quite effectively employed key ideas and notions of a well-established theory of the creative class in sociology and economics. Since the early 2000s, the latter has been working as a medium for European attempts to reassess and visualise cultural capital in terms of economic theory. However, it has recently been subjected to much more radical criticism within academia and political expertise, which motivates scholars to look for alternative social theories. Among them Reckwitz's practice theory of society in the creative age is one of those few contemporary social theories which manifest the European tradition of critical social thought. Responding to the challenges of present-day social practices in the so-called creative Europe and beyond, his theory raises some political concern about the taming of the creativity dispositif by thematising late modern over-aestheticisation processes as political issues within ecological selfcontainment strategies.

# **5 Conclusion**

The difference between American and European approaches to creative society may be partly outlined in a comparative analysis of Florida's theory of the creative class and Landry's theory of the creative city. The latter focuses on the European creative urban space as an integrated cultural whole in diverse localised forms and methods of its development by means of cultural geography. The American sociologist directs us to the individual potential of every representative of the creative class enquiring into its nature, its sources in daily-life and principles of development through the lens of economic geography, whereas the British urbanist draws our primary attention to the individual's cultural environment with its advanced infrastructure as the background for the articulation of authentic individual action. In the European case the creativity of human action is considered substantially as a product of the unique civic ecosystem reproduced by the cultural milieu. Landry's

 76 Ibid., viii-ix.

primary interest in 'civic creativity' and his focus on sustainable development of the culture-driven creative milieu becomes one of the key characteristics of the European approach to economically profitable urban creativity. These divergent views are crucially determined by different philosophical worldviews of social theorists.

The revival of the American voice in the European social sciences of the 2000s was expressed in more empirically grounded "practice theories" with more clarity and simplicity. This turn may be marked as the beginning of a relative *Americanisation* of contemporary social thought from the perspective of neopragmatism and its further relative *Europeanisation* from the perspective of practice theory. It is not a coincidence that these trends seem to be tightly connected with the formation of a theory of creative society. Following American pragmatism, which focuses on the creative nature of the individual's action and intends to understand any human action primarily as a creative one, it is necessary to raise the question of whether it is possible to build a European approach to creative society beyond the (neo)pragmatic paradigm.

The birth of European creative policies in the late 1990s coincided with the birth of European practice theory, intriguing social scientists to reflect on a new generation of politically shaped creative practices and to retrospectively explain them by means of new interdisciplinary conceptions. Andreas Reckwitz is one of the first sociologists who reveals and fulfills in his grand theory the interdependence between European practice theory and an emerging European theory of creative society, i.e. between a particular modern social theory and a theory of a particular modern society. His theory generalises different interpretations of creativity ranging from the elitist romantic view of the early modern period through the midtwentieth century American creative imperative and the 1990s' British culturalisation of the neo-liberal perspective to the present-day eclectic combination of the European elitism and American democratism in a variety of (trans)national projects.

It becomes evident that each scientific school, as well as each political movement, constitutes its own discourse of creative society. Notwithstanding these attempts to demonstrate the plurality of approaches to the subject, Andreas Reckwitz's social theory may contribute to the formation of a new scholarship terrain within the European tradition of social thought. On the whole, little notice has been taken in social philosophy and sociology of the 'creative turn' in the history of European society, which has lately become identifiable in the light of political programmes. Increasingly, the idea is gaining currency that the subject matter of contemporary European social theory ought to embrace the emerging creative reality as a whole with an intention to overcome any narrow functional differentiation of society into political, economic and cultural fields.

Without socio-philosophical foundations under an umbrella of the creative society theory, diverse conceptions of creative communities, cities and classes may gradually transform into social movements with the only point of reference being to still existing remnants of the European common sense. Given the wide variety of inputs and sources, it is not easy to pin down exactly what is meant by a theory of creative society. Andreas Reckwitz is one of those sociologists in the twentyfirst century who has tried to offer a kind of grand social theory which reveals key characteristics of late modern creative society, at least in an ideal-typical form. But in general, it is still considered to be a theory that is only emerging, though it has already shown significant development in recent years.

Finally, the emerging theory of creative society could refresh social theory by adding new subjects and methods of research. Though it is not safe to predict that it will find a legitimate place in the history of social theory, it would be quite safe to say that it could enrich the field of contemporary social theory in the coming years. Being aware of the risk social thought is running, today's inventors of social concepts have to retrace again and again various configurations of the creative space. Meanwhile, the paradoxical political conception of European creative society without strong methodological grounding, which nowadays articulates itself rather as an etiquette of a certain *je ne sais quoi*, runs the risk of being misunderstood.

#### **6 Bibliography**

# **Part Two**

Reflecting upon the MA programme Euroculture over the Last Twenty Years

# **Euroculture: A Response to an Identified Need**

*Robert Wagenaar*

#### **1 Introduction**

Conditional for starting a new degree programme is societal need, according to the European Union supported project Tuning Educational Structures in Europe (2000-2008), which was developed by the academic world in response to the Bologna Process (1999-present).1 Societal need was not the immediate trigger of what would become the Euroculture Master programme. That was the establishment of the SOCRATES programme in 1994 (1995-1999), which was a follow-up to the ERASMUS student and staff mobility programme, launched in 1987. It contained a new Action, focusing on curriculum development promoting the idea of the European dimension to higher education and educational innovation, underpinning EU cooperation and mobility. The programme introduced an Action, which made possible the funding of European joint-programmes – integrated programmes that should be set-up by higher education institutions from at least three European Union (EU) countries.2 The European Union had just been established as a follow-up of the European Economic Community (EEC). Its establishment

1 Julia González and Robert Wagenaar (eds), *Tuning Educational Structures in Europe. Final Report Phase One* (Bilbao and Groningen, 2003). See also the Tuning Europe website:

http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/.

2 Ulrich Teichler, "ERASMUS in the SOCRATES Programme. Findings of an Evaluation Study," ACA Papers on International Cooperation (Bonn: Lemmens Verlags- & Mediengesellschaft mbH, 2002), 21-22.

was based on the Maastricht Treaty, which came into force on 1 November 1993. In 1995 the Union welcomed three new members: Austria, Finland and Sweden.

It was Uppsala University in Sweden that saw opportunities for taking new initiatives in the field of higher education. In March 1995 it set up five interdisciplinary task forces 'in order to prepare for the Institutional Contract of the Socrates Programme'.3 One of them proposed a European Studies Programme. Foreseen was a 'truly integral approach, interdisciplinary and transnational in involving the expertise of partner universities in different countries'.4 The auctores intellectuales of the original programme outline were Julia González, head of the International Relations Office of the University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain and Elisabeth Hammer-Sandberg, the Institutional Socrates Coordinator of Uppsala University, Sweden. The proposed programme included a two-semester programme based on five academic fields of study: linguistics, political science, theology, legal studies (European law) and cultural history. The programme was to be problem-based, with a common first semester for all partner institutions. Students would take the first semester at their home institution and move for the second semester to a partner institution. The programme would finish with an Intensive Programme, bringing together all students registered for the programme.5

The draft proposal, distributed during the Uppsala Network's general meeting that took place in Jena at the end of September 1995, offers some basic ideas of the angle of the suggested programme. The overarching theme was to be "Europe – unity and disruption", with the following sub-themes: "language and nationalism", "models of organising and implementing democracy", "past and present European thinking", "role of religion in European identity" and "continental law versus common law (integrating the legal systems of Europe)". The second semester was reserved for specialisation and in-depth studies based on the expertise/specialisation of each partner institution.6

Uppsala University succeeded in attracting the interest of two French and two German universities, one Dutch and one Italian university besides the Spanish partner, the University of Deusto. They were invited to Sweden to discuss the concepts underpinning the planned programme in more detail and to prepare an actual application in the framework of the EU SOCRATES Programme. The years 1996 and 1997 were used to fine-tune the ideas and to come up with an original name. In the process, the two French universities lost interest. The universities that would eventually sign up to the programme and an application to the Europe-

3 Uppsala University Task Force European Modules, "Draft Project Proposal for a European Studies Programme. Invitation to Cooperation within the Framework of the Institutional Contract of the Socrates Programme," Prepared by Elisabeth Hammer-Sandberg, Uppsala, 1995. Euroculture Archive, University of Groningen.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

an Commission SOCRATES Action were Freiburg, Göttingen, Deusto-Bilbao, Udine and Groningen. Initiator Uppsala would act as the formal coordinator.

This paper offers insight into the implicit and explicit motivations for setting up and developing a challenging interdisciplinary and transnational degree specialisation in the field of European studies, using the financial opportunities of the SOCRATES programme and its successors. Over time, the programme became more articulated in its aims and objectives, conceptual foundation and content.

### **2 Defining Something Special**

To explain the programme, it is necessary to introduce the socio-political context of the 1990s from which it has arisen. In 1991 the Yugoslav Wars broke out which were to last for a decade. The plural of "war" is used here, because these should be seen as a combination of separate, partly consecutive and overlapping rebellions, ethnic conflicts and independence wars. They brought very clearly to light the issue of multiculturalism/ethnic pluralism, (multi-)language, religious and border issues. It showed how thin the layer of civilisation and civilised behaviour can be.7 The wars were preceded by the fall of the Berlin Wall (November 1989), which had already led to a discussion about the challenges linked to identity formation processes and the related articulations of us/them binarisms.8 In particular, the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia led to a stream of refugees and asylum seekers in European countries. In 1992 it reached its first peak.9 The 1990s are also the decade of high (youth) unemployment, reaching its peak in 1995.10 In 1997 the European Commission published a Communication entitled "Towards a Europe of Knowledge". It made the argument that an open and dynamic European educational area should be developed based on three dimensions: the development of knowledge in a Lifelong Learning context, the enhancement of citizenship related to mutual understanding of the cultural diversities of Europe as well as the principles of solidarity, and the acquisition of the most useful set of competences required

https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-

7 See for a short overview: Alastair Finlan, *The Collapse of Yugoslavia 1991–1999* **(**Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2004). For a more comprehensive study: Carole Rogel Poirier, *The Breakup of Yugoslavia and Its Aftermath*, Greenwood Press Guides to Historic Events of the Twentieth Century, 2nd Edition (Santa Barbara: Greenwood Press, 2004).

8 See for example the highly interesting article of Rick Noack, "The Berlin Wall Fell 25 Years ago, but Germany is Still Divided," *The Washington Post*, 31 October 2014,

consent/?destination=%2fnews%2fworldviews%2fwp%2f2014%2f10%2f31%2fthe-berlin-wall-fell-25-years-ago-but-germany-is-still-divided%2f%3f&utm\_term=.07c25e08529e.

9 Guido Ambroso, "The Balkans at a Crossroads: Progress and Challenges in Finding Durable Solutions for Refugees and Displaced Persons from the Wars in the Former Yugoslavia*,*" New Issues in Refugee Research, Research Papers No. 133, UNHCR (Geneva, 2006), 1-2.

10 European Central Bank, Monthly Bulletin, Box 10, "Youth Unemployment in the Euro Area," Frankfurt am Main, September 2008, 77,

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/mobu/mb200809en.pdf.

for employability and taking into account the evaluation of job profiles.11 The basic ideas formulated by the Uppsala Task Force were well aligned with this.12

The challenges resulting from the multi-cultural society were leading in the discussion to develop the Uppsala initiative. As said, a number of meetings and conferences were organised, starting in Sweden. At those meetings, the programme was fine-tuned and after intense discussion and reflection a name was agreed upon that best reflected its theme and purpose: Euroculture. This was to be understood as political culture. The connecting concept could be linked to and strengthened by the input of the involved disciplines. For the term political culture a range of definitions have been defined of which these are a few: 'historicallybased, widely-shared beliefs, feelings, and values about the nature of political systems, which can serve as a link between citizens and government', 13 'the shared values and beliefs of a group or society regarding political relationships and public policy',14 'widely shared beliefs, values, and norms that define the relationship between citizens and government, and citizens to one another'15 and, finally, a 'set of attitudes, beliefs and sentiments that give order and meaning to a political process and which provide the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behaviour in the political system'.16 One can easily see the overlap in these various conceptualisations. It is widely acknowledged that every country has its own political culture based on traditions and experiences. By linking the concept of political culture to the multi-cultural dimension, the programme distinguished itself from traditional European studies courses. On its own, this followed emerging academic discussions at the intersection of culture and politics. Already in 1988 Stephen Chilton, in his paper "Defining Political Culture", identified related and underpinning elements and concepts to the political culture term: 'cognition, symbolism, Kohlbergs stages of moral development, morality, cross cultural studies, reasoning, cultural conflict, social structures, civics and testability'.17

Although the name Euroculture was, and still is, original, it was not unique. Already in 1988, a short article was published entitled "Bientôt L'Euroculture la politique française pour une Communauté culturelle européenne" in the *Bulletin des*

11 European Commission, *Communication from the European Commission: Towards a Europe of Knowledge*, Brussels, 1997, 1, http://aei.pitt.edu/5546/1/5546.pdf.

12 Robert Wagenaar, *Reform! TUNING the Modernisation Process of Higher Education in Europe. A Blueprint for Student-Centred Learning,* (Bilbao and Groningen 2019), 39.

13 Study.com, "Political Culture: Definition, Theory, Types & Examples,"

https://study.com/academy/lesson/political-culture-definition-theory-types-examples.html.

14 Gregory Claeys and Brendan Swedlow (eds), "Political Culture," in *Encyclopedia of Modern Political Thought.* (Los Angeles, etc.: CQ Press, 2013).

15 United States Government, "American Political Attitudes and Participation. 4a. American Political Culture," http://www.ushistory.org/gov/4a.asp.

16 *International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences,* vol. 12. (New York: Macmillan, 1968), 218.

17 Stephen Chilton, "Defining Political Culture," *The Western Political Quarterly* 41, no. 3 (1988): 419- 445.

*Bibliothèques de France*. 18 In 1996, Charles Arthur Willard stated in his book *Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge. A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy*, that Euroculture – by linking the term to federalism – is arguably the newest variation on the melting pot. He argued that alongside the evolution of federalism there is the cosmopolitan blend of style and attitude, which is called Euroculture. In his view not a label always used in a positive way:

'Some malign it as a synonym for Americanisation – over-empathic objections, of course of Europeans (meaning the champions of Euroculture). Still Euroculture is a melting pot of sorts. Like its American counterpart it is smorgasbord of lifestyle enclaves, art, architecture, clothing styles and travel patterns. It is a point of view expressed at cocktail parties: a cosmopolitanism, transnationalism, a tolerant pluralism. It is a bit more sophisticated than taking the pledge to become an American. It assumes that people can manage multiple identities – that, for example, one need not be any the less Dutch as one becomes European'.19

The Willard quote shows that the term Euroculture was quickly circulated across various academic discussions and that it carried a particular set of connotations. For the initiators of the Euroculture programme the term was not related to federalism, but much more to the endless richness of different social and political cultures and norms and values of and in Europe. In this context, it is interesting to note that already in 1966, a youth travel agency named itself EUROCULTURE. International Cultural Services, specialising in school trips from the UK to France. In 2016 the company celebrated its 50th anniversary. 20

The Euroculture degree programme actually started in the academic year 1998- 1999. Final preparations were made at a meeting in Göttingen, which took place in March 1998. The six universities mentioned above decided to go ahead and to try to implement the programme. At that meeting the decision was also taken to involve more universities by expanding the network. The agenda of this meeting is of interest, because of the topics covered: application forms, student- and staff exchange, structure of the first semester, thesis requirements, grading systems, credit allocation, number of teaching hours, costs and length of the intensive programme, oral examinations, awarding of diplomas, information material and website and evaluation of the programme.21 Most of these items have kept returning on the agendas of what would become the Steering and later Management Committee of the Euroculture programme.

18 Patrick Olivier, "Bientôt l'Euroculture," *Bulletin des Bibliothèques de France (BBF),* 1988, n° 1-2, 28- 30, http://bbf.enssib.fr/consulter/bbf-1988-01-0028-003.

19 Charles Arthur Willard, *Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge. A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy* (Chicago and London: The Chicago University Press, 1996), 60.

20 Euroculture School trips, http://www.euroculture.co.uk/School\_trip\_offers.htm; see also: http://www.euroculture.co.uk.

21 Euroculture Conference in Göttingen (13-14 March 1998), Notes and Important Decisions, Euroculture Archive, University of Groningen.

For the first edition, 26 students were enrolled, who also participated in the very-first Intensive Programme organised by the University of Freiburg in 1999. The evaluation by the first group of students showed there was room for improvement of the programme in particular regarding its interdisciplinarity. Furthermore, it was expressed that the main theme deserved a better presentation.22 The critical suggestions were not immediately turned into concrete action. For the period 1998-2004, the programme profile can be digested best from the topics of its Intensive Programmes, which can and should be perceived as the most interdisciplinary part of the programme. These were respectively: "The Cultural Impact of Migration in Europe" (Uppsala/Sigtuna – 1999/2000); "Cultural Constructions of Europe: European Identities in the 21st Century" (Groningen – 2000/2001); "Regionalism and Nationalism in an Integrating Europe" (Uppsala – 2001/2002); "European Transformations – Transformation of Europe" (Göttingen – 2002/2003) and "Images of Europe" (Ghent – 2003/2004).23

Only in Autumn 2002 the document "Guidelines International Euroculture Network" was drawn up and agreed upon by the consortium of partners. Until then, the 1995 Uppsala Task Force document had been leading. The Guidelines document states as its purpose and goals that:

'[The Euroculture] network has been established as an answer to current changes in Europe: a resurgence of nationalism and old collective identities on the one hand; strong efforts in order to dissolve borders and create an economic and political union on the other hand. The post-modern paradox between globalisation and localisation is another characteristic of nowadays Europe. In this context, European universities face a special challenge and task to familiarise students with the history and actuality of European culture and to create opportunities for a more advanced education focusing upon aspects of special relevance to the contemporary European social and political context.' 24

Therefore, the aim of the Euroculture programme was to provide its students with a good comprehension of political, historical, religious, linguistic and other cultural aspects of European integration. According to its authors, those aspects had played and were playing an essential role in the European integration process.25 In the meantime, the Universities of Ghent (Belgium) and Strasbourg (France) had joined the programme. The Jagiellonian University in Krakow (Poland) would follow soon, as would the University of Olomouc (Czech Republic). Ghent, repre-

 22 Uppsala University, EUROCULTURE 1998/99, Evaluation, Uppsala, 11 June 1999; Notes taken at a meeting with the students in the Euroculture Course in Uppsala, May 1999. Euroculture Archive, University of Groningen.

23 An overview of Intensive Programmes is presented on the Euroculture consortium website: https://www.euroculturemaster.eu/programme-outline/intensive-programme

24 Guidelines International Euroculture Network, 2002. Euroculture Archive, University of Groningen.

25 Ibid.

sented by Luc François, took over the coordination from Uppsala in the autumn of 2002. Furthermore, the University of Edinburgh became involved, but only for a short period and it never offered the programme. The programme in general proved successful in attracting financial support, not only from the European Commission to run the programme and its Intensive Programmes, but also from the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) / German Academic Exchange Service.26 Nevertheless, from the very start there were challenges regarding the organisation of the programme and the alignment of content and procedures. Also, the communication between partners proved to be a returning issue.27 The actual delivery of a transnational and interdisciplinary programme was (and still is) very challenging, with every country and institution having its own rules, regulations and practices. These proved not always easy to combine and/or to bridge.

#### **3 Moving Forward**

At the beginning of 2004 the European Commission established a new type of post-graduate programme: the ERASMUS Mundus Master of Excellence.28 The Action had to result in hundreds of attractive and high-level degree programmes to allow for competition with the US Fulbright Programme. It was meant to attract the very best students in the world to enrol for a study in the EU. For this purpose, very generous scholarships were made available for students and staff. The grant also involved a basic financial support for running a transnational Master course. These were good reasons for the Euroculture consortium to prepare an application, although its members were aware that the competition for funding would be stiff: finding the financial means for the relatively costly transnational programme was perceived as a continuous concern.

In April 2005 an extra meeting was organised in Cologne to discuss the state of affairs of the programme, after two unsuccessful attempts to be selected for the prestigious Erasmus Mundus EU Action.29 The meeting was attended by one representative per partner. In addition, the two coordinators of the project Tuning

26 IQN project of the DAAD (three years' grant), information source: George-August-Universität Göttingen, Conference Programme Cultures of Learning and the Future of Higher Education in Europe, International Conference of the DAAD International Quality Network EUROCULTURE Göttingen, November 28-30, 2002.

27 This can be illustrated by the Report of a special *Integration Group Meeting*, which took place in Göttingen on 25-26 May 2000. It discussed these practicalities and came up for suggestions for improvement. Euroculture Archive, University of Groningen.

28 The Erasmus Mundus programme was prepared by a task force established by the European Commission, chaired by Commission officer Angelika Verli, and of which Julia González and Luc François were members.

29 Although the Euroculture application of 2004 was not successful it was included in a list of 'Unsuccessful High Quality Courses' by the Erasmus Mundus Committee who advised to submit an application again. Luc Francois, e-mail to the representatives of the Euroculture consortium, 21 February 2005.

Educational Structures in Europe, Julia González and Robert Wagenaar, were invited to the meeting. Tuning had been launched in 2000 as a bottom-up higher education initiative with the aim to develop strategies and means to implement the political objectives of the Bologna Process.30 These were – and are – the international recognition of credit points and diplomas, the implementation of a consistent three cycle structure (Bachelor, Master, Doctorate) and the creation of a quality culture and quality assurance system.31

The Tuning project did not only come up with a methodology for reforming degree programmes, it also developed reference points for a range of subject areas to define necessary components of a high-level and relevant degree programme. Since 2003 the project included European studies as one of the nine disciplines covered.32 Therefore, the Tuning expertise was highly relevant and gave the Euroculture programme a new impetus, which in practice implied a new start. The Cologne meeting meant a re-thinking of the Euroculture programme concept, length and structure as part of a new attempt to obtain Erasmus Mundus status. It was also decided that Groningen would submit the new application and – if successful – would take over the coordination of the network. So far, the programme had been a two-semester one. At the Management Committee meeting in February 2005 it had been decided to extend the programme to a minimum of 90 ECTS credits, which would enable the programme to better meet the ambitious learning outcomes.33 The extension to 90 ECTS credits was confirmed at the Cologne meeting, because it would enhance the chances for being selected as an Erasmus Mundus programme. This decision had implications, because Ghent, Strasbourg and Udine were not able to offer a Master programme of this length due to national legal constraints. This implied that these universities could not be included in the project proposal.

In Cologne it was also decided to apply the Tuning model as its backbone to further boost the chances for success. Furthermore, it was concluded that preparing a successful application to the Erasmus Mundus programme would not only require a new structure, but also that the Euroculture "concept" be made more explicit. It was one of the Göttingen academics, Habbo Knoch, who developed some initial thinking in this respect. Knoch ascertained that the existing programme focussed on the importance of cultural concepts and practices in the many fields of transnational contacts within and beyond Europe by highlighting manifestations of cultural self-understanding. This being an important element of transnational social and political developments. He noticed a growing impact and

30 Wagenaar, *Reform! TUNING the Modernisation Process of Higher Education in Europe.*

31 Paris Communiqué, Paris, 25 May 2018.

32 The Tuning project published its *Reference Points for the Design and Delivery of Degree Programmes in European Studies* (Bilbao, 2008).

33 Steering Group Meeting Udine, mid-February 2005. At that meeting it was also decided not to prepare another application for the Erasmus Mundus programme. This decision was overturned in March 2005.

awareness of cultural dispositions, conflicts and exchange as a result of EU enlargement and globalisation. This situation required high awareness and sensitivity of the relevance of values, identity concepts or perceptions among informed professionals, such as diplomats, bureaucrats, officials, journalists and cultural consultants. As a consequence, the Euroculture Master programme trains its students to obtain cultural-reflexive competences, which are based on a thorough and problem-oriented understanding of cultural issues. The overall objective is to offer students insight into these matters and provide them with competences (knowledge, insights and skills) to deal with them.34

Knoch reminded the partners that from its launch Euroculture was used as 'a concept to reflect in a multidisciplinary way on the many different expressions and manifestations of self-understandings of societies, social groups and individuals of, about and within Europe'. He identified as core questions:

'Whether, to what extent and in which forms does a common and unique European culture exist and how is it related to other regional or non-European concepts? How is Europe and how are cultural transformations perceived within Europe and from the outside? What is the impact of political and social processes on European culture(s) and culture(s) in Europe as well as vice versa?'35

To discuss these questions in a meaningful way, knowledge of historical perspectives, political issues, social relations, legal issues and religious elements were thought conditional.36

His contribution was important input for the successful 2005 application. Consequently, Euroculture became a three-semester programme. The price to pay for this success was that the University of Ghent – that never actually offered the programme – left the consortium and Udine and Strasbourg became associated partners. Groningen, as the contract partner for the European Commission of what had now become an "Erasmus Mundus Programme of Excellence", took over – as agreed earlier – the coordination of the consortium. To align-with the aim of the Erasmus Mundus Action, the Master programme was entitled "Euroculture: Europe in the Wider World".37 It presented itself as 'a unique, multilingual, interdisciplinary and inter-university project', with focus on cultural and social developments: its inheritance as well as its standards, values and citizenship. It claimed correctly that the Euroculture programme stood out from many other European Regional Studies programmes.38

34 Habbo Knoch, Discussion Note. Euroculture Archive, University of Groningen.

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid.

37 Euroculture EMMC project application 2006 prepared by Robert Wagenaar as main author in the context of the EU SOCRATES II Programme. Euroculture Archive, University of Groningen. 38 Ibid.

To give substance to its concept and at the same time enhance its structure, the revised programme was built on four key components: (1) "Core Fields of European Culture", (2) "Eurocompetences", (3) "Intensive Programme" and (4) "Research". The first component was based on the four interrelated concepts of "mobility", "transfer", "intervention" and "cooperation", which were perceived as leading for the rest of the programme. Progression of learning in the programme was expressed by labelling the semesters in succeeding order: "acquisition", "deepening and applying" and "exercising" generic and subject specific competences. This was terminology taken from the Tuning project. The competences to acquire were expressed in learning outcomes (statements), indicating the level of competence to achieve. The components were transferred and expressed into modules/units of 5 ECTS credits or a multiple of this number. However, the most outstanding features were the underlying basic philosophy of moving from a multi-disciplinary towards a real interdisciplinary approach, the option of a researchoriented track preparing for a third cycle degree (extra research seminars) and a job market-oriented track containing a vocational education and training component (work placement). Students had to choose between these options and within the available mobility model, allowing student to choose between two partner universities for their studies to be awarded a double degree after successfully meeting the examination requirements.39 Recent research presented elsewhere in this publication shows these are unique features still today.

## **4 Expansion**

The programme presented above was in place for five consecutive editions, with the last cohort starting in 2010. In that year, the consortium applied again for Erasmus Mundus funding. In the meantime, a new factor had come into play. In 2008 the consortium applied successfully for additional funding to allow up to 20 EU/EEA students enrolled in the programme to study for half a semester outside Europe. As partners for this additional global mobility programme Indiana University - IUPUI (Indianapolis, USA), Osaka University (Japan), Savitribai Phule Pune University (India), and National Autonomous University of Mexico - UNAM (Mexico) – covering different continents and different expertise – were invited. It allowed students to study Europe and EU relations with a particular world region from the perspective of the non-European countries involved. Evaluating the programme in the years up to the re-application in 2011, it was concluded that a further extension of its length, from three to four semesters, would be desirable. This had a number of advantages. It allowed the Erasmus Mundus consortium to be extended to Strasbourg and Udine – the two partners that were for legislative reasons unable to offer a three-semester programme – and to add the four nonEuropean universities as full partners. Furthermore, the extension made it possible to strengthen the theoretical and methodological as well as the research components of the programme.

Although the project application was perceived by the consortium partners as a good one, it was not selected for funding. However, it was evaluated well enough to keep the so-called "Erasmus Mundus Brand Name". In 2010, Euroculture participated in the Erasmus Mundus Quality Assurance Project (EMQA), meant to identify good practices for an Erasmus Mundus Handbook of Excellence. At the time, the outcome of the selection process was not yet known. As part of the visit, staff of the contractor for implementing the project, the Research and Consulting firm ECORYS made site visits to Groningen and Krakow in the summer of 2010. The findings are well summarised in an e-mail of the project leader Michael Blakemore: 'We learned a lot more about excellence from a very impressive course'.40 At a brainstorm session organised by the Directorate General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) about the new programmes for higher education, at the end of the year, Blakemore expressed his opinion in public when he stated he found it unbelievable that an excellent programme such as Euroculture had not been selected for funding.41 At the same meeting, it was noted that the distribution of selected degree programmes over the different academic sectors was very unbalanced, with both humanities and social sciences heavily underrepresented.42 This confirmed a similar observation made already in 2006 by some higher education experts and shared with David Coyne, the director for higher education of the Directorate General for Education and Culture at the time. Present data show the situation has not improved. 43

In February 2011 the consortium applied again, now strengthened by the positive evaluation of ECORYS and the remarks of Michael Blakemore made at the meeting. The text of the 2011 project application is a good reflection of how the discourse about Europe and the European integration process had developed over time. It is also a good showcase of the outcomes of the intense internal discussions of the consortium about the direction to take. In the application text, the programme was boldly presented as 'a world class four-semester, fully integrated, innovative, multilingual, interdisciplinary and transnational Master of Arts pro-

40 Michael Blakemore, e-mail to author, 10 July 2010.

41 The author of this paper attended this strategy meeting on invitation of the DG EAC. The meeting took place in Brussels on 6 December 2010.

42 In a letter to the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), dated 15 September 2010, the programme director of the Euroculture EMMC pointed out that in the 2010 round of proposals no programme had been selected for funding from the Humanities. In its response, dated 11 November 2010, the EACEA was not able to rebut this observation. Euroculture Archive, University of Groningen.

43 Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters Degree (EMJMD) Catalogue, https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmusplus/library/scholarships-catalogue\_en.

gramme'.44 It was stipulated that the programme offered 'students the opportunity to develop high level expertise and competence on trans-, inter- and multiculturality, current political governance, national versus transnational identity and evolving social-political processes regarding Europe and the European integration process'.45 Due to its international dimension, the programme allowed for transnational cross-over comparisons of relevant concepts and their understanding in different regions in the world. As a result it would take 'students beyond the parochialism of traditional disciplinary traditions, while bringing them into contact also with policy makers and cultural and community leaders'.46 By combining thorough knowledge, theoretical concepts and practical training, the programme claimed to equip students with a unique set of tools to act successfully in society. Because of its set-up the degree programme was expected to fill a niche not covered by any other programme.

The application text stipulated that participation in the programme would result in a better understanding of present-day political, economic, and financial crises, reflected in the disparate layers of European society as well as the contested and disputed decision-making processes regarding multiculturalism and civil society, collective identity and tendencies of separatism, which have given way to populism and Islamophobia. A clear link was made to the non-European partners by stating that these issues are

'not limited to Europe only. In other regions and countries, political leaders have expressed comparable concerns regarding the social cohesion of their society. One could think, for example, of Australia, the "Americas" and very recently the Arabic world, which shows that issues with global significance are currently at stake.' 47

As one of the outcomes of the banking and mortgage crisis that started in the USA and spread to Europe in 2008, the European integration project came under pressure. The EU was unable to respond successfully to the challenges the crisis presented. The response was austerity. In the public mind the image of the EU became related to migrants coming from outside the EU, Islamophobia and the enlargement in 2007, which resulted in an increase of intra-European migration from Eastern to Western European countries. The application text of 2011 reflects the state of affairs as observed by the Consortium: 'Fear of the other and for the future – cultivated no longer only by populists but now also by mainstream political parties and politicians – has deepened the feeling that the integration process has failed'.48 It was noticed that this had not only an impact on the multicultural socie-

44 Euroculture EMMC project application 2011 prepared by Robert Wagenaar as its main author in the context of the EU Lifelong Learning Programme. Euroculture Archive, University of Groningen. 45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid.

ty – which had been declared a failure by prominent political leaders such as Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron anyway – but also on the political, economic, social and cultural cooperation forming the backbone of the European Union: 'In most countries the vast majority of citizens seem to have lost interest and understanding for the objectives and outcomes of the integration process and at the same time a large part of society does not feel represented by its traditional politicians, both at a national and at a European level'.49 The general public has perceived the EU as overly technocratic. It was also stated in the application that in recent years, the notion of national identity had been brought back into the discourse (e.g. Sarkozy). As a result, in many member states the national versus the International/European perspective had become a cleavage within.50

### **5 Responding to a Changing Context**

The described situation underpinned the continuous necessity for the Euroculture programme to offer an approach to understand (recent) developments best by focussing on citizens and culture, instead of structures and models of the integration process. In its outline, the programme explained that it combined relevant theories, approaches and methods in social, political, historical and cultural sciences, which allow for paying special attention to the challenges linked to the break-up of previous political loyalties and (collective) identities and the constitution of new ones. It also highlighted regional, national and supranational dimensions of European democratic development: mobility, migration and inter-, multi- and transculturality. It stipulated that Euroculture was taking culture not as a set of particular values of skills but as the fabric of social and political life, following an anthropological interpretation of and approach to the concept.

This explanation of the meaning of culture was thought necessary to take stock of the fact that since the fall of the Berlin Wall (at the latest) many thinkers claim that culture has replaced politics as the main factor of public discussion. Whatever one might think of the controversial theses of, among others, Samuel Huntington or Francis Fukuyama, they have to be addressed through the ongoing processes of European integration. The idea that besides the economy, culture now constitutes the main field of tension among people, not merely influences the public opinion, but does possess a performative dimension, in so far as in many cases unspecified cultural issues are immediately put forward by the media as a kind of generic explanation of social problems. If not properly assessed, this situation, instead of contributing to European integration by favouring the emergence of a new, multicultural civil society, might prove detrimental to the goals of the European project.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid.

For the first time the programme defined a mission, which was expressed in a profile. This profile is based on the notion of progressive levels of learning. It starts with stipulating the need for a deep understanding of European identity, civil society, the ongoing European unification process in itself, its cultural and social dynamics and the consequences for its citizens and the wider world. As a next step, students should have the ability to identify and problematise what Europe and the EU represent for its citizens and for the wider world. Finally, Euroculture graduates should be empowered to analyse and interpret current issues regarding the handling of multicultural society issues into feasible solutions and to transfer these insights to relevant audiences.51

In line with the Tuning methodology, the profile was translated into a clear set of operational competences/learning outcomes and – as the above shows – underpinned by a needs analysis. A needs analysis that confirmed the societal need for the kind of expertise developed in the programme. The programme made explicit that it intended to form experts with an excellent understanding of and ability to come up with answers to crucial social and political issues addressed above.52

The 2011 application received a high score and resulted in a new grant agreement covering again basic costs and scholarships for selected students and visiting staff for five editions of the programme, covering the cohorts 2012-2014 until 2016-2018. During those years, the programme as outlined in the application was implemented, now with a total of 8 EU partners offering a degree and 4 non-European partners contributing to the programme for a semester for up to 20 students per EU partner. During these years a start was made to turn the programme from a transnational joint programme into an integrated joint degree programme which should result in one degree certificate signed by the two degree awarding universities. This proved a real challenge due to national legislation and institutional rules, not insufficiently tailored to the political wish to arrive at joint degrees as expressed in the framework of the Bologna Process.

The growing unrest in the European Union resulting from the financial crisis, became related to a growing setback of globalisation and neo-liberal policies which was associated with the EU. This had a negative effect on student interest in the Euroculture programme, and in European studies programmes in general. The European Union as an academic topic of studies proved no longer attractive. The enrolment, which for years had been around 90, decreased to 56 for the cohort 2013-2015. It forced the programme to rethink its image, including its name, and to put more effort into marketing and publicity. As a result of intensive discussions, it was decided to replace the additive to Euroculture "Europe in the Wider World" by "Society, Politics and Culture in a Global Context". Supported by a more assertive publicity campaign and a renewed consortium website the enrol-

51 Robert Wagenaar, "Columbus' Egg? Qualifications Frameworks, Sectoral Profiles and Degree Programme Profiles in Higher Education," *Tuning Journal for Higher Education* 1 (2013): 97.

52 Euroculture EMMC project application 2011. Euroculture Archive, University of Groningen.

ment number was brought up to around 100 students in a short period. This was a good basis to prepare a new application in 2017 for what was now named the Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree (EMJMD) programme. Taking the internal discussions of 2013-14 as a point of departure, in the new application the programme distanced itself further from the institutional dimensions of the European integration process. It did not give up its original foundation: 'Euroculture studies the origins and impact of social, cultural and religious dispositions, conflicts and exchange in and on today's multi-cultural societies in Europe. Instead of focusing on European institutions and structures, it takes the citizen perspective as point of departure'.53

However, the changing socio-political context resulted in a completely different perspective. While Europeanisation was once interpreted as leading to more unity – "an ever closer union" – it was observed that instead "multiple Europes" had come into existence, which gave way to a diffracted Europe.

The new aim of the Master programme was 'to understand how these different perspectives on Europe and the EU have developed and what they imply for the social stability and societal integration'.54 It was stipulated that the 'central theme of multiple Europes is hotly debated, concerning both national and international policy making'.55 This implied that the conditions under which Europe is studied had been experiencing rapid changes in a very short period of time. It was noticed that the playing field was overhauled as a result of a now seriously contested European integration process, the rise of populism in Europe and beyond, the financial crisis of 2008 and its aftermath, the refugee crisis, drawbacks of globalisation and xenophobia. In particular two events that took place in 2016 attested to the influence of these developments: the result of the referendum on "Brexit" in the UK, and the election of D.J. Trump as president of the United States. They showed that the narrative and rhetoric (facts are no longer taken for granted, but can be challenged and replaced by "alternative facts") had changed fundamentally as had the means of communication (e.g. the role of Facebook, use of algorithms for news selection, use of tweets for strategic policymaking).56

As a result, this situation had led to a shifting perspective in public opinion, from integration and solidarity to the polarisation of differences in Europe. It was noted that the resilience and self-confidence of European welfare societies had been undermined, with large groups feeling excluded, threatening social stability and democracy resulting from an immersed policy of neo-liberalism and globalisation:

53 Euroculture EMJMD Project Application 2017, Prepared in the Context of the ERASMUS+ KA2 Call. Euroculture Archive, University of Groningen.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

56 Ibid.

'The narratives and rhetoric in public debate have turned rather negative, leading to lack of trust and radicalisation, helped by distorted social media and fake news. The political elite is challenged by large groups in society. In response, strategies have to be found and developed to bridge a "cosmopolitised" (educated) elite perceived as the establishment on the one hand and a group of citizens that feels its problems are not being recognised and taken care of on the other hand.' 57

Euroculture defined as its new ambitious objective the study of and contribution to society to analyse and understand this situation, to be able to come up with new initiatives and contributions for finding solutions for this highly complicated situation. This implied a reformulated response to an identified need that had changed in a very short period of time. It convinced the evaluators of the European Commission and resulted in the awarding of the Erasmus Mundus status for the third time in 2017 for three cohorts of students starting one year later.

### **6 Conclusion**

The Euroculture programme was established as a Swedish initiative and as a result of the opportunity offered by the SOCRATES Programme of the EU launched in 1994 to define new transnational degree programmes. For Sweden, a country that had just become a member of the European Union, offering a programme in European studies was an obvious choice. However, it was understood at the same time that such a programme should stand out by way of its mobility scheme and its topic. Although the programme was not very well defined in the first years of its existence, it was understood that it should cover a current topic and should be founded on a modern learning and teaching approach. In hindsight, the choice for the original comprehensive theme of the new programme is a remarkable one: "Europe – unity and disruption". Although not used in practice it covers rather well 20 years of history of Europe as well as the Euroculture programme. Forced by circumstances in terms of political, economic and social developments as well as funding arrangements – the introduction of the Erasmus Mundus programmes in 2004 – the Euroculture transnational team underpinned its theme with a clear concept. Over time this concept became more articulated and precise.

As has been outlined, the Erasmus Mundus project applications that were prepared to obtain both status and financial support, are an excellent representation of the process of thought in the consortium over time. It reflects 20 years of coping with the challenges of multi-cultural societies resulting from migration from outside Europe due to conflicts and for economic reasons as well as from Eastern to Western European countries after the enlargement of the EU. These developments show clearly that the Euroculture programme - from its very start - responded to an identified and evolving need, and has continued to do so. The extension of the programme in content and length from 60 to 90 to 120 ECTS credits is an excellent reflection that it has coped successfully with the growing complexity of its theme. Recent developments, which have resulted in shaking the sustainability of societies make the societal need for degree programmes such as Euroculture even more relevant and necessary than could have been imagined at the time the original initiative was taken.

### **7 Bibliography**

#### 7.1 Primary Sources

#### Blakemore, Michael. E-mail message to author. 10 July 2010.

	- http://www.euroculture.co.uk/School\_trip\_offers.htm and http://www.euroculture.co.uk.

Knoch, Habbo. Discussion Note. Euroculture Archive. University of Groningen.

#### 7.2 Secondary sources

# **The Idea of Europe… Teaching Cultural History for Almost Twenty Years**

*Janny de Jong and Ine Megens*

#### **1 Introduction**

"Cultural History" is one of the introductory course modules in the first semester of the Euroculture programme in Groningen. The course dates from the programme's beginning in 1999, and for most of those twenty years we have been teaching it together, although others have been involved as lecturers, guest lecturers or excursion leaders.

In this contribution we present a short overview of the continuity and the revisions in the content of the course. On the one hand, these developments reflect changes in how the political culture and atmosphere altered in the European Union (EU) and in Europe in general, on the other hand, the specific expertise of the lecturers clearly had an impact as well.

We are both historians, but have different specialisations. While Ine Megens studies contemporary history with a strong focus on peace and security issues, NATO and the relations between Europe and the United States, Janny de Jong has a background in modern history, political culture, colonial and world history and the relations between Europe and East Asia from the 19th century onwards. We share interests in how the past is dealt with: in memory and commemoration, and in debates on national and European identity. In other words, our expertise complements each other but also has clear overlaps.

We are convinced that knowledge of the past plays a crucial role in the present: it influences and even guides contemporary judgments and decisions. Explaining the present in terms of the past increases the understanding of current problems in society as well as the sensitivity that memories play a crucial role in shaping the past. What we try and have tried to do in this course module during these last two decades is showing that the past has to be understood in its own terms, while interpretations of this historical context can differ. To do so we have stressed the crucial importance of the employment of a critical reading of scholarly literature and primary sources, in any form.

Critical reading, questioning facts, testimonies, and the reliability of sources requires a critical mindset. This can at first be daunting: our students come from a wide range of countries and regions with different academic cultures. Some stress problem solving and critical thinking, others put more emphasis on acquiring and assessing knowledge. The same holds true for expertise and training in writing proper research papers: some of our students have had very limited experience in that respect, and have mostly written rather short argumentative essays confined to description, instead of a critical analysis.

This article presents how we have dealt with this didactic challenge, and how the position of the course has changed within the overall Euroculture programme. What triggered these changes? First, however, we discuss the starting points and substantive development of the course. How has the course developed during these two decades? What is our understanding of cultural history?

#### **2 The Start: "The History of the Idea of Europe"**

In 1999 the title of the course was "The History of the Idea of Europe". The first course manual states the following aim:

'to discuss the making of a "European identity" from a historical, cultural and political perspective and context. This course is not about the history of Europe, then, but about the idea of Europe in history and some 20th century attempts to make this idea into a reality.'1

Since then we have stuck to this principle. "Cultural History: Domains of European Identity", as the course was called since 2006, presents and discusses how Europe has been conceptualised both in the past as in the present. The new title reflected more accurately the content of the course module. Furthermore, it avoided any possible misunderstanding that the course was uncritically promoting the "idea" of Europe in the sense that historians and other writers in the 1950s and 1960s had often done when they discussed the ideal of European integration.

The fact that Euroculture from the start attached importance to ideas and perceptions is related to its interpretation of European studies. Its focus on culture, and on the consequences of the European integration process for the European

1 "The History of the Idea of Europe," Course Manual, 1st term 1999-2000.

citizens make it different from other programmes in this field that concentrate either on European institutions or on social and economic structures.

The relevance of ideas and perceptions resonated in the first course manual of 1999: 'Several ideas, which have often been formed in the past, are at the root of present-day ideas about what Europe is, who belong to it and why European unity is being pursued.'2 This does not imply that we only paid attention to the so-called great thinkers and political elites, though, far from it. Cultural history may resemble intellectual history, or the history of ideas, but is much broader than that. In fact, as cultural historian Peter Burke has shown, it has since the 1970s developed into such a broad field that the border between, for instance, social history and cultural history is not easy to draw.3 Cultural approaches and themes have been adopted in many domains in the history discipline.

We also use a broad definition of cultural history, investigating ideas, ideologies but also political and social aspirations, taking into account the larger context in which the different ideas and values originated. Also our definition of Europe was, and is, comprehensive, problematising for instance the position of Russia in Europe in the past. For this introductory course we reason from a long timespan, presenting transnational contacts, similarities and differences in Europe's cultural history. The invention of the printing press, for instance, was a major contribution to the development of the Republic of Letters, a community of scholars in the late 17th and 18th century. We also lecture about major events, such as the French Revolution, which had an impact all over Europe, and about historical developments that contributed to values and ideas such as democracy and human rights. Religion obviously also has a place in the course: we teach about the role of the Roman Catholic church and Eastern Orthodoxy, but also about the influence of Islam and how people in Europe perceived themselves first and foremost as Christians in the Middle Ages.

Though political issues and European integration are taken on board, we do not dwell on the institutional history of European integration. In Groningen there are two separate course modules in place that cover this topic: one that focuses on the political "construction", the other on the legal "construction" of the EU and Europe. Apart from that, we always took great care not to present European integration as the only possible, logical outcome of processes in the past. European integration can only partially be explained by looking at past events. It was also not as unique as often presumed.4

Our critical attitude concerning a finalist take on the history of the events that led to the European Union is visible in an early lecture in this course module, on what Ine Megens called *Euro-nationalism*: the publications of authors who made the

2 Ibid.

3 Peter Burke, "Cultural History and Its Neighbours," *Culture & History* Digital Journal 1, no. 1 (2012): 1-9; Peter Burke, "Cultural History as Polyphonic History," *Arbor* 186, no. 743 (2010): 479-486.

4 See for instance Kiran Klaus Patel, "Provincialising European Union: Co-Operation and Integration in Europe in a Historical Perspective," *Contemporary European History* 22, no. 4 (2013): 649-673.

history of Europe subservient to their ideal of European integration. She criticised the writings of historians such as Dennis Hay and Jean-Baptise Duroselle. In their works from the 1950s and 1960s, Europe was presented as the cradle of civilisation and (western) European integration as the inevitable outcome of a historical process.5 Their historical analysis is often accompanied by a call to return to Christian values. Hendrik Brugmans, who was the first Rector of the Collège d'Europe in Bruges that was established in 1949, and an ardent supporter of the European Movement, went even further. His books include a passionate plea for a new future for a federal Europe, based on a common civilisation, in which religious (Christian) values play an important role.6 In the intriguing brochure *Does a European Conception of History Exist*, he argues that the national element should be understood from its European context instead of the other way round. Not one example could be given of important events in any national history that could be understood on its own, leaving aside the bigger European context.7 In this brochure he states that when – at the start of the Collège d'Europe – it was decided to include history as part of the curriculum, the idea had not been to "serve" European integration, but only to create a better understanding of the history of Europe.8 Yet, this amounted to much the same thing in the end.

This example illustrates that historiography needs to be understood in the context of the time when it was produced. Therefore historiography from later dates was introduced in the course as well, not only on European integration, also on the issue of modernisation and globalisation, and the analysis of colonial and imperial history.9 The question how to avoid eurocentrism is one of the key issues in world and global history – a discussion in which Janny de Jong is involved.10

5 Dennis Hay, *Europe: The Emergence of an Idea*. (Edinburgh: University Press, 1957); Jean-Baptiste Duroselle, *L'Idée de l'Europe dans l'histoire* (Paris: Denoel, 1965).

6 Henri Brugmans, *L'Idée Européenne 1920-1970.* 3rd rev.ed. Cahiers de Bruges, no. 26 (Bruges: De Tempel, 1970), 369-370; Hendrik Brugmans, *Crisis en roeping van het Westen. Twee en een halve eeuw Europese Cultuurgeschiedenis* (Haarlem: Tjeenk Willem, 1952); Hendrik Brugmans, *Europese momentopnamen. Keerpunten in de geschiedenis* (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1963). See on the first 'classical' writers on the European idea and the view that European Unity is a pre-determined, autonomous process, A.G. Harryvan, "De Historiografie van de Europese Integratie, 1945-1985," in *Europese Eenwording in Historisch Perspectief. Factoren van Integratie en Desintegratie*, ed. W.AF. Camphuis and C.G.J. Wildeboer-Schut (Zaltbommel: Europese Biliotheek, 1991), 22-45.

7 H. Brugmans, *Bestaat er een Europese Geschiedbeschouwing?* (Den Haag: Europese Beweging, n.d.) (approx. 1958), 5, 11.

8 Ibid., 3.

9 For recent overviews of European integration history, see: Michael Gehler, "'Europe', Europeanisations and their Meaning for European Integration Historiography," *Journal of European Integration History* 22, no. 1 (2016): 141-174; Wim P. van Meurs et al., *The Unfinished History of European Integration* (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018); Dipesh Chakrabarty, *Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference*, New edition with a new preface by the author, Princeton Studies in Culture/Power/History. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009); A.G. Hopkins, ed., *Globalisation in World History* (London: Pimlico, 2002).

10 Janny de Jong, "World History: A Brief Introduction" and "Globalisation as a Field of Study for Historians," in *World and Global History. Research and Teaching*, ed. Seija Jalagin, Susanna Tavera, Susanna, and Andrew Dilley, A CLIOHWORLD Reader (Pisa: Pisa University Press, 2011).

Another relevant issue that was discussed was the development of the term political culture, defined as attitudes, beliefs and values underpinning a particular political system.11 We showed how the development of the concept was a relatively recent phenomenon, starting with the classic study of American political scientists Almond and Verba, analysed subsequent interpretations and discussed how the concept might be useful to indicate changes in attitudes, beliefs and values in Europe.12

The main textbook that accompanies the course, Peter Rietbergen's *Europe: A Cultural History*, has been used all these years.13 Rietbergen's book was published in 1998 and has been revised twice since then. As Rietbergen himself puts forward, his idea was to combine two approaches in cultural history: both the history of ideas and ideologies, and what this meant in practice. This broad approach makes it attractive, yet as will be discussed, it is not in all respects ideal.

Why this book was written in the first place is an interesting story. The request came from Toon Hagen who at that time was dean of the Faculty of Arts at Radboud University of Nijmegen where Rietbergen was employed, and one of the 24 members of an international committee in Brussels that wanted to develop a book on "our" European history. However, because of a controversy regarding Rietbergen's criticism of the term holocaust – he considered the term inappropriate because it means 'sacrifice to the gods' – Rietbergen decided to withdraw the manuscript. The British publisher Routledge subsequently accepted it.14

It is relevant to note that the leading idea behind this book was indeed triggered by a European project to promote the idea of Europe. That is, however, not why we opted for it. In our opinion, the book provides a neat and concise overview of the cultural, political and societal developments in Europe, and it is also easy to read. One of the students once labelled it as "armchair reading" but students also argue that it is difficult to distinguish what is really important. We agree. Indeed, the book could present the overall argument better.

11 This definition is used by Wynn Grant, 'Political Culture" in *The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics*, ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, 3rd ed (Oxford University Press, 2009).

12 Gabriel Abraham Almond and Sidney Verba, *The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations* (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016).

13 Peter Rietbergen, *Europe: A Cultural History,* Third, revised and augmented edition (Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015), xxxviii.

14 Bea Ros, "Interview Peter Rietbergen," *Radboud Magazine* 46 (2015): 37-41.

**Figure 1. Some of the textbooks and notes that were used in the course**

The biggest problem for our course module, however, are the chapters on the twentieth and twenty-first century. That part is too short to fit our aim with the course. More important is that Rietbergen seems to narrow down his interpretation of cultural history here, and does not discuss the relevance of European integration for societal and cultural matters. Therefore, we added additional literature. That was especially necessary after 2006, because the overall structure of the Euroculture programme then changed as well.

# **3 2006 – Now: "Cultural History: Domains of a European Identity"**

In 2006 Euroculture itself turned from a 60 into a 90 ECTS programme when it became an Erasmus Mundus Master Course Programme, a status that it has possessed since then (it was renewed in 2012 and 2017). In 2011 it was decided to add 30 ECTS more to the programme, to offer our students more time to write a thesis in the 4th semester and also to include training in writing a research- or projectbased (funding) application. Students could then build on the 3rd semester experience and enhance their future job prospects. This was a wise decision; since then the vast majority of the students finish the programme within the scheduled time frame.

As a consequence of the extension of the programme the course in cultural history became a 10 ECTS module. First of all, time was really too short to teach European cultural history in just 7 weeks, while basic knowledge about European history of a great many students was very limited at best. In addition, this module was partly restructured in order to function as an introduction to the Euroculture

Master programme as a whole, and to offer training in research and writing a research-based paper. Because writing a substantial thesis of in total 30 ECTS (research portfolio and thesis) concludes the master, it was considered of great importance that the students would be trained in conducting research and writing a substantial academic paper already in the first semester of the programme. The course module since then starts with a series of lectures, introducing main developments in European cultural history. These lectures refer back to and build upon the textbook of Peter Rietbergen. The second part consists of group assignments and is concluded with an individual research paper that students have to present in class, which is peer-reviewed by fellow students, and assessed by the lecturers.

We decided not to add another textbook on twentieth century history next to Peter Rietbergen's book. Instead we introduced books like Gerard Delanty's *Inventing Europe* and Delanty and Chris Rumford's *Rethinking Europe*, exploring a social constructivist theory of Europeanisation as a response to processes of globalisation.15 In *Imagining Europe. Myth, Memory, and Identity,* Chiara Bottici and Benoît Challand look into theoretical approaches to identity, distinguishing between political myths and narratives.16 Although these books were interesting in themselves, they in the end do not offer a suitable and comprehensive framework for the course. In our opinion, their focus on identity construction does not fully suit our aim, because there is no link to actual historical developments. Therefore, we started using additional literature, connected to current themes in the contemporary history of Europe.

In due course, guiding and supervising the individual research papers has gained more weight. Because the course module initially counted 5 ECTS, the term paper students had to write could only be rather limited in scope and size. Gradually the term paper grew in size: from a rather small assignment of 1500-2000 words, to 2500 words, and from 2014 onwards it was an academic paper of 6000 words based on 700-1000 pages of scholarly literature.

Throughout the semester, the student is guided through the various steps in developing and writing an academic paper, from brainstorming about the topic, a paper proposal, discussing the introduction, to presenting and peer-reviewing a draft paper. This is done in collaboration with another course module, Eurocompetence I. For the final version of the paper, the student can benefit from feedback in class from both fellow students and lecturers.

The topics of the research paper need to be related to the construction of Europe from a historical perspective. In the beginning we were rather generous and accepted also topics from early modern history on, for instance, the Grand Tour.

15 Gerard Delanty, *Inventing Europe. Idea, Identity, Reality* (Houndsmills, etc.: Macmillan, 1995); Gerard Delanty and Chris Rumford, *Rethinking Europe. Social Theory and the Implications of Europeanisation* (London: Routledge, 2005); Gerard Delanty, *The Cosmopolitan Imagination: The Renewal of Critical Social Theory* (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

16 Chiara Bottici and Benoît Challand, *Imagining Europe. Myth, Memory, and Identity* (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013).

However, also because the thesis guidelines of Euroculture state that the thesis needs to focus on a 'clearly defined problem located within a contemporary context', 17 we now focus on the last two centuries. All individual papers must fit within one of the four specific themes in current history we highlight each year. This resulted in a better-structured course module.