Bridging The Divide Between The United States And The Muslim World Through Arts And Ideas: Possibilities And Limitations

Session VI Re–envisioning U.S. Cultural Diplomacy

In this session, participants were asked to propose practical steps for government and private institutions involved in cultural exchange to maximize their abilities to meaningfully promote mutual understanding on a person–to–person as well as state–to–state level. Moderator Stephen Heintz, President of The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, opened by asking the speakers to directly address how U.S. cultural diplomacy can be used to achieve the vision that President Obama described in Cairo. Heintz acknowledged the many structural, operational, and political challenges that organizations face, and, since the panelists were primarily American, asked Muslim and non–American participants to actively contribute to the floor discussion.

Frank Hodsoll, Chair of the Center for Arts and Culture at George Mason University and former head of the National Endowment for the Arts, addressed the session’s theme of “next steps” through the lens of encouraging cultural exchanges. He highlighted the need for public and private sectors to facilitate exchanges large and small. To his mind, the public sector should focus on specific public policy goals, while the private sector should focus on artistic or individual goals. He also noted that the private sector includes NGOs, corporations, educational and religious institutions, and foundations for which culture is not the main thrust.

Hodsoll suggested that long–term cultural relationships are best nurtured at a distance from government and at a peer–to–peer level: parent to parent, artist to artist, scientist to scientist. The government can help with development, education, and health efforts, but its cultural resources are minuscule compared to the private sector. Today, government institutions lack the necessary variety of cultural affairs officers, as well as the capacity to train them.

Hodsoll compared the situation in 2009 with the challenges that the U.S. faced in the Cold War, suggesting that the most salient difference is the involvement of non–state actors. During the Cold War, the conflicting ideologies were held by nation–states; today, conflict involves smaller groups. In the contemporary era, global power is increasingly defined by networks: by what persons or organizations are connected to what others. Hodsoll referenced a recent speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in which she stated that now is the time to deploy the tools of diplomacy and redefine political engagement between actors — including NGOs, businesses, and individuals.

One of the great sources of America’s national power is the strength of its civil society, Hodsoll stated. American civil society organizations today are engaged in numerous overseas programs, but the government knows little about them — and nor do they always know about one another’s efforts. Hodsoll suggested that these efforts — private and public — could benefit from the increased use of new technologies, including text messaging. Cell phones are prevalent in the Muslim world, even in places where access to the Internet is rare.

Hodsoll concluded by suggesting that cultural engagement can help end the “cycle of suspicion” between American and Muslim world societies, but that the United States needs to devote more public resources to the effort, as well as to strengthen civil societies’ capacity to engage directly with one another.

The second speaker, William Luers, former ambassador and recently retired President of the United Nations Association of the United States, looked to American history for other models of cultural diplomacy. Luers began by noting that most of his diplomatic experience took place during the Cold War, and suggested that while we must find new ways to communicate, there are lessons that can be learned from that period.

Luers noted that July 2009 marked the 50th anniversary of the first American National Exhibition in Moscow, which introduced Russian people to American lifestyles and technologies, and led to many other exhibits that toured the Soviet Union for the following 30 years. American presidents personally committed large funds to promoting these programs, and major cultural figures contributed their efforts to make these exhibitions successful. Luers noted that he himself escorted Edward Albee, John Steinbeck, John Cheever, and John Updike to the Soviet Union and saw first–hand the impact that these cultural exchanges had in both directions.

However, Luers stated that the current situation is considerably different. Cultural exchange during the Cold War was grounded in a competition of ideas and the belief that one side was superior. The United States cannot hold this point of view regarding Islam: today, the challenge is to blend cultures rather than compete. Whereas the Cold War was a conflict between two superpowers of relatively equal weight, the Islamic world sees itself as a victim of interventionism and colonialism; engagement requires the U.S. to be far more sensitive.

First, the Obama government should commit to training every major U.S. official in the basics of the language and culture of the people with whom he or she interacts. This will give their positions respect and credibility. The U.S. should also commit to symbolic acts that may involve cultural organizations, such as a recent proposal that an Iranian presidential candidate visit New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, which has an extensive Islamic arts collection. Luers concluded by suggesting that at the governmental level, the primary objective should be the identification and public funding of long–term programs.

The third speaker, Anne Imelda Radice, Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), commented on how she tries to enact the principle of mutual respect through her institute. The institute, she explained, encompasses 18,000 museums and 23,000 libraries and operates on a $300 million annual budget, $50 million of which is dedicated to international efforts. IMLS’s recent international work includes adapting the National Endowment of the Arts’s “Big Read” program for Egypt, Mexico, and China,26 and sending 36,000 sets of reproductions of American art abroad. In partnership with the American Film Institute, IMLS imports films, even those critical of the United States, to expose Americans to new international voices. She stressed the importance of outreach efforts that extend beyond America’s big cities and reach the general public.

The fourth speaker, Sharon Memis, Director of the British Council USA, presented a case study of the British Council’s cultural exchange efforts across the globe. She began by noting that the British Council was created by royal charter in 1934 in Cairo to combat the threat of fascism.27 However, over time, the organization has come to operate at arm’s length from the government. It has offices in such controversial locations as Burma, Palestine, and Zimbabwe, and had offices in Iran until they were shut earlier in 2009. The British Council tries to act as a “window on the world” wherever it operates.

Memis defined its activities as “cultural relations” rather than cultural diplomacy, noting that “diplomacy” implies a certain official political agenda rather than a real exchange aimed at earning trust. One of the challenges of an enterprise such as the British Council is setting goals and knowing how to measure success. The Council has recently focused on strengthening its strategic framework, focusing more on the intention behind each program and tracking its progress, rather than simply supporting “art for art’s sake.”

As an example, Memis cited a major new project, “Our Shared Europe,” which launched in late 2008 and aims to change perceptions of Muslims in the United Kingdom and Europe more broadly. Despite their shared history and the 15 million Muslims in western Europe today, Europeans harbor a deep ignorance about who Muslims are. Issues like immigration and recent efforts to keep Turkey out of the EU have resulted in writing Islam out of Europe’s history. “Our Shared Europe” tries to shape a new shared narrative in which Muslims are an integral part of Europe’s past, present, and future. Until Europe can come to terms with Islam “at home,” Memis suggested, there is little point in trying to build bridges internationally. The goal is to make everybody proud of their origins — and to communicate that Europeans live in a multi–cultural, not monolithic, environment.

Discussant Margaret Ayers, President of the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, began by noting that since the end of the Cold War, there has been a major disinvestment in the arts by both public and private sectors in the U.S. She linked this to the culture wars of the 1990s and to the 1999 elimination of the United States Information Agency (USIA), the American public diplomacy organization that was folded into the Department of State. From 2001 to 2007, the State Department’s annual budget for initiatives using the arts as cultural diplomacy never exceeded $7 million, while by comparison the British Council spends nearly one billion dollars annually on cultural relations. Even the Netherlands spends $13 million per year solely to promote Dutch art in the United States.

Ayers expressed her hope that the Obama administration would strengthen the United States’s commitment to international cultural exchange and would help create a unified vision for the NEA, NEH, and other government bodies, which currently have widely differing mandates. A commitment of this kind will require not only more money, but also more effective fin ancial management, and the pursuit of long–term efforts by various actors based on a single vision.

Floor discussion

The first participant contrasted the current situation in the United States with that of France, where the Sarkozy government has dedicated major resources to cultural relations. Whereas for example only 3% of books published in the United States are translations of works originally published in other languages, works in translation make up 45% of literary output in France. This is not just a government problem; American publishing houses cannot afford to publish world literature as long as the American public shows no curiosity in translated works. Nevertheless, introducing writers from different cultures to one another and to readers could begin shifting awareness.

Another participant agreed, stressing the importance of an authentic movement that can educate and interest average Americans about the cultures beyond their own borders. How do we avoid “preaching to the choir” (those who are already interested in and knowledgeable about the Muslim world) and bring the message to the wider public, the participant asked.

Another participant noted that the United States Department of State’s annual budget for international exchange programs, which includes educational programs such as the Fulbright Exchange as well as arts programs, is in the hundreds of millions. The State Department considers cultural relations a high priority, but is dependent on Congress to allocate a budget sufficient to undertake these efforts.

Cultural exchange is not always symmetrical, another participant recognized. In his view, many Americans are genuinely interested in learning about “the other.” However, artists from Muslim cultures may be more interested in raising their visibility or acquiring technical skills. In order to be successful, exchange programs need to be mutually beneficial.

Cultural exchanges are often described as exercises in “soft power.” One participant noted that “soft power” does not exist on its own: it is connected to and contingent on “hard power,” and can only be ethical if it is self–critical. Otherwise, it is coercive in nature and people will confront rather than engage with it. Another participant agreed that soft power or cultural diplomacy will not work if the exercise is perceived as aiding repression or oppression or seeking hegemony. This is not an issue for the United States alone: the participant noted that people in Pakistan often ask him how to improve Pakistan’s image abroad. The answer, he said, is for them to improve their reality.

American hard power has not always been exercised in a negative or hostile way vis–à–vis the Muslim world, a participant pointed out. In Bosnia and Kosovo as well as during the Suez crisis, it was used to positive ends as far as Muslims are concerned. It is the U.S.’s continuing support of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands that is at the root of the rage felt in a large part of the Muslim world. The American presence in Afghanistan is also perceived as an occupation, as is its presence in Iraq. As long as these perceived occupations persist, the impact of soft power or cultural diplomacy is very limited.

Other participants focused on the potential shift in relations represented by President Obama’s June 4th speech in Cairo. Obama addressed Muslims as a mature audience, treating them with respect and understanding, while also speaking to them about difficult topics like violence and Israel. Even well–intentioned Westerners generally speak as if Islam is a global monolith; Obama reminded his Muslim audience of the fact that, according to the Quran, it is the conscience of the individual person that is responsible to God for his or her behavior, without any intermediary. Another participant noted that President Obama’s speech not only acknowledged that extremists do not represent the majority of the Muslim world, but he also recognized the essential fact that Islam is a part of the American story.

President Obama’s speech is a good beginning, another panelist said, but the United States needs continuing internal diplomacy to convince Americans to view Muslims as a positive force and as part of the global community. Americans’ willingness to elect an African–American president shows that a widespread shift in perception is possible. Once the West’s perception of the Muslim world changes, it is possible to conceive of real political change. It is not necessary to wait until the situation in the Middle East is fixed for effective cultural exchange.

Another participant stressed that, in order to change public opinion in the Muslim world, Americans need to engage at official levels. Cultural diplomacy cannot just be left to the private sector, which is too subject to market forces. The government must get involved in order to realize a consistent strategic structure for dialogue. On the other hand, another participant noted that one reason for the lack of “long–term” strategies at the federal level is that any truly long–term vision would exceed a Presidential term, making it politically and logistically difficult. While measuring progress is important, it is difficult to assess long–term impact on a month to month or even year to year basis.

Long–term planning is an objective in the Muslim world as well as the West, a participant commented. Several Middle Eastern countries have opened “branch campuses” of Western universities; building educational institutions takes a long time but increases local capabilities more so than importing a model from elsewhere. Yet these university campuses may offer new opportunities for exchange, such as videoconferencing between students taking comparable classes in Kuwait and New Hampshire, for example. These programs could be difficult to control in any direct way, but could be low–cost, immediate, and effective in the short term.

Discussion turned to the need to bring artists and institutions together to improve strategic planning. Training practitioners in the private sphere, as Luers had suggested for government officials, would help make cultural organizations’ work more effective as well. In this participant’s opinion, many U.S. performing arts institutions are simply ill–prepared to implement programs on a large scale. Another participant pointed to the lack of a national cultural organization as the underlying reason. Funding, logistics, and other hurdles restrict projects like “Muslim Voices: Arts and Ideas” to major urban centers, where they reach a geographically limited audience. How do we reach people from California to Oklahoma to Rhode Island? One suggestion was to mobilize American popular culture and celebrity in support of the arts.

Heintz asked the speakers to offer final thoughts. Hodsoll suggested several next steps, including inventorying the efforts of various institutions, public as well as private, and assessing their impact, positive and negative, to develop a long–term strategy. He encouraged the search for areas of common artistic interest between cultures, such as hip hop music, as well as for new and improved channels of distribution so that cultural exchanges can have an impact on mainstream audiences. He also noted that there will always be government policies that are unpopular in other places. The role of cultural diplomacy is to create other contexts for communication, even when people disagree over policy.

Ayers directed her suggestions at the Obama administration, encouraging it to adopt a program of strategic action regarding cultural initiatives that would combine long–term commitment with greater financial support. She also suggested that the administration oversee the creation of a semi–autonomous government institution, such as the now–defunct Arts International, that can train artists from abroad.

Luers emphasized the need for new terminology. The terms “soft power” and “cultural diplomacy” both shoehorn art into a functional role. Instead, arts should be thought of as a way to communicate on the basis of parity, which also requires being far more learned, careful, and sensitive to the needs of others. He agreed that it may be time for the establishment of a new USIA–like institution that can take arts initiatives out of the realm of the State Department. The government must change its cynical attitude towards art.

Radice, too, saw the need for a new U.S. institution that can receive funds from government and private sources and can spend them internationally. She suggested that organizations focus on programs that can be carried out over a two–to–three–year period and that other institutions can mine for “best practices.”

Memis separated cultural relations from the notion of “soft power” and insisted on organizations’ need for a transparent long–term strategy in the form of a publicly available plan. The Muslim world recognizes propaganda and is not fooled by it. The British Council views the arts as one of the most important tools for cultural relations, but not in an instrumentalist way. Hence it does not commission work, but rather puts artists together in a given context — including outside major metropolitan areas. Making public subsidies available for this type of effort is crucial.

Heintz drew the session to a close with a summary of several key observations, conclusions, and recommendations. Among the themes that arose over the course of the conference were: the need to recognize the great diversity that exists within the Muslim world, even as this complicates initiatives aimed at dialogue; the inherent value of the arts as a tool for creating mutual understanding, despite the challenges of the current political climate; and the importance of approaching the Muslim world with respect, empathy, and parity, as opposed to the climate of competition that prevailed during the Cold War.

Heintz noted that the suggestions directed at cultural institutions focused on the need for cooperation, communication, and long–term strategic planning. Institutions should target artists and venues outside those in the major cities and those that are already internationally known. In order for these initiatives to succeed, many participants felt that they must begin with listening and learning about “the other,” including Muslim communities in the West. The corporate sector, as well as the non–profit community, needs to be convinced to provide financial support for these endeavors.

The U.S. government must also commit significant funding for arts initiatives aimed at Muslim–Western understanding. Many participants felt the need for a government body, separate from the Department of State, dedicated to fostering cultural initiatives. This organization must recognize the inherent power of art and culture in their own right, not just as political tools. Finally, the federal government must amend legislation that hampers these initiatives, such as overly tight visa restrictions and certain terms of the Patriot Act, which currently discourage organizations from bringing Muslim artists to the U.S. and limit U.S. funding institutions’ ability to make grants in the Muslim world.

(10 of 42) Next >>

Back to the top.

© 2006, The Center for Dialogues: Islamic World - U.S. - The West

Site Map

Site by Bianchi