common ground: cultural action as a route to …

Matarasso,F.,2017,CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment(Revised03/17).Thispaper

isanupdatedversionofatextoriginallypublishedinAugust2007intheCommunityDevelopmentJournal,(2007)42(4):449-45.Original text©2007OxfordUniversityPressandCommunityDevelopmentJournal.2007This text ©2017FrançoisMatarasso:thisworkisdistributedundertheCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives4.0Internationallicence.Youarefreetocopy,distribute,ordisplaythedigitalversiononconditionthat:youattributetheworktotheauthor;theworkisnotusedforcommercialpurposes;andyoudonotalter,transform,oraddtoit.

COMMONGROUND:CULTURALACTIONASAROUTETOCOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT

FrancoisMatarassoRevisedandupdatedversionofatextoriginallypublishedin

TheCommunityDevelopmentJournal,(2007)42(4):449-458.

Abstract

Culturalactionhasbeenusedtopromotecommunitydevelopmentforatleastforty

yearsintheUK,oftenwithgoodresults.Duringthatperiod,thetheories,values,and

approachesofprofessionalshavevariedandevolved,buttherehasbeenanoticeable

shiftinfocus–particularlyinculturalpolicy–fromcollectivetoindividualoutcomes,

inlinewiththegrowingindividualizationofpolicysincethe1980s.Yetthepotentialof

culturalactiontobringpeopletogetherandtobuildafoundationforlastingcommu-

nitydevelopmentworkremainsimportant.

Thisarticleconsiderstheprocessesbywhicharts-basedcommunityprojectscanlead

tothedevelopmentofbothinformalandformalcollectiveorganization,andtheirpo-

tentialinempowerment.Centraltothisprocess,itisargued,isculture’sfocusonpeo-

ple’scapacitiesandinterests,ratherthanonexternallydefinedproblems.Thepaper

drawsontwocontrastingexamplestoshowthecontinuingimportanceofculturalac-

tioninverydifferentsocialandeconomicsituations:myresearchintovoluntaryarts

developmentinruralEnglandandWales,andmyexperienceofcommunitycultural

projectsinsoutheastEurope.

CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 2

Introduction:therecenthistoryofcommunityartsEuropeanideasaboutthesocialfunctionofart,whichcanbetracedbacktoClassicalGreece,

forman intellectualhistory thatsaysasmuchabouthowpeoplehaveviewedsocietyas

about theirconceptsofart (BelfioreandBennett,2008).That isparticularlyclear today,

whentheartshaveacquiredanunusuallyprominentpositioninpublicpolicy.Theyarepro-

posedasameansofpromotingurbanregeneration(Gateshead),tourism(Bilbao),andthe

creativeeconomy(Singapore);theyhavealsobeenseen,particularlyinWesternEurope,as

awayofachievingvarioussocialobjectives.

InBritain,thelatestversionofthisapproachwassparkedbysocial,cultural,andpolitical

changesinthe1960s,andledtotheemergenceofnewformsofsocially-engagedtheatre

andcommunityarts.Whilethelatterwas,andremains,ahighlyvariedfieldofpractice,in

the1970sandearly1980sanimportantstrandwasconcernedwithcommunitydevelop-

ment.Practitionerssoughttostrengthencommunityactivismandorganizationwiththeaim

ofenablingdisenfranchisedgroupstorepresenttheirintereststothoseinpower,especially

localgovernment.Characteristicformsatthetimeincludedmurals(inspiredbyworkinChi-

cagoandMexico),printshopslikePaddington,SeeRedandBasement(Kenna,1986),and

communityfestivals(Crummy,1992).Someprojectsbecameinvolvedincampaigns:Corby

CommunityArtssupportedresistancetoclosureofthetown’ssteelworks,andotherswere

involvedinworkaroundthe1984–85miners’strike.Butbytheendofthe1980s,suchdirect

politicalinvolvement(thathad,inanycase,beenoneapproachamongseveral)waswaning,

alongwithdirectengagementwithcommunitydevelopmentpractice.Therewere,andre-

main,exceptionstothistrend,suchasthedisabilityartsmovementthathascontinuedto

useartspracticetoarticulategroupperspectivesandpoliticalpositions(Hevey,1992).

Theindividualizationofcommunityartsinthe1990s

Althoughthesectorgrewsteadilythroughoutthe1980sand1990s,itdependedlessonArts

Councilfundingthanonarangeofothersources,amongwhichlocalgovernmentwaspre-

eminent.Thesefundsoftencamefromyouth,education,andregenerationbudgetswitha

rangeofovert,ifvague,socialobjectiveswhich,whilecompatiblewithcommunityartsprac-

tice,focusedonpersonalratherthancommunityoutcomes.Healthandsocialcaresimilarly

emphasizedtheneedsofindividualsratherthanthecollectiveinterestsofgroups,soarts

projectsfundedthroughthesesourcestendedtobedrawnawayfrombroaderconcerns;

asever,therewereexceptions,suchasthehealthpromotionworkofGatesheadCouncil

communityartsteamorEastMidlandsShape’sworkwithmentalhealthserviceuserson

careinthecommunity(Cullen,1991).Sincefundingwasusuallygrantedonaprojectbasis

–atrendthatincreasedwiththearrivalofNationalLotteryfundinginthe1990s–itwas

oftendifficulttosustainitandtoworkonlonger-termcommunityobjectives.

Itisarguablethatthesechangeswereunderpinned,evenmadenecessary,byashiftinBrit-

ishpublicpolicyover25yearsfromthecollectivetowardstheindividual.Theprivatization

CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 3

ofresponsibilityforchangehasaffectedcommunityartspractice,asithasothersectors.

Thus,althoughtherehasbeensignificantinvestmentincommunity-basedartsactivitysince

1997,notleastthroughincreasesinfundingtoArtsCouncilEngland,policyexpectationsof

theworkcentrearoundarangeofpersonaloutcomessuchastheacquisitionoftransfera-

bleskillsandconfidence-building(ACE,2005).Itsartisticpurposeandvaluegetsinadequate

attentioneven fromarts fundingagencies. Innovativepolicyworkon theartsandsocial

inclusionwasundertakenintheearlyyearsofthenewLabourGovernment(DCMS,1999),

butitsimplementationhastendedtofallbackonsimplisticconceptsofpracticeandper-

sonalchangethatareofdoubtfullastingvalueandquestionableethicalintent.

Thesechangesaretosomedegreesymbolizedbythegradualabandonmentoftheterm

‘community arts’ in favour ofmore seemingly neutral alternatives such as ‘community-

basedarts’or‘participatoryarts’.Thewordempowermentisrarelyusedandappearstobe

regardedbymany,perhapsunawareoftheconcept’splaceincommunitydevelopment,as

naiveorsuspicious.Today,althoughsomeartists inBritainareusingnewapproachesto

collectiveissuesinacontemporaryparalleltothepracticedescribedabove,thesectoris

moregenerallycharacterizedbyaconcernwithindividualratherthancommunitydevelop-

ment(Matarasso2013).

CommunitydevelopmentpracticeandartstouringinruralEngland

SpiersandBodenatCalvertonMiner’sWelfare2003

Twothingsarenotableaboutruraltouringinthepresentcontext:howtheyworkandthe

However,theuseoftheartsandculturalactiontosupportcommunitydevelopmentre-

mainsavalidpracticeandtheideasthatemergedfromtheBritishcommunityartssector

CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 4

fromthelate1960sonwardshavebeenasourceofinfluenceandinspirationtoartistswork-

inginmanydifferentcontextsinBritainandabroad.Thedevelopmentofruraltouringnet-

works illustrates how the community artsmovement’s values andpracticehave shaped

workinseeminglyverydifferentfields.

ThefirstruraltouringnetworkswereestablishedinLincolnshire,Hampshire,andSouthEast

Walesin1980,withtheintentionofimprovingaccessbypeoplelivinginruralareastopro-

fessional arts performance (Matarasso, 2004). The work grew slowly at first, with six

schemesestablishedby1989and12by1994.Sincethen,however,therehasbeenarapid

expansion,partlyassistedbythecreationof theNationalRuralTouringForum(NRTF) in

1997.By2007,therewereabout40suchschemesinEngland,mostlyorganizedonacounty

basis,anationalschemeinWales,andthree inScotland.1Themodelalsoexists inother

countries,includingFrance,NewZealand,Australia,andIreland(O’Leary2006).

RuralTouringaudienceinLincolnshire,2003

IntheUK,despitevariationsofpracticeandvision,theschemesessentiallyfollowthesame

approach, acting as a link between (mostly) rural communities and professional theatre

companies,musicians,andotherperformers.Asaresult,tensofthousandsofpeoplehave

accesstoarteventsincommunityvenues.In2003,theEnglishtouringschemessupported

3168performancesand588workshopsforacombinedaudienceofnearly195,000people,

1 In2017,thereare25schemesinEngland,fourinScotlandandoneinWales,asaresultofcost-savingmergersandcutbacksinpublicfunding.Seehttp://www.ruraltouring.org/members(accessed14.03.2017)

CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 5

atatotalcostof£2.3million(Matarasso,2004).2Theschemesthemselvesarefinancedby

localgovernmentandtheArtsCouncilsinEngland,Scotland,andWalesandsoareableto

offervolunteerpromotersshowsatreducedrates.In2003,1664promotersputonshows.

Mostareconstitutedcommunitygroups–typically,thevillagehallcommittee–withper-

hapsonein10promotersbeinganindividualworkingwithinformalsupport.

resultstheyobtain.Eacheventisapartnershipbetweentheartist,theschemeasagent,

andthevolunteerpromoters,whichevenlydistributespower,risk,andreward.Promoters

areofferedaselectionofworktochoosefromandthegroupstreatthisprocesscarefully

anddemocratically,oftendecidingbymajorityvote.Oncethebookingismadepromoters

takeonresponsibilitiesrangingfrommarketingtheeventtohostingtheartistsandpaying

anagreedfeeattheendofthenight.Thiscanbefinanciallyriskysincethevenuemaynot

accommodatelargenumberswhileastrongcommitmenttoinclusionkeepsticketprices

low.Promoterssometimeslosemoneybut, iftheydowell,theywillmakeasurplusthat

offsetspastlossesorhelpswithvillagehallrunningcosts.Thereisalsoasignificantsocial

risk,sincesomeshows–whichthepromoterswillhavepubliclyendorsed–maybedisliked

orprovokecontroversy.However,theessentialpoint isthatthismodelgivescommunity

groupsahighdegreeofcontrolofwhattheydoandhowitisfinanced:iteffectivelyplaces

decisionsabouttheuseofpublicsubsidyintheirhands.

Theimportanceofthisforcommunitydevelopmentshouldnotbeunderestimated.Apart

fromtheirownvalueassocialandculturalevents,puttingontheseperformancesdemands

weeksofplanningandlocalcooperation.Afterwards,thememoryofsharedexperiencesis

key to community cohesion. There is a genuineequalitybetween thepartners– artists,

agency,andpromoters–thatisfarfromthepatricianrootsofmoststateculturalprovision.

Theeffectsofthatempowermentcanbeseeninthosecommunitiesthathavegoneonto

promoteotherperformancesindependently(e.g.Lowdham,Nottinghamshire)and,more

unusually,thosethathavedevelopedotherculturalandsocialactivitiesasaresultofthe

experience,confidence,andskillsgainedthroughruraltouring(Ashbrittle,Somerset;Bergh

Apton,Norfolk;orTerrington,NorthYorkshire)(Matarasso,2004).

Communitydevelopmentandculturalactivisminsouth-eastEuropeRuralEnglandfacescomplexproblems,but it isrelativelywell-endowed intermsofeco-

nomic,social,andculturalcapital.Cancommunityartspracticebeaseffectiveinmoredis-

advantagedsituations?Experienceinsomeofthepoorestruralcommunitiesofsoutheast

Europesuggeststhatitisindeedtransferabletotheseverydifferentsituations.In1999,I

2 Despitecutbacksinlocalauthorityfunding,between2004and2015,thenumberofpromotinggroupsinEnglandincreasedby44%to2,407.Audiencesroseby43%andnownumber278,000.Theproportionofavailableticketssoldhasrisenfrom67%to76%,andtherehasbeena15%real-termsincreaseinboxofficeincomeoverthepe-riod.(Matarasso2015:23).

CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 6

wascommissionedbytheKingBaudouinFoundation(Belgium)tohelpdevelopanewpro-

grammeaimedatsupportingcommunitydevelopmentthroughlocalculturalprojects.The

‘LivingHeritage’programmewastobedeliveredinsouth-eastEuropewherethefoundation

wasalreadyactive in childprotectionandethnic relationswork.Basedon research into

community-basedheritageworkintheUK,Ireland,SwedenandBelgium,aswellasBritish

communityartspractice,aseriesofprinciplesweredevelopedtoguidetheprogramme:

- Demonstratinglocalbenefit;

- Sustainableeconomicdevelopment;

- Supportingvoluntarycommitment;

- Anincrementalapproach;

- Flexibilityandresponsiveness;

- Leadershipandaclearvision;

- Accessiblemanagement;

- Opennessandhonesty;

- Makingfriendswiththemedia;and

- ‘Digwhereyoustand’.

ThelastprinciplewasborrowedfromtheLivingArchiveProject inMiltonKeynes(UK). It

wasintendedtoconveythateverycommunityhasheritageorculturalresourcesthatare

importanttothem,andinrespectofwhichtheyhaveuniqueexpertise.LivingHeritagetook

averybroadviewofwhatconstitutesheritage:folklore,buildings,oralhistory,thenatural

environment,contemporaryarts,musicanddancetraditions,festivals,foodculture,muse-

umsandcommunityeventswereallconsideredvalid.Overtime,itbecameclearthatthe

essential criterion was that the people proposing the project cared about it and could

demonstrateasimilarcommitmentinthewidercommunity.

LivingHeritageGroupinByalaCherkva,Bulgaria2004

CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 7

Theprinciplesprovidedguidanceaboutactionthatshouldnotjustleadtosuccessfulout-

comes,butdosothroughaprocessofcapacityandconfidencebuildingthatequippedpar-

ticipants to undertake further self-directed work. They were concerned as much with

clarifyingvaluesandwaysofworkingaswithtechnicalaspectsofprojectdelivery.Aboveall,

theprincipleswereintendedtoguide,nottoprescribe–atoolforthinkingthroughsitua-

tionsandideas.Inspecificcircumstances,oneormorewouldnotbeappropriateorrele-

vant:whatmatteredwasthatpeoplehadthoughtaboutanddiscussedtheissuesandknew

whysomethingdidordidnotapplytothem.

Parkrestorationproject,Kratovo,LivingHeritageMacedonia2003

TheLivingHeritageprogrammewaslaunchedinMarch2001inSkopje(Macedonia),and

subsequentlydevelopedinBulgaria,Romania,andBosniaHerzegovina(Matarasso,2005).

Overthenextfouryears,140communityheritageprojectsweresupported,mostlyinsmall,

often remote rural communities (thoughurbanprojectsalso tookplace inSofia,Brasov,

Bitola, Sarajevoandelsewhere). Ineach country, localpartnersmanaged thegrantpro-

grammeandprovidedtraining,technicalsupport,andotherresourceswithhelpfromex-

ternal specialists.Between2001and2005,about€2.2millionwas invested in theLiving

HeritageprogrammebytheKingBaudouinFoundationanditsfinancialpartners,notably

theSorosFoundation.Theprogrammemethodologyhadanumberofdistinctiveaspects.

First,LivingHeritagewasnotopentoapplicationsfromexistingorganizations.Becauseit

aimed to supportmarginalized anddisempowered communitieswithout the capacity to

competeinsuchaprocess,projectswereidentifiedthroughfieldworkandmeetingswith

communitiestodiscusslocalneedsandideas.Asaresult,manyprojectswereledbyteams

withnopreviousexperienceofprojectdevelopmentor sometimesofworking together.

CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 8

Theybecameorganizations,formallyandinformallyconstituted,throughtheLivingHerit-

ageprocess.Evenwheretheprojectswereledbyexistingvoluntaryorganizations,likethe

chitalishtethatformauniqueculturalinfrastructureinBulgaria,theprogrammewasable

toreachcommunitieswhohadnotpreviouslyhadexternalfundingorsupport.Thiscon-

tributedtoaveryhighsuccessrate,bothinthenumberofsuccessfulapplicants,andinthe

proportionthatachievedtheirobjectives.Just7%oftheprojectsfailedtodelivertheirmu-

tuallyagreedgoals;ofthe,93%whichdid,manyexceededtheirbestexpectations.

Secondly,theprogrammeprovidedverysubstantialnon-financialsupport.Someofthiswas

formal training: every project teamparticipated in two residentialworkshops, about six

monthsapart,beforereceivingtheirgrants.But informalsupportwasequally important.

Sitevisits,specialistassistancethroughlocalexperts,supportinnegotiatingwithpublicbod-

ies,evensimplybeingabletophoneaprojectmanagerinacrisis,wereallessentialtohelp-

ingprojectteamsbuildskills,confidenceandexperience.

Thirdly,thegrantsofferedweregenerallysmall.Indeed,astheprogrammedeveloped,they

gotsmaller,sothattheaveragegrantin2005wasjustunder€6,000.Sincefuturelocalgrant

aidwasunlikely, itwasessential to avoid creating financial dependency. LivingHeritage

grantshadtoenableaprocessoflocalcapacitybuildingandorganizationaldevelopment

thatwouldleaveeachcommunitybetterabletoworkcollectivelytowardssharedgoals.

Afinalnotableaspectoftheprogrammewasitscapacitytofosterahugediversityofwork.

Projects includedmajorbuilding restoration (Bitola,ByalaCherkva), environmental cam-

paigns(Ipoteşti,Tusnad),oralhistory(CherniVit,Ivanovo),crafts(Tetovo,Šipovo),theatre

(Darjiu,SatuMare),festivals(Catici),folklore(Oresh),video(Lagera),andmuchmore.Work-

ingwithpeople’sinterestsusuallymeantthattheyhadexpertiseinthesubjectandreduced

dependenceonexternaladvisors.Theprogramme’srespectfor,andreadinesstoinvestin,

whatthecommunitythoughtimportantwasavitalsteptowardsempowerment.

Thatinvestmentwaswholehearted.Thoughthereweregrantconditions,theyappliedto

projectmanagement,notitscentralpurpose.Inthisrespect,LivingHeritageoperatedun-

likemostcommunityartspractice,sinceitdidnotdependonprofessionalswithartisticor

culturalexpertise.Thesupportoflocalandotherexpertswaslargelyconfinedtogeneric

matters of project management and community development practice. Where project

teamsneededsupportonartisticorrelatedissues,theyhadthefundstocontracttheirown

advisors.Liketherural touringpromoters, theyremained incontrolof theirworkand in

severalcasesdemonstratedtheirauthoritybyrejectingprofessionaladvice.Byaccepting

people’scultureattheirownestimation,LivingHeritageavoidedsomeoftheprejudicesof

muchartsfunding. Itdidnot,forexample,privilegecontemporaryovertraditionalartor

newtechnologyovercraftskills.Itacceptedthatwhatwasmeaningfultothebeneficiaries

wasmoreimportantthanwhatwasvaluedbyfoundationstafforculturalexperts.

Everyprojectwasmonitoredandevaluatedby localmanagementpartnerswithsupport

fromtheprogrammeteam.Theresultswereconsistentlyimpressive.Peoplehadgathered

CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 9

localsupport,securingcontributionsincash,kind,andvoluntarywork.Theyhadlearntto

plan,organise,andmanagecomplexprojects.Theyhaddevelopedcontactswithlocalgov-

ernment,businesses,otherNGOs,andprofessionalbodies,oftenforthefirst time.They

haddeliveredawiderangeofactivities,workshopprogrammes,training,andpublicevents,

andattractedverygoodattendances.Inmostcasestheyhadearnedincome,andinsome

therewas lastingeconomicbenefit through increasedvisitornumbers.3Butperhaps the

mostimportantoutcomewasthestrengtheningofexistingcommunityassociationsandthe

developmentofnewones.Thesehaddifferentstructuresandinterests,fromenvironmen-

talprotectionoryouthworktotraditionalartandtourism,butmosthadthecapacityto

buildonthedevelopmentinitiatedbytheprogramme.Theexperienceoftheearlyprojects

showedthatahighproportioncontinuedtoworkindependentlyaftertheendofthefunds.4

Women’sneedleworkgroup,LivingHeritageMacedonia,2003

3 TheLivingHeritageprojectinSmolare(NovoSelo,Macedonia)createdasafepathtoa45metrewaterfall,ofhis-toricculturalsignificancetothevillage.Inthefirstyearitattractednationalmediaattentionandvisitors,andthathasbeensustainedoverthesubsequentdecade.

4 LivingHeritageinBulgariahasbeensustainedasaprogrammesince2005bytheWorkshopforCivicInitiatives.Seehttp://zhivonasledstvo.bg/main(inBulgarianonly).

CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 10

The successof theseprojectswasdependentonmany factors that there isno space to

considerhere.However,one issuedeservesparticularattention,because itparallels the

experiencesofruralartsdevelopmentalreadydescribed.LivingHeritagegavefundsdirectly

tothecommunitiesitwasworkingwith,ratherthantointermediaryagenciesorartsorgan-

izations.This required trustonbothsides,especiallywhenthegroupconcerneddidnot

haveanexistingbankaccountorconstitution:intheevent,therewasnoinstanceoffraud

amongthe140projects.Beingtrustedwithmoneywasagenuinelyempoweringexperience

thatbuiltconfidenceandencouragedpeopletoshowwhattheycouldachieve.

Conclusions:culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment

Theexperiencesofbothrural touringandLivingHeritagehighlightsomecrucial lessons.

First,effectivecommunityculturalprojectsproduceawiderangeofdevelopmentalout-

comes,alongsidetheirintrinsicculturalvalue.Theycandeveloppeople’sskillsinmanyar-

eas, from performance, construction or IT to competencies like teamwork or project

management,accordingtotheirrolesinaproject.Thoseskillsbringconfidencefoundedon

actualachievement,recognizedbyothers.Projectsalsobuildsocialcapitalintheformof

relationshipsoftrustwithothers,includingthoseoutwithpeople’susualnetworks,suchas

politiciansandprofessionalsinpublicservices.Thesedevelopmentscaninturnsupportthe

creationandgrowthofcommunityorganizationsfrominformalassociationstosocialenter-

prises,whichgiveindividualsthepowertotakecollectiveactiontowardssharedgoals.Even

iftheoriginalculturalprojectisnotcontinued,individuallyandcollectively,thecommunity

gainscapacitiesthatleaveitstronger.

Secondly,self-managedculturalprojectsarewithinpeople’sexistingmeans.Preciselybe-

causesuchprojectsareoftenoflittleinteresttooutsiders,andparticularlytogovernment,

theyarelefttolocalinitiative.Theytendtofocusonthingsinwhichlocalpeoplehavereal

expertiseandtodemandskillsandresourcesthatarewithintheirreach.Withappropriate

support,theythereforehaveahighchanceofsuccess.Theyrequirethedevelopmentof

genericandtransferablepractical,organizational,andcooperativeskillsthatareresources

forfutureaction.

Thirdly,thepeopleinvolved,theintendedbeneficiariesofsomuchdevelopmenteffort,do

notnecessarilyregardcultureasasecondaryissuetobeaddressedafterotherproblems

havebeensolved.Often,theysee itasawaytounderstandandaddresstheirproblems

fromwithin.OneMacedonianLivingHeritageprojecttookplaceinacommunitythathad

alreadydoneaprojectthroughtheKingBaudouinFoundation’s‘interethnicrelations’pro-

gramme.Theheritageprojectprovedtobemoresuccessful inengagingallsectionsofa

verydiversecommunity,partlybecauseitdidnotannounceimprovingethnicrelationsas

itsgoal.Unlikemanydevelopmentalinitiatives,culturalactionfocusesoncommunityassets

notproblems.Itdealswithtraditions,naturalheritage,locallandmarks,foodculture,oral

history,contemporaryartandnumerousotherthingsidentifiedandcherishedbypartici-

pantsthemselves.Whereproblemsarepartoftheequation,theyareidentifiedinternally

CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 11

andfromexperience,ratherthanbyoutsideexperts.Communityculturalprojectsareef-

fectivewhentheycentreonactionthatpeoplecareaboutandaredevelopmentalrather

thanremedialinconception.

Finally,culturalprojectsgivepeopleaccesstoameansofself-expression,evenofself-defi-

nition,thatfewotherformsofcollectiveactionoffer.Cultureisaboveallhowhumanscre-

ateandarticulatetheirvalues.Itallowsinternalmeaningstobeexternalizedandshared.In

ademocraticcontext,culturalexpressionisafundamentalhumanrightbecauseitallows

individualsandgroupstodefinethemselvesandtheirbeliefs,andnotonlybedefinedby

others.ThisisobviousinprojectsliketheLivingHeritageRomaTheatreproject(Ilijaš,Bosnia

Herzegovina),whichaimedtoimproveunderstandingofRomapeople’scultureandlivesby

presentingnewplaystoarangeofaudiences.Buttheaffirmationofpersonalandshared

culturalvaluesisnolessimportantinthedevelopmentofatraditionalcostumeworkshop

inVelešta(Macedonia),therestorationofalocalpageantinSatuMare(Romania),orthe

socialandculturaleveningsofferedthroughBritishruraltouringschemes.Ineachcase,cul-

turalactionenablespeopletoplacethemselvesaslegitimateactorswithinthebroaderlife

oftheirsociety.Itlaysthefoundationsofempowerment.

Neitherartnororthecommunityactivismitcannurturearefinalresponsestothechal-

lengesthatfacedisadvantagedordisempoweredcommunities.Theeconomic,social,and

otherforcesconfrontedtodaybymanymarginalizedgroupscannotbeovercomebesuch

actionalone.Buttheartshavethepotentialtodefineandsymbolizealternativerealities,

whileworkingthroughthemcanbuildpeople’scapacityforandinterestinsharedenter-

prise.Theycanformanucleusofself-determination,evenofresistance.

ACKNOWLDGEMENTS

TheresearchintoruraltouringreceivedfinancialsupportfromtheCarnegieUKTrust,theCountry-

sideAgency,ArtsCouncilEngland,theArtsCouncilofWales,Cheshire,Lincolnshire,Norfolk,Somer-

setCountyCouncils,EastLindsey,MendipandWycombeDistrictCouncilsandQueensHallArts.The

LivingHeritageProgrammewasfinancedbytheKingBaudouinFoundation,theSorosFoundation,the

CarpathianFoundation,theRomanianEnvironmentalPartnershipFoundationandtheEuropeanUn-

ion.Anearlierversionofthistextwaspublishedin2007byTheCommunityDevelopmentJournal.

ReferencesACE,2005,TheArtsandYoungPeopleatRiskofOffending,ArtsCouncilEngland,London.

Belfiore,E.&Bennett,O.,2008,TheSocialImpactoftheArts:AnIntellectualHistory,Basingstoke.

Crummy,H.,1992,LetthePeopleSing!AStoryofCraigmillar,Edinburgh.

Cullen,R.,ed.,1991,LookingBack:AnAnthologyofWritingfromthePasturesHospital,Leicester.

DCMS,1999,PolicyActionTeam10:aReporttotheSocialExclusionUnit,ArtsandSport,London.

Hevey,D.,1992,TheCreaturesTimeForgot:PhotographyandDisabilityImagery,London.

Kenna,C.,ed,,1986,PrintingIsEasy...?CommunityPrintshops,1970-86,London.

CommonGround:Culturalactionasaroutetocommunitydevelopment 12

Matarasso,F.,2004,OnlyConnect:ArtsTouringandRuralCommunities,Comedia,Stroud.

Matarasso,F.,2005,LivingHeritage,CommunityDevelopmentThroughCultureResourcesinSouthEast

Europe,Brussels.

Matarasso,F.2013,‘All inthistogether’:ThedepoliticisationofcommunityartinBritain,1970-2011’in

vanErven,E.ed.,2013,Community,Art,Power,Rotterdam.

Matarasso,F.,2015,AWiderHorizon,CreativeArtsEastandRuralTouring,Wymondham.

O’Leary,C.,2006,CommunityBasedArtsProgrammingNetworksReview,ArtsCouncilDiscussionPaper,

Dublin(unpublished).