Clasificación y formas clínicas de presentación

A classification of cultural value following the scheme given in Table 2.1, such as those suggested by both Throsby and Holden, would see culture as having essentially two types of value: one that can be captured with a quantitative approach and the adoption of various forms of monetisation, and one, corresponding to the ‘intrinsic value’ described by Holden, which cannot be measured in economic terms. Broadly speaking, these could be assigned respectively to the use and non-use values sections of the table. The debate over cultural valuation rests primarily over the acceptance of this dichotomy and the importance that each type of value contributes. Authors such as Tusa (1999) and Merli (2002) see the aesthetic, intrinsic value of culture as the main component to be considered, and discard quantitative methods of analysis as incapable of capturing the real worth of cultural activities.

Conversely, the work of Eftec (2005) and of scholars like Pinnock (2009) and Mason (2002) theorises that intrinsic value is contained, represented and measured within the economic value of culture. In other words, whatever spiritual enrichment or recreational value people receive from culture, it will be reflected in mechanisms the markets adopt to regulate themselves, such as prices. Following this model, an evaluation of the impact of a given cultural facility could merely include the economic consequences of investment in the sector in a given city. An example of this connotation would be a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) including on the one hand the monetary investments made to build a new museum and, on the other, the yearly income generated by the museum plus all the measurable positive spill overs, such as job creation, increase in tourism etc. Examples of this approach can be found in Myerscough (1988), Noonan (2002), Jones (2004) and Plaza (2006).

Interestingly, most of these authors, although focussing on financial returns and impacts, report the detection of a series of positive spill-overs of investments in culture. These “additional benefits” include urban renewal, lower population turnover, crime rate reductions and more diversity in local businesses.

These results follow and confirm the long-held association between cultural resources and positive social outcomes. Such links have been studied and documented by authors such as Landry (1996), Williams (1997) and Lowe (2000), and show how a range of positive outcomes can be attributed to cultural participation, both at the individual and wider community level.

31

These outcomes have been grouped by Matarasso (1997), into six categories:

 Personal development, dealing with change at an individual level, for example education, transferable skills, improved self-confidence, social networks etc.

 Social cohesion: representing the connections between people and groups, intercultural and intergenerational understanding and fear of crime.

 Community empowerment and self-determination: addressing organisational capacity building, involvement in democratic processes and support for community-led initiatives.

 Local image and identity dealing with sense of place, belonging to a community, and the image that groups of people have of themselves and/or of public bodies.

 Imagination and vision concerning creativity, professional practice, positive risk-taking and touching on expectations and symbols.

 Health and well-being related to health benefits and education through the arts, and at people’s enjoyment of life.

However, despite attempting to move the focus away from merely financial and economic benefits and towards outcomes related to the well-being of individuals and communities, all these studies maintained the outcome and target-based approach that characterises public policy in the sector, seeking to value culture in virtue of its observable impacts. Indeed, in a final note clearly directed to policymakers and local authorities, Matarasso states that participatory cultural activities “cost very little in the context of spending on social goals. They represent an insignificant financial risk to public services, but can produce impacts (social and economic) out of proportion to their cost” (1997, p.75). This comment clearly exemplifies how, even while aiming at improvements in welfare and quality of life, the focus of most of the work done on cultural valuation ultimately remained on encapsulating the instrumental worth of cultural resources.

Considering again Table 2.1 and the classification of the different types of value proposed by Choumert and Salanié (2008), most of the benefits listed in the studies presented above, and indeed in most of the literature reviewed for this thesis, would fall within the “use value” side. Economic outcomes, direct and indirect, are clear examples of this, but also social cohesion, individual development and health and well-being are all seen as deriving from direct engagement in cultural activities.

32

However, value could be placed on the fact that cultural resources are preserved for future generations, or on memories associated with them, or simply to the fact that culture is “what makes us, us”. None of these types of value can be captured or observed in terms of its impacts, but only by looking at individual experiences and opinions on the matter. Cultural value could indeed be seen as being predominantly constituted of intangible, unstable and multi- dimensional components belonging to the non-use sphere. Therefore, an analysis of whether the “use” component represents the main constituent of the value attributed to cultural goods and resources – as is implicitly suggested by the proliferation of studies assessing this type of value - becomes important.

This study will attempt to clarify this issue, by comparing information on frequency of use of different types of cultural resources with data on their valuation. This should clarify whether the valuations registered in the two cities included in the study is predominantly linked to their use, or if non-use value represents a relevant proportion of the total worth.

Nevertheless, the axiom that sees potential returns as the main rational for investment in public services is what should ultimately be challenged in order to be able to proceed to a wider and more comprehensive analysis of cultural value. As John Holden maintains: “the answer to the question ‘why fund culture?’ should be ‘because the public wants it’ (2006, p.25). In other words, as culture is socially constructed and exists only within our experience of it, capturing its value essentially means understanding how important it is to the society that creates it, and ultimately to people. While no public body could possibly be expected to refrain from a structured and rational approach when funding public services and a careful analysis of costs and impacts would always be needed when evaluating projects or whole sectors, this cannot be seen as an exhaustive way to understand the value of cultural resources.

2.4.2.i Culture, Place and Identity

A crucial dimension in the understanding of cultural valuation is represented by its relationship with identity and place. The potential for links between cultural participation and positive outcomes in terms of social cohesion, community empowerment and local identity previously mentioned in this section represents a mono-directional view of this relationship. For example, what identity is being forged or re-enforced, and to which extent is this a spontaneous process? What is the role of factors such as class or inequality in shaping what culture is being produced, accessed and valued? Numerous studies across different academic fields have approached these issues. Miles and Sullivan, 2010 described how socio-economic differences derived from

33

conditions such as income and employment play an important role in perpetuating cycles of transmission in cultural engagement and disengagement. These findings echo the work of numerous authors presenting social inequalities amongst the main factors influencing cultural consumption and valuation (Goldthorpe, 2007, Bennett et al, 2009).

Taking Part, the regular survey of cultural and sports engagement led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, tells us that the proportion of adults in the upper socioeconomic group who had attended or participated in the arts in the previous year was 82 per cent, compared with 67 per cent for the lower socio-economic group, with similar patterns for heritage (79 per cent and 63 per cent), museums and galleries (60 per cent and 39 per cent) and digital participation (43 per cent and 34 per cent), with libraries showing the smallest difference (36 per cent and 31 per cent). Other background variables were also found to influence cultural participation: women had higher levels of engagement than men with the arts and visiting libraries, but much less so in areas such as heritage and museums. Black and minority ethnic groups were underrepresented in all cultural activities apart from visiting a library, where they significantly exceeded white respondents (DCMS, 2015, pp.46-50). In a recent study of three waves of Taking Part surveys, Reeves (2015) suggests that the real driver of arts participation (in contrast to more passive consumption) is not so much class or status, but education. Education is not, of course, divorced from class and status but nor is it simply determined by them. However, much debate about inequalities, social class and cultural participation and valuation is built upon a narrow definition of what constitutes “arts and culture”, seeing it through hierarchies of taste, adds a further complication. Widening the definition to embrace more informal activities often described as “leisure” rather than arts and culture, and including commercial and amateur activities, television and other forms of home consumption, may capture a different reality. Rather than being seen as “not engaged” or associated to a lower valuation of cultural resources, lower socio-economic classes could emerge as being engaged in “different” cultures (O’Brien and Oakley, 2015). It is therefore important not to impose simplistic conceptions such as ‘barriers to access’, implying that those on the wrong side of the barrier are not culturally engaged rather than often being differently culturally engaged.

Issues of class, inequality and socio-economic background are important not only in terms of participation and consumption of culture, but also in relation to its production. Both employment and leadership in the cultural sector have been found to be influenced by these variables (Banks, 2007; Oakley et al, 2013). At the same time, the impact of inequalities is also

34

felt through representation, and the fact that how certain social groups are portrayed in the media or in hierarchies of taste, and how some groups self-identify, can serve to entrench or undermine existing inequalities (Sayer, 2002; Lawler, 2005). In other words, the very local and social identity that policy aims to strengthen through cultural participation, and the social cohesion that stems from it, can be seen to be influenced – and to an extent created – by culture. Thus, culture assumes an element of social agency: on the one hand, it emerges and is shaped by the society of which it is an expression; on

Tyler (2008), for example, provides useful insights into what has been called the ‘demonisation’ of the working class in the British media and in popular culture in recent years (Jones, 2011). She describes, as an example, the portrayal of young working class people on British television as ‘feral’ youth. She argues that, whereas outright racism, sexism and homophobia are less common on TV than 30 years ago, mockery and resentment based on social class is perhaps more acceptable than in the recent past. Crucially, these portrayals contribute not only to the view that middle class people hold of working class youths. In a self-perpetuating cycle, they also shape working class identity and the view that young working class people have of themselves. Clearly, there is no simple, mono-directional link between representation, portrayal, and consumption. Newspapers like the Sun for example, which feature frequent attacks on ‘chavs,’ or ‘the underclass’ have a large working-class readership. (Oborne, 2011).

Theorists such as Appadurai (1998) and Miller (2010), see cultural consumption as a relational social and active process. As a result, it is part of the making and unmaking of social categories, such as gender, ethnicity or class, around which identity is organised. For example, in the work of Pitcher (2014:2), thinking about categories of race depends on ‘the books we read, the food we eat, the TV we watch, the toys we play with, the clothes we wear’. Wilk (1999) offers an interesting example of the process through which local identity at different scales is influenced by cultural provision and consumption. He looks at the use of culinary heritage to aid and showcase the [re]creation of a Belizean national and cultural identity in the post-colonialist era. Another example is found in Gupta and Ferguson (1997), where the religious pilgrimage to the Virgin Del Rocio in Andalucía, Spain, is viewed as a nostalgic point of reference in a new regional and national narrative of identity-making. No longer a strictly local event, the festival today attracts tourists, media broadcasters and an international audience. Faced with the transformation of “their pilgrimage” by these national and international inferences, some locals reacted by identifying themselves with the “Indians” of Hollywood movies, and referring to the

35

tourists and other incomers as the “cowboys”. To be a local in the pilgrimage is thus to possess a true Andalusian identity, in contrast with the artificial efforts at the national and international levels to recreate a sense of heritage and locality. These are two excellent example of how local identity and community are far from being static, self-determined entities, but are influenced and shaped by the surrounding environment, of which culture, its consumption and production, is an integral part.

It appears clear, then, that the relationship between local identity, heritage, belonging, and cultural participation and valuation is a complex and multi-directional one. On the one hand, any study of the importance of cultural resources has to take into consideration the context in which it is set: the socio-economic and demographic background of different areas, even within the same city and in close geographic proximity, would influence not only the way culture is valued, but also – and perhaps more crucially – the very meaning attached to the word “culture”. On the other hand, culture in its many shapes and vehicles is a pivotal element in shaping the very idea of a local identity, of community and of social class. Thus, the idea of a local cultural policy as being based upon and reflecting the background and ambitions of a community becomes considerably more problematic. At the Local Authority level, which is where such policies are normally designed, one would find a number of “communities”, not necessarily aligned geographically within clear and neat neighbourhoods. Local identity would not be a univocal and easily captured entity. On the contrary, numerous identities would coexist on the same territory, reflecting the complex socio-economic and demographic mix of the population. Whose background, then, would the local cultural policy be a reflection of? And – more importantly – whose ambitions?

These questions will be of pivotal importance throughout this research, as its main aim is to analyse the importance that residents of the cities of Edinburgh and Dundee invest in culture, in a way both useful to the local authorities and meaningful in reflecting an array of values that is as comprehensive as possible. The following section will present the body of knowledge relative to a family of techniques developed in the attempt to capture the value of environmental resources and articulate it in a way that could be included in the policy-making process, while allowing for the nuances linked to local perceptions and preferences to still be captured and considered. These techniques, collectively called Contingent Valuation (CV), have been successfully employed in the past three decades to include externalities and non-market values in funding and policy considerations in the environmental sector, and could represent a way

36

forward in solving the problems characterising the study of cultural value. The usefulness of this family of techniques in addressing the subject matter of this thesis is the subject of RQ4, and the available evidence on the previous attempts to apply these methods in the cultural sector are presented below.