Angelika Alexopoulou
Arts diplomacy and cross-continental political exchange: The case of the
exhibition “The Art of the Enlightenment”
It is becoming increasingly popular to use art in the field of International Relations,
in fact, this trend has been developing over the past few centuries. Recently, in June
2011 a major step in this direction was taken with the project “Picasso in Palestine”.
The Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven, the Netherlands, loaned Picasso’s work “Buste
de Femme” (1943) to the International Academy of Art Palestine in Ramallah. The
political connotations were obvious. How could they not be?
At times of political difficulty, culture can keep doors open until relations improve
(Demos 2007: 54). Thus, the exhibition ‘The Art of the Enlightenment” took place in
Beijing during the years 2011-2012 and was organized by three German institutions.
The exhibition was part of a state-level dialogue between Germany and China. The
German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, and the Chinese state councilor, Liu
Yandong, presided over the opening ceremonies (Tatlow 2011). Of course, in this
case there was no political difficulty, just a desire for more benefits from the relations
for both sides. However, in this presentation it is the exertion of soft power in the form
of cultural exchange from the German side to China that is mainly dealt with.
In this paper, the way the exhibition “The Art of the Enlightenment” contributed to
the German-Chinese intercultural dialogue in a political context is looked into.
Each country and more specifically, each people, has its own history and its own
characteristics. In other words, we somehow suggest that there is a certain ‘national
character’ (cf. Inkeles & Levinson 1997). Arts diplomacy, according to Professor John
Brown (In: Snow 2009: 57), manages to reflect these certain long-term
characteristics of a country, its ‘national character’, which was mentioned earlier. For
example, in the case of Germany, it appears as progressive, democratic and with a
strong intellectual history. Furthermore, in this presentation, the concept of
Enlightenment acts as the core.
Τhe European Enlightenment is the 18th century movement that advocated reason,
science and law and rejected political and religious intolerance. Human beings
moved to the forefront of science, philosophy and art. The Age of Enlightenment in
Europe was the beginning of the modern world and the older one, dominated by the
church and the nobility, lost influence. There is also a close linkage between the
Enlightenment and the (political) idea of ‘Modernity’, although modernity cannot
possibly mean quite the same thing in non-Western societies and cultures. In other
words the notion of Enlightenment with its characteristics, which we will examine by
referring to the several parts of the exhibition, refers to a particular type of
communication and political culture. Actually, it refers to a certain way of life, if we
take into account the words of T.S. Eliot that culture is “the whole way of life”.
It will remain to check if the contemporary Chinese culture with its specific traits is
compatible with the political sense the notion of Enlightenment represents. All these
prove that intercultural dialogue in the form of international cultural exchange can
prove to have an inevitable political impact.
All countries have always tried to push themselves forward using various methods.
This striving forward is sought after in a very competitive environment, where each
country tries to play a leading role. The possibility of a country succeeding in its goals
does not depend on terms of ‘hard power’, but usually on the relation with the
political, economic, cultural framework, in which every country exists, namely on the
so-called ‘soft power’. According to Nye (Nye 2004: 5), who first coined the term, soft
power is “the ability to persuade rather than coerce through elements of ‘hard’ power,
such as the threat of a strong military”. Hence, elements such as the social, political
or cultural level of a country create the ‘image’ of the country, on the basis of which,
the country is accepted at the international level. Several scientists connect the
process of shaping the image of a country with the formation of a brand and detect
analogy between the way a company forms its image and the way a country shapes
its national brand. This rather new idea of treating a nation as a brand was developed
in the late 90s by the British marketing expert Simon Anholt, who still is one of the
most influential figures in this field.
If, in general terms, a brand can be conceptualized as a bundle of images,
associations and experiences created in the minds of people, a nation brand,
therefore, encompasses all perceptions of a nation linked to such different elements
such as people, culture, history, fashion or celebrities (Boehler 2011: 13). Anholt
believes that most countries, deliberately or accidentally, create their reputation
through six natural channels. These are (Anholt 2007: 26), firstly, the tourism
promotion of a country, its export brands, plus the policy decisions of a country’s
government. Moreover, for business audiences, we have the way the country solicits
inward investment, through cultural exchange and cultural activities and, finally, the
people of the country themselves.
However, one of the major problems associated with the branding of a nation is to
find a strategy which works effectively in different cultural contexts. It also needs
long-term commitment as images are often long-lasting and hard to change. But, if it
is managed and carried out in a consistent way, nation branding can contribute to the
formation of a good image abroad.
Philip Taylor (Taylor 1997: 76-77) suggests that states are related to each other in
four ways or four basic dimensions in their attempt to reach the national goals. These
are, firstly, diplomacy, namely the negotiation of treaties that are in the interest of all,
secondly, the economic dimension which has to do with exchange of resources, the
military dimension, which refers to the use or threat of using force and, finally, the
‘psychological’ or ‘information dimension’, in other words, the collection and
spreading of information, ideas, messages and perceptions. This study will focus
somewhere between the first and the last dimension, namely between diplomacy and
psychological/ informative dimension.
Moreover, two approaches have been
recognized as necessary, which Taylor distinguishes from each other. He
distinguishes the long-term activity in the form of cultural diplomacy from public
diplomacy, which is, according to him, short-term and has mainly the form of
international radio and television broadcasts (Taylor 1997: 191). However, we deal
with cultural diplomacy and public diplomacy as if cultural diplomacy is, as many
suggest, a type of public diplomacy. During the last 100 years, developed countries
have realized the importance of cultural diplomacy for the accomplishment of the
goals of external policy. Actually, cultural diplomacy has been called the “linchpin of
public diplomacy” in the US. However, cultural diplomacy is not a massive activity
and rather applies to the elites of foreign states of the future (Taylor 1997: 196),
through high culture, although it also includes popular culture, which appeals to the
masses.
The term ‘public diplomacy’ was coined in 1965 by Edmund Guillon, dean of the
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, when he established the
Edward R. Murrow Center of Public Diplomacy. An early Murrow Center brochure
provides a convenient summary of Guillon’s concept (Cull 2012): “Public
diplomacy…deals with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and
execution of foreign policies. It encompasses dimensions of international relations
beyond traditional diplomacy; the cultivation by governments of public opinion in
other countries; the interaction of private groups and interests in one country with
another; the reporting of foreign affairs and the impact on policy; communication
between
those
whose
job
is
communication,
as
diplomats
and
foreign
correspondents; and the process of intercultural communications”.
Cultural diplomacy, or with its full name, foreign cultural and educational policy, is
an innovation of the French in the late 19th Century. The concept has been strongly
influenced by the cultural historian Karl Lamprecht, who established it with his
speech in 1912 at the conference of the Association for International Understanding
(Verband für internationale Verständigung) in Heidelberg. According to the quote of
Willy Brandt, it constitutes, along with security policy and foreign economic policy, the
third pillar of (German) external policy. Cultural diplomacy is a governmental activity
that attempts to by-pass the depictions of the commercial media, addressing itself
directly to the peoples of foreign societies at an apparently non-political level. The
main tools it possesses are the teaching of language, educational exchanges and
other forms of cultural contact that seem to be harmless. In the long-term it benefits,
although it is not very clear, the immediate experience of culture: foreign people
speak the language, read the literature and get to know big cultural figures of another
country. All this information makes them learn to appreciate the other culture, a fact
that is translated into affinity and friendship, leading to a greater understanding
between the peoples. Cultural diplomacy is substantially a political activity with
phenomenal cultural cover, designed for the service of the national interests of a
country. It not only reflects the expanding grass-root-based process of determination
of foreign policy but also the role ideology plays in international relations (Taylor
1997: 196).
As Mark Leonard suggests (Demos 2007: 24), the four purposes for public/cultural
diplomacy, similar to nation branding, in the 21st Century should be the following:
Firstly, increasing familiarity, namely making people think about the other country and
updating their image of it. Secondly, increasing appreciation, in other words, creating
positive perceptions of the country and getting others to see issues from another
perspective. Also, a purpose of public/cultural diplomacy should be engaging people.
People should be encouraged to see the other country as an attractive destination for
tourism and study and be encouraged to buy its products and subscribe to its values.
Finally, influencing people’s behavior should be a purpose of public diplomacy,
namely getting companies to invest, encouraging public support for the country’s
positions and convincing politicians to turn to it as an ally.
Later, it will be examined how all the above mentioned ideas are put into practice
during the exhibition “The Art of the Enlightenment”.
The Enlightenment is an intellectual movement that began in the 18th century in
Europe. It challenged the accepted beliefs and highlighted the paramount importance
of Logic and strict scientific methods in search of reality. The origins of the
Enlightenment, or the ‘Century of Reason’, are found in the scientific progress of the
17th century, which challenged the traditional Christian conception of the physical and
metaphysical world. In accordance with the philosophy of Kant (Kant 1784/2011: 1):
“the Enlightenment is a man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is
the inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance. This nonage
is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack
of courage to use one’s own mind without another’s guidance. “Dare to know!” “Have
the courage to use your own understanding” (Kant 1784/ 2011: 1) is therefore the
motto of the Enlightenment. Other major ideas of the Enlightenment are equality,
freedom and natural law. With faith in logic, the Enlighteners challenged many
religious dogmas and helped the rise of Deism, the belief that god is a rational
creator, a ‘heavenly watchmaker’. Many philosophers thought that the established
Church was perpetuating superstitious beliefs. Enlightenment was not a uniform
movement. Its philosophical beliefs varied among different countries and various
philosophers. Leading figures of the Enlightenment were Lessing in Germany, Locke,
Hume, Newton in England and the Encyclopedistes (Voltaire, Diderot, d’ Alembert) in
France. But how do all these reflect on “The Art of the Enlightenment”? At this point,
we will refer to the organization of the exhibition:
The same exhibition was first presented by the Neue Pinakothek Munich in 2007
under the title “Views of Europe” (“Blicke auf Europa”) to mark the German European
Presidency and 50th Anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. The exhibition featured
about 580 works from Germany’s three biggest state collections (National Museums
in Berlin, the Dresden State Art Collections and the Bavarian State Painting
Collections in Munich) in cooperation with the National Museum of China and there
was a curatorial exchange between Germany and China. It is organized into nine
separate sections (AOE 2011):
The first part of the exhibition is the Prologue, which is dedicated to “Court Life in
the Age of the Enlightenment”. It invites visitors to explore the world of Baroque
palaces and the enlightened nobility and presents court art from the 18th century. The
palaces of Berlin, Dresden and Munich, whose collections went on to form the basis
of the three museum bodies participating in the show, are presented as examples for
the court art of Europe as a whole. The representative painting of the chapter is
“Entertainment in the Open Air” by Antoine Watteau (around 1720) (AOE 2011).
The second chapter of the exhibition is called “Perspectives of Knowledge”. The
development of the steam engine or the first hot air balloon reflects the technological
advances of the age. This chapter tells of the birth of modern sciences and the
immense influence on artistic creation they were to have. A representative painting of
the chapter is ”The Experiment with the Air Pump” by Valentine Green after Joseph
Wright of Derby (1769) (AOE 2011).
The third part of the exhibition is dedicated to “The Birth of History”. It highlights the
new historical consciousness in the 18th century. Enthusiasm for Antiquity was
reflected in classicism or the romanticism of ruins, while the history of one’s own
people was also discovered as a worthy subject for art. Representative painting of
this section is “The Pyramid in the Park at Mauperthuis” by Hubert Robert (around
1780) (AOE 2011).
In the fourth part, under the heading “Far and Near”, the focus turns to the attraction
of distant epochs and cultures and their aesthetic impact on European Art. China was
one of the exotic idealized worlds that inspired many artists, writers and philosophers
to perceive as the projection of an enlightened state and a counterpoint to Europe. A
representative work of this chapter is the painting “Reflecting sextant” by Edward
Troughton (around 1790) (AOE 2011).
Meanwhile, the fifth chapter called “Love and Sensibility” illustrates how the virtue of
feeling complemented the socially-critical and emancipator tendencies of the age.
The way marriage and family were perceived became increasingly defined by the
concept of love as the base for relationships. This new image of the family was
propagated in paintings, drawings and craft objects. Representative painting of this
chapter is “The Children of the Painter” by Andrea Appiani (1808) (AOE 2011).
The sixth chapter is called “Back to Nature”. Arcadian landscapes, idylls and flights
of imagination in sculpted gardens bring to life the dream of a new society.
Rousseau’s famous postulation applied to mankind’s nature and had an impact on
the educational ideals and moral perceptions of the time. A representative painting
of the chapter is “View of the Elbe Valley” by Caspar David Friedrich (1807) (AOE
2011).
The seventh chapter of the exhibition is “Shadows”. “Shadows” lifts the veil on the
Enlightenment’s interest in the human psyche and its emotional depths. The dark,
irrational side to our being is depicted here in numerous drawings and prints and
appears as the reverse to the enlightened, intelligible world guided by reason. A
representative painting of this chapter is the painting “Satan and Death Separated by
Sin” by Johann Heinrich Füssli (1802) (AOE 2011).
The eighth chapter is dedicated to “Emancipation and the Public Sphere”. It depicts
the Enlightenment as the epoch that spawned a kind of public sphere in which the
individual was actively involved. The principal medium in the Enlightenment was
initially the word. However, the image also underwent a change in function and
developed into a visual mass medium that served the fervent dissemination of
knowledge in the form of pamphlets, caricatures and popular literature. A
representative painting of this chapter is “The Discussion on Art” by Johann Eleazar
Zeissig (known as Schenau) (1772) (AOE 2011).
The last part of the exhibition is dedicated to “The Revolution of Art”, which throws
the spotlight on the art of the present day and investigates the legacy of the
Enlightenment ideas in art today. Representative work of this chapter is the painting
“Portrait of Voltaire” attributed to Johann Heinrich Lips, after Jean Huber (year
unknown) (AOE 2011).
In an extract from the program of the exhibition about the age of the Enlightenment,
the following is stated by its contemporaries: “Our days were the happiest time of the
18th Century. Emperors, kings and princes came down from their great heights,
showed themselves to be philanthropists, disdained splendor and grandeur, and
became the fathers, friends and confidants of the people. Religion tore apart its
clerical garb and its divinity emerged. Enlightenment is taking incredible steps
forward. Religious intolerance and moral constraints lose power; the love of humanity
and freedom gain the upper hand. The arts and sciences are flourishing and we are
exploring the workshop of nature. The perfection of the artisans resembles that of
artists; useful knowledge is being collected in all areas”. It goes on to say: “Do not
look proudly down at us, if you stand above us and see farther than we can. Instead,
recognize how our courage and strength raised and supported your present situation.
Do the same for those who come after you and be joyous” (Anonymous, 1784) (AOE
2011).
The main transformations happened in basically four fields, namely religious,
intellectual, economic and political (Changing minds 2013). At a religious level, there
was a questioning of the Catholic beliefs and Protestantism led to tolerance for new
ideas. At an intellectual level, the widespread opposition to religious intolerance
resulted in the free intellectual inquiry. The French Revolution led to the “Age of
Reason” and the educational institutions that were free of religious allegiance also
spread. At an economic level, the industrial revolution arose. Finally, at a political
level, nation-states emerged and rules were set by Kings and Parliaments.
As a notion, Modernity is complex and multi-faceted. We could say that the idea of
modernity has, as a subject, the historical experience of a human being in the West
at all levels since the 16th Century. Schematically, we could say that the four basic
gates of modernity are: the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution
and the Industrial Revolution. Within this context the nation-state is constructed, the
secularization of social organization and political dominance, the emergence of the
industrial society and capitalistic mode of production, the individualization of social
relations and the development of scientific Discourse (Demertzis 1992: 26).
Furthermore, in the modern context the human is inscribed as an individual, namely a
vehicle of uncontested rights that protect him from the arbitrariness of political power
and also constitute him as a communicating subject.
And then we find ourselves asking whether modernity constitutes the sequel to the
Enlightenment and its development, or whether we are to see it as a rupture or a
deviation with respect to the basic principles of the 18th Century (Foucault). Thinking
back to Kant's text, Foucault wonders whether we may not envisage modernity rather
as an attitude than as a period of history. And by 'attitude,' he means “a mode of
relating to contemporary reality; a voluntary choice made by certain people; in the
end, a way of thinking and feeling; a way, too, of acting and behaving that at one and
the same time marks a relation of belonging and presents itself as a task. A bit, no
doubt, like what the Greeks called an ethos” (Foucault 1984: 38).
To sum up, the Enlightenment as critical thought, promise of freedom, social
practice and system of universal values is an alternative to the blank reality. Foucault
stresses that the thread that may connect us with the Enlightenment is not
faithfulness to doctrinal elements, but rather the permanent reactivation of an attitude
-that is, of a philosophical ethos that could be described as a permanent critique of
our historical era (Foucault 1984: 38). Others, stress the contradictory legacy of the
Enlightenment (Breninger 2011). The contradiction from the outset is between the
attempt to grasp individual experience as a totality and the belief that its essence and
truth is to be found in conscious processes. As Breninger (2011) argues, “if human
beings seek to structure themselves on their awareness of the world around them, as
empirical philosophers of knowledge seem to expect, they can only do this by
attempting to suppress those parts of their subjectivity that are inconsistent, irrational,
even obscure and unknown”. Likewise, the Frankfurt School imputes to the
Enlightenment, in a totally obsolete way, all the tribulations of the 20th Century.
Moreover, in the 20th Century, the unmentionable relations between the CounterEnlightenment movement and postmodernism cannot be hidden. These both show
an antipathy for humanism, for reasonableness and liberal democracy. Nevertheless,
even postmodernism (the most fierce contemporary rival of the Enlightenment) could
be considered to exist only as the negative of the Enlightenment, that it watches,
follows it, adopting some of its requests (such as the emphasis on the subject, selfdefinition and emancipation), and turns against it in order to exceed it.
According to Wolton (Wolton 1997: 33), there is a direct connection between
communication and modernity. This connection allows us to understand what he calls
a ‘double spiral of communication’, namely the mixture in communication of
normative as well as operational values.
As far as the normative parameters are concerned, on the one hand he notices that
communication is at the heart of Western civilization, expressing the power of the
relationship with the Other, which is one of the central elements of this civilization.
This fact is due to the Judeo-Christian roots of the European- afterwards Western-,
civilization, where each other is treated as equal to us. On the other hand, he says
that communication is at the heart of democratic society (Wolton 1997: 34).
Democratic society is inseparable from a mass-individualistic society, namely the
model of the society in which the two fundamental, although contrasting values of
democracy, are incorporated: Firstly, personal freedom and, secondly, equality,
which comes from the struggles of the 19th Century.
As far as the operational parameters of communication are concerned, there are
two basic components (Wolton 1997: 34): Firstly, next to the Western individualistic
model of ‘right of communication’ we declare a selfish deviation, where the matter is
not that much the dialogue with the Other, but the simple claim of the right to express
oneself, in the form of an endless self-referring quest. Secondly and likewise, in the
context of ‘mass democracy’, where democracy plays a fundamental normative role,
we notice a deviation to a spirit of yearning and of communication to a tool, adjusted
to the limits of complex societies, but far from the communication ideal.
At this point, Wolton makes his first hypothesis (Wolton 1997: 38-42), which we
here try to set off for our goals. This is “communication as an ingredient of
modernization” (Wolton 1997: 38). The ascent of communication comes from the
contribution of two phenomena (Wolton 1997: 38-40): Firstly, communication is a
basic need and, secondly, it is a fundamental characteristic of modernity. Indeed, the
correlation between those two facts explains the form communication has taken in
our societies during the last two centuries. The second reason for the ascent of
communication is the strong bond between communication and the Western cultural
model of modernization.
If the need for exchanges is noticed in all societies only our civilization goes for it
with such a passion (Wolton 1997: 40). The model of a communication connected
with the individual appeared within the Western (European, at that time) civilization
and nowhere else. The recognition of the face, which lies in the core of the Christian
values, supplied the slow but stable emergence of modernity from the 16th Century.
Afterwards, modernity separated itself from the principle of freedom and respect for
the individual in the context of a secularized perspective, distanced from the Christian
definition of the individual. While modernity during the historical evolution was
confronted with Christian references, it results from these references in the sense
that it installs at its core communication, which it connects with tradition (Wolton
1997: 40). As free relationships are allowed, communication and the idea of the
emancipated person expresses and supports modernity, putting the beginning of the
separation between the profane and the religious. Secularism, rationalism,
individualization and, then, communication are indissolubly connected.
Moreover, Wolton argues that the central ideas of modernity are communication
and democracy, thus his book is, as he mentions, “a questioning about democracy in
the light of communication” (Wolton 1997: 27). However, ‘true’ democracy is not
evident in every country, e.g. in the case of China, to whose political problems will be
referred to later in this study. In such an example, one could think that through
intercultural communication (in the form of artistic exchange, in our case) it would be
suitable to promote the democratic model or, otherwise, the modernization model.
The term ‘modernization’ is often used for the study of cases of developed, mainly
Western, countries that try to influence developing countries so that these construct a
modern society and state. Raymond Boudon and Francois Bourricaud (Wolton 1997:
420-421), characterize modernization as a procedure which has three facets:
mobilization, differentiation and secularization. However, in order to fruit, these
stages need the precondition of a vibrant ‘public sphere’, which is a social sphere,
separate from the ‘public authority’ of state and ‘private sphere’ of economic and
family relations, where citizens discuss, as equals, how to regulate the citizen society
and criticize state policy, economy and politics. As we all know, however, such a
thing is not evident in China, in contrast to Europe and particularly to Germany,
where the notion of ‘public sphere’ (even though translated in German differently, as
‘Öffentlichkeit’, which has not the exactly same meaning as ‘public sphere’)
(Kleinstueber 2001: 95) looks indispensable for democratic political practice.
Nevertheless, nowadays, with the assistance of technology and especially social
media, there are prescriptions for a more participative political system in each case
but also in the global ‘public sphere’, whose existence is undeniable.
Previously, some traits of Modernity were examined, which has an intimate relation,
as seen, with the movement of the Enlightenment. Nevertheless, the changes taking
place at all levels- experiential, cultural political-, are happening, mainly because of
the stream of advancing globalization. The basic question, which comes up,
consequently, is if the end of modernity is coming (or has it already come)? And if so
do we live in a condition of post-modernity? Many theorists argue that, exactly
because the social conditions change, the notions and categories we use in order to
understand society, must also change. As a result, they suggest, social scientists
should ‘deconstruct’ from the foundations the way they tend to see the social
environment (Hall & Held & McGrew 1992: 478). This means examining, and
perhaps rejecting, some of the basic ideas and aspirations of the Enlightenment.
Therefore, it is necessary to re-examine the whole heritage of Enlightenment and
Modernity.
Enlightenment was developed at the beginning of the contemporary Western
society and determined many of the ideas and processes of modern Western social
science. The postmodern challenge against the model of social knowledge of the
Enlightenment entails the dispute of the following characteristic principles of it (Hall et
al. 1992: 480-481): Firstly, there is the view that our knowledge about society, as the
society itself, has holistic characteristics which are cumulative and clearly
progressive. Secondly, that we are able to manage the reasonable knowledge of the
society. Thirdly, there is the opinion that knowledge is catholic and, as a result,
objective. Moreover, that sociological knowledge is different as well as superior in
relation to the distorted forms of thought, such as ideology, religion or prejudice.
Finally, there is the view that social scientific knowledge, from the moment of its
documentation and implementation, can lead to spiritual liberation and social
improvement of the society in general.
The writers of “Modernity and its Futures” (Hall et al. 1992: 481) suggest that the
postmodern view is that not only the structures of the contemporary society have
started to change dramatically, but also the foundations of contemporary social
thought are played out. According to them, there are three possible answers to this
critical opinion. Firstly, it can be accepted as valid, like Lyotard says. Secondly, there
may be a negation of the postmodern challenge and simultaneously a defense of the
Enlightenment prefix, like Habermas says. Finally, there is always the compromise
solution.
Furthermore, they (Hall et al. 1992: 488) discern a problem in the case of
postmodernism, which is relativism, although the legacy of Enlightenment and the
consequences of modernity for the human are indisputable. This menace has to do
mainly with the field of the individual personality and human rights. Lipowatz
(Lipowatz 2001: 129) argues that, nowadays, the universality of human rights is
threatened by dangers of two kinds, namely postmodern relativism or particularism
and traditional communitarianism or essientialism. Thus, the typical rights of humans
become an object of hysterical denial either as ‘essientialistic’ or as ‘Westernparticularistic’. Many find, for instance, that the ideas of Enlightenment and modernity
are Eurocentric, and, by extension, explicitly or implicitly bound up with imperialism.
But an answer could be that human rights are and should be universal and
uncontested, even though for a relativist, points of view have no absolute truth or
validity and are, accordingly, of relative and subjective value. As per cultural
relativism, truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as
language or a culture. Theories of subjectivity in the second half of the twentieth
century fall broadly into two categories: those that attempt to define the nature or
structure of the subject (its ‘truth’) and those that see any definition of subjectivity as
the product of culture and power (Breninger 2011). However, reality, as usual, stands
somewhere in the middle, thus, as Welsch suggests, we should combine regionalism
and universalism (Welsch 1992: 14).
In 1947 the philosophers Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno published the
influential work “Dialectic of the Enlightenment”. Written shortly after the end of the
Second World War and the Holocaust, the authors wonder ‘why humanity, instead of
entering into a truly human condition, sank into a new kind of barbarity’ (Horkheimer
& Adorno 1984: 19). This happened, in their view, because of a paradox in the core
of the Enlightenment: “Ever since the Enlightenment, aims at taking away the fear of
the people and making them rulers were encouraged. But the fully-enlightened earth
radiated triumphant disaster. The program of the Enlightenment was the
disenchantment of the world. It sought to dissolve the myths and imagination through
turning to knowledge”. The principles of Enlightenment –order and progress, trust in
the possibility of the rule over nature and control of history, trust in reason and
universal human nature- might seem odd, pompous, questionable or even
dangerously misleading.
China’s philosophies once stimulated European thinkers such as Leibniz and
Voltaire, as did the perception of China as a meritocratic state where talent, not birth,
ensured success. Yet the political controversy that has dogged the exhibition “The
Art of the Enlightenment” suggests that some key Enlightenment values jar with the
government, 300 years later (Tatlow 2011). The Chinese organizers saw things
differently to the Germans, saying that there was no contradiction between the
subject of the exhibition and their country’s politics. The artist Ai Weiwei, a relentless
critic of China’s one-party state, was taken into police custody. Angry calls were
made from some quarters in Germany, urging the cancelation of the exhibition in
protest, but the directors of the three German museums that organized the exhibition
held fast. “When things get difficult it is exactly the time when creative artists from
different state systems must not give up talking to each other”, they wrote in a
response published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Tatlow 2011).
The concept of modernity has played a central role in the shaping of contemporary
China. At the start of the Republican era (1912-1949), China engaged the modern
and began the process of national formation. The May Fourth Movement in 1919
sought to bring China into modernity by supplanting Chinese tradition and culture
with the ideas of the Enlightenment (Studies of China and Modernity 2007). The
subsequent Communist Revolution (1949) proclaimed of course a “new” China, but in
1978, as the era of Deng Xiaoping began, they proclaimed the so-called “four
modernizations” in industry, agriculture, defense and science and technology (van
Ess 2012: 23). As standards of living increased, a middle-class came to help spawn
a popular culture, which would become a very significant part of China’s modern
landscape by the mid 80s. The so-called ‘Cultural Discussion’ grew out of this socioeconomic climate, where culture was believed a crucial factor in social and economic
transition. Two opposing views emerged: One believed that China’s traditional culture
and more specifically its core, Confucianism, could become a positive spiritual
resource for China’s modernization. The other condemned Confucianism and
traditional culture as incompatible with modern society and argued that modern
culture originated in the West and should be introduced to transform Chinese society
and mindset (Studies of China and Modernity 2007).
As far as China’s present is concerned, China’s economy remained relatively
resilient despite the global financial crisis, raising fears that international actors would
be reluctant to criticize China’s human rights record, a trend already evident in the
recent past. China was increasingly successful in using its growing financial and
political clout to pressure other countries to forcibly return increasing numbers of
Chinese nationals of certain backgrounds, such as Uighurs, back to China, where
they risked unfair trials, torture and other ill-treatment in detention, and other human
rights violations, according to the Amnesty’s International Report for 2012 (Amnesty
International 2013).
The authorities continued to abuse criminal law to suppress freedom of expression.
They detained or arrested close to 50 people and harassed and intimidated dozens
more during the crackdown of ‘Jasmine’ protests that began in February in response
to the popular movements in the Middle East and North Africa. Amendments in
March 2012 (Amnesty International 2013) to the Regulations on the Administration of
Publications added a new requirement that those who distributed publications over
the Internet or information networks must be licensed, or risk criminal penalties. The
authorities shut down or took direct control of a number of publications that had
published investigative journalism pieces on sensitive issues. They reportedly
banned hundreds of words from mobile phone text massages, including ‘democracy’
and ‘human rights’. The authorities pursued their goal of bringing all religious practice
under state control, including state oversight over religious doctrine, appointment of
religious leaders, the registration of religious groups and construction of sites of
worship. The number of people subjected to enforced disappearances grew. Many
were held in secret detention, including Hada, a Mongolian political activist. Many
others remained or were placed under illegal house arrest. They included Liu Xia,
wife of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, and Zheng Enchong, a housing rights
lawyer from Shanghai. On 30 August 2012, the authorities released draft revisions of
China’s Criminal Procedure Law, the first that had proposed changes since 1997
(Amnesty International 2013).
The authorities continued to harass, intimidate, persecute and criminalize prodemocracy and human rights activists. Activists supporting the China Democracy
Party were sentenced to long prison terms. In February 2012, the National People’s
Congress passed the eighth revision of China’s Criminal Law which removed the
death penalty as punishment for 13 crimes. China continued to use the death penalty
extensively, including for non-violent crimes, and to impose it after unfair trials.
Executions were estimated to number in the thousands. However, statistics on death
sentences and executions remained classified (Amnesty International 2013).
Is the project ‘Enlightenment’ over in China? Of course there is a long road ahead to
modernity. The 19th Century maintains the ‘big narratives’. In this direction the new
scientific paradigms of positivism, socialism and evolutionism, which are valid as
‘modern’, serve this purpose. The men of the Enlightenment defined themselves as
‘modern’ and were the first who tried to find out, as individuals, what that meant.
Their modernity has something naïve, almost childishly innocent. From the
Revolution of 1789 until the bloodless revolutions of 1989 –and in the centuries of
exploitation, war and colonial conquests-, ‘modernity’ was painfully complex, shed in
blood and terror. It is no wonder that the intellectuals during the last decades have
tried to win back innocence and naturalness through characterizing themselves as
‘post-modern’. What might a Chinese Age of the Enlightenment look like? In an
interview, Dong Junxin, the Culture Ministry’s Director of External Affairs, described
China’s process of economic development and reopening to the world, which began
in 1978, after the death of Mao, as a ‘kind of Enlightenment’. “But it is different from a
Western Enlightenment”, Mr Dong said “China’s Enlightenment is being led, step by
step, by the Communist Party and the government, and not from below” (Tatlow
2011).
Habermas writes (Spencer & Krauze 2012: 155) that the thinkers of Enlightenment
had still the high expectation, that the arts and sciences would promote not only the
rule over nature but also the knowledge of the world and of the ‘I’; that Enlightenment
would promote the moral progress, the fairness of institutions and even the
happiness of people. The 20th century ruined this optimism…Should we try to hold on
the intentions of Enlightenment, so weak may these be, or should we explain the
whole project of Modernity as a lost thing? In any case, art will be there, able to
deliver values and have a recognized effect- at least in the hearts of people.
There is a long and intimate relationship between culture and politics. Culture can
oil the cogs of the political machine in a number of ways, but is only effective when
employed sensitively (Demos 2007: 52). Public diplomacy is inevitably linked to
politics and power. Nye (Nye 2004: 5) defines power as “the ability to influence the
behavior of others to get the outcomes one wants”. According to Nye, there are three
dimensions of public diplomacy (Nye 2004: 108), namely daily communications
(which Philip Taylor often insists on), developing of lasting relationships and, finally,
strategic communication. All these allow a country to acquire the desired result. We
saw earlier that we can use culture for the creation and development of a favorable
image on an international level, a fact that can allow for leverage in political
discussions. But how does this ‘soft power’ work?
At a national level, ‘soft power’ is the capacity the country has to attract relations by
creating an image to which other nations can relate or respect. In Europe, Nye
highlights art, literature, design and fashion, which serve as assets that contribute to
the countries’ attractiveness, and that can be capitalized upon in order to create
positive images on a global scale (Hoogwaerts 2012). Indeed, one of the most
important contributions that culture can make to a country’s public diplomacy is its
ability to showcase a diversity of views, perspectives and opinions, breaking down
persistent national stereotypes and challenging the perception that a country’s
political leaders and their policies are identical with the views of their citizens (Demos
2007: 26).
A core difficulty presented by soft power is its rather intangible nature. The question
is: how can nations market their values? The answer is through policy-making around
the three dimensions of public diplomacy, which was referred to earlier, a process,
however, which takes much time. Thus, it is necessary to create environments,
physical locations and situations, where culture can be exhibited as well as
exchanged (Hoogwaerts 2012), designing, in other words, a smart strategic
communication focused on art exchanges inter alia. “Planning symbolic events and
communications over the course of a year to brand the central themes or to advance
a particular government policy” (Nye 2004: 108) would be a solution, the form of
which is like a political campaign. Parallel to that, long lasting relationships should be
developed through the maintenance of relationships with key individuals and
exchanges that allow large groups of the public to engage with aspects of a nation’s
culture. In Nye’s view (Nye 2004: 108), a country increases its chances of developing
favorable relations when it embodies and promotes values that can be universalized.
In our case, the idea of the Enlightenment, with its deeper meaning, can and should
be universalized. Actually, it is a universal notion, as it has the individual as its core.
Moreover, arts diplomacy can be an effective aspect of cultural diplomacy. John
Brown, judging from America, notices that arts diplomacy, namely the use of high art
as an instrument of diplomacy, “reflects certain long-term characteristics of a country”
(In: Snow 2009: 57). For example, he mentions we watch “the US as puritanical,
democratic, without a national culture”, in other words “as foreigners, we are told
America’s story” (In: Snow 2009: 57). Respectively, and in contrast to China, whose
cultural traits we have examined as well, at the exhibition “The Art of the
Enlightenment”, we are told “Germany’s story”, namely a story of a Western, modern,
democratic state where the individual plays the central role. This is why, memorable
events in the past like State Department- sponsored jazz concerts, where Louis
Amstrong sang the song “What a wonderful world” (the trade-mark of cultural
diplomacy’s universal meanings), took place.
Surely, the contribution of such events to intercultural dialogue is unquestionable.
However, there is, a long tradition of culture providing a safe and convivial setting for
building bilateral relations or making political statements (Demos 2007: 53). Cultural
experiences allow individuals to engage intellectually and emotionally and can
provide personal connections that can outlive or override immediate political
disagreements (Demos 2007: 53). Besides, for the ability of culture to influence
politics, Theodor Heuss; in the 20s said: “With politics you can make no culture;
perhaps you can make politics with culture” (Arnold 1976: 12). The general question
raised is what is the really ‘political’ in international cultural relations? According to
Arnold, political (culture) quality is obtained to the extent, to which it goes beyond the
individual, in which the individual attains social impact (Arnold 1976: 11). To impose
on the others the own culture can only mean the effectiveness of the own culture
abroad, ‘cultural export’, to promote the principles corresponding to a liberal cultural
policy in the own culture (Arnold 1976: 20). In addition, when Americans speak about
cultural relations, in reality they mean ‘intellectual relations’- they could never think
that those two coincide. The ‘intellectual’ in this context does not refer to ‘high
culture’. The liberal definitions of culture, diffusion and civilization, although they are
often elitist, were in reality classless (Ninkovich 1981: 307).
In this paper I have tried to investigate the degree of contribution of arts to
intercultural dialogue in a political context using the case of the exhibition “The Art of
the Enlightenment”. Thus the role of this exhibition in German-Chinese cultural
relations in a political context was studied.
Cultural diplomacy in the form of arts diplomacy, in other words, of an exhibition as
cultural exchange, seems to be able to promote the character and aspirations of a
whole people and nation, as we examine the case of Germany. In addition, the role
of art as a means of pure communication should not be underestimated. Besides,
according to Dewey, “if all meanings could be adequately expressed by words, the
arts of painting and music would not exist” (Dewey 1934/ 2005: 77). Also, as Brecht
had stated, “culture is the means to change the world”. And, as seen in the example
of the exhibition “The Art of the Enlightenment”, such a statement is true and,
therefore, gives hope. However, some challenges during contemporary cultural
engagement were not referred to. As the Salzburg Global Seminar in 2012 detected
(Salzburg Global Seminar 2012: 7), there are at least five dimensions of mismatch
between current practices and current realities, which are: the outdated legacy
systems, the weak channels of engagement, the lack of common ground, the
conceptual and rhetorical deficits and the absence of coordination.
To conclude, we could refer to a need that arises from the general spirit of the
presentation, which is intercultural speculation: There is a need of democratic
governance of cultural diversity. As can be read in the White Paper on Intercultural
Dialogue, edited by the Council of Europe (Council of Europe 2008), “intercultural
dialogue needs a neutral institutional and legal framework at national and local level,
guaranteeing the human rights standards of the council of Europe and based on the
principles of democracy and the rule of law”. Let’s hope that the need will someday
become a reality all around the world.