Arm's length

The principle of political distance from even the content of publicly funded culture

The text as PDF

Few have been able to escape the recent discussion about the concept of arm's length distance in cultural politics. That is the principle formulated after the Second World War, which states that politics should keep a certain distance from the content of culture, pride that it is tax funds that finance a large part of the culture and cultural activities that are produced and maintained. Or one should probably rather say: precisely because of that the financing takes place with public funds, because the idea of ​​the arm's length distance is basically that culture - and the impact on values ​​in society that culture is capable of having - should not be able to be used for propagandistic purposes and serve a certain opinion formation that the ruling power happens to have. They had the state propaganda machinery in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in mind and wanted to avoid such in the future.

The idea is based on the fact that art, cultural practitioners and cultural institutions should be as free as possible, because it promotes free opinion formation and thus democracy. It then becomes fundamental that the public sector must try to make it easier for citizens to take part in the various expressions of culture. In itself, it improves the soil for open-mindedness and humanity, which in turn counteracts destructive lock-ins and hostility in society (to freely quote John Maynard Keynes in his capacity as senior adviser to the British public finance, when he advocated what later also came into place in Great Britain: namely an "authority" for cultural funding that was not controlled by politicians).

It is easy to become solemn, pompous and idealistic when talking about the value of free art, democracy and the good society. However, it seems just as easy to become nonchalant, simplistic and take things for granted. It is probably therefore best to have a humble attitude to the fact that it is complicated with questions that have many roots, but do not shy away from a serious discussion about it.

Some people like to point out that the border drawing thing is more complicated than it might seem at first sight and that the arm's length principle in all its simplicity is therefore too vague to be used. When is it, for example, legitimate and purely an obligation for politicians to step in and decide over the common resources, and when should one rather refrain? It is of course possible to be formalistic and overanalyze pretty much every principle and find contradictions or holes in it. And then question or end up in limbo.

But fundamentally, principles are about just that principled; the universal, what one strives for, an approach to something, a norm or basic rule that can explain and provide guidance in the complex existence.

Therefore, the arm's length principle is not very complicated, as a guideline and approach. Rather, it is quite simple. If you believe that diversity benefits from not trying to govern, then you should do it. If it is thought that more voices and perspectives are more important to the vitality of democracy than the right of the democratically elected majority to distribute certain tax funds as it sees fit, then the majority must withdraw from the distribution levers at a detailed level. In every situation, even when the details differ and the concrete solutions need to be adapted to the situation, it is possible to apply the principle. Only if you think about it, want to and set yourself up for it.

In Sweden, the principle of arm's length distance has long been firmly established, although overstepping has also taken place, sometimes more or less consciously but mostly seemingly more unconsciously. It has happened under both so-called right-wing and left-wing governments. The report that came last year from the Norwegian Agency for Cultural Analysis (Art is so free) pointed to a series of demarcation problems and gray areas, among other things in the form of political forces that have benevolently wanted to encourage culture to contribute to certain honorable societal aims and values, but which thereby also clamp down on - or at least are suspected of having influenced - the area of ​​cultural content through the explicit , ideological and value-based requirements that are made in order to receive funding.

The authority also pointed to the indirect control of the cultural content that risks taking place through the various control documents that the state, regions and municipalities are diligent in issuing (be they politically adopted or issued at official level) and which embark on a slightly too finicky level so as not to affect cultural actors who are dependent on public grants or project funds.

In recent times, what many believe to be clear violations of the arm's length principle have increased in scope and strength. The examples are becoming quite numerous: the library director in Sölvesborg who was forced to quit, individual works of art that were opposed by elected representatives (also here in Dalarna), politically desired bans on certain storytimes for children, politically stopped Lucia train in Bollnäs, politically questioned exhibition in Norrköping, political attempt to setting up a writer's talk in Täby, to name a few startling cases. Sometimes political statements are heard (also in Dalarna) about what constitutes cultural heritage, completely separate from what the profession in cultural heritage management and cultural environment care thinks is reasonable. Another recent example also comes from our area - museum operations - in the nationally famous case of a newly appointed chairman of the county museum in Gävleborg who wanted to set limits, among other things, on what kind of art the museum would hang on the walls.

Why do I devote so much space in the museum's communication channel with the public to this question? There are several reasons.

Firstly, I personally believe that the issue of free art, free opinion formation, democracy and the public's inescapable role in promoting all of this in many different ways are connected and are also central values ​​for healthy social development. Thus, it is something that everyone in the cultural sector should take very seriously and discuss even more than we already do. Even if it can sometimes seem complicated to realize these values. Especially when anxious and vulnerable souls around society react strongly and that it would be easier for us as individuals in the cultural sector to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that culture already echoes the diversity of opinions, viewpoints and interpretations that are demonstrably present in society.

I mean further that it would be terribly contradictory not to protect it publicly supported culture's independence from the political scene, while there are so many of us who participate with pride and zeal in celebrating it publicly supported the 100th anniversary of free democracy. In my opinion, one cannot be ignored if one is seriously preoccupied with the other. They belong together and should be treated as such.

Sometimes it is said that it is the usual democratic order that elected officials should be able to decide how the tax money should be used, also in culture. Thus, it is argued, it is natural to have political opinions about what should be shown, sung and told about when public funds are needed to do so. It refers to the foundation of democracy: that it is the popularly elected majority that decides over the commons.

By that logic, it is easy to see that as it is the voices of the majority that are heard more and more through the culture, over time this becomes a self-reinforcing force that risks erasing images, songs and stories that the majority does not like. Or that represent different interpretations of existence than what the majority in the Riksdag or the majority in regional or municipal councils do. A trend from cultural diversity to cultural stupidity, from free opinion formation to difficult opinion formation.

What tensions and underlying conflicts would such a turn of events not create? Hard to say of course. But the fact is that people's need for individuality and variety is quite strong and that there are a lot of historical examples of how an imposed homogeneity leads to strong frictions.

In more radical circles, it is also emphasized that culture lies upstream of the feasibility of politics through the power that culture has to influence the panorama of values ​​in society. Therefore, as a results-oriented politician, it is said, one should focus on influencing the culture. The insight is clear, but the conclusion that as a politician you should try to influence the direction of culture, rather than as an elected official trying to contribute to the diversity of free opinions, interpretations and expressions, bears clear features of self-interest and a nurturing and authoritarian approach to the outside world, rather than it protects democracy and pluralism.

To maintain that it is the legitimate and democratic right of the majority to dominate the expression of publicly funded culture seems to be exactly the opposite of the post-World War II understanding of what a healthy society needs - and needs help with - namely a publicly supported culture to which the governing politicians must keep an arm's length distance.

After all, the basic instinct of democracy should be to facilitate, not hinder, free opinion formation, even if it can be tempting (short-term?) for the majority to wish and work for everyone to think and interpret the world in the same way.

The basic instinct should then be to encourage a diversity of images, songs and stories, ie. promote – not tame – diversity and thus contribute to a more open mindedness, less hostility and a democracy based on everyone's right to express and share different opinions and perspectives. 

Secondly, I believe that it is important for me, as a representative of a profession that deals with long-term perspectives, to highlight that our history is a composite history, bordered by a myriad of phenomena, opinions and currents, a mosaic of both large and smaller shards of different shapes and colors. It makes it as impossible to explain the past with a simple narrative as it would be unreasonable to try to push contemporary culture into a certain simplistic template by reining it in with current political interpretations and signs, whether they come from the right or the left.

For those of us who work at or for a cultural history museum, it would be both myopic, dishonest and irresponsible not to weigh in on these established facts - the complexity of history and the present and the need to continuously have it illuminated and told in many different ways in order to give a reasonably fair picture of where we come from and what is happening now - in the discussion about how the public should view and support the free arts.

Thirdly, the issue of arm's length is of particular concern to us as a museum, as our sector's independence from political tyranny is specifically spelled out in the country's law book. In the Museums Act (2017:563), section 5 states that "Museum managers must ensure that a museum has a decisive influence over the content of the activity". In other words: the profession and not politics should decide what happens, is done and expressed at the museum.

The law is far from perfect and contains some ambiguities or open wording. But precisely at this point it is finished. The reason is the insight that was partially referred to at the beginning of this text, namely the importance that culture - in this case our common story and cultural heritage - should not be distorted or kidnapped by temporary political agendas or for propagandistic purposes in order to steer society in a certain direction based on a skewed historiography.

When cultural policy and the cultural debate talk about the importance of arm's length distance, I therefore believe that as representatives and part-responsible for a museum operation, we constantly need to keep in mind that the arm should be particularly long in our field, because the legislator has wanted to establish independence also legally.

To round off: The Museum Act exists. The principle of arm's length distance in cultural policy more generally is both celebrated and challenged or reinterpreted more and more often. At the same time, it is a fact that the principle is neither legislated nor is it concretized in any regulations anywhere, which makes it what many say is vague by nature.

Is the principle therefore easy or difficult to follow? The matter is quite simple, I think, if you consider it as an approach to protect and secure cultural diversity as a provider of nutrients for a healthy democratic social development, rather than instrumentally and as a detailed map of how you as a politician should act and exercise your democratically rooted power.

However, there may clearly be a need, not least for museums with boards or principals who are tied to politics, to discuss how the principle - the approach - should be applied in their own organization. So that it doesn't become too abstract and so that it can be seen in how the culture is encouraged and supported publicly. It can, for example, be about where the boundaries are between the responsibility for and the management of the general framework of the business and the content within them, what the different roles are within a board and how the interface for governance should look vis-à-vis the profession in terms of the business' direction and content, how to as museum representatives should act in their role in the museum system and towards the outside world and how the interfaces look between the roles. To name a few issues that such a discussion could contain.

Christer Björklund

County Museum Director

Dalarna Museum

2023-03-23