The world of culture must once again become a force to be reckoned with

For several months, the world of culture has signed. He signs stands. He signs open letters. He signs petitions. He signs calls. He signs press releases. He signs alert texts. He signs texts of indignation. He signs texts of support. And while we are signing, the budgets are falling. While we are signing, seasons are being canceled. While we are signing, companies are disappearing. While we are signing, places are closing. While we are signing, artists are leaving their profession. While we sign, reality moves faster than our declarations.

This is not to deny the usefulness of these texts. They testify. They alert. They constitute an essential memory of what is happening. They prevent total silence. But we must face the situation: we have become the reaction specialists. Each new budget cut produces its platform. Each closure produces its petition. Each attack produces its communiqué. Each catastrophe produces its text.

You don’t build a movement by adding indignations.

And each text arrives after the catastrophe. We react. We comment. We denounce. We attest. We explain. The public cultural service was not weakened overnight. The signals were there. The alerts existed. The weaknesses were identified. The offensives were visible. But concretely, what is our action? The current crisis reveals a deeper weakness: our collective inability to build a political power worthy of what we claim to defend.

You don’t build a movement by adding indignations. So yes, we must continue to testify. We must continue to say what is happening. But we can no longer believe that the multiplication of petitions constitutes a sufficient response. The alert time is reaching its limit. We know. The figures are known. The consequences are visible. The damage is identified. Those responsible are named.

The question is no longer: “How do we alert more?” The question is: “What do we do now?” How can we once again become a force to be reckoned with. History does not remember those who were simply right. It retains those who have transformed their lucidity into collective power. The world of culture has sufficiently described the danger. He has sufficiently analyzed the disaster. He signed enough.

The task that lies before him is of another nature. He must now move from certification to action. From observation to organization. From concern to the balance of power. Because there is always a moment when signing is no longer enough. And this moment, perhaps, is already behind us.

Transforming cultural institutions into spaces for democratic debate

Perhaps we should look at what happened elsewhere when reactionary forces began to gain ground. In Germany, after the AfD entered the Bundestag in 2017, a significant part of the cultural world refused to consider this progression as a simple electoral event among others. Theaters, museums, cultural centers, foundations, artists and intellectuals understood that something deeper was at play.

They understood that a cultural battle was underway. And that they could not remain spectators. They didn’t just publish outraged op-eds. They opened their doors. They transformed their institutions into spaces for democratic debate. They organized hundreds of public meetings. Citizen forums. Conference cycles. Artistic programs devoted to questions of memory, identity, migration, nationalism and democracy.

They considered that their mission did not consist only of presenting works. They considered that their responsibility also consisted of allowing a society to think about what was happening to it. The initiative “Die Vielen” – The Many – has brought together hundreds of cultural institutions around a common commitment against nationalism, racism and attacks on democratic freedoms.

Places where a collective consciousness is built.

From municipal theaters to large national institutions, from prestigious places to independent structures, all affirmed one simple thing: culture is not neutral when it comes to defending the very conditions of democracy. What is striking about this experience is not only its scale. This is his conception of the role of culture.

No one expected artists to become contestants. Nobody asked them to replace political parties. But everyone recognized that cultural places could become places of civic resistance. Meeting places. Places for reflection. Places of mobilization. Places where a collective consciousness is built.

The question deserves to be asked in France today. What are our theaters for when ideas of exclusion are on the rise? What are our cultural centers for when hate speech becomes commonplace? What good are our institutions if they remain silent when the very foundations of their existence are contested?

We have inherited an exceptional network of cultural places. Hundreds of theaters. Thousands of libraries. Drama centers. National scenes. Choreographic centers. Museums. Art schools. No other country in the world has such a dense territorial network. But what do we do with this force?

What if the Avignon Festival became the place where answers are constructed?

Let’s imagine for a moment what could happen if this network decided to get moving. If for several months, everywhere on the territory, theaters devoted part of their activity to organizing citizen assemblies. If cultural places became permanent places of democratic deliberation. Not on the fringes of their project. At the heart of their project.

The Avignon Festival will soon open. Like every year, thousands of artists, technicians, venue directors, cultural managers, unions, elected officials and citizens will meet there. Rarely, in our sector, are so many active forces gathered in the same place and at the same time. We often make Avignon the place for meetings, debates, speaking engagements, shared diagnoses.

What if this year we decided to do more? What if Avignon became not only the place where we see the damage, but also the place where we build the responses? No, not an additional appointment. No, not one more platform. But a starting point. To build common goals. To develop collective strategies for the next school year. To prepare the response. Against the National Rally. Against budget cuts. Against censorship. Against attacks targeting artists.

A public power that protects those who create

Of course we must oppose. But a society does not only mobilize against danger. She mobilizes for a horizon. We must find the strength to say what we want. We want a Republic that truly brings its motto to life: freedom, equality, fraternity.

The freedom to create without ideological pressure, without economic dependence, without fear of political reprisals. Equal access to works, knowledge, artistic practices, throughout the territory. Fraternity as a collective project, as a refusal of social abandonment, class contempt and the permanent designation of scapegoats.

We want another budgetary choice. Because a budget is never neutral. Every cut is a choice. Every abandonment is a choice. Every closure is a choice. But investing in culture is also a choice. Invest in libraries rather than walls of fear. Invest in popular education rather than in stigmatizing speeches. Invest in creation rather than resentment. Invest in collective intelligence rather than in the exploitation of anger.

We want public power that protects those who create. Artists who can make a living from their work. Companies that can plan for the long term. Teams that are no longer condemned to permanent insecurity. Places that no longer spend their energy on surviving but on inventing.

A project of cultural reconquest

We want real guarantees of artistic independence. Because creation is not a political communication tool. Because no elected official should be able to decide what deserves to be shown or not. Because creative freedom is a condition of democracy itself. We want to put popular education back at the heart of the cultural project.

We must stop thinking of culture as one sector among others. Culture is not an expense. Culture is a democratic infrastructure. Just like school, hospital or transport. Because a democracy does not only hold together thanks to its institutions. It is thanks to the ability of citizens to understand the world, to exercise their critical thinking, to debate, to imagine a common future.

This is why our response to the reactionary offensive cannot only be defensive. We must carry out a project of cultural reconquest. A project based on a simple idea: human emancipation must once again become the central objective of cultural policy.

This presupposes first of all guaranteeing everyone a real right to culture. Not a theoretical right. A real right. Concretely, this means that every child should meet artists throughout their schooling. That each educational establishment should be associated with theaters, libraries, museums, cinemas, places of creation. May artistic and cultural education no longer be a supplement to the soul depending on the territories or available budgets but a fundamental mission of the Republic.

Faced with those who want to narrow imaginations, we must broaden them

Our history shows us the way. The Popular Front was not content with improving salaries and paid leave. He opened an immense movement of cultural democratization. Development of youth hostels. Growth of popular education movements. Support for cultural centers and libraries. Development of amateur practices. Wider access to holidays, leisure, sport and culture.

The idea was simple and revolutionary: liberated time should become a time of emancipation. After 1981, the same ambition resurfaced. The General States of Culture carried the idea that the creation, dissemination of works and access to culture for as many people as possible constituted fundamental missions of public power. Thousands of artists, associations, places and citizens then felt part of a common project.

It is this momentum that we need to regain. Not out of nostalgia. Because it responds to a contemporary emergency. Faced with those who want to narrow imaginations, we must broaden them. Faced with those who divide, we must unite. Faced with those who exploit fear, we must produce something common. Faced with those who want to transform culture into a budgetary adjustment variable, we must reaffirm that it constitutes one of the foundations of the Republic.

We need a republican and popular cultural counter-offensive. A counter-offensive which does not simply protect what exists but which proposes a new democratic conquest. Like in 1936. Like at the Liberation. As in the early 1980s. The time has come to rebuild a collective imagination, a democratic balance of power and a cultural ambition commensurate with the threats facing us.

The time has come not only to resist, but to reconquer.