| Abstract: |
A year and a half ago, the Swedish government decided 2006 to be The Year for
Cultural Diversity (Agenda för Mångkultur, 2005). The general purpose,
according to the directive, is to facilitate the possibilities for all
citizens to participate in all aspects of the cultural life by enhancing
appropriate arenas for different traditions (Agenda för Mångkultur, 2005).
This policy decision was not a surprise to both observers and participants of
the diversity debate. There has been a growing interest in the virtues of
diversity for business effectiveness and success (mångfald.com), heightened
scrutiny of institutional and organizational life by the mass media, and
legitimizing debates by political parties which had always had some form of
concern for diversity, if not for its own sake, at least for capitalizing on
the legitimacy of diversity politics in the expectation of local and
parliament elections next September. The proclamation of 2006 as a Year for
Cultural diversity thus comes naturally from the broadened debates and
organizational programs, each actor trying to get legitimacy by using the
concept of cultural diversity to suit the demands of the times. Indeed,
cultural diversity has become a priority agenda for any legitimate actor, at
least in terms of programs and polices, if not in action. Moreover, the
coordinator of the 2006 Cultural Year consistently promised in the mass media
that this would be “the starting point”, and not merely a celebratory
performance (VK, 28 October 2005; DN 3 January 2006). Already, what are called
as the Cultural diversity consultants had worked since 2003 in eight counties
as a partial preparation for this year, and to raise the consciousness of
relevant actors in the field of culture and cultural institutions, especially
those financed by state money. Private cultural associations, however, are
invited to participate during the diversity year but they were not invited to
co-design the contents of the diversity year. This paper is concerned with
describing the concept of diversity as used by the different actors in this
context, and also examines the background that has led to the decision of the
Cultural Year. An implicit concern is scrutinizing whether in fact this year
would be a starting point for more deeply engaged diversity programs and
actions or a symbolic act of window dressing. The concerned actors base the
paper on accounting the background to the Diversity debate in Sweden, and the
different expected programs and agendas. As such, the paper is based on
analysis of documents and agendas, interviews with different actors and two
multicultural consultants at the county level. Additionally, the author also
participated in a couple of seminars and conferences and video-filmed some of
the speeches by different presenters to capture the patterns of the
debate/discourse on Cultural diversity. Implicit discussion is whether the
current interest on diversity may lead to its institutionalization in the
Swedish society organizations (Scott 1995, Hamde, 2002), or it simply is a
‘traveling’ idea to appear occasionally and then occur in fashion-like manner
as many management ideas (Czarniawska & Joerges, 1996). As pointed out in the
sub-title this paper brings provides only a mere glimpse at the huge subject
and the debate. |