Existing notions of cultural value

One such example was work of David Throsby (2002), who analysed cultural value through its categorisation into social, symbolic, aesthetic, spiritual and historic value. Attempting to devise a framework of cultural value that could be operationalised in a policy framework, Throsby attempted to break down the otherwise vague realm of non-use and non-economic value associated with culture. Throsby sees cultural value as a whole as different - but not unrelated to - its economic value. He uses the example of a heritage building, which represents an economic asset. In comparison to another building in the same area and of similar size, the heritage building has an added value, represented by its cultural significance, which in turn contributes to increase its economic value. Similarly, a painting or a sculpture is normally valued beyond and above its mere material worth. The added value is due to the work of art being a vehicle for symbolic, aesthetic or spiritual information and represents its cultural value. What would happen, then, if a work of art was locked away and nobody knew of its existence? It would still have economic value, if only for the materials used in its creation. However, the work of art would not be able to convey its symbolic meaning, nor would its aesthetic qualities be appreciated by an audience. Moreover, people would not even be able to place a value on the knowledge that the work of art exists, or on the memory of it. The piece would effectively be stripped of its cultural value. It appears clear, then, that culture gains value through communication and interaction between human beings. Extending this concept to society as a whole, Throsby proposed the introduction of cultural capital alongside the accepted physical, human and natural capitals. Cultural capital is defined as the set of ideas, practices, beliefs and

28

values which serve to identify and bind together a given group of people, together with the stock of tangible cultural assets, such as buildings or artworks, and intangible assets like music and literature. Just like physical or human capital, cultural capital is subject to degrade and depreciation and needs investment to be maintained and developed. According to Throsby, “It is becoming clearer that cultural “ecosystems” underpin the operations of the real economy, affecting the way people behave and the choices they make. Neglect of cultural capital, for example by allowing heritage to deteriorate, by failing to sustain the cultural values that provide people with a sense of identity, or by not undertaking the investment needed to maintain and increase our stock of intangible cultural capital, will cause cultural systems to break down, with consequent loss of both welfare and economic output” (Throsby, 1999, p. 9).

In this sense, any economic or social activity that takes place in a given area is subject to the effects of the local ‘culture’. For example, the beliefs and practices shared by the majority of residents in a given area will affect whether or not they will organise a neighbourhood watch, or how intense the community life will be in a village. Similarly, economic activity will be influenced by the regional culture. An interesting study that started to investigate the dynamics of this relationship was published in 2005 by Al James. In his paper, James demonstrates how there is a direct relationship between the economic performance of a firm and the dominant cultural characteristics of the company itself and of the region where it is based. Although the study had a limited scope, both in terms of the geographical area and the type of economic activity it took into consideration, the same relationship could potentially be extended to economic productivity in general.

James’ suggestion of the crucial role of cultural capital in economic productivity and Throsby’s wider idea of its importance in the thriving and well-being of society as a whole derive from the thinking of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu who, in the 1970s, investigated the concept of culture, its value and the role it plays in individual and social dynamics. According to Bourdieu (1977), society moves around three types of capital: economic, social and cultural. Economic capital represents the control of resources such as properties or money. Social capital includes resources available to an individual through his relationships, networks of support and through group membership. Finally, cultural capital consists of any knowledge, experience or connections to which an individual has been exposed throughout his lifetime. Control over different amounts of the three capitals determines class and social dynamics both at the individual and wider societal level. Crucially, Bourdieu saw cultural capital as the key asset, able

29

to determine access to the other two. As such, cultural capital is seen as a crucial factor in shaping not only the lives of individuals, but the structures and dynamics of society as a whole. In a world, such as seen by the French sociologist, in which inequalities and class stratification characterise the distribution and governing of economic capital, control over culture, its encoding and its transmission becomes the key to social (im)mobility and to power.

Another potentially useful classification is proposed by John Holden (2004), according to whom the main problem in measuring cultural value stems from the fact that different stakeholders tend to prioritise different types of value. Holden proposes three types of value as being generated by culture: intrinsic, instrumental and institutional. Intrinsic values are the set of values that relate to the subjective experience of culture intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. Instrumental values relate to the ancillary effects of culture, where culture is used to achieve a social or economic purpose. Institutional value is generated from the interaction between a cultural organisation, such as a museum, and the public. For example, it could be expressed with the feedback from the public on the experience of an event. When asked to evaluate a particular cultural event, a member of the public will mainly consider its intrinsic and institutional value. A funding body, for example a city council, will be interested mainly in the instrumental value, while an artist will regard the intrinsic value as the most important. The overall importance of culture is, according to Holden, far higher in the twenty-first century than it had been in the previous decades. More diverse and multi-ethnic environments and constantly shifting working lives mean that individuals find it harder to have a clear and well-marked sense of self and of their place in society. They therefore need culture to make sense of their identity. The ideas and framings by Throsby, Holden and Bourdieu presented above share the central belief that the value of cultural resources goes beyond its directly observable benefits. Their interpretations put cultural value at the centre of social dynamics and assign it a critical role in determining the production of and access to all other types of resources. Seen as the set of shared meanings and norms that hold society together, but also lock social relations in a self- propagating system of fixed power roles, culture would represent the most valuable resource available.

30