Romanian Cultural Institute evaluation

7AAYCC04 Dissertation 2013~14 Candidate No. T22616

1

MA Cultural and Creative Industries Dissertation cover sheet

Candidate number T22616 Date 1/09/14 Dissertation title Taking the leap: A study of the role of

intercultural dialogue in Romanian cultural organisations in London

Word count 12 009 My dissertation research involved the participation of human subjects, and therefore needs Research Ethics clearance (Y / N)

Y

I have obtained the necessary Research Ethics clearance and attached the statement of approval from the Research Ethics committee (Y / N/ n/a)

Y

The act of submitting this essay confirms that I have read and understand the college guidance on plagiarism, and agree with the following statement: This assignment is entirely my own work. Quotations from secondary literature are indicated by the use of inverted commas around ALL such quotations AND by reference in the text or notes to the author concerned. ALL primary and secondary literature used in this piece of work is indicated in the bibliography placed at the end, and dependence upon ANY source used is indicated at the appropriate point in the text. I confirm that no sources have been used other than those stated. I UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY PLAGIARISM AND HAVE SIGNED THE DECLARATION CONCERNING THE AVOIDANCE OF PLAGIARISM. I UNDERSTAND THAT PLAGIARISM IS A SERIOUS EXAMINATIONS OFFENCE THAT MAY RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY ACTION BEING TAKEN.


2

Taking the leap: A study of the role of intercultural dialogue in Romanian cultural organisations in London

1

1 Image: Taking the Leap. Available from: http://www.offbeatblackgirl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/TakingLeap-‐300x186.jpg


3

Abstract This dissertation takes a postcolonial approach to investigate how cultural organisations utilise intercultural dialogue to bridge cultural differences and considers the factors that enable and constrain this occurrence. It considers the larger framework of the European Union to contextualise identity, culture and intercultural dialogue projects as set out by this homogenising supranational force. January 2014 marked the ending of transitional controls for Romanian immigrants and the beginning of a sometimes anti-‐rhetoric discourse in the UK media before and after restrictions were lifted. Inspired by the current situation, this dissertation explores how the Romanian Cultural Institute London and Romanian Cultural Centre address otherness. Using qualitative interviews from intercultural dialogue stakeholders, a short content analysis of the RCI and RCC, as well as documented EU sources to support my analysis, this study suggests that risk influences whether or not cultural organisations conduct intercultural dialogue projects.


4

Table of Contents

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 Background information ............................................................................................................. 9

Contested Identities ........................................................................................................ 11 What’s all the fuss about? ......................................................................................................... 11 Identities in flux ........................................................................................................................ 12 A positive outlook ..................................................................................................................... 14

European Identity ............................................................................................................ 16 EU identity and otherness ......................................................................................................... 18

Intercultural dialogue ...................................................................................................... 21 Ethnocentrism and power ........................................................................................................ 21 The artist’s role ......................................................................................................................... 23

Methodology and Framework ......................................................................................... 24 Qualitative data ........................................................................................................................ 25 Quantitative data ...................................................................................................................... 26 Limitations and validity ............................................................................................................. 27

How does the RCC and RCI address otherness? .............................................................. 31 Identities: Past, present and future .......................................................................................... 31 Overcoming the fear of the other ............................................................................................. 31 Challenging perceptions ............................................................................................................ 33 Whose there, who cares? ......................................................................................................... 35

What are the factors that enable and constrain intercultural dialogue? ...................... 37 Romania in the EU family .......................................................................................................... 37 Are you an artist or a social worker? ........................................................................................ 39 Content analysis ........................................................................................................................ 40 How risky is too risky? ............................................................................................................... 43

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 45

Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 47

Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 52


5

Introduction

January 1, 2014 marked the ending of transitional controls for Romanian and

Bulgarian workers in the UK as well as the emergence of a sometimes anti-‐rhetoric

discourse in media coverage before and after restrictions were lifted. Although

published articles and reports portrayed so-‐called “A2” immigrants in a positive light,

sensationalism triumphed over reason for some media outlets (Calbeaza, 2014). A

recent report by Migration Observatory (2014: 2) estimated that over 2.8 million words

were found in 19 main national newspapers in relation to Romanian and Bulgarian

immigrants from the period of December 2012 to December 2013. Even non-‐political

think thanks in the likes of Migrant Watch (2013) reinforced the immigration paranoia,

wrongly estimating that 50 000 immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania would "fled the

country" (Calbeaza, 2014: 4). The main targets of attention were Romanians in the UK,

including the estimated 44, 848 living in London (Migrant Observatory, 2014: 5).

Although this dissertation does not focus on discourse analysis, an account of the

representation of immigrants within the media can help situate the importance of

otherness in this paper. The stigmatisation of Romanian immigrants in the UK media can

also be approached in a proactive manner, in terms of asking: what can be done to

decrease our fear of the other, and how can we bridge cultural differences to allow for

peaceful co-‐habitation? It is through the lens of arts and culture that this paper

highlights the value of social cohesion -‐ not only relevant for this particular context, but

for ethnic conflicts worldwide.


6

It is against this background that this dissertation will begin by contextualising

the relationship between the UK and the EU to better understand the framework of

discussion. The first part of the literature review will draw on postcolonial theorists

(Bhabha: 1994; Said: 1978; Hall: 1993) to investigate the factors that construct identities

within the larger framework of multiculturalism. The second part explores the

prominence of culture and intercultural dialogue in the EU rhetoric, and in so doing

provides a conceptual understanding of the other at a supranational level. The analysis

will attempt to answer the following two research questions:

§ How does the Romanian Cultural Institute London (RCI) and the Romanian

Cultural Center (RCC) address otherness within their cultural activities?

§ What factors enable and/or constrain the inclusion of intercultural dialogue

projects within their agenda?

The analysis engages with qualitative methods by conducting interviews with

representatives of the cultural organisations in question, as well as with a stakeholder in

the current immigration debate to explore the nature of intercultural dialogue within

their respective settings. It then utilises quantitative methods by the use of content

analysis to investigate the frequency and type of intercultural dialogue events initiated

by the RCI and RCC. My hypothesis is that although cultural organisations work towards

addressing issues of otherness, intercultural dialogue is not yet part of their mandate

because of structural limitations, which I wish to discover.

Background Information

‘The UK has always been the champion of enlargement. And that’s changed’,

claims British Prime Minister David Cameron (Brussels, 2013). This speech was held


7

December 20, 2013 – less than two weeks before Romanian and Bulgarian ending of

transitional restrictions to the UK and all EU member countries. As asserted by the

European Commission in 1999 -‐ also known as the EU’s executive body -‐ enlargement is

understood as ‘the best way to achieve peace and security, democracy, and the rule of

law, growth and the foundations of prosperity throughout Europe’ (Phinnemore, 2010:

299). Freedom of movement allows for EU citizens to migrate across borders within the

union. As Cameron urges for stronger restrictions on migration (Brussels, 2013), UK’s

euroscepticism (Andreev, 2009: 386) is illustrative in its apparent reluctance towards

immigration.

It can be argued that ethnicity does not play a role in determining which EU

members are more welcomed than others. Although this paper acknowledges that

stronger restrictions to immigration policies do not necessarily entail discrimination

towards certain groups of people, it does present an amount of information that proves

otherwise. For instance, potential Romanians and Bulgarians faced restrictions on

welfare benefits in their accession to the EU, while university students’ grants and loans

were suspended without notice (The Guardian, 2014).

As means of not victimising Romanians, it must be acknowledged that the country

has indeed gained a negative reputation, not only because of the proliferation of

sensationalist headlines in the media, but also as a result of experts raising concerns in

regards to its political corruption and immature democratic structures (Andreev, 2009).

These shortcomings have been defined as representative of Romania’s ‘inability to

swiftly deal with the political and social challenges cropping up after accession’, and it


8

has been further argued that this gives “plenty of arguments” to countries promoting an

anti-‐EU enlargement mantra (Andreev, 2009: 391).

Some UK tabloids and the UKIP in particular have turned their attention towards

Romanians – labeling them as "aggressive beggars" (Mail Online UK), "penniless

immigrants" (The Telegraph UK)" and raising safety issues if, "a group of Romanian

people suddenly moved next door” (Nigel Farage) (Calbeaza, 2014: 3; BBC, 2014). This

increase in the fear of the other brings forth questions of identity and belonging,

between each other as well as within the larger framework of the European Union.

Europe's slogan "unity in diversity" is inspiring, but does the image it wishes to

convey reflect its reality? In the current context of freedom of movement, the European

Commission (2014: 5) cautions that increasing ethnic conflicts may put ‘social cohesion,

and at the same time the European project at risk'. Accordingly, intercultural dialogue is

given increasing importance in homogenising and migrant-‐averse countries. To manage

the problems that can incur from the meeting of diverse cultures, the Council of Europe

(2008), also known as Europe’s leading human rights organisation, claims that

intercultural dialogue is a suitable strategy to mediate ethnic conflicts. Although

intercultural dialogue is victim of definitional ambiguity, the Council of Europe’s

definition is widely recognised and goes as follows:

[Intercultural dialogue] is a process that comprises an open and respectful exchange or interaction between individuals, groups and organizations with different cultural backgrounds or worldviews. Among its aims are: to develop a deeper understanding of diverse perspectives and practices; to increase participation and freedom and ability to make choices; to foster equality; and to enhance creative processes (2008: 10).


9

Thus, intercultural dialogue can be understood as a tool to manage negative

perceptions, challenge stereotypes, and hopefully redefine our notions of perception

and reality for the better. By comparing and contrasting postcolonial theorists, my aim is

to question what has become normalized in the discourse of the other, as iterated by

notable scholars and reinforced within the framework of EU cultural policies. The

postcolonial approach is fitting when discussing intercultural dialogue as the latter

precisely deals with bridging cultural differences with the other (European Commission,

2014).

Contested identities

As ethnicity is 'a key element of self-‐identification' (Sešić and Dragojećvic, 2006:

48), this section draws on theories of colonisation, stereotypes and hybridity, in order to

make sense of how identities are framed and consequently shaped within particular

policy frameworks. Before attempting to understand how identities are constructed

within diverse cultures, it is crucial to consider the conceptual framework of

multiculturalism. Multiculturalism refers to an approach to allow for successful cohesion

among cultural groups (Council of Europe, 2008). Based on the premise of an

atmosphere of mutual tolerance, multiculturalism is a disputed concept within the

political discourse of Western society. While some scholars agree that multiculturalism

is an important element for a tolerant and liberal state, others contend that is a failed

policy.

Werbner and Modood (1997: 21) define the drawbacks of multiculturalism as ‘a

tendency to exaggerate cultural difference, and thus valorise fundamentalist cultural


10

self-‐definitions amongst minorities’. The Council of Europe’s ‘White Paper on Dialogue’

suggests that multiculturalism reinforces the distinction between the minority and the

majority, while the Opatija Declaration (2003) argues that this division ‘singles out

cultures and communities, and categorises them and stigmatises them in a static

position, to the point in which social behaviour and cultural stereotypes are assumed on

the basis of groups’ respective ‘status’ (cited in Council of Europe, 2008: 18). Given the

apparent caution of adopting multiculturalist frameworks, the Council of Europe

proposes intercultural dialogue as a fitting policy framework that, unlike

multiculturalism, does not allow for moral relativism and instead, values equality among

cultures.

Globalisation and diversity of cultures are interrelated concepts (Kiwan and

Meinhof, 2006: 69). Thus, the context of globalisation is also important to consider

when discussing policy frameworks for host countries. France and Germany Ministries of

Culture have both defined globalisation as a threat to cultural identities, and, as French

Minister of Culture Trautmann (1999) states, ‘if we are not careful, it will engender a

cultural standardisation, the uniformisation of behaviours and lifestyles' (cited in Kiwan

and Meinhof, 2006: 69). Angela Merkel, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy (2010;

2011) have in unison labelled multiculturalism as an "utter failure" (cited in Aman, 2012:

1011).

The need to adapt an adequate policy framework for managing diversity is

crucial to enable peaceful co-‐habitation amongst communities of difference as well as

allow for the flourishing of difference. Meinhof and Triandafyllidou (2006: 10) explain


11

the recent shift away from multiculturalism not as a result of its inherent drawbacks, but

rather in relation to rising nationalism and fear from Western countries.

What’s all the fuss about?

As a result of freedom of movement and consequently, the merging of cultures –

feelings of anxiety brought by difference are all but uncommon. Benedict Anderson's

Imagined Communities relates the rise of nationalism to the idea of belonging to a

nation, thus reinforcing the sense of “us”, citizens of the state, and “them”, the others.

Postcolonial and intercultural communication theorists have attempted to make sense

of the fear of the other, and what this entails. Bhabha (1994: 64) associates anxiety in

relation to the other with "lack" and "difference", whilst Neuliep (2011: 318) links it to

"uncertainty" and "ambiguity". Neuliep (2011) more specifically defines anxiety as a

cognitive phenomenon that restricts communication between different cultures.

Said (1978: 291) asserts that panics spreads, and that there is 'more danger in

such a feeling of spreading of fear than in great hatred’. Accordingly, Said (1978: 198)

argues that the media and politicians use fear as a tool for ulterior motives that

transcend the real fear of difference. This sense of threat brought forth by the migrant

can be explained in various ways such as economic -‐ in terms of decreasing job

opportunities; or social in regards to impeding on the core values held by the host

(Meinhof and Triandafyllidou, 2006: 11). Meinhof and Triandafyllidou (2006: 11) further

argue that 'migration becomes ultimately a security matter', which brings forth the

dichotomy from what is expected from a multiculturalist society -‐ acceptance of

diversity -‐ and on the other hand a desire to feel "safe".


12

Consequently, when Romania was granted conditional access to the EU in 2007,

there was a flow of "institutionalized racism" and "culturalist discourse" that segregated

the newcomers and installed fear in nationals (Van Djik, 1992: 89). Van Dijk (1992: 90)

explains that this public discourse is most influential in denigrating the image of

migrants as it helps construct the “dominant white consensus”. The former is

exemplified by the work restrictions imposed on Romanian immigrants and the latter

can be seen in the discourse within the tabloid media, describing them as having

'criminal tendencies, uncivilized behaviour, and moral deficiencies' (Fox et al., 2012:

690). This process of reiterating stereotypes is what Bhabha (1994: 95) calls

"ambivalence", and is central to reinforcing discrimination of a people.

Identities in flux

Hall (1993: 222) invites us to think of cultural identity as a ''production", which is

'never complete, always in process, and always constituted within, not outside

representation'. Hall (1993: 225) also presents cultural identity in terms of "becoming"

and simultaneously "being". Bhabha (1994, cited in Aman, 2012: 1013) reinforces this

notion of "becoming" and "being" when he brings forth the concept of performativity,

which is a 'constant reinvention of the 'people' through their everyday lives in terms of

producing, acting, living'. Identity is thus constantly in flux as it oscillates between past,

present and future (Aman, 2012) and only from this perspective can the colonial

experience be understood (Hall, 1993). In other words, the legacy of the past -‐ the

history of colonisation -‐ is imbued in identities, which makes them contested and

difficult to grasp (Hall, 1993). Hall (1993) and Said (1978) draw on Foucault to explain


13

the "play of power" that is instilled in the colonial discourse -‐ where the representation

of the "other" is presented within a dominant discourse that is constantly reproduced. It

can be said that Gramsci (n.d. cited in Macey, 2010: 16) reasons that this "play of

power" is not only present, but that the subjected group “spontaneously” consents to

what is imposed, thus reproducing its hegemony.

Stereotypes are understood as characteristics we believe hold true for a certain

population. As Bhabha (1994: 95) puts it, the stereotype 'is a form of knowledge and

identification that vacillates between what is always "in place", already known, and

something that must be anxiously repeated'. Said (1978: 121) explains that

classifications of "race, colour, origin, character, types" are central to the creation of

stereotypes and even more so in reinforcing distinctions between "us" and "them".

Bhabha (1994: xvii) justifies that the migrant's otherness derives from 'belonging

[as] a problem of ontology'. In other words, belonging to a “race, gender, and class” is

"second nature" (Bhabha, 194: xvii), and, in turn, connotes characteristics that are said

to be inherent to that '”race, gender, and class”. On the other hand, Neuliep (2011)

provides a positive outlook on stereotypes, as they are said to allow for generalisations

to occur. In this way, the fear of the other is decreased because the other’s

characteristics are not “unknown”.

Bhabha (1994) argues that stereotypes are crucial to the evaluation of the “safe”

citizen. Accordingly, the scholar reflects upon common interrogations processes: 'how

do we tell the good migrant from the bad migrant? Which cultures are safe? Which

unsafe?’(Bhabha, 1994: xvii) This increasing surveillance not only objectifies the


14

individual but also assumes a level of generalisation, where the individual is not seen as

unique but rather in a homogenised manner, as part of a larger group identity,

reiterating the problem of ontology. Moreover, Hall (1993: 223) presents cultural

identity as a "shared culture" where [...] our cultural identities reflect the common

historical experiences and shared cultural codes which provide us, as 'one people', with

stable, unchanging and continuous frames of reference and meaning'. This fixity in

representing the other allows for the perpetuation of surveillance, which is enabled by

the generalisation of the migrant, constructed as other, and framed within fixed

categories.

A positive outlook

Although identities are shaped within certain restraining factors, there are also

positive ways in which they can flourish. For example, Bhabha (1994) introduces the

concept of vernacular cosmopolitanism, which provides an optimistic outlook in how

identities can be constructed. Vernacular cosmopolitanism is defined as 'a political

process that works towards the shared goals of democratic rules, rather than simply

acknowledging already constituted "marginal" political entities or identities' (Bhabha,

1994: xx). Accordingly, this "right to difference in equality" reflects upon a desire to

reconsider the notion of citizenship as one that does not solely depend on identities

formed by nationhood. In dismissing "symbolic citizenship", Bhabha (1994) invites for

the possibility to transcend this problem of ontology and reach a higher ethical

standard, where discrimination does not depend on one's nation of origin.


15

Moreover, for DuBois (n.d. cited in Bhabha, 1994: xxii), a ‘minority only discovers

its political force and its aesthetic form when it is articulated across and alongside

communities of difference, in acts of affiliation and contingent coalitions’. Within the

context of globalisation, these "across and alongside" encounters are relevant as

different cultures are increasingly in contact. Moreover, power differentials between

migrants and nationals also allow for these ‘acts of affiliations and contingent coalitions’

(Bhabha, 1994: xxii). Bhabha (1994) proposes the concept of hybridity in investigating

power differentials between oppressed and oppressor, as he states that hybrids emerge

from a “Third Space”:

These in between spaces provide the terrain for elaborating strategies of selfhood – singular or communal – that initiate new signs of identity and innovative sites of collaborating, and contestation in the act of defining the idea of society itself (Bhabha, 1994: 2).

This ‘Third Space’ allows for hybrids to create new alternatives from that of

those in the dominant discourse, and in this way, form their own constructions of “self’

(Bhabha, 1994: 5). On the other hand, Ahmad (1995 cited in Werbner and Modood,

1997: 21) argues that hybridity is problematic, in the sense that it ‘fails to move beyond

the ephemeral and the contingent; thus it masks long-‐term social and political

continuities and transformations’. The scholar further claims that change must come

from a ‘coherent sense of place, of belonging, of some stable commitment to one’s

class, gender or nation’ (Ahmad, 1995 cited in Werbner and Modood, 1997: 21).

It must be reiterated that this fixity that Ahmad (1995) brings forth is precisely

what Hall (1993); Bhabha (1994) and Said (1978) deem as central to the formation of

stereotypes. Werbner and Modood (1997: 3) rightfully ask, 'what is the place and


16

meaning of cultural hybridity in the context of growing global uncertainty, xenophobia,

and racism'? As cultural hybridity “optimistically” aims to challenge the dominant

discourse, these “liminal spaces” (Bahbha, 1994) are important to consider within the

larger discourse of the European Union.

European Union Identity

This chapter focuses on the EU's cultural slogan "unity in diversity" as a focal

aspect in the EU discourse of homogenisation and questions the increasing focus on

culture on behalf of the EU as an important aspect of its branding.

Vidmar-‐Horvat (2012: 28) notes that it is important to define what is ‘European

culture' and 'European identity' to be able to assess the success of intercultural dialogue

policymaking in bridging cultural differences. The common values of the European

identity include 'human dignity, freedom, equality, solidarity, democracy and the rule of

law' (Kiwan and Meinhof, 2006: 61). Essentially, the EU is an alliance of 28 member

states that functions in a standardized way in which members must adhere to common

rules, ethics and values. The EU was formed after WWII on the premise of a peaceful

cohabitation between neighbouring countries (Vidmar-‐Horvat, 2012). After it being

dismissed in the first instances of the creation of the EU (Vidmar-‐Horvat, 2012; Karaca,

2010), cultural policy gained prominence in two ways: firstly, in terms of 'creating a

common European identity through culture’ (Mokre, 2006) and secondly, from this idea

of "unity in diversity" (Meinhof and Triandafyllidou, 2006: 3).

More specifically, the 1992 Maastricht Treaty gave ‘a supranational competence

on culture' and prioritised the latter in the EU with regards to social cohesion and


17

intercultural dialogue (Sassatelli, 2006: 27). The EU's slogan "unity in diversity" is

mandated to 'enhance the feeling of belonging to one and the same community' (EU,

2014), whilst taking into account the diversity of cultures. In line with this idea of

diversity, the 2004 and 2007 EU enlargements have triggered a redefinition of identity

for all EU members (Vidmar-‐Horvat, 2012).

Considered as ‘an essential element of European integration’ (Culture 2007), the

Maastricht Treaty emphasised "unity in diversity", and ‘made every citizen of an EU

member state a citizen of the EU’ (Bomberg and Stubb, 2003: 164). Anderson's

Imagined Communities is often mentioned in academic research on EU culture as it

reflects upon the myth in the reinforcement of the relationship between the citizen and

nation. This so-‐called myth, as Anderson puts it, is crucial in the formation of the

utopian EU and its ideals of imagining a community where diverse cultures come

together as one.

Accordingly, programs in the likes of Culture 2000 formed and partnerships

between the Council of Europe and the EU solidified as means of encouraging a stronger

bond between EU and citizens (Sassatelli, 2006). For example, the creation of the

“European City of Culture” program gives attention to culture and illustrates the EU’s

aim to reinforce the citizen-‐EU relationship by encouraging a stronger bond to member

cities. However, Bomberg and Stubb (2003: 164) argue that this ‘has done little to instil

a greater sense of identity or belonging’. Karaca (2010) and Kiwan and Kosnick (2010)

argue in unison that culture is instrumental to appease economic and social tensions


18

deriving from both immigration and the homogenisation of the EU, and it is against this

backdrop that otherness is deemed important to discuss.

EU Identity and Otherness

Although the EU's symbolism is eloquently expressed in its policy documents, the

European identity comes with assumptions that are important to decipher. For instance,

Vidmar-‐Horvat (2012) brings forth a Foucauldian approach to the "European citizen" as

he uncovers power relations within the European barometer, which is essentially a

measurement of public opinion on diverse matters such as discrimination, justice, and

freedom. The scholar argues that the EU barometer reproduces the East and West

dichotomy, as the East is perceived as "ambiguous and in flux" and thus amenable to

scrutiny (Vidmar-‐Horvat, 2012). This oriental discourse within the EU barometer is

displayed within 'Western questions' such as 'what do people in the candidate countries

read?' (Vidmar-‐Horvat, 2012: 35), explicitly unveiling an ideal to which the East must be

measured to. Accordingly, the EU elaborates power differentials within its discourse,

scrutinising potential members, and further marginalising those who do not fit in.

Rejecting this notion of “unity in diversity” proclaimed by the EU, Kiwan and

Meinhof (2006: 61) maintain that 'common core values are juxtaposed to “other” values

and cultures in the context of immigration’. Sešić, Dragojećvic (2006) note that there is a

division in Europe between the East and the West, what the authors label “Eurowall”.

Anderson (2009 cited in Sešić and Dragojećvic, 2006:49) further reiterates that the EU

presents itself as 'having a higher set of values', while Kiwan and Meinhof (2006: 58)

state that 'of course, what is understood by European culture is potentially problematic


19

and a rather taken for granted sense of a Christian white Europeanness seems to have

dominated'. This "white Europeanness" more specifically refers to an inclusive -‐ and

essentially exclusive -‐ portrayal of values that are to be shared by this new "global

citizen", this “EU national”.

Moreover, Vidmar-‐Horvat (2012) and Sassatelli (2006) both contend that the

increase in value given to culture within the EU rhetoric is a ploy to legitimise the EU.

Sassatelli (2006: 31) critiques this notion of "unity in diversity" as being contradictory as

it, on one hand, aims for homogenisation, and on the other, seeks to embrace

differences -‐ 'excluding the possibility of conflict, and rather applying a top-‐down,

centralising approach'. Sešić and Dragojećvic (2006: 53) criticise the EU’s cultural

policies as ones that are "constructed community-‐driven", based on stereotypes,

xenophobia and national megalomania'. Accordingly, cultural discourse must be socially

aware at the supranational level -‐ within the EU -‐ before intercultural dialogue can be

successfully implemented at the local level.

Intercultural dialogue

It is important to take into account the literature on EU culture policymaking, as

the latter is a catalyst in the successful implementation of projects of an intercultural

nature. This section investigates the prominence of intercultural dialogue within

policymaking and discusses its limitations in terms of its definitional ambiguity and

instrumentalisation on the practical level.

Edward T. Hall (1957 cited in Neuliep, 2011: 23) is claimed to be the founder of

intercultural communication studies, which is the study of interaction between people


20

from different cultures. E.T. Hall (1957) states that 'people are unaware of their cultural

ways of living' as he investigates the way 'nonverbal channels of time, space and body

language' affect one's communication processes (cited in Neuliep, 2011: 23). The scholar

notably brings forth the importance of intercultural competences -‐ one of them being

"mindfulness" – as essential for successful intercultural communication. What is defined

as "mindfulness", or interchangeably "awareness", and the development of intercultural

competences is required to engage in effective intercultural communication (Neuliep,

2011: 352).

Intercultural dialogue oscillates between many working definitions. Ganesh and

Holmes (2011: 83) criticise the EU’s definition of intercultural dialogue as "indistinct"

and “ambiguous". On the other hand, Ganesh and Holmes (2011: 84) also recognise that

the ambiguity of the concept allows for 'creativity, investigation, critique and insight'

within the academic field. Moreover, the 2007 European Barometer Intercultural

Dialogue in Europe finds that ‘a large minority namely 36% could not attribute any

particular meaning’ (Vidmar-‐Hovart, 2012: 36) to what intercultural dialogue means.

Accordingly, the creative and cultural industries have also been subjected to various

definitional interpretations, which still today raises debates about the consequences of

such ambiguity in terms of ineffective measurements and biased cultural policies.

As scholars claim that policymaking on intercultural dialogue has been growing

at ‘an exceptional rate' (Aman, 2012: 1012), published documents are explicitly making

note of its importance for social cohesion. That intercultural dialogue should be part of

the mandate of cultural organisations is categorical in the EU cultural policy act and


21

exemplified in the creation of the 2008 'European Year of Intercultural Dialogue', solely

dedicated for this purpose (EU, 2012). The Council of Europe (2008: 16) confirms that

intercultural dialogue is "a major tool" to manage diversity, 'without which, it will be

difficult to safeguard the freedom and well-‐being of everyone living on our continent'.

Accordingly, Karaca (2010: 122) praises intercultural dialogue as "the only realm"

in which social issues such as immigration can be tackled. Intercultural dialogue is

helpful because it exceeds the tolerance of the other and transcends the need for

consensus, allowing the possibility for conflict (Ganesh and Holmes, 2011: 81). However,

often defined in terms of "tolerance", intercultural dialogue, like multiculturalism, can

cloak inequalities (Brown, 2008), which will be discussed in the following.

Ethnocentrism and power

Essentially, ethnocentrism is based on the idea that our point of reference in

evaluating other cultures stems from our native culture and that our own culture is

deemed most valuable (Neuliep, 2011). Said (1978: 11) explains our inherent bias when

he states that, ‘no production of knowledge in the human sciences can ever ignore or

disclaim its author’s involvement as a human subject in his own circumstances’. Hall

(1993) and Bhabha (1994) contribute to this essentialist definition of ethnocentrism as

they claim that it is "a problem of ontology". More specifically, Neuliep (2011: 23)

defines ethnocentrism as the 'preferred and accepted standards by which one should

conduct his or her life', with regards to particular traditions, values and customs. This, in

turn, influences one's worldview of other cultures. Acknowledging that ethnocentrism


22

is, according to some theorists, innate in each and every one of us demands for a

reflexive approach in the way we interact with one another.

Ethnocentrism clashes with the premise of intercultural dialogue, as interactions

can never be equal, considering that these "traditions, values, and customs" that one

inherits is central to a given culture. The concept of ethnocentrism also clashes with the

EU ideal of the "global citizen" whom shares a "common culture, with common values"

(EU, 2012; Aman, 2012: 1011). Moreover, the prominence of the term "Eurocentrism" in

academic papers implies the general consensus of Europe's perceived superiority with

regards to other cultures. If intercultural dialogue is about attempting to understand the

other's worldview, then it must begin with accepting the other, and to what extent can

power differentials go unrecognized when one's culture is inherently superior to

another's?

Vadmir-‐Hovart (2012: 41) rightfully asks: does intercultural dialogue allow for

the inclusion of others, or is it bound to reiterate exclusionary practices? Aman (2012:

1011) also questions the power differentials of intercultural dialogue as he explains that

a 'unified identity cannot be inclusionary without being exclusionary'. Within this

context, the outsiders are those that are not part of the EU, thus excluded from EU

projects, including those of an intercultural dialogue nature. Ganesh and Holmes (2011:

83) recognise that, 'themes of inclusion, openness and representation can create

assumptions of equality that obscure existing discriminatory relationships'.

Vadmir-‐Hovart (2012: 41) notes that the central issue of intercultural dialogue

within the EU is its dismissal in acknowledging that identities are fractured, and that


23

intercultural dialogue acts more like an "ideological vehicle" rather than a practical

solution. Aman (2012: 1018) is also critical of intercultural dialogue's success as he

states that 'intercultural dialogue is a resource to neutralise doctrines conflicting with

'European values'. Accordingly, intercultural dialogue is highly valued from the EU

policymaking point of view, yet academics question the success of its implementation

beyond its discourse on a supranational level.

The artist’s role

The stratified power relations found in rhetorical policymaking can be

exemplified when investigating the role of the arts in intercultural dialogue. It has been

argued that the arts are instrumentalised from a political perspective to attend to socio-‐

economic goals that exceed their purpose. The debate between excellence vs. access in

the creative and cultural industries can be reiterated in the context of intercultural

dialogue. Accordingly, Karaca (2010) defines this instrumentalisation towards ethnic

minorities as she argues:

At the institutional level of cultural policy, it is implicitly presumed that non-‐'white' immigrants will, above all, engage in cultural or artistic projects which are tied to the notion of ethnic and social identities and do not qualify as "serious" cultural contributions of artistic value (Karaca, 2010: 14).

In this way, immigrant groups are understood as distinct groups whose

'difference' is means entails that cultural production still remains primarily tied to socio-‐

political goals’ (Kiwan and Kosnic, 2006: 110). In this way, it is also difficult to assess

whether artists’ works are intrinsically or extrinsically motivated as culture ‘is expected

to be statements about cultural differences and Otherness’ (Kiwan and Kosnic, 2006:

123).


24

The authors argue for 'new forms of cultural expression that transcend the boundaries of the national or the ethnic and create new types of artistic expression, new cultural and commercial networks for art products and eventually new realities of cultural diversity and cosmopolitanism' (Kiwan and Kosnick, 2006: 123).

To what extent must these cultural organisations have to deal with otherness,

whilst maintaining their artistic legitimacy? It has also been criticised that financial

support is at times provided not in regards to an artist’s work, but rather how the

artist’s work contributes to social matters (Karaca, 2010).

On the other hand, Intercultural Europe states that organisations need to

implement the cultural policies in regards to intercultural dialogue ‘as an instrument for

'peace and conflict prevention' (2010: 7). Thus, for “interculturalism” to become the

norm, cultural institutions need to change (EU, 2012), and manage the artists legitimacy

whilst also attending to events of a social nature. These conflicting views make it

difficult to assess the limits to which intercultural dialogue prioritises social issues over

the artist’s intrinsic motives.

Methodology and framework

Although the presence of intercultural dialogue in policymaking 'has been

growing at an exceptional rate' (Aman, 2012; 1010), there is a significant lack in

academic research on the topic (Ganesh and Holmes, 2011). The purpose of this

dissertation is to contribute to the existing academic research on intercultural dialogue

by exploring two case studies: the Romanian Cultural Institute London (RCI) and the

Romanian Cultural Center (RCC). This analysis examines how the RCI and RCC address


25

otherness and aims to discover the factors that enable and constrain intercultural

dialogue projects within their agenda.

In considering that particular methods are appropriate in answering particular

questions, this analysis used both qualitative and quantitative research approaches to

provide a holistic account of both case studies, and in so doing disregards the ‘paradigm

war’ between both methodologies (Oakley, 1999). More specifically, this study was

supported by qualitative in-‐depth interviews, documented sources, and a short content

analysis of past cultural events conducted at the RCI and RCC.

Qualitative analysis

Participants agreed to be fully identified and the purpose of the interviews was

to elicit views from the participants in relation to their understanding of the Romanian

identity and how can this identity be shaped within their respective cultural

organisation or field of work. In-‐depth, semi-‐structured qualitative interviews were

conducted with deputy director Magda Stroe from RCI, project manager Carmen

Campeanu from RCC, as well as political and social activist for the Romanian diaspora’s

rights in London, Paul Suciu.

My main scope from these interviews was to grasp a better understanding of the

imagination of projects in relation to identity, and the factors that constrain and enable

intercultural dialogue in the planning of events. The interview with Suciu on the other

hand was useful in gaining an outsider’s perspective on how intercultural dialogue can

be addressed in more pragmatic ways, given his reactionary implication in fighting

against the discrimination of Romanians in UK.


26

Following the verbatim transcription of interviews, a thematic analytic method

was conducted from an inductive approach; in which common themes and patterns

were identified within the data collected. Accordingly, several themes were found from

the interviews, and also related to the literature review. These findings contributed to

the analysis dedicated to my second research question investigating the limitations in

the implementation of intercultural dialogue within the RCI and RCC.

Quantitative analysis

Quantitative data was acquired using content analysis to measure the frequency

and type of intercultural dialogue events conducted at both the RCI and RCC. This

statistical data was helpful in comparing and contrasting the organisations to uncover

the types of intercultural dialogue projects they create. The quantitative data was

crucial in providing an objective approach, thus contributing to the qualitative data

acquired form the interviews.

Content analysis is an objective and systematic analysis (Bryman, 2012). This

method was conducted in response to my first research question, which investigates the

extent to which the RCC and RCI address the issue of otherness. Categories were

determined beforehand, and frequency was deducted by the events organised at both

the RCI and RCC from the period of June 2013 to June 2014. This method is fitting in

terms of supporting the hypothesis that cultural organisations conduct events that are

by definition considered intercultural dialogue; yet fail to address sensitive topics that

may be beneficial in mediating ethnic conflicts.


27

Limitations and validity

It is important to consider the researcher's role in conducting qualitative analysis

(Finlay, 2002). I am Canadian of Romanian origin and as the focus of my research was on

Romanian immigrants in London, I understand that a reflexive approach was necessary

in limiting the bias of my research. When speaking for a minority, the ‘non-‐other’

researcher inevitably has a superior position in relation to its participants (Alcoff, 1991).

My complex background was useful in the ability to relate to both the Romanian

minority whilst providing an objective approach to the problematic. To further ensure

the validity of my qualitative analysis, I have used multiple data to support my research

(Creswell, 2009).

The qualitative analysis was carried out from an inductive approach, which is

useful in terms of limiting the bias of the researcher in manipulating the findings (Braun

and Clarke, 2006). That being said, Braun and Clarke (2006) also note that it is important

to acknowledge the researcher's role in the search for themes, regardless of the way

they may have 'emerged' from the collected data. The content analysis allowed for a

representative “hard data” to contribute to the “soft data” acquired from the

interviews, and in so doing increased the validity of the analysis.

It was assumed that access to interviewees would be simple given my cultural

background and the currency and nature of the project. Access to the ICR required

negotiation precisely because the organisation was reluctant to discussing the

sometimes negative UK rhetoric about Romanian immigrants. Moreover, to understand

intercultural dialogue’s place in cultural diplomacy, an e-‐mail interview was secured


28

with the Romanian Ambassador in London, yet the latter failed to reply to my last

attempt of contact. I have filled this gap with documented resources on EU cultural

policies of intercultural dialogue. Both RCC and RCI interviews were conducted in their

operating venues, whilst the interview with the activist Suciu took place outdoors.

All interviews were lead in Romanian and translated for the transcripts and

analysis. As language affects one’s cultural worldview (Neuliep, 2011), conducting the

interviews in Romanian allowed for bonding between the researcher and participants.

Acknowledging that my analysis of the cultural organisations was of a critical and

sensitive nature, well-‐tailored questions in relation to the immigration problematic was

crucial in conducting the interviews. Although the research approaches chosen were

suitable in answering my questions, both surveys of attendees' perspectives on the

event, as well as an ethnographic approach would have been very helpful in gaining a

wider perspective on the outcomes of participation in intercultural dialogue events.

Findings, Analysis and Discussion

In the context of globalisation, the EU cautions that cultural institutions must

‘deeply revise their operations and vision, so as to address the needs of a society that is

culturally more diverse than the one they were established for’ (EU, 2014: 6). Moreover,

(Sešić, Dragojećvic, 2006: 52) claim that intercultural communication [see dialogue] and

mediation is a genuine responsibility of the public sector'.

Given the said roles of cultural organisations as framed by the most recent EU

policy document as well as cultural academics, it is therefore fitting to investigate the

conflict-‐mediation role of the Romanian Cultural Institute (RCI) and Romanian Cultural


29

Center (RCC) in London. This section compares and contrasts the RCI and RCC,

acknowledging the internal structural differences, as the RCC is a private organisation,

whilst the RCI is government-‐funded.

Case studies

The RCC is a small, non-‐political organization founded in 1994 aiming 'to promote Romanian cultural programs, maintain connections within the Romanian community in Britain and facilitate cultural exchanges between Britain and Romania’ (RCC, 2014). The RCI is part of a global network of cultural institutes and acts as ‘a diplomatic mission, cultural management unit, artistic and PR agency as well as a center for research and documentation. It devotes equal energy to initiatives about Britain for Romanians and collaborates with Romanians in the UK on community projects' (RCI, 2014).

How does the RCI and RCC address otherness?

Identity: Past, present, future 'Identities are the names we give to the different ways we are positioned by, and

position ourselves within the narratives of the past' (Hall, 1993: 225; Bhabha, 1994). In

this way, the Romanian identity today can only be understood by its past. After the fall

of communism in 1989, Romania was tasked with re-‐inventing its identity, which is still

today contested. In Andreea Paris’ article ‘Negotiating the Romanian Quest for Cultural

Identity after 1989’, the scholar takes a post-‐colonial approach to investigate the

construction of Romanian identities. Within the context of the USSR’s ideological and

cultural oppression on Eastern European countries, Romanians were under colonisation,

subjected to the dominant discourse (Paris, 2014).


30

Paris (2014: 272) describes the Romanian identity as one that struggles with ‘a

seemingly endless period of transition, of in betweenness with respect to a possible

Western future and its communist past'. In this way, Romania finds itself embezzled

between two ideological frameworks that have culturally and politically entrapped its

image in "colonial otherness" (Paris, 2014: 273).

This “crisis of identity” (Paris, 2014: 276) explains itself in the way Romania’s

searches for authenticity, yet finds itself entrapped in mimicry by imitating its former

colonisers (Paris, 2014: 276). It can be argued that Bhabha’s theory of the “Third Space'”

from which cultural hybridity emerges is where Romania currently stands in search for

its identity. This paper assumes that the RCI and RCC situate this “Third Space”, where

the Romanian diaspora can shape their identities through the arts; ‘where in this space,

we emerge as the others of our selves’ (Bhabha, 1994: 56).

When asked how cultural activities at the RCI enable the Romanian diaspora to

construct its identity, Deputy Director of the ICR Magda Stroe responds:

From the artistic point of view, identities are not logic – they are always in search, and this search of identity is an artistic act in itself. By engaging with cultural products and cultural creations, one tries to find their identity – be it the [Romanian] artist, or the audience. This is also an artistic act in itself (Interview, 2014).

RCC Project Manager Carmean Campeanu responds in a more pragmatic way:

All the effort should be put into developing their own personalities, trying to configure this post-‐communist Romanian identity so efforts in Romania should be put towards something different, and efforts in London shut be put towards starting a dialogue and trying to bridge the two cultures [Romanian and Britannic] through various cultural projects' (Interview, 2014).


31

In this way, the arts can provide Romanians a means to understand their past

and create their present. Kiossev (2003) presents a less positive outlook on Romania’s

identity as the academic states that its “dark self-‐image” and “inferiority complex” has

led to self-‐colonisation (cited in Paris, 2014: 277). Neuliep (2011) argues that we have a

responsibility to understand our own culture before we attempt to understand

another’s. This rather negative image Romania is assumed to have consequently affects

the people’s ability to interact with others.

Social and political activist for the Romanian diaspora’s rights Paul Suciu

resonates with both Kiossev (2003) and Neuliep (2011) when he states, 'a lot of

Romanians think of themselves as inferior’ and that ‘we [Romanians] must assume that

the Romanian identity comes with some responsibilities. [This entails] responsibilities of

understanding this identity and wanting to change something' (Interview, 2014). In this

way, the RCI and RCC can take the form of these “Third Spaces” (Bhabha, 1994) to cater

to Romania’s fragmented identity, in so doing allowing for the contestation and creation

of one that is hopefully “whole”.

Overcoming the fear of the other

As means of addressing otherness within the RCI and RCC’s activities, it is

important to consider the way these cultural organisations challenge long-‐held

stereotypes about Romanians and Romania. Both the RCI and RCC function as a press

office, and thus it is in their duty to respond to outside enquiries and manage the image

of the Romanian diaspora in London. Campeanu recalls the period of 2013-‐2014 as one

that was hectic for the organisation because of the proliferation of negative media


32

about Romanian migrants by some UK media. Campeanu notes, 'from my experience

and what I heard from other journalists, when something Romania-‐related happens in

the UK, they try to approach Romanian institutions and the Embassy' (Interview, 2014).

The project manager explains the RCC’s approach to the issue:

We are open to everyone. We spoke directly to maybe about 100 journalists in the past 16 months such as BBC and The Sun. We've been trying to open a dialogue, to invite people to have a look at Romania from the Romania that we are trying to present and meet people we know and meet the Romanians in Romania (Interview, 2014).

When asked if the RCC initiated the conversation with journalists, Campeanu

replies, ‘they were the ones calling us. But sometimes, we would call them as well, when

we would see a horrible article or horrible news report, we would approach them’

(Interview, 2014). Van Dijk (2012) problematises the mild racism:

The more modern, subtle and indirect forms of ethnic or racial inequality, and especially the racism or rather ethnicism based on constructions of cultural difference and incompatibility, is seldom characterized as racism but at most xenophobia and more often than not as legitimate cultural self-‐defense (2012: 93)

Campeanu rightfully argues, 'but when you have mild racism or mild hatred

towards immigration, it's very hard to sue someone from that, it's very nuanced'

(Interview, 2014). While the RCC proactively engaged with the media to start a dialogue,

the RCI on the other hand were reluctant in starting a conversation or even responding

to third parties requests. This can be further exemplified by the difficulty encountered

to contact the RCI as stated in the methodology section.

Stroe explains their reluctance when she states, ‘we thought that everything that

means public position in relation to these articles should be conducted by the Embassy.

As a cultural institute, it is not opportune or efficient to bring work that is politically


33

sensible, social’ (Interview, 2014). Given the RCI acts as an “artist and PR office” as listed

on its website, it is difficult to understand their role in managing the diaspora’s image

reputation by omitting to respond to dialogue initiated by third parties.

Challenging perceptions

As iterated in the introduction, Romania’s faces a negative image reputation not

only in the UK but in Europe as well. Suciu defines Romania’s problematic image as a

result of the Roma problem, the poorness, and more specifically Romanians in the UK

not adhering to English values (Interview, 2014). Suciu further states, 'The English -‐ you

can't sell them the Romanian culture, you have to sell them values, if you don't give

them values then what do we talk about then?' (Interview, 2014) When asked how their

respective cultural events challenge the UK’s sometimes negative perception about

Romanian immigrants, Campeanu responds:

Our aim is not to change someone's perspective about immigration or Romania, it is to start a dialogue' (my emphasis). RCC just wants to make them curious. Last year we commissioned a documentary about Romanian night workers in London -‐ not only showing good parts of Romanians or the Romanian diaspora here but it was a really good and necessary discussion and a dialogue started (Interview, 2014).

On the other hand, Stroe argues that it is through the RCI’s artists that it attempts to

break stereotypes when she states:

Because people who knew nothing about Romania come and discover a new culture: our music and traditions – or people that had a certain perception of Romania, ah! It is poor country from the East of Europe, and coming here they see our artists…(Interview, 2014).

Thus, both the RCI and RCC address otherness through arts and culture in different

ways: the former by depicting the realities of the Romanian migrant, the latter by


34

showcasing the talented. Although these quotes serve as examples, this generalisation

can be inferred given the results generated from the content analysis, which will be

presented below.

In order to challenge perceptions, it is crucial to investigate which cultural

practices are most effective. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz (n.d. cited in Bhabha, 1994:

84) perceives understanding the other as 'more like grasping a proverb, catching an

illusion, seeing a joke than it is like achieving communion'. This lighthearted approach to

making sense of the other unveils the humanity of it all -‐ the way in which we reunite

through 'the basic values of being a human being' (Bhabha, 1994: 84).

Illustrative of this line of thought is the RCC’s ‘Zicale ⎢Romanian Sayings’ photo

exhibition (Fig.1: Appendix A) of Romanian proverbs. Guests were paired with a member

of the Romanian community and invited to make an inference on the meaning of the

proverb in question, drawing their own cultural background. This cheerful event reflects

Geertz’ proposition of interacting with the other through our similarities rather than

focusing on our differences.

Another interesting example led by the RCC in hopes of challenging stereotypes

is its most recent event entitled form ‘extra’ to ‘Ordinary’, which showcases the daily

lives of Romanian Roma in the UK. A recent report on the representation of Romanians

and Bulgarians in UK media reflects on that of the Roma as well, and has found that

words to describe the Roma or Gypsies were often related to ‘either crime and

antisocial behaviour, persecution or settlement’ (Migration Observatory, 2014: 2).

Moreover, the Roma problem is also a recurring discussion within the Romanian


35

community as Campeanu states that ‘there is a tendency for Romanians to make a

distinction between Roma and Romanians in a way that is discriminating the Roma . This

is a thing that we felt the need to address’ (Interview, 2014). In this way, the RCC

decided to spread awareness about the Roma problem, in contrast to the RCI’s

reluctance to address topics of a sensitive nature.

Campeanu considers the reflexive approach entailed in imagining intercultural

dialogue events as she considers, ‘the whole idea was not to create something you think

resonates with the Roma community, but to actually bring them on Board (Interview,

2014). Accordingly, the project was conceived by British academics, members of the EU

commission and the UK Roma Support Group. In Linda Alcoff’s (1991) article 'The

problem of speaking for Others', the scholar questions the researcher’s superiority

when representing minorities, and suggests that rather than speaking for the other, we

should engage with the other. Although this project does not directly relate to the

Romano-‐British relation, it does provide insight into best practices for intercultural

dialogue in terms of collectively discussing with the other in order to correctly represent

the other.

Whose there, who cares?

The involvement of immigrants in local cultural life is a fundamental tool for breaking the sense of exclusion; and may foster a sense of integration to the country of settlement. Culture, and in particular intercultural dialogue, may act as vehicles promoting cultural dialogue, inclusion and a vision of a multicultural society (Kosic and Triandafyllidou, 2006: 174).

Given the said importance of culture for citizens to overcome otherness, it is

important to investigate the RCC and RCI’s willingness to include the diaspora in their


36

cultural activities. As intercultural dialogue involves an exchange between participants

(EU, 2012), it is fitting to consider the cultural background of guests attending the

events in question. At the RCI, it was noted that the audience is of roughly 60% British or

international and 40% Romanian (Stroe, Interview, 2014), while the RCC’s public is

“roughly” made up of a 60% Romanian audience and 40% other (Campeanu, Interview,

2014). The RCI claims that its goal is to attract a foreign audience, whilst the RCC seeks

to cater to both a foreign audience as well as the Romanian diaspora. Both

representatives noted that audience characteristics often depended on the type of

cultural event presented.

As described in the literature review, a diaspora’s cultural participation is

sometimes limited and can take place at a highly stratified level (Kosic and

Triandafyllidou, 2006). Van-‐Hovart (2012) further critiques power relations found in

intercultural dialogue projects when he states:

It is an ideological vehicle for the reproduction of a Eurocentric image of the tolerance and openness of the new Europeans [and] shows little desire to seek conditions, which would encourage dominant communities to search for sources of empowerment for the deprivileged and dispossessed as the basis for enhancing social cohesion and solidarity. It is ill-‐equipped to deal with social change and the tensions triggered by Europeanization and globalisation' (Van-‐Horvat, 2012: 41).

Dragulescu (2013: 9) describes the RCI’s audience as “elite” and “niche”, made

up of ‘highly culturally educated people, diplomatic communities, or local dignitaries’.

Accordingly, as most of the RCI's public is somewhat 'elitist', it is rather difficult to reach

a wider audience, thus raising the excellence vs. access debate (Van-‐Hovart, 2012). As

the RCI functions as Romania's main arm for cultural diplomacy in London (RCI, 2014), it

would be suitable if the organisation also worked for the better integration of the


37

Romanian diaspora in London. Thus, the RCI’s reluctance to include Romanians from

different socio-‐economic backgrounds reinforces the already established class relations

and in so doing reiterates the process of exclusion.

What enables and constrains intercultural dialogue?

Romania in the EU family

All 28 members of the EU must in some way adhere to the EU’s ideology, as

they are now confined to the union’s common rules, ethics, and values. Accordingly,

Romania’s conditional accession to the EU in 2007 brings forth responsibilities of

attending to culture and intercultural dialogue projects that reflect its newfound EU

identity. Stroe acknowledges the RCI’s attempts to better respond to this inclusion as

she states:

Once with the adherence of Romania in the EU in 2007, the European countries were open to Romanian culture and the mode in which this can be viewed as an exotic place (my emphasis). We noticed in the first years a larger opening of the Romanian culture – as a culture that is diverse, a place where the arts and the culture in general, but the arts in particular, are seen as a place of interaction between the local public and Romanian artists that come to present their work – be it visual creations or performing arts. RCI through this proposes diversity in the arts, a balance and a dialogue of the Romano-‐Britannic interactions (Interview, 2014).

In response to some of the UK media's labelling of a "Romanian invasion" before

the 2007 accession (Stroe, Interview, 2014), the RCI decided to frame this as 'A

Romanian cultural invasion'. The institute thus attempted to challenge perceptions by

promoting its artists. Stroe adds, 'It was a difficult year, but an important one to show

that a population can be known through its arts, its music, its traditional culture'

(Interview, 2014).


38

Stroe also notes that Romania’s inclusion to the EU has strengthened

relationships with EU cultural programs, such as EUNIC (2006), which is a financial

assistance body for networks within the union. As stated on its website, EUNIC’s mission

is to ‘promote European values and to contribute to cultural diversity inside and outside

of the EU [and] aims to strengthen cultural dialogue, exchange and sustainable

cooperation worldwide’ (EUNIC, 2014).

EUNIC’s 2012 panel discussion entitled ‘Cultural Diplomacy in a Changing World:

How to Respond to the Current Challenges’ was held at the RCI London and reflected

upon the network’s best practices and future strategic plans. It is interesting to note

that during the roundtable conference, Turkish Professor Tunc Aybak states,

One of the most important challenges ahead is the cultural geo-‐politics of inclusion […] there are countries that are subject to this “anxiety of exclusion” not only as a result of the economic crisis, but also because of the rhetoric of populist politics, do you have anything on your agenda do address these issues, to manage these, and to engage with these? (EUNIC, 29.30, 2012)

EUNIC President Delphine Borione-‐Pratesi responds that ‘It is not our role’, and

that these challenges are culturally addressed through the notion of “unity in diversity”

(EUNIC, 2012). Accordingly, the EUNIC example is illustrative of the critiques brought

forth by Vidmar-‐Hovart (2012); Karaca (2010) and Sassatelli (2006) about EU cultural

initiatives devising a rhetoric, which lacks pragmatic validity within the context of

globalisation and merging of different cultures. The visions of the RCI as a standalone

institute as well as part of the EUNIC program reflect this aversion of addressing the

challenges faced by increasing immigration.


39

Are you an artist or a social worker?

It is crucial to consider the cultural organisation’s mission when questioning the

extent to which the latter addresses otherness. Kiwan and Kosnick (2006) study the

difference between art works created by artists, and those imagined by artists labeled

as “ethnic”. As discussed in the literature review, cultural events conducted by ethnic

minorities are often expected to be 'statements about cultural differences and

Otherness' (Kiwan and Kosnic, 2006: 123). These statements take form in various ways,

such as art works that are purely traditional, where recognised nation symbols are more

than evident, or where struggles of ethnic minorities are the main focus of discussion.

The RCI defies this assumption of minorities required to present ethnic art as it

chooses to implement cultural events that focus on the artists’ legitimacy. This is

exemplified by the RCI’s multiple partnerships with recognised institutes such as the

Barbican, Tate Modern, Royal Academy of Arts and the Victoria & Albert Museum (ICR,

2014). In this way, the ICR aims to increase the visibility of already established Romanian

artists by integrating them in London’s arts and culture, as Stroe notes:

We want to show that Romanian artists and cultural events can be created in the capital of culture, one of the biggest cultural cities in the world. In fact, the subliminal message is that Romanian artists are framed in the European cultural market. So somehow, bottom line, arts and Romanian culture take place in a cultural European discourse (Interview, 2014). Accordingly, by challenging the expected mantra of foreign cultural organisations focusing on ethnic issues, the RCI brings forth the Excellency of Romanian artists and cultural products.

In this way, the RCI’s directional focus allows for ‘new realities of cultural

diversity’ (Karaca, 2010: 15) for nationals and immigrants where there is a sense of

equality. The RCC however aims at increasing visibility for both emerging artists as well


40

as those working for a social cause (RCC, 2014). When asked how the RCC differs from

the RCI in terms of approaching certain types of artists, Campeanu replies,

We try to give space for the Romanians that aren't necessarily established artists but just want a little bit of support to prove themselves, and we have a way smaller budget and a smaller team (Interview, 2013).

Thus, the organisation’s internal structure in terms of finance distribution and

available labour influences the chosen artists, regardless of a higher moral purpose. In

imagining cultural events that are of a sensitive nature, the RCC can be perceived as

reinforcing the idea of ethnic production of culture in a way that reiterates their

difference. The question is: what is the balance between legitimacy and the fight for a

social cause, whilst simultaneously enabling communal integration for ethnic

minorities? This question is subjective, and depends on one’s priorities. Yet, it can be

argued that intercultural dialogue is more effective when it draws attention to social

issues, as it confronts ethnic integration realities at face value.

Content Analysis on RCI and RCC intercultural dialogue events

To support the thematic analysis of the interviews, it was important to explore

the nature and frequency of the intercultural dialogue events conducted at both the RCI

and RCC. This short content analysis explores the events devised under the umbrella

term intercultural dialogue to respond to the first research question: how do the RCI

and RCC address otherness. The study covers the RCI and RCC’s events conducted in

London during the period of June 2013 to June 2014. Three categories were devised to

collect data namely; how often are the events dedicated to promoting Romanian artists;

social issues (panel discussions, debates); or both social issues and the arts. How artists


41

mend differences by addressing social issues is specifically of interest for this paper.

Data was collected reading the synopsis of each event and categorising them according

to their nature.

A total of 55 events were conducted by the RCI while a considerably lesser

amount of 22 – roughly two per month – events were organised by the RCC. The recent

cut in employees at the RCC is said to have impacted the total number of cultural events

conducted in the past year (Campeanu, Interview, 2014). It was found that 95% of the

events led by the RCI (Fig.2: Appendix B) were solely dedicated to the promotion of

Romanian artists, 3% to social issues and a mere 2% presented Romanian artists

addressing social issues (Fig. 1: Appendix B). In comparison, it was found that at the RCC

(Fig.1: Appendix B), 55% of events promoted Romanian artists; 18% social issues; and

27% were dedicated to both social issues and Romanian artists.

The results of the content analysis strongly support the findings from the

thematic analysis conducted from the qualitative interviews. Namely, the 95% figure

(Fig.2: Appendix B) of Romanian artists reinforces RCI’s stated purpose of promoting

Romanian artists. More specifically, it was found that 46% of their events were

dedicated to classical music, while film, visual arts, theatre and literature were roughly

around the same percentage. As Stroe has claimed that all the RCC events are of an

intercultural dialogue nature (Interview, 2014), there is however limited interaction

between the RCI and audience when the event is in the form of a concert. The emphasis

on events dedicated to classical music can also indicate the audience’s social class

(Bourdieu, 1980), which reinforces the argument of RCI’s restrictive access.


42

On the other hand, the RCC proves to be more diverse in the planning of cultural

events and caters to a wider audience regardless of their socio-‐economic standing.

Namely, the organisation covers theater with 50% and film and visual arts each take up

30%. Including their interest in conducting panel events about social issues in the likes

of mining awareness in Romania, or open dialogues for Roma integration best practices,

the RCC also conducts very interesting events that express problematic issues through

the arts. Two noteworthy intercultural events conducted at the RCC reflect on the

immigration issue of Romanians in the UK, namely:

‘The Foreigner’s Coat’ (Fig.2: Appendix A) ‘aims at deconstructing the media

mechanism of labeling Romanians as a homogenous and threatening mass of migrants

by focusing on individual stories’ (RCC, 2013). The installation is made out of found UK

newspaper articles using discriminatory language towards Romanians and essentially

disregarding individual characteristics. The metaphor here is that the coat reflects one

person; thus illustrating the individual rather than the mass, which is thought-‐provoking.

‘No One Belongs Here More Than You’ is a theatrical reflection on the reception

of Eastern Europeans in the UK. Two comedy skits were devised to express racism in the

media; one exaggerates headlines in tabloids about immigration “floods”; the other

humorously expresses stereotypes about Eastern Europeans as a group (RCI, 2014).

These two projects tackle sensitive subjects, demonstrating the RCI’s cultural-‐awareness

and openness to risk.


43

How risky is too risky?

To understand why the RCI is less amenable in conducting intercultural events of

a sensitive nature, it is important to consider the risk factor. Accordingly, it has been

found that an organisation’s funding body greatly influences the imagination of its

projects. The RCI receives funding by both the Romanian government, and must have its

projects proposals approved by the Senate (Dragulescu, 2003). Said (1978: 9) quotes

influential cultural critic Matthew Arnold (n.d.) when he states that 'the power of

culture is potentially nothing less than the power of the State'. Implicit in that statement

is that the State is perceived as an ideological vehicle for culture. Accordingly, when the

RCI was under the Communist regime, the institute’s arts and culture were censored in

regards to values that failed to adhere to the Communist ideal (Dragulescu, 2003: 3). As

Said (1978) contends:

Culture is ‘a system of exclusions legislated from above but enacted throughout its polity by which such things as anarchy, disorder, irrationality, inferiority bad taste and immorality are identified then deposited outside the culture, and kept there by its institutions. (1978: 54)

Said (1978) argues that state-‐governed culture is in some way filtered for ulterior

purposes that transcend that of disseminating culture. Sešić and Dragojećvic (2006: 50)

agree as they write, 'the state perceives the cultural institute as evidence of national

sovereignty and benchmarks of national identity’. When asked if ICR conducts events of

a sensitive nature, Stroe replies, 'here, the risk is bigger’ (Interview, 2014). Stroe

explains the government’s role in restricting certain subjects as she states, ‘we don’t

have total autonomy; we can’t do, if we wanted, an exposition with a sensitive subject.


44

We won’t do it even if we would want to – because the Board of Directors would say it

isn’t opportune’ (Interview, 2014).

In so doing, cultural organisations may deem it unorthodox to conduct

intercultural events that are of a more sensitive nature, although the latter can be more

rewarding in terms of receiving more attention. As Bhabha (1994: 163) argues, 'cultural

production is always most productive where it is most ambivalent and transgressive'.

Taking this into consideration, it can therefore be said that cultural events are most

successful when they are of a riskier nature. Accordingly, when asked about the benefits

of conducting events that are less conventional, Campeanu replies:

The good surprise is that every time we are doing risky project we get a larger audience, much more attention, so there is a need for projects that are representing the everyday realities of the diaspora. Not just the flashy aspect of the Romanian community, not just to the established one, but to give space to others to talk about themselves (Interview, 2014).

Important to note here is the clear distinction between government-‐funded

projects and those that are privately financed. Campeanu relates freedom of the

imagination of projects to the fact that the RCC is not affiliated with the government

(Interview, 2014). When asked what types of events are most effective in allowing for a

dialogue, Campeanu answers: 'When we are trying to be more bold and address issue

that we normally don't see with Romanian cultural organisations abroad, we get a

positive feedback from foreign audiences' (Interview, 2014). This dissertation thus

suggests that risk plays an important factor in whether cultural organisations engage

with intercultural dialogue projects that are of a sensitive nature, and also claims that

the risk factor can increase the success of its events.


45

Conclusions: Taking the risk

The right to freedom of movement within the European Union has raised

questions on whether or not effective tools are in place to manage the increasing

diversity in Europe. Bhabha states, 'to exist is to be called into being in relation to an

otherness' (Bhabha, 1994: 63), and from this notion, it can be said that conflict will

always persist. The anti-‐rhetoric discourse of Romanian immigrants in the UK by some

media outlets demands for the need to attend to these cultural differences, as the fear

of the other (Bhabha, 1994; Said, 1978) is of increasing importance within the context of

globalisation. Given intercultural dialogue is one of the three main aims of the EU

Culture program (EU, 2014) – its importance in policymaking is evident as well.

As Aman (2012: 1013) eloquently elaborates, 'policy documents do not tell us

how it actually is in 'life', but they do describe the visions and the ideas for the future'.

The literature review revealed power differentials within the EU rhetoric on intercultural

dialogue and culture, as the inclusion of its members necessarily excludes the others

(Aman, 2012). Thus, a reflexive approach within the European identity is also necessary

to be able to imagine projects that deal with the other. This research has also

considered the factors that construct identities by drawing on postcolonial theorists to

paint a picture of how the migrant is understood as different, and provided a positive

outlook as “Third Spaces” (Bhabha, 1994) allow for new identities to be contested and

created.

Intercultural Europe (2010: 7) states that it is imperative that organisations need

to implement cultural policies in regards to intercultural dialogue ‘as an instrument for


46

'peace and conflict prevention', which validated my choice of investigating the roles of

the Romanian Cultural Institute and Romanian Cultural Center in London. This study has

shown the original hypothesis to be truthful: although cultural organisations work

towards addressing otherness, there are structural limitations that must be attended to

for the effective implementation of intercultural dialogue events.

The RCI addresses otherness by promoting its established artists, yet two

limitations have been discovered: the first being its restrictive access in terms of the

socio-‐economic standing of its audience (Dragulescu, 2013); and the second refers to its

state-‐governed funding body that impedes its ability to address sensitive topics.

On the other hand, the RCC works towards bridging the cultural gap by

promoting its emerging artists, as well as devising projects that are of a riskier nature.

Limits are also present for this non-‐political organisation as its projects can be

reinforcing the idea of ethnic art (Karaca: 2010), rather than valuing the artist’

legitimacy. The RCC also lacks adequate funding, thus affecting the number of its staff as

well as the amount of cultural events it can showcase.

Although this research analysis allowed for an in-‐depth understanding of the

structural limitations at the RCI and RCC, limitations include its specificity, and thus

these findings cannot be used to generalise for a wider sample. Moreover, it would have

been interesting to analyse the policies of British cultural institutes the inclusion of

intercultural dialogue projects a more holistic perspective on the matter.

A key concern for the lack of implementation of intercultural dialogue projects is

its ambiguous definition. As for the creative and cultural industries, this can lead to the


47

instrumentalisation of policies; which demands for a stricter account of what

intercultural dialogue entails. It is suggested that further research on intercultural

dialogue should address measurement tools to evaluate the effectiveness of

intercultural dialogue, and thus perpetuate its validity in mending cultural differences.

Most importantly, the qualitative interviews proved that risk plays an important role in

the creation of successful events that tackle sensitive subjects at face value. Thus, I urge

cultural organisations to take the leap, step out of their comfort zones, and imagine

events that are of a riskier nature to, in turn, help bridge cultural differences.


48

Bibliography Benedict, A., 1983. Imagined Communities. London: Verso. Bhabha, H. K., 1994. The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.

Bomberg E., Stubb, A., 2003. The European Union: How Does it Work? New York: Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. 2012. Social Research Methods. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Bryne, B., 2012. Qualitative interviewing. In: Seale, C., 2012. 3rd ed. Researching Society and Culture, Sage Publications Ltd. Macey, D., 2000. Dictionary of Critical Theory. London: Penguin Group.

Meinhof, U.H. and Triandafyllidou, A., ed., 2006. Transcultural Europe: Cultural Policy in a Changing Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Neuliep, J. W., 1957. Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach. New York: Sage Publications. Said, E. W., 1978. Orientalism. London: Penguin Classics.

Werbner, P. and Modood, T., ed., 1997. Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-‐Cultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-‐Racism. London: Zed Books. Articles Andreev, S.A., 2009. The unbearable lightness of membership: Bulgaria and Romania after the 2007 EU accession. Communist and Post-‐Communist Studies, [online] Available at: <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967067X09000361> [Accessed August 15 2014]. Alcoff, L. 1991. The Problem of Speaking for Others. Cultural Critique, [online] Available at: <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1354221?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21104575920547> [Accessed 15 2014]. Aman, R., 2012. The EU and the Recycling of Colonialism: Formation of Europeans through intercultural dialogue. Educational Philosophy and Theory, [online] Available at:


49

<https://www.academia.edu/1567233/The_EU_and_the_Recycling_of_Colonialism_Formation_of_Europeans_through_intercultural_dialogue> [Accessed August 12 2014]. Braun, V., Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, [online] Available at: <http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/11735/2/thematic_analysis_revised_-‐_final.pdf> [Accessed August 12 2014]. Bourdieu, P. 1980. The Aristocracy of Culture. Media Culture and Society. [online] Available at: http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/2/3/225 [Accessed August 10 2014]. Calbeaza, A.D., 2014. The anti-‐migration discourse with regard to Romanian and Bulgarian citizens in France and Great Britain: between blame culture, negative stereotypes and prejudice. Romanian Center for European Policies, [online] Available at: <http://www.crpe.ro/wp-‐content/uploads/2014/07/studiu-‐Andreea-‐Calbeaza.pdf> [Accessed August 1 2014]. Creswell, J. W. 2009. A qualitative procedure. In: Research design: qualitative , quantitative and mixed methods approaches, [online] Available at: <http://keats.kcl.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/619495/mod_resource/content/1/7AAYCC30_66544_Creswell_Qualitative.pdf> [Accessed August 12 2014]. Dragulescu, E.D., 2013. The Romanian Cultural Institute: A Need for Consistency. Academy for Cultural Diplomacy, [online] Available at: <http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/case-‐studies/Emilia-‐Delia-‐Dragulescu_-‐_The-‐Romanian-‐Cultural-‐Institute-‐_A-‐Need-‐for-‐Consistency.pdf> [Accessed August 1 2014]. Fox, E.J., Morosanu, L. and Szilassy, E., 2012. The Racialization of the New European Migration to the UK. Sage Journals Sociology, [online] Available at: <http://soc.sagepub.com/content/46/4/680> [Accessed August 5 2014] Finlay, L., 2002. “Outing” the Researcher: The Provenance, Process, and Practice of Reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, [online] Available at: <http://keats.kcl.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/619564/mod_resource/content/1/Finlay%2C%20article%20on%20reflexivity.pdf> [Accessed August 15 2014]. Ganesh S., Holmes, P., 2011. Positioning Intercultural Dialogue :Theories, Pragmatics, and an Agenda. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, [online] Available at: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17513057.2011.557482> [Accessed July 30 2014].


50

Hall, S., 1993. Cultural Identity and Diaspora. Framework, [online] Available at: <http://www.unipa.it/~michele.cometa/hall_cultural_identity.pdf> [Accessed July 12 2014]. Karaca, B., 2010. The art of integration: probing the role of cultural policy in the making of Europe. International Journal of Cultural Policy, [online] Available at: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10286630903038899#.U_UtmjnjaAY> [Accessed August 5 2014]. Kiossev, A. 2003. Self-‐colonising Cultures. Scribd. Available at: <http://www.scribd.com/doc/123725319/Kiossev-‐self-‐colonization> [Accessed August 22 2014]. Oakley, A., 1999. Paradigm Wars. In: A. Oakley, Experiments in knowing: gender and method in the social sciences. Available at: http://keats.kcl.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/619500/mod_resource/content/1/7AAYCC30_66543_Oakley_Paradigm.pdf [Accessed August 10 2014]. Paris, A.C., 2014. Negotiating the Romanian Quest for Cultural Identity after 1989: Between authenticity and mimicry, self and neo-‐colonization. European Scientific Journal, [online] Available at: <http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/3562> [Accessed July 1 2014]. Phinnemore, D., 2010. And We’d Like to Thank…Romania’s Integration into the European Union, 1989-‐2007. European Integration, [online] Available at: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07036331003646827> [Accessed August 12 2014]. Van Dijk., 1992. Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society, [online] Available at: <http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Discourse%20and%20the%20 denial%20of%20racism.pdf> [Accessed August 15 2014]. Vidmar-‐Horvat, K., 2012. The Predicament of Intercultural Dialogue: Reconsidering the Politics of Culture and Identity in the EU. Cultural Sociology, [online] Available at: <http://cus.sagepub.com/content/6/1/27> [Accessed August 10 2014]. Newspaper Brussels, I.T., 2013. Cameron urges curb on EU freedom of movement: Prime minister hints at UK veto on new states joining Call comes at summit of EU leaders in Brussels, The Guardian, 21 December. Available at: <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do> [Accessed August 15 2014].


51

Taylor, M., 2014. Bulgarian and Romanian students in UK find their maintenance stopped, The Guardian, 31 January. Available at: <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/31/bulgarian-‐romanian-‐students-‐uk-‐university-‐financing> [Accessed August 25 2014]. BBC, 2014. Nigel Farage attacked over Romanians ‘slur’, BBC News, 18 May. Available at<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-‐27459923> {Accessed August 25 2014]. Conference papers Council of Europe, 2008. White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue: "Living Together As Equals in Dignity". Strasbourg, June 2007. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Intercultural Europe, 2010. Intercultural Dialogue: As an Objective in the EU Culture Programme (2007-‐2013). UK, July 2010. Annual report European Commission, 2014. Report on the role of public arts and cultural institutions in the promotion of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue. [online] Available at: <http://ec.europa.eu/culture/library/reports/201405-‐omc-‐diversity-‐dialogue_en.pdf> [Accessed August 2 2014]. The Migration Observatory, 2014. Bulgarians and Romanians in the British National Press: 1 December 2012 – 1 December 2013. [online] Available at: <http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Report-‐Bulgarians_Romanians_Press_0.pdf> [Accessed August 20 2014]. The Migration Observatory, 2014. Briefing: Geographical Distribution and Characteristics of Long-‐Term International Migration Flows to the UK. [online] Available at: <http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Briefing%20-‐%20Geographical%20Distribution%20and%20Characteristics.pdf> [Accessed July 20 2014]. Online resources European Union. 2014. The EU motto. [online] Available at: <http://europa.eu/about-‐eu/basic-‐information/symbols/motto/index_en.htm> [Accessed August 5 2014]. EUNIC. 2014. Who we are. [online] Available at: <http://www.eunic-‐online.eu/?q=content/who-‐we-‐are> [Accessed August 25 2014].


52

Mokre, M., 2006. European Cultural Policies and European Democracy. [online] January 01. Available at: <http://eipcp.net/policies/dpie/mokre/en> [Accessed August 25 2014] Romanian Cultural Center Events. July 30 2013. No One Belongs Here More Than You. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfeBDfjZr00 [Accessed July 20 2014]. Romanian Cultural Centre, 2014. [online] Available at: <http://www.romanianculturalcentre.org.uk> [Accessed August 26 2014]. Romanian Cultural Institute London, 2014. [online] Available at: <http://www.icr-‐london.co.uk/> [Accessed August 26 2014]. Youtube Clip ICR Londra. 2012. Cultural Diplomacy in a Changing World: How to Respond to the Current Challenges: part 1. [online] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7O6TySPAf4> [Accessed August 15 2014]. Audio Brown, W., 2008. Philosophy Bites (November 2008), [podcast] November 2008. Available at: <http://philosophybites.com/2008/11/wendy-‐brown-‐on-‐tolerance.html> [Accessed July 12 2014]. Original Interviews Interview with Carmen Campeanu, 26 July 2014 Interview with Paul Suciu, 30 July 2014 Interview with Magda Stroe, 16 August 2014


53

Appendices

Appendix A: Figures

Appendix B: Content Analysis Results

Appendix C: Ethical Approval from King’s College London


54

Appendix A: Figures

Figure 1. Zicale, ‘I cover you in egg and vinegar’ or ‘Te fac cu ou si cu otet’, RCC.


55

Figure 2. ‘The Foreigner’s Coat’, RCC.


56

Appendix B: Content analysis results

Fig.1: Results from RCC

Fig.2: Results from RCI

Romanian Cultural Centre

Ar�sts

Social Issues

Arts & Social Issues

Romanian Cultural InsUtute

Ar�sts

Social Issues

Arts & Social Issues


57

Appendix C: Ethical Approval from King’s College London

King's College London Rm 5.2 FWB (Waterloo Bridge Wing)

Stamford Street London

SE1 9NH 26 June 2014 TO: Christine Baron SUBJECT: Approval of ethics application Dear Christine, KCL/13/14-916 - Reactive Nation Branding: The role of Romanian Cultural Organisations in the UK I am pleased to inform you that full approval for your project has been granted by the A&H Research Ethics Panel. Any specific conditions of approval are laid out at the end of this letter which should be followed in addition to the standard terms and conditions of approval, to be overseen by your Supervisor:

o Ethical approval is granted for a period of one year from 26 June 2014. You will not receive a reminder that your approval is about to lapse so it is your responsibility to apply for an extension prior to the project lapsing if you need one (see below for instructions).

o You should report any untoward events or unforeseen ethical problems arising from the project to the panel Chairman within a week of the occurrence. Information about the panel may be accessed at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/research/support/ethics/committees/sshl/reps/index.aspx

o If you wish to change your project or request an extension of approval, please complete the Modification Proforma. A signed hard copy of this should be submitted to the Research Ethics Office, along with an electronic version to [email protected] . Please be sure to quote your low risk reference number on all correspondence. Details of how to fill a modification request can be found at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/research/support/ethics/applications/modifications.aspx

o All research should be conducted in accordance with the King’s College London Guidelines on Good Practice in Academic Research available at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iop/research/office/help/Assets/good20practice20Sept200920FINAL.pdf

If you require signed confirmation of your approval please email [email protected] indicating why it is required and the address you would like it to be sent to. Please would you also note that we may, for the purposes of audit, contact you from time to time to ascertain the status of your research.


58

We wish you every success with this work. With best wishes Annah Whyton – Research Support Assistant On behalf of A&H REP Reviewer

Romanian Cultural Institute evaluation

Documents

Transcript of Romanian Cultural Institute evaluation