Specific notions of cultural policy have been an abiding feature of ancient and modern history. The existence of a public project for culture has always been associated with power in the quest of a symbolic representation - as a source of aesthetic legitimacy for power itself - and the affirmation of certain symbolic values, as well as an official version of the "meaning of life".

This said, it was when the contemporary state was formed that current cultural policies were instigated, with the formation of the nation and the voluntary submission to the rules of legitimacy and democratic decision. The nation-state was transformed into a powerful instrument of identity - with the symbolic aim of searching for a mythical diversified sense of belonging. Simultaneously, as larger political entities were formed, the nation state became an agent for promoting a common system of communication that would facilitate social and productive relations between new groups and fragments of the population that had been integrated by the State. E. Gellner expresses this eloquently: the State held the monopoly on cultural legitimacy more tightly that its monopoly on legitimate violence. The process was not always peaceful and did not follow a specific model, however, during the latest phase, it established a foundation of linguistic and cultural unity that allowed for a release in favour of cultural, ethnic and territorial plurality. This plurality within states was carried out in an uneven way but is clearly discernible in the Constitutions of the last decades. The establishment of the principle of decentralisation and the recognition of the need for public space in favour of minorities and diverse communities on the basis of cultural criteria make up the foundations of an emerging model of state-led cultural pluralism.

Even before this internal pluralisation was undertaken within the state, the complex process of globalisation had already violently shaken the former "cultural order". Cultural globalisation is not new; rather, it is a phenomenon with ancient roots that raises very clear challenges. For example, how can we ignore the globalising force of what has been termed the "discovery" of America? Nevertheless, the current globalisation is an intense phenomenon that produces a powerful acceleration of history, uniting the planet through communication technology and streams of messages in space and time, as well as the growth in the voluntary and forced migration of individuals and groups (diasporas, exiles and immigrants). In terms of culture in particular, globalisation leads to the submission of creativity, production, and distribution in favour of industrial and commercial processes.

Without prejudice to the survival of traditional channels, this new situation exposes a large part of the cultural existence of individuals and groups to new conditions of interaction. Accordingly, cultural exchange appears to be increasingly overtaken by the currents that structure the world economy. Since Bretton Woods, these currents have been characterised by uninterrupted liberalisation which, in contrast to the former cyclical waves of protectionism and liberalism, does not show signs of being rolled back. In this context, cultural industries have demonstrated a tendency for economic concentration in the form of transterritorial oligopolies which are not strictly denationalised but tend to act as carriers of the "American lifestyle". This leads to a strong imbalance between those that create and produce and those that consume, and results in the erosion of states' "cultural sovereignty" and their laboriously elaborated internal models of pluralism. In terms of cultural policies, it can be said that there are currently economico-political actors and industrial groups that, acting from the outside, have more effective power than the States themselves. The former, with their different degrees of pluralism, are limiting their cultural sovereignty to issues that touch on tradition and cultural patrimony.

This situation provokes attitudes of rejection, among which are the calls for a return to established identities. Such a solution is not reasonable, given that this attitude deprives one of the enormous possibilities for enrichment and cultural benefit that globalisation can provide. As expressed by the popular proverb, it is a mistake to "throw out the baby with the bathwater." Nor would it be an effective solution, given that the collapse of state barriers is only a matter of time due the spread of globalisation and electronic and virtual technologies which render national "Customs" useless and porous.

The current age calls for an overhaul of the premises on which cultural policies have been based to this day, starting with those of the national State. This requires changes in direction, conception, perspective and dimension.

First and foremost, it is essential to reconsider the very foundation of cultural policies through the perspective of cultural development and the advancement of culture as something not purely private, in addition to investigating the culture of public values and its general relevance for human development. Such initiatives would build up a sense of community and, of specific concern to us, build a world cultural order that hinges on mutual recognition and dialogue, the foundation on which we can fulfill the aspiration of living together in an acceptable way.

At the global level, as imposed on us in an inexorable way, the priority should be to preserve cultural diversity. Just as the phenomenon of globalisation is very complex due to the proliferation of interactive processes that have been thrown open between ethnicity, territoriality, state systems, and universality, the danger of a cultural regime which leads to a monoculture is real and alarming.

Yet, the word diversity, without further elaboration, is not a univocal concept. Taken literally, it does not evoke any notion beyond difference; diversity could even be reduced to an audiovisual package of an American major. The point is to know which difference, which diversity we are referring to. Obviously, it can be one that preserves forms which are impossible to reproduce and allows us to distinguish our way of being as individuals and groups as has been handed down to us by history and for which we want to insure the existence. But the preservation of diversity cannot have as an aim the "freezing" of cultural differences as this could lead to the danger of yielding to some return to established identities, resulting in a faulty conception of identity and culture.

Cultural difference, as noted by F. Barth, is the fruit of interaction, exchange, negotiation - not isolation. This understanding should translate into public policies for diversity, not only by rejecting the reification of diversity but also by accepting diversity as a dynamic process. With this perspective, the preservation of diversity implies nothing more for public policy than the creation of conditions that allow all individuals and human groups to enjoy relatively equal opportunities so they may develop their identity (which become increasingly polyphonic and complex). Accordingly, these conditions take shape around the recognition of diversity itself as a fact, and with the support of the legal system which would allow individuals and groups to become actors in their cultural evolution.

In cultural matters, the legal system translates into cultural rights. Unfortunately, the legal system has acquired a bad image in the sense that it has been associated exclusively with the claims of minorities. It should instead take on a universal and integrated meaning in the new context given that the concept of minorities is applicable in some way to all cultural expressions (though varying degrees of vulnerability should not be denied). Furthermore, a real guarantee of cultural rights - which should not be confused with the liberal formal recognition of the existence of diversity - is what allows for a recognition of the conditions of diversity as a model of cultural pluralism.

All the same, as has been indicated, pluralism today has ceased to be a question raised solely at the level of the State or within the State. It is now present at a new level. For example, global cultural pluralism presents the great challenge to cultural policies and requires the elaboration of "ad hoc" international legal instruments that are intended to firm up the preservation of diversity in the world as a superior standard of international law, as well as the project for a Convention on cultural diversity under the aegis of UNESCO. Among these new subjects and actors, there are cultural spaces- a relevant example is the "Three linguistic spaces" initiative- that provide new areas in which to rethink globalisation. As with many other large systems of diversity which we may refer to as "ecosystems of diversity", these spaces are called upon to be centres of reflection, invention and discussion for the new cultural policies to be established, and to serve as truly functional "bridges" between the global, national, and local.

List of Topics for debate

1. Global cultural pluralism, a new right for cultural policies and for a cosmopolitan cultural right
2. Cultural rights, rights for minorities or universal rights ?
3. The Convention on Cultural diversity : towards a world cultural constitutionalism ?
4. Copyright a protection for enterprise, royalties a protection for creators ?
5. Culture, collective public goods and general interest : a worldwide vision
6. The spoliation of forgotten cultures : the protection of traditional communities' knowledges
7. Public policies, spaces, territories and cultural diversity : States, territorial entities and cultural spaces
8. The legal specificity of culture : the "exceptions" of culture relating to royalties, cultural heritage and the cultural industries
9. Policies protecting pluralism against competition's tutelage
10. Towards the end of royalties system ?
11. Policies favoring creativity and cultural globalisation
12. Policies protecting tradition and heritage and cultural industries
(Translated from the French version (Jean Tardif) by Paule Herodote)

<< Back