1. Project Background and Partners

The project – the Use of Cultural
Tools to Prevent and Combat Social Exclusion, has SPAT-C (Sheffield) as the
lead partner. Other partners are Southwark in London, CITTA de Torino (Italy),
the Provincial Government of Modena (Italy), Institute of Comparative Social
Studies (Berlin-Germany), Stichting Stimulans / KROSBIE bid in Rotterdam and
the Bureau Discrimination in Den Haag (both, Holland).

The central thesis of the project,
as approved by Brussels, is that all across Europe the diverse ethnic minority
cultures present a dichotomy in terms of social policy. The ‘dichotomy’
rests on the belief and presumptions of the Project holders that, on the one
hand these often enormous differences in culture are a source of the social
exclusion and discrimination faced by ethnic minority communities (due to the
perceived ‘otherness’ and foreignness’ of these cultures).
On the other hand, these diverse cultures also have the potential to unify communities,
regardless of the differences of race/colour/social status.

Throughout December and January,
the project carried out consultative work and exchange of information between
partners, to develop preliminary outline of the methodology for project development
and implementation. This mid-programme report seeks to present the project development
progress and insights gained thus far, with a view to building on these in the
second phase, and steering the project towards a successful conclusion by the
end of the project cycle.

2. Project Development & Progress – Adopted Methodology:

The first significant event was the
First Project Leaders meeting, hosted by Southwark, London on 5 and 6 February
2001 (see annex I for the programme itinery for the project leaders’ meeting).
In terms of the methodology adopted, the meeting aimed to achieve the following
outcomes:

- creating group cohesion and consensus
– building amongst the partners on development approaches to the adopted,
creating a frame-work for effective inter-partner communications, participative
styles to be adopted in project development, so as to enhance the common ownership
of the project.

- fostering a common and better understanding
amongst partners about the phenomenon of social exclusion itself, how social
exclusion is actually experienced, the forms in which it is manifested, and
lastly how cultural issues may reinforce social exclusion / inclusion.

- achieving an understanding of the
range and scope of social exclusion faced by ethnic minorities in each one of
the project locales/cities, and through the process of sharing information and
experiences, the building of a common European-wide view regarding the main
features of the problem of social exclusion.

- Obtaining an understanding of the
culture policy in each of the project locales/cities, and the main cultural
developments of note in each city - this understanding to then subsequently
provide a back-drop against which the efficiency of cultural tools to prevent
and combat social exclusion, can be studied and analysed.

3. Highlights – First Project Leaders Meeting in Southwark –
5th – 6th February 2001

i. The methodology for project implementation
adopted at the First Project Leaders Meeting was that each city was required
to present a socio-economic profile of their city, such that the problems of
social exclusion each could be understood.

Annex shows an example of the documented
information presented by Southwark, and Berlin as documents, and others as a
verbal presentation (See Annex 2).

ii. Project aims and work-plans were
discussed next, and the following matrix for project development work, adopted
over the life of the project.

Project Development Plan – Phases.

No Step Aim

1 Develop Socio-Economic
Profile of each city To gain understanding of social exclusion issues in each
city

2 Develop overall Cultural Profile of each city To gain understanding of overall
context within which the use of Cultural Tools can be studied and their relevance
in Combating and Preventing Social exclusion.

3 To Gain Understanding of what Social exclusion is. To get understanding of
the problem to be tackled.

4 To identify choice of events in each city which have relevance as Cultural
Tools To identify exact tools to be studied in depth

5 Show-case and look at practical Cultural expressions related to the theme
of social exclusion. To learn through practical examples, as to how Cultural
Tools work to reduce social exclusion, promote inter-culturality.

6 Do a systematic evaluation of some Cultural Tools in each city. To systematize
learning by using descriptive, quantifiable, qualitative analyses of selected
Cultural Tools in each city.

7 Draw objective conclusions on the use of Cultural Tools in each city. To present
conclusions in the use and efficacy of Cultural Tools studied in each city,
so as to assess their impact in Combating and Preventing Social exclusion in
real-life terms.

8 Present policy options, based on best practice in each city To promote transcultural
exchange of good practice in each city on the use of Cultural Tools, and to
make policy recommendations to Brussels.

4. CULTURAL TOOLS IN EACH CITY- Further, a matrix was developed for
each city selecting several Cultural Tools to be studied :

Choice of Cultural Tools Selection
in your city:

FORMS/ EVENTS

(Cultural) EXCLUDED PEOPLE INVOLVED OBJECTIVES OF STUDY WEAKNESSES OF CULTURAL
TOOLS SELECTED STRENGTHS OF TOOLS SELECTED

Active

Impact Passive

impact

5. Summary of other outcomes of the meeting

(i) Practical working methods and tools for achieving project implementation
were discussed and agreed upon, i.e. setting up in each city networks or partnerships
in each city to act as vehicle for local project development activity; and creating
a common cultural product between partner cities for promoting wider understanding
of the use of Cultural Tools across European cities.

(ii) Expert presentations were made regarding the creation of understanding
of social exclusion, its causes and consequences.

(iii) As a highlight a community film production by Italian community film-maker,
Gianni Bissaca was presented, as an outstanding example of the use of cultural
tools. The director’s presence and presentation gave a significant boost
in setting the future direction of the project. Each city then presented a profile
of Cultural Tools in their city which could be studied for their impacts in
reducing social exclusion (Annex 3 has comprehensive record of the work achieved
by the project leaders inaugural meeting)

Note:

The Italian production, as film material will be presented with the final report
at the end of the project.

6. Project Leaders Planning Meeting 5th – 7th April 2001- held
in Berlin, Germany

Summary of the Outcomes Achieved :

(i) City Cultural Profiles –
A matrix of Cultural Tools in the lead city – Sheffield - was presented
as an example (see Annex 4). Other partner cities presented their profiles verbally,
which were documented in detail.

(ii) Thus the main aim of achieving
an understanding of Cultural realities in each city was abundantly achieved
e.g. Turin example of the community film ‘Romeo & Julieta’,
was a powerful depiction of young love across racial and cultural divisions.
The film had a highly educative value, and at the same time was entertaining,
visually exhilarating, with evocative use of music.

The hundreds of young Italians of
all races participating in the film themselves gained educationally about social
exclusion issues through participative cinema – The city of Berlin presented
one of its highlights e.g. the House of the World Culture’ Project and
a community theatre project, both providing powerful examples as cultural tools(see
Annex 5)

. Similarly each of the other cities
presented powerful examples of cultural expressions as tools in use in their
particular environment.

(iii) Next, the discussion also focused
on the practical approaches and values of developing city networks, to constitute
local partnerships for project development, and dissemination of learning points
at the local level from the trans-national workshop.

(iv) Sheffield Transnational workshop
event for July 2001, was planned in thoroughness, with the view to show-casing
a range of cultural expressions which had value as Cultural Tools. This was
endorsed to take place on 2-5th July 2001.

(See comprehensive notes on the two
day event in Berlin-Annex 6).

7. Future Work :



The enclosed programme was approved for the July Transnational Conference (see
Annex 7).

It was clear that, having done the
theoretical work towards understanding of social exclusion and the role of Cultural
Tools in tackling and preventing social exclusion, the next phase of the project
needed to concentrate on display of a range of Cultural material, to show what
can actually be achieved in practice and also to expose wider audiences to the
work of the project.

Hence, the July transnational conference
would have these practical approaches as a major focus.

Annex

CULTURAL TOOLS IN - Sheffield,
(Chosen for analysis) :

EXCLUDED PEOPLE INVOLVED
FORMS/ EVENTS

(Cultural) OBJECTIVES OF STUDY WEAKNESSES OF CULTURAL TOOLS SELECTED

STRENGTHS OF TOOLS SELECTED

Active

Impact Passive

impact

• Ethnic minorities generally

• Refugees and asylum seekers

• Ethnic minority women, sustaining
double disadvantage due to race and gender To examine the strength of Cultural
Tools to prevent and combat discrimination, and to break barriers between communities
: Selected tools :

• Annual Burngreave area multi-cultural festival

None

Excellent celebration of diverse cultures.

• Black Film Festival Under funded

Powerful testimony to strength of cinema to educate & change attitudes.

• Presentation of Iranian
Musical styles Newness of it; un-funded; under marketed

Evocative, and wide multicultural appeal amongst the young.

• Sikh religious music Unknown
outside the community

Deeply didactic, and power communication across language barriers.

• Afro-Caribbean theatre group,
interactive theatre ‘Race to Train’.

Under marketed Tremendous power to confront racial prejudices.