cultural policy and cultural diversity in finland.pdf

8/20/2019 cultural policy and cultural diversity in finland.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-policy-and-cultural-diversity-in-finlandpdf 1/24

1

CULTURAL POLICY AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN FINLAND

Pasi Saukkonen and Miikka Pyykkönen

Abstract

Post-war immigration has produced new ethnic and cultural diversity in European societies. The

issues of multiculturalism and interculturalism have also gradually entered the agendas of local and

national cultural policy makers. In this article, we explore the development of the relationships

between cultural diversity, immigration policy, and cultural policy in Finland. Special attention is

given to the capital city of Helsinki. The analysis of policy documents, institutional arrangements and

interviews carried out with key actors reveal discrepancies between official intentions and practical

solutions. Neither is the incorporation of the diversity into the traditional minority policy

unambiguous. Furthermore, the establishment of specific institutions for multicultural affairs is

shown to be a possible cause of tensions within the field and to prevent the optimal exploitation of

both diversity and the arts in public policy, if certain risks are not recognised.

Key words

immigration policy, cultural policy, cultural diversity, multiculturalism, Finland



2

1 Introduction

Ethnic and cultural diversity has become an indisputable reality in almost every European country.

This “demographic multiculturalism” challenges the powerful notions of states consisting of a

cultural community and of politics based on the shared values of members of the society in question.

European countries, however, have relatively slowly recognised this change; this is due to the

tenacious ideas of immigration as a temporary phenomenon and of immigrants as guest workers or

asylum seeking refugees who will eventually return to their homelands.

After the recognition of new ethnic and cultural communities as being more permanent, policy

implications have been most apparent in fields directly related to the “integration” of newcomers, i.e.

labour policies, education policies, social policies and housing policies. Interestingly enough, cultural

policy in many countries has only relatively recently been adapted to the changing (multicultural)

circumstances. However, new publications have provided evidence of the need for a change in

perspective in policy making as well as in research orientations.

The Council of Europe’s Cultural Committee started a transversal study on the theme of cultural

policy and cultural diversity, from which three reports based on national and cross-national research

have emerged (Bennett 2001; Ellmeier & Rásky 2005; Robins 2006). Several case studies have

revealed the growing attention paid to ethnic and cultural diversity in national cultural policies (cf. de

Jong 1999, 55-58; Skot-Hansen 2002, 201; Saukkonen 2006). The fact is that in many cases

development at the national level is lagging behind what has already taken place at the local level,

most obviously in large urban conglomerates where the immigrant populations are usually

concentrated. Indeed, as Meinhof and Triandafyllidou point out:

[C]ities provide better cognitive tools than nations for re-imagining the new

interdependencies and flows in contemporary societies. They also provide empirical

evidence for ways in which the possibilities arising from living with others can be seen

as an opportunity for encounter rather than purely as a threat to security and dominant

orders (2006, 13).



3

According to a recent study on diversity in urban cultural life, in metropolitan settings too, cultural

activities aimed at culturally-diverse groups are still largely additions to the cultural landscape and

there is in fact very little cultural policy proper as regards these groups and communities (Ilczuk &

Raj Isar 2006, 13). However, urban studies show that there are cases where the point of contact

between cultural policy and cultural diversity no longer exists exclusively in the form of political

rhetoric, but has also gained some substantial practical shape (cf. Eurocult21 Stories 2005).1

2 Policy traditions, new challenges

In this article, we explore the way that cultural diversity has been incorporated into cultural policy as

well as the exploitation of arts and culture in Finnish immigration policy at both the national and local

levels. In regard to cultural diversity, we focus on the ethnic and cultural plurality produced byimmigration, which arguably poses more serious challenges to traditional cultural policies than other

sources of diversity (cf. Bennett 2001, 20; for definitions of diversity e.g. Parekh 2000, 2-4; Bennett

2001, 17).

The basic theoretical assumption in our approach is that the political organisation of difference has

always been a central component in politics and political action (Saukkonen 2006; Koenis &

Saukkonen, 2006). This is something which a nationalist assumption about the congruence betweenstate and ethnic-cultural community has caused us to ignore. The management of plurality is thus not

something that is forced upon societies by protracted ethnic conflicts, uncontrollable immigration

flows or difficulties in the integration of newcomers, but, rather, something quite normal, an inherent

feature of life in large human communities.

Cultural policy is undoubtedly one important aspect in the political organisation of ethnic and cultural

diversity. As a public policy, a cultural policy legitimises, restricts or prohibits forms of cultural

self-expression, creates conditions for group-specific creative activities and self-understanding, and

grants resources for specified forms of artistic and cultural activities. More symbolically, cultural

policies also include and exclude forms of artistic or cultural self-expression from the recognised

public sphere, constructs and maintains conceptions of normal and accepted cultural self-expression

and artistic activity, and forms hierarchies between different forms of artistic or cultural

self-expression (cf. Saukkonen 2006, 81).

1

Council of Europe’s and ERICarts’ Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe (2007) is a good source fornational approaches and good practices, especially the transversal issue databases on cultural diversity and interculturaldialogue. Http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/transversal-issues.php



4

The main purpose of this article is to give a comprehensive description of the situation concerning

cultural policy and migration policy and ethnic and cultural difference in the case of Finland in

general and Helsinki in particular. More analytically, we shall pay attention to two distinct issues: 1)

the relationship between new minorities and old minorities in a national policy context; 2) the

relationship between arrangements and activities in different policy sectors in the city of Helsinki.

The first research question can be formulated as follows: how do immigrants and new ethnic and

cultural communities fit into the traditional cultural policy frameworks for dealing with minorities in

Finland (arrow 1 in figure 1)? Every country has its own experiences of dealing with deviations from

the prototype culture of the nation-state, as well as institutions for restricting or enhancing alternative

forms of cultural expression. Contemporary policy solutions can either try to incorporate new forms

of diversity into the established system of minority management or make a clear demarcation

between traditional and new forms of diversity. In the first case, ethnic and cultural communities are

not dealt with differently in respect to their historical place in society. This was for the case, for

example, in the Nordic countries before specific legislation concerning immigrants was set down in

1980s and 1990s. In the latter case, there is a distinction between those “national minorities” whose

cultural and political rights are considered justified and such “ethnic groups” that are presumed to

assimilate or at least integrate into mainstream society in the course of time (cf. Kymlicka 1995). In

Canada, for instance, there are separate laws and policy programmes for the indigenous minorities

and for immigrants (Juteau et al. 1998, 98). However, in most countries features of these two models

overlap in national minority policies, although there are differences in emphasises.

The second research question concerns the point(s) of contact between cultural policy and cultural

diversity in different sectors or pillars of public policy (see figure 1 below). On the basis of

information from different national and urban settings we can expect this ”meeting” to take place inthree main kinds of administrative and organisational arrangements. Firstly, the cultural needs and

artistic activities of immigrants can be incorporated into the mainstream institutions and practices of

cultural policy in the same way as categories such as age, gender, disability and social strata are taken

into account. Secondly, the arts and culture can be integrated into the mainstream services provided

for newcomers in the fields of education (e.g. artistic workshops), health care (e.g. art therapy) and

social policy (e.g. sociodrama), to mention but a few. Thirdly, there can be specialised institutions for

artistic multiculturalism or, as Dragan Klaic (2006, 7) says, “flagships of intercultural engagementand competence” (e.g. Haus der Kulturen der Welt in Berlin). These institutions and arrangements



5

often combine the interests of several political and administrative sectors. In Finnish immigration and

integration policy, for instance, there are influential administrative regulations stemming from the

general orientations of cultural policy, integration policy and the specific orientations of cultural

policy directed at the immigrant and ethnic minorities (e.g. Heiskanen & Mitchell 2002, 316-320). In

the case of Helsinki, we shall look how these three sectors are related to each other in terms of cultural

policy and cultural diversity (arrows 2 in figure 1).

Figure 1. Contact areas between cultural policy and cultural diversity

The analysis is based on previous research and on a reading of the relevant policy documents.

Furthermore, key actors in the city of Helsinki and an expert at the Ministry of Education were

interviewed (the list of respondents appears at the end of the article) about arts and culture in the

integration policy, about the role of immigrants and multiculturalism in cultural policy and about the

tasks of different policy sectors. The cultural “offer” at the City of Helsinki Cultural Office in the

latter part of 2006 was also analysed with specific attention to programme directed at immigrants or

minority communities and to activities directly related to multi- or interculturalism.

Mainstreamcultural policy

Mainstreamimmigration policy

Policiesconcerningtraditionalminorities

Policiesconcerningimmigrantsandnewcomers

Multi- orintercultural policy

Special policies andarrangementsfor multi- orinter-culturali

sm

Culture andthe arts in theimmigration policy

1

2 2



6

In the following, we present first the national frame of reference by describing the structures of

Finnish ethnic and cultural diversity, the Finnish diversity management tradition, and the Finnish

migration and integration policy. Secondly, we analyse the Finnish case in two parts: the first analytic

part focuses on how new forms of ethnic and cultural diversity have been integrated into Finnish

cultural policy and in the second part, the City of Helsinki is taken under closer scrutiny in order to

analyse and evaluate the points of contact between cultural policy, other policy sectors and cultural

diversity. The main findings are drawn together in the concluding chapter.

2 Ethno-cultural diversity and diversity management in Finland

The image of Finland both domestically and abroad has historically been characterised by ethnic and

cultural homogeneity (Saukkonen 1999). However, despite the deeply anchored language-based

“Fennoman” conception of the nation, the rights of the Swedish-speaking population were already

constitutionally guaranteed at the beginning of the period of independence. The State decided to

satisfy the cultural and economic needs of both the Swedish and the Finnish sections of the population,

as co-founders of the nation, in accordance with the principle of equality (cf. Ristimäki 1995,

244-248). This has produced two parallel and extensive cultural infrastructures and networks of

voluntary organisations within Finland (cf. McRae 1999).2 Furthermore, the Finnish Orthodox

Church, with an estimated number of 60 000 members, has had the status of second national church,

on a par with the Lutheran Church, since the early 20th century. As such, the Finnish understanding of

national identity combines a strong sense of unity between the state and the cultural community and

relatively far-reaching minority rights in legal and political practice. (Finnish minorities in table I).

Minority group Number

Percentage of thewhole population(5 181 115)

Swedish-speakers 295 000 5,7 %Sámi 7 500 0,14 %Roma 10 000 0,2 %Old Russians 5 000 0,1 %Tatars 800 0,015 %Jewish 1 400 0,03 %Total 319 700 6,2 %

Table I. The segments of traditional ethnic and cultural diversity in Finland in 20003

2 The autonomous status of Åland is, of course, a case apart (cf. Pesonen & Riihinen 2002, 1998-200).3 Sources: Heiskanen & Mitchell 2002, 308; Horn 2004; Kulonen et al. 2005; Statistics Finland 2006.



7

The Sámi and the Roma, though, were subjected to a strong policy of assimilation until the end of

1960s. The cultural rights of the Sámi have since been gradually increased. The Sámi language

received official status in comprehensive schools within the Sámi domicile area in the 1980s and, in

1991, the Sámi people were officially recognised by the Finnish constitution. In 1995, a new

constitutional amendment stipulated that the Sámi are an indigenous people that have the right to

maintain and develop their language and culture. Cultural self-government is exercised through the

Sámi Parliament, constituted in 1996. The Sámi Parliament represents the Sámi and it decides upon

the allocation of money from the national budget for the benefit of Sámi culture and Sámi

organisations. It may also launch initiatives, make proposals, and issue statements on matters

concerning Sámi languages, culture and the status of the Sámi as an indigenous people. (Cf. Lehtola

2002.)

In the 1960s, the Gypsy Association was also formed, legislation to improve social and housing

conditions was put in place, and an Advisory Board of Gypsy Affairs was founded to monitor the

conditions of the Roma and to make suggestions for their improvement. There have also been efforts

to safeguard the Roma language since the 1980s, but its position is still relatively weak. A

constitutional amendment (1995) also guaranteed the Roma rights to retain and develop their own

language and culture. The Roma language has the status of a non-territorial minority language, and

the Finnish government recognises the Roma community as a national minority under the European

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. (Cf. Pulma 2006).

Issues connected to these national minorities come under the remit of different ministries and policy

sectors. The administration of Roma issues is mainly done in the sector of social and health affairs

and in the education sector. The Advisory Board of Roma Affairs is under the Ministry of Social

Affairs and Health. Issues relating to the Sámi are mostly dealt with in the department for cultural,

sport and youth policy of the Ministry of Education and in the regional and local departmentsresponsible for cultural affairs. Both The Advisory Board on Sámi Affairs and The Committee for

Sámi Affairs work under the control of the Ministry of Justice (Kulonen et al. 2005, 341). One can

justifiably argue that the affairs of the Sámi are thus seen as a cultural and juridical issue, whereas

those of the Roma mainly as a social issue.

Finland received a new Constitution in 2000 which codified earlier piecemeal changes into a single

document. Some of these changes were directly related to the organisation of ethnic and cultural



8

diversity. Basic citizenship rights were stipulated as belonging to all inhabitants (earlier they were the

privilege of Finnish citizens). Furthermore, article 17 of the Constitution confirms that the country’s

national languages are Finnish and Swedish, and that the Sámi, as an indigenous people, as well as the

Roma and other groups, have the right to maintain and develop their own language and culture.

However, as Ritva Mitchell (2006, 304-305) has pointed out, what constitutes a group remains

obscure. Nevertheless, we can conclude that at a time of increase in immigration, a certain tradition

already existed for dealing with minorities, as did an official acceptance of ethnic and cultural

diversity within the state borders.

3 Finnish migration and integration policies

Until the late 1980s, immigration into Finland was at a very modest level. Since then, however, two

main factors have produced greater ethnic and cultural diversity. Firstly, there was an increase in the

number of refugees, especially from Somalis and the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, the repatriation

policy, which allowed Ingrians from Estonia and from Russia to enter Finland as “remigrants”,

produced another source of immigration. In addition, recently there also been labour-based

immigration of Estonians, Russians and other nationalities.

At the end of 2004, the number of foreigners in Finland was 108 346 and the number of foreign-born

inhabitants 166 3614. Compared with the other Nordic countries, the percentage of newcomers in the

Finnish population is still very low. Nevertheless, the change has been remarkable since 1990, when

the number of foreign-born inhabitants was only 26 255. Regional differences are also great. Almost

half of inhabitants with a foreign background live in the Uudenmaa province and, in Helsinki alone,

the share is 18%. (Statistics Finland 2005, see table II below.) About one quarter of those

inhabitants/residents with a foreign background are refugees. There is also a greater concentration in

the southeastern part of Finland, where the number of people of Russian origin has been on the rise.

4 By a foreigner we mean people who live permanently in Finland without having Finnish citizenship. Foreign-borninhabitants also include those who have citizenship, but were born abroad.



9

Nation of birth Finland Helsinki

Russia &

Former-Soviet Union42,822 9,958

Sweden 29,191 3,071Estonia 11,238 4,314Former Yugoslavia 4,870 793Somalia 4,771 2,518Germany 4,274 994Iraq 4,250 752China 3,567 1,028Great Britain 3,354 986Thailand 3,138 623

Whole population 5 236,611 560,000Foreign-borninhabitants of thewhole population (%)

3,2% 5,3%

Table II. Foreign-born population by country of birth at the end of 2004 (Statistics Finland 2005).

Miikka Pyykkönen (2006; cf. Lepola 2000) has traced three phases in Finnish immigration policy.

From 1940 until the mid-1990s, the reasons for immigration were mainly humanitarian. Immediately

after the Continuation war, Finland received some 400 000 “evacuees” from the lost areas, mainly

from Eastern Carelia and the Petsamo area in the North. The majority of these belonged mainly to

cognate nations and ethnic groups such as the Fenno-Ugric Carelians, Ingrians, and Veps. It was

thought that they would be assimilated into Finnish society without special political or administrative

interventions. Immigration policy generally concentrated on the controlling of state borders.

Immigration remained at a very low level, however.

The second phase in Finland’s immigration policy (mid-1990s to early 2000s) is that of integration. Itsoon became clear that the great majority of refugees would settle in Finland without any intention of

returning to their countries of origin. The Finnish answer to this development was a principle that

combines the integration of individuals into society with the collective rights of communities to

maintain their own culture. The main reason behind the collective cultural rights was primarily

instrumental, however. Belonging to a recognised and accepted ethnic or cultural community was

considered to be an asset in the integration process of the individual. The immigrant’s own culture

was seen to make it easier for him or her to adopt new things and to adapt to the mainstream Finnish



10

culture (cf. Ministry of Labour 2002, 91). The new approach received legal form when the Act on the

Integration of Immigrants and Reception of Asylum Seekers was approved in 1999.

In the most recent phase, Finnish immigration policy has focused on labour migration. According to

the Government’s Migration Policy Programme, which was approved in December 2006, integration

is still the central tool for regulating immigrants’ lives once in Finland, but regulating the entrance

and selection of immigrants coming into Finland has gained a lot of weight again. The administration

aims to select immigrants who, above all, are believed to have the necessary qualities to succeed in

the Finnish labour market after arrival. This new policy emphasises differences in administrative

attitudes towards immigrants and traditional minorities, because the position of latter is not seen as a

question of employment to any large extent. The labour market emphasis will most probably diminish

the significance of cultural policy in the national immigration policy. However, at the local level,

cultural policy might gain even more weight than it has at present. Arts and culture are seen as useful

not only for individual integration into society but also as a potential arena of self-employment

(Ministry of Education 2003, 27-33).

4 Finnish cultural policy and diversity

The history of Finnish cultural policy has often been divided into three periods (cf. Heiskanen 1995;

Kangas 1999). The first period, from the 1860s to the 1960s, was marked by ambitions to strengthen

the cultural identity of the Grand Duchy and later of the independent state. This goal was also

reflected in the central government’s policies to promote the arts and to support artists. In the 1960s,

cultural policy was transformed from an instrument of nation-building into an articulated policy

sector of the welfare state. In the 1990s, in turn, the strong role of the state and municipalities in

cultural policy-making was diminished because of both ideological and economic reasons. As in

many other countries, the incentive to maintain and enhance national culture and identity wastransformed rather than being totally abandoned.

The cultural policy of the Finnish Ministry of Education embraces creativity, the status of artists, the

network of regional cultural services, multiculturalism, international co-operation, and cultural

exportation. There is no particular division at the Ministry for issues concerning ethno-cultural

diversity, instead matters relating to multiculturalism and access to culture come under different units

and departments. A unit that is responsible for the development of Swedish-language education andculture functions directly under the Permanent Secretary. For Sámi and Roma affairs there are no



11

separate secretaries or bodies, but there is a policy group for immigration, minorities, and human

rights affairs (the Finnish acronym is MAVI), which deals with them on a case-specific basis

(Cortes-Tellez 2006).

Concerning immigration and immigrants, the Ministry of Education quite logically deals with affairs

related to education, research, sports, young people and culture. Culture-related terminology

unsurprisingly appears in abundance also in the discourses of other involved ministries.5 Usually,

however, “culture” refers to the whole way of life of individuals and groups, or it is simply used as a

synonym for ethnicity or different background. At the Ministry of Education, “culture” more

specifically denotes arts and creativity.

The Ministry of Education has recently established its own principles for supporting groups that

represent minority cultures and civic activities which increase tolerance (Ministry of Education 2003).

In this document, the Ministry follows the Finnish government’s earlier decision on the basic

premises for immigration and refugee policy-making which states that cultural minority groups

include both ethnic and linguistic minorities and refugees and immigrants without distinction. This

implies that immigrants are incorporated into the historically evolved minority policy.6 There is also

a clear commitment to collective minority rights when, for example, financial support is granted for

the preservation of minority cultures and identities. In a strikingly tolerant tone, cultural minorities

are given the right to choose how they will maintain their own cultural identity. Public authorities, in

turn, have to accept the self-expressed value order of traditional ways and forms in a minority culture.

A certain ambiguity between “supporting culture and identity for its own sake”, so to speak, and

“supporting culture and identity for the sake of smooth integration into society” is apparent again,

however. The objective of Finnish integration policy, the “flexible and efficient integration into

society” allows for both interpretations. Cultural services and support for culture are, among otheractivities, considered very important for the integration of immigrants. The purpose behind

supporting cultural minority groups is, then, to strengthen the positive adaptation of these groups into

society and to thus create opportunities to use general cultural services and forms of support.

5 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs regulates international co-operation and visa-policy. The Ministry of the Interior isresponsible for immigration and emigration and for citizenship applications. The Ministry of Labour is responsible for thereception of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees, integration of all immigrants, and labour issues. Furthermore, itco-ordinates cross-sectoral work for good ethnic relations.6 In its definition of cultural minorities, the Ministry of Education includes, firstly, traditional minorities such as theSwedish-speakers and the indigenous Sami people, secondly, other minorities as the Roma, Russian-speakers and the



12

Furthermore, in the more concrete part of the document, the emphasis is placed on individuals rather

than groups, as immigrants are mentioned as users of cultural services and as immigrant artists.

All in all cultural policy objectives concerning immigration sound quite sublime. However,

accomplishments in reality are still lagging behind. In their policy analysis, Ilkka Heiskanen and

Ritva Mitchell conclude that the otherwise positive development concerning the cultural rights of

minorities has been less apparent in the case of immigrants. Despite the in-principal opportunities for

maintaining and developing a person’s/group’s own culture and language, in the carrying out of

actions, “the emphasis has (naturally) been on labour and education policy measures, and on the

prevention of prejudice and racism, not so much on the opportunities for immigrants to affect cultural

participation and the development of their cultures.” (Heiskanen & Mitchell 2002, 318-319.)

Nonetheless, the authors also argue that the most important work in the development of cultural

services, in the promotion of cultural participation, and in the improvement of working conditions for

immigrant artists takes place at the municipal level (ibid, 320-321). Therefore, we shall also turn to an

analysis of a local solution to cultural diversity in cultural policy.

5 The Helsinki case

The national legal and programmatic framework has clearly influenced local policies concerning

immigration and multiculturalism. The Finnish Act on the Integration of Immigrants and Reception

of Refugees, for example, soon brought about local integration programmes. In Helsinki, this

programme was accepted already in 1999. There is, however, ample room for manoeuvre for

municipalities to follow their own course of action in future initiatives and practical arrangements.

This means that municipalities are free to a certain degree to decide how they will fulfil national

demands for integration in practice.

In fact, Helsinki has in many issues relating to immigration and multiculturalism been some steps

ahead of national policy development. In 1991, a working group had already expressed its objective

as the development of Helsinki into an international, multicultural capital where foreigners have

equal rights to municipal services and the opportunity to integrate while maintaining their own

linguistic and cultural background (Joronen 2003, 13). According to Mervi Perkinen (1997, 110), the

Tatars, and thirdly, more recent immigrant groups. Furthermore, different disability groups, religious communities,sexual minorities and certain age groups (notably young people) are mentioned as having specific cultural characteristics.



13

city’s immigration policy represented a culturally plural or multiculturalist approach in which the

special cultural characteristics of minorities should be taken into account in welfare policies for

minorities.7

Besides championing cultural plurality, more instrumental values are again obvious. As was later to

become the cornerstone of national policy, a strong ethnic community was considered a means to help

integration into Finnish society. The associations to which the immigrants belonged were seen as

good instruments in the rallying of their own interests and in the strengthening of members’ personal

identities. This, in turn, was seen as an asset in societal integration (cf. Joronen 2003, 15; Pyykkönen

2007).

The city of Helsinki applied the same approach as the Finnish state, which incorporates immigrants’

services into the existing sectoral system. In the provision of services, the educational, social and

health issues, and services of immigrants were dealt with in the respective institutions (education

department, social services department, health centre) (Joronen 2003, 24-25). The most notable

exception to this rule was the establishment of the International Cultural Centre, Caisa. This

institution deserves special attention as it is directly related to our second research question on the

relation of different sectors and the position of cross-sectoral arrangements.

5.1 Multicultural centre in crisis

Caisa was founded in 1996 to enhance the contact between the Finnish inhabitants of Helsinki and

immigrant groups, to provide for services that give relief to acute everyday problems, and to promote

the emergence of a multicultural Helsinki (Joronen 2003, 13-14). Ethnic and cultural diversity played

a central role in the image of a European city with a strong cultural identity, a role which at the time

Helsinki was striving for. This was one of the reasons why cultural activities for and by newcomerswere considered as issues that required strong support.

This idea, obviously along with the terminological congruence between cultural policy and

multiculturalism, was the reason that Caisa was located within the City of Helsinki Cultural Office

(see figure 2 below)8. There were also direct references to the need to reorganise and to relocate the

7

Helsinki is actually one of the very few bilingual capital cities in Europe.8 The Cultural Office is an administrative body of the City of Helsinki, established “to foster an encouraging atmosphereand a climate suitable for producing and experiencing art and culture in Helsinki” [see



14

cultural “offer” of the city and to promote the public display of immigrant artists’ work and

capabilities. Furthermore, there was a wish to emphasise that immigrant issues are not the concern of

social policy alone (ibid. 14, 99).

However, it seems that the leadership of the Cultural Office was not well enough informed at the time

of Caisa’s establishment, and that the unit had to accept the new situation relatively unprepared and

inexperienced (ibid. 99). This was probably one reason for the problems that produced a minor crisis

after a few years. When Caisa was evaluated in 2002 by Tuula Joronen, the response from

interviewees – those involved in (making) both cultural policy and immigrant policy – revealed the

delicate position of an institution that combines the interests of several administrative sectors.

Figure 2. City of Helsinki Cultural Office Organisation. Source: Silvanto 2005, 134.

http://kulttuuri.hel.fi/vuosikertomus05/main_en.php]. The Cultural Office has recently been reorganised which meansthat figure 2 does not properly reflect the contemporary situation.



15

The then director of the Cultural Office had publicly questioned the original idea behind Caisa by

arguing that work related to the integration of immigrants did not come under the remit of his

department. Rather, he maintained, it was the responsibility of the department of social affairs,

education and youth work (cf. Joronen 2003, 99). It is obvious that many of Caisa’s activities, such as

Finnish language lessons, consultation services, computer courses, and the management of an

immigrant associations’ network, did not match the Cultural Office staff’s idea of cultural activities.

Even the more artistic activities were not always considered “fine enough” to qualify as cultural

activities, as the interviews carried out for this study indicated.

The situation turned out to be quite extraordinary. On the one hand, the different sub-units in the

Cultural Office had almost no co-operation with Caisa. On the other hand, Caisa was evaluated in a

strikingly positive way by those city units and departments that had been in close contact with it, i.e.

the unit for immigrant services of the City of Helsinki Social Department and the City of Helsinki

Education Department (ibid. 88). The struggle for scarce economic resources apparently also played a

role in this process.

There was also more academic criticism towards Caisa’s multicultural orientation: Mia Toikka (2001)

argued that encounters between Finns and immigrants, and the interaction between different groups

are less frequent and more superficial than supposed. Furthermore, she claimed that Caisa mainly

promoted a message of “celebrating multiculturalism” in which cultures were represented through

exotic artefacts without creating enduring social bonds between individuals and groups. Joronen’s

user research gives the same results in part, but she emphasises that there is more interaction than

Toikka’s research shows (Joronen 2003, 56-60). Moreover, Joronen’s (ibid. 53) research also

revealed that over a half of Caisa’s visitors and users were of “Finnish” background and over two

thirds of them were women.

5.2 Cultural landscape and cultural diversity

The position and profile of Caisa seems to no longer be disputed. Even though the activities of the

Centre still encompass much more than arts and culture in a strict sense, it seems that the more

traditional cultural activities in the Centre have, relatively speaking, increased in the larger venue into

which Caisa later moved. The new director of the Cultural Office has also clearly expressed a broader

understanding of “culture” than his predecessor. There are, however, still opinions in the field which

suggest that the Cultural Centre is not ”visible enough” in the different areas of the city. Because



16

Caisa is located in the very centre of the city, the question has also been raised whether the cultural

centre reaches the different immigrant communities in an equal manner.

An analysis of multicultural services offered by the Cultural Office in the latter part of 2006 shows

that Caisa still occupies a very prominent role in activities that combine arts, culture and new ethnic

diversity.9 Other sub-units of the Cultural Office also have international programme and organise

multicultural activities (Silvanto 2005, 138), but these activities either seem to be unrelated to the

new ethnic and cultural communities or are otherwise quite sporadic in nature. The Savoy Theatre,

for example, is the forum for world music, yet visits to Finland by famous stars is connected with the

Cultural Office’s objective of internationalism rather than with the local structures of ethnic and

cultural diversity.10 At the cultural centre Stoa, located in the eastern part of the city, where the

proportion of immigrants is highest, special multicultural events are organised. However, in the

autumn of 2006, for example, there were only four such events.11

There are some particular details that reveal the discrepancy between multiculturalism in theory and

in practice. The contemporary Finnish folk music event “Etno-Espa” at the Cultural Office’s Espa

stage, for example, did not present the music of newcomers at all in 2006.12 According to the event

homepage, “The concept of ethnicity normally refers to something strange, to the other. What is

strange to us, however, is familiar to others, and what is familiar to us, is strange to others. The

objective of Etno-Espa is to present to Finns as well as to tourists urbanised music that has been

influenced by other cultures, but which draws from our own ethnic background, music that is our

etno.”13 In spite of the idea of cultural mixing implicit in this thought, the statement above underlines

the distinction between “us” and “them”. Obviously, it will take time before the traditional or

neo-traditional music of immigrants can be considered as ”our etno”.

9 The centre also has a strong position in the administration of immigrant policy. It is often people connected to Caisa that participate, for example, in municipal and cross-municipal organisations such as the “The City of Helsinki AdvisoryBoard on Immigration and Integration”.10 Events which present Russian music or theatre can, however, be mentioned as a deviation from the rule because theyfrequently bring lots of people of Russian origin to the audience.11 “Celebrating multiculturalism” was quite prominent in these events. According to the unit’s programme, “ColourfulEast” featured, amongst other things, Indonesian and Thai dancing, Greek music, an ethnic fashion show, a salsa performance and workshop, young Eastern Helsinki bands, a Somali handicraft workshop, a Russian puppet theatre forchildren, and flavours from all over the world. Furthermore, an exhibition of Chinese Porcelain Art combined lectures andmusic. “Beauty Speaks: Africa” contained a performance of dance, theatre, song, and rhythm featuring artists from manydifferent cultures. The “Chinese Folk Art and Handicraft” event displayed over a hundred items from different parts and

nationalities of China.12 The famous Sámi musician, Wimme Saari, was among the performers, though.13 The Etno Espa home page is at http://www.etno-espa.com/etnoespa2.html (translation P.S.)



17

On the basis of available information, it seems plausible that the cultural dimension (in the sense of

arts and creativity) is still very narrowly exploited in social, health and educational work connected

with immigrants and their descendants. A recent survey of immigrant projects (Ruhanen &

Martikainen 2006, 67-69), for example, reveals that very few of them focus on the arts or culture. The

almost sole actor in this field is the arts association Kassandra, whose Moninaiset project, for

example, aims at improving the standards of living in certain areas by providing the possibility of free

art workshops, lectures and art events for women of all backgrounds. There are, however, some

indicators that creative approaches in immigrant work is on the increase and that the practices used in

Caisa have now been adopted in other areas of municipal policy. A cultural producer with

multicultural work as his main responsibility was also recently appointed to the cultural centre, Stoa,

in Eastern Helsinki.

5.3 Lessons from the local level

There is no doubt that Caisa has been a successful institution in many respects. It functions as a

“home” for a large range of activities that bring together members of the mainstream or dominant

culture and those from minorities and immigrant communities. In the spirit of the Integration Act and

local integration programmes, Caisa provides newcomers with facilities intended both for assisting

integration into Finnish society and for the maintenance of immigrants’ own ethnic and culturalcommunity/ies. Finally, the premises for associations, art galleries, courses in the arts and

craftsmanship and other available facilities support both individual and collective artistic

self-expression and development.

Nonetheless, the Caisa case also reveals the tensions and problems inherent in the creation of such a

specialised centre for multicultural affairs. First or all, we can observe a terminological ”clash of

cultures” when the similarity of meaning of ”culture” in cultural policy and in multiculturalism (orcultural diversity) is taken for granted even though the central actors have their own highly divergent

interpretations. Secondly, this kind of a sector-crossing organisation can easily become an object of

criticism from sector specialists who may think that those in the special unit deal too much with that

and do not know enough about this. These suspicions and prejudices can easily be aggravated by the

struggle for scarce resources. Finally, there is a danger of producing a “lazy mentality” where actors

avoid taking responsibility for independent action by reasoning that ”now that we have the

multicultural centre we do not have to do it ourselves”.



18

The most important issue here concerns the role of different organisational arrangements in the

construction of a diverse society. For the sake of argument, we can point out two possible scenarios.

In the positive scenario, good practices in the multicultural centre are followed by other units in other

administrative sectors. In this way, cultural sensitivity is incorporated into normal services and

immigrants and their communities are taken into account in the mainstream cultural policy. The

multicultural centre would then function as a meeting point that is accessible to all and one that

provides the public with interesting programme. Subsequently, creative solutions using the arts and

culture are applied in immigrant services. This scenario results in a situation where ethnic and cultural

diversity is considered as a normal feature of urban life. Despite all differences among the population,

there is still enough unity to hold society together and to maintain mutual solidarity.

In the negative scenario, the centre becomes an isolated multicultural universe, ”a reservation” within

a society that otherwise refuses to accept the diversification of social realities. At the programmatic

level, the cultural rights of new members of the society and those of the more traditional minorities

are dealt with together; in practice, the right for public support in maintaining one’s own cultural

identity may turn out to be lip service without true support or financial subsidies. Activities related to

the arts and culture and the new immigrants can then be restricted to special institutions and forums

which the majority of the population seldom or never enter. Individuals, groups and communities that

have found their way to the multicultural centre and its services – or otherwise have enough resources

– have their needs relatively well satisfied. Those that are, for one reason or another, outside the range

of the support systems, will lack facilities, resources, audience and public recognition. In this

situation, there is a risk of polarisation between those who subscribe to the idea of cultural

homogeneity and those who, after long periods of residence, still feel that they are not welcome.

6 Conclusion

The analysis above does not, of course, allow for any far-reaching generalisations. The challenges of

incorporating newcomers into the scope of traditional minority policies and cultural policies and of

finding a good balance and working co-operation between different policy sectors concerning

immigrants and their descendants are, however, central political issues in many European countries

and in numerous local communities. Therefore, the Finnish findings can be used, for example, as

hypotheses in the description, analysis and evaluation of other cases.



19

Firstly, the Finnish case emphasises the need to analyse not only programmatic discourse at the

national level but also practical arrangements and solutions at the local level. It is obvious that there is

often less real activity than programmes promise. In addition, there can be clear discrepancies

between what is endeavoured in principle and what is really done. Even though the Finnish official

integration policy guarantees the right to maintain and develop one’s own culture and religion in

accordance with Finnish law, in practice resources for the latter are not sufficient for cultural

self-development. In fact, as Ritva Mitchell (2006, 305) has pointed out, the formulation of the

Finnish integration policy already indicates that culture (and cultural policy) is in a problematic and

secondary position compared with general welfare (and welfare policy). In many cases, the cultural

identity of immigrants is not valued as an independent phenomenon in and of itself, but rather as an

instrument for achieving/facilitating societal integration.

Concerning our second research question, our analysis suggests that there remains a clear line of

demarcation between ”traditional minorities” and ”new minorities”, even though in the “diversity

policy discourse” these are often dealt with as one issue. Theoretically, this is of course completely

congruent with the standpoint of Will Kymlicka (1995), for example. For Kymlicka, new ethnic

groups formed by voluntary migration simply do not have the same rights as traditional minorities

with their societal cultures. Research, however, has indicated that many immigrant groups maintain

their cultures and identities in the long-term, and, for instance, organise themselves in compliance

with them, even though their cultural rights are not guaranteed to the same level as are those of

traditional minorities (e.g. Rex et al. 1987; Wahlbeck 1999). Their inclusion in mainstream cultural

policy, then is also a question of general equality and inclusion. It would at least be fair for new

communities to know whether they can expect public recognition for their own culture in the future or

if cultural rights are to remain primarily in the private sphere.

Our third research objective was to look at the points of contact between cultural policy and culturaldiversity in three policy sectors or pillars: in mainstream cultural policy, in mainstream immigrant

policy, and in special multi- or intercultural policy. The cultural centre Caisa is a relatively successful

example of the lattermost alternative. Nonetheless, Dragan Klaic (2006, 7) has remarked that there is

a danger that such flagship institutions remain “cordoned off, accepted or ‘tolerated’ as a ghetto,

single or multiple, doesn’t matter much, deprived of any impact by benign neglect.” Our analysis

confirms that such perils are realistic. These institutions can hamper positive developments in respect

to the incorporation of both a cultural policy and diversity perspective into the mainstream urban andcommunity development if the risks inherent are not properly recognised.



20

It is difficult to say what the best way of organising the convergence of cultural policy and cultural

diversity might be. Undoubtedly due attention has to be paid to the political context in question, with

its own histories, traditions, trajectories, concepts, ideologies and structures of ethnic and cultural

diversity (cf. Bennett 2001, 23). Nevertheless, there seems to be sound reasons to expect that all of the

three sectors or pillars discussed in this article should be exploited to some extent in order to translate

the change in ethnic and cultural structures into political action and to avoid leaving important

methods and resources unused. New ethnic and cultural minorities should be incorporated into

mainstream cultural policy, which should then reflect the structural realities of society. Arts and

culture should be more broadly used in immigrant work because there are numerous examples of how

creative methods can be efficiently exploited in therapeutic work, in preventing social

marginalisation and conflicts, in increasing tolerance and cross-cultural contacts, as well as in the

positive hybridisation of identities. Finally, there is certainly a need for multi- and intercultural

centres that provide facilities for artistic and cultural activities within immigrant groups and, possibly

even more importantly, in an inter- and cross-cultural context.

Bibliography

Bennett, Tony (2001) Differing Diversities: Transversal Study on the Theme of Cultural Policy and

Cultural Diversity (Council of Europe Publishing, London).

Ellmeier, Andrea and Rásky, Béla (2005) Differing diversities: Eastern European Perspectives

(Council of Europe, Strasbourg).

Eurocult21 Stories (2004) (City of Helsinki Cultural Office, Helsinki).

Heiskanen, Ilkka (1995) “Development of Finnish Cultural Policy: an Outline”, In: Cultural Policy in

Finland: National Report (The Arts Council of Finland, Research and Information Unit, Helsinki),

pp. 27-68.

Heiskanen, Ilkka and Mitchell, Ritva (2002) ”Kulttuurivähemmistöt, monikulttuurisuus ja

kulttuurioikeudet”, In: Heiskanen, I., Kangas, A. and Mitchell, R., eds., Taiteen ja kulttuurin kentät:

perusrakenteet, hallinta, lainsäädäntö ja uudet haasteet , (Tietosanoma, Helsinki), pp. 303-326.



21

Horn, Frank (2004) National Minorities of Finland.

<http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=26470> 1.2.2006

Ilczuk, Dorotha & Raj Isar, Yudhisthir, eds. (2006) Metropolises of Europe. Diversity in UrbanCultural Life (CIRCLE, Warsaw).

Jasinskaja-Lahti, Inga, Liebkind, Karmela & Vesala, Tiina (2002) Rasismi ja syrjintä Suomessa.

Maahanmuuttajien kokemuksia (Gaudeamus, Helsinki).

Jong, Joop de (1999) ”Kulttuurinen monimuotoisuus ja kulttuuripolitiikka Hollannissa”, In: Kangas,

A. & Virkki, J., eds, Kulttuuripolitiikan uudet vaatteet (SoPhi, Jyväskylä), pp. 49-72.

Joronen, Tuula (2003) Helsingin ulkomaalaispolitiikan teoria ja käytäntö. Helsingin kaupungin

tietokeskuksen verkkojulkaisuja 2003: 17 (Helsingin kaupungin tietokeskus, Helsinki).

Juteau, Danielle et al (1998) ”Multiculturalism à la Canadian and Intégration à la Québécoise.

Transcending their Limits", In Bauböck, R. & Rundell, J., eds, Blurred Boundaries: Migration,

Ethnicity, Citizenship (Ashgate, Aldershot), pp. 95-110.

Kangas, Anita (1999) ”Kulttuuripolitiikan uudet vaatteet”, In: Kangas, A. & Virkki, J., eds,

Kulttuuripolitiikan uudet vaatteet (SoPhi, Jyväskylä), pp. 156-178.

Klaic, Dragan (2006) “Cultural policies and institutions facing the challenge of multicultural

societies”, In: Quando la cultura fa la diferenza, Patrimonio, arti e media nella societa

multicultureale, eds., Bodo, S & Cifarelli, R. (Roma), 90-102.

Koenis, Sjaak & Saukkonen, Pasi (2006) “The Political Organization of Cultural Difference”,

Finnish Journal of Ethnicity and Migration 1, 4-14.

Kulonen, Ulla-Maija, Seurujärvi-Kari, Irja & Pulkkinen, Risto (2005) The Saami: a Cultural

Encyclopaedia (SKS, Helsinki).

Kymlicka, Will (ed.) (1995) The Rights of Minority Cultures (Oxford University Press, Oxford).



22

Lehtola, Veli-Pekka (2002) The Sámi People: Traditions in Transition (Kustannus-Puntsi, Inari).

Lepola, Outi (2000) Ulkomaalaisesta suomenmaalaiseksi: monikulttuurisuus, kansalaisuus ja

suomalaisuus 1990-luvun maahanmuuttopoliittisessa keskustelussa (SKS, Helsinki).

McRae, Kenneth D. (1999) Conflict and Compromise in Multilingual Societies: Finland (Finnish

Academy of Science and Letters, Helsinki).

Meinhof, Ulrike Hanna and Triandafyllidou, Anna, eds. (2006) Transcultural Europe: Cultural

Policy in a Changing Europe (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke).

Ministry of Labour (2002) Valtioneuvoston selonteko kotouttamislain toimeenpanosta (Ministry of

Labour, Helsinki).

Mitchell, Ritva (2006) “The promotion of cultural diversity through integration policies in Helsinki”,

In: Ilczuk, Dorotha & Raj Isar, Yudhisthir, eds. (2006) Metropolises of Europe. Diversity in Urban

Cultural Life (CIRCLE, Warsaw), pp 296-315.

Ministry of Education (2003) Opetusministeriön maahanmuuttopoliittiset linjaukset (2003)

Opetusministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä 2003:7 (Ministry of Education, Helsinki).

Parekh, Bhikhu (2000) Rethinking Multiculturalism. Cultural Diversity and Political Theory

(Macmillan, Houndmills).

Perkinen, Mervi (1997) ”Helsingin ulkomaalaispoliittinen ohjelma arvioinnin kohteena”, In:

Schulman, H. and Kanninen, V., eds, Sovussa vai syrjässä? Ulkomaalaisten integroituminen

Helsinkiin. Helsingin kaupungin tietokeskuksen tutkimuksia 1997:12 (Helsingin kaupungin

tietokeskus, Helsinki), pp. 109-121.

Pesonen, Pertti and Riihinen, Olavi (2002) Dynamic Finland: the Political System and the Welfare

State (Finnish Literature Society, Helsinki).

Pulma, Panu (2006) Suljetut ovet: pohjoismainen romanipolitiikka 1500-luvulta EU-aikaan. Helsinki:SKS.



23

Pyykkönen, Miikka (2006) “Maahanmuuttopolitiikan (moni)kulttuuriset vaikutukset”, In: Häyrynen,

S., eds, Kulttuurin arviointi ja vaikutusten väylät (CUPORE, Helsinki).

Pyykkönen, Miikka (2007, forthcoming) “Integrating Governmentality. Administrative Expectations

for Immigrant Associations in the Integration of Immigrants in Finland”, Alternatives.

Rex, John et al. (eds.) (1987) Immigrant Associations in Europe. Aldershot: Gower.

Ristimäki, Eija (1995) “Minorities and Cultural Rights”, In: Cultural Policy in Finland National

Report (The Arts Council of Finland, Research and Information Unit, Helsinki), pp. 241-256.

Robins, Kevin (2006) The Challenge of Transcultural Diversities: Cultural Policy and Cultural

Diversity (Council of Europe, Strasbourg).

Ruhanen, Milla and Martikainen, Tuomas (2006) Maahanmuuttajaprojektit: hankkeet ja hyvät

käytännöt . Väestöntutkimuslaitoksen katsauksia E22/2006 (Väestöliitto, Helsinki).

Saukkonen, Pasi (1999) Suomi, Alankomaat ja kansallisvaltion identiteettipolitiikka. Tutkimus

kansallisen identiteetin poliittisuudesta, empiirinen sovellutus suomalaisiin ja hollantilaisiin

teksteihin (SKS, Helsinki).

Saukkonen, Pasi (2003) “The Political Organization of Difference”, Finnish Yearbook of Political

Though (SoPhi; Jyväskylä).

Saukkonen, Pasi (2006) “From the promotion of national identity to the management of plurality:cultural policy developments in Belgium (Flanders), Finland and the Netherlands”, Nordisk

Kulturpolitisk Tidskrift 2.

Silvanto, Satu (2005) “City of Helsinki”, In: Eurocult21 Compendium: Urban Cultural Policy

Profiles. (Eurocult21, Helsinki).

Skot-Hansen, Dorte (2002) “Danish cultural policy: from monoculture towards cultural diversity”, International Journal of Cultural Policy 2, 197-210.



Statistics Finland (2006) Foreign-born population in Finland, Uudenmaa province and in Helsinki,

2004. Statistics subscribed 4.8.2006.

Toikka, Mia (2001) Monikulttuurisuus ideologisena käytäntönä. Unpublished master thesis.

(University of Helsinki, Helsinki).

Wahlbeck, Östen (1999). Kurdish Diasporas. A Comparative Study of Kurdish Refugee Communities.

(MacMillan Press LTD, London).

Interviews

Cortes-Tellez, Mikko, designer, Ministry of Education (an e-mail interview), 10.11.2006,

Maula, Johanna, director, International Cultural Centre Caisa, 21.9.2006

Riila, Anu, coordinator of immigration affairs, City of Helsinki, 19.9.2006

Timonen, Pekka, director, City of Helsinki Cultural Office, 26.9.2006

Siikala, Ritva, director, Kassandra association, 17.10.2006

Authors

Pasi Saukkonen

Senior Researcher, D.Soc.Sci, docent

Foundation for Cultural Policy Research (CUPORE)

Tallberginkatu 1 C 137

00180 HELSINKI

FINLAND

[email protected]

Miikka Pyykkönen

Senior Lecturer

Dept. of Social Sciences and Philosophy

PO Box 35

40014 University of Jyväskylä

FINLAND

[email protected]

cultural policy and cultural diversity in finland.pdf

Documents