Usaldus kui organisatsiooni tegevuskapital Eesti Kultuurkapitali näitel
Kuupäev
2003
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Tartu Ülikool
Abstrakt
Kirjeldus
The purpose of this paper was to construe the the problems of today, set before the Cultural
Endowment of Estonia (CEE) as an expert system representing the field of cultural
production, in both the theoretical sense and taking into account the characteristics of the
creative sphere. The paper analyzed the public expectations set for the CEE and how the
organization meets them today. Thus, the work combined four different theoretical
standpoints: Pierre Bourdieu's theory of fields (more specifically, the theory of the cultural
field), the theory of social capital created by James Coleman and Robert Putnam and their
research, Anthony Giddens' theory of the consequences of modernity (which encompassed
both the dimensions of trust and expert systems) and trust theories which, in this paper, relied
mostly on the theories of Russel Hardin, Mark E. Warren, Ronalt Inglehart and Piotr
Sztompka.
The paper analyzed perceptions of the operators in the cultural field to determine how
legitimate they hold the activities of the CEE in the redistribution of symbolic and cultural
capital.
Since the cultural field operates on the opposite basis in comparison to the economic field, the
CEE was treated an organization representing the cultural field. In order to construe the
organization, the paper analyzed the internal principles of the cultural field which also affect
the activities of the CEE. The paper proposed a hypothesis, that, due to organizational and societal changes, heightened
role expectations towards CEE exist among both the internal and external target groups. The
fact that CEE has not been able to meet these expectations may endanger the institutional
trustworthiness of the organization.
In order to verify the hypothesis, the paper analyzed the CEE's institutional trust to determine
the expected conduct of the CEE, also, to determine how the CEE meets these expectations
today in its activities. In addition, the paper analyzed the evaluations of the CEE procedural
trust, the work of expert committees in terms of culturally fair decision-making, the
trustworthiness of the bureaucratic structure. To answer these questions, two sources were consulted:
The first source were 18 semi-structured in-depth interviews carried out with the
organizations key figures in the autumn of 2002 in the CEE, within the framework of the
communication strategy practice of Tartu University's department of journalism and
communication. The reasearch mapped the internal expected institutional and procedural
conduct of the organization.
The second source for the paper were 150 semi-structured in-depth interviews carried out with
the CEE's applicants in the spring of 2003 by the III year students of Tartu University's
department of journalism and communication. The research mapped the expected conduct of
the organization on the cultural field. Due to the volume of the second source, it was used
more than the first source and it also provided the coded empirical material.
In parallel with the two sources, there were also reference to a quantitative research carried
out in parallel with the CEE's applicants interviews.
As the expected conduct of the CEE, the research showed the existence of political
independence, cultural continuity, elimination of depence on the market mechanisms and
functions related to recognition. The CEE's independence was generally rated in a positive manner. At the same time, the
ratings were high mostly in the sense that such an independent funding source actually exists.
The capability of eliminating the dependence of the real creative sphere on political and
market economy's mechanisms was still considered to be weak, since funding security
expectations have not been met as completely as required by the public expectations.
In the evaluation of meeting the cultural continuity expectations, a very strong claim states
that the CEE has not been able to adequately value the creative person in the transition to
market economy, since the general living conditions of the cultural field have fallen since the
CEE was created. A big problem is also seen in the lack of priorities, the disproportionately
large percentage of social support and small percentage of cultural youth support. An
expectation emerges, sta ting that the CEE should attempt to increase the dignity of the
creative sphere. A third important expectation of the CEE was the resistance to market pressure, this could
help the professional artists to concentrate on their work. The expectation was regared, in the
view of resources, as optimal: there is criticism towards the lack of balance between the funds
and the unequal position of the applicants. There is a sentiment that the CEE should not be a
social welfare organization. Also, it is claimed that the lack of organizational policy increases
instability, the lack of money leads to the dependence of market mechanisms. In short, the
CEE is seen in the future as an organization that seeks additional resources for culture.
The fourth important expectation was that the CEE should ensure public attention and
recognition in the creative circles and other fields of the society. It was admitted that the
organization's role in recognizing the creative person is high, but here, also, there are
additional resources to be found. Half of the respondents expect the CEE, in case additional
resources are created, to coordinate research to construe the cultural field and to market the
supported projects in order to increase the symbolic value of the cultural production. The
additional functions are considered to be important because they ensure that the generally
valued works will reach both the people who are interested and also those, who are not aware
that they could be interested. These suggestions therefore suppose that, in this way, it would
be possible to reduce the dependency of creative persons on the market mechanisms. While the evaluations of how the organization meets institutional expectations are fairly mild
and, instead of criticizing, maintain that the CEE has done all it could do, the evaluations of
procedural expectations revealed more negative viewpoints.
In the conditions of an unspecified creative person's status and lack of resources, the
organization was expected to determine the balancing points of funding: alternative and
experimental projects vs. stable projects of known quality; social support vs. achievements
and quality; professionals vs. folk culture; cities or counties; small amounts or large-scale
funding (100% of amount requested); state institutions or non-state institutions; local or
international; short-term or long-term; complete funding or partial funding. The organization's
practice to support all has come from the needs of the cultural field. Though today there is no
clearly communicated cultural policy on the national level and the cultural expenses in the
GDP are extremely low, a situation of many balance points has emerged. Due to the lack of
money, it is expected that the CEE will set priorities based on the specifics of the fields. In
future, the CEE should react to the situation so that funding would not only occur “due to circumstances”. There is also a lack of satisfaction concerning the transparency of social
order and the justification of decisions. Since the procedural trust depends on the
transparency of social order, normative coherence and also the incumbencies of
responsibility and report, the CEE is expected to determine the most critical needs as
priorities in the framework of meagre resources.
Though the organization's transparency of procedures receives criticism, the results still show
that despite the lack of finances, the CEE's institutional trustworthiness is extremely high.
On the whole, the research result analysis showed that the CEE's expected conduct is seen as:
ensuring political independence and the possibility of creation (eliminating the dependancy on
market mechanisms); supporting a very wide range of cultural phenomena; ensuring the
public attention and recognition, flexibility, continuity and the attention of the cultural field;
searching for funding stability and additional financial resources and ensuring the dignity of
the creative sphere. the multitude of definitions show that the CEE is seen to have a large role
related to the continuity of the cultural field. Thus, on the basis of the reserarch results, it can
be said that the organization wears the burden of heightened expectations, since the
organization has not, due to the environment and lack of finances, been able to meet the
expectations as required by the public expectations. As a result of the bachelor's degree paper, it was found that the CEE wears the burden of
heightened expected conduct, due to organizational and societal changes, in the eyes of both
the internal and external target groups, since the organization has not, due to the environment
and lack of finances, been able to meet the expectations as required by the public
expectations. In the long run, it is therefore impossible to keep the trusting atmosphere in the
Estonian cultural field without further investments.
As one possible solution to increase trust, it was suggested that the CEE might try to invest
sensibly in the organization's symbolic capital and look for support for that according to the
internal and external logic of the cultural field. It was suggested that the organization invest
more in the creation of social capital through communication management to increase the
organization's transparency and ensure support in both the eyes of the cultural field and other
fields of the society, in order to ensure the long-term compensation of the lack of
development in the cultural field compared to the other fields of the society.
Märksõnad
H Social Sciences (General), bakalaureusetööd