For cultural projects to fully realize their social significance and become more robust in the face of political attacks that deem them “non-essential,” it seems necessary to reflect on the dynamics of cooperation and evaluation. To regularly participate in the implementation of co-construction moments between cultural actors and institutions, I wish to share a reflection and two recommendations, which I hope will be useful in 2025 and beyond.
What is the purpose of cooperation? It ensures that projects are anchored in multiple places simultaneously. It helps diffuse meaning synergistically. And it enables the “1+1=3” effect, meaning cultural and social impacts that are greater than those of projects carried out alone.
However, due to the diversity of cooperation scenarios, they are often quite difficult to implement. Sometimes, poorly managed cooperations, instead of bringing synergy, become a hindrance, and one might have preferred to carry out the project alone! As the saying goes, “alone we go faster, together we go further.” It’s easy to say but remarkably complicated to do. The aim of this reflection is to offer some hopefully useful insights in this direction.
We fear being destabilized by others. We fear losing the value of our project, what we stand for through it, because others, by “pulling the blanket to their side,” might distort it. And yet, either we are obliged, or we know that cooperation is necessary, even indispensable, for example, for the project to benefit from complementary funding. Cooperation occurs between public actors, as well as in the link between public, associative, or private actors. The expectations of each actor can be very divergent, which is absolutely normal. We all need others, and at the same time, others disturb us, sometimes quite profoundly.
First recommendation: Sharing objectives at the start of meetings
To establish cooperation, we organize meetings either in person or via video conferencing. The goal of the meeting is to be efficient: there is always an agenda, decisions to be made, actions to implement, deadlines to set, people to recruit, budgets to secure, etc. Time is limited, and everyone wants to move forward.
But it seems essential to me to start every meeting with a quick round where each person around the table, regardless of their status, shares their expectations and objectives for the project. This way, we become aware of the diversity of expectations and are better equipped to understand potential blockages and work around them.
This is not about creating common ground in expectations. Each person is legitimate in their specific expectations. But being aware of this diversity and building in dialectic with it—meaning knowing from the outset that the project is complex, multifaceted, and that this will be its strength—is crucial.
If we don’t take this time, we might think we are being more efficient and moving faster toward the goal, but in reality, we will lose a lot of time later because we will have presumed intentions of others that they do not have. We will also assume that their objectives are the same as ours, which is absolutely normal because we cannot put ourselves in their place; they are the best ones to tell us.
Thus, through this seemingly non-productive moment of sharing, we will save a lot of time and energy later, as we will base our actions and objectives on the multiple realities of each partner, rather than on divergent imaginings disconnected from the reality of others.
This recommendation is not easy to implement, even though it seems very simple, because it may appear unnecessary. And we always fear entering into discussions and confrontations that will waste time, but let’s be sure that it will save time later!
Second recommendation: Collectively improving the evaluation of cultural projects
Public cultural policies are rarely evaluated. There are a few quantitative criteria, aesthetic judgments, but criteria related to social relevance and the social utility of cultural projects are often overlooked. They are sometimes present, of course, as this increasingly justifies funding, and rightly so, since everyone pays taxes. But a thorough evaluation of the entire project framework (and not just the isolated cultural action) is generally not requested by funders.
Yet, in terms of the political sustainability of cultural projects, these evaluations are indispensable. They will allow projects to evolve through voluntary self-reflection, which is entirely useful, and also to argue more convincingly for the purpose of the projects.
Collaborative evaluation should be at the heart of cooperation. These evaluations could serve the various partners in cultural cooperation. They would also help elected officials understand, and thus more effectively defend cultural projects, and take ownership of them.
To evaluate the social relevance of cultural projects, the tools and frameworks of cultural rights seem particularly valuable and operational. These evaluations could very well be conducted by collective bodies, among colleagues, to help assess projects in which we are not directly involved, ensuring that evaluation does not rhyme with misleading valorization of the project. Evaluation and self-reflection are such challenging exercises that they truly need to be implemented within collectives that are free from the project’s stakes.
Gradually, by systematizing this approach, experience could accumulate, and the cultural sector could equip itself with much more powerful, convincing, and concrete political tools than what exists today. These tools could also allow projects themselves to grow, to question themselves, and to better achieve their objectives, beyond simply defending their existence.
