Aiming for meaningful participation sustainably
In the process of preparing our policy brief on the cultural participation of marginalised groups and youth, advocacy and policy officer Julia Kasten held a number of in-depth conversations with European and local cultural networks within and outside of the ENCC members community, which allowed us to identify a list of concrete challenges they face in their daily work.
This article targets a number of specific issues socio-cultural centres (SCC) across Europe are confronted with. With a focus on active community engagement and participative decision-making processes, the article focuses on trust-building, intergenerational approaches, hierarchism, risk assessment, and the creation of “brave” spaces. These five focus areas are looked into from a societal perspective, with an attention to the participation of different marginalised groups as the main common denominator. We also examine a set of concrete, bottom-up approaches to resolving the aforementioned challenges.
Focus 1: Building trust
Engagement in cultural activities contributes to social cohesion and builds trust and a sense of belonging among diverse groups. Evidence-based data shows that shared cultural experiences help counter stereotypes, promote social awareness, and increase interaction between people who might otherwise not meet. That proves that the participation of young people and marginalised groups in cultural activities can play an impactful role in their integration. However, inclusion still depends on the active commitment of individual cultural workers who recognise the potential and value of diversity within cultural activities. Furthermore, the participation of marginalised groups in SCCs is largely based on trust. Fanni Székely-Trendl, is an assistant professor of the Department of Romology and Sociology of Education at the University of Pécs. Reflecting on her experiences working closely with students who belong to the Romani community, she understands trust as a result of consistency. She emphasises that successful inclusion is based on the implementation of long-term actions and a constant adaptation to the needs of the addressed community.
"Trust is built slowly. It is patience and stability, and it’s the consistent creation of occasions to meet and talk that help to build it."
Inspired by Fanni's reflections, we shared her statement with our members. They recognised themselves in it, and went on to explain that trust requires a deeper commitment from cultural workers and institutions to recognise the value of participation, starting with small but consistent actions: inviting people, responding to their needs, and creating a respectful and non-judgmental environment. They also reflected on the idea of appointing a "trustee" for specific communities. A trustee is supposed to understand their community's needs and act as a communication channel between the community and the SCC. They suggested not placing the burden of representation on a single person, but instead investing in tailored training for cultural workers and the design and implementation of interactive, transparent processes that move beyond symbolic gestures. Lastly, they emphasised the need for a process of mutual learning that allows for errors and readjustment, which would require an open and honest approach to learning.
Focus 2: Bridging the intergenerational divide
In his book "Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America", published in 1995, Robert Putnam notes that differences between generations are constantly increasing. He discusses disconnection as caused by changing family patterns and living arrangements, the breakdown of traditional community structures, age-segregated activities, and the rise of digitalisation.
We picked up these concepts to discuss intergenerational challenges during a workshop with young volunteers from the organisation "Aktion Sühnezeichen". When talking about different ways to promote accessibility, participation, and exchange, our interlocutors admitted that intergenerational exchange is hindered by intimidation dynamics stemming from generational differences in knowledge, communication methods, and expectations of respect. In their experience, these unconscious power dynamics between older and younger people create a sense of hierarchy and limit open interaction.
An imbalance of power exists also at the structural level, since local administrations and financial entities deciding on funds allocated to the cultural sector are mostly led by elders. The growing divide between generations becomes a risk when homogeneous groups with decision power resist innovation or progressive shifts. Other structural inequalities, such as lack of outreach, limited participatory mechanisms, and non-transparent funding processes, further alienate youth and marginalised groups, especially in rural areas.
"Empowerment begins with access, and access requires the equitable distribution of resources, shared decision-making, and transparent support mechanisms."
Our members proposed to address these gaps by opening spaces for intergenerational dialogue, paying particular attention to the creation of a truly level playing field for everyone. They also call for transparency in funding decisions to ensure that cultural initiatives are truly adapted to their reference communities and audiences. This includes meaningful feedback processes, and more support for organisations applying for funding. Equally important would be the institutionalisation of intergenerational exchange through dedicated advisory boards, involving the public sector and conducting specific research. Locally-rooted and collaboratively-designed initiatives foster stronger community ties and more relevant, inclusive cultural experiences.
Focus 3: Challenging hierarchism/elitism
Marginalised groups, and especially young people, claim that the cultural sector is still shaped by hierarchies and elitism. They report perceiving cultural centres and institutions as overly formal, inaccessible, or reserved to a selected few. As a matter of fact, institutionalised cultural agencies frequently operate within closed decision-making circles, shaped by unspoken hierarchies based on education, social background, and wealth. These invisible barriers limit participation and foster a sense of distance between cultural institutions and the communities they aim to serve. When talking about countering these dynamics, key words such as horizontal, bottom-up, and ownership pop up a lot. But what do they mean? Together with our members, we identified three key approaches to help address hierarchism and invite under-represented voices to the table.
Firstly, collecting data to gain an understanding of the audience, the ecosystem, and the real needs. The aim is not to overload the sector, but to understand whether and how the audience is represented, under-represented, and/or misrepresented. Secondly, lowering the barriers to access to cultural activities by offering free, visible, physically and socially accessible events. Co-designing programmes with the community, offering informal and regular activities. Thirdly, actively ensuring inclusive communication, using clear written language as well as visuals.
"Establish welcoming spaces like coffee moments and family events that allow for personal storytelling and relationship-building."
By regularly implementing and institutionalising these measures, cultural institutions can embrace a welcoming culture and truly become spaces of lived co-creation.
Focus 4: Assessing risk
Existing security concerns and structural discrimination can pose an ongoing challenge to the inclusivity efforts of SCCs. While SCCs strive to promote participation and empowerment of marginalised groups, this newly-found visibility can sometimes place individuals from such groups at risk and expose them to social backlash, community rejection, and even violence. For example, Romani people continue to face systemic exclusion, with children experiencing discrimination from an early age, extending into adulthood. Other marginalised groups face harassment or intimidation from people who oppose their presence or confront them with public stigma. Similarly, young newcomers are increasingly forming isolated, parallel communities, which are often overlooked by treating "minorities" as a single, homogeneous group. New forms of marginalisation are emerging within and between minority groups. These new challenges call on the cultural sector to adapt and find ways to respond to these intra-community divisions. Also, the rise of far-right ideologies and autocratic tendencies further exacerbates the situation. Safety concerns are real and pressing: in some cases, invited speakers have to withdraw their participation to cultural events due to fear of exposure.
To address this, our members recommend implementing clear codes of conduct and safety protocols, conducting pre-event conflict assessments, and investing in long-term capacity building for staff to navigate complex, delicate, and sensitive dynamics.
"Only through a deliberate, well-resourced commitment to equity, safety, and pluralism can socio-cultural centres become truly inclusive spaces for all."
Focus 5: Creating brave spaces
In his TEDx speech, student Eli Haskel presents the concept of brave spaces in the context of political polarisation. He understands them as collective and diverse spaces where criticism is viewed as an opportunity for growth, where active listening is encouraged rather than immediate response, and where disagreement can be a catalyst for change and progress. In short, brave paces can be seen as laboratories for discussing multiple viewpoints and creating collective solutions. Brave spaces are built on six main pillars: vulnerability, perspective talking, embracing fear, critical thinking, examining intentions, and mindfulness.
Unlike a safe space, where comfort and security are paramount and protection from harm is the primary focus, a brave space recognises that discomfort is often a necessary part of personal development and activism. Although discussing sensitive topics can lead to exposure to criticism, harassment, and discrimination, in brave spaces this confrontation takes place in a respectful and responsible environment. Bringing marginalised groups to action, SCCs could increasingly turn to the concept of brave spaces and create an environment that goes beyond creating comfort, towards active encouragement of honest, sometimes uncomfortable dialogue where participants feel respected, heard, and empowered to express dissenting views or difficult truths.
"Society becomes more and more individualistic, thus society needs to take back ownership to reshape social narratives."
Despite the advantages of brave spaces, the challenge lies in allowing room for vulnerability and failure. During our consultations, our members pointed out that creating such spaces requires internal preparation. That includes redesigning participation processes, introducing external mediators to democratise access, and knowing how to creating connection among people in order to make them feel comfortable in sharing their stories. By trusting the process, asking critical questions, and committing to reflective dialogue, SCCs can promote active citizenship.