The British Council still makes people suspicious. Where its image in the UK is not mired in the never-never lands of Malcolm Bradbury and David Lodge (sex, money, a whiff of gentlemanly corruption), it is the victim of an historical association with the murky diplomatic hinterland of honorary consuls, cultural attachés and (worse) well-meaning High Table amateurs. More recently, post-colonial critics suspect it of cultural supremacism and intellectual imperialism, whilst traditional liberal intellectuals worry about an increasing strategic commitment to language schools and other commercial projects, a function of the division of its responsibilities between the generation of income and the promotion of Britain in the world.1
Yet few of our public institutions are, in fact, less deserving of their current reputation, especially where the further/higher education literature sector is concerned. The Council has long enjoyed a unique status beyond the British Isles, influencing and advancing cultural policy and exchange in dynamic and frequently unexpected ways. In recent years, particularly through the work of its Literature Department, it has initiated and supported numerous projects of enduring significance, consolidating — as anyone involved in these activities will testify — a position of weight and significance in the non-UK English subject community.2
Progressive reforms at home and abroad have changed the Council both in its organisation, making it more flexible and responsive, and, more importantly, in its ideology. The majority of Council Arts initiatives are negotiated between the London offices and the 109 ‘local’ (or ‘country’) offices, and this offers considerable latitude for those beyond the Council walls to propose and run specific projects. More often than not, the Council responds to local initiatives: DJs in Cairo, poets in the Far East, academics in Hungary. In the literary field, nearly all the Council’s work is organised in response to ‘bids’ from regional partners (ranging from single individuals to institutions). A graduate exchange with which I was concerned, for instance, between the English Departments of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, and Lucian Blaga University, Sibiu (Romania), although sponsored by both institutions, could not have happened without the support, financial and technical, of the Council’s Budapest and London offices.3 In addition to such schemes, the Council is involved in a prodigious range of conferences, workshops, writers’ tours, lectures, publications, liaison and even infrastructural support projects — the great majority of this work in response to local demands. It is at the hub of an unparalleled international educational network, maintaining a presence at countless higher education fairs and academic events.
It is my impression that the profession in the UK remains largely ignorant both of the nature of the Council’s current work, and of the possible benefits of involvement in its programmes. There are exceptions — Nottingham University and the University of East Anglia, for instance, have enviable portfolios of international links — but too few institutions and individuals take advantage of the Council’s resources. Since the Council is responsive, this means that more proactive sectors often receive a greater share of resources and attention. To its credit, the Council is aware (far more so than successive UK governments) of the significance to the UK’s international standing of British universities. Nonetheless, despite its best efforts, the current situation is still characterised by unrealised potential, in terms not only of the rewards of intellectual exchange, but also in the hard figures of visiting students, cooperative research grants and joint publications: the higher education sector as a whole needs to take note.
The most recent modifications in the Council’s advisory and managerial structures may help to rectify this state of affairs. They are aimed at increasing the input of UK subject professionals into central policy-making in relevant areas, whilst also raising the profile of the Literature Department amongst UK institutions. In June, the Arts Department replaced its standing advisory committees with a new Arts Advisory Committee (AAC), drawing together specialists and practitioners to offer advice and help with the running of projects across the range of its activities. Within this structure, the Literature Department will benefit from a new Register of Advisers, made up of some forty academics, writers, editors, publishers and even literary agents, who will provide an on-call resource, acting not only as specialist consultants, but also generating initiatives. Caryl Phillips is to chair a writers' sub-group, and Susan Bassnett is to lead the Literature, Language and Culture Committee, (LILAC) a body more specifically concerned with activities within the Literature and Education area. A review is also now underway of Literature's flagship events, and publications (including the acclaimed annual New Writing anthology, and the global-circulation magazine — also available online — Literature Matters, as well as an expanding portfolio of web resources). Clearly, there should be much to look forward to as the process of reform continues.
Margaret Meyer, Director of Literature, emphasizes the shift in her department's policy towards readers and audiences. Whilst writers and performers are still integral to Council provision, they are now more likely to accompanied by eager, innovative lecturers and critics, part of packages and projects directed to longer term goals. In an environment of decreasing subsidy and increasing accountability (sound familiar?), she looks ‘to develop programmes to reflect widening participation, dialogue and exchange’, with greater attention to reciprocal projects, and a retreat from the costly, one-off events which have to some extent prevailed in the past. For this reason, reader/audience development projects (involving, for instance, creative/critical reading activities), and translation/cross-border partnerships are to be given a high priority in the department’s work over the coming years.
It is in the context of these changes — in Council practice and, one would hope, in that outdated reputation — that the recent conference, ‘Transmissions: Theory, Teaching and Research in British and Literary and Cultural Studies in Europe’ (9–12 May, 2002), took place. This event in many ways exemplified the distinctive contribution the Council can make within the subject community, and reveals something of the manner in which we UK professionals might, in turn, become more engaged in Council projects, and, by extension, with our non-UK peers. With the English Subject Centre’s major conference, ‘The Condition of the Subject: English, Professionalism and Practice’, already on the horizon (17–19 July, 2003), it is perhaps appropriate to insist upon a definition of the Subject not only in terms of our local concerns, but also in relation to colleagues in the wider world of English Studies.
‘Transmissions’ built on the momentum of several earlier regional conferences, such as ‘The Literature Anti-Conference’ (Constanta, 2000), and ‘Infinite Londons: A Meta-Conference’, (Sibiu, 2001). As these titles indicate, a challenge to, and critique of, the habits and forms of the conventional academic conference is explicit in event design and direction. This often results in a spirit of eagerness and collaborative energy largely lacking in the more cautious, even competitive, environments of the UK and US circuit. To a degree, this is certainly consequent upon the context: in Central and Eastern Europe the prevailing form of the scholarly symposium retains a conservative and monologic resonance from an earlier epoch which delegates are eager to transcend.4 Moreover, although primarily from the higher education sector, attendance is drawn from a variety of disciplinary and national backgrounds, which determines a necessarily more heterodox discursive environment. The distinguishing characteristics of ‘Transmissions’ were, nevertheless, to a large extent the result of careful deliberation, a function of the uniquely collective planning and management systems intrinsic to Council practice.
Rather than being ‘run by London’, the planning group for ‘Transmissions’ was drawn from local Hungarian universities, LILAC, and Council officers, supplemented along the way by input from the invited speakers themselves. For several months, a lively e-mail list debated everything from programme format, to invited guests, to pre-reading tasks and marketing policies. The burden of primary administration, however, was largely borne by the Council, releasing the time and energy of academic advisers to focus on matters of intellectual direction. In this way, the Council helps not only to set up and run a conference, but also models new ways of developing conferences (hard-pressed UK academics should really take note of the services provided by the Council’s event management ‘seminars’ department). The strongly positive result of this structure is in the working relations which develop amongst members of the planning group. This event, needless to say, was ultimately about far more than the three days in Budapest of the conference itself.
The most obviously distinctive aspect of Council events such as ‘Transmissions’ is the nature of the constituency they serve. Delegates — many sponsored by their local Council offices — were drawn from universities throughout Central and Eastern Europe (Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Yugoslavia, Turkey), with a range of invited speakers and workshop/seminar leaders which included representatives both from these countries and from the UK, Australia, Belgium and the US. Whereas, in the past, the Council has been criticized for ‘parachuting’ star British academics into events where they have given their talks and disappeared back over the horizon, there is now great emphasis on the maintenance of dialogue and exchange, through longer trips with extended workshops and seminars, and encouragement to engage in continuing projects and take a longer term view of results. Moreover, as the variety of contributions on the ‘Transmissions’ programme reveals, UK academics do not dominate the schedules, and there were no assumptions of the pre-eminence of UK perspectives (plenaries, for instance, were delivered by Ortwin de Graef, Claire Colebrook and Philip Martin; workshops were led by paired UK/non-UK moderators). Whilst it is important for local delegates, particularly in areas where resources are scarce or historically restricted, to have the opportunity to engage with up-to-date work from the ‘centre’, it is also the case that this ‘centre’ has much to learn from its ‘margins’ — as the workshop and an energetic plenary session addressing issues in the definition and teaching of ‘Cultural Studies’ (see below) especially revealed. Indeed, Council events are now commonly organized in conjunction with, and targeted towards, the rising generation of subject professionals, a refreshing change from the days when such events were perceived as elite junkets for senior figures, or occasions for academic stars to show their colours. It is a welcome feature of the delegate evaluation forms to find UK and non-UK professionals alike commenting on the ‘shared thinking’ they experienced, and noting how much they would be able, to ‘take home and continue’.
The most significant difference between the conventional academic conference and events like ‘Transmissions’, however, is in the nature of the programme itself. Although the familiar elements — plenaries, paper sessions and panels — are all present, there is a much more explicit emphasis on dialogue and exchange, and a deliberate attention to networking and future project development. These range from follow-up seminars to speaking engagements, curriculum sharing, and even exchange programmes. Much of the work presented in the research paper panels is exemplary (at ‘Transmissions’ I caught intriguing and provocative pieces on Swift’s reception in Bulgaria; the relations between Philosophy and Theory; and the implications of the emergence of hypertext and ‘electronic critique’), but there is particular stress on panel discussions and, above all, the workshop and seminar form. Feedback returns again and again to this aspect of the event: ‘I did more shared thinking in the last few days than I have done in any comparable period in years’; ‘discussions were livelier and lengthier than at any other conferences I have been to’; ‘Transmissions’ was ‘an unprecedented forum’. This is typical of my own experiences: at one Council event, I sat for a couple of hours with half a dozen of my peers and discussed a couple of poems by Frank O’Hara: now when was the last time you had the opportunity to do that with your colleagues? At ‘Transmissions’, I was in an open session on Look Back In Anger (delegates received the programme in advance and signed up for workshops with pre-reading tasks, encouraging enhanced levels of participation), which took off in unexpected directions when participants explained that the play, in a 1960s Moscow edition entitled Modern British Plays, has been required reading for generations of teenagers throughout the region. Martin McQuillan and Zoltan Marcus, moderating the forum on Cultural Studies, found themselves in the midst of a powerful debate which then entirely took over the final day’s plenary session. Again, few conferences would have the flexibility to allow such radical departure from published schedules, but delegates’ concern to address the issues effectively dictated the staging of a forum discussion. In practice, this dovetailed nicely with Philip Martin’s plenary presentation outlining the variety of pressures facing the profession generally in the UK, permitting detailed analysis and elucidation of a series of intersecting issues — institutional, national, disciplinary — impacting on the sector as a whole. Despite the range of local differences, the forum did reveal a pattern of shared concerns across UK and non-UK delegates, and began a clarification of these into ‘ontological’ and ‘contingent’ difficulties which might be isolated and, in some cases, collaboratively addressed or even resolved.5 Of particular interest here was discussion of the general movement from knowledge to skills-based pedagogies, and the shared sense of pressures towards outcome-led rather than exploratory or heuristic educational practice.
There is much more that could be said about ‘Transmissions’. A.L. Kennedy and Jim Crace, the ‘writers in residence’, were energetic and involved participants, offering both readings and an intriguing interview/discussion session. Discussion of the Bologna Protocols, which may only now be starting to trouble the consciousness of UK academics, was intense and informed, and it hardly needs emphasising that this particular constituency would not have had the chance to consider the issue except at an event such as this. Topics specific to Eastern Central Europe figured largely in conversation, with narratives of professional endurance under pressures of ‘reform’ and ‘restructuring’ so extreme as to silence even the most long-suffering UK professionals. Exchange initiatives, syllabus revision, guest-lecturing and comparative programmes have all emerged from the networking workshops. Whether the accountants in Spring Gardens (the Council’s Head Office) will be able to show a positive balance sheet remains to be seen, but it is clear that few delegates had any doubts about the real value of the event.
It would be naive to suggest that English departments should be blind to the economic potential of being more involved with the Council, but nor should we ignore the extent to which the delegates at ‘Transmissions’ also insisted on the far less readily quantifiable benefits of this event. In many ways the British Council is facing similar problems and pressures to the higher/further education sector as a whole. Subject to pressure for measurable results and outcomes, accountable to a variety of audit and quality control bodies, it struggles to maintain a space for policies based, nevertheless, on a commitment to the fundamental values of educational and cultural exchange. ‘Transmissions’ demonstrated that this space is both vital and precious, and that the Council can offer the profession unique resources for the strengthening and enhancement of its sense of international and intellectual community. It is up to us all whether we respond to that invitation.
For further information about getting involved with the British Council, visit http://www.britishcouncil.org/work/index.htm
With particular thanks to Bob Eaglestone (Royal Holloway, University of London). Additional material from Huriye Reis (Hacettepe University, Turkey); Milena Katzarska (Plovdiv University, Bulgaria); Adriana Neagu & Cristina Sandru (Lucian Blaga University, Sibiu, Romania); Gaby Gulyas (British Council, Budapest); Margaret Meyer (British Council, London).
Notes
1 The Council derives around one third of its funding from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It generates two-thirds of its income from commercial projects. Its mission statement is ‘to win recognition for the UK’s values, ideas and achievements’. It is worth noting that the British Council is not a government body, and is independent of political intervention, operating autonomously under royal charter, much like the BBC.
2 The Literature Department, which includes within its remit Intercultural (formerly British) Studies, and Literature/Education, is a subdivision of the Arts Department. For an introduction to its activities, see the website http://www.britishcouncil.org/arts/literature/index.htm.
3 For articles about the UWA/LBUS Exchange, written by the participants, see ‘From Transylvania to Wales and Back’, in Literature Matters 30, the Literature Department’s quarterly publication (distributed free around the world), available online at http://www.britishcouncil.org/arts/literature/literature_matters_30
4 For instance, in less liberal times dialogue itself was often circumscribed, ‘foreign’ delegates were generally required to submit papers in advance, and there was far less opportunity for travel or intellectual exchange across the region. Although a sense of community is slowly now emerging amongst subject professionals, largely as a result of the Council’s work, this spirit is still very much in its infancy.
5 ‘Contingent’ and ‘ontological’ were appropriations of George Steiner’s categories from ‘On Difficulty’, see ‘On Difficulty: and Other Essays’ (OUP, 1978).
