 Hello again. So we are now going to have a fourth panel. So as we say, usually in English the last but not the least. And as you could see as well, all the notion are also very much connected between artistic collaboration, the question of professional development, environmental sustainability. And we took a lot in past panel as well on the question of inclusion. So in a way it's also a good way to have this panel now. So I will give the word to Sophie, Sheda and Yama for this session. So for the last panel, the format is the same as well. You will have more discussion between our moderator and our two guest speakers. You will have your time for Q&A here in Helsinki and also online. And when you introduce yourself, you need to introduce your organization and also yourself for visual impairment people. So thank you very much and enjoy the conversation. Thank you Marie and thank you to On The Moon for welcoming us here for this. And well done everybody. You've made it to the last session of the day. I hope you still have some mental space left to talk about diversity and inclusion in digital cultural mobility. My name is Sophie Dowden. I am the project manager at the European Coral Association. And I am in my mid 30s. I have wavy red hair. I am white and I'm a woman wearing a white shirt. As it is a principle of inclusion to not speak for others but let them speak for themselves and not just because it makes my job easier. I will pass over to the panelists to introduce themselves. And so Sheda, over to you. Thank you. Hello everyone and on behalf of myself, thank you for staying with us. My name is Sheda Berg-Söderblum. I'm an independent festival programmer, creator and cultural manager who has a more than 20 years of experience in arts. 14 years as a very intense festival programmer background and since end of 2015 based in Helsinki. I'm running my small organization called Miklagard Arts with a certain focus on transnational and transcultural collaborations. And since the time I settled my new chapter of my professional life in Finland, I also engage in public advocacy on diversity, equity and inclusion. I worked for a Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture as an expert to produce arts, culture and diverse Finland reports to propose some policy recommendations and it's my pleasure to be here. Thank you. My description. My heart believes to say it. I'm late 40s, a white woman, medium short, dark brown hair and I'm wearing glasses, comes with the H and currently I'm wearing white short and blue jacket. Thank you. And yeah man, over to you. Thank you. Yeah, my idea is the name. I'm a middle aged man. In the 50s, I think I'm white, dark hair, I have glasses and my shirt is blue. You had to check but it is true. Yes. Well, my background, my background is in linguistics translation interpretation, as well as I haven't my master degrees in decision policy analysis. I've worked with the European equality law for more than 10 years and international human rights law as well for a number of years I've been the quality diversity manager at the National Touring Theatre of Sweden. I'm an independent consultant and researcher within the cultural sector. Wonderful. Thank you both for joining us. So, up to now today, we have been talking about digital cultural mobility, how it works, the professional development aspects involved environmental sustainability and how that relates to inclusion. And also, it was brought up earlier, the topic of issues of access that are posed by our operations in the digital world. But before we get to the problems, I would like to start with the positive side and ask our panelists, what benefits do we see from digital mobility when we're talking about inclusion as opposed to traditional cultural mobility. Okay. Well, I'm so happy because the earlier panel discussions and all the contribution and inputs actually brought us to this point that we can allow ourselves to be more critical about the work we do about the spaces we operate and the sector that's within we do our work. And since our specific team is inclusion, I would like to acknowledge the vivid and very important contribution of the foreign-backrounded people or artists and cultural workers who live and operate other than their birth countries and also all under represented minorities because that part is also a very important part of arts and cultural sector as an ecosystem. So when it comes to inclusion, that we should always think in a broader sense. But we really talked about or mentioned during the earlier panel discussions important points. What I can bring on the top of it, that when we talk about digital inclusion or inclusion at all, we should always bring the table or to the narrative representation who gets to speak and whose expertise is acknowledged. Once I am very grateful that on the move invited me here as one of the Finland-based presenters as being non-Finnish, I feel this important because I can at least identify myself in this immigrant art professional community. It's important whom is invited to this kind of discussions and of course accessibility and lacking capacity or developing capacity, resources, networks. But at the heart of all discussion, I believe that we need to talk about social justice because many global injustices that we are facing today has something to do with the social inequalities that we ourselves from the positions we operate somehow start and maintain and hopefully one day we will change and make it much more better for everyone. After this little bit background information, I would like to invite all of us just to think about the benefits from the digital inclusion. And I'm telling this being in one of the let's say most advanced technically countries in Finland and wherever you go in public spaces that you have an access to a 4G, 5G, free Wi-Fi. And of course we are also able to communicate in certain languages that are accessible only for those who can speak. So from that position, I would say yes digital, the visible part of the iceberg, it's incredible because we had an access to certain knowledge and input the other side of the world. And those knowledge were operating in the mostly in English. So for those who speak that language, it was possible to reach. And also there was another way of operating because during the pandemic when when the lockdown really hit arts and cultural sector to have digital content was the way. But still everything that I'm trying to describe right now comes from a certain privilege position. So if you don't have an access earlier also mentioned to reliable internet connection. Are we able to say that the privilege this digital events provided us in this very privileged context is available for everyone. So it's a question of inclusion. And if we are not able to communicate in this lingua franca that we are using for this specific event. Are we able to get all the knowledge that we would like to learn and and inspired by from the other part of the world. So I believe all those questions has something to do with the local context and which kind of privileges that we have as the art professionals. And who has those privileges and the and the positions to see real benefit of it. So maybe we can continue a bit dark side later. We'll get there. Don't worry. And and yeah. We've heard about this idea that the internet is a great democratizer. And that is so different from the physical world. So what do you think of this idea. Does digital mean more democratic. I'm not a specialist in the digital world but it seems to me that it's undeniable that that the internet provided more possibilities. And historically speaking I think what the internet and the digital world did is it's created access to information opportunity to be a part of the discussion. For more people that didn't have those opportunities. And in that sense it is it is a new democracy it's a D democracy if you wish. But when it comes to inclusion I think I'm slightly less optimistic because inclusion is not about. At least not about opportunities I mean historically speaking if you look at the at the Western world at least we've seen that. The principle of the idea of equality opportunity have been the dominating one for 50 60 70 years or something. And it's been the driving force behind a lot of social policy labor policy but also other other policies that we still very much in equal societies. So the quality of opportunity does not create. You know real equality. It creates a formal equality and on the democratic level it's fine but when it comes to. To access to the decision making I think there is there is there is another thing it's about power dynamics rather than formal access to be a part of the bigger group. So I'm less optimistic about the value of the digital for the you know inclusion exclusion processes because they are about power dynamics rather than just simple access to to new forum. Yeah, access doesn't need that your voice is heard or that you are in control of the situation. Yeah, and so in fact, many of the the issues that we're seeing in the physical worlds are just replicated in the digital world or appear in in different ways. And so, as we've started, I think we can continue with how in digital cultural mobility then we were seeing challenges and barriers to diversity and inclusion and who is impacted by these challenges. Thank you I think that's a really important question and it might take you know hours to discuss it but whatever context that we are talking about if you want to scan it if that specific space is diverse enough and creates equal opportunities for everyone to produce to develop themselves. Then we can talk about a certain inclusion and of course accessibility and with the marginalized one who gets benefit from this kind of spaces. But the most important thing that's how are we going to create another way of working in this very given, let's say, quote unquote new spaces when it comes to digital, because I totally agree what your mom opened up I'm sure he's going to give more details about the power dynamics because if we are able to implement the certain dynamics which creates inequality in our ecosystem. In any means that we are exposed to or started to use that it be digital or other, then we will have similar difficulties and similar barriers in a bit different story, but exactly the same core with that spaces. So, it's very important to see, and I also wrote my master thesis about it, I mean what are the competences and I was so happy today one of the panel discussion this competence came as a question or comments, because I believe that as an art professional that we have to understand management of diversity, equity and inclusion as a as a competence which is required for us to operate in the current ecosystem and to create our work in a meaningful way. So I started to work for art field and that time it was okay to send the contracts to by fax. We learn many things we learn how to use outlook we learn how to use Microsoft Office to make a kind of presentation and we developed our ability on the finances and so on and so on. I believe that this DI or inclusion in general, when it comes to sustainability, I think all the understanding comes with the eco crisis should be seen as a new competence that we need to develop and learn. And because of this learning on learn some of the ways that we were working earlier to make it more inclusive. It's just a kind of new way of doing so if you look at the whole thing from that angle I believe it's little bit takes the pressure on the shoulder because it's very hard from every direction to really reach an ultimate inclusion. And at the end, they all process leave some people and some projects behind and some continue so that's a part of the business that we are doing but actually this is a new understanding this is a new way of working which will enhance our well being in general in the whole arts and cultural sector so this is how I see a follow up question to that actually have you experienced or can you maybe talk a bit about when you get resistance to this kind of change in an organization. Is that something you've experienced? Well, let's put it this way I mean the change is the hardest thing on an individual level and I see first of all I see resistance to change in me when I moved to Finland. I knew that this is a new space for me and I need to adopt myself but of course it was hard after a certain years of practice to adopt. So basically resistance to change it's quite human. And when it comes to of course to make the spaces the institutions are practices more inclusive and try to bring in underrepresented voices or historically oppressed narratives into this discussion on an equal level requires a full set of changes in our daily work. And it's not easy and of course during the pandemic everybody was earlier also said in the survival mood and maybe there is so much going on in arts and culture and we always operate with very limited resources. So nobody has incredible time to do everything and then you feel a little bit distance because if you go too much analysis you feel a bit paralyzed okay what am I going to do and how am I going to achieve it. It creates a resistance so of course for my advocacy work was how to deal this kind of resistance mindset and attitudes and under which conditions that we could motivate others and each other, you know to do in a different way. Okay we might come back to that. Yeah man would you have something to add on what kind of challenges and barriers are there in terms of diversity and inclusion in the cultural mobility sector. I think partially what Shayda was saying is the resistance and the strong resistance that you can see in organizational level. I think explains very clearly that this is not just redistribution of resources, it is actually redistribution of power. It's again it's about about power dynamics and historically we know that the notion of equality can be very formal and look nice without actually having effect on reality and having a more redistributive approach when the idea is actually to challenge the power dynamics and it's when the power with somebody is actually raising the issue of redistributing the power that the resistance comes. I mean we don't see much resistance in including specific persons on boards like one person you know of a certain ethnic or racial background somebody with a set specific disability. Women men, everybody is happy about it mostly. But when it comes to the real issue, it's redistributing how the power of how decisions are made, who is making the decision on what merits the decision are made and how do they impact other people. That's when the resistance comes in the picture. So for me it's from where I am it's for me is I mean arts and culture is about creativity and and critical thinking. And if it's predominantly a sector that is dominated by one specific or two social groups or demographics, how much critical thinking is there left. This is not to disqualify a majority, but this is to say that the critical approach, you know, it's it includes the pluralism or plurality of opinions that actually have an impact on this decision making process on the chain of decisions made. Who is getting funding, why they're getting funding on what merits they're getting funding for how long they get invited, who get to moves digitally on the real world is the underlying decisions that are the most interesting ones. And I think there are no solutions for that because this is about human behavior. This is where talking is is not very helpful. And I think I was, I liked the idea that was mentioned I think it was Matthew what you said with the previous. I'm sorry if it was a wrong you said something about the the in the previous session about being the laboratory I think when it comes to inclusion. It is the same idea we should see ourself as a laboratory because the inclusion, the diversity of human experiences is essential to the critical thinking, but we will never solve that forever there is no you know there is no button to push it and when everything happens. So it's about learning from the mistakes and incremental process, just like the decision process incremental. So we should replicate the decision process and making small changes one at a time to move forward beyond that resistance that is about the power who is making the decision that's for me that's main question. There's a book actually that I've been reading recently by Adrienne Mary Brown it's called emergent strategy and in there. There is a quote about it's better to act and then apologize than to not act and have to justify why you didn't. And I think this is a fear that a lot of people have because I think more and more we appreciate the importance of the issues of diversity and inclusion. And that might be in varying degrees in different places in different countries. So that's the profile of the topic has has been raised. And what would you say to people then who are worried about the about being accountable, essentially for when things go wrong. Well, of course accountability methods, because at the end, we are talking about relevance of the work we do. But the relevance of the arts and cultural institutions for the societies in which they operate and offer their content and how to link what your mom said about democracy because I think we need to see the situation through different lenses and therefore this inclusion as a working method and as an approach is it's very useful because if we think about an art scene exactly how we describe predominantly governed by a homogenous thinking let's put it this way. I mean, are we able to talk about and if the participation of out of mainstream makers, let it be the immigrant artists and cultural workers or underrepresented minorities because of their race, technical background gender identity sexual orientations or economic situation we all know that little details about our identities somehow creates our position in the societies, then we cannot talk about real participation and democratic decision making structures, which are, since we are in Finland in many European countries is the source of everything. And if people with different and diverse perspectives, which is also fact produces much more innovative solutions as a group are not included in that structure are we able to really talk about social justice and well being social society, for instance Finland right now the population system classifies residents and citizens based on their mother tongue so we are called of either foreign born or foreign language speaking citizens and residents of Finland, and in the Eastern area including Espo, Vanta and Helsinki the three big cities, 20% of population currently consists of people who do not speak the native languages official languages Swedish and Finnish and also Sami. Of course, it's a big number and all prognosis for the future shows that this number will grow with time. So basically we're talking about people all art institutions needs to consider as a possible audience and we are talking about people who who contributes to the financial system of the country as being a taxpayer and of course how to distribute their tax that they also get a certain arts and cultural services as a return to their contribution I mean all these are important questions. When we think about the inclusion, but at the end of today, when it comes to what to do. Yes, there we see some difficulties. Yeah man, would you have anything to add on the responsibility of cultural organizations to to act in this accountability. No, I think what you absolutely right was said or saying there was an incident some years ago when a program asked me I'm from Arab origin and and I was asked by a programmer who was making a theater program for one of the stock on suburbs which is there is a big Arabic speaking majority there and I was asked what do you think the young people in this area would like to see on the stage. Seriously, first I thought that was a joke, but I didn't realize it was a serious question and then I realized how big the problem is, because I'm in my 50s, I'm from a higher middle class family. I lived for 30 years in Sweden have no clue what these young people were born in Sweden want like, I might actually dislike what they like. They probably hate me. I don't know, but that's the point is, there is this. There's this kind of essentialism in that idea that the common thing between a group is so strong that it covers everything else. And this is where the pocket and come to the picture. And this is where inclusion that you're taking a mentioning into the processes need to have a different approach. For me accountability in when it comes to inclusion diversity is not about not make mistakes, and it's not about losing your job because you make mistakes. It is about not making exactly the same mistake, because every time you repeat we repeat the same mistake on the decision making level. We're contributing actively into entrenching the inequality that is already there. For me accountability is about learning through that incremental process from the mistakes and making new mistakes. Because we'll always be mistakes because this is about human nature, but repeating the same mistake is the mistake. I would also just like to come back to you on a word you used tokenism. Would you like to define it and talk a little bit more. It's a pretty unhealthy form of identity politics, not all identity politics is bad. I think when it's when the common definition is that when you would choose a person as a representative for whole group based on the idea that that group is so homogenous, or our understanding that is so homogenous. So, like the question I've been asked by that programmer, assuming that I would have the same interests as that young population born in Sweden just because we happen to have the same ethnic language origin. I think it's devastating because, you know, the, the impacts, the historical impact of those social phenomena such as racism, sexism, ableism and so on is is is their base is essential is, you know, believing that you are your color of skin you are your age or ability or whatever, and trying to solve that by the same essentialism, which, which tokenism implies it's major mistake. So, don't think essentialism think about experiences, we are different because we have different experiences. It's the color of skin or the gender of the age that creates the experience what is common is the experience but statistically speaking the experience did not go on average through the group. So it depends who you pick from the group you will get a different picture so there is no one individual who would represent the whole demographic. This is why tokenism is devastating because it reduces experiences of a whole community or the experiences of a whole demographics to experiences one individual. Well, actually, this is a very, very important point and I'm so happy that you open up this way because somehow it connects to how I see the whole discussion. Of course, the intersectional approach to the little little things which combines our identity is very important because they are in action in every interaction we do in the groups in the systems in the societies but I believe that we should also take this diversity, equity and inclusion discussion a bit far beyond the national identities, a technical backgrounds and everything. There we will understand the diversification of the total cognitive diversity and experiences can be very in any group that you might think these are a cloud of certain identities moving and doing the same thing together. So I believe that we should look at the spaces and the people that we work with and also offer content with those lenses. Okay, great. So we've been talking really about organizations as sort of individual islands but no organization is an island. So let's go bigger. Let's go the sort of societal structure that we're working in and here we come to the power dynamics at work again. So what's wrong? And what do we do about it? What's wrong with us? The thing that is wrong with us is that we're human. We're not perfect. I mean, the digital thing, you know, when the AI came into the picture people started saying that we can make better decisions through the artificial intelligence. And now we know from several examples, which is now it probably sounds predictable, but specifically in North America we've seen different examples of legal cases when the judges were judging on discrimination cases. They were looking at the database of previous judgments and they just replicated the previous judgments because the bias was built in into the system. So again, when it's a bias system, then it's a bias system. So the AI maybe can evolve on its own terms and being inhuman to be perfect, but we will never be perfect. We need to talk to each other and we need to get away from this, you know, social engineering thinking. We need to understand this is power dynamics, redistribute power. That's the only way for it. But what's wrong with us? That is that we're human. Redistributing of power. What does that look like? I might be naive, but I like the system that was introduced in the UK, I think with the equality law of 2010, which is what called equality duties, fancy name. The idea is pretty simple. Basically what they're saying is that as an organization, before, you know, when you plan your project, whatever it is, before making the decision, you basically go back to the communities that are affected and you check with them what they see. You don't pick up one individual, push that person into a board. You go to a community. You can do organizations or represent the communities. You try to get as much feedback as possible and say, what do you see in this? How is this going to impact you? And then you try to mitigate between different interests because no decision will be ever perfect. That creates a different dynamics in the dialogue, in the democracy, if you wish. Maybe it's not a full, you know, change of power, but it's a different base for the future. Rather than, you know, what do you think? How is the Turkish? Well, actually, I completely agree with you because when it comes to power, first of all, we all should remember that whatever decision we make in terms of engaging with artists and making decisions and hiring and supporting funding, anything in arts and cultural sector is an exercise in your power. So, because when we talk about power, we have a tendency to think about the topmost part of the hierarchy and expect that they will make one magical decision and everything will be fine. And accountability also somehow should be seen in personal level, because there are certain simple actions that we could include our daily work and try to change and which might also affect the result of more inclusive. And I totally agree with Yaman because my also advocacy work based on dialogue, because when we try to come together as human-human in a digital domain or in person, preferably in person, then of course we have better understanding and empathy of the different experiences. And then maybe the discussion goes to another level and then I think creative sector arts and cultural workers, we have all the ability. We have possibility to make and organize an event for any topic that we don't want to do some mistake or maybe learn more and just include expert organizations, artists, activists who have a knowledge and I think internet is full of very useful knowledge about things that we could learn from and develop. Yeah, absolutely. And I like what you're saying about it being involved in every aspect of our work that that is an exercise in power if it's hiring, if it's meetings, if it's choosing who is going to be a speaker at a conference, for example. What would you say to people about the, what would be the difference between an effective policy in this kind of area and the box ticking exercises? What makes an action really worth taking and not just, I mean the sort of tokenism of actions? I mean, I was one of those people who introduced tick boxing in one organization. So I'm guilty. Look, but ticking the box is fine. It's not the end of the world. It's not a bad thing. It could be helpful, but it's only helpful as a background to some real review of the experiences. What we were discussing before with the accountability, if you're going to make the same mistake again, and we can tick all the boxes or stop ticking the boxes, it doesn't help. But reviewing the mistake being open, moving from democracy in the organization to the deliberative democracy when we actually go through things, discuss them, learn what was wrong and try to make, not to make the same mistake. Or at least let it go this way. Let's, let's say we will do the same mistake maximum four times, then you're not allowed to do it. That's the incremental learning process, right? And otherwise ticking the box, I don't know, you know, people quit or they get fired and then we exchange them by another person or things. It's going to be different. It's not going to be different because it's probably hard way to put it, but we are not a part of the system. We are the system. You know, we need to be more reflective on what we're doing, how we're doing it. And, and, you know, including people, it just, it's not inclusion for the sake of inclusion. It's inclusion for the sake of, you know, transforming our organization is something different. And if we follow the idea of being a laboratory, we should be a laboratory for the rest of the society because diversity is, you know, an essential part of critical thinking. Good decision making. Yeah, I think this critical thinking and reflecting critically on our own work and also the environment that we are operating is the core of it. And then just trying to understand that what one can do with the given responsibility, responsibilities and positions. And once somebody I always like to use this metaphor because this responsibility or who's going to take action, it's like a ball of fire. When you throw it, nobody wants to catch it because it's very, very hard to take it. And then, okay, now it's my turn, but I think little actions could make a big difference. So maybe focusing on actions, then diving into so much discussion. Okay, recognize this is the situation what one can do, or who is missing here. I mean, which organization or person could be useful for us to make this transformation better for everyone. I think pandemic just showed that because marginalized or to be marginalized in an arts and cultural sector, it's not like predeterminately attributed like immigrants or let's say underrepresented minorities. It can be anyone and independent players, freelancers, all of a sudden just face that difficulty. So it's about the whole well-being of the ecosystem, I think. Absolutely. And since I know that you're itching to talk about it. A lot of the time when we talk about inclusion, as you say, it seems so overwhelming. It's such a big topic and such an omnipresent issue. So maybe we should try to help out with something practical. And can I ask you to tell us maybe how can we what can what can people in cultural organizations dealing with cultural mobility in a digital context? What can they do in order to be more inclusive? Where can they start? How can they? I think on the decision making process, one thing is to accept our humanity and accept that we are biased and accept that we need to talk to others who have different experiences so we can see where we are biased and not to take it personal. I'm not a bad person. I'm a human and that's why I'm biased. So learning from the others, from other experiences and skip the political correct talk. I mean, when on the previous panel said something about all those men stopped calling me and telling me this is not important and I don't know how to deal with this. That's exactly what we don't know how to deal with when it's silent. When everybody goes, I believe in everybody equals worth. Oh, what a big surprise. This is not helpful. We need to go down to the real issues that are relevant for our organization and to discuss one needs to be changed. Learn from the experiences and skip the political correctness. I think what I can say, actually, there was a very nice statements in the report on the more produced congratulations, by the way. And I called there from from the report. If online was a country, it would have been the largest mobility destination in 2021. Let's assume that let's reimagine that this is a country means that we have all the right to start from a white paper, right? We can set up new norms. We can put new rules. We can even develop new working methods. So why don't we take that opportunity instead of carrying the earlier actions and then take them to the digital domain. So in that way, I would say this could be a mindset to start with, at least to motivate ourselves and then to put maybe a target seeing something like equitable, ethical, without allowing, let's say, labor exploitation in arts and culture. It's a huge problem and without repeating business as usual ways of working, like, let's say, mission. And I mean, I would suggest this is something I suggest everyone. I mean, you can list three actions you believe which will enhance your work. And you can say that, okay, I have been doing these decisions or this planning from a certain corner, a certain position, for instance, being in Finland, having accessibility to well functioning grant system for majority, and descend that, okay, what if if I change my perspective and try to do it from another angle there, maybe different partners and concern organizations can help. And then just very simple, easily doable actions, not to paralyze ourselves and maybe another way would be, which was mentioned during the earlier panel, a kind of guidelines how to be inclusive in our daily work. I mean, what to do, which kind of lenses that we can do short to do list maybe, and please not to do list addition and what would be the challenges because everybody has different contexts and responsibility and working methods. And we are of course responsible and reporting and we are somehow shadowy manipulated a certain funding systems and so on. And if there are certain challenge challenges identified kind of proposed alternative solutions will be the way. And it's very, very easy to enter it to this dialogue. And already Petra mentioned I'm also one of the contributor of us to purchase now it's a anti racist and feminist platform and if you go to website you will find incredible amount of information available. So, simple doable little things I would say. Fantastic. Also, by the way, I didn't mention at the beginning but like Rene in the last session, I was also working on the shift project and as part of that, we have a guide for cultural organizations on inclusion so you can also check that one out. At this point, would you have any examples of of good practice in this area that you have that you have seen in terms of digital mobility. Well, actually, currently what I like that there was an input from the South Africa with very thoroughly studied examples and I am also a part of social imagination process. I was initiated and incubated by a demos Helsinki Nordic think tank, and I'm one of the founding alliances, which is an international gathering and there, for instance, there has been so much discussion about how to create a different perspective and how to bring good examples from global south or from the without being more focused on this Eurocentric solution so these are, of course, good examples and in Finland also I have seen that many organizations developed a certain ways of doing when it comes to how to use digital domain, but still what was looking to my understanding and that's why it's also easy to build something better that we all the time trying to do better, but maybe not focusing much on freelancers or independent or a small operators because there there is so much need for capacity, resources and networking. It was also said during the earlier discussions I mean one cannot become overnight video maker yes that's very true and I would like to also maybe propose for the establish arts and cultural institutions mostly publicly funded ones to open up their resources. And to this kind of in kind contributions and think about emerging or young or recently graduated musician who has been suffering from this two and a half years COVID situation never had the real in in person situation and that talented person. If they would like to send some kind of recording to a very important audition in their professional career, I mean they are without means. I think that would be the way for the institutions to talk about it and that discussion happened partly in Finland so this was a good example for me. Yeah, very good. It rings a bell from what we were talking about earlier where it's not just about having digital skills but also having access to be the technical equipment we need to the computer programs that we need in order to actually be able to generate any visibility at all. So, I think that that this is a really good point. Is there anything else that I'd review would really like to add that has not been said yet. As we reach the closing. We can talk for hours. Yeah. More and more. Well, maybe what I could say, because we are different heads. Of course, we are professionals working in arts and cultural sector, but we are also audience, and we are possible consumers of the of the content. And I recently read because I have a background in music festivals so I'm still my heart beats for music. It seems that global music market was the growth in 2021 was quite big and currently towards 26 billion I wrote here US dollars and even the highest level since 1990s. But if you think about what actually comes to the pockets of musicians, after all those business, it's very, very, very limited. And we also know that it's even impossible to have a meaningful income through the streaming and now already mentioned this blockchain and NFT and all these new disruptions. We don't know what will happen, but maybe what we could do that we could also in our own consumption consumption. We could try to be more, not to say it careful and responsive to the field because we have also that hat, and sometimes we forget that. Also when it comes to political correctness, I have a favorite quote. If I may read it, it's a short one when I'm always left with the feeling that when it comes to inclusion equality, it's too much political correctness always do things that are not relevant. Instead of doing the relevant. And this is a quote. This is the past page in Douglas Adams, the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. Sorry about being predictable. And it goes like this. This planet has or rather had a problem, which was this most of the people on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for the problem, but most of these were largely concerned with movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy. So doing something completely irrelevant is not helpful. So it's, you know, it's, it's let's sit down and look what's the problem is papers. And on that note, I think that's a great place for us to finish our discussion and go to questions. But just before that, I just want to thank both Jada and DMM for their contributions and again to on the move for inviting us all here today. Thank you. Sit on. Yeah, very on deep leg. I will describe myself later because I have to also give a speech. But anyway, hair, the color of the North Sea when it's feeling very unhappy. 70 year old 71 year old white woman wearing black. I really, I mean, I've had to cross out whole parts of my speech which will doubtless please the people who are staying on to the end and have to listen to me at the end. So really thank you for everything you said. It's just fascinating. I also wanted to highlight say to what you said about the joy and the beauty of working in the art sector were honestly with very few limits. We're able to create events, create initiatives, create things almost unlimited, whatever we want to do and whatever we want to focus on. And yeah, mom, I've heard you before and I've read you before and I love you. My husband is watching this. But I've had for better or worse, like most of us, I've had a lot of time to reflect lately and you brought up the question of power. And you also gave an anecdote of I assume working with a local authority, you know, commissioning somebody to go into the neighborhood and ask people things. And it's the very word inclusion that now starts to really bother me because inclusion for me has an assumption we will let you be included in what we're doing. And I, we could talk all night long about this, but I'll leave it at that. Could you reflect on that please. I mean, it's difficult. Yeah, as you said, we can we can do well thank you for the kind words. I think you're right. The word is is signaling something we're not intending to signal, but it also the terminology historically in this area has been very complicated. We'll be moving from one set of words to another set of words. Did it make us more better at expressing what we're actually trying to do? I'm not sure. The problem is that there are no exact words for for those social phenomena phenomena that we're trying to handle and personally for myself, I skipped the terminological debate because it takes it takes the attention from the from the, you know, the discussion with the power dynamics. But you're right. I mean, this is not, I mean, it's the opposite of exclusion by that. Maybe we're saying we excluded you while we included you back. Maybe we should add the back thing, you know, I don't know. I don't have the best words for it, but it is a problematic word. I think power dynamics is somewhere somewhere it's not used enough in in in the sector, at least in the diversity industry, which I'm part of. I almost don't hear very few people speak of the power dynamics and I think because everybody understands that the relation nobody wants to really touch it. By saying that maybe include if inclusion put in the context of power dynamics, then and maybe it gets better connotation. I don't know. I'm not sure. You're right. And I don't have the answer for it. I can also comment on thank you very much. That's a very, very important part of the whole discussion because the terminology that we use and what we mean by those words creates a certain perception. And of course, if you look at again from the power dynamics, who is entitled to include whom? I mean, I'm including you or my knowledge, I am including you. I mean, this is a very complex process, and I think we should be very, very careful. And I know that I'm aware that the similar discussion is going on when it comes to how to decolonize our work. I mean, who's gonna do this thing. And sometimes even the discussion goes to that direction who wants to be included to a certain races, discriminative structure, and we want to have a new structure from the beginning from the scratch. But of course, if we enter to discussion from that angle, it also creates a certain feeling that it's not easy to build a trust and dialogue. And I believe that it's much more visor to see it again, as I said, as a competence, I mean, bringing a certain knowledges bringing certain perspectives to be able to respond to the needs of our society and all global challenges on the level that we are able to produce. And this cannot be from a single position and homogenous perspective. So, but this is a very important discussion. Thank you. If I, if I might just add, I think it's, I love quotes because when wise people say good things, we shouldn't phrase them because we destroy them. One of my favorite people in this area is Sandra Fredman, who's been one of the main researchers in the UK when it comes to the equality law. And she's been questioning the European equality law because it is built on the idea of equality of opportunity, because it's too formalistic. It's not real. It's not about fairness. It's about equality of opportunity and then it stops. And there is a quote, I'm not going to read the code, but what she's saying there is that redistributive policies when it comes to decision decision making its politics. And if the cultural sector wants to do politics, let's do politics, you know, and then it doesn't matter if it's called inclusion or not. I'm not saying your question is irrelevant, but in that sense, your question is relevant. If we skip the power dynamics, yes, the terminology becomes very important. Hi, I'm Julianne Arab, the International Advisor at Onda, which is the National French Office for Performing Arts Distribution. I'm white passing, but I belong to the same ethnic group as you, mum, so I could have been asked this question so many times that you mentioned. And I have short brown hair, brown eyes and wearing black. I really like how you formulated the notion, your definition of accountability on accountability not making a mistake, but not making a mistake again. And I wonder, it comes though with the premise that institutions or organizations are willing to admit that they have made a mistake in the first place. So my question, and maybe it goes also about how organizations and the system resists, but also how, if you can maybe think with us on how do we deal with the inability of organizations and institutions to question themselves and to build on individual and collective knowledge within their, within every organization. To actually ask these questions and admit where it went maybe wrong and take it from there. I don't think I have an answer for that. I don't know if you have. Look, it's a very complex, it's contextual. That's the global injustice put in one organization, right? That's where we are. I'll give one example, which is devastating. I'm not going to mention the organization. It's a big organization, international organization working with human rights, human rights, not cultural. And the highest person in that organization used the N word in relation to black people in the organization several times. And that person had to leave the organization there by another person. And I was a part of informal discussion about, I mean, what happened there and for me it was not interesting what happened there. For me it was interesting how could it happen several times because it was not only one time. When the head of the organization goes so wrong. Where are all, where is all the security in the organization? Did that person really had to leave? If the first time somebody has said, look, you're aware what you're saying. Maybe that person could have stayed as well. I don't know if that person said it intentionally or not. My impression, it was not intentional. It was just lack of understanding of the context. But this is not to defend the person or the organization. This is just to say, if we keep doing the same mistakes. How do we stop? I call it organizational integrity. I do consulting. I talk to a lot of employers. And my impression, they love the idea that the day, you know, the hour I leave the room, they forget about it. And I used to say to all leadership positions, don't be afraid, you're not worse than anybody else. You're just as bad as better. So it's fine. Do your mistakes and say, yeah, yeah, we'll do that. Then you live there and they call you two days later and I don't know, it's human nature. Maybe what I could add, of course, it's also a kind of generation right now. There's another future artists and art makers are coming. And their reality is their discussions are maybe even much more advanced than our generation. And I believe it's also important to open up those possible discussions in high educational institutions for arts. Because if current students, artists and professionals are not able to practice and learn and unlearn and just get this knowledge. During their education, it's there is no magic when they are out in the system when they have this decision making positions and so on. They will eventually become inclusive. I think and also many research show that the change happens on human level. It's easier when you are on your younger life or younger years of your life. So we become more stiff when we get older, maybe towards certain norms that we are very tend to practice. So I believe that there would be also another way to open up this discussion and involve with the organizations if art institutions are there to be open space. I mean, independence of the taught academia, democracy, everything, whatever way you name it. It's important that discussion also should take place there. I agree. Maybe one thing that I was arguing for that for a number of years, but I don't like the idea so I'm taking it back, but I'm giving it. It's money. They say follow the money, right? I mean, the Americans are pretty much pragmatic. So the compensations levels are very high in courts and everything else. When Me Too was over, one of the things that was done in Sweden, amazing Stockholm is reviewing what went wrong and what should we do differently. There was a commission who would look and come up with a number of ideas and my expectations was that they will propose was normally fit into the Swedish labor market system very well. It's collective bargaining agreements. Put it there. If you don't do, if you don't stop the mistakes, it's a contract bridge. It will cost a lot of money, right? That might stop people. It was not put on the paper because it will change the power dynamics or criteria for funding or criteria for funding. Have another question over here. My name is Eric Söderboom. I'm a theater and opera director and the head of Espo theater, which is also called International Theater of Finland. I have dark hair, egg glasses, dark egg glasses, white white shirt and green pants. Yeah, I want to actually somehow the discussion you have had. Thank you very much. It's been very interesting. I would want to touch a kind of dilemma that is lurking somewhere in the shadows and that's the relation between, let's say, freedom and accountability. Let's put it this way, if the financer of the field would really have the power of saying you don't get the money if you don't act accountability like with an accountability. Of course, the change would be faster. Now we don't do that in Finland at least. I know that, for example, in England, it might be tougher. But my question is this. Do we really have time to wait for the people knowing that there are people, human, with all those issues that human have? That we will be so well informed that without any quite tough push from outside really become accountable. Really stand for our kind of, okay, this was mistake of the change. Otherwise, the only thing that you'll go on is the discussion about accountability. There's this danger. But how do you relate to this? I can take first. I would like to be, I mean, I have been working for Arts and Culture field more than 20 years and it was a personal and conscious choice why I ended up this sector and I would like to be loyal to my own sector. And I would like to believe or keep the belief that we don't need any stick from any direction to embrace this discussion if we really feel that now is the time because the current structures not operating perfectly for everyone or the global challenges that we have to solve. And then the whole COVID as an example is still there very vivid and we know how it affected the artists and cultural professionals and creative brain drain and everything. I really would like to believe that the sector which is there exactly how you said research and development department of the society and from the definition it's there to produce or reproduce humanistic values and philosophical values can do that. I mean, of course it's nice when it comes maybe from there that you feel more obliged. But I don't feel that for this specific thing we need it and there is so much also research and study which proves that this is a need. For instance one I cannot remember which organization but I can later share it with on the move team. It's proved by a study the biodiversity happens on a global level where the cultural and linguistic diversity is also quite rich. So it's a direct link to the climate crisis. It's about the sustainability of us and it's our responsibility to do earth and everything. So I think we can do it we don't need stick so this is what I can say. And I agree we should be able to do it without a stick. That's a very good point. The problem with this field is that you keep saying to people what's wrong but you never can answer the question you keep saying I don't know. I don't know. But I mean the Canadians tried that right. I mean I think that's console Canada has gone farther than the British did. I think the Australians did that as well. Is that what we need then that's what we need in Europe. But we shouldn't need it but we obviously need it. Yes I mean I mean okay public funding there are criteria then we should question the criteria. There are criteria that may be not needed anymore and they knew criteria that is needed who's going to do that. I don't know but it is an idea definitely maybe the cultural sector can itself ask the public standard to change the criteria. You know that would be very very brave that would be very great but it's it's it's a difficult exercise because you're asking somebody to fund you on certain premises and you're going to eat it up if you know I mean it's it's a question. And very short before and I would like to still disagree because I don't like the idea that is predeterminately related to extra funding then okay give us the money then we will be inclusive. I don't think so I think it should be within the current resources and of course we need to create a pressure group for the policymakers to be more responsive to the needs of the current arts sector. But I believe still it should come from us. Any other questions? Because if our D6 culture in transit she her mid to late fifties and just and it's a kind of it's a big question I guess towards the end of this session but you're both picking up on risk. You know how can we do things differently unless we step out into a space where the world around us is not comfortable and whether that's the program that we we drive whether that's the people that we work with whether it's the structures that we've got so. I guess it's a question and you're starting on it there your mum is how do we how do we as a cultural sector encourage risk taking in those whose job it is to look after public money how do we persuade them that I might fail. Yeah, I think one way I'm I still have the idea of consultation you know talk to each other as a nonprofit specifically let's go and see what the biggest organization I mean okay let's take one example disability. I live in a country where there is a national. Authority that works with research on disability it's not the quality ombudsman it's not the part that will take you to court if you do something wrong, they just provide information research and I've been telling every organization is we don't been talking to before you go further with your project just give them a call. Because they have the latest information how to make you know spaces digital or physical you know accessible just give them a call, send them your project description and ask, what do you see there, do you see something wrong just give me the feedback. And if if we're not willing ourselves to take that little initiative. And probably it's the funding. I agree with you and for instance in Finland there is another organization called culture for all. And they provide incredible information about of course accessibility and diversity inclusion and linguistics and everything so. And this accumulated knowledge in those organizations and even independent platforms are there and they are ready to share and they are open to collaborate I think it would be nice just to have a reality check and have a dialogue and at least to see the shortcomings of certain commitments before even try and possibly have some paler in it. I would suggest the same thing. Okay we have three minutes left if anybody else wants to pose any questions. A comment. Yes, so just a comment with what you are saying because you mentioned as well I mean you've been hearing it a lot that everything all these variables that we need to be aware of our kind of overwhelming. And you also said that we're humans right so there's flaws but there's also positives were intuitive and we just need to a little bit rewire our intuitions because a lot of the things that feel overwhelming are just. In many cases basic common sense so we just lost some of our basic intuitions on what is wrong and what is right and sometimes it's much easier than we think it is so I just want to give this comment to which contradicts my previous comment but. I love doing that right so so yeah but yeah I just felt that if we keep on feeling and saying how overwhelming this work is where we deprive ourselves of our own agency over this topic and over these issues and over these variables to take into considerations when I think we have the agency that's necessary to just remember who we are. Can I just a very small thing as a reflection to that because this is something very much bothering me. Any any discussion related to diversity inclusion comes as a big elephant in the room and this is how we frame it or it has been framed instead of framing it of course it's a new learning it's joy it just get to know different perspective. And and do something together in a different way because we are all tired of certain routines so it's also again question of how we frame the whole discussion and from which angle we would like to enter it of course when it is a big elephant and problem. Everybody feels so tense. Yeah I think I'm the elephant every time there was like oh now they're talking about me again. And I know that there was interest to ask some more questions. We will be available afterwards. I'm sure Yama and Jada will be happy to talk. But that is the end of our session now. So once again I just want to say thank you to all of you and to our panelists. Thank you.