With his comprehensive analysis of municipal cultural policy in Leipzig and Lyon in 1945–1989, Thomas Höpel builds on his habilitation thesis published in 2007 on municipal cultural policy in France and Germany during the interwar period. As the author himself remarks in the preface, this has enabled him to gain a better understanding of the junctures and continuities following 1945 (p. 11). At this very point, attention should also be drawn to the fact that the author’s current research, which increases the number of already existing case studies involving other European cities, leads one to expect a rewarding addition to the subject matter in question. In his research, the author would like to examine whether the developments observed in his analysis, reviewed in the following paragraphs, concern Europe in general or whether they are specific to France or East Germany. On the other hand, Thomas Höpel points out, to some extent, the general direction that his conclusions will already take in his closing remarks. There he comments on the increasing public regulation of the area of culture in the 20th century, independent of any political regime (p. 390).
Thomas Höpel, when asked why he had chosen to compare Lyon and Leipzig above all responds very elegantly by outlining the current state of research in addition to offering reasons that consider the history of interaction, structural differences and urban planning (p. 13). He also highlights that apart from those constellations that are to this date widely called on for contextualizing the GDR (Nazi dictatorship past, Eastern Bloc integration, systematic comparison of the two German states) France, nonetheless, had exhibited much greater similarities with the GDR in some aspects than, for instance, West Germany (pp. 15-20). However, one of the parallels mentioned, such as an increasing interventionism by the state, emphasises that France with its centralized democracy exhibited particular characteristics that need to be considered when showing just how much cultural policy developments diverged due to the conflict between the two blocs (p. 14). From the reviewer’s point of view, however, the cultural policy traditions and particularities in France and East Germany, thus in Lyon and Leipzig respectively, could have been described and juxtaposed in more detail in order to characterize the initial situation.
In his analysis of the cultural policy developments in Lyon and Leipzig, Thomas Höpel turns firstly to the influence of the state. He investigates the possible room for manoeuvre for actors in both cities who were responsible for the shaping of cultural policy. He further examines how cultural policy was instrumentalized as a policy of integration and domination at the municipal level.
After having dedicated the first part of his work to the most significant instruments and actors of municipal cultural policy, Höpel secondly focuses in the most extensive part of his analysis on three distinctly discernible cyclical periods when municipal cultural policy was rising in Lyon and Leipzig between 1945 and 1989. In the third part, he then takes a more detailed look into subject areas, such as interurban and transnational cross-linking of cities, the influence of central government on cultural policy initiatives, the use of cultural policy as a policy of integration, and those aspects of culture that pertain to politics of image and location.
The analysis, as a whole, is based on an impressive research of archives and source materials. A list of the archives that were used as well as newspapers, journals and published source material, articles, reports and statistics are attached in an appendix. The author thoroughly investigates the period of time in question that spans more than four decades. He offers his readers detailed passages that are often already a synthesised analysis of the respective source material. However, the reader is rarely given the chance to gain impressions of the language utilized in the original documents themselves. For that reason, one sometimes misses the feeling of atmospheric authenticity, which is, admittedly, not the subject of this analysis. Moreover, Thomas Höpel’s strength in guiding the reader through the material comes to the fore particularly in the precisely written concluding chapters. In addition, statistical information is given in the form of diagrams that help to illustrate the cultural policy developments described. For typographical reasons, a few of the figures are difficult to discern (for instance, Figure 2 or 4, p. 57 and p. 68), which are, however, compensated for in the accompanying text.
As the author notices, the analysis of municipal cultural policy in Lyon and Leipzig clearly reveals the differences between both cities with regard to the possibilities for the municipal government to act and interfere within centralized democracies and dictatorships. While in the GDR much was prescribed by the central government, the French state, on the other hand, had to negotiate its cultural policy interests and offer incentives to its cities. This interplay of roles of the city, the state and the artists involved is excellently illustrated by an example of theatre development in Lyon in the 1970s and 1980s. Here, the city deliberately utilized the state’s decentralization policy and, in spite of one or two misfortunes, it was able to celebrate its accomplishments with regard to integration, location and image policy (pp. 249-260). In Leipzig, by way of contrast, Thomas Höpel unravels the “dysfunctionality of central government cultural policy at the local level” by also using an example from the world of theatre. Here, a conflict between the cultural policy objectives of the SED (Socialist Unity Party of Germany) and its willingness to provide the necessary financial means had already been emerging during the 1960s (pp. 323-329). The author emphasises that despite the municipal cultural administration being directly controlled by the state, in terms of structure and staff the organization of municipal cultural policy itself still highly depended on local factors, such as taking into consideration the hopes and expectations of the public and continuing local traditions (p. 385).
Additionally, fundamental differences between Lyon and Leipzig are also revealed with regard to twin towns and transnational cross-linking. Here, a different understanding of internationalization manifests itself. In Leipzig, international cultural exchange predominantly served the foreign policy objectives of the GDR with transnational relationships being instrumentalized accordingly. Lyon, on the other hand, was interested in a cultural policy exchange and participated in international organizations to defend municipal matters directly vis-à-vis the state.
The rhythm of flourishing periods of municipal cultural policy was obviously very different in the two compared cities. Whereas in Leipzig, it was important to democratize access to culture and open up high culture institutions to the wider public directly following the Second World War, in Lyon a dedicated cultural policy aimed at promoting integration within the city itself as well as presenting it to the outside world could only be talked of from the mid-1960s onwards.
The second part of Höpel’s work traces the several stages of Lyon eventually becoming a city of culture, not only at the national but also at the international level. This was the result of a four-stage process that had started with a stagnating liberal cultural policy before it arrived at a dynamic municipal cultural policy via stages of dedicated location analysis with regard to individual areas of culture and a broadening of the concept of culture. The key concepts of this process were the development of infrastructure, the democratization of access to culture, the promotion of artistic innovation and wide-ranging cultural activities. With even greater attention to detail, Höpel then goes on to analyse the shifts in cultural policy in Leipzig, where within the context of multiple cultural campaigns a strongly ideologized cultural “work among the masses” had become focussed upon. Here, the so-called people’s art movement was politicized according to the slogan “Kultur für alle – Kultur durch alle” (“Art for All – Art by All”). The institutions of “high culture” were to open up to the working people and be guided by the aesthetic principles of socialist realism. Nonetheless, cultural work was also to take place in people’s homes, factories, businesses and work collectives in order for a new “socialist citizen” to develop. In turn, this was hoped to result in a fundamental change in the values of the people of Leipzig as, for example, had been suggested by the SED’s cultural policy programme of the “Bitterfelder Weg”. However, the population itself showed little interest in such matters and the campaigns in general did not meet their objectives. While adhering officially to its initial objectives, cultural policy was in practice eventually shifting towards less politicized leisure activities, some of which even exhibited elements of Western youth culture.
In his analysis, Höpel further highlights the important role played by individual key officials, such as mayors and deputy mayors responsible for arts and culture in the development of cultural policy, particularly in the case of Lyon. Here, social scientists are also included in developing new concepts. In Leipzig, he observes that from 1964 onwards all city councillors responsible for arts and culture had obtained doctorates in cultural sciences. On the one hand, this could be seen as signifying an increased status in their functions (cf. p. 54); while on the other hand, it could also be a sign for an ideologically aligned qualification for cultural functionaries (p. 148, 322). The long-term plans for cultural policy development turned out to be “powerless efforts”, which in the end interestingly were implemented after 1989 in new socio-political circumstances. Thomas Höpel underlines that these plans seemed very detached from the reality then, but cannot judge the quality of these plans at the time of their actual implementation. In his conclusion, he comments that the “Kulturkombinat Leipzig” (“Leipzig culture cluster”) had only been partially liberalized after 1989 and that the “structures of an over-arching and all-controlling municipal cultural administration” remained (p. 389).
Thomas Höpel’s detailed analysis includes a range of very different aspects of municipal cultural policy in Leipzig and Lyon, thus offering a fascinating read for a broad audience. It therefore provides comprehensive reading material for those who are interested in the history of cultural policy processes within individual areas of culture that take place in the contested cultural political arena between the state and the city as well as in different socio-political contexts. It is equally well suited for those interested in the concepts of cultural policy and in the experiences of their implementation, in perspectives of the transnational agency of cities, or for those who are looking for reports on traditions and implementation of image and location policies within the area of cultural policy. A convincing and helpful structure as well as relevant reiterations throughout the analysis also allow for the reading of individual sections.
In light of the challenges with regard to the city of Leipzig’s budget policy and the associated current debates within Leipzig’s administration over serious structural changes within the cultural sector, Höpel’s analysis is also recommended for any cultural policy decision-maker.