Building the ecosystem for socially engaged arts: Collaboration, funding and policy

Socially engaged arts are no longer confined to the pursuit of artistic excellence; they have emerged as vital tools for addressing societal challenges. These practices foster democratic participation, build social cohesion, and transform cultural institutions into spaces of public pedagogy[1]. In this evolving landscape, critical thinking and collective agency are no longer peripheral, but central to the arts.

Drawing from the ideas of Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire[2] and French philosopher Jacques Rancière[3], and American feminist scholar bell hooks[4], we can better understand the transformative potential of socially engaged arts. Freire’s emphasis on dialogue and co-creation urges cultural projects to grow organically within communities, fostering empowerment and critical awareness. Rancière’s concept of the “emancipated spectator” challenges traditional distinctions between artists and audiences, advocating for active participation in shaping cultural narratives. hooks complements these perspectives by emphasising intersectionality, community-building and the need for art and education to dismantle systemic inequities. Her concept of education as the practice of freedom highlights how socially engaged arts can empower marginalised communities and foster transformative dialogue.

However, this transformative potential cannot thrive in isolation. Building an ecosystem that supports socially engaged arts requires addressing systemic gaps in collaboration, funding and policy.

Social transformation is an inherently slow process. Freire’s model of dialogue underscores that meaningful change emerges from sustained collaboration, not from top-down impositions. Similarly, Rancière’s vision of dissolving the boundaries between creators and audiences, alongside hooks’ call for critical engagement across intersecting social identities, necessitates deep, ongoing engagement.

Despite this, many funding models prioritise short-term outputs, undermining the potential for profound, long-lasting impact. Socially engaged arts demand time to nurture relationships, co-create initiatives, and foster resilience within communities. The current system’s focus on immediate results often stifles the slower, more profound transformations these projects can achieve.

Several systemic obstacles hinder the development of socially engaged arts:

• Fragmented policy frameworks: While some nations integrate cultural policies into broader social strategies, inconsistencies persist, limiting cohesive support
• Short-term funding cycles: Most funding remains outcome-driven, neglecting the long-term engagement necessary for lasting impact.
• Inadequate evaluation metrics: Traditional evaluation tools often fail to capture the qualitative, enduring effects of these projects, such as enhanced civic engagement or strengthened community bonds
• Economic pressures: Declining public arts funding across Europe shifts the burden onto private funders, creating instability and jeopardising the resilience of socially engaged arts

To address these challenges, we must adopt a multi-pronged approach:

1. Foster long-term partnerships: Public and private funders should prioritise multi-year funding arrangements. Stability allows projects to evolve organically and deepen their societal impact.
2. Adopt place-based approaches: Inspired by French sociologist and anthropologist Marcel Mauss’ concept of “the gift[5]”, funding should operate as a reciprocal relationship. Investments must address local needs, fostering resilience through territorial initiatives that prioritise community well-being.
3. Innovate evaluation frameworks: Funders and practitioners should co-create evaluation tools that emphasise long-term indicators, such as social resilience and civic participation. Incorporating community feedback ensures these frameworks reflect lived realities.
4. Strengthen cross-sector collaboration: Philanthropy, public policy and impact investment must work together. By leveraging resources and expertise across sectors, we can create more cohesive and sustainable support structures. A compelling example is the Arts and Culture Funders Forum at Philea, where multiple foundations collaborate to share strategies, pool resources and co-develop initiatives. This group exemplifies how collective action can address systemic challenges and amplify the impact of socially engaged arts.

Socially engaged arts extend beyond the creation of artistic works. They build spaces for dialogue, empowerment and transformation. These practices remind us that cultural initiatives can serve as instruments of social change, provided we cultivate an enabling environment. Achieving this vision demands collective action: long-term funding structures, territorial collaboration and inclusive evaluation practices. By fostering these conditions, we can ensure that socially engaged arts continue to drive equity and resilience, transforming not only the arts sector but also society at large.

[1] Public pedagogy refers to educational practices and discourses that occur outside formal institutions, extending into spaces such as cultural organizations, media, and social movements. The concept builds on Paulo Freire’s foundational ideas of critical pedagogy, which emphasize education as a political and liberatory practice aimed at fostering critical consciousness (conscientização). While Freire primarily addressed formal and community education, public pedagogy adapts his principles to broader societal contexts, emphasizing the role of informal learning environments in fostering critical awareness, dialogue, and collective action. For Freire’s foundational text, see next note.

[2] FREIRE, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos, London: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd., 2025,180 p.

[3] RANCIERE, Jacques. The Emancipated Spectator. Translated by Gregory Elliott, Brooklyn: Verso Books, 2011, 134 p.

[4] HOOKS, bell. Teaching to Transgress: Education As the Practice of Freedom. London: Routledge, 1994, 200 p.

[5] MAUSS, Marcel. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Translated by W.D. Halls. London: Routledge, 2011, 224 p.