Differences and Inequalities in arts participation:

Case of Latvian Song and Dance Festival

Līga Grīnberga, Jānis DaugavietisLatvian Academy of Culture, Rīga

RN05S09 / Arts Participation IESA 12th Conference

Differences, Inequalities and Sociological ImaginationPrague, 25–28 August 2015

AbstractThe Latvian Song and Dance Celebration is traditional national event (andprocess) in Latvian culture and society, which began in 1873. The Festival takesplace every five years in summer and joins together more than 35 000performers from amateur choral, dance, orchestra, art and folk craft groups. It isrecognized as a nationwide ritual and represents self-awareness of Latvianidentity, which is closely linked with nation`s creativity. The participation inamateur arts is one of the most popular leisure time activities of the Latviansociety, however the digital era and new technologies are changing conditionsfor the people taking part in the Song and Dance Festival. We are looking for theconditions which make society to keep this tradition in the new and innovativeenvironment. In the process of the Festival it is important to include all socialgroups, since it is regarded as a nationwide celebration and must meet goals ofmodern social policy. Previous research on this shows (Tisenkopfs et al 2002,2008) that there are some social groups (ethnic minorities, people with lowincome, etc.), which have been excluded from taking part in the Festival. The aimof our research is to continue to explore those social groups and detect possiblechanges in conditions which make people to participate in The Latvian Song andDance Festival. We are comparing the survey of participants of latest Festival(2013) with data from similar surveys in 2002 and 2007.

Song and Dance Festival (Celebration)

The 1st one in 1873. Never stopped.(incl. Hitler’s and soviet occupation regimes)

Considered as one of the most important driving force in buildingand sustaining Latvian nation and state.

Every five years, one week long.(next morning – holiday for the participants)

100% Latvian repertoire.

Centralized and subsided process of: learning common repertoire, selection procedures of artistic groups, managment.

~40 000 participants from all over Latvia and diasporas.

~1600 performing amateur art groups.(choirs, vocal ensembles, dance troupes, brass orchestras, folklore groups, ethnographic ensembles, amateur theatres, folk craft studios)

~ 500 000 visitors (total number of inhabitants in Latvia ~ 2 millions).

In the list of UNESCO Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity (with Estonian, Lithuanian).

4

sustainable development

cultural participation

social capital

culture as a tool for development(instrumentalisation of culture)

causal link between two factors: cultural participation and development (social, economic, community ...)

Coleman-Putnam thesis:unintended outcome – increase of social capital of community

Theorethical approach

Quantitative (socio-demographical) and qualitative(attittudes) differences between the participants and non-participants of The Song and Dance Festival (2002, 2008 Tisenkopfs et al).

Statistically significant differences between the adultamateurs and others, dividing line – amount of capitals(cultural, economic, symbolic) (2015 Daugavietis).

Problem: research of non-participants (excluded groups,

passive segments…) and more solid explanations ondiffeerences in participation.

Previous researchon Latvian amateur arts

Secondary:

Three ‘traditional’ surveys of national adultpopulation, n=1000 (2002, 2007, 2010).

Q: Have you ever took part of Song and Dance festival as a participant?

Primary:

Web survey of participants, n=1000 (2014).

Analysis:

Comparing of participants VS non-participants.

Data & analysis

participants non-participants

CHILDREN IN FAMILY

children childless

CHILDREN CHILDLESS CHILDREN CHILDLESS

2002 56% 44% 56% 44%

2007 48% 52% 36% 64%

2010 49% 51% 25% 75%

non-participantsparticipants

participants non-participants

AGE

15-24 25-44 45-64 65-74

15-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 15-24 25-44 45-64 65-74

2002 22% 40% 25% 12% 18% 42% 31% 9%2007 24% 35% 31% 10% 17% 34% 34% 15%2010 36% 30% 26% 8% 12% 37% 35% 16%

participants non-participants

RĪGA OTHER 8 BIGGEST CITIES

TOWNS,

COUNTRYSIDE RĪGA OTHER 8 BIGGEST CITIES

TOWNS,

COUNTRYSIDE

2002 29% 15% 56% 35% 22% 43%

2007 24% 15% 61% 34% 18% 49%

2010 30% 8% 62% 32% 16% 52%

participants non-participants

participants non-participants

PLACE OF RESIDENCE

Rīga other 8 biggest cities towns, countryside

Rīga Vidzeme Kurzeme Zemgale Latgale Rīga Vidzeme Kurzeme Zemgale Latgale

2002 29% 25% 15% 21% 11% 35% 19% 14% 16% 17%

2007 24% 35% 8% 11% 22% 34% 22% 15% 16% 14%

2010 53% 11% 16% 4% 17% 49% 10% 13% 13% 15%

non-participantsparticipants

participants non-participants

REGION

Rīga Vidzeme Kurzeme Zemgale Latgale

participants non-participants

INCOME PER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER IN QUINTILE GROUPS

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

2002 30% 32% 11% 20% 7% 30% 35% 13% 16% 6%

2007 14% 35% 20% 20% 10% 22% 32% 25% 16% 5%

2010 43% 25% 15% 8% 10% 35% 22% 25% 13% 5%

participants non-participants

participants non-participants

ETHNICITY

Latvians other

participants non-participants

LATVIANS OTHER LATVIANS OTHER

2002 83% 17% 58% 42%

2007 87% 13% 54% 46%

2010 79% 21% 59% 41%

Same dividing lines(gendeer, age, ethnicity, income, habitat, education… ).

Sharper differences in some cases

(e.g. ethnicity, age, education).

Most likely due to the difference in methodology –

controlled CAPI/CATI surveys VS uncontrolled CAWI.

Web survey of participants (2014)

Conclusions & next steps

Differences in participation exist(points on social inequalities).

Stronger explanation is still needed(on different levels of participation and of non-participation).

Thanks!