Safe?

The word safe has permeated the arts management lexicon since the pandemic began. When will it be safe again to open to the public? Is it safe for staff and artists to return to physical spaces? According to a recent study in the UK, audiences show an increasing desire to avoid large gatherings, and attendance is trending low, even considering reduced capacity due to social distancing requirements. 

 

Until broader immunization is realized, it will be expected that cultural managers formulate a COVID-19 prevention plan that adheres to local, state and federal guidelines to make sure that everybody coming in contact with an organization will be safe. Currently, labor unions and associations are taking action to ensure artists and arts professionals return to safe working conditions. Still, artists across the globe are saying they have little-to-no communication or support from senior administration on the matter. 

 

Herein lies a most pressing question for our sector in this pandemic: how do we make those who work in the cultural sector and those who visit our spaces feel safe again?

 

This word "safe” holds profound meaning in governmental, economic, and cultural contexts, but its definition varies within and outside of them. Safe is relative. What might feel safe to one person will not feel safe to another due to variances in risk perception. Our experiences, social bonds, and geographic location all influence how we assess and react to warnings of risks. Our ethnic background, social class, and gender weave together to influence how we respond to warnings and safety protocols. We have seen humanity across the globe address COVID-19 with the common good in mind. Still, we have also seen protests against mask-wearing and social distancing, conspiracy theories calling the pandemic a hoax, and blatant defiance of regulations in place to help protect others.

 

 

The idea of social constructionism helps explain these behaviors. Social interactions form what we think and say (whether it is a statistical truth or not). Sometimes we cannot prove what we say is true, and others might not believe it. In other cases, we can prove that what we say is true, but others still don’t believe it - because of their worldviews. Thus, systems of meaning formed from social engagement advance various worldviews, and these are the root of how biases start and why they can change over time. Consider climate change. Until recently, humans generally believed that natural disasters were just that, a natural occurrence. Now it is more commonly known, but also believed that human activity has caused the increase and severity of these events (Tierney 2014).

 

Social constructionism can also help explain why policymakers across the globe have responded differently to the demands of controlling the virus. Policies are ideally informed with proven, scientific data, but also with consideration to the values, expressions, and traditions of the people affected. Some regions during the pandemic have shown varying degrees of focus on economic concerns and the security of self/family in policymaking, while others have shown a focus on public health, equity, and access. 

 

 

The range in pandemic rules and regulations has affected the cultural sector’s ability to make informed decisions and keep the public’s trust. Consider the variances just within the EU: the Bayreuther Festspiele canceled while the Salzberger Festspiele played on in a socially-distant manner. The Festival des Cannes canceled while the Biennale Cinema 2020 in Venice recently opened to in-person showings (with masks required). German theaters have significantly reduced seating capacities compared to theaters in neighboring Austria and Switzerland. This diversity in policy making ties cultural managers’ hands with international exchanges and healthy competition, and it also confounds the public. Are we or are we not safe to attend? To work? To perform? Additionally, ever-changing regulations continue to shake financial models, forcing cultural leaders and artists to prioritize the role of justifying their work to public and private funders while also continuing their operations in crisis-mode. 

 

If cultural leaders are to successfully operate through the pandemic and make meaningful safety plans that are custom to the people they serve and communicate with, it is important to understand what is influencing staff’s, visitors’ and patrons’ minds and hearts right now - their feelings. To do this, we need to explore the relationship between local "cultural influencers” - economic, social, demographic, political, and technological environments - and perceptions of risk. If we better understand these factors of influence and how they exist within our locale, we can tailor communications, programming, and policies to be more effective. Furthermore, taking the time to understand how these influencers affect the perception of safety for staff and other stakeholders helps ensure that action plans and guiding principles are meaningful, not just law-abiding, . Surveys, digital town halls, feedback features on websites and social media pages are all methods to understand stakeholders’ patterns of behavior and their perceptions of risk during the pandemic..

 

 

Cultural leaders also have the great responsibility of overseeing a system of crisis communications, both internally and externally, that is receptive, honest, and respectful. Since the pandemic began, stories have come across my desk from students and professionals about senior leadership putting operating-level administrators, staff, and artists on a "need to know” basis, leaving them vulnerable with a lack of information and direction. 

 

Additionally, I have heard from numerous guest artists and musicians in the U.S. and Germany - those that are even further from the leadership chain of command as contract employees of an organization - that they have received little-to-no information regarding safety regulations and procedures before arriving for work. This type of communication in a crisis situation is unfortunately common. Information is relayed top-down in a manner that makes the organization seem under control, e.g., telling people only enough so that they feel they have nothing to fear.

 

The idea that "normal” people should have their risk perceptions "manipulated” by those in positions of power is antiquated. Over fifty years of social science research has proven that people will react without panic if given timely, consistent, and truthful information. (Clarke 2005). To corroborate these findings in the context of the pandemic, we can compare two different leadership approaches with relative Covid-19 cases. United States President Donald Trump purposefully downplayed the risks of the virus at the beginning of the pandemic, stating, "I don't want people to be frightened, I don't want to create panic … and certainly I'm not going to drive this country or the world into a frenzy” (National Public Radio, 2020). Meanwhile, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel stated from the beginning of the pandemic that two out of three Germans could be infected until there is greater immunity. As of September 10, 2020 the United States has recorded 6.5 million cases and Germany has recorded 256,000 cases - of course not only because of these statements, but because of the policies derived from the corresponding attitudes.

 

Removing this political notion, that people in non-leadership positions will react poorly to bad news, will help stakeholders make informed decisions for themselves and their loved ones. This will in turn make them feel safer and build further trust with an organization. 

 

Crisis communications should be considered an exchange of information, a conversation between the cultural manager as the risk creator and colleagues, partners or visitor as the possible victim. The communications should be void of illusions of control, ensuring that the method is not a superficial approach, but one that actually makes people feel heard and cared for. It also means creating meaningful communication channels to help all those involved understand what kinds of risks are possible and why, not just how, to deal with them. It means asking what people want and what makes them feel safe, not just telling them (Clarke 2005). The Canada Council for the Arts was praised for asking its constituents about the effectiveness of their pandemic funding assistance. While a majority seemed content with the Council’s support, 39% of respondents (mainly freelance artists and small organizations) said the funding did not meet their needs. In response, the Council is now granting an additional CA$500 million.

 

 

It is painful but clear that specific fears will continue to directly impact cultural work during this pandemic, including an aversion to strangers and gathering in large groups. Conversely, a lack of fear will directly impact cultural work, too - managers not enforcing regulations or individuals willfully ignoring health precautions. To develop effective COVID-19 prevention plans , collaboration with public health authorities is critical, if not mandated, but just like for policymakers, culture leaders must consider the values, expressions, and traditions of stakeholders. Then, the implementation of internal policies and communication with stakeholders can be customized to each organization to maintain trust and increase participation.

 

The upcoming webinar, "Safety communication instead of crisis communication", taking place October 14th at 2pm CEST, will provide practical steps and examples in understanding "cultural influencers” - economic, demographic, political, and technological environs - and perceptions of risk in any given area. Additionally, the webinar will help participants use that information to create more open methods of safety communications.