Culture, the state and Henry VIII

Munira Mirza gave a talk at London South Bank University last night. I read that it attacked "instrumentalist views of culture which turn it into a mere tool of social policy," and described "a gradual loss of confidence in the idea that culture and the arts have intrinsic value." Sounds good. But also:

[She] argued that we need to develop a more robust sense of how to uphold cultural value, rejecting cultural relativism and defending the idea that access is not incompatible with excellence.

This is where it gets more difficult. If "cultural relativism" is rejected, that presumes that somebody decides what is culturally superior to something else. Who is that somebody? If it's not "the state" that decides these things then is it royalty, sponsors from the world of business or, perhaps, the appointees of politicians? And while it's absolutely right that access and excellence are compatible, who defines excellence and how do they ensure that access is maximised?

Here's where the Spiked Online tendency runs out of steam. They know what they're against, but does what they seem in favour of amount to anything other than a restoration of the old, unchallenged hierarchies? If so, what's so good about that? I wonder what Mirza thinks. Is it any different from what Boris thinks? Maybe I'll ask her. Maybe quite soon.

Update, 17:21. Just back from doing a short but instructive interview with Ms M. at City Hall. I'll be posting it in mini-podcast form in the next few days. We stuck strictly to The Story Of London, the programme of events she's lined up for the summer. More on that very soon.