The subject of this paper is the status of cultural assets in the contemporary merchandise and service markets. The research starts from the premise that the relationship between democracy and culture nowadays cannot be considered beyond the value matrix of neoliberal capitalism, which has a direct and decisive influence on the cultural field. The conceptual apparatus has been precisely defined and different theoretical perspectives, based on the narratives of humanistic and anthropological approaches to culture, have been analysed. A neoliberal paradigm on creative industries has been presented, with special emphasis on the institute of cultural exclusion in trade agreements, viewed from two opposing perspectives: the US and the WTO, on the one hand, and the European approach to cultural policy, on the other. The aim of the paper is to discuss, by a scientific methodology, the relationship between normative principles of cultural democracy and the practices of neoliberal markets. We conclude that cultural policy should ensure a proportion between market-oriented creative industries and various non-profit culture goals: aesthetic, ethical, educational, identity and democratic.


In this paper we shall investigate the ideas and ideals of the political culture in a democratic society, which contribute to the viability of democracy and its further development. The main objective of the paper is to analyse the normative dimension of the democratic political culture. Starting from the principles of freedom and equality we ask how these principles provide grounds for some basic ideas and ideals of the political culture of a democratic society. Although our investigation is normative in nature, we argue that normative political theory should pay attention to empirically oriented research on political culture.


This article analyses the concept of the culture of dialogue in regard to three aspects: the broadest political and historical context; the potential which I find Christian theological thought has in this regard and which is usually not evident in the public discourse; and the actual practice of the culture of dialogue in the dominant frame defined by the media. My final aim is to reconsider the concept of the culture of dialogue in perspective of its possible openness towards the concept of the dialogical culture or culture as dialogue, which may be much broader and deeper in terms of philosophical and anthropological potency and relevance.


The lives of people are less and less nationally and spatially limited today and multiculturality has become a factual reality and a crucial determinant of the contemporary post-industrial societies. This paper aims to highlight the division of scientific discourses about the cultural pluralism and the desirable ways of organizing existing multiculturality in the contemporary societies, through analysis of the relationship between liberalism and multiculturalism, cultural relativism and the universality of human rights and freedoms. It is being considered whether the cultural theory today is in danger of simplifying plurality, diversity and hybridity, as well as whether the universality and the indivisibility of human rights “suffer” from marginalization or absolutization of their cultural context. Also, a critical review was given of the experiences of various countries in pursuing the policy of multiculturalism and interculturalism, in order to point out the significant variations in evaluating what the cultural democracy is and how far individual countries are willing to go to reach this goal. General conclusion is that, in everyday practices of achieving and disputing democracy, the cultural rights and freedoms are more verbally advocated and normatively grounded than practically realized. The current migrant crisis intensifies islamophobia and ethnocentrism, which additionally aggravates legal and political regulation of cultural diversity in certain countries and sometimes even facilitates and justifies political advocacy of the complete abandonment of the concept of multiculturalism. It is necessary to invest a lot of effort to overcome all the limitations and inconsistencies of the previous multicultural policies and, in accordance with the specifics of their own multicultural reality, to search for more desirable ways of organizing the existing cultural diversity, for the sake of achieving more equitable, inclusive and stable democratic societies.


A debate program of the Centre for Study in Cultural Development was organized in memory of its founder and first director, Stevan Majstorović, to deal with current issues of cultural policy, cultural creation and cultural development. Bearing in mind the foreign policy and socio-cultural context of the time in which Majstorovic has lived and worked, this paper shows, through a comparative content analysis of the program cycle of the Institute’s public debates the ways in which his work is made prevalent and current to this day. Incentives for this research are both theoretical and practical, and a special attention is paid to issues such as cultural rights, multiculturalism, cultural development, cultural needs, cultural identity and so on. The final part of the paper highlights the complexity of a new reading of the theme of culture and democracy that was almost four decades ago represented by Stevan Majstorović in his research papers and studies, as a contribution to the cultural memory, and to the ongoing dialogue.


This text starts with a thesis that Yugoslav, Belgrade and Zagreb schools of cultural policies, in the 1960s and 1970s, were among leading world theories and practices of cultural policies, but were sent to oblivion due to the semi-peripheral status of our science and the lack of engagement of academic culture of memory, reinforced with new trends of academic capitalism. The text analyses the ways of operation of the leading world academic journals in the area of culture of scientific memory, case studying the “Cultural policy review of books” that was planned and published in the International Journal of Cultural Policy (Vol. 16, n. 1). Not only that the editor of the review selected mostly Anglo-American theoreticians and academics from Northern Europe, he also insisted that they should present only books available in English. That prevented researchers competent in other languages to present authors from peripheries and semi-peripheries. Thus, Stevan Majstorović, one of the leading Yugoslav academics that influenced cultural policy teaching in South East Europe could not be part of this “Cultural policy review of books”, in spite of my explicit demand. This is how contemporary academic journals have centralized knowledge production and created new semi-peripheries (French, Spanish, Italian researchers have not been invited). However, several French authors (Bourdieu, de Certeau, Dumazedier) have been selected by Anglo-American academics and myself to be presented in this issue. A few of them, coming from Asia and Southern Europe with their degrees obtained in the UK, made “the right choice” to show their competence in this contemporary cultural policy academic research. My contribution (the book of Michel de Certeau Culture in the plural) used “strategy and tactic” of the subaltern to present Stevan Majstorović and the Yugoslav schools of cultural policy as a context in which this book was read. This might not be an important sign of resistance to academic centralization of knowledge but it is a symbolic subversion of semi-periphery against a powerful centre.