ArtsJournal’s recent blog series, Lead or Follow, on the role of arts organizations’ relationship with their communities was fascinating in the variety of points of view on the subject. I began reading with what I assumed was a typical academic’s aversion to either/or constructs. While that was true of my response, the more I read the more I came to believe that the lead/follow dichotomy also held within it a central problem with engagement as many are defining and/or working with it today.
Lead and follow both imply a power differential. Whether that differential is in money or expertise, it makes for an inequality. (Several contributors to the conversation did talk about alternating leadership and followership. That way of thinking is a good first step.) Engagement, if it is to be something other than a marketing fad or tactic, must be rooted in relationship building. Healthy relationships do not grow in the presence of power imbalances. They require mutual respect and benefit.
The disconnect arises when we make the assumption that the arts are the only factor in the equation. The arts world knows the arts. (This is truism 101, although to address this honestly it must be acknowledged that the individual components of the arts world know their specific culture and genre, not all artistic expressions even in a single genre. Few theatre companies are equally expert in Shakespeare and Noh drama.) Communities know their community. Neither can make a relationship with the other on their own. Meaningful, transformative engagement comes from the two sides sharing their specialized knowledge and, over time, creating cultural experiences that serve both.
So long as engagement’s primary goal is making things better for the arts organization (more ticket sales, more respect, more funding), engagement efforts will be ineffective in addressing the long-term concerns of viability and relevance that loom over (or on) the horizon. The motivation for engagement truly matters. What I have been arguing and will continue to argue is that if a genuine desire to connect with the community–for its sake and for the arts’ sake–motivates and holds the organization steadfast in the lengthy engagement process, the positive benefits will accrue. Doing (being) good truly can yield doing well.
The central truth is that, if we are to engage, the arts world must develop humility about what it has to offer. It has a great legacy to share but it does not have all the answers in entering into engagement. Listening, learning must happen. Wisdom about and skill in dealing with the messiness of communities and relationship building has not been part of our training. We have thought about these things little if at all. We may not like taking on something else or learning new skills, but what is the alternative? It’s our future that’s at stake.
I am gratified that a core belief of mine for decades, the critical need for the arts to take communities seriously–aka engagement, has come to be widely regarded as important if not essential. At the same time I worry about the potential that exists for trivializing the concept. My earlier phrase about it devolving into a mere marketing fad or tactic is a real concern for me. That’s why I feel compelled to write on.
So, lead or follow? I would say neither. Instead, if engagement is the goal, the means is to walk side by side.
Engage!
Doug
Excerpt from Couple Walking on the Beach: 
Some rights reserved by nerdcoregirl