At the Sudbury Café we heard narratives of cultural formation, environmental destruction (and reparation), industrial dominance and social stratification. But we also heard, in all of them, a sub-text of positive aspirations for the future of Sudbury. Beginning with the production of culture in Sudbury, we learned during the Café that the definition of a cultural act is as ambiguous as the definition of a creative practitioner. One panelist argued that in Sudbury a cultural act can be canoeing and hunting just as much as it can be painting and performing. Culture in Sudbury today is many things to many people, contingent upon their investments and experiences. An overarching theme of the Sudbury Café was how differently culture reveals itself among various communities and organizations. Multiple interpretations of the meaning of culture exist, often in conflict, offering very little middle ground. Put forward as a method for resolving differences, culture was debated as:

• a unique experience OR only that which is accessible by all;
• a separating, elitist, Leftist hobby OR those moments that bring us all together;
• specialized action, brought about with deep intentionality OR everything but work;
• built through a return to one’s self, one’s values, home and family OR only accessible by never leaving home in the first place; and
• a people and how that people interacts with their landscape OR the structures and roads we build on the landscape

How do cultural acts produce meaning that is specific to Sudbury? Our earliest discussions centred on cultural importation with one significant example being the support of so-called “apex culture” through the building of large institutions like opera houses which are foreign to Sudbury’s experience. Why, then, does the majority of resources and capital get earmarked for new major cultural institutions? When discussions of resources arise, why is it so often about bricks and mortar? Any consideration of culture in Sudbury must include the strengths of the multiple communities that call this place home. Most agreed that culture resides in people and relationships, not in institutions: clearly there is room to shift the discourse.

There are four interweaving narratives from the Café which continue to influence our work in Sudbury: Aboriginal Concepts, the Production of Franco-Ontarian Culture, “Should I Stay or Should I Go?”, and Landscape and Industry.

Aboriginal Concepts: Knowledge, Space, Relationships, Hope

In many aboriginal cultures, knowledge isn’t created, learned or gained; it is inherent in all of us. Knowledge is revealed and made known in the stories and narratives passed from generation to generation; knowledge is intuitive and shared person to person. This cultural importance of people and relationships was emphasized during the session titled The Production of Aboriginal Spaces.

Within the overarching narrative of the passing of knowledge from generation to generation, we also learned of a micro-narrative under this larger umbrella: we learned that knowledge can be an experience. For example, knowledge is found in one’s experience of the built and natural environments, in architecture and the landscape. Trees have souls but the wood for building a house does not. Rocks have souls but the concrete for a sidewalk does not. Building on this concept of knowledge and approach to space, what does it mean to create a space that has a soul?

During this session, it was equally noted that it is important to give people hope as a starting point, instilling a sense of pride in order to build something new. This was referred to as the “completion-backwards principle” which allows us to fulfill what we want, dream, and hope for. We envision it first, and then we make it happen. These are narratives we can build upon. How can Musagetes foster rich experiential spaces of hope?

Production of Francophone Culture

Sudbury’s Francophone culture exists outside the institutions that typify mainstream cultural production in Canadian cities. The theatres and galleries that are the pinnacle of what is often referred to as “apex culture” are present in Sudbury too, but they do not hold the same relevance for Francophone artists and their community. Rather, the artist- run culture (such as La Galérie du Nouvel-Ontario) or alternative spaces (such as La Librairie Grand Ciel Bleu) and the inter-disciplinary nature of cultural production are rich forms of inspiration and presentation which are a significant chapter in the story of Francophone artists in Greater Sudbury.

In the mid-’70s, the Francophone community rallied around the new cultural lens of Franco-Ontarianism. This movement aimed to distinguish the production of Franco-Ontarian culture from the production of Québécois culture. They created an “imagined community” — a community that gave voice to the disempowered and marginalized Francophone culture. Marking this notion of the production of culture was the influence of “l’église, l’école et le bar” on the definition of culture.

Now Francophone artists are seeking to liberate themselves from the need to identify themselves strictly as Franco-Ontarians. Looking to the period prior to 1975 for their inspiration, they prefer to pick and choose aspects of identity, bringing in Anglophone, francophone and Franco-Ontarian culture. Artists like Miriam Cusson draw inspiration from a breadth of experiences and cultures that are not necessarily Franco-Ontarian.

Much can be learned from Sudbury’s Francophone community from their long narrative of the production of alternative cultural possibilities through the creation of collaborative partnerships. Theirs is a success story. (Despite this, it was noted during the session L’art de se dire that during discussions of culture within Sudbury the conversation nearly always becomes distilled down to a question of language, where language becomes more relevant than culture. Clearly Francophone artists and Francophone communities are ready to move beyond language.)

“Should I Stay or Should I Go?”

Precariousness binds together the people of Sudbury; their lives are precarious because they choose to live in this place that is considered to be “no place to build a city”. Given the adverse conditions for stable employment and health, for example, what are the informal attractions to Sudbury? People move where it is affordable. What are the free aspects of Sudbury that are ready for the taking? Artists will not move North because institutions are there, but because informal relationships provide tempting possibilities that are unplanned yet compelling in the moment. What would attract artists to the North? We need to think on informal levels.

The difficulties of transit make one’s world very small in Sudbury, especially for the younger generation. It often takes multiple connections between different buses for people in the smaller communities to reach the downtown on bus routes that are time-consuming and inefficient. During the session Be Not Afraid of Greatness, we asked ourselves: Does this generation feel a sense of belonging and opportunity? There exists a narrative of the Prodigal Son/Daughter who returns to live again in the North. He or she leaves and gains experience elsewhere and often comes back to share what has been learned. How could this story attract others?

There is also an intergenerational breakdown or shift between those who stay and those who leave. Why do young people move on? One Café participant proposed that it is because Sudbury is built on sweat and hard labour, so there is a suspicion of intellectualism, which drives away those who are attracted to the pursuit of knowledge. Likewise, those who leave can be seen by some as having missed an important part of the ongoing conversation, making them less credible when they return.

Landscape and Industry

Sudbury is an industrial city, one that has substantial consequences globally. Just two examples are:

• the impact of mining on the Philippines (Sudbury’s technology has been adopted elsewhere around the world; the example of the Philippines was discussed during the Café); and
• the sulphuric acid air pollution that, prior to the construction of the Superstack, could be said to be only a problem in Sudbury; now it’s everybody’s problem.

This global significance of Sudbury necessitates healing strategies and new narratives that can allow for Sudburians to build a new sense of belonging and pride.

Sudbury is suspicious of urbanity. Even though its geographical area could encompass all of Toronto, the greater city itself encompasses more rural land and small towns than any other city in North America. As a very function of this geography, Sudburians live and work in direct relationship to the landscape, an environment that forms the backdrop for life, leisure and industry. And yet this relationship represents a profound disjuncture between values that honour the landscape as a living organism and values that ravage the landscape for economic gain.

The dominance of industry over the landscape is not a uniquely Sudburian story, or even a Canadian one, but it is one that shapes the culture of Sudbury. For some, the convergence of the political, the economic, and the topographical presents an intractable situation marked by damaged landscapes and urban blight. For others the possibilities for change are characterized by experimentation with cultural, social, spatial, pedagogic and economic possibilities.

The flow of capital and the production of culture in Sudbury were (and, to some degree, still are) determined by industry in the form of sponsorships from mining corporations such as Inco and Falconbridge and support from the labour unions. Once strong and vibrant, the unions offered a cultural alternative that was often in protest against the institutional models supported by corporations — models that were designed to diminish community-building capacities that opposed the capitalist mainstream. At one time Mine Mill Hall became the battleground in a war between culture and capitalism; the union established powerful collaborations with artists in the 1950s to wage this battle. Such narratives from Sudbury’s past have immense relevance today.

Exemplifying the contradictions inherent in Sudbury’s complex urban-rural narrative, the amalgamation of the city in 2001 further politicized existing issues of cultural inclusivity, accessibility, economic disparity and social responsibility. On the one hand, the dispersed community – the archipelago of villages that comprise Greater Sudbury – presents opportunities and threats to personal and political identity. On the other hand, there are no additional services provided, causing issues between communities, and the landscape is devalorized because it is an impediment to efficiency. In spite of all this, most would agree that Sudbury is greater because of its outlying communities.